Document Missoula_doc_1336a63ac4

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE: January 20, 2006 FOR MORE INFORMATION, CONTACT: Brentt Ramharter Finance Director City of Missoula Finance Office [PHONE REDACTED] CITY NOW ACCEPTING CITIZEN INPUT ON CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM If you’ve ever had an idea for a public improvement project you wish the City of Missoula could implement, now is the time to put your suggestion in writing. The city is beginning to prepare its annual update of the five-year plan for the Capital Improvement Program (FY 2007-2011). The City invites citizens to contribute suggestions or ideas for projects that reflect their concerns and could benefit the City. According to Brentt Ramharter, Finance Director, “We’ve learned that we can serve citizens more effectively if we receive their direct input regarding capital projects.” A capital project is one that costs more than $5,000 and has a useful life of five years or more. Examples include bike trails, trail markers, and improvements to parks, sidewalks, and streets. All projects will be reviewed and ranked, but not all projects can be funded. The following reflects a guide for criteria and evaluation of a project: • Is the project necessary to meet federal, state or local legal requirements? • Is the project required to meet contractual requirements? • Does the project improve public health and safety? • Does the project carry out goals of the city’s Strategic Plan or other plans? • Does the project leverage additional investment and will the community benefit from it? • Does the project benefit a neighborhood area or the entire community? • Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce pollution? • Does the project improve or expand essential city services? -MORE- ---PAGE BREAK--- 2 The CIP Budget Team rates proposals based on the established criteria. They then apply funds, based on what they estimate will be available. Projects not funded during the first year due to fiscal restraints are moved to the next fiscal year list for reconsideration. Last year, 112 projects were submitted for the Capital Improvement Program for FY 2006-10, totaling $103.4 million. From the projects received, the CIP Budget Team recommended to the City Council funding 60 of the projects in FY 2006 for a total of $19.5 million. Although it is difficult to predict how many projects will be approved in any given year, typically less than half make it onto the CIP list for current year funding. This CIP list is considered a planning document and is not a legally binding budget. Citizens who wish to submit proposals should contact Ann Wake at the City Finance Office (258- 4929). She will provide assistance concerning your suggestion or idea and can help with the request form required for review of the project. Ms. Wake will also submit the request for you and keep you advised of project status during the review process. Please remember that in order for any project to be considered, it should meet the capital definition explained above. Final filing date for all capital projects is Friday, February 17, 2006. Proposals may be mailed to: Ann Wake, 435 Ryman Street, Missoula, Montana 59802, or delivered to the Finance Office at: 435 Ryman Street, 2nd floor. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Totals - - - - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - - 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/20/2006 1:50 PM ABC Total Score - City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 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 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- 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 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 5 - investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score - Quantitative Analysis Comments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- i I. INTRODUCTION The Montana Legislature has passed legislation which allows a municipality to set aside up to ten percent (10%) of its general all-purpose levy for replacement and acquisition of property, plant or equipment costing in excess of five thousand dollars ($5,000.00) with a life expectancy of five years or more. To set up a capital improvement fund the City is required to formally adopt a Capital Improvement Program (CIP). The main advantage of this method of financing is that funds can be earmarked and carried from one year to the next. If it is recognized that renovation of a public building will be needed in five years, an amount can be set aside annually so the project can be funded at the end of five years. The CIP fund also allows a project to be done in phases, with funds allocated for architectural planning the first year and construction in later years. The Capital Improvement Program is a 5-year planning document designed to guide decisions concerning capital expenditures and not cast in stone. This is a planning document and, as for all planning documents, it is subject to revision in order to reflect changes in community needs and service requirements, environmental factors and Council priorities. The first year of the Plan is intended to accurately reflect that year’s anticipated appropriation for major capital projects and is called the Capital Budget. The subsequent four years represent an anticipated capital need during the period as submitted by Department Heads. The CIP must be reviewed and revised each year in order to add new projects and revise priorities. The process of determining major capital needs and establishing a financial program extending beyond the annual budget encourages department managers to examine long-range needs and allows the City to develop more coherent city-wide fiscal policies. The CIP provides a basis to compare and rank projects and provides opportunities to explore alternate funding sources, since most capital improvement requests exceed the available revenues. Further, the document is not intended to be cast in stone when the Council adopts it. This is a planning document and, as with all planning documents, it is subject to revision in order to reflect changes in community needs and service requirements, environmental factors, and Council priorities. The Council will be requested from time to time to make revisions to the plan. Staff, as well as Council members, may develop these requests themselves. II. PURPOSE The purpose of this document is to set up a five- year Capital Improvement Program for Fiscal Years 2007-2011 in order to establish a capital improvement fund. The main goals are: – To ease the review of the annual capital budget through a uniform process. – To broaden public participation in the budget process by providing documentation and scheduling hearings early in the process. – To link capital budgets with the strategic plans, adopted policies, and other plans. – To link capital expenditures with operating budgets. – To increase coordination between departments, agencies, and other political jurisdictions. III. PROCESS General Discussion The capital improvements process provides for the identification, reviewing, planning, and budgeting of capital expenditures. All requests for capital improvements are evaluated to aid the Mayor and City Council in ---PAGE BREAK--- ii selecting the projects to be funded. Department heads submit CIP requests. Departmental staff initiates some of these projects while other organizations; citizen groups and individual citizens initiate others. Evaluation is based on a point system, which requires the department head to judge how well the project in question satisfies each of several criteria. The process is designed to provide a comprehensive look at long term capital needs, which is essential for effective decision-making. However, the system is not intended to provide an absolute ranking of projects based solely on the total numerical scores. A few points difference between total scores of projects is not the only significant factor in determining priority. In addition, there are several criteria, which are considered separately from the point system. For example, if a project were urgently required in order to replace an existing dilapidated facility, it would probably be scheduled for early funding regardless of its score on other criteria. Also, there is a question, which asks the evaluator's overall personal judgment of a project's priority, and helps to identify which proposals are considered most important. This ranking process allows projects to compete for funds either within its own fund source or citywide. If the department's request only includes capital expenditures which are proposed to be funded out of its own non-tax revenue generated by that department, the projects compete within that department for inclusion within the plan, (for example, wastewater treatment plant projects are funded by Sewer Fees, etc.). However, if the request is outside of the department's ability to generate revenue, i.e., a request for assistance from the General Fund, then the project would compete on a citywide basis for funding. The adoption of a CIP by the City is strictly a statement of intent, not an appropriation of funding for projects contained within. A list of CIP projects will be updated on an annual basis as new needs become known and priorities change. The possibility of a project with a low priority can remain in the CIP longer than four years due to a more important project bumping ahead for quicker implementation. Some projects may also be bumped up in priority and implemented quicker than originally planned. Definitions For the purposes of this process, capital is defined as items that have a single acquisition cost of $5,000 and a useable life of 5 years. Basically, this definition implies that those items, which can be clearly classified as major improvements, rather than routine maintenance or equipment replacement, are defined as capital for the purposes of this program. It includes any major expenditure for physical facilities. Vehicles intended for use on streets and highways, costing less than $35,000 are not included in the CIP. 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program 1. Recommendation for 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program: When possible department heads must, where appropriate, look at the City's Strategic Plan, 1998 Comprehensive Plan Update and amendments, Themes Document, Transportation Plan, Strategic Plan and other plans and documents or studies to determine if their projects are meeting the community's goals, and make a statement of their findings. 2. The Project Rating System: When considering a department’s proposal(s) the CIP Budget Team will meet with each Department and Division Head. The purpose for this meeting will be: 1) to assure that both the Department and Division Head and the CIP Budget Team are fully briefed on the department’s proposal(s); and 2) discussion between the CIP Budget Team and the Department and Division Head regarding how proposal(s) are rated. 3. Coordination: Department and Division Heads are encouraged to coordinate project proposals with internal departments as well as external agencies such as: the County, the Neighborhood Network and Councils, ---PAGE BREAK--- iii the Chamber of Commerce, the University of Montana, the School Districts and other community based organizations. 4. External Projects: Projects initiated by external organizations, citizens groups and individual citizens will be given to appropriate Department Heads after submittal to the Finance Department. Annual Review The CIP is reviewed on an annual basis. During this annual review process projects budgeted for the prior fiscal year are reviewed to determine status and whether to continue funding or require re-submittal to compete as a new project. New projects are added to projects carried over from the prior two years according to ranking or priority. Responsibilities for Program Development Before a project reaches the Mayor and City Council for FY 2007-2011, each project should be reviewed for financial feasibility, conformance to established plans and response to public need. Responsibility to coordinate with the appropriate department project proposal(s) requiring review for engineering feasibility, environmental impact, land use regulations, grant eligibility and redevelopment plans falls to the Department and Division Head submitting those project proposal(s). 1. Department Heads a. Prepare project request forms. b. Provide all necessary supporting data (project sheets, maps, environmental data forms, fiscal notes, schedules, etc.) for the CIP Committee. c. Review projects with other department heads when there is a need to coordinate projects. d. Meet with CIP Team on projects. 2. Public Works Review feasibility and cost estimates of all proposed public works type projects including preparatory studies. 3. Health Department As appropriate, review all projects for environmental impact. 4. Office of Planning and Grants Review all projects for conformance with the Transportation and Land use Plan, and whether projects being submitted for grants meet grant eligibility criteria and determination of which projects will compete best for competition grants. 5. Missoula Redevelopment Agency Examine all projects that relate to the Missoula downtown redevelopment area to see that they correspond to Missoula redevelopment plans. 6. CIP Team a. Review revenue estimates. b. Review fund summaries. c. Provide overall coordination for development of the CIP. d. Review departmental requests and staff comments. e. Review priorities, staff advice, and recommended additions, adjustments, or deletions. f. Review financial data and recommend proposed plans for financing CIP. 7. Council Members Requests that department heads prepare project forms for projects they feel should be considered. ---PAGE BREAK--- iv Update, review and approve CIP annually. Method for Ranking Projects 1. STEP 1 - The CIP Committee establishes the importance of one criterion over another by assigning the highest numerical score to the highest ranked criteria. This is called the weight factor. STEP 2 - The department's criteria score is multiplied by the weight factor to establish a total score. The weight factor broadens the range of total scores and assigns priorities to the criteria. The total score will help determine the relative importance of one project over another in a systematic way. STEP 3 - The department heads rate the capital projects according to the established criteria. All departments use the same criteria. STEP 4 - Determine that projects are urgently needed for public safety or are mandated legally or by a contractual agreement. (See criteria Pl-4 on sample CIP form) STEP 5 - Determine scheduling of projects relative to allocation of available funds. 2. Rationale for Weight Factor Determination The weighted score is assigned to each criterion by a method, which measures each criterion against every other criterion. When one criterion is more important than another it is assigned a point. The criterion with the most points (most important) is given the highest weight. For example Criterion 05 (Does the project result in maximum benefit to the community from the investment dollar?) has the highest weight score. The following discussion explains the method by which the criteria were given a weight score. For Street Reconstruction projects, blocks considered to need reconstruction in the next five years are first rated according to the Asphalt Institute Pavement Rating System. Streets planned for reconstruction in the CIP budget year are then assigned a priority ranking utilizing the Asphalt Institute Pavement Rating System. Definition of Criteria 1. Is the project necessary to meet Federal, State, or local legal requirements? This criterion includes projects mandated by Court Order to meet requirements of law or other requirements. Of special concern are those projects being accessible to the handicapped. 2. Is the project necessary to fulfill a contractual requirement? This criterion includes Federal or State grants that requires local participation. Indicate the Federal grant name and number in the comment column. 3. Is this project urgently required? Will delay result in curtailment of an essential service? This statement should be checked "Yes" only if an emergency is clearly indicated; otherwise, answer "No." If "Yes," be sure to give full justification. 4. Does the project provide for or improve public health or safety? This criterion should be answered "No" unless public health or public safety can be shown to be an urgent or critical factor. If yes, please describe the public health or safety urgency. 5. Does the project result in maximum benefits to the community from the investment dollar? (Equipment and small projects should be related to larger program goals.) Use a cost/benefit analysis, and/or another systematic method of determining the relative merits of the investment where it is appropriate. You may develop your own method of analysis; however, you may wish to review this method with the Finance Director or CIP Team prior to submitting the project in order to resolve any questionable elements. Leveraging of city money by attracting outside dollars from other public or private sources should be considered and explained. ---PAGE BREAK--- v Examples include when a project may be eligible for a federal or state grant where every dollar of City money will be matched by three dollars of federal monies. Another example would be when a piece of equipment is purchased; it may increase productivity by fifty percent (50%) and thereby reduce personnel and operating costs. This enables the City to avoid additional personnel or operation costs that would have been incurred otherwise in order to keep up with growing public service demand. Another example would include the acquisition of equipment so that a particular operation could be performed in-house as opposed to contracting outside when the in-house costs would be less than outside contracting costs. Types of analyses include established cost/benefit calculations, return on investment, and pay back period through operating savings or other capital savings, and accepted industry rating schemes such as The American Asphalt Institute test. Also, estimate the number of people served over the life expectancy of the project and divide by the cost of the project. Relate this to other similar projects. Put this figure in the comment section and attach the information used to arrive at the figure. Where possible use standard measurements, for example, average daily trips (ADT). This criterion also applies to the replacement or renovation of obsolete and inefficient facilities, which will result in substantial improvement in services to the public at the least possible cost. 0 – No analysis is submitted where analysis is possible. 1 – Analysis submitted is open to questioning. There are slight benefits to the project and no leveraging. 2 – A credible analysis is submitted showing moderate benefits. 3 – A credible analysis is submitted showing high benefits, which may include substantial leveraging. 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its success of maximum effectiveness? (Equipment and small projects should be related to larger program goals.) 0 – Time is not critical factor the project will be as doing five years from now as it is now). 1 – Time is of moderate importance. 2 – Time is of substantial importance. 3 – Time is critical factor. For example, there may be a time limitation on providing a local funding share in order to receive a State or Federal grant. Another example would be if an improvement or replacement project is not performed now, such as replacing a roof, the benefits will be reduced, such as an unrepaired/replaced roof that continues to leak until the building's structure is rotted until there is no structure that can be saved. A third example would be when a hazard, such as environmental pollution, exists and there is an increasing and significant risk that, if the hazard is not abated, then it is likely that significant or irreparable damage occurs or the City might be financially liable for the consequential damage. There may be other reasons why time is of the essence in the success or failure of a project. If the time factor is critical, explain why. 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce pollution? 0 – Does not have any conservation aspects or pollution reduction. 1 – Project has minimal amount of conservation aspects or pollution reduction, or there is no substantiation of the claims of these benefits. ---PAGE BREAK--- vi 2 – Project has significant level of either conservation aspects or pollution reduction, or an accompanying analysis or reference to another study, or plan substantiates this benefit. 3 – Project has both conservation aspects and an accompanying analysis or reference to another study, or plan substantiates pollution reduction or a substantial amount of energy or pollution savings and this claim. 8. Does the project improve, maintain or expand upon essential City services where such services are recognized and accepted as necessary and effective? Identify in comment section what services are expanded. (Provision of a new service can be ranked anywhere on 0-2 scale). 0 – Low to moderate improvement in low to moderately important service. 1 – Maintain current level of service, substantial improvement of low priority service or moderate improvement of an essential service. 2 – Substantial improvement of an essential service. 9. Does the project relate specifically to the City’s strategic planning priorities or other plans? 0 – Project enhances another plan, project or program aside from the strategic plan or does not conflict with any other plans, projects or programs (Note plan, project or program related to in comment section.) 1 – Project enhances any of the strategic directions as determined during the City's strategic planning process. Falls within the appropriate year of the strategic plan. 2 – This project substantially benefits any of the strategic directions to any of priorities as determined during the City's strategic planning process. Falls within the appropriate year of the strategic plan. 3 – This project is critical to any of the strategic directions determined during the City's strategic planning process. Falls within the appropriate year of the strategic plan. 2007-2011 Guides for Department Heads in Preparing Information on Projects Process 1. Requests for all City Hall building construction needs should be sent to the Public Works Director. Please include the following information: the square footage, the number of people affected and the function of the people affected. Also note the problem with the existing space. 2. Submit project forms to the Finance. If there are any organizations in Missoula that you wish to be sure get a copy of the preliminary list, please submit their names and addresses with your projects. 3. All on-road vehicles worth less than $35,000 are not included in the Capital Improvement Program. 4. Present a list of projects that might be included in the Capital Improvement Program after 2011. Filling Out Forms 1. Only projects requesting funding during the first three years of the CIP will be evaluated with the criteria and ranked. The other projects are included for planning purposes without expressing intent to fund or not fund. 2. Be sure that all information asked for on the form is presented. If further explanation is needed, please attach it to the form. ---PAGE BREAK--- vii 3. If there is a need to coordinate one project with another project either internal or external, note and explain the need for the coordination in Part 5 of the form (Justification). Attach additional information when necessary. 4. In the justification section (Part 5) of the form explain your choice of a particular funding method(s). Also include a justification for your project and its relation to the criteria. 5. Section 7 of the form should reflect funding sources (include operating budget/in-king contributions) your totals should equal the total cost of the project, not just the cost to the City. IV. DESCRIPTION OF PROGRAM CATEGORIES The capital budget is broken down into the following categories: CS – Community Services (includes public buildings, etc.) e.g., renovation and energy improvements as well as new construction PR – Parks, Recreation and Open Space S – Street Improvements PS – Public Safety WW– Wastewater Facilities SE – Street Equipment V. CIP AMENDMENT PROCEDURE In the case of a situation that arises which involves receipt of unanticipated revenue or unanticipated Missoula Redevelopment Agency projects the following amendment procedure is prescribed: 1. Department head requests an amendment to the CIP through the Finance Director. 2. CIP Team reviews the request. 3. CIP Team takes the request to all department heads for comments. 4. CIP Team makes recommendation to Council. 5. Amendment goes to Council for approval. The purpose of this procedure is to handle large capital requests, which occur at mid-fiscal year and to adjust the CIP so that it remains up-to-date and therefore a useful working document. VI. TAX INCREMENT FUNDS The unique nature of tax increment funds is recognized. The Missoula Redevelopment Agency undertakes capital expenditures, which are intended to encourage additional private investment within the Central Business District. Not all of these expenditures are committed a year or more in advance and they require the ability on the part of the Missoula Redevelopment Agency (MRA) to respond to developer requests. Pursuant to the purpose of the CIP all anticipated projects to be funded in part or totally with tax increment funds for acquisition of property and public works facilities will be placed in the CIP. Tax increment funds not committed or anticipated for specific projects within these budget categories will be appropriated as contingency funds, and be made available for authorized expenditures under State law. For ---PAGE BREAK--- viii project requests made during the fiscal year, which require tax increment financing, the CIP amendment procedure described in Section V shall be used. The following project categories may be financed with tax increments funds and will not be subject to the CIP process: demolition and removal of structures, relocation of occupants and cost incurred under redevelopment activities described under MCA 7-15-4233. Section MCA 7-15-4233 outlines the exercise of powers and costs incurred for planning and management, administration and specific urban renewal projects, i.e., rehabilitation programs. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FUNDING MECHANISMS The FY 2007-2011 Capital Improvement Program has sixteen different sources of funding. Each fund source is described below. The various projects submitted by the departments are scored and ranked as shown in the statistical charts in Section IV. Projects within each fund source compete against other projects in that fund source for funding. General Fund Tax Levy: The City of Missoula is authorized by M.C.A. 7-6-616 to set aside up to 10 percent (10%) of its General Fund Tax Levy for projects in a Capital Improvement Program Cash Balance: This fund source is a contribution of the City's general fund cash balance, in addition to the portion of the CIP that comes from the general fund tax levy. This category also includes projects which use excess cash reserves in the CIP fund itself. State Revenues: The City receives various payments from the State of Montana for different purposes. A portion of Gas Tax revenues is earmarked for labor and material costs of street projects. The City also maintains State routes within City limits and does special street projects for the State. Revenues from these activities are used for labor, material, and capital outlay expenditures. Tax Increment Fund: This fund source consists of taxes levied on increases in the Central Business District tax base since 1978. These funds are earmarked for redevelopment projects within the Central Business District. Two new Urban Renewal Districts have been created to supersede the original downtown district that will address redevelopment issues in two older parts of the City. Sewer R & D Fund: The Sewer Replacement and Depreciation Fund consists of funds set aside annually for future investment in sewage treatment plant facilities. Parking Commission: The Missoula Parking Commission maintains substantial cash reserves that are available to them for projects related to parking needs. Grants/Donations: This fund source consists of Federal grants, State grants, and donations by citizens and businesses where the money is passed through the City. CTEP: These are Federal grants primarily directed towards improving or expanding non- motorized transportation. G.O. Bonds: These are bonds for which the full faith and credit of the City is pledged. G.O. Bonds require voter approval. Special Assessments & Other Debt: Special Assessments are charges against certain properties to defray the cost of infrastructure improvements deemed primarily to benefit those properties. Also ---PAGE BREAK--- ix included are Revenue bonds where the debt service payments are paid for exclusively from the project earnings and Sidewalk/Curb Assessments. Other debt can include revenue bonds for Sewer project loans and tax increment bonds, which were sold to finance the downtown parking structure. Tax increment bonds are repaid by tax increment revenues, which were previously discussed. Title One: These are funds generated by repayment of HUD? UDAG projects. Trails Fund: Donations and land lease payments have been set aside in a special revenue fund for the purpose of expanding the trails system. Cable TV: These are funds generated from collection of franchise fees paid by subscribers of the local cable television operators. User Fees: User fees are charges for city services where the benefits received from such services can be directly and efficiently applied to those who receive the benefits. Park Acq. & Development Fund: This fund is set up to account for funding that developer’s pay to the City instead of donating park land when they are subdividing bare land. CMAQ: These are federal grants aimed at mitigating air quality problems. Other & Private: This fund source represents other miscellaneous categories. One type of funding source would be the operating budget, which are the “in-kind” costs of City employee labor that are funded by the operating budget. Private investment is not included in the total City costs of the project, but is shown to demonstrate the “leveraging” of private investment that some projects, especially projects of the Missoula Redevelopment Agency, have. Also included are projects where the State of Montana may fund the project and be responsible for its implementation, so the project does not affect city funds or go through our treasury. These projects are shown because the affect the urban area. ---PAGE BREAK--- PREPARED 06/14/06 Projects in Type Order SEWER BLDG INSP CARE FUND/ MAQI REV. BONDS PARK FY 07-New FY 06 CIP FUND MRA SEWER FUND FUND GRANTS/ URBAN ASSESSMENTS/ ACQ. & DEV. CITY FY 2007 TO FY 2011 CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECT PROJECT FY-07 COSTS GENERAL FUND TAX LEVY CASH STATE FUTURE IMPACT TAX DEVELOP / PARKING DONATIONS PILOT G.O. SID'S/OTHERASSESSMENTS ADA CDBG TRAILS CABLE FUND PRIVATE LABOR & PROJECT DESCRIPTION DEPT. NO. NO. YES RANK TOTAL FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 BALANCE REVENUE DEBT SVCE FEES INCR. R & D FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 TOTAL FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 TOTAL COMM. & OTHER CTEP CMAQ GAS TAX BONDS DEBT TO CITY TITLE 1 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 TOTAL INFRASTRU FUND TV (IN LIEU) TBD INVEST. SUPPLIES TOTAL Earmarked Expenditures: White Pine Debt Service Series 2001A Finance CS-25 YES NR 653,560 129,951 132,023 128,838 130,618 132,130 129,951 132,023 128,838 130,618 132,130 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 653,560 FY2005 Art Museum Debt Service Finance CS-28 YES NR 207,940 42,174 41,906 41,604 41,288 40,968 21,087 20,953 20,802 20,644 20,484 0 0 103,970 0 0 0 0 0 0 207,940 City Hall Expansion Debt Service Finance CS-31 CS-29 YES NR 457,500 91,500 91,500 91,500 91,500 91,500 91,500 91,500 91,500 91,500 91,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 457,500 City Hall Expansion Finance CS-31 CS-29 YES 42 1,709,000 1,709,000 569,952 0 0 1,139,048 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,709,000 Aquatics-Municipal Swimming Facilities Parks & Recreation PR-41 PR-06 YES 48 2,245,800 2,245,800 0 50,000 0 0 2,195,800 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,245,800 Aquatics-debt service support-20 yrs Parks & Recreation PR-41 YES 960,000 192,000 192,000 192,000 192,000 192,000 192,000 192,000 192,000 192,000 192,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 960,000 Cemetery Office Apartment Stairway Cemetery CS-11 YES NR 18,000 18,000 0 0 0 0 18,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 18,000 Vacuum Street Sweepers Purchase Streets SE-12 YES 52 340,000 340,000 0 0 0 0 25,500 25,500 0 0 289,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 340,000 Traffice Control Improvements - Higgins/Beckwith/Hil Public Works S-04 YES 49 450,000 150,000 300,000 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 347,400 2,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 450,000 City Hall Reroofing Project Vehicle Maint. CS-25 YES 41 66,000 66,000 0 0 0 0 66,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 66,000 ED/OH Lafray Acquisition Parks PR-40 YES 41 122,000 122,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,000 112,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 122,000 ED/OH Lafray Acquisition-debt service Parks PR-40 YES 41 130,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 130,000 ADA Annual Request Human Resources CS-29 YES 30 200,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 0 0 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 100,000 200,000 Muni Court Expansion Muni Court CS-27 YES NR 134,400 67,200 67,200 67,200 67,200 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 134,400 South Bank Riverfront Trail URD II MRA PR-02 53 462,500 0 462,500 0 0 0 212,500 0 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 462,500 Improve Railroad Crossings Public Works S-17 50 300,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 0 0 180,000 120,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 Milwaukee Railroad Trail West Parks PR-26 49 438,750 70,417 368,333 0 0 0 0 0 105,417 333,333 0 0 0 0 0 0 438,750 Open Space Acquisition Parks PR-29 49 455,000 455,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 455,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 455,000 South Hills Trail System Parks PR-33 49 159,000 159,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 54,000 105,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 159,000 Annual Sidewalk Replacement Program PH II Public Works S-02 49 3,350,000 670,000 670,000 670,000 670,000 670,000 0 0 350,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,350,000 Slant Street Pedestrian Improvement Program-Phase I Public Works S-12 49 120,000 60,000 60,000 0 0 0 0 0 60,000 60,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 120,000 Tandem Axle Flusher Truck (Unit #131) Streets SE-06 49 160,000 160,000 0 0 0 0 24,000 0 0 136,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 160,000 Miller Creek Interceptor Sewer Waste Water WW-09 49 770,000 70,000 700,000 0 0 0 270,000 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 770,000 Playfair Park-Site Plan, Design, Renovation Parks PR-30 48 897,040 175,400 71,640 200,000 200,000 250,000 68,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 650,000 37,640 141,400 897,040 Airport Inteceptor Phase II and "Wye" Collection Syst Waste Water WW-03 48 8,000,000 7,050,000 950,000 0 0 0 1,000,000 0 0 7,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,000,000 West Reserve Sewer Inteceptor Phase III Waste Water WW-04 48 2,950,000 2,950,000 0 0 0 0 2,950,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,950,000 Streets Materials Storage Site: Missoula's Southside Streets CS-28 47 320,000 0 20,000 300,000 0 0 20,000 300,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 320,000 Neighborhood Initiated Traffic Calming Public Works S-03 46 198,000 54,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 0 0 108,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 198,000 Street Improvements and Major Maintenance ProgramPublic Works S-05 46 7,750,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 0 0 2,150,000 2,500,000 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,850,000 7,750,000 Spruce, Madison, Greenough 21st Century Project Public Works S-06 46 68,100 0 68,100 0 0 0 12,500 0 0 13,000 29,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 13,000 68,100 Phase II Bike Lanes Public Works S-19 46 120,000 0 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 0 120,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 120,000 Downtown 2006 Streets Project Public Works CS-16 45 750,000 750,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 150,000 500,000 100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 750,000 McCormick Park Site Plan Implementation Parks PR-25 45 27,500 27,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 27,500 Structural Fire Engine 2009 Fire PS-01 45 310,700 0 0 310,700 0 0 310,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 310,700 Wildland Engine 2009 Fire PS-03 45 75,000 0 0 75,000 0 0 75,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 Master Sidewalk Plan Implementation Phase I Public Works S-07 45 740,000 0 0 740,000 0 0 0 0 240,000 420,000 80,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 740,000 South 3rd Reconstruction Public Works S-14 45 1,500,000 1,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 800,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 1,500,000 Epoxy Street Paint Public Works S-16 45 200,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation Program Waste Water WW-01 45 1,000,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 Russell Street Interceptor (6th-Idaho) Waste Water WW-11 45 500,000 0 0 50,000 450,000 0 500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 Hydro-Jet Sewer Cleaning Truck (Unit #329) Waste Water WW-12 45 225,000 225,000 0 0 0 0 225,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 225,000 Existing Park Expansion Parks PR-07 45 603,000 13,810 55,190 95,000 241,000 198,000 134,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 90,000 379,000 603,000 New Park Development Parks PR-08 45 3,193,117 361,690 897,677 718,750 594,000 621,000 298,000 0 0 40,000 750,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 129,500 1,975,617 3,193,117 Park Maintenance & Improvements Program Parks PR-09 44 897,000 90,000 57,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 57,291 57,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 0 0 32,709 0 0 0 0 0 0 897,000 Centralized Maintenance Parks PR-15 44 840,933 176,802 188,992 0 300,139 175,000 66,802 78,992 0 0 0 695,139 0 0 0 0 0 0 840,933 Centralized Maintenance-debt service-5 yrs Parks PR-15 44 252,000 28,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 28,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 252,000 Fort Missoula Regional Park Parks PR-19 44 13,438,726 438,726 100,000 12,550,000 300,000 50,000 250,000 0 0 6,600,000 6,250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 338,726 13,438,726 Hotsy Pressure Washer Parks PR-20 44 15,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 7,500 0 0 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 15,000 University Lift Station Relocation/Replacement Waste Water WW-02 44 200,000 200,000 0 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 Rattlesnake Neighborhood Wastewater Collection Syst Waste Water WW-05 44 7,798,000 1,944,000 5,854,000 0 0 0 0 0 600,000 7,198,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,798,000 Copier/Printer Muni Court CS-12 42 5,776 5,776 0 0 0 0 5,776 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 5,776 XL Color Scanner Building CS-14 42 10,353 10,353 0 0 0 0 0 10,353 10,353 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,353 Fire Station #4 Maintenance Bay Fire PS-07 42 459,900 459,900 0 0 0 0 0 278,050 0 0 181,850 0 0 0 0 0 0 459,900 Fire Station #4 Maintenance Bay-debt service-5 yrs Fire PS-07 42 210,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 210,000 Water Works Hill Radio Building Replacement Police PS-10 42 53,552 53,552 0 0 0 0 26,776 26,776 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 53,552 Customer Service Request Module Mayor CS-02 41 39,364 39,364 0 0 0 0 19,682 984 13,777 13,777 3,936 3,937 984 0 0 0 0 0 0 39,364 West Broadway Island Trail & Bridge Phase I MRA PR-03 41 224,000 24,000 200,000 0 0 0 224,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 224,000 Ice Rink Parks PR-06 41 8,000 0 0 0 8,000 0 8,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 8,000 Riverfront Trail-Northbank East of Van Buren Parks PR-11 41 330,000 0 100,000 230,000 0 0 0 0 130,000 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 330,000 Deck Mower-Snow Removal Parks PR-18 41 135,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 135,000 Pool - 50 Meter Parks PR-38 41 1,100,000 1,100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 800,000 1,100,000 Maintenance Management System Parks PR-39 41 70,909 32,848 0 0 38,061 0 32,848 38,061 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70,909 Hillview Way Reconstruction Public Works S-11 41 1,880,000 900,000 980,000 0 0 0 0 0 1,800,000 80,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,880,000 McLeod Neighborhood/Jefferson School Traffic CalminPublic Works S-18 41 35,000 0 35,000 0 0 0 14,000 0 0 14,000 7,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,000 Rubber Tire Roller Replacements (Unit #153) Streets SE-10 41 71,000 71,000 0 0 0 0 71,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 71,000 Mower/Attachments Cemetery CS-09 40 56,000 28,000 28,000 0 0 0 28,000 28,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 56,000 Tractor Cemetery CS-10 40 12,500 12,500 0 0 0 0 12,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 12,500 Maintenance Facility Fork Lift (Unit #702) Vehicle Maint. CS-23 40 16,000 16,000 0 0 0 0 14,400 1,600 1,600 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,000 Maintenance Shop Natural Gas Pressure Washers Vehicle Maint. CS-24 40 10,150 10,150 0 0 0 0 6,150 4,000 4,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,150 Facility Maintenance Energy Conservation Package Vehicle Maint. CS-26 40 79,100 47,600 31,500 0 0 0 47,600 31,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 79,100 Hybrid Poplar Tree Effluent Land Application Pilot PrWaste Water WW-10 40 42,000 42,000 0 0 0 0 42,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 42,000 Sewage Lift Station Upgrade and Rehabilitation Waste Water WW-14 40 664,000 0 160,000 164,000 168,000 172,000 664,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 664,000 Arterial Street Lights Public Works S-15 39 1,000,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 0 0 1,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000,000 URD III Streetscape Improvements MRA CS-03 38 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 50,000 Photocopies/Scanner Building CS-15 38 7,512 7,512 0 0 0 0 0 7,512 7,512 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,512 Lock System Parks PR-23 38 7,900 0 7,900 0 0 0 7,900 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 7,900 Thermal Imagers Fire PS-09 38 33,000 22,000 0 11,000 0 0 19,845 11,000 0 0 2,155 0 0 0 0 0 0 33,000 West Broadway Corridor Improvements MRA CS-04 37 300,000 0 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 URD III Trail Connections MRA PR-01 37 450,000 0 0 0 0 450,000 450,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 450,000 Franklin Neighborhood Bike/Ped Connections Parks PR-05 37 16,000 0 0 0 16,000 0 0 0 16,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 16,000 Leaf Vacuum Parks PR-24 37 65,000 0 65,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 65,000 65,000 Landscape WWTP Buffer Zone and Entrance Waste Water WW-07 37 275,000 275,000 0 0 0 0 275,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 275,000 UV Sanitation System at Currents Parks PR-12 36 32,000 32,000 0 0 0 0 32,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 32,000 Brush Chipper Parks PR-17 36 35,000 0 0 35,000 0 0 35,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 35,000 Bellevue Park Curb and Sidewalk Improvements Public Works S-01 36 90,000 90,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 40,000 50,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 90,000 Rattlesnake Drive Sidewalk (Lolo to Creek Crosssing) Public Works S-13 36 640,000 0 320,000 320,000 0 0 0 0 100,000 440,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 640,000 Methane Gas Powered Micro-Turbine Waste Water WW-08 36 250,000 0 0 0 250,000 0 250,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 250,000 Tandem Axle Dump Truck Replacements Streets SE-08 35 475,000 190,000 190,000 95,000 0 0 190,000 190,000 95,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 475,000 Central Park Expansion MPC CS-06 34 2,000,000 0 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 0 2,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 2,000,000 Grant Creek Drainage Improvements Public Works CS-17 34 450,000 0 54,000 396,000 0 0 0 0 450,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 450,000 Finance Software for GASB 34 Finance CS-27 34 20,200 0 20,200 0 0 0 10,100 1,010 7,070 7,070 1,010 1,010 1,010 0 0 0 0 0 0 20,200 425 John Deere Tractor Mower Parks PR-04 33 14,000 0 14,000 0 0 0 14,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14,000 Infromation Systems Fire PS-06 33 70,000 0 20,000 40,000 10,000 0 20,000 40,000 10,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 70,000 Northwest Area Broadway Area STEP Sewer System EWaste Water WW-13 33 850,000 50,000 0 0 0 800,000 850,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 850,000 Riverfront Triangle Parking Structure MPC CS-08 31 9,500,000 0 9,500,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 9,500,000 9,500,000 Waterproofing Parking Structures MPC CS-07 31 300,000 0 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 300,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 300,000 Resistograph F550S Package Parks PR-31 31 6,990 6,990 0 0 0 0 6,990 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 6,990 Turf Topdresser Parks PR-37 31 29,000 0 29,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 29,000 29,000 Paint Striper Replacement (Unit #560) Streets SE-01 31 146,000 146,000 0 0 0 0 146,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 146,000 New Police Facility Police PS-11 29 10,598,227 0 10,598,227 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 10,598,227 Single Axle Deicer/Plow Trucks Streets SE-07 29 760,000 0 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 760,000 Maintenance Facility Exterior Wash Bay Vehicle Maint. CS-22 28 45,000 0 0 45,000 0 0 45,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45,000 Moon Randolph Property-Building Stabilization Parks PR-28 28 11,550 0 0 11,550 0 0 10,000 0 0 550 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,000 11,550 Cat Grader Replacement (Unit #123) Streets SE-03 27 202,460 0 0 202,460 0 0 202,460 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 202,460 Land for Fire Station #6 Fire PS-08 26 200,000 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 City Hall Security Locks Vehicle Maint. CS-21 25 79,110 0 3,000 76,110 0 0 3,000 64,860 3,750 3,750 7,500 7,500 0 0 0 0 0 0 79,110 Missoula Art Museum Non-Dept CS-30 24 133,369 133,369 0 0 0 0 133,369 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 133,369 Permitting/Licensing Software System Building CS-13 22 221,668 0 221,668 0 0 0 0 221,668 221,668 0 0 0 0 0 0 221,668 580 Backhoe Parks PR-14 20 96,000 0 0 96,000 0 0 96,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 96,000 I-90 Interchange at N. Reserve/Grant Creek Rd Parks PR-21 20 58,700 24,243 0 0 21,543 12,914 22,243 0 0 2,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 34,457 58,700 Tarco Leaf Machine Replacement (Unit #159) Streets SE-02 20 78,000 0 0 78,000 0 0 78,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 78,000 Chip Spreader Replacement (Unit #142) Streets SE-04 20 160,000 0 0 160,000 0 0 160,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 160,000 Sign Maintenance Truck (Unit #582) Streets SE-09 20 45,580 0 45,580 0 0 0 45,580 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45,580 Upper Gharrett Drainage Improvements Public Works CS-18 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 200,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 200,000 Recreation Transportation Parks PR-10 NR 60,000 0 0 0 0 60,000 0 0 60,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 60,000 Bicycle Commuter Network Parks PR-27 NR 452,793 0 0 0 152,793 300,000 30,559 0 0 50,000 372,234 0 0 0 0 0 0 452,793 Skid Steer Parks PR-32 NR 44,000 0 0 0 44,000 0 44,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 44,000 Structural Fire Engine 2010 Fire PS-02 NR 310,700 0 0 0 310,700 0 310,700 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 310,700 Wildland Engine 2010 Fire PS-04 NR 75,000 0 0 0 75,000 0 75,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 75,000 Defibrillators Fire PS-05 NR 45,000 0 0 0 0 45,000 45,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 45,000 Van Buren Street Reconstruction Public Works S-08 NR 500,000 0 0 0 500,000 0 0 0 325,000 175,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 500,000 Gravel Streets Paving Public Works S-09 NR 700,000 0 0 0 700,000 0 0 0 200,000 400,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 100,000 700,000 Single Drum Roller Replacement (Unit #143) Streets SE-05 NR 104,030 0 0 0 104,030 0 104,030 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 104,030 Skid Steer Loader Replacement (Unit #171) Streets SE-11 NR 51,000 0 0 0 0 51,000 51,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 51,000 West Reserve Sewer Inteceptor Phase IV Waste Water WW-06 NR 3,000,000 0 0 0 1,000,000 2,000,000 3,000,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3,000,000 DELETED Police CS-01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 DELETED Parks CS-05 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 BY ---PAGE BREAK--- Projects in Type Order FY 07-New FY 06 FY 2007 TO FY 2011 CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECT PROJECT PROJECT DESCRIPTION DEPT. NO. NO. YES Earmarked Expenditures: White Pine Debt Service Series 2001A Finance CS-25 YES FY2005 Art Museum Debt Service Finance CS-28 YES City Hall Expansion Debt Service Finance CS-31 CS-29 YES City Hall Expansion Finance CS-31 CS-29 YES Cemetery Office Apartment Stairway Cemetery CS-11 YES City Hall Reroofing Project Vehicle Maint. CS-25 YES ED/OH Lafray Acquisition Parks PR-40 YES ED/OH Lafray Acquisition-debt service-5 years Parks PR-40 YES ADA Annual Request Human Resources CS-29 YES Aquatics-Municipal Swimming Facilities Parks & Recreation PR-41 PR-06 YES Aquatics-debt service support-20 yrs Parks & Recreation PR-41 YES Muni-Court Expansion Court CS-27 YES Vacuum Street Sweepers Purchase Streets SE-12 YES Tandem Axle Flusher Truck (Unit #131) Streets SE-06 Deck Mower-Snow Removal Parks PR-18 Rubber Tire Roller Replacements (Unit #153) Streets SE-10 Mower/Attachments Cemetery CS-09 Tractor Cemetery CS-10 Maintenance Facility Fork Lift (Unit #702) Vehicle Maint. CS-23 Tandem Axle Dump Truck Replacements Streets SE-08 Playfair Park-Site Plan, Design, Renovation Parks PR-30 Streets Materials Storage Site: Missoula's Southside Streets CS-28 Neighborhood Initiated Traffic Calming Public Works S-03 Spruce, Madison, Greenough 21st Century Project Public Works S-06 McCormick Park Site Plan Implementation Parks PR-25 Structural Fire Engine 2009 Fire PS-01 Wildland Engine 2009 Fire PS-03 Existing Park Expansion Parks PR-07 New Park Development Parks PR-08 Park Maintenance & Improvements Program Parks PR-09 Centralized Maintenance Parks PR-15 Centralized Maintenance-debt service-5 yrs Parks PR-15 Centralized Maintenance Debt Service Finance PR-15 Pressure Washer Parks PR-20 Copier/Printer Muni Court CS-12 Fire Station #4 Maintenance Bay Fire PS-07 Fire Station #4 Maintenance Bay-debt service-5 yrs Fire PS-07 Water Works Hill Radio Building Replacement Police PS-10 Customer Service Request Module Mayor CS-02 Ice Rink Parks PR-06 Pool - 50 Meter Parks PR-38 Pool - 50 Meter - future debt service Parks PR-38 Maintenance Management System Parks PR-39 McLeod Neighborhood/Jefferson School Traffic Calming Public Works S-18 Maintenance Shop Natural Gas Pressure Washers Vehicle Maint. CS-24 Facility Maintenance Energy Conservation Package Vehicle Maint. CS-26 Lock System Parks PR-23 Thermal Imagers Fire PS-09 Leaf Vacuum Parks PR-24 UV Sanitation System at Currents Parks PR-12 Brush Chipper Parks PR-17 Finance Software for GASB 34 Finance CS-27 ---PAGE BREAK--- 425 John Deere Tractor Mower Parks PR-04 Infromation Systems Fire PS-06 Resistograph F550S Package Parks PR-31 Totals Turf Topdresser Parks PR-37 Paint Striper Replacement (Unit #560) Streets SE-01 Single Axle Deicer/Plow Trucks Streets SE-07 Maintenance Facility Exterior Wash Bay Vehicle Maint. CS-22 Moon Randolph Property-Building Stabilization Parks PR-28 Cat Grader Replacement (Unit #123) Streets SE-03 Land for Fire Station #6 Fire PS-08 City Hall Security Locks Vehicle Maint. CS-21 Missoula Art Museum Non-Dept CS-30 580 Backhoe Parks PR-14 I-90 Interchange at N. Reserve/Grant Creek Rd Parks PR-21 Tarco Leaf Machine Replacement (Unit #159) Streets SE-02 Chip Spreader Replacement (Unit #142) Streets SE-04 Sign Maintenance Truck (Unit #582) Streets SE-09 Bicycle Commuter Network Parks PR-27 Skid Steer Parks PR-32 Structural Fire Engine 2010 Fire PS-02 Wildland Engine 2010 Fire PS-04 Defibrillators Fire PS-05 Single Drum Roller Replacement (Unit #143) Streets SE-05 Skid Steer Loader Replacement (Unit #171) Streets SE-11 ---PAGE BREAK--- PREPARED 38,930 CIP FUND FY-07 GENERAL FUND TAX LEVY CASH STATE FUTURE RANK FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 BALANCE REVENUE DEBT SVCE NR 5 129,951 132,023 128,838 130,618 132,130 NR 21,092 21,087 20,953 20,802 20,644 20,484 NR 112,592 91,500 91,500 91,500 91,500 91,500 NR 112,592 - - - - - NA 130,592 18,000 41 196,592 66,000 41 196,592 - 41 222,592 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 30 222,592 - 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 48 422,592 200,000 195,000 567,592 145,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 42 634,792 67,200 67,200 52 660,292 25,500 49 684,292 24,000 41 711,292 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 41 796,092 84,800 40 824,092 28,000 28,000 40 836,592 12,500 40 850,992 14,400 35 945,992 95,000 285,000 95,000 48 945,992 47 945,992 20,000 300,000 46 963,992 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 46 976,492 12,500 - 45 976,492 45 976,492 310,700 45 976,492 75,000 45 976,492 45 976,492 44 1,033,783 57,291 57,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 44 1,100,585 66,802 78,992 - 44 1,128,585 28,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 44 1,128,585 38,000 44 1,136,085 7,500 42 1,141,861 5,776 42 1,141,861 - 42 1,183,861 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42 1,210,637 26,776 41 1,230,319 19,682 41 1,230,319 8,000 41 1,230,319 - 41 1,230,319 - 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 41 1,230,319 - 32,848 38,061 41 1,230,319 - 14,000 40 1,236,469 6,150 40 1,284,069 47,600 31,500 38 1,284,069 7,900 38 1,303,914 19,845 11,000 37 1,303,914 36 1,303,914 - 32,000 36 1,303,914 35,000 34 1,303,914 10,100 ---PAGE BREAK--- 33 1,303,914 14,000 33 1,303,914 20,000 40,000 10,000 31 1,303,914 - 6,990 1,433,860 1,549,006 1,761,840 952,823 936,114 31 1,303,914 31 1,449,914 146,000 29 1,449,914 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 28 1,449,914 45,000 28 1,449,914 10,000 27 1,449,914 202,460 26 1,449,914 200,000 25 1,449,914 3,000 64,860 24 1,583,283 133,369 20 1,583,283 96,000 20 1,605,526 22,243 20 1,605,526 78,000 20 1,605,526 160,000 20 1,605,526 45,580 NR 1,605,526 NR 1,605,526 44,000 NR 1,605,526 310,700 NR 1,605,526 75,000 NR 1,605,526 45,000 NR 1,605,526 104,030 NR 1,605,526 51,000 1,735,472 1,987,586 2,608,160 1,676,553 1,222,114 - - - ---PAGE BREAK--- SEWER MRA SEWER FUND IMPACT TAX DEVELOP / FEES INCR. R & D FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 TOTAL - - - 569,952 - - - - - - 50,000 - - - 25,500 - - - - - - 1,600 1,600 - 68,000 - - - - - - - 134,000 - 298,000 - - - - - - - 278,050 - - 26,776 - 984 13,777 13,777 - - - - - 4,000 4,000 - - - - - - 1,010 7,070 7,070 ---PAGE BREAK--- - - - - - - - - - - 3,750 3,750 - - - - - - 30,559 - - - - - - - 1,480,837 1,994 - 19,377 7,070 3,750 - - 30,197 ---PAGE BREAK--- BLDG INSP CARE FUND/ FUND GRANTS/ PARKING DONATIONS FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 FY 11 TOTAL COMM. & OTHER CTEP - - 103,970 - - - - - 10,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 27,500 - - - - 40,000 - 32,709 - - - - 7,500 - - - - 3,936 3,937 984 - - 300,000 - - - - - - - - 2,155 - - - 1,010 1,010 1,010 ---PAGE BREAK--- - - - - - - - - 550 - - 7,500 7,500 - - - 2,000 - - - - 50,000 372,234 - - - - - - 3,936 1,010 7,500 - - 12,447 9,494 568,884 372,234 ---PAGE BREAK--- MAQI REV. BONDS URBAN ASSESSMENTS/ PILOT G.O. SID'S/OTHER ASSESSMENTS CMAQ GAS TAX BONDS DEBT TO CITY TITLE 1 FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 - - - - - - - - - 1,139,048 - - - - - - - - - 112,000 - - - - - - - 25,000 25,000 2,000,800 - - - - - - - - - 289,000 - - - 136,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 108,000 - - - 13,000 29,600 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 750,000 - - - - - - 695,139 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 181,850 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 800,000 - - - - - - - - - 14,000 7,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - BY YE ---PAGE BREAK--- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 425,000 27,000 - 5,823,437 - - - 25,000 25,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- PARK ACQ. & DEV. ADA CDBG TRAILS CABLE FUND PRIVATE FY 10 FY 11 TOTAL INFRASTRU FUND TV (IN LIEU) TBD INVEST. - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25,000 25,000 100,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 650,000 37,640 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 90,000 379,000 - - - 129,500 1,975,617 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 65,000 - - - - - - - - - ---PAGE BREAK--- - - - - - - - - - - - - 29,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - 1,000 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 34,457 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - 25,000 25,000 100,000 - - - 219,500 3,133,074 38,640 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY LABOR & SUPPLIES TOTAL - 653,560 - 207,940 457,500 - 1,709,000 - 18,000 - 66,000 - 122,000 - 130,000 - 200,000 - 2,445,800 - 725,000 - 134,400 - 340,000 - 160,000 - 135,000 - 84,800 - 56,000 - 12,500 - 16,000 - 475,000 - 141,400 897,040 - 320,000 - 198,000 - 13,000 68,100 - 27,500 - 310,700 - 75,000 - 603,000 - 3,193,117 - 897,000 - 840,933 - 252,000 - 38,000 - 15,000 - 5,776 - 459,900 - 210,000 - 53,552 - 39,364 - 8,000 - 1,100,000 - 260,000 - 70,909 - 35,000 - 10,150 - 79,100 - 7,900 - 33,000 - 65,000 - 32,000 - 35,000 - 20,200 - ---PAGE BREAK--- 14,000 - 70,000 - 6,990 - 29,000 - 146,000 - 760,000 - 45,000 - 11,550 - 202,460 - 200,000 - 79,110 - 133,369 - 96,000 - 58,700 - 78,000 - 160,000 - 45,580 - 452,793 - 44,000 - 310,700 - 75,000 - 45,000 - 104,030 - 51,000 - 154,400 - 21,627,023 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Capital Improvement Program Budget Planning Committee John Engen, Mayor City of Missoula Bruce Bender, Chief Administrative Officer City of Missoula Brentt Ramharter, Director Finance Department City of Missoula Steve King, Director Public Works City of Missoula Beckie Christiaens, Assistant Finance Director Finance Department City of Missoula Jack Stucky Vehicle Maintenance Superintendent Public Works City of Missoula Cindy Klette, Director Office of Planning & Grants Missoula City/County Patricia Anglen, Project Accountant Finance Department City of Missoula Ann Wake—Finance Department With Continued Support and Assistance Provided By: City of Missoula Departments & Staff ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECTS WITH MRA FUNDING FY 07-New MRA FY 2007 TO FY 2011 CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECT FY-07 TAX PROJECT DESCRIPTION DEPT. NO. RANK TOTAL INCR. Earmarked Expenditures: Customer Service Request Module Mayor CS-02 41 39,364 984 URD III Streetscape Improvements MRA CS-03 38 50,000 50,000 West Broadway Corridor Improvements MRA CS-04 37 300,000 300,000 URD III Trail Connections MRA PR-01 37 450,000 450,000 South Bank Riverfront Trail URD II MRA PR-02 53 462,500 212,500 West Broadway Island Trail & Bridge Phase I MRA PR-03 41 224,000 224,000 Finance Software for GASB 34 Finance CS-27 34 20,200 1,010 1,546,064 1,238,494 ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECTS WITH PARKING COMMISSION FUNDING FY 07-New FY 2007 TO FY 2011 CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECT FY-07 PARKING PROJECT DESCRIPTION DEPT. NO. RANK TOTAL COMM. Earmarked Expenditures: Customer Service Request Module Mayor CS-02 41 39,364 984 Central Park Expansion MPC CS-06 34 2,000,000 2,000,000 Waterproofing Parking Structures MPC CS-07 31 300,000 300,000 Riverfront Triangle Parking Structure MPC CS-08 31 9,500,000 Downtown 2006 Streets Project Public Works CS-16 45 750,000 150,000 Finance Software for GASB 34 Finance CS-27 34 20,200 1,010 Hotsy Pressure Washer Parks PR-20 44 15,000 7,500 12,624,564 2,459,494 ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECTS WITH WASTEWATER FUNDING SEWER REV. BONDS FY 07-New SEWER FUND ASSESSMENTS/ FY 2007 TO FY 2011 CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECT FY-07 DEVELOP / SID'S/OTHER PROJECT DESCRIPTION DEPT. NO. RANK TOTAL R & D TOTAL DEBT Earmarked Expenditures: Customer Service Request Module Mayor CS-02 41 39,364 13,777 Downtown 2006 Streets Project Public Works CS-16 45 750,000 - 100,000 City Hall Security Locks Vehicle Maint. CS-21 25 79,110 3,750 Maintenance Facility Fork Lift (Unit #702) Vehicle Maint. CS-23 40 16,000 1,600 Maintenance Shop Natural Gas Pressure Washers Vehicle Maint. CS-24 40 10,150 4,000 Finance Software for GASB 34 Finance CS-27 34 20,200 7,070 Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation Program Waste Water WW-01 45 1,000,000 1,000,000 - University Lift Station Relocation/Replacement Waste Water WW-02 44 200,000 200,000 - Airport Inteceptor Phase II and "Wye" Collection System Waste Water WW-03 48 8,000,000 1,000,000 - 7,000,000 West Reserve Sewer Inteceptor Phase III Waste Water WW-04 48 2,950,000 2,950,000 - Rattlesnake Neighborhood Wastewater Collection System Waste Water WW-05 44 7,798,000 - 7,198,000 West Reserve Sewer Inteceptor Phase IV Waste Water WW-06 NR 3,000,000 3,000,000 - Landscape WWTP Buffer Zone and Entrance Waste Water WW-07 37 275,000 275,000 - Methane Gas Powered Micro-Turbine Waste Water WW-08 36 250,000 250,000 - Miller Creek Interceptor Sewer Waste Water WW-09 49 770,000 270,000 - Hybrid Poplar Tree Effluent Land Application Pilot Project Waste Water WW-10 40 42,000 42,000 - Russell Street Interceptor (6th-Idaho) Waste Water WW-11 45 500,000 500,000 - Hydro-Jet Sewer Cleaning Truck (Unit #329) Waste Water WW-12 45 225,000 225,000 - Northwest Area Broadway Area STEP Sewer System Enhancement Waste Water WW-13 33 850,000 850,000 - Sewage Lift Station Upgrade and Rehabilitation Waste Water WW-14 40 664,000 664,000 - 27,438,824 11,226,000 30,197 14,298,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- PROJECTS WITH BUILDING INSPECTION FUNDING BLDG INSP FY 07-New FUND FY 2007 TO FY 2011 CAPITAL BUDGET PROJECT FY-07 PROJECT DESCRIPTION DEPT. NO. RANK TOTAL TOTAL Earmarked Expenditures: Customer Service Request Module Mayor CS-02 41 39,364 3,937 Permitting/Licensing Software System Building CS-13 22 221,668 221,668 XL Color Scanner Building CS-14 42 10,353 10,353 Photocopies/Scanner Building CS-15 38 7,512 7,512 City Hall Security Locks Vehicle Maint. CS-21 25 79,110 7,500 Finance Software for GASB 34 Finance CS-27 34 20,200 1,010 378,207 251,980 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-02 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No X N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 13,076 19,682 Sewer Fund 22,883 13,777 Building Fund 6,538 3,936 MRA 1,635 984 MPC 1,635 984 Totals 65,380 - 39,364 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges 9,121 D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 104,744 Estimated Annual Debt Service - 9,121 104,744 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 05-Mar-04 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 9:49 AM LKJ Total Score 41 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Services CRM - Citizen Request Management (aka Customer Service Request Module) CRM (Citizen Request Management) Software This CIP request is for a CRM (Citizen Request Management) software, previously known as Customer Service Request Module. The CRM software tools was first approved for CIP funding in FY’04 to replace the outdated Civicall that was used for complaint tracking. Since FY’04, the functionality of CRM software has evolved from a simple complaint management tool into a comprehensive communication management tool that effectively “corrals” many types of electronic media that integrates between a variety of software platforms depending on the type of CRM software. Departmental tracking of complaints and work requests have presented workflow/problem resolution challenges in terms of an effective ability to track cases within current software that does not effectively manage the increased volume of requests coming into the City. Case management of the volume of citizen comments on issues is a data management challenge. Originally, the CIP funding goal was to purchase a CRM solution that would fully integrate with the City’s Permits Plus and Asset Management (AMS) software programs for the purpose of work order dispatch and t CRM to Permits Plus connection has not evolved since FY’04 and the connectivity is limited to the address f Permits Plus database. Accela considers Permits Plus as their classic software and do not plan further CRM—Permits Plus integration, but rather is migrating the technology into their web-based Accela Automati software that the City does not use. Continued on page three. This software will be used by citizens, City Council and by all City of Missoula Departments, OPG and Health Department once the software is fully implemented. Was CS-23 in FY'06 Linda Jordan Mayor Annual software assurance (maintenance) will impact IT's operating budget. IT’s FY’06 operational budget has carried forward $3,500 each fiscal year for the yearly software maintenance costs for the outdated Civicall software which will need to be re-budgeted in FY’07 and succeeding years based on the selected vendor's software assurance/maintenance annualized charges. Phases II & III costs are unknown and will need to be budgeted in the next fiscal year by departments. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-02 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 2 5 10 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 1 3 3 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 41 Effective tracking and response to water and air pollution complaints is critical to address Missoula's pollution issues managed by the Health Department. Reduction in vehicle trips for inspections and site visits by adding a workflow component for code enforcement is another potential solution to minimize pollution and conserve energy resources. Improving and increasing staff's ability to track and respond to citizen issues more quickly and effectively is better usage of taxpayer's dollars; provision of services within resources. Web based applications allow for citizens to conveniently submit information to City offices. Acknowledgement of the receipt of information and the ability to verify the status will improve communication with the public. The collection of citizen comments and the ability to report on opponent/proponent status via real-time reports will be advantageous to elected officials utilizing the City network remotely. The CRM is essential in maintaining community involvement in all functions of the City and directly meets the Community Involvement 2005 strategic objective to "develop a web-based mechanism to respond to citizen comment or questions and code enforcement concerns." Quantitative Analysis Comments This project is 50% leveraged from non-general funds. The CRM software will be utilized throughout the City, and will include a citizen web access component upon completion of Phase I. Upon completion of Phase II a department-level web interface for OPG and Health Department will be an operational communication link for the City, City Council, City-County Agencies, and citizens. Electronic tracking, desktop/dashboard live reports and citizen access will improve efficiency. There has been minimal tracking of citizen service requests for the past three and a half years impacting departmental ability to track and monitor citizen requests. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources Continued: The AMS to CRM integration is more complete. Conceivably, the CRM will become an over-arching software that has the potential to be integrated with all of the City’s databases including GIS with customization. A CRM solution would support a citizen web interface providing citizens with a mechanism to initialize requests for service, submit complaints, offer public comment, and receive follow-up advisements about outcomes. Advancements in the CRM web interface provides additional citizens interface functionality and can be customized for staff-level interface by City-County departments who do not use Outlook or who are outside of the City’s enterprise network. Both Accela and Microsoft CRM solutions offer this functionality. Microsoft’s CRM integration into Outlook and Office productivity software adds functionality beyond the improved delivery of service concept first discussed. Specific software requirements must: 1) Support web or network entry of complaints, service requests and comments submitted by citizens, City Council, and satellite departments such as Health and OPG. a) Satellite department deployment would occur during Phase II. 2) Dispatch service requests via email and skilled worker routing to Permits Plus, AMS, Edens and other SQL databases. 3) Provide workflow for response and supervisor tracking. 4) Generate auto email responses regarding actions taken for complaint resolution and service delivery advisements or response to citizen comments when requested. 5) Be ODBC compliant using SQL database. 6) Integrate the work efforts of multiple responding departments from management down to line staff. 7) Provide easy report generation functionality at the desktop/dashboard level. A fully functional CRM module will improve intra- and inter-departmental coordination; categorize and track citizen comments, provide responsiveness in terms of dispatch and auto-generated notice of action taken or resolution gained. Cost savings will o ---PAGE BREAK--- Implementation (Pilot Program = 30 users) or (Full = 76 users) Microsoft CRM PHASE I Cost/Unit Unit # Total Cost 1st Year Costs Software, install, single user licenses, 1-yr software assurance, basic customization, with case management at implementation Citizen access software/one-time license 15,000 $ 1 15,000 $ 15,000 $ *Additional user licenses ($584.88/user) for full implementation 585 $ 76 44,451 $ 44,451 $ *Server software license (1-yr) 1,172 $ 1 1,172 $ 1,172 $ Services [Ascentium] (deployment including install, etc.) (verbal estimate) 35,000 $ 1 35,000 $ 35,000 $ *Annual software assurance (mntc) for server license (ongoing) 234 $ 1 234 $ *Annual software assurance (mntc) per user license (ongoing) 117 $ 76 8,887 $ Total Microsoft Phase I 104,743 $ 95,622 $ FY'06 CIP Budget Allocation 65,380 $ 65,380 $ Amount over budget 39,363 $ 30,242 $ * Cost based on State's existing Selective Software Agreement with Microsoft which is in effect for one more year before re-negotiation; costs are subject to change Microsoft's partner Ascentium has provided the estimate for services; an RFP may be needed for services PHASE II Cost/Unit Unit # Total Cost Technical (vendor) - $ - $ Additional user licenses @ $1,000 each - $ $25,000-35,000 Web-enabled communication to implement City-County agencies (approx.) 35,000 $ 35,000 $ Total Phase II Costs Unknown 35,000 $ PHASE III Cost/Unit Unit # Total Cost Technical (vendor) - $ - $ Data Conversion, if necessary - $ - $ Integration with enterprise databases - $ - $ Total Phase III Costs Unknown - $ ---PAGE BREAK--- Implementation (Pilot = 30 users) or (Full = 76 users) Vendor provided incomplete cost estimate numbers, but is included for reference ACCELA SERVICE REQUEST (CRM) PHASE I Cost/Unit Unit # Total Cost Software, install, 5-license user pack (concurrent licenses) 19,995 $ 1 19,995 $ Additional 5-user license** packs-to match Microsoft's 30 user quote 4,995 $ 5 24,975 $ Annual Software Maintenance (based on total value of licenses) 20% 29,970 $ 5,994 $ ***Software: Vantage 360 (quote not received) - $ 0 - $ ***Software: Accela Citizen Access (cost may be population based) - $ 0 - $ Population based one-time license for citizen access 0.06 $ 63,820 3,829 $ Services, customize for IVR (Interactive Voice Response) Services, travel and training (based on Nov. 2004 quote) 50,000 $ 1 50,000 $ 3rd party software costs - unknown (Macromedia ColdFusion, Brava) - $ - $ Total of Known Phase I Accela Costs 104,793 $ FY'06 CIP Budget Allocation 65,380 $ Amount over budget (not a true representation of cost) 39,413 $ Concurrent Licenses - fewer licenses would be needed; 30 concurrent licenses may be adequate for 75+ users ***Accela has not provided estimates for this software & purchase may not be required PHASE II Cost/Unit Unit # Total Cost Additional user license packs if needed 4,995 $ - $ Vendor services plus travel - $ - $ Customization for further integration into Permits Plus & other existing databases - $ - $ $25,000-35,000 Implement City-County agencies (approx.) 35,000 $ 35,000 $ Total Phase II Costs Unknown 35,000 $ PHASE III Cost/Unit Unit # Total Cost Vendor services plus travel - $ - $ Data Conversion, if necessary - $ - $ Integration with enterprise databases - $ - $ Total Phase III Costs Unknown - $ ---PAGE BREAK--- POSSIBLE USERS BY DEPARTMENTS = 76 users 1 NUGENT, JAMES P CITY ATTORNEY 1 WANG, JUDITH L CITY ATTORNEY 1 FIRTH, SUSAN A CITY ATTORNEY 1 SCOTT, ANDREW FRANKLIN CITY ATTORNEY 1 ROSKE-ROSEBOOM, KELLEEN M CITY ATTORNEY 1 WOLAK, JANICE L CITY ATTORNEY 1 BLANK, KRISTENE KAREN BUILDING INSPECTION 1 WANNER, ROBIN L BUILDING INSPECTION 1 DIGIANDO, DIANE M BUILDING INSPECTION 1 VERRUE, DONALD W. BUILDING INSPECTION 1 SARCONI, RAE AN BUILDING INSPECTION 1 STUBB, MARY ELLEN CEMETERY 1 WATERS, DOUGLAS N CEMETERY 1 REHBEIN, MARTHA L CITY CLERK 1 STOLL, JANE KELLY CITY CLERK 1 ANDERSON, RUTH CITY CLERK 1 ROGERS, NIKKI RAE CITY CLERK 1 ELAM, KELLY DAWN CITY CLERK 1 REIDY, JOHN E ELECTED OFFICIALS 1 BALLAS, JERRELL D ELECTED OFFICIALS 1 CHILDERS, EDWARD A ELECTED OFFICIALS 1 RYE, STACY MARIE ELECTED OFFICIALS 1 NICHOLSON, DONALD EWEN ELECTED OFFICIALS 1 KENDALL, HEIDI WERLING ELECTED OFFICIALS 1 HENDRICKSON, JOHN BRIAN ELECTED OFFICIALS 1 HAINES, RICHARD ELECTED OFFICIALS 1 STROHMAIER, DAVID JON ELECTED OFFICIALS 1 MARLER, MARILYN JO ELECTED OFFICIALS 1 WILKINS, JONATHAN DAVID ELECTED OFFICIALS 1 JAFFE, ROBERT LAWRENCE ELECTED OFFICIALS 1 AUCUTT, DAHN PW ADMIN 1 DUNN, LINDA D PW ADMIN 1 GRESHAM, CHRISTINE PW ADMIN 1 DIAMOND, PEGGY LEE PW ADMIN 1 OLIPHANT, JOSEPH SCOTT ENGINEERING 1 HARBY, DOUGLAS D ENGINEERING 1 KRAUSE, CARLA J PW ADMIN 1 JORDAN, DANIEL F ENGINEERING 1 KING, R STEVEN ENGINEERING 1 KUEFFLER, DOUGLAS J ENGINEERING 1 SCHATZ, CHERYL A. FIRE CIVILIAN 1 WAKE, ANN FINANCE 1 RAMHARTER, BRENTT G FINANCE 1 CHRISTIAENS, REBECCA SUSANNE FINANCE 1 PAINTER, MICHAEL L FIRE 1 STEENBERG, THOMAS A FIRE 1 DIEHL, JASON D FIRE 1 VERLANIC, GAIL L HUMAN RESOURCES 1 CHAFFIN, JULI LYNN HUMAN RESOURCES 1 COMMUNICATIONS MAYOR'S OFFICE 1 ENGEN, JOHN SCOTT MAYOR'S OFFICE 1 BENDER, BRUCE T MAYOR'S OFFICE 1 JORDAN, LINDA KATHRIN MAYOR'S OFFICE 1 COYLE, MELANI DAWN MAYOR'S OFFICE 1 KINTON, BETTE A PARKING COMMISSION 1 GUEST, ANNE P PARKING COMMISSION 1 BEHAN, CHRISTOPHER C MISSOULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1 NELSON, KARI L MISSOULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1 LEE, JILAYNE R MISSOULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1 PUGH, LESLEY L MISSOULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1 BUCHANAN, ELLEN LORINE MISSOULA REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY 1 MORGAN, PATRICIA LYNN MUNICIPAL COURT 1 GAUKLER, DONNA M PARKS & RECREATION 1 MEHRING, KATHERINE L PARKS & RECREATION 1 CLAMAN, DAVID HENRY PARKS & RECREATION 1 THAMES, ROBERT B PARKS & RECREATION 1 PRICE, THERESA J POLICE CIVILIAN 1 CLARKE, LAURIE POLICE CIVILIAN 1 WICKMAN, RUSTY POLICE 1 MUIR, MARK G POLICE 1 PARRISH, JOSIE EILEEN STREET MAINTENANCE 1 HENSEL, BRIAN STREET MAINTENANCE 1 STUCKY, JACK VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1 HOLSHUE, TAMMY RAE VEHICLE MAINTENANCE 1 JOHNSON, BONNIE C WASTEWATER 1 SULLIVAN, STARR G WASTEWATER 76 TOTAL NUMBER OF POSSIBLE USERS ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-03 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Tax Increment $50,000 Totals - - 50,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 40,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 4,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 6,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 50,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 9:50 AM ABC Total Score 38 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Service URD III Streetscape Imp. (Phase III) Improvements to the streetscape along select streets in URD III. The Urban Land Institute report outlined a number of projects that would contribute to revitalization of the URD III area that could be phased in over time. One of the suggestions was streetscape improvements along major streets within the District. Streetscape improvements would include items such as sidewalk installation and upgrades, street closures where small triangles have been formed, landscaping, etc.. In 2006 the MRA Board voted to spend tax increment funds for trees wells, trees, patterned concrete and counuit for future improvements such as pedestrian scale lighting. This was done in conjunction with the Public Works Depatment as part of th South Avenue Reconstruction project. Throught his CIP item, MRA will continue to provide funds for streetscape improvements within URD III. Was CS-15 in FY06 and CS-03 in FY05 Ellen Buchanan MRA Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-03 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 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 38 Reinvestment in the URD III area is the major focus of the efforts to revitalize the District. Quantitative Analysis Comments Streetscape projects are a highly visible reinvestment in the URD III and can serve to jump-start interest in the area. This project is 100% leveraged using tax increment funds. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating Page 2 URD III Streetscape Improvements Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-04 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Tax Increment $100,000 $100,000 100,000 Totals - - - 100,000 100,000 100,000 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost $240,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 24,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 36,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 300,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Feb. 17, 2006 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 9:51 AM ABC Total Score 37 Ellen Buchanan MRA Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Service West Broadway Corridor Improvements Improvements to West Broadway Corridor Orange to Mullan This project involves improvements to the West Broadway corridor within the boundaries of Urban Renewal District II through implementation of the West Broadway Corridor Plan. It is anticipated that the improvements would take place within public right-of-way. ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-04 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 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 37 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating Page 2 West Broadway Corridoor Improvements Qualitative Analysis Comments Through the development of multi-modal improvements and particularily bicycle/pedestrian improvments, use vehicular travel can be reduced. Traffic circulation and alternative transportation facilities would likely be improved. Quantitative Analysis Comments Streetscape projects are a highly visible reinvestment in Urban Renewal Districts and can serve to jump-start interest in the West Broadway Corridoor. This project is 100% leveraged using tax increment funds. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-06 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Parking revenue bonds 2,000,000 Totals - - - - - 2,000,000 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 1,600,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 160,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 240,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 2,000,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 9:52 AM ABC Total Score 34 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Service Central Park expansion To construct a fourth floor on Central Park parking structure to increase parking inventory. The parking structure, Central Park, located at 128 W. Main, was built in 1990 with the internal framework to accommodate an additional fourth floor. With the growth in Missoula's downtown, a logical place to increase the parking inventory would be on top of an existing structure. Currently the three floor structure has approximately 100 spaces per floor. The fourth floor would have the capacity of approximately 80 spaces due to the nature of the construction foundation. These spaces would be designated both public short-term and long-term use. The site is all ready prepared to accept design and engineering plans. Structural engineering tests will need to be conducted to ensure strength of the 15 year old foundation. Was CS-17 in FY06 Anne Guest Parking Commission The impact on the Parking Commission's operating budget would be minimal in that there is already a booth attendant employed full-time. Both short-term and long-term maintenance would be minimal in that it would be incorporated into the existing maintenance plan. There would be increased utility expenses for lighting and security protection. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-06 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 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 34 This project would conserve space in that there is already an existing parking structure at this location and finding an alternative location would be very difficult in the downtown area. It would maximize the investment the Parking Commission has already made. The Parking Commission's main objective is to provide parking. Adding inventory to the parking program is difficult when there are limited opportunities in a congested downtown. This project would definitely expand on the essential services the Parking Commission is responsible for providing. These services are well recognized by the public, the retailers and business owners to be necessary for continued success and growth. Constructing a fourth floor would help preserve an important element of the infrastructure of downtown Missoula. This project suports the current Strategic Plan for the City. Specifically Goal Two Community Livability, one of the guiding principles states that a "well-planned and well-organized infrastructure is essential". Quantitative Analysis Comments Central Park is a tremendous asset to Missoula's downtown. Constructing an additional level of parking would increase the parking inventory in a very high demand location. The most significant demand is for lease parking. Currently there are appoximately 50 people on the Wait List and there is very little turnover in the lease spaces. Adding another floor to Central Park would enhance the substantial investment the Parking Commisison has already committed to. Leveraged 100% with Parking Revenue Bonds. Once this project receives priority status, time is of moderate importance due to the disruption that will be caused by the construction. It will be important to complete the construction as quickly as possible because of the loss of revenue from daily parking. 100% leveraged using funds from parking revenue bonds. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-07 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Parking revenues N/A 300,000 Totals - - - - 300,000 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 300,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 300,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 9:52 AM ABC Total Score 31 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Service Waterproofing parking structures Exposed concrete parking structures need to be waterproofed in order to ensure the longevity of the structure. Both Central Park, the parking structure located at 128 W. Main, and the Bank Street Structure will need to have a waterproof coat applied to the entire surface of the upper exposed level in order to keep the structures in safe, operable condition for the future. In spite of the costs involved, if this is not done in a timely manner, deterioration will occur and eventually result in greater repair costs in the future. Was CS-19 in FY06 Anne Guest Parking Commission Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-07 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 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 31 No. Basically this project maintains the current level of service and helps to preserve a major asset that supports the Parking Commission's mission. Yes in that it speaks to the preservation of infrastructure that would result in greater costs if it were not properly maintained. This project supports the current Strategic Plan for the City. Specifically, in Goa Two Community Livability, one of the guiding principles states that a "well-planned and well-organized infrastructure is essential." Quantitative Analysis Comments Both parking structures are a tremendous asset to Missoula's downtown. It is important to conduct preventative maintenance before inevitable deterioration occurs. Waterproofing the upper levels will certainly protect this community investment. Completing the waterproofing of both structures should be completed in a timely manner. Basically the sooner the better though it is not critical. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-08 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 MPC bond/private/other (Funding is yet to be determined but 3,500,000 it will be a combination of Parking bonds and private money.) Other/Private 6,000,000 Totals - - - 9,500,000 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel 20,000 20,000 A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 7,500,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 750,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 1,125,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service 20,000 20,000 9,375,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 9:53 AM ABC Total Score 31 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Service Riverfront Triangle Parking Structure Construction of a 250 space parking structure to meet the demands of the development on this site. On 5-15-03, the Board of Directors of the Missoula Parking Commission (MPC) voted to approve the Parking Commission's participation in the Riverfront Triangle project. The Parking Commission will participate in the discussions as to the role MPC can play in financing and/or managing parking for the demands of the project. It will be important to offer parking for both the site development as well as for public use. There is increasing demand for public parking in this area and this demand will grow with Orange Street becoming a major gateway in to the downtown area. The site will be a Missoula Redevelopment Agency project that will involve the full range of requirements and processes to develop this site for development. Was CS-18 on FY06 Anne Guest Parking Commission Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-08 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 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce - 3 - 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 31 No. This project definitely improves and expands upon essential City services in an area that will require great consideration to the parking demand created by this project. The improvements to this site will encourage greater use of the trail system by pedestrians and bicyclists. This will promote the use of alternative transportation that is a specific item in Goal 2 - Community Livability. Quantitative Analysis Comments The Riverfront Triangle Project would be a great benefit to the community as a whole and in particular to the downtown area. There is already a noted demand for parking in this area and it would only increase with the development of office, retail and residential space. This project would enhance the vitality of Missoula's downtown. Once MRA administers an RFP for potential developers, the Parking Commission's role in this project will be more clearly defined. Because the Riverfront Triangle parking structure would be built underground, the construction of this facility would need to be accomplished first then followed by the development and construction of the office, retail, residential and public facilities. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-09 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 27,000 in FY05 $28,000 $28,000 Totals - - 28,000 28,000 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies ($363.00) ($372.00) B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs $28,000.00 Estimated Annual Debt Service (363) (372) 28,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: $28,000 Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: February 17,2006 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 9:41 AM ABC Total Score 40 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Missoula Cemetery Mower/attachments Purchase a new mower/attachments for improved productivity in turf management. The Missoula Cemetery is responsible for mowing over 48 acres of turf grass with over 20,000 graves and stones. Mowing begins in March continuing into November with three/four mowers operating most of the time (see cost anaylsis). The mowers the Cemetery operates must have the capability to mow around stones, flower beds, trees/shrubs, etc. This is accomplished by mowers that have "zero steering" which allows them to turn in a very small area. The new mower comes with the following multi-use attachments: • The new mower is fitted with a multi function deck able to be a recycling, side or rear discharge unit. • The mower is fitted with a blower/suction unit that vacuums up grass clippings and blows them into the bin ("high lift vac") that is attached to the unit which is able to dump into a one-ton dump truck and/or transport to an on-site compost pile. (see cost benifit anaysis on compost) • The edger unit that attaches to the mower using a disc that is operated in conjunction with a hydraulic cylinder attached to the unit that is a powered edger unit. • A stump cutter unit that attaches to the mower to grind stumps from trees and shrubs that have been removed in the Cemetery. • A snow/dirt blade unit that is hydraulically operated and attached to the unit to remove snow on four miles plus of roads, curbs and walks. • A large blower unit that assists the leaf removal process in the Cemetery In accordance with the City's Equipment Replacement schedule for these units FY 2007 unit 609 is moved to a fourth mower/backup mower/ down time mower with the new mower becoming the front line mower. Mower units 645 and 646 (1992 mowers with over 7200 operational hours) will be surplused out. FY 2008 Unit 608 is proposed to replace 609 Was CS-05 in FY05 Doug Waters Missoula Cemetery First year operation mower 609: Projected savings the first year is $363.00. This figure is 60 percent of the total costs of the annual expense of $605.00 for mower 609. Second year of operation mower 608: Projected savings the second year is $372.00 of the annual expense of $602.00 for mower 608. These are estimated savings in line items 220 and 230. Recycling/Compost cost benefit analysis: The Cemetery collects grass clippings and leaves for the Cemetery compost pile (see photos). Currently the Cemetery has three piles from the budget years FY 03, FY 04 and FY 05. Each pile has approximately 150 cubic yards valued at $ 20 per cubic yard for a $3000.00 per pile. Total value of the Cemetery compost is approximately $9,000.00. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-09 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 3 4 12 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 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 40 The new mower takes advantage of all the latest technology in diesel motors. Diesel motors are more efficient and powerful then gas driven mowers. The vacuum unit on the mower allows grass clippings, leaves and seeds and other particles to be picked up and recycled. (See compost benefit analysis front number 11 and additional page for cost benefit analysis). The new mower will allow the Cemetery the ability to mow the grounds more efficiently and will be safer for the maintenance staff then the old mowers. Goal one: Organizational management. We believe that proving basic services is important to the community. Goal two: Community livability. We believe infra structure is essential to building a community. Quantitative Analysis Comments The new mower will reduce maintenance and labor costs (see cost/benefits analysis). This new mower with the reduction in maintenance and labor costs is a benefit to the community investment dollar by reducing the maintenance costs each year, instead of increasing those costs with older equipment. Also, this new mower allows the Cemetery grounds to be more manicured and neat which can directly relate to increased revenue. Also, recycling grass clippings and leaves allows the Cemetery to reduce purchases of compost material for flower beds, planters and turf providing maximum benefit of investment dollars. The sooner the new mower is put into production, the sooner our maintenance and labor costs will be reduced and it will increase it's maximum effectiveness. Each year the Cemetery has expanded the acres of turf mowed through the implementation of the vegetative management plan. This new mower will allow all of the Cemetery mowers to collect grass clippings and leaves for composting along with edging, stump grinding and snow removal. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- COST/BENEFITS ANALYSIS: Cemetery Mower Introduction This cost analysis is to fund a new 72 inch deck mower/ multi-use attachments including a "high lift back vac" unit. This unit will compliment our existing three mowing units allowing the mower unit 609 (purchased in 2001) to become a fourth mowing unit/ backup mower/ down time mower. This would enhance our ability to mow more turf more efficiently and safely as well as pick up clippings, particulates and leaves which are composted. Benefits/Equipment inventory /Safety considerations This new 72 inch deck mower unit/attachments will allow the Missoula Cemetery staff to surplus the following mowing equipment: • Mower 645: a 1992 surplus 72" mower unit with 7,264 hours • Mower 646: a 1992 surplus 72" mower unit with 7,616 hours This fourth new mower will allow staff to mow turf more efficiently and more safely than the older mowers, especially during break downs, needs service, etc. These 1992 mowers are old, gas motors rather than diesel, used as back up mowers when one of the others goes down. This reduced maintenance will be reflected in line items 220 and 230 providing better use of community investment dollars. These old mowers do not have "high lift vac" units for picking up grass clippings and leaves. This requires additional maintenance hours to redo these areas with the "high lift vac" along with maintaining old equipment. Previous methods of removing leaves and grass clippings from the Cemetery involved walking among the stones with back pack blowers/push cart style blowers/rakes which involved twisting, pushing and bending. The new mower unit eliminates this intense manual labor. Maximum value of the investment dollar is provided by recycling grass clippings and leaves thus eliminating the Cemetery's need to purchase compost for flower beds, planters and turf. This new mowing unit will reduce equipment maintenance, provide a safer working environment, improve turf quality, and continue our recycling efforts. All these elements make the Missoula Cemetery a preferred place to inter the citizens of Missoula, which equals potential revenue increases. Attachments • The new mower is fitted with a multi function deck enabling it to be a recycling, side or rear discharge unit. These various options are used at different times of year depending upon the turf requirements. • The mower is fitted with a blower/suction unit that sucks up grass clippings/leaves and blows them into the bin ("high lift vac") that is attached to the unit that is able to dump into a one-ton dump truck and/or transport to an on-site compost pile. Recycling/composting - The new mower would allow the Cemetery to enhance its grass clippings and leaves for recycling and composting. This continues a program the Cemetery has successfully had in place for years. The Cemetery has three major piles of compost in various stages of decomposition. This compost is used in various areas and is mixed with soil to fill sunken graves, new graves, etc. ---PAGE BREAK--- • This self efficiency saves the Cemetery from purchasing this material which would be quite costly to taxpayers. The removal of the clippings also benefits the turf and is a conditioning process that removes thatch, prevents disease, reduces the need for water and, of course, is a major player in the recycling process. Compost cost benefit analysis: The Cemetery collects grass clippings and leaves for the Cemetery compost pile (see photos). Currently the Cemetery has three piles from the budget years FY 03, FY 04 and FY 05. Each pile has approximately 150 cubic yards valued at $ 20 per cubic yard for a $3000.00 per pile. Total value of the Cemetery compost is approximately $9,000.00. • The edger unit that attaches to the mower uses a disc that is operated in conjunction with a hydraulic cylinder attached to the unit. The edging is done twice a year providing a beautifully manicured look for the Cemetery and the public. • A stump cutter unit attaches to the mower to grind stumps from trees and shrubs that have been removed in the Cemetery. Every year the Cemetery staff removes shrubs from the Cemetery that are over grown/dead. The stump grinder allows staff to remove the stump, add soil and seed for quality turf. • A snow/dirt blade unit is hydraulically operated and attaches to the unit to remove snow on over four miles of roads, curbs and walks. This blade has proved in valuable when attached to the mower for versatility in tight spots in snow removal in the Cemetery. • A large blower unit assists in the leaf removal process in the Cemetery. The Missoula Parks Department has used the Cemetery blower for helping in Parks maintenance operations through scheduled use with the Cemetery. ---PAGE BREAK--- For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: UNIT 608 HUSTLER MOWER By: Jack Stucky AGE: 2002 ( 4 YEARS) Project: Mower CONDITION: SATISFACTORY Unit 608 USAGE: LAWN MAINTENANCE Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment GE AND COST RATES 2006 OR NEW MOWER Total Hours 1,992 Total Hours <250 *Operating Costs Per H $2.53 Operating Costs Per H $1.96 *Repair Costs Per Hou $4.83 Repair Costs Per Hour $3.19 ***Deprecia $0.00 Depreciation Costs Pe $2.70 Based on 10,000 hours of use Total Cost Per Hour $7.36 Total Cost Per Hour $7.85 Expected Cost Savings $0.49 Based on Total Cost Per Hour *Estimated Annual Usa 521 Based on Last years usage Estimated Annual Expe $255.29 Estimated 2nd Year Ex $261.80 **Based on Life To Da 0.0255 Estimated 3rd Year Ex $268.48 **Based on Life To Da 0.0255 *All Cost and Usage Data provided by the Cemetery Staff. Average trend increase factor for similar class mowers. ***Note, Cemetery does not track depreciation. ---PAGE BREAK--- For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: UNIT 609 HUSTLER MOWER By: Jack Stucky AGE: 2001 ( 5 YEARS) Project: Mower CONDITION: SATISFACTORY Unit 609 USAGE: LAWN MAINTENANCE Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment GE AND COST RATES 2006 OR NEW MOWER Total Hours 1,992 Total Hours <250 *Operating Costs Per H $2.51 Operating Costs Per H $1.96 *Repair Costs Per Hou $6.52 Repair Costs Per Hour $3.19 Depreciatio $0.00 Depreciation Costs Pe $2.70 Unit is fully depreciated Based on 10,000 hours of use Total Cost Per Hour $9.03 Total Cost Per Hour $7.85 Expected Cost Savings -$1.18 Based on Total Cost Per Hour *Estimated Annual Usa 513 Based on Last years usage Estimated Annual Expe -$605.34 Estimated 2nd Year Ex -$620.78 **Based on Life To Da 0.0255 Estimated 3rd Year Ex -$636.61 **Based on Life To Da 0.0255 *All Cost and Usage Data provided by the Cemetery Staff. Average trend increase factor for similar class mowers. ---PAGE BREAK--- For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: UNIT 615 HUSTLER MOWER By: Jack Stucky AGE: 2004 ( 2 YEARS) Project: Mower CONDITION: SATISFACTORY Unit 615 USAGE: LAWN MAINTENANCE Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment GE AND COST RATES 2006 OR NEW MOWER Total Hours 454 Total Hours <250 *Operating Costs Per H $2.37 Operating Costs Per H $1.96 *Repair Costs Per Hou $3.46 Repair Costs Per Hour $3.19 ***Deprecia $0.00 Depreciation Costs Pe $2.70 Based on 10,000 hours of use Total Cost Per Hour $5.83 Total Cost Per Hour $7.85 Expected Cost Savings $2.02 Based on Total Cost Per Hour *Estimated Annual Usa 521 Based on Last years usage Estimated Annual Expe$1,052.42 Estimated 2nd Year Ex$1,079.26 **Based on Life To Da 0.0255 Estimated 3rd Year Ex $1,106.78 **Based on Life To Da 0.0255 *All Cost and Usage Data provided by the Cemetery Staff. Average trend increase factor for similar class mowers. ***Note, the Cemetery does not track depreciation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Edger Stump grinder Edger Blade Attachment Cemetery Compost Pile Stump Grinder New Hustler Mower Leaf Blower ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-10 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund NA NA $12,500 Totals - - 12,500 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies ($358) (363) B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs $12,500 Estimated Annual Debt Service (358) (363) 12,500 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 14-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version Total Score 40 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Missoula Cemetery Tractor Purchase a new tractor for the Cemetery grounds for aeration, weed mowing, box blading, etc. Currently, the Missoula Cemetery uses tractor unit 613 throughout the growing season. It is a 1972 tractor bought through surplus with over 4200 hours. The Cemetery implemented a Vegetative Management Plan that involves the control of noxious weeds and aeration along with control of weeds in non-turf areas which can include weed spraying and mowing. The 34 year old tractor needs to be replaced with a much more efficient and safe model that will increase production and, reduce maintenance and labor costs. The use of this tractor will be by the Missoula Cemetery approximately 280 hours for aeration, top dressing, fertilizing, grading and weed mowing. The Parks and Recreation Department Maintenance manager estimated 400 hours for aeration thru planned scheduling Douglas Waters Missoula Cemetery First year unit 613 tractor operation: Projected savings the first year is $358. This figure is 60 percent of the total costs of the annual expense of $597 for unit 613. Second year unit 613 operation: Projected savings the second year is $ 363.00 of the annual expense of $605.00 for unit 613. These are estimated savings in line items 220 and 230. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-10 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 3 4 12 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 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 40 The new tractor takes advantage of all the latest technology in diesel motors that are more efficient and powerful then a gas driven mower. The new tractor will reduce air pollution from the 34 year old tractor. This tractor is a key component of the Cemetery Vegetative Management plan that allows it to continue to move forward by increasing aeration, weed mowing, box blading, etc. Well maintained grounds has been requested by the public with the potential of increasing revenue. Goal one: Organizational management. We believe that proving basic services is important to the community. Goal two: Community livability. We believe infra structure is essential to building a community. Quantitative Analysis Comments The new tractor will reduce maintenance and labor costs (see cost/benefits analysis). This new tractor with the reduction in maintenance and labor costs increases the benefit of the community investment dollar by not maintaining a 34 year old piece of equipment. The sooner the new tractor is put into production with reduced maintenance and labor costs will increase it maximum effectiveness. Each year the Cemetery has expanded the acres of turf/non turf areas through there implementation of the vegetative management plan. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: UNIT 613 HUSTLER Tractor By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1972 ( 34 YEARS) Project: Tractor CONDITION: WORN AND TIRED Unit 613 USAGE: CEMETERY MAINTENANCE Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment GE AND COST RATES 2006 OR NEW TRACTOR Total Hours 4226+ Total Hours <250 *Operating Costs Per H $1.99 Operating Costs Per H $1.85 *Repair Costs Per Hou $7.95 Repair Costs Per Hour $4.35 Depreciatio $0.00 Depreciation Costs Pe $1.63 Unit is fully depreciated Based on 15,000 hours of use Total Cost Per Hour $9.94 Total Cost Per Hour $7.83 Expected Cost Savings -$2.11 Based on Total Cost Per Hour *Estimated Annual Usa 283 Based on Last years usage Estimated Annual Expe -$597.13 Estimated 2nd Year Ex -$605.08 **Based on Life To Da 0.01332 Estimated 3rd Year Ex -$613.14 **Based on Life To Da 0.01332 *All Cost and Usage Data provided by the Cemetery Staff. Average trend increase factor for similar class Tractors. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-11 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Revenue NA NA $18,000 Totals - - 18,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs $18,000.00 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 18,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 10:19 AM ABC Total Score 17 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Missoula Cemetery Cemetery Office apartment stairway Replace old rusting outside apartment stairway access that does not meet building codes The Missoula Cemetery has an apartment for the night care taker located above the Cemetery office. The outside access to the apartment is by a metal stairway located in the back of the Cemetery office building. The stairway does not meet current building codes. The stairway is very steep, the railing is only on one side, the treads are not the correct width and several parts of the stairway are seriously deteriorating. (See enclosed pictures for reference). Code violations: see Qualitative Analysis number one on back of CIP form. Office Building Douglas Waters Missoula Cemetery No Impact on operating budget. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-11 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 1 5 5 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 3 4 12 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce - 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score 17 Having a night caretaker for the Cemetery is an essential service to the Cemetery and City. Providing a safe outside access for the apartment is essential for the night care taker. Goal one: Organizational management. We believe that providing basic services is important to the community. Goal two: Community livability. We believe infra structure is essential to building a community. Quantitative Analysis Comments The outside stairs are old, rusting, and do not meet building codes. This is the entrance is used by the night caretaker and for his visitors and guests. The old stairway needs to be replaced with one that meets all building codes as soon as possible in order to reduce the City's liability. This project will provide maximum benefit to the community from the investment dollar. Having the stairs removed sooner assures that the codes violations will be corrected, making a much safer entrance for the apartment and reduce the liability to the City of Missoula. This stairway needs to be replaced to meet current building codes. This will provide a safe entrance to the apartment for the resident and visitors/guests. (See enclosed City of Missoula Building division code violation letter). CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-12 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund $5,776 Totals - - 5,776 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services 500 C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 5,776 Estimated Annual Debt Service 500 - 5,776 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 13-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 10:19 AM ABC Total Score 42 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Service Copier/Printer Replacement for copier/printer that is networkable with scanning capabilities Replaces an existing desktop cannon copier. Current desktop model is in need of repairs greater than the value of the machine and is no longer adequate for the volume of workload. New machine will allow the scanning of documents which will increase the efficiency between the City Attorney office and the Court. Pat Morgan Municipal Court Operating costs will decrease as athe cost to service the new equipment will be less than the repairs on the old equipment. The cost per copy in the maintanence agreement which includes the toner is about 1/3 the current cost for toner and on the current machine. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-12 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 3 4 12 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 42 Quantitative Analysis Comments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-13 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Building Permit Fees 221,668 Totals - - - 221,668 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 221,668 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 221,668 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 10:21 AM ABC Total Score 22 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Service Permitting/Licensing Software System Update existing permitting/licensing system THE BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION: The current permit system is designed on an programming platform that is being phased out by the current developer. The new system would be based on a .net platform (browser based) A new permitting system will need to address the needs and concerns of numerous departments including Mobile Inspection Tracking System: Public Works -Building Inspection Division; Public Works - Engineering; Finance - Business Licensing; Office of Planning and Grants - Zoning and Complaints/Violations; County Health Department; County Public Works - Building Inspection Division; The cost analysis is based on proposals submitted by Accela and Adept Technologies. Operating cost will decrease as the cost to service the new equipment will be less than the old. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-13 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score 22 The current system is less than user friendly and enhancements to the program are both costly and time consuming. Costly should we have to use third party providers - often times we either delay the enhancement or rely on the current IT staff members to make these enhancements. Quantitative Analysis Comments SEE PRELIMINARY COST ANALYSIS SHEETS. As the cost of technology increases, the costs to maintain our current system will also increase. Also the costs that are stated here in the proposal are also slated to increase. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Cost Analysis Accela/Permits Plus Costs Description Cost Building CIP/Implementation $115,000.00 Building Accela Contract $862.27 Building Accela Contract $3,611.99 Building Accela Contract $829.84 Building Permits Plus maintenenace/Additional Licenses $4,386.77 Building Permits Plus training $833.32 Building Permits Plus User License $25,225.00 Building Software maintenance/support $427.00 Building Software maintenance/support $2,284.93 Software Maintenance Breakdown 2005 2006 2005 v 2006 2007** Building Software maintenance/support $36,882.45 Building *Software maintenance/support $43,746.00 * Permits Plus License 16,637.50 18,301.00 10.00% 20,131.10 Building *Software maintenance/support $42,985.50 Permits Plus Connect 1,574.10 1,732.00 10.03% 1,905.20 Building Data Conversion $60,000.00 Permits GIS 1,725.90 1,898.00 9.97% 2,087.80 Permits Office Links 423.50 466.00 10.04% 512.60 Total $222,075.07 Permits Voice 1,543.30 1,698.00 10.02% 1,867.80 Permits Workflow 2,108.70 2,320.00 10.02% 2,552.00 Wireless Wireless Maintenance/Licenses $42,343.95 On-line Permitting Wireless Wireless Installation $2,500.00 Client/SQL Server 3,630.00 3,993.00 10.00% 4,392.30 Wireless Wireless Installation $1,495.95 Accela Wireless 13,337.50 13,338.00 14,671.80 Wireless Wirelss Installation $1,920.00 40,980.50 43,746.00 6.75% 48,120.60 Total $48,259.90 Received a notification from Accela indicating that our maintenance agreement may increase anywhere between 5% and 10% for the 2007/08 year. I calculated a 10% increase just to cover all our bases. Engineering/Asset Mgmt Datebase Conversion Training $7,800.00 Engineering/Asset Mgmt Asset Mgmt implementation $16,000.00 Engineering/Asset Mgmt Contract MISS1AWINS $2,500.00 Engineering/Asset Mgmt Asset Mgmt implementation $87,985.00 Engineering/Asset Mgmt GIS Software Support $19,596.20 Engineering/Asset Mgmt Asset Mgmt implementation $4,000.00 Engineering/Asset Mgmt Asset Mgmt implementation $3,055.40 Engineering/Asset Mgmt Asset Mgmt implementation $12,000.00 Engineering/Asset Mgmt Asset Mgmt implementation $2,778.92 Total $155,715.52 ---PAGE BREAK--- Adept Technology Adept Technologies Bid Price 60 User License $9,000.00 Data Conversion $12,000.00 Adept Access Enterprise Building and Inspection (up to 30 permit types) $30,600.00 Adept Planning and Zoning Module (up to 20 permit typse) $21,450.00 Adept Engineering Module (up to 10 permits) $18,400.00 Adept GIS $4,500.00 Adept Access On-line Permitting Module $8,625.00 Adept Wireless (20 licenses/users) * $13,650.00 Code Enforcement Module $16,675.00 City/County Health Module $28,118.00 Adept Business Licensing Module (no cost) $0.00 $154,018.00 Expenses $40,000.00 $40,000.00 Hardware Cost (10 users) $10,650.00 History Conversion $8,000.00 $18,650.00 Total Expenditure to Implement $221,668.00 Maintenance Costs: (starting in month 13) Adept Access Enterprise Building and Inspection (upt to 30 permit types) $7,650.00 Adept Planning and Zoning Module (up to 20 permit typse) $5,400.00 Adept Engineering Module (up to 10 permits) $4,600.00 Adept GIS $1,125.00 Adept Access On-line Permitting Module $2,156.00 Adept Wireless (20 licenses/users) $3,412.00 Code Enforcement Module $4,168.00 City/County Health Module $7,030.00 Adept Business Licensing Module (no cost) $0.00 $35,541.00 Years/pay back based only on maintenance savings 6.236965758 ---PAGE BREAK--- Accela Automation Accela Automation Bid Price (Agency Hosted Option) Implementation Service $186,760.00 Conversion Assistance $94,280.00 Annual Recurring Maintenance $129,987.00 Accela Wireless $61,234.00 Accela GIS $46,188.00 Total $518,449.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- Maintenance Comparisons System Maintenance Coverage Based on Accela 2006 invoice Based on Accela quote Based on Adept quote Accela/Permits Plus Permits Plus License 18,301.00 Permits Plus Connect 1,732.00 Permits GIS 1,898.00 Permits Office Links 466.00 Permits Voice 1,698.00 Permits Workflow 2,320.00 Client/SQL Server 3,993.00 Accela Wireless 13,338.00 43,746.00 Accela/Automation Annual Recurring Maintenance $129,987.00 Adept Technologies Adept Access Enterprise Building and Inspection (upt to 30 permit types) $7,650.00 Adept Planning and Zoning Module (up to 20 permit typse) $5,400.00 Adept Engineering Module (up to 10 permits) $4,600.00 Adept GIS $1,125.00 Adept Access On-line Permitting Module $2,156.00 Adept Wireless (20 licenses/users) $3,412.00 **Code Enforcement Module $4,168.00 **City/County Health Module $7,030.00 Adept Business Licensing Module (no cost) $0.00 $35,541.00 These modules are currently enhancements that are no support by Accela ---PAGE BREAK--- Third Party Support for Enhancements Enhancements Cost for Enhancements IDS Enhancements Building/Engineering/OPG $7,140.00 OPG Subdivision Module $2,280.00 HealthHealth - Food Service Module and Reports $8,280.00 Adept Technology Building $500.00 OPG 1,050.00 See requested enhancements presented to Accela ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-14 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Building Permit Fees $2,588 Sewer Fund 2,588 General Fund 5,177 Totals - - 10,353 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services - C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 10,353 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 10,353 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 10/27/2006 8:24 AM ABC Total Score 42 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Services XL Color Scanner IDEAL Scanner BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION: This department is charged with maintaining the records of all permits reviewed and issued (new construction, remodels). These documents are currently stored on microfilm and in some cases the actual plans are kept in storage. Plans that have been kept for long periods of time are no longer legible, plans that are stored on microfilm are stamped 'substandard quality' when reproduced - this office does not have the ability to reproduce plans to scale upon request. PUBLIC WORKS/PROJECT and UTILITY: (see attached documentation) FIRE DEPARTMENT: (see attached documentation) WE WILL USE AN EXISITING COMPUTER AND MONITOR Operating cost for microfilming will decrease proportionally as we scan and store documents in-house, on the computer server, and in a CD/DVD manner. We will not be dependent on the services of an outside agency to support these activities. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-14 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 3 4 12 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 42 The scanner is both energy efficient and will conserve space. The project will allow us to provide information in a more timely and efficient manner, at a cost substantial lower than what we are currently paying, free up office space and reduce off-site storage costs. Yes, to help manage growth and increase effeciency and effectiveness of City governments. Quantitative Analysis Comments When taking into consideration the continual costs associated with microfilming and off-site storage the cost to the Building Inspection Division will see an immediate return on investment in less than year, the Public Works Department will see a return on investment within one year. Project is leveraged 100% with Building Permit Fees. The placement of the scanning system will allow us to provide information in a timely manner, and reduce our operating budget sooner. The scanning will allow the various departments to scan applications, plans and other documentation identified as a 'permanent' record, in order to provide the public with immediate and accurate information in a timely manner, to reduce costs associated with off-site storage, and on-going expenses associated with microfilm. With the ability to scan documents immediately and in-house, this will also free up office space by removing the plans in a more timely and efficient manner. At this time if a contractor, or member of the public requests information we are unable to provide them with the documents to scale, or of a 'high quality' print product. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Building Dept Engineering Engineering Fire Quote of Scanner: $2,588.25 $2,588.25 $2,588.25 $2,588.25 $10,353.00 Building Inspection Divison microfilm costs (average): $4,072.71 Public Works/Engineering Inspector time $2,347.50 *Public Works/Engineering projected microfilm costs: unknown Public Works/Engineering off-site storage costs unknown Public Works/Sewer projected microfilm cost: unknown Public Works/Sewer projected off-site storage costs: unknown Fire Department projected microfilm cost: unknown Fire Department projected off-site storage costs: unknown Return on investment 1/2 year 1 year unknown unknown Building Inspection Division Microfilm cost 2003 2004 2005 2006* * estimate based on microfilm to be submitted later in February Budgeted $6,100.00 $6,100.00 $6,100.00 $6,100.00 Microfilm Cost $3,746.00 $4,410.74 $2,073.34 $6,060.76 $4,072.71 average over 4 years $2,354.00 $1,689.26 $4,026.66 $39.24 *Engineering Hours for two inspectors Days Worked Rate of Pay 130 $18.0577 $2,347.50 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-15 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Building Permit Fees $7,512 Totals - - 7,512 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services 315 C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 7,512 Estimated Annual Debt Service 315 - 7,512 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 10:29 AM ABC Total Score 38 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Service Photocopies/scanner Replacement of Konica 7020 within the Building Inspection Division BUILDING INSPECTION DIVISION Replacing the existing Konica 7020 with has exceeded the projected lifespan of 5 years - the ongoing maintenance to maintain the copier has exceed what is typical. This new copier will provide greater access to all employees for scanning and printing, and provide clear and immediate information to the general public. (We would be tagging onto the RFP used by Public Works, Police, Parks & Rec'd. Human Resources and Fire) 1. Productivity will increase if you can find documents electronically 2. Save money and space by buying hardware that does copying, faxing and imaging all together 3. Files will be more secure 4. Files will be more portable by copying an entire image cabinet on a CD or attaching them within various other software programs. 5. This copier will give us the option of printing documents from microfilm. Operating cost will decrease as the cost to service the new equipment will be less than the old. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-15 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 3 4 12 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 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 4 - plans? Total Score 38 By replacing the existing photocopier, energy and space conservation are expected benefits. Reduces paper, storage space and coordination time by staff. The current equipment is often unable to handle high volume jobs/large print jobs which often results in this office having to outsource the printing project. Replacement of older office equipment at the end of its service life is an ongoing plan of the City to assure consistent and efficient service to the public (i.e. standard 5-year replacement schedule for computer equipment, printers, scanners, etc.) Yes, to help manage growth and increase efficiency and effectiveness of City governments. Quantitative Analysis Comments Maintenance costs increase due to the age of the current equipment. It is recommened that the drum along with two rollers be replaced - these replacements are difficult to locate (often having to be pulled from other copiers) and not covered under the terms of our maintenance agreement Linked documents in electronic format will reduce the inefficient use of City employees time trying to track documents manually. The current copier is already beyond the manufacture's expected service life. The scanning and email or fax capabilities will allow the building inspection division to scan applications and other documentation relevant to the building permits in order to provide the public with immediate and accurate information i a timely manner. Essential scanning, printing and copying capabilities would be affected if one or more of the existing machines fail. However, machine failure is not considered an "emergency" as there are alternatives at varying costs and conveniences such as transferring the workload to another department's equipment or off-site copying services. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Regular Price $11,896.00 *Discount: $5,047.99 Our Cost: $6,812.01 Maintenance at $0.0063 per copy $315.00 *Discount includes trade in value of $1000.00 Due to the age of the current copier, replacement parts are difficult to come by - often times the vendor parts out of surplus copiers. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-16 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Parking Commission $150,000 Sidewalk SIDs 100,000 CTEP 500,000 Totals - - 750,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 600,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 60,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 90,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 750,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 18-Apr-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 10:29 AM CJK Total Score 45 Steve King Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Downtown 2006 Streets Project Street enhancements on Higgins from Broadway to Alder. This project involves street enhancements on Higgins from Broadway to Alder including pedestrian amenities such as pedestrian scale lighting, street furniture, etc., change in parking orientation and improved traffic circulation. This project is expected to be the first phase of improvements to the Downtown Streetscape intended to: provide a high quality pedestrian environment; improve traffic flow, access and circulation to downtown; provide additional on-street parking; create an inviting streetscape and festival atmosphere; and establish Downtown as a high quality place inviting additional investment in redevelopment. This project would help to "brand" the area by offering a unique look exclusive to the Downtown. Was CS-01 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-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 1 4 4 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 45 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments It is anticipated that the proposed improvements will improve traffic circulation and encourage more pedestrian activity. This project would be a substantial improvement to the transportation system in the Downtown. This project directly relates to the Community Livability goal of the strategic plan by providing a well planned and well organized infrastructure in the Downtown that will enhance the community. Quantitative Analysis Comments Yes, because the three funding sources are other than the General Fund. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-17 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Storm Drainage Fund 54,000 396,000 Totals - - - 54,000 396,000 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 360,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 36,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 54,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 450,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 12:35 PM CJK Total Score 34 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Service Grant Creek Drainage Improvements Design and construction of drainage improvements. Recent analysis of the Grant Creek drainage indicates a potential for storm water impacts beyond the capacity of the existing drainage structures. Preliminary design of the drainage improvements needs to be conducted so that project scope and funding sources may be identified. Some land areas may be reconsidered flood hazard areas if no action is taken. Was CS-07 in FY06 Steve King Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-17 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 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 34 No. Yes, flood control. Yes, Grant Creek drainage plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments Leveraged 100% with Storm Drainage Fund. Grant funds may be sought. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-18 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Storm Drain Fund 200,000 Totals - - - - - 200,000 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 160,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 16,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 24,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 200,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 12:37 PM CJK Total Score - Steve King Public Works Savings of periodic cleanup costs equals approximately $500 per year. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Service Upper Gharrett Drainage Improvements Design and construction of drainage improvements. Erosion of a steep gully in the Upper Gharrett drainage to the Ravenwood neighborhood causes deposits of debris on private property. Preliminary design of the drainage improvements needs to be conducted so that project scope and funding sources can be identified. Possible drainage easements. Was CS-13 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-18 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 5 - investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments No. Yes, storm water maintenance. No. Quantitative Analysis Comments No matching funds. Minor maintenance savings. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Photos by Gary W. Hawk, June 2002 during storm runoff ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-21 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund (85%) 3,000 64,860 Sewer Fund 3,750 Building Fund (10%) 7,500 Totals - - - 3,000 76,110 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 76,110 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 76,110 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 12:38 PM CJK Total Score 25 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Service City Hall Security Locks Replace all of the keys to exterior access doors at City Hall and install an electronic locking system. This project will improve the security at City Hall. Several of the master keys for City Hall are missing or lost. It has been over 10 years since the keys have been renewed at City Hall. With the lost master keys it is impossible to control access into the building. This project would replace all of the exterior door locks at City Hall with an electronically controlled security system. An electronic security system will help control who, when, and where City Hall is accessed. Phase one is evaluation and research in FY06. Phase two is design and installation in FY08. Was CS-05 in FY06 Jack Stucky Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-21 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 25 Quantitative Analysis Comments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Lock Cylinders in City Hall Dept. Cylinders Clerk/Finance/IS 14 Personnel 3 Maintenance Doors 18 Conference Rooms 6 Mayor's office 5 2nd Floor East Bathroom 0 Attorney 7 • Based on estimated $1,200 per lock system Break Room 1 • Cost analysis based on City Hall site Building Inspection 6 outlying sites should realize a similar savings PW/Eng 6 • Some gates systems will cost $3,000-$4,800 PW Bathroom 0 OPG Bathrooms 0 OPG 14 PD Academy 6 Outside Doors 6 Police 37 Basement Records 1 1st floor east bathroom 2 Municipal Court 6 Transfer Center 1 Total Cost of Security System $36,200.00 Sub-Total 139 Less Grant Leverage $5,000.00 Contingency 11 Net CIP \General Impact $31,200.00 Total cylinders 150 Total Cost to Re-Key and Re-lock Total number of keys issued 365 Existing System in 2002 $19,172.50 Cost to Replace 1 Key $6.50 Net CIP \ General Impact $12,027.50 Total Keys Replaced 365 Total Cost to Re-Key $2,372.50 Total Cost to Re-Key and Re-lock • Existing System in 2012 $19,747.68 Cost to Replace 1 Tumbler set $112.00 • 1.03 inflation factor Total Number of Tumbler sets 150 Total Cost to Replace all Tumblers $16,800.00 Net CIP\ General Impact after Two Re-key and Relock Changes ($7,720.18) Total Cost to Replace all Keys and Replace all Tumblers in City Hall $19,172.50 • 0.03 Inflation factor. • Based on Re-Key and Re-lock Every 10 Years. 2002 and 2012 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-22 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 45,000 Totals - - - - 45,000 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 45,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 45,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 12:38 PM CJK Total Score 28 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Service Maintenance Facility Exterior Wash Bay Project will provide an exterior wash bay for heavy equipment, mowers, sweepers, and vehicles. Funding this project will enable washing of heavy equipment, sweepers, and heavy trucks outside. At this time there is no environmentally sound place to wash off construction, maintenance and asphalt equipment prior to bringing it in to be worked on. The current practice of washing off debris inside the building results in plugged sewage system lines. Mowers and other turf maintenance equipment produces debris that ferments. Fermentation in the water collection system creates air quality issues. The demand on the wash bay is significant. Clean vehicles last longer and break down less than dirty vehicles. Ideally washing out dump boxes and big debris outside prior to bringing the unit inside would be very advantageous to the maintenance and repair operations. Was CS-06 in FY06 Jack Stucky Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-22 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 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 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- 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 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 28 Quantitative Analysis Comments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-23 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund $14,400 Sewer $1,600 Totals - - 16,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 16,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 16,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 12:39 PM DS Total Score 40 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Service Maintenance Facility Fork Lift (Unit 702) Replace several outdated fork lifts at the maintenance facility with a newer used fork lift. Funding this project would enable purchase of a newer, used fork lift for the maintenance facility. One newer fork lift will replace serveral that were purchased with surplus funds. Centralized maintenance uses the surplus fork lifts for all departments and divisions that transfer equipment, tools and supplies into or out of the maintenance facility such as, but not limited to, sign materials, snow plow and construction equipment cutting edges, bulk line paint, equipment attachments, large equipment parts, and facility materials and tools. As with all surplus equipment purchases, these fork lifts are not included in the fleet replacement schedule. Unit 702, the Maintenance Facility Forklift is a 1968 Baker fork lift with an unknown number of actual hours of use. Parts are diffcult if not impossible to get for this 1968 fork lift. Baker Company is no longer in business. Unit 702 is no longer able to pass safety inspections. Was CS-12 in FY06 David Shaw Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin Bike/Ped Connections CS-23 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 3 4 12 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 40 Unit 702 is used inside the maintenance facility buildings. It currently burns significant amounts of oil, polluting the indoor air quality. This project will improve and/or enhance all services provided to the public that rely on the transfer of large quantities of parts or materials through the central maintenance facility. This would include, but should not be limited to: sign materials, snow plow and construction equipment cutting edges, bulk line paint, equipment attachments, large equipment parts, and facility materials and tools. Quantitative Analysis Comments Existing Fork Lifts are old and unreliable. Staff can no longer depend on them to be operational or safe. Unit 702 will no longer pass safety inspections. Parts unavailability will prohibit this unit from passing fork lift safety certification inspections. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- For: CIP/Council Committee MAKE: BAKER By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1968 ( 38 YEARS) Project: Fork Lift CONDITION: POOR Unit 702 USAGE: INTERNAL SUPPORT ALL SERVICES g Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment nit 702 Fork Lift New Fork Lift Total Hours on Meter (Meter changed) UNKNOWN Total Hours N\A Total Hours (Estimated) 15,000+ Total Hours N\A Operating Costs Per Hour (year to date) $2.14 Operating Costs Per Hour $2.01 Repair Costs Per Hour (year to date) $5.19 Repair Costs Per Hour $3.36 Depreciation Co $0.00 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.94 15,000 hour life expectancy Total Cost Per Hour $7.33 Total Cost Per Hour $6.31 Based On Mt. Forklift Reported Cost per hour Expected Cost Change Per Hour -$1.02 Estimated Annual Usage Rate 438 Based on last years usage rates Estimated Annual Expense Reduction -$446.76 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Reduction -$466.46 Based on Life To Date Increase T 0.0441 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Reduction -$486.24 Based on Life To Date Increase T 0.04241 At this time it is not cost effective to replace this unit. *Depreciation based on $16,000 at 15,000 hours with a $2,000 salvage value. This is the primary forklift for all deliveries and reciepts for the City of Missoula. Parts are no longer available for this unit. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-24 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 6,150 $6,150 Sewer Fund 1,500 4,000 Totals 7,650 - 10,150 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 9,150 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 9,150 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:29 PM CJK Total Score 40 Jack Stucky Public Works With the centralized maintenance the fuel costs for pressure washers is no longer shared by the Departments and Divisions using the equipment. As a result, the Vehicle Maintenance Division has to fuel these washers. If we do not fund this purchase, I will have to increase my fuel budget to compensate for these previously shared costs. The net effect will be an increase in my operating expenses in 231 account of approximately $800. If this project is funded, the net effect will be an increase in Account 341of approximately $600. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Service Maintenance Shop Natural Gas Pressure Washers Replacing two 1996 diesel pressure washers with natural gas pressure washers. Funding this project will enable replacement of the maintenance faculties two main diesel fueled pressure washers with Natural Gas pressure washers. The existing pressure washers were purchased to use outside at the old facility. These washers are now used inside the building and produce fumes when the diesel fuel burners are in use. The 1996 vintage washers are used continuously all day long by staff from nearly all Departments and Divisions. This past year both machines have been costly in terms of down time and parts to keep them in operation. Cost break down is as follow: Cost of new Pressure Washers: $10,650 Trade-in Credit: - $4,500 Net Washer Cost: $6,150 Cost to plumb and vent gas: $4,000 (FY2006-2010 price doubled) Was CS-21 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-24 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 2 5 10 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 1 4 4 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 40 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Indoor air quality regulations will mandate changing from diesel to natural gas or electric pressure washers in the near future. Natural gas burns cleaner than diesel fuel. This is an important indoor air quality issue. All Departments and Divisions depend on these pressure washers to clean vehicles and equipment. Clean equipment enhances the City image, reduces wear on equipment, reduces employee exposure to blood Bourne pathogens, and promotes safe operation of vehicles and equipment. As a result there is a noticeable improvement in the services provided by this support equipment. Strategic Plan, 2004-2008 Goal One, Organization Management "providing for the physical well-being of employees." Quantitative Analysis Comments In addition to the attached cost benefit analysis, these pressure washer preserve equipment by reducing wear and corrosion associated with dirt and chemical debris. The old pressure washers are rapidly reaching the end of their productive lives. They are becoming undependable and costly to maintain. ---PAGE BREAK--- Existing Diesel New Natural Gas Fueled Pressure Washers Pressure Washers Total Hours on Washers (estimated) 6000+ Total Hours <1,000 Operating Costs Per Hour $7.03 Operating Costs Per Hour $4.77 Repair Costs Per Hour $2.14 Repair Costs Per Hour $1.08 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.00 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $1.63 Total Cost Per Hour $9.17 Total Cost Per Hour\Hour $7.48 Expected Cost Savings per Hour -$1.69 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage Rate 375 Based on estimated use of two washers Estimated Annual Expense Reduction -$633.75 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Reduction -$643.60 Based on cost increment increase 0.01555 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Reduction -$653.61 Based on cost increment increase 0.01555 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-25 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund $66,000 Totals - - 66,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 66,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs - Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 66,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:22 PM CJK Total Score 41 Jack Stucky Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Services City Hall Reroofing Project Project to replace the 15 year old and 25 year old roofing on City Hall building. A survey of the roofing system of City Hall indicates significant degradation of both the 25 year old sections and the 15 year old sections. Both sections are out of warranty. The project is intended to replace all the roofing on the City Hall building to preserve the interior from external damages. ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-25 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 3 4 12 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 41 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Water damage to the computer servers or information systems could have devastating effects on the City operations and records management. Do to the rapid deterioration of the roof membrane particularly on the South side of City Hall, developing a leak in the Information's Systems roof is very probable. Water damages the structure and insulation under the roof diaphragms. Hot and cold air escapes through the damaged sections of roof. More energy will be required to heat and cool the building. Yes, good management of a city facility on behalf of the taxpaying community. Ability to continue providing a centralized location for the provision of essential city services to the public. Yes, organizational management, including provision of city services with city's resources. Quantitative Analysis Comments Yes, taxpayers have a significant investment in the City Hall building. Ongoing preventive maintenance and preservation of the facility save long-term dollars by preventing damages and furthe expenses. Yes, the roof needs to be replaced before external conditions contribute to internal damages. ---PAGE BREAK--- PAST 12 MONTH CITY HALL ROOF REPAIR HISTORY COST 4/29/05 Leaking in Mayors office Warranty 6/6/05 Leaking in Patrol Captains office $875 8/17/05 Leaking around HVAC system Warranty 8/19/05 Leaking around HVAC system $1,500 1/11/06 Leaking around radio antenna $1,100 *Total Cost of Repairs $3,475 Now that the warranty period has expired, the roof repair costs will increase. OTHER LIABILITY CONCERNS: Water damage to electrical system resulting in loss of power or fire. Water damage to electronic devises such as computers and servers. Water damage to overhead tiles and walls. Water damage to office fixtures and hard copy records. Lost productivity associated with work space loss do to water damage and repairs. *This does not include leaks that Facility Maintenance (internal) has repaired. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-26 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund $47,600 31,500 Totals - - 47,600 31,500 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 79,100 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 79,100 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:29 PM CJK Total Score 40 Jack Stucky Public works Projections based on vendor data show this project reducing Account 341 Gas and Electricity to 66% of it's current budget allocation. This is not a solid number yet based on the insulation package research and selection. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Service Facility Maintenance Energy Conservation Package Project to replace conventional heating system at Facility Maintenance shops to an energy efficient package. The Central Maintenance Facility at 1305 A&B Scott Street currently pays and average of $6,288 per month to Northwestern Energy for heat and electricity. Winter months have promoted heat bills in excess of $13,000 per month. The research and application of energy saving innovations can reduce these expenses. Examples include: Replacing 1000 and 400 Watt Metal Halide light fixtures with more efficient T5 florescent lights. ($18,000) Replacing forced air heaters with an infrared heating system. ($38,500) Researching and installing an updated insulation package. ($3,000) Repairing sky lights and repairing the roof. ($13,500) Installing an access ladder to the roof (heating and cooling system)from the second floor. ($6,100) Phase one would include installing the roof access ($6,100), installing infrared heating system ($38,500) and researching and selecting an energy saving package. Phase two would install the selected energy saving package, the energy effiecient lighting upgrade, and the sky light and roof repairs. The roof repair total in Fy 2008 will have to be adjusted to a new repair estimate pending the sky light repairs. ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-26 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 3 3 9 pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 40 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Yes, an energy conservation package will conserve and reduce the cost to heat the Central Maintenance Facility. Yes, organizational management including provision of services to the public within City resources. Quantitative Analysis Comments Please see the attached cost benefit analysis; based on reported savings these projects will help reduce the energy consumption and have a relatively positive pay back periods. Speedy implementation will promote energy and monetary savings. ---PAGE BREAK--- ENERGY PROJECT PROJECT *BUDGET **ESTIMATED ENERGY PAY BACK COST ALLOCATION % SAVED SAVING IN YEARS Replacing existing lights with T5 lighting $18,000 $11,000 22.00% $2,420 7.44 Replacing forced air heat with infrared heat $38,500 $48,000 26.00% $12,480 3.08 Installing a selected insulation package Unknown Pending package selected Repairing sky lights and roof $13,500 $55,000 9.00% $4,950 2.73 Access ladder to roof for maintenance $6,100 HVAC ACCESS TO ROOF *Budget allocation is the estimated shop portion of the annual gas and electric budget **These are savings estimates Johnston Controls, Western Sheet Metal, and Western Electric have provided. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-27 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund (50%) 10,100 Sewer Fund (35%) 7,070 Building Fund 1,010 MRA 1,010 MPC 1,010 Totals - - - 20,200 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services 2,450 8,110 C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service 2,450 8,110 - 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 28-Feb-05 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:31 PM BSC Total Score 34 Beckie Christiaens Finance On-going operating budget amounts reflects the amount necessary to cover the annual maintenance costs of the software. Succeeding years assume a 5% increase. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Services Finance Software for GASB 34 GASB 34 Report Writer This request is for the purchase of the Eden Systems GASB 34 report writer. Over the last two years we have paid our auditor $12,000 to convert our financials statements to comply with GASB 34 presentation standards. Our intention is to complete these financial reports internally, with the help of the GASB 34 module of the Edens system. This module is an extension of our current accounting system and will use our trial balance and capital asset information to produce the 10 "Basic Financial Statements" that are now required for our Comprehensive Annual Financial Report. The benefits that will be realized with the implementation of the GASB 34 software are significant in terms of efficiency, time and money. Considering the amount that we pay the auditors to complete these financials, the return on investement will happen in the 2nd year after the purchase. At a minimum, the City is currently paying over $9000 a year for audit costs due to the massive reporting requirements association with GASB#34. Refer to attachments for a more detailed explanation on financial savings. This software will be used primarily by the finance department. Was CS-20 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-27 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 2 5 10 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 - 3 - 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 34 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria - GASB) Qualitative Analysis Comments Quantitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Finance Recommends a scoring of 3 for this question, based on the following: FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 TOTAL COM 3,632 $ 3,813 $ 4,004 $ 4,204 $ 15,653 $ MPC 1,500 1,575 1,654 1,736 1,823 MRA 1,500 1,575 1,654 1,736 1,823 Extra Hours* - - - - - Total Cost 6,632 $ 6,963 $ 7,312 $ 7,677 $ 28,583 $ *revised analysis based on bidded contracts FY 07 FY 08 FY 09 FY 10 TOTAL Software 20,200 $ - $ - $ - $ 20,200 $ Maintenance 2,450 2,573 2,701 2,836 10,560 Total Cost 22,650 $ 2,573 $ 2,701 $ 2,836 $ 30,760 $ Finance Recommends a scoring of 3 for this question, based on the following: QUANTITATIVE ANALYSIS PROJECTED GASB 34 CONVERSION COSTS CURRENT GASB 34 CONVERSION COSTS 5. Does the project result in maximum benefits to the community from the investment dollar? 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its success of maximum effectiveness? The value of purchasing this module in the near future lies in the fact that the sooner the implementation occurs, the sooner the City will see financial and time savings. This mandatory requirement for issuing financial statements in accordance with GASB 34 will remain a requirement of the City. The choices for complying are: continue to pay an independent auditor make the conversion at the basic cost of $6000+ a year; do the conversion in-house, which will require additional training and an additional 160 hours of staff time, or purchase a software module that will do the electronic conversion and provide additional reporting benefits that are not available with the other two options. Cost of GASB 34 $5,000 $10,000 $15,000 $20,000 $25,000 $30,000 $35,000 1 2 3 4 Years Dollars Current Costs Projected Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- Finance Recommends a scoring of 0 for this question. Finance Recommends a scoring of 2 for this question, based on the following: Finance Recommends a scoring of 2 for this question, based on the following: 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources or reduce pollution? 8. Does the project improve, maintain or expand upon essential City Services where such services are recognized and accepted as necessary and effective? 9. Does the project relate specifically to the City's strategic planning priorities or other plans? It also matches up with the guiding principle for believing "in sound fiscal management and living within our resources and budgets". The purchase of this module clearly meets the responsibility of sound fiscal management as demonstrated in question The business case is easy to see when you compare the costs of the module to the costs of the man hours. Yes, this project relates to the Strategic Plan's Goal Organizational Management. We believe that this request ties in directly with the City of Missoula's goal to "sustain and enhance our ability to be an efficient, effective, accountable, responsive and respected City organization". This module help us prepare financial statements that are in accordance with the GASB 34 requirements, which is intended to increase the understandability and usefulness of government financial statements for citizens, legislative and oversight bodes, investors and creditors. It aligns with the guiding principle to have belief "in planning, training, collaboration, technology and review increase efficiency and effectiveness". This module will reduce the amount of employee hours that are spent during the annual audit to prepare, present and review information to the auditors so that they convert the statements to the proper format. The estimated employee hours spent currently is roughly 80 hours. We expect this time to be cut in half with the implementation of this new software module. Restating our annual financial statements to conform with GASB 34 standards is a mandatory rule imposed by the Governmental Accounting Standards Board. Providing annual financial statements is essential to City services for many reasons such as; budget planning, assistance with fiscal related decisions, to analyze trends and make fiscal forecasts, to secure sound debt instruments, to be responsible to the taxpayers, to provide information to departments, boards and commissions, for historical analysis, etc. ---PAGE BREAK--- WHAT IS GASB ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-28 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 20,000 300,000 Totals - - - 20,000 300,000 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost 300,000 Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 20,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 320,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:31 PM CJK Total Score 47 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Services Street Materials Storage Site: Missoula's Southside Purchase property on South side of Missoula for street maintenance operations. Purchase bare land on south side of City for Street Maintenance Division use during various operations. Street Division has historically leased Pattee Canyon gravel pit (approximately 20 years; current lease rate is $7500/year). The owner, JTL Group, Inc. currently has a buyer for the land and sale is pending. The City's lease may be terminated at any time. The Pattee Canyon pit is essential to Street Division activities for work done on the City's south side. It has been a stockpile site for winter sand storage used during snow operations and for dumping sweeping water and solids. Loss of this property will significantly increase snow vehicles' response time for street sanding in the hills south of 39th Street. Increased travel times for dumping sweeper units decreases productivity. Sanding units will be forced to travel across town to the Central Maintenace facility at 1305 Scott Street in order to refill sanders. Sanding unit response times increase by 85% to 130% dependent on area, see Response & Travel Times for measurements. Travel times for dumping sweeper units will decrease productivity by an estimated 21% for areas on the south side of town. A suitable parcel has not been found. Street Maintenance Division is negotiating with the Missoula County Fairgrounds and Parks & Recreation may also elect to participate in a site at the Fairgrounds. First year $20,000 for property appraisals. Depending on property purchased Street Division will construct any improvements necessary. Brian Hensel Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-28 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? 6. Does the project require speedy (0-3) 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 3 3 9 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 47 City of Missoula maintains a rigorous sweeping program with the main goal to keep streets clean as possible. Street sweeping reduces street contaminants from draining into ground sumps and stormwater systems. Efficient street sweeping has been shown to be an effective measure for helping to maintain groundwater quality in urban settings. Further, street sweeping is also mandated by EPA and MC-CHD for prevention and reduction of fugitive particulate to maintain air quality in the Missoula valley. Low sweeping productivity would be detrimental to pollution reduction. Street Division has leased Pattee Canyon pit for approximately 20 years. Pattee Canyon pit has been essential for snow operations, street cleaning, and leaf collection by providing an area to stock pile winter sand and to temporarily store street sweeping water, solids, and leaves. The property has also been used to stockpile chips for chip sealing, sand for reclamite, and asphalt millings for grading alleys. Access to property on the south side of City is essential for many Street Division activities and is necessary to maintain current levels of service. The current lease of Pattee Canyon pit is in jeopardy due to a change in ownership. Productive sweeping helps protect air and water quality for the City of Missoula. Efficient snow removal operations are essential for providing safe streets during winter. Quantitative Analysis Comments Funding of this CIP request would prevent increased costs caused by longer travel times for Street Division equipment south of Mount Ave. To maintain current levels of service on south side of City additional personnel and equipment time would be needed for snow removal, leaf collection, and street sweeping. Attached Cost/Benefit analysis shows an approximate loss of $ 53,000/year for a 5.7 year pay off. If a suitable parcel is located having the funds available for purchase would enable the City to make a prompt offer reducing the potential for another party to acquire property. Loss of a sand stock pile area on south side of City for use with winter snow operations increases snow plow/sander travel time for refilling sanders to unacceptable levels. Longer travel times for snow plow units mean longer time frames for which main streets and bus routes needing sand application will remain in a dangerous slick condition. Icy streets increase chances of accidents for the traveling public. Further, loss of productivity due to increase dumping/travel times for the City summer sweeping program could also have a negative impact on water and air quality. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Street Sweeping Half of FY 04 Data with Pattee Canyon leased by City Hours Worked 4357 Labor cost 99,125 $ Equipment cost 69,050 $ TOTAL COST 168,175 $ Apply 21% Increase to FY 04 data Hours worked 5272 Labor cost 119,941 $ Equipment cost 83,551 $ TOTAL COST 203,492 $ EXPECTED COST INC. 35,317 $ Add 6% for inflation and wage increases 2006 Estimated Current Cost Increase 37,436 $ COST BENEFIT/ ANALYSIS South Side Property Field tests were conducted to measure travel/dump time with sweepers traveling to Pattee Canyon pit from three central locations in areas south of Mount Avenue. Measured times ranged from 14 - 34 minutes/load, with an average travel/dump time = 25 minutes/load. Sweepers traveling to North side yard from the same three south side locations completed round trips in 28 to 53 minutes. Total estimated average travel time without south property (i.e. dumping at North side) is 43 minutes/load. Depending on location, travel time is increased by 15 to 21 minutes/load, which results in an average increase of 18 minutes/load. See Response & Travel Time sheet with field measurements for further information. During spring, sweepers can pick up a full load in approximately one hour. Sweepers normally get 5-7 loads per/day with Pattee Canyon pit available with an average actual time of sweeping at eight hours per day on a 10 hour shift. Based on above analysis, resulting sweeper output is 1.4 hours/load or 5.7 loads per day dumping at Pattee Canyon. If South side property was not available estimated sweeper output would drop to 1.7 hours/load or 4.7 loads/day. Productivity drops by over 21% on south side of City. To maintain current level of service, the City would have to increase hours worked by 21%, which increases costs as shown below. Scope: This anlaysis shall attempt to quantify cost to the City if a south side parcel for Street Division use was not available during street sweeping, snow operations, and leaf collection. Sweepers typically use Pattee Canyon pit for dumping when sweeping south of Mount Avenue, which is approximately half of the total streets within the City. For the sake of this analysis it shall be assumed half of the total sweeing work hours are spent with sweepers dumping at Pattee Canyon pit . Historical Street Division data from FY 04 shall be used and Pattee Canyon pit was available. (Half of actual costs reported in Street Division Narrative). ---PAGE BREAK--- Snow Operations Apply 21% increase to hours and cost Hours worked 223 Labor cost 6,114 $ Equipment cost 2,741 $ TOTAL COST 8,855 $ EXPECTED COST INC. 1,537 $ Leaf Collection 1/2 hours/labor/equipment for 2005/2006 season Hours worked 1721 Labor cost 43,808 $ Equipment cost 23,383 $ Total Cost 67,191 $ Apply 21% to total cost = 81,301 $ EXPECTED COST INC. 14,110 $ TOTAL EXPECTED COST INCREASE FOR CITY PER YEAR 53,083 $ During leaf collection, Street Division tandem axle dump trucks, street sweepers, and leaf machines, will typically dump leaves at Pattee Canyon pit when working south of Mount Avenue, approximately half of City streets. Travel/dump times for equipment used during leaf collection is assumed to be similar to street sweeping equipment. Therefore, the same analysis described for street sweeping shall be applied here for leaf collection using data from the 2005/2006 season. With Pattee Canyon pit available, travel times and stand-by times for all associated equipment and personnel is minimized. To maintain current service level, a 21% increase in hours and costs for all leaf collection activities could be reasonably applied. Sander/plow trucks will use Pattee Canyon pit for refilling sanders when working in Farviews and South Hills areas. Based on labor hours and equipment hours (185.5 hrs) for this winter, (October 1, 2006 - January 30, 2006) City of Missoula Street Division has spent $ 5,052.47 for labor and $ 2,265.48 for actual equipment cost to provide sanding/plowing services for Farviews and South Hills. Based on the response time data recorded for sander/plow trucks using Pattee Canyon verses 800 W. Broadway for refilling sanders, round trip travel times increased by 11 - 31 minutes/load, resulting in an average increase of 21 minutes per load. Trucks working in South Hills and Farviews can typically spread four and five loads of sand respectively during an eight hour shift, with an estimated actual sanding/plowing time of seven hours/shift. Therefore, currently in South Hills, output for a plow truck is expected to be 1.75 hours per load of sand placed on streets. Farviews area is expected to be 1.4 hours per load of sand placed in street. If a south side sand storage area is not available and plow trucks must travel to 800 W. Broadway to reload, sander output will be reduced since time to place one load of sand on streets is increased on average to 2.08 hours and 1.73 hours respectively. Average increase in time for sand placement is 21%. To maintain the current level of service for South Hills and Farviews areas the 21% increase shall be applied to Street Division data for sanding/plow operations during 2005/2006 winter as follows: ---PAGE BREAK--- Date of Analysis: 1/19/06 - 1/20/06 Intersection Time of Day Destination Travel/Load Time for round trip (mins) % Increase High Park & Whitaker 10:40 AM Pattee Canyon Pit 12.5 11:16 AM 800 W. Broadway 23.1 85 23rd & Garland 8:58 AM Pattee Canyon Pit 23 7:29 AM 800 W. Broadway 53 130 Date of Analysis: 1/20/06 Intersection Time of Day Destination Travel/Load Time for round trip (mins) % Increase Sussex & Arthur 7:34 PM Pattee Canyon Pit 13.7 8:00 PM North side yard 28.3 107 23rd & Foothills 4:18 PM Pattee Canyon Pit 27 5:00 PM North side yard 48.2 79 Linda Vista & Jack Drive 5:30 PM Pattee Canyon Pit 33.7 4:36 PM North side yard 52.7 56 Scope: Sweeping crew made test runs from centrally located intersections in Areas 2 & 4, which would be primarily affected by a south dump site. Each sweeper started time at the indicated intersections after a full sweeping load had been gathered. Sweepers then made seperate timed runs to dump solids and liquid at the North side stock pile yard and Pattee Canyon pit. Scope: Street Division crew made test runs with sanding units from two centrally located intersections on the south side of the City. Each vehicle started at the named intersection with an empty sand spreader where stopwatch timing began. The vehicle then traveled to Pattee Canyon pit, loaded up with sand, and then returned to same starting intersection where elapsed time was recorded. The same process was repeated with the vehicle traveling to the other sand stock pile currently located at 800 West Broadway. Field Measurements for Response Time Sweepers Snow Plow Unit ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-29 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Title 1 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 General Fund 178,903 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 Totals 178,903 - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 250,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 250,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 15-Mar-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:31 PM ABC Total Score 30 Gail Verlanic Human Resources Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Community Service ADA Study/Implementation Improvements and assessments of programs required to comply with Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) activities include facilities improvements and assessment of trails and open space. As coordinator for the City's ADA program, the Human Resources Director/EEO Officer has obtained updates on the progress of projects submitted for Phase I and Phase II of the ADA survey from responsible departments. An updated list is attached. Was CS-28 in FY05 ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-29 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce - 3 - 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 30 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Federal Funds (contracts, grants, CDBG) require compliance with ADA Program accessibility to citizens and employees with disabilities. Has been included in strategic planning priorities. Can be incorporated with many strategic goals of organization. Quantitative Analysis Comments In some cases, capitial plans/facility remodles can include measures in more effective ways. ---PAGE BREAK--- * FY07 Projects Bolded Estimated Location Work Needed Cost Priority One City Cemetery Install sidewalk from parking lot to ramp 4,950.00 City Hall Redo drinking fountan and water cooler by OPG 1,400.00 City Hall Make 2nd floor bathroom in PW ADA accessible 6,000.00 Moon Randolph property 1,500 spent in FY05 5,000.00 McCormick Park Redo trail system ADA connectors 18,000.00 McCormick Park Redo access to fishing pond 4,000.00 McCormick Park Redo trail to play area and play area 3,800.00 McCormick Park Redo access to north side of pond 3,500.00 McCormick Park Redo access to ball fields 2,000.00 McCormick Park Redo access to picnic area 1,000.00 Playfair Park Redo trail system 38,000.00 Playfair Park Pave accessible spaces in gravel lots & make accessible 15,000.00 Playfair Park Install curb cuts 8,000.00 Playfair Park Redo access to ball fields 5,000.00 Playfair Park Make play area accessible & new surface 5,000.00 Playfair Park Accessible spectator space: baseball 2,500.00 Playfair Park Accessible spectator space: soccer 1,800.00 Playfair Park Redo picnic area 1,000.00 Playfair Park Reconstruct horseshoe area 800.00 Playfair Park Make concession stand accessible 400.00 Playfair Park Accessible spectator space: volleyball 300.00 MRA Designate HC parking in front of office/provide curb ramp 900.00 MRA Replace hardware on public access doors 800.00 Total Priority One 129,150.00 Priority Two City Hall Braille signage throughout building 1,800.00 City Hall Install 20 amp outlets in Court 1,000.00 City Hall Assistive listening devices in Court 900.00 City Hall Public service counter: Engineering 300.00 City Hall Relocate 2nd floor fire extinguisher 200.00 City Hall Adjust Court door so easier to open 100.00 McCormick Park Signage 2,000.00 McCormick Park Redo picnic area at pond 200.00 Cemetery Install sidewalk from road to Verterans Memorial 3,900.00 Total Priority Two 10,400.00 Priority Three City Hall Redo men's locker room in Police Academy 4,980 McCormick Park Redo men’s restroom 2,010 McCormick Park Redo women's restroom 1,940 Playfair Park Restrooms by pool-replace fixtures 3,000 Playfair Park Redo toilets-west end 950 Total Priority Three 12,880 Priority Four City Hall Purchase TTD for pay phone in Police Dept. 375 City Hall Install power outlet at pay phone in Police Dept. 300 City Hall Relocate vending machines in lobby & change for hearing loss 300 Playfair Park Signage (need more information) 2,000 Playfair Park Modify drinking fountains 300 Playfair Park Phones for hearing loss 300 Vehicle maint. Install phone for hearing loss 150 Vehicle maint. Install phone with volume control 300 Total Priority Four 4025 Total All Priorities 156,455.00 ADA Project List ---PAGE BREAK--- As of March 16, 2006 Estimated Location Work Needed Cost Priority One Funds from FY04 Moon Randolph Property $5,000.00 McCormick Park P1 Redo trail system ADA connectors $18,000.00 McCormick Park P1 Redo trail to play area and play area $3,800.00 McCormick Park P1 Redo access to north side of pond $3,500.00 McCormick Park P1 Redo entrance to women's restroom - will be done in FY06 in conjunction with new restroom and LWCF funding $100.00 City Cemetery Install sidewalk from parking lot to ramp $4,950.00 City Hall Redo drinking fountain and water cooler by OPG $1,400.00 City Hall Make 2nd floor bathroom in PW ADA accessible $6,000.00 Subtotal $35,350.00 Requested funds for FY05-FY11 Listed by Priority McCormick Park P1 Redo access to fishing pond $4,000.00 McCormick Park P1 Redo access to picnic area $1,000.00 McCormick Park P3 Redo men's restroom $2,010.00 McCormick Park P3 Redo women's restroom $1,940.00 Play Fair Park P2 Redo toilets at west end $950.00 Playfair Park P1 Provide ADA access for trail to dikes $38,000.00 Playfair Park P1 Make play area accessible and new surface $5,000.00 Playfair Park P1 Accessible spectator space for baseball $2,500.00 Playfair Park P1 Accessible spectator space for soccer $1,800.00 Playfair Park P1 Accessible spectator space for volleyball $300.00 Playfair Park P1 Pave and make accessible parking spaces in gravel lots $15,000.00 Playfair Park P1 Redo current parking and make more ADA spaces $3,800.00 Playfair Park P1 Install curb cuts $8,000.00 Playfair Park P1 Redo access to ball fields - part of Playfair CIP and mitigating dikes $5,000.00 Playfair Park P1 Redo access to picnic area $1,000.00 Playfair Park P1 Make restrooms and recreation building accessible Subtotal $90,300.00 Priority Two McCormick Park P1 Redo picnic area at pond $200.00 City Hall Ajust Court door so easier to open $100.00 Cemetery Install sidewalk from road to Verteran Memorial $3,900.00 Subtotal $4,200.00 Total over 5 years $129,850.00 Proposed ADA Projects for Completion in FY07 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: CS-30 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 133,369.00 Private/Fdn/Grants 2,845,041 MRA-URD 1 600,000 CBDG Loan 200,000 General Intercap 10 yr 150,000 Museum-Intercap 10 yr 150,000 Totals - 3,945,041 133,369 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 3,878,617 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) remaining 52,605 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 357,022 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) 10,000 Other Costs F. Other Costs 221,756 Estimated Annual Debt Service Endowment 500,000 - - 5,020,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:32 PM ABC Total Score 24 Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data MAM Infrastructure Support MAM requests reimbursement for two unanticipated phases of the Carnegie Library Building restoration and new addition construction project. These phases involved the failure of the foundation of the Carnegie Library building and resulting correction and stabilization, and extensive utility relocation required by Northwestern Energy. These unanticipated expenses represent a significant and necessary investment in saving and renewing the Carnegie Library building. Essential to the project and to public safety, we of course had no choice but to go forward. However, together these expenses have reeked havoc with our budget and stripped our contingency to an unmanageable low point. The work associated with these high impact problems is now complete and the direct costs are outlined below. Foundation Stabilization and Correction and Seismic Upgrade: $53,549 Utilities Relocation: $45,670 Delay of Construction: $34,150 Total: $133,369 MAM received $300,000 in funding through the CIP for this construction project, $150,000 of City funds and $150,000 in an Intercap Loan that MAM will payback. Since we originally approached the City to assist Was CS-28 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- CS-30 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 1 5 5 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 24 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Quantitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-01 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Tax Increment 450,000 Totals - - - - - - 450,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 360,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 36,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 54,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 450,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:32 PM ABC Total Score 37 Ellen Buchanan MRA Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation URD III Trail Connections Trail connections between existing trail segments in URD III This project would construct connections between existing sections of the bicycle pedestrian trail in URD III along the Bitterroot Branch Line of the railroad. Arrangements with Montana Rail Link would need to be made for the use of their tracks. Was PR-03 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-01 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 - 4 - 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 1 4 4 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 37 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating Page 2 URD III Trail Connections Qualitative Analysis Comments Yes, by offering alternatives to motorized forms of transportation. The City of Missoula has made a significant investment into the non-motorized transportation system and this project expands and improves that system. This project is a specific element of the Missoula 2004 Urban Transportation Plan Update. Quantitative Analysis Comments Because it would be funded with Tax Increment funds this project would result in significant benefits to the communty for the investment dollar. This project is 100% leveraged using tax increment funds. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-02 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Tax Increment $212,500 CTEP $250,000 Totals - - - 462,500 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 370,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 37,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 55,500 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 462,500 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:33 PM ABC Total Score 53 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data South Bank Riverfront Trail System Riverfront Trail system along south bank of Clark Fork on the Champion Millsite This project is located in Urban Renewal District II and involves development of a trail system as part of the redevelopment of a 45 acre, blighted property in the core of the city located on the south side of the Clark Fork River at the former Champion Mill site. This project would connect the California Street Bicycle Pedestrian Bridge with Civic Stadium completing a portion of the riverfront trail loop and connect the California Street Bridge to the bicycle commuter route at the Milwaukee Trail. It will also create a trail network in a new City park. These trail connections are essential elements in fulfilling the vision of the non- motorized transportation plan that calls for an interconnected, continuous system of non-motorized facilities throughout the community. Elements that make up this project include, but are not limited to trail construction, bridging the irrigation ditch and installation of lighting. This project would create in excess of 9,000 lineal feet of new trails. Conveyance of park land to City was PR-01 in 2006 Ellen Buchanan MRA Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-02 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 3 4 12 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 53 Yes, in terms of importance to the bicycle/pedestrian circulation in the city core and the preservation of the riverfront for use and enjoyment by the public This project is an important component of the Non-motorized Transportation Plan connecting the riverfront trail and California Street Bridge to the Milwaukee Trail which is an essential element in fulfilling the vision of the non-motorized plan that calls for an interconnected, continuous system of non motorized facilities throughout the community. Quantitative Analysis Comments Recreational opportunities and aesthetics do not lend themselves to quantitative analysis. However, trails and bicycle/pedestrian circulation are important to the community in terms of transportation and demand management and air quality concerns. This project is 100% leveraged utilizing tax increment funds. The project requires speedy implementation in order to be constructed in conjunction with the redevelopment of the Millsite property. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating Page 2 South Bank Riverfront Trail Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-03 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Tax Increment $24,000 $200,000 Totals - - 24,000 200,000 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 177,778 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 17,778 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 26,667 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) 1,778 Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 224,001 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:34 PM ABC Total Score 41 Ellen Buchanan MRA Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation West Broadway Island Trail & Bridge Phase I Construction of a trail south of the Lowney Ditch parrallel to West Broadway. This project is located in Urban Renewal District II and would involve the construction of a trail south of the Lowney Ditch parallel to West Broadway between Burton and Scott Streets and a bridge across the ditch connecting the east end of trail to Broadway. Phase I would be to prepare the island for use by the public while leaving it in its primitive, low maintenance state (without improvements except for signage, garbage cans and decking for the existing access bridge). Once all phases are accomplished, this project would complete the riverfront trail between Russell and Front Streets along West Broadway. It connects the Shady Grove trail, California Street Pedestrian Bridge and West Broadway CTEP Sidewalk Project. This project also provides an access to an area that can be used for waterfront recreation such as fishing and for easy entry and take-out of hand-carried non-motorized watercraft. It is anticipated that the land or easement will be donated. Must acquire private land or easement along the route of the trail and perhaps along Broadwayat the bridge landing. Was PR-02 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-03 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 41 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating Page 2 West Broadway Island Trail Qualitative Analysis Comments Aids in efforts to promote non-motorized transportation by providing a link between current facilities (California St. Bridge, Shady Grove Trail) and the pedestrian and bicycle amenities associated with the West Broadway sidewalk/trail CTEP project. Will be part of the non-motorized transportation network. Provides recreational opportunities currently unavailable in the urban area. Increasing opportunities to recreate within the urban area. Provides easy off-street access to existing trails and the California Street Bridge Quantitative Analysis Comments MRA funds will be used to finance this project. If federal, state or private funds become available, TIF will be the local matching amounts. Donation of the land needed for the project is anticipated. This project is 100% leveraged utilizing tax increment funds. The second Urban Renewal District is scheduled to sunset in 2006, therefore in order to take advantage of tax increment funds for this project timeliness is an issue. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-04 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund $14,000 Impact Fees (possible) Totals - - - 14,000 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs $14,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 14,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:35 PM DS Total Score 33 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation 425 John Deere Tractor Mower This piece of equipment is used 12 months of the year. Essential to the Department for mowing turfgrass and snow removal. This will replace unit #63637 in fleet. Tractor Mower/ Snowplow Scott VanOmmeran Parks & Recreation Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin Bike/Ped Connections PR-04 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 33 Newer vehicles run efficiently and help reduce pollution These mowers/snow removal machines help the Department meet citizen expectations for mowed and safe turf and trail right of ways as well as re-mowing quickly and efficiently (Goal #4 MPP). This will help fulfill the County and State contracts for turf maintenance and snow removal. Yes, it relates to Goal #4 of the Master Park Plan Develop and maintain parks, rec facilities, trails and open space areas at a high level of quality. Community Livability Quantitative Analysis Comments The benefits of these machines are their multi-use capabilities. The cost/citizen/year for snow removal and mowing is $.09. Without equipment, there would be a loss in service to public. Continual replacement of mowers reduces maintenance and repair costs and allows for quality service We are under contract with the State and County to mow turf and remove snow. Also clear sidewalks of snow to comply with City Ordinances CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: UNIT 63637 JOHN DEERE 425 By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1998 ( 8 YEARS) Project: Mower Replacement CONDITION: WORN Unit 63637 USAGE: LAWN MAINTENANCE Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment UNIT 63637 2006 or New 42 " Mower With Attachments Total Hours Unknown Total Hours <250 Operating Costs Per H $1.87 Operating Costs Per Hour $1.32 Repair Costs Per Hour $3.62 Repair Costs Per Hour $2.11 Depreciatio $0.00 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $2.70 Unit is fully depreciated Based on 10,000 hours of use Total Cost Per Hour $5.49 Total Cost Per Hour $6.13 Expected Cost Savings $0.64 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usa 38 Based on Last years usage (Unit #239) Estimated Annual Expe $24.32 Estimated 2nd Year Ex $25.12 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.0331 Estimated 3rd Year Ex $27.02 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.0755 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-05 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Title 1 Unknown $7,000 16,000 MHA Contribution 7,500 park Cash in Lieu 2,500 Neighborhood Proj grnt 3,000 Impact Fees Totals 20,000 - - - - 16,000 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel 660 660 A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 28,800 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 2,880 Fixed Charges 340 340 D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 4,320 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service 1,000 1,000 36,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:35 PM DS Total Score 37 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Franklin Neighborhood Bike/Ped Connections - Franklin component funded in FY06 Bridge installation and trail section construction This project will fund new trail connections that have been encouraged by new development. The connections provide improved access to Franklin Park and Mountain Line bus lines on Eaton and Kemp Streets. One component of this project is a bridge over an irrigation ditch from 9th Street to Franklin Park. The other component is a series of three citizen initiated trail connections near and around Eaton St. 1. McClay Commons to Eaton St. Connection 2. Hill & McCalla Connection 3. Ditch Crossing at 13th & Bus Shelter. FY06: Franklin Park Bridge - $20,000 installed. Approaches included FY10: Eaton Trail connections - $16,000 Funding for both projects will come from various sources to include potential neighborhood project grants (max 6000 for both projects), Title 1 funds, Park cash in lieu funds, and contributions from Missoula Housing Authority. Trail construction by the College of Technology will reduce cost significantly. Parks and Recreation and Public Works could potentially help in the construction (hauling material or laying asphalt). Was PR-14 in FY06 David Shaw Parks & Recreation Additional snow plowing costs and maintenance along for Eaton Street connections based approximately $2000/mile of trail Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin Bike/Ped Connections PR-05 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 3 4 12 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 37 It encourages use of non-polluting non-motorized transportation mitigating air quality problems. It is an integral part of the City's TDM plan to reduce VM 6% Yes, expansion of non-motorized transportation facility services are recognized as effective tools in reducing VMT, air quality problems, obesity The project contributes to Strategic goal of livability by providing an inexpensive, convenient and safe means of travel and healthy recreation linking neighborhoods with community resources. Identified is important quality in Master Park Plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments Funding assistance from Missoula Housing Authority, the Neighborhood Grant Program, Title 1, Parks Cash in Lieu, and service in kind from force account. We are told MHA money is available this year and questionable in the future A negotiated non-motorized easement with affected property owner is critical. Construction of facilities is not critical. MHA funding tentative in future. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS PROJECT NAME: Franklin Neighborhood Bike/Ped Connectors PROJECT SPONSOR: Parks and Recreation RESPONSIBLE PERSON: Dave Shaw BENEFITS: • Important element of City's Transportation Demand Management strategy; essential to reduce VMT 5- 6% over a five-year period. Facilities are the foundation of TDM programs. • Very popular with neighborhood residents as documented in neighborhood meetings. • May be assisted with funding partnerships with Missoula Housing Authority and Nieghborhood Council. COSTS: • Cost of project is approximately $36,000. The addition of contingencies and % for art brings the total project to $37,400 • Operations cost, estimated at $2,000 annually per mile (including maintenance, plowing, railroad insurance), are about 1% of construction cost. This is consistent with national average. Community Benefit: • Meets primary goals of the 2001 Non-motorized Transportation Plan. • 1996 Missoula Transportation Plan Update estimates 5-6% reduction in vehicle miles traveled as a result of building a complete bicycle system, along with other strategies. Trail user numbers are significant: one thousand bicyclists used the Riverfront Trail in one day in a recent trail traffic count. These numbers catch the attention of national advocacy groups, attracting diverse funding sources. • There are important public health benefits of using the non-motorized transportation. Personal health and well-being is enhanced. Public health is enhanced by reduction in amount of particulate from motor vehicle use. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-06 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No x N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 General Fund 8,000 Totals - - - - - - 8,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel 1,000 1,000 A. Land Cost Supplies 2,300 B. Construction Cost Purchased Services every 3 years C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service 1,000 3,300 8,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 05-Mar-05 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:36 PM KM Total Score - City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Ice Rink at McCormick 91'x200' Ice Rink @ McCormick Park ball diamonds Provide a "NiceRink" ice rink to be set up in McCormick park each winter. Rink will be free of charge to the public with certain times set aside for programming and rentals. Provides a recreational ice rink in the McCormick Park area to replace Silver's Lagoon. This rink will also provide an alternative facility for ice rink rentals and broomball programs. A better skating surface will make renting this facility more attractive. Personnel cost would be incurred during the set up and take down of the rink, and maintenance to grow the ice. Playfair ice rink will close so overall labor and recreation staff costs would be offset. *Possible options: Caras Park Pavilion Community Ice Rink, alternative funding. Note: today's cost for this type of renovation would be approximately $200,000. Shirley Kinsey Parks & Recreation Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- Ice Rink PR-06 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 5 - investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score - Quantitative Analysis Comments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-07 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Impact Fee Fund CIP (see attached page) 13,810 $ 30,190 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ Cash in lieu 15,000 20,000 25,000 30,000 TBD 10,000 45,000 186,000 138,000 Totals - - 13,810 55,190 95,000 241,000 198,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 603,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 603,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:36 PM DS Total Score 45 Donna Gaukler Parks & Recreation Impacts on operations budget will be very dependent on which items are actually funded. If FY07 requests are funded the increase operatonal costs would be for the Pond Overlook. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Existing Park Expansions Parks, Trails, Recreation, Open Space Development Per Ordinance, impact fees may be used to provide park, trail, open space, recreation opportunities if these expansions or improvements are related to growth. Cash in lieu from area development could be an additional revenue source. Expansion of services in existing parks per ADA site implementation plan and requirements. (See Human Resources ADA CIP) See attached for a list of projects Was PR-25 in FY06. Split into 2 projects in FY07. ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin Bike/Ped Connections PR-07 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 1 4 4 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 45 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Existing Park Expansion Qualitative Analysis Comments Trails and green space support and preserve our Natural Environment Per Growth Policy, public polls and perception and the Master Park Plan Growth Policy, Master Park Plan, Os Plan, Non-motorized Plan Quantitative Analysis Comments Yes, per intention of Impact fee ordinance It would be most appropriate if Parks & Recreation infrastructure were developed with Public Works infrastructure ---PAGE BREAK--- See years and projects below FY 07 Rose Memorial Park Expansion Planning 4,000 $ McCormick Park Shelter/Dasani Bikes? 9,810 $ FY07 Totals 13,810 $ FY 08 Restroom Change Station/Brennans Wave 25,000 $ McCormick Park Shelter 30,190 $ FY08 Totals 55,190 $ FY09 Marilyn Park Playground (Replace 50%, expand 50%) 75,000 $ Children's Fish Pond overlook (universal access) 15,000 $ FY09 Totals 90,000 $ FY10 Marilyn Park Restroom 65,000 $ Lower Greenough Park Restroom 75,000 $ Eco-Pit toilets on Conservation Lands 50,000 $ Rose Memorial Park Expansion Implementation 51,000 $ FY10 Totals 241,000 $ FY11 Greenough Park Gazebo/arch 18,000 $ Eco-Pit toilets on Conservation Lands 50,000 $ Marilyn Park Shelter 55,000 $ Trail Lighting on Milwaukee 65,000 $ Marilyn Park Kiosk 10,000 $ FY11 Totals 198,000 $ FY12 Eco-Pit toilets on Conservation Lands 50,000 $ Restrooms in Skyview Park 79,000 $ Picnic Shelters in Skyview Park 55,000 $ Playgrounds in neighborhood parks (McCleod) 80,000 $ Jefferson School grounds 200,000 $ FY12 Totals 464,000 $ ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-08 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Impact Fees $52,190 35,810 70,000 70,000 70,000 Cash in lieu 19,500 20,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 CDBG funds (ED/RR) 12,000 SID (PineView FY07-08) 250,000 500,000 CIP-GF (White Pine FY08-09) 44,000 To Be Determined 341,867 618,750 494,000 521,000 Sale of Lot on Carter Court (Lafray) 40,000 Totals 56,000 - 361,690 897,677 718,750 594,000 621,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel 1,500 1,500 A. Land Cost Supplies 500 500 B. Construction Cost 2,369,337 Purchased Services 500 500 C. Contingencies (10% of B) 236,934 Fixed Charges 1,000 1,000 D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 355,401 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 231,446 Estimated Annual Debt Service 3,500 3,500 3,193,117 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:37 PM ds Total Score 45 David Shaw Parks & Recreation Operational costs for maintaining neighborhood parks are average estimates determined at approximately $3500/acre per year, depending on water needs and sources. Wells hold the costs closer to the $3000-$3500 per acre. Other considerations include distance from Central Maiintenace and other parks as well as size of park (small parks, <4-5 acres, cost more per acre). *Capital costs in Jan 2006 estimates and inlcude only years FY07-FY11 Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data* Parks and Recreation New & Expanded Park Development New Park Development per the Master Park Plan, adopted in 2004. Per Ordinance #3250, impact fees may be used to provide park, trail, open space, recreation opportunities if these expansions or improvements are related to growth. Cash in lieu from area development could be an additional revenue source. Park Development is in accordance with the Urban Area Master Park Plan. The approach is to develop parks in two phases with Phase 1 being immediate infrastructure such as turf, irrigation, trees and basic park furnishings (benches, tables, garbage), and Phase 2 including ammenities such as picnic shelters, playgrounds, sports areas, restrooms, etc. The goal is to encourage developers, when feasible to develop Phase 1. Then the City via cash in lieu, impact fees, SID's, grants, or CIP-GF, develops Phase 2 amenities with area resident input. NOTE: all estimates, except White Pine Park, Pineview Park and Lafray Park, are prior to public workshops for park design. Also, NOTE, that all estimates are with information known in January 2006. FY07 Lafray Park Phase Pineview Park Design, Constr. docs, bidding, and pre-constr. activity FY08 Lafray Park Phase 2, White Pine Park Phase 1, Pineview Park Construction FY09 White Pine Park Phase 2, Bellevue Park Phase 1 See attached for a potential list of projects and proposed development dates. Park sites are aquired, usually via the subdivision process, but also through fee simple or as gifts. Was PR-25 in FY06. Split into two projects in FY07 ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-08 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 1 4 4 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 45 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Trails and green space support and preserve our Natural Environment Per Growth Policy, public polls and perception, and the Master Park Plan as well as the Strategic Plan Growth Policy, Master Park Plan, OS Plan & Non-Motorized Plan Quantitative Analysis Comments Yes, per intention of impact fee ordinance, the Master Park Plan, and Citizen support It would be most appropriate if Parks & Recreation infrastructure were developed with Public Works infrastructure ---PAGE BREAK--- LaFray Acres 1.94 Phase I Costs Projected Date Cost per Acre Grading & Seeding $13,000.00 Irrigation $12,000.00 Plantings $11,000.00 Trails $30,000.00 Furnishings $13,000.00 Water Hookup $6,540.00 Professional Services $10,900.00 Contingencies $27,250.00 Total $123,690.00 FY07 $79,221.65 Phase II Trail $30,000.00 Playground $66,000.00 Climbing Structure $23,000.00 Small Skatepark $14,000.00 Picnic Shelter $35,000.00 Restroom $25,000.00 Professional Services $16,300.00 Contingencies $40,750.00 Total $250,050.00 FY08 $113,427.84 Grand Total $373,740.00 Funding 07 IF 52,190.00 $ CL 19,500.00 $ Sale of Land 40,000.00 $ SID - $ TBD - $ Other/Grant 12,000.00 $ ---PAGE BREAK--- PineView Acres 4.58 SID Improvements Costs Projected Date Cost per Acre Design & Construction $750,000.00 Total $750,000.00 FY07-08 $215,000.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- White Pine Acres 3.00 Prior Authorization 44,000.00 $ Phase I Costs Projected Date Cost per Acre Topsoil & Seeding $33,000.00 ? Irrigation $23,000.00 Plantings $10,000.00 Trails $25,700.00 Furnishings $13,000.00 Water hookup $6,282.00 Professional Services $10,470.00 Contingencies $26,175.00 Total $147,627.00 FY08 $49,209.00 Phase II Climbing Structure $25,000.00 Restroom $25,000.00 Parking Lot $75,000.00 Professional Services $12,500.00 Contingencies $31,250.00 Total $168,750.00 FY09 $56,250.00 Grand Total $316,377.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- Bellevue Acres 7.85 Phase I Costs Projected Date Cost per Acre Grading & Reseeding Irrigation & Plantings Trails & Furnishings $400,000.00 Professional Services $40,000.00 Contingencies $100,000.00 Total $540,000.00 FY09 $68,789.81 Phase II Costs Projected Date Cost per Acre Large Amenities $120,000.00 Professional Services $12,000.00 Contingencies $30,000.00 Total $162,000.00 FY10 $20,636.94 Grand Total $702,000.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- 44 Ranch Acres 5.80 Phase I Costs Projected Date Cost per Acre Grading & Seeding To be completed by Developer Irrigation To be completed by Developer Plantings Trails Furnishings $320,000.00 Professional Services $32,000.00 Contingencies $80,000.00 Total $432,000.00 FY10 $74,482.76 Phase II Large Amenities $100,000.00 Picnic Shelter $35,000.00 Restroom $25,000.00 Professional Services $16,000.00 Contingencies $40,000.00 Total $216,000.00 FY11 $37,241.38 Grand Total $648,000.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- Pleasant View Acres 5.37 Phase I Costs Projected Date Cost per Acre Grading & Seeding To be completed by Developer Irrigation To be completed by Developer Plantings Trails Furnishings $300,000.00 Professional Services $30,000.00 Contingencies $75,000.00 Total $405,000.00 FY11 $75,418.99 Phase II Large Amenities $100,000.00 Picnic Shelter $35,000.00 Restroom $25,000.00 Professional Services $16,000.00 Contingencies $40,000.00 Total $216,000.00 FY12 $40,223.46 Grand Total $621,000.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- O'Keefe Ranch Acres 10.20 Phase I Costs Projected Date Cost per Acre Grading & Seeding To be completed by Developer Irrigation To be completed by Developer Plantings Trails Furnishings $510,000.00 Professional Services $51,000.00 Contingencies $127,500.00 Total $688,500.00 FY12 $67,500.00 Phase II Large Amenities $100,000.00 Picnic Shelter $35,000.00 Restroom $25,000.00 Professional Services $16,000.00 Contingencies $40,000.00 Total $216,000.00 FY13 $21,176.47 Grand Total $904,500.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- Running W Ranch Acres 5.00 Phase I Costs Projected Date Cost per Acre Grading & Seeding To be completed by Developer Irrigation To be completed by Developer Plantings Trails Furnishings $250,000.00 Professional Services $25,000.00 Contingencies $62,500.00 Total $337,500.00 FY13 $67,500.00 Phase II Large Amenities $100,000.00 Picnic Shelter $35,000.00 Restroom $25,000.00 Professional Services $16,000.00 Contingencies $40,000.00 Total $216,000.00 FY14 $43,200.00 Grand Total $553,500.00 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-09 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 147,094 40,416 $57,291 57,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 Park Enterprise - tennis court resurfacing 24,709 GCTA donation - Tennis court resurfacing 8,000 Totals 147,094 40,416 90,000 57,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 897,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 897,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 2005 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:40 PM SVO Total Score 44 Scott Van Ommeran Parks & Recreation Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Park Maintenance & Improvements Program This program is the annual park reconstruction and major maintenance program Most trails and any park amenities (restrooms, playgrounds, sports facilities, irrigation, court surfaces, etc.) have an expected lifespan of about 20 years. 1. Resurface court surfaces and trails. 2. Playgrounds replacements. 3. Restroom replacement/upgrades. Most restrooms do not currently meet ADA Standards. 4. Sports Facility updates. Resurfacing, repairs and upgrades before complete deterioration will extend the life of park amenities beyond the normal 20 years. Refer to separate projects for above amenities. By being able to plan for improvements, parks can save valuable staff and consultant time and money. Planning allows grouping of similar projects for savings. $200K + $200K + $195K transferred to Aquatics January 2005 See list of projects on following page. PR-15 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-09 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 2 5 10 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 44 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Park Maintenance & Improvements Qualitative Analysis Comments Yes, per Goal #5 in MPP. Protect and enhance the natural environment and develop parks, trails and outdoor recreational facilities in an environmentally sensitive manner. Proper maintenance of open space preserves natural resources. Water conservation through irrigation automation. Yes. This helps meet Goal #4 of MPP by establishing maintenance standard, and management plans for the parks and other properties the City maintains. Annually assess needed maintenance and renovation projects system-wide, including bringing existing facilities up to ADA standards. Yes, per Goal #4 These projects will help develop and maintain parks at a high level of quality. Community Livability Quantitative Analysis Comments With routine upkeep and renovation schedules, we can extend the useful life of facilities and trail surfaces. Timely maintenance can be critical to extending the life of facilities ---PAGE BREAK--- Parks Maintenance & Improvements Projects planned to be completed FY07 Irrigation/ Fencing 12,000 $ Playfair Tennis Irrigation Honeysuckle Park Irrigation Irrigation repairs - PF Parking Lot Franklin Fence Trail Reasphalting (Greenough Park 3600LF) 30,000 $ Playfair Park Tennis Court Resurfacing 48,000 $ $32,709 Park Ent and donation) Total 90,000 $ FY08 Trail Resurfacing 25,000 $ Tennis Court Resurfacing Fort 32,000 $ Total 57,000 $ FY09 Sacajawea Playground Replacement 75,000 $ Sacajawea Restroom Replacement 70,000 $ McLeod Playground Replacement 75,000 $ Irrigation upgrades 10,000 $ Trail Resurfacing 20,000 $ Total 250,000 $ FY10 Playground Replacement (McCormick, others) 150,000 $ Irrigation upgrades/repairs (McCormick, others) 30,000 $ Court Resurfacing 40,000 $ Trail Resurfacing 30,000 $ Total 250,000 $ FY11 Playground Replacement 150,000 $ Restroom Replacement 70,000 $ Court Resurfacing 30,000 $ Total 250,000 $ FY05-06 Projects to complete Balance from FY 05 Budget 62,594 New FY 06 Funds 84,500 Projects to complete in FY06 Balance 12/31/05 Pine Street 453 100% Trail Resurfacing 40,500 0 40,500 0% Playgrounds 6,794 5,060 1,734 75% NS Overpass 10,497 2,702 7,795 25% SouthSide Lions Restroom 45000 29454 15,546 45% Spring 06 Bonner Tennis Court 45000 0 45,000 0% FY 07 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-10 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 Grants $60,000 Totals - - - - - - 60,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - - 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 16-Jan-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:44 PM SK Total Score - City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2006-2010 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Recreation Transportation Provied transportion for recreation programs via bus or 15 passenger vans. Goal Two: Community Livability Activities & Objectives for Recreation: Provide continued access to recreation opportunities for all Missoula citizens regardless of income or any other factors. Identified as a limiting factor is the lack of citizens ability to "get to programs or facilities". As the Parks and Recration strives to develop a total Recreation Service System, transportation issue becomes key to providing for access and program opportunities. Shirley Kinsey Parks & Recreation Positive impacts will be seen in Recreation's ability to provide citizens the opportunity to access recreation facilities and programs who would not otherwise particiapte. Translates in additonal revenue; program revneue, memberships, punch cards, etc. Would necessitate that a recreation employee carry approprate certification to operate vehicle. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-10 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 5 - investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score - Quantitative Analysis Comments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-11 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 CTEP - 200,000 Open Space bond - 100,000 NRTF Trail Grant - 30,000 Totals - - - 100,000 230,000 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel 2,500 A. Land Cost 100,000 Supplies 650 B. Construction Cost 184,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 18,400 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 27,600 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - 3,150 330,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 04-Feb-03 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:45 PM DS Total Score 41 David Shaw Parks & Recreation Trail maintenance is estimated at $2000 per mile per year, including snow removal. This project would be about one mile long, depending upon final agreements with landowners. The estimate increase of $3,150 in personnel and supplies would be addressed in future budget increases. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Riverfront Trail-Northbank East of Van Buren An extension of the Riverfront Trail along several parcels of land on East Broadway An MOU exists between the City and U.M. for a trail. Agreements with other willing owner are needed. This trail and the critical agreements are urgently needed due to increasing development in the area. Payment may be needed for an easement across one small private parcel between Missoula Youth Homes and Creekside Apartments. Some funding comes from CTEP. It requires that project to be ranked; the Cit used the CIP as its method. With the reauthorization of SAFETEA-LU the acquisition process will be scheduled for FY08 and trail construction for FY09. $100,000 is requested from Open Space Bond for matching. OS Funds could be requested from the remainder of the $235,000 from Bicycle Network (since this trail has equal value); or from the $200,000 earmarked for trail projects previously recommended by OSAC, and also recognized in a resolution of City Council. Agreements with willing landowners. Was PR-16 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin Bike/Ped Connections PR-11 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 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 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 41 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments The University of Montana is anticipating improvements to its 7-acre parcel and there are numerous other property owners who are anxious to work with the City for extension of the Riverfront Trail. The project conserves public access to the unique riparian corridor. It encourages use of non- motorized transportation and ensuing improvements to air quality. Non-motorized facilities are integral to the City's TDM strategy to reduce VMT 5-6%. The Riverfront is a primary element of the City's Open Space network and is featured in the new Non-motorized Plan. The trail improvements would enhance public access to the river corridor. It is an important component of TDM planning because it is located in an area with a large number of multifamily units. The project is part of the Non-motorized Plan and Open Space Plan. It meets goals of the Strategic Plan for liability by providing an inexpensive and convenient means of travel and recreation, and public acquisition of important natural resources. Quantitative Analysis Comments Approval of these funds will allow the Park Dept. to move forward with landowner agreements necessary for the funding sources. The corridor is irreplaceable. This heavily populated location and proven user numbers elsewhere in town will make the project very competitive for additional funding through a National Recreational Trail Fund grant. UM has recently developed its property and other owners have requested the City prepare agreements enabling them to donate easements for the trail. (It may be necessary to purchase one from a private individual.) Should the properties be developed without these agreements, no further extension of the Riverfront Trail will be possible. ---PAGE BREAK--- COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS PROJECT NAME: Riverfront Trail - East Broadway PROJECT SPONSOR: Parks and Recreation RESPONSIBLE PERSON: Dave Shaw DATE: March 2006 BENEFITS: • Increases public access for transportation and recreation to Clark Fork River corridor in densely populated area. • Important element of City's Transportation Demand Management strategy; essential to reduce VMT 5-6% over a five-year period. Facilities are the foundation of TDM programs. • In Non-motorized Plan, Open Space Plan (acquisition of river corridor a top goal of OSAC). • Very popular with citizens. • Allows City to take advantage of current development activities and positive attitude of several landowners. • Encouraged and supported by the University of Montana and Montana Technology Enterprise Center COSTS: • Use of open space bond funds already dedicated for trail development. • Operations cost, estimated at $2,300 annually per mile (including maintenance, plowing, railroad insurance), are about 1% of construction cost. This is consistent with national average. Note: some of trail is on-street, some in County, and may be paid from other sources. Some of the trail corridor may be subject to development: some sections may be part of subdivision developments; others may not be possible. Community Benefit: • Realizes a top goal in 2001 Non-motorized Transportation Plan and Open Space Plan. • 1996 Missoula Transportation Plan Update estimates 5-6% reduction in vehicle miles traveled as a result of building a complete bicycle system, along with other strategies. Assuming: a 25- year life for the project; that this and other current proposed trail projects in the CIP constitute about 1/3 of the entire future system; and using an estimated 4% reduction figure, to allow for times of lower use: the cost of construction, distributed over this estimated reduction of trips over a 25-year period, is two cents per trip. • Trail user numbers are significant: one thousand bicyclists used the Riverfront Trail in one day in a trail traffic count. These numbers catch the attention of national advocacy groups, attracting diverse funding sources. • There are important public health benefits of using non-motorized transportation. Personal health and well-being is enhanced. Public health is enhanced by reduction in amount of particulate from motor vehicle use. • This project preserves the unique river corridor for public access and enjoyment. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-12 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No X N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund -CIP $32,000 Totals - - 32,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel 660 660 A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 28,800 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 2,880 Fixed Charges 340 340 D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 4,320 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service 1,000 1,000 36,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:45 PM DS Total Score 36 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation UV Sanitation System at Currents Install Ultra-Violet Light at Currents in McCormick Park. UV used in conjunction with chlorine to maintain sanitary pool water minimizes the negative effects of using chlorine as a stand alone system especially at an indoor waterpark. ▪ UV attacks the chloramines that develop in the chlorine sanitation process. The reduction of chloramines results in both the elimination of the "chlorine smell", eye-burn, the reduction of chemical bi-products released into the air, and reduces the amount of chlorine (up to 70%) that must be used to meet Montana State Health Code Standards. ▪ Current code requires public faciliteis to maintain 1.0 ppm of chlorine residual within the swimming pool water. Health Dept officials are considering increasing the minimum to 2.0 ppm which will compound the problem of using chlorine as a stand alone water sanitation system at the indoor facility. Even with the required 1.0 ppm in an indoor facility problems are created when the chloramines reach .5 ppm and the pool needs to be superchlorinated in order to burn off these chloramines. This can be a costly process becasue it releases a nitrogen / ammonia compound into the air. This process can involve several days of c much fresh air supplied as possible to lift contaminates away. In Montana at indoor pools this process results in little or no decrease in the .5 ppm chloramines reading, so the end results being that many indoor swim centers end up with combined chlorine (chloramine) readings way in excess of the state maximums standards. ▪ Ultimately, UV will increase patron comfort level, and protect faciltiy equiment, and help extend the life equipment. Shirley Kinsey Parks & Recreation Reduction in chemical use creating a healthier play environment. The major impact on operating cost would be seen in sustainable revenue from repeat customers who like to play in a comfortable environment. This constant need for air removal to protect patrons and equipment from the effects of chemical laden air creates a cold environment. Water play and constant fresh air in an indoor environment will create a cold customer experience at Currents in McCormick Park. The $900 annual cost includes UV bulb replacement. Staff predicts this will be offset by a combination of increased revenue and decreased costs. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- UV Sanitation System PR-12 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 2 5 10 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 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 36 UV system is one of the lowest operation cost methods of achieving high water sanitation. Yes, because a sanitary pool is essential to public health. Green architecture and aquatics facilities that maintain operating costs while serving more citizens. Quantitative Analysis Comments During public discussion on design and feature of these facilities, citizens of Missoula expressed their desire to see us use alternatives to chemical whenever possible. USAquatics, USA Swimming and research completed by World Health Organization, Yong H, Kim, PHD, along with other research (available at request), supports installation of UV Systems to decrease chlorine use by up to 1/3, decrease chlorine corrosion of facilities, improve water quality and increase revenue generated. Yes. The idea would be to provide for a more appealing swim environment to build customer loyalty and repeat business. State health code requires a maximum chloramines level of .5ppm. Indoor facilities traditionally have to follow expensive maintenance procedures to "super chlorinate"; the process by which the chloramines level is reduced. Many indoor facilities are unable to lower the level significantly and must resort to dumping and replacing water on a frequent basis, and at great cost. UV systems have been proven effective at lowering and maintaining low levels of chloramines, reducing the amount of chlorine required to maintain clean water in the pool. Many people are sensitive to chemicals, and chlorine is a very strong sanitizer. Anytime we can reduce the use of such strong chemicals and still achieve sanitation requirements we need to consider the benefits. The most common discomfort felt by swimmers is dry, itchy skin and burning eyes. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Missoula Aquatics - Use of Chlorine January 10, 2006 Every code in the United States requires the use of a halogen family based disinfectant which is fed via an NSF International approved disinfectant feeder. The chemical levels are maintained using an Oxidation Reduction Potential (ORP) based chemical controller which has been found to be very effective: • 1936 - Harvard University study on ORP • 1968 - German Federal Health Department study of ORP • Sven Carlsen, Evaluation of Disinfecting Effect of Swimming Pool Water by Redox Potential Inst. Wasser, Germany (1968). • 1972 - World Health Organization: 650 mV for virtually instantaneous bacteria and viral inactivation. • 1982 - German DIN-Standard: 750 mV (pools & spas) Generally accepted level for effective sanitation is 650 mV or above (drinking water). Levels below 650 mV become unsafe for pools or drinking water. • 1985 - NEHA: James C. Brown of Oregon Department of Health and Prof. Eric Mood of Yale presented findings from a study of 30 public and semi-public spas in the Portland area. It showed ORP should be adopted as a monitoring parameter with a minimum level 650 mV . • 1988 - NSPI: minimum 650 mV for pools & spas • Symposium in London verified killed at ORP levels of 865 mV. • Phil Kiser, Automated Oxidant Control Cooling Tower Institute – Technical Paper No. TP9208 (1992) • A study by Yong H. Kim, Ph.D. Evaluation of Redox Potential and Chlorine Residual as a Measure of Water Disinfection, (1993) It is recognized that filters do not kill pathogens. Filters remove debris from the water and only do that with water that passes through the recirculation system (42% of pool water per turnover per Gage and Bidwells’s Law of Dilution). The debris must also be larger than the opening in the filtration media. Many bacteria and viruses are not and thus are not removed by filters. That is why an approved disinfectant must be used. The use of ozone systems has been more or less abandoned world wide because of initial cost, operational cost and lack of residual in the water. The use of ultraviolet (UV) systems has shown promise, but only as a supplemental disinfectant, as it too does not leave a residual in the water. Effective UV systems have only been on the market for 2 or 3 years in the United States. Hydrogen peroxide has found favor in some parts of the world, primarily in indoor spas and small pools. The EPA has not approved it as a stand alone water purifier. It is an expensive liquid, stores poorly, is dangerous and damaging if spilled, and dissipates out of the pool as rapidly as un-stabilized chlorine. Although diatomaceous earth (DE) filters are not being used, hydrogen peroxide also dissolves DE. Payback: Corrosion of Facility Reduced Reduction of Health Risks Less chlorine, exchange of air required less frequently Increase use by chlorine sensitive citizens For more information on healthy swimming, go to www.cdc.gov. search for Recreational Water Illnesses ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-14 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 96,000 Totals - - - - 96,000 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs (1,100) (500) F. Other Costs 96,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service (1,100) (500) 96,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:46 PM ABC Total Score 20 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation 580 Backhoe Backhoe This is to replace the 1977 backhoe unit #202. The old backhoe has an excess of 5000 hours of operation. With the number of hours on the 1977 backhoe, there are many components wearing out on the hydraulic pumps and hoses. All areas that have moving joints or parts are showing signs of wear. The backhoe is used for deep digs, manholes, field renovations, and irrigation projects. The Forestry Division uses the backhoe to dig tree wells, load logs, haul chips and snow removal. This backhoe is the oldest of three currently in our fleet. All are necessary. This backhoe is used 500 hours per year. Costs Backhoe: $96,000 Was PR-4 in FY06 A new backhoe would be under warranty for the first year, so there would be a savings. The future savings would be in gas costs. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-14 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 1 5 5 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 20 A newer vehicle will use less fuel, decrease pollutants This equipment is necessary for the Department to deal with heavy snow falls, larger park projects and tree plantings. Yes, Goal #4 MPP. Develop and maintain parks, rec facilities, trails and open space areas at a high level of quality, appropriate for the type of use and nature of the facility. Quantitative Analysis Comments This backhoe is used 75 - 100 days per year. Over 30 years, that would be up to 30,000 uses or less than $4/use plus operating costs The age and condition of this piece of equipment requires we act soon CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Backhoe Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: UNIT 202 CASE BACKHOE By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1977 ( 29 YEARS) Project: Backhoe CONDITION: TIRED Unit 254 USAGE: PARKS PIT LOADER ASSUMPTION: UNIT 202 WILL BE SOLD OR TRADED UNIT 254 WILL MOVE TO RESERVE STATUS MAKE: UNIT 254 CASE AGE: 1989 ( 17 YEARS) CONDITION: SATISFACTORY USAGE: PARKS OPERATIONS Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 202 Backhoe New Backhoe Total Hours UNKNOWN Total Hours 0 Actual hours Unknown meter changed Total Hours (estimated) 15,000+ Total Hours N\A Operating Costs Per Hour $8.86 Operating Costs Per Hour $3.19 Repair Costs Per Hour $37.13 Repair Costs Per Hour $13.51 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.00 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $5.67 Unit is fully Depreciated Based on a 15,000 hour use. Total Cost Per Mile $45.99 Total Cost Per Hour $22.37 Expected Cost Savings per Hour -$23.62 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage Rate 15 Based on Last years usage. Estimated Expense Reduction -$354.30 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Reduction -$373.86 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.0552 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Reduction -$389.23 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.04113 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-15 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Satellite Facilities - Operations 29,802 51,992 Debt Proceeds- Parks Operations Office 300,139 Debt Proceeds CIP GF (demo 100 Hickory) in 2011 175,000 General Fund - Covered Parks-Veh Maint 110,000 110,000 General Fund - Fence for Vehicle Maint outbuildings 37,000 General Fund - demo for Vehicle Maint outbuilding 27,000 Debt Service 28,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 56,000 Totals - - 204,802 244,992 56,000 356,139 231,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 1,092,933 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 1,092,933 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:46 PM BW Total Score 44 Rob Thames Parks & Recreation These buildings will provide space to streamline operations carried out by the Parks and Recreation Department saving the city time and money. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation/Public Works Centralized maintenance As mandated, the Parks and Recreation Department will be vacating the facilities at 100 Hickory so that it may be returned to park land. Because the move impacts the Department of Public Works and the Department of Parks and Recreation both departments have worked jointly to reach a cooperative recommendation (see attached sheet): Parks & Recreation FY07 - Satellite facility - District at Fort Missoula - $29,802 FY08 - Satellite facility - District at Fairgrounds - $51,992 FY10 - *Finish off & remodel existing admin building - $74,029 Add offices for Streets to shop - $24,324 Add/remodel locker room space in existing shop - $162,228 Create woodshop work space in shop - $39,558 Total cost for building needs FY10 = $300,139 FY11 - Demolition of 100 Hickory - $175,000 Public Works $37,000 in FY07 - Fencing for Vehicle Maintenance outbuildings $110,000 in FY07 & FY08 is for covered storage outside for the Streets Department vehicles and equipment. $27,000 in FY08 for demo of Vehicle Maintenance outbuildings Centralized Maintenance building necessary updates for Parks Dept. Was PR-26 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-15 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 2 5 10 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 44 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Centralized Maintenance Qualitative Analysis Comments These buildings will help the Parks Department to continue with their essential functions and increase their operating capacity. The Parks Department will share space with other city services allowing more efficient city operations. This will reduce the travel necessary to complete the operations requirements of the Parks Department reducing the congestion of the city streets and improve the air shed quality. This will help reduce congestion of Missoula streets through less necessary travel and improve the ai shed quality. Energy will be conserved through the consolidation of city departments. Essential city services will be improved and expanded through the sharing of space between city departments and operations will be enhanced by the ease of communication between city departments. This project will improve the city of Missoula's infrastructure giving better services to the residents of Missoula and the visitor who come to Missoula. This will strengthen the economy and utilize the tax base of Missoula in a more efficient manner. The centralization created with these buildings will reduce traffic congestion, pollution and better the environment of Missoula. Implementation of McCormick Master Park plan and Master Park Plan Quantitative Analysis Comments The buildings will save the tax payers money through more streamline operations, inner-city- departmental cooperation and sharing, increased productivity during regularly scheduled shifts. Per Master planning for McCormick Park and agreements with LWCF/NPS, we need to convert 100 Hickory to parkland by 2011 ---PAGE BREAK--- Information/Analysis on centralized maintenance buildings Project justification As mandated, the Parks and Recreation Department will be vacating the facilities at 100 Hickory so that it may be returned to park land. Because the move impacts the Department of Public Works and the Department of Parks and Recreation both departments have worked jointly to reach the following cooperative recommendation: *Modify existing metal office building on Scott Street to provide offices for the Lands, Parks Superintendent, Urban Forester, Conservation Lands Manager, Parks Maintenance Manager, Parks Project Coordinator, Park and Trail Design and Development Manager, Training/ Safety Coordinator, Administrative Secretary, public greeting area. Meeting rooms, storage/ custodial space, work area for mapping and plan review, plotter station, lunch room, and restrooms will also be included. *Modify north side of existing vehicle maintenance building to provide offices for Street Supt., two Street Supervisors, Administrative Secretary. *Modify north side of existing vehicle maintenance building to provide men's and women's locker rooms to include toilet facilities and showers, break/ meeting rooms for Street Division field personnel and Park Operations Division field personnel. A wood shop cutting room, layout space for assembly, and Operations tool room will also be included. The ceilings of the office space, locker rooms, break/ meeting rooms, wood shop areas would be built to support palletized storage. *Modify existing building at Fort Missoula Regional Park to provide beak/ meeting room, storage and work area for district field employees. Some equipment storage will also be included. *Modify existing building at the Fairgrounds to provide beak/ meeting room, storage and work area for district field employees. Some equipment storage will also be included. *Removing the buildings, paved surfaces, fencing, at 100 Hickory requested in FY 2010 Benefits The centralized maintenance buildings will increase the ability to communicate with other city departments currently located at centralized maintenance. Travel will be reduced through consolidation and the productivity of the Park Department workers will improve due to higher quality facilities. The wood shop will be more efficient and safer due to modern updates. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-17 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 35,000 Totals - - - - 35,000 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 35,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 35,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:48 PM DS Total Score 36 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Brush Chipper Replace unit 248 with a new brush chipper. A new chipper is essential for the Urban Forestry Division to fulfill the needs for wood and brush disposal. We have two chippers currently, one is from 1985, unit 248, and is utilized for special projects located out of the public right of ways and parks such as fuel reduction on conservation lands; the other is unit 267 purchased in 1996. Unit 267 was scheduled for replacement in 2005. We use chipper unit 267 on a daily basis and two chippers will be necessary to adequately equip two crews working on separate projects in the field. Generally, one crew will do special work orders and the other crew will do routine block pruning; both requiring a chipper. Our most utilized chipper, unit 267, has incurred a fair amount of cost from repairs due to wear and tear. Unit 248 is very outdated, unsafe due to intake shoot length and will not meet the need of our crews. A new second chipper will also be a great benefit in helping complete time sensitive projects created by Public Works such as: brush removal in alleys, trimming trees for access to sewer cleanouts and clearing streets for large equipment; MRA projects, and projects associated with other departments and agencies. This project was moved back to FY '09 from FY '07 due to our current unit functioning well and a replacement chipper is not a necessity for FY '07. Was PR-05 in FY06 This unit would need general maintenance such as oil and fluid changes, chipper blade sharpening and replacement, and fuel. There is no appreciable change in maintenance cost from the current unit. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin Bike/Ped Connections PR-17 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 36 The unit will help develop and maintain parks, recreational facilities, trails and open space areas at a high level of quality, appropriate for the type of use and nature of the facility (Goal number 4 in the Master Parks & Rec. Plan) This new unit should burn fuel cleaner and reduce the amount of overall pollutants. We would like to increase the amount of Bio-Diesel used to further reduce pollutants. Urban Forestry maintenance is essential for the health and safety of the community forest. In order to have maximum effectiveness we will need a minimum of two crews working in the field and a second chipper is necessary. Yes, this will help fulfill the community livability strategic goal and help us to develop and maintain parks and public rights-of-ways. Quantitative Analysis Comments The unit will help to increase the production of tree maintenance within out community. We will be able to handle service requests in a more timely manner and reduce the number of hazardous trees. The sooner we acquire another chipper the sooner we can increase productivity with the addition of staffing needs. This unit will be necessary once the addition of another aerial lift truck and staff are obtained. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Cost/Benefit Analysis New Brush Chipper Costs The current unit 267 is up for replacement in FY 2005. This has logged over 1400 hours since 1995 when the Forestry Division has owned it. It currently costs approximately $44.91 per hour to operate at $3,307 per year. We expect a new unit, priced $13,000 less than the cost of our existing unit ($48,000), to be much less expensive to maintain due to a greater advancement in engine technology, fuel economy, and an overall lower cost in depreciation value. Benefits A new chipper unit will be a vital piece of equipment for advancement of the Forestry Division; allowing the ability to functionally have two crews working in the field. We will be able to service the public in a timely and cost effective manner and be able to deal with major storm damage faster than previous years. Two field crews will allow us to deal with the removal of hazard trees in addition to address preventative pruning efforts to ensure the long term health and viability to our urban forest. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-18 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes x No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund $27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 Totals - - 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 27,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 27,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 27,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:49 PM DS Total Score 41 Scott VanOmmeran Parks & Recreation No appreciative change in operating budget as this is replacement. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Deck Mower/Snow Removal 72" Deck Mower Replacement This is a multi-use piece of equipment which can be used 12 months of the year. It is essential to the Department for mowing turf grass and snow removal. Our primary Deck mowers are each used approximately 462 hours per year. The price includes the trailer to haul the equipment to the job site. The mowers should be on a 7 year replacement schedule for greatest efficiency. The Department has six 72" deck mower/snow removal machines which are all necessary to meet the demands of the expanded acreage and lineal feet of sidewalks and trails. Mower #239 will be moved to backup. This will replace #256 in the fleet. Was PR-10 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin Bike/Ped Connections PR-18 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 3 4 12 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 41 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Deck Mower/Snow Removal Qualitative Analysis Comments We are under contract with the State and County to mow turf and remove snow. Also clear sidewalks of snow to comply with City Ordinances State & County contracts for mowing turf and removing snow. Newer vehicles run efficiently and help reduce pollution These mowers/snow removal machines help the Department meet citizen expectations for mowed and safe turf and trail right of ways as well as re-mowing quickly and efficiently (Goal #4 MPP). This will help fulfill the County and State contracts for turf maintenance and snow removal. Yes, it relates to Goal #4 of the Master Park Plan Develop and maintain parks, rec facilities, trails and open space areas at a high level of quality. Community Livability Quantitative Analysis Comments The benefits of these machines are their multi-use capabilities. This benefits the community at $25,000 over 5 years. The cost/citizen/year for snow removal and mowing is $.09. Without equipment, there would be a loss in service to public. Continual replacement of mowers reduces maintenance costs and allows for quality service ---PAGE BREAK--- For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: UNIT 239 JOHN DEERE 1185 By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1999 ( 7 YEARS) Project: 72 " Mower 239 CONDITION: WORN Unit 239 USAGE: LAWN MAINTENANCE Assumption: #239 moves to backup MAKE: UNIT 256 TORO 325D #256 the existing backup mower is sold. AGE: 1995 ( 11 YEARS) CONDITION: POOR USAGE: LAWN MAINTENANCE Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Rates 256 Cost Rates 2006 or New 72 " Mower With Attachments Total Hours 2,737 Total Hours <250 Operating Costs Per H $2.39 Operating Costs Per Hour $1.96 Repair Costs Per Hour $14.27 Repair Costs Per Hour $3.19 Depreciatio $0.00 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $2.70 Unit is fully depreciated Based on 10,000 hours of use Total Cost Per Hour $16.66 Total Cost Per Hour $7.85 Expected Cost Savings -$8.81 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usa 269 Based on Last years usage (Unit #239) Estimated Annual Expe -$2,369.89 Estimated 2nd Year Ex -$2,424.18 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.02291 Estimated 3rd Year Ex -$2,483.36 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.02441 *Based on last years fixed, repair, and operating costs for Unit 256. * Usage rates are based on last years usage rates for Unit 239. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-19 4. Description: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Funding Sources Authorization Spent in Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund CIP 135,000 3,726 Impact Fees CIP 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Donations/Grants/spon sors/pledge 50,000 50,000 250,000 250,000 Partners/JTL in-kind 380,628 338,726 Federal Funds 6,000,000 GO Bond - City 6,250,000 Totals 515,628 3,726 438,726 100,000 12,550,000 300,000 50,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 13,958,080 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: FY 04 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:49 PM DG Total Score 44 Donna Gaukler Parks & Recreation $3,500 -$5000 acre per year. Some offset by fees. FY07 Phase 1A budget - all items include phased approaches and all work to be done on the 83 acre City parcel next to South Av. The credits from JTL would be matched to the by the CIP request. See attached FY07 Phase IA budget: Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Fort Missoula Regional Park (FMRP) Enables the City to move forward with development of the Fort Missoula lands as an outcome of the adoption of a master site plan for a regional park Development of Fort Missoula Regional Park meets the obligation and promises of the 1995 bond language which specifically named a large athletic and regional park. This development has significant support among the 10,000 community's softball, soccer, and rugby players. The park will also provide for passive and contemplative recreation, dog walkers, trail users, historians, and naturalists of all ages, abilities and backgrounds. The development will be phased andpaid for through GO Bond, federal funds, cash and in-kind donations. See attached cost estimates breakdown: NOTE: attachement reflects 2001 figures. Phase I - $3.2 million, Phase II - $5.2 million, Phase III - $4.0 million, Phase IV - $2.2 million FMRP experienced both good & bad news in Fall 2002. An agreement with JTL, Inc. will grant the City an additonal 86.5 acres of ponds, picnic areas, and Bitterroot River access, plus an esimated $140,000 per year in credits for 3 years. In Nov 02 the FMRP mill levy failed at the polls for a number of reasons including a week economy, however the issue failed by only 150 votes within the city limits. Phase I of the Arch/Hist Research was completed and met HPO 106 requirements. Phase II of the Arch/Hist 106 requires a transfer of use of Guardsmen Lane to a western route by the MT NG US Army. Match $50,000 from FY04 and FY05 $50,000 to acquire a landscape architect to survey the area and begin drawings for rough grading so JTL can begin to shape the park in FY06. Missoula Soccer Assoc. has pledge $100,000 match if the City will add $100,000 to the project. Approximate amount spent in 2002 for planning process - $34,000 Was PR-18 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-19 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 3 4 12 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 44 The project is being designed to meet all of these criteria. The design will encourage access by mass transfer or non-motorized uses. It responds to the historical, cultural and natural resource values both on the site and in its relationship to the surrounding properties. It conserves energy and resources by following a design that encompasses the entire site, can be developed economically in phases, and consolidates active recreation uses for maximum maintenance efficiencies. The community strongly supports the development of the regional park as a high priority. The lack of adequate recreational facilities is well-documented. Availability of recreational facilities is an important factor in community well-being, public health and perceived livability by residents and those who may be considering Missoula as a business location. Inadequate soccer fields and increased demands necessitate action. Community involvement and livability: it continues to involve the public in the realization of a goal of a regional park. It also is an impetus to continue to work with School District toward acquisition of 20-acre parcel. Community Livability: makes use of purchased open space land. Allows expansion of trail system and connection of gaps in system. Contributes to overall public health and well-being. Quantitative Analysis Comments If citizens agree and vote to be taxed; maximum support is demonstrated and local taxes, with additional funds. The project could be fully leveraged by matching federal money. Citizens may recommend additional means of acquiring adequate funds. The project allows the public to use the land for purposes for which it has been acquired. The project enhances the investment of open space funds which have been expended to date. There is an existing structure of community contacts set up for the master site plan process that can be used to help develop support for the project. Much of the public discussion has centered around keeping up the momentum and following through rapidly with implementation of the plan. Timing of a bond or mill levy vote could be critical. The community soccer needs have far exceeded our ability to serve. The project as new construction will incorporate elements that will significantly increase the accessibility of these kinds of facilities to disabled and challenged people over what is currently available locally. The City has a social contract with the public who has sponsored acquisition of the land in the interest of developing a regional park. The general fund portion will be used to match a Land & Water Conservation Fund Grant. There is a notable lack of recreational facilities in this area. The facility will contribute to public health by offering a destination for healthful exercise and outdoor recreation. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Fort Missoula Regional Park Phase 1A FY 07 Expenditure Plan Phased Park development of eastern portion of City parcel along South Ave – (east half of 83 acre city parcel) Roads/Parking (rough grade & subsurface work)* 150,000 Trails (rough grade & subsurface work)* 100,000 Earth work, site* 100,000 Demolition & removal* 10,000 Seed & erosion controls* 20,628 Hist/Arch mitigation (signs, interpretation, dig) 15,000 Well sitting, permits, irrigation design 20,000 Contingency + art 1% 0 Marketing, gift book, fundraising, signs 5,000 Professional services & drawings 291,000 Total 711,628 A significant amount of cash is needed to use for professional services, fundraising, supplies, etc. Note: *Some costs will include in-kind services and use of $380,628 of JTL credits. Balance of costs in Phase 1A to be paid by GF CIP (if funded at $50K in FY07 & FY08) for a total of $331,000. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-20 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund - CIP $7,500 Parking Commission funds 7,500 Totals - - 15,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies 2,500 2,500 B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service 2,500 2,500 15,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:50 PM DS Total Score 44 Scott VanOmmeran Parks & Recreation These costs include the supplies for gas, fuel, and clean up supplies. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Hotsy Pressure Washer Hot/ Cold Water Cleaning System This is mobile pressure washer system that will have multiple uses for the Department. With hot and cold water capabilities, the department can become effective in cleaning and sanitizing: equipment, graffiti, sidewalks, trails, concrete, pools, splash decks, restrooms, bridges, pigeon droppings, facilities, sanitize trash cans and clean other furniture (picnic tables, benches, picnic shelters) in our park system. With new facilities such as the Madison Street Pedestrian Bridge, this equipment provides maintenance to areas requiring specific cleaning and maintenance where water supplies are not available. Includes two attachments for abrasive removal of paint and other stains on concrete, brick, wood, and steel. This price includes a trailer to transport the unit to the job site. This price also includes attachments to the equipment such as hose reels, hoses, fittings and mounting hardware. ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin Bike/Ped Connections PR-20 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 2 5 10 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 44 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Hotsy Pressure Washer Qualitative Analysis Comments This equipment will provide an effective measure against graffiti and vandalism to discourage activities detrimental to our community appearance. Responding to public safety issues to clean and sanitize our restrooms, picnic shelters and park structures assures a healthy environment in our parks and trails. Having a pressure washer will limit the amount of toxic chemicals necessary for graffiti removal reducing hazardous pollution and will also limit the amount of painting over park facilities and structures. We will also limit trips to vehicle maintenance to clean our vehicles and equipment saving on fuel consumption and vehicle usage. Yes, this equipment will help meet citizens expectations of sanitary and aesthetically pleasing facilitie for their use. Providing this using a non-toxic method assists towards a healthier environment for citizens and our staff. Yes, Goal #4 in the MPP, Maintain parks, rec facilities at a high level of quality. Community livability Quantitative Analysis Comments Yes, the department will be able to clean amenities in a non-toxic manner, removing graffiti, cleaning park facilities and improving sanitation with quicker response and efficiency. Yes, with all the new facilities and increased use of current facilities, there will be more cleaning required to maintain a sanitary and aesthetic environment at an acceptable standard. ---PAGE BREAK--- Benefit The pressure washer has diverse uses for the Parks and Recreation Department. Addressing public health and community issues to remove graffiti from bridges, overpasses, pedestrian walks, sidewalks and trails by using mechanical methods for removing paint and other nuisance material. This equipment meets a Department goal of removing graffiti and other vandalism within 48 hours of the incident. The pressure washer and attachments also have applications useful to the Parking Commission. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-21 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund $22,243 Donations 2,000 Unknown 21,543 12,914 Totals - - 24,243 - - 21,543 12,914 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 58,700 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 58,700 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:51 PM DS Total Score 20 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation I-90 Interchange at N Reserve/Grant Creek Rd This is a citizen request to restore the North Median at the I-90 interchange. This request is for $19,243 from the 2007 CIP for restoration of the North Median at the I-90 Interchange. This work is a component of the overall master plan the Grant Creek Neighborhood is working to achieve in co-operation with the Parks and Recreation to make this interchange a clean and attractive entrance to the City. The total cost for the restoration of all three planted medians designed and estimated by Parks and Recreation, is $58,700. This CIP FY 07 request is for the Phase I of the project which consists of the renovation of the north bed only. The project has been broken down into three phases as follows: Total square footage to be renovated 10,900 square feet Total project cost estimate $58,700 Phase I FY07- North bed 4500 square feet = $24,243 Phase II FY10 - South bed 4000 square feet = $21,543 Phase III FY11- Triangle bed 2400 square feet = $12,914 The Grant Creek associations and adjoining businesses have pledged $2000.00. Citizen request is for work to begin prior to July 1, 2006. Project will include the following: Removal of poor soil, installation of new well-drained topsoil, irrigation, weed burrier, plantings and mulch David Shaw Parks & Recreation No appreciable increases expected due to the improvement. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-21 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 1 5 5 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 20 Green spaces reduce pollution and enhance aesthetics. Parks and green spaces are recognized in the Strategic Goals, neighborhood plans, Transp. plans, Master Park Plan, and Growth Policy. Yes, in the areas of community participation and implementation of various aspects of Plans mentioned above. Quantitative Analysis Comments Matches a neighborhood grant request. Gains Grant Creek support of City Govt. Enhances community entrance. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-23 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund CIP- padlocks 7,900 $ Totals - - - 7,900 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 7,900 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 7,900 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 08-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:51 PM DC Total Score 38 David Claman Parks and Recreation A simplified key system will reduce staff inefficiency and response time to emergencies. Greater control over facility access will reduce unauthorized access and capital loss due to theft and lack of access accountability. Lack of key control results has resulted in unexplained access to park facilities and resulting vandalism. Many of the keys have been duplicated so frequently that the keys do not open the locks consistently. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Padlock System replacement Replace all padlocks with a hierarchical lock system. Parks and Recreation department currently has over 100 keyed padlocks that are opened with 4 different keys and 50 door locks that are opened with 17 different keys (see key inventory in Cost analysis). Our managers carry key books with over 20 different keys to access our facilities. We are proposing a key system with a hierarchy of access that would allow managers full access with one or two keys (for both doors and padlocks), district leaders lesser access (without access to manager offices), district labors access to only facilities essential to job tasks, and the public access to only rented facilities or storage areas essential to the recreation activity. ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-23 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 3 4 12 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce - 3 - 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 38 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Lock System Qualitative Analysis Comments Not significantly Yes, After hour callout procedures are complicated by the number of keys and padlocks. The first question on any callout is what key is needed to unlock the facility and if the key works in the intended lock. Yes, the strategic plan recommends best practice evaluation of City services. Quantitative Analysis Comments Yes, Each year it is estimated that there is vandalism due to unauthorized key access to parks facilities costs approximately $2,000. Yes. Each year more keys go out into the system and control is further reduce. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS KEY LOCK PROGRAM Cost: The cost of this complete system is minimal compared to changing locks every time an employee leaves, or loses their keys. These locks secure a large inventory of valuable tools, supplies, etc. The changing of all the external padlocks and keys would reduce the cost spent yearly on re-keying, changing padlocks, and unauthorized entry to secure locations. Benefit: The existing lock system has been in place for many years. We no longer have the ability to duplicate some of the keys as they have been duplicated so many times, the clones no longer work. Also, general access keys are the same as our restricted keys. This causes problems with access to storage areas and staff only areas. Citizens will use these keys to enter unauthorized areas and unknowingly disrupt normal settings of electrical panels and irrigation controls. This then gets reported as trouble, requiring staff to be dispatched on a callout procedure. Each after-hours callout equates to 3 hours minimum at time and a half. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-24 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes x No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 To Be Determined $65,000 Impact Fees Totals - - - 65,000 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 65,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 65,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:52 PM DS Total Score 37 Scott VanOmmeran Parks & Recreation Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Leaf Vacuum Leaf Vacuum A leaf vacuum is necessary for the collection, removal and disposal for fall leaf clean-up in our parks, along Stephens Ave., City Hall, County Courthouse and other city property. The leaf vacuum is also used by Urban Forestry for clean-up during stump grinding operations. This would replace the Departments existing leaf vacuum, a 1967 Vac-All. ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin Bike/Ped Connections PR-24 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 2 5 10 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 1 3 3 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 37 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Leaf Vacuum Qualitative Analysis Comments The new leaf vac would be more fuel efficient and require less repair and maintenance. The equipment is necessary for the leaf collection in our parks, right of ways, City Hall, County Courthouse and clean up debris in our drainage systems. Yes, Goal #4 MPP. Develop and maintain parks, rec facilities, trails and open space areas at a high level of quality, appropriate for the type of use and nature of the facility. Quantitative Analysis Comments The leaf vac is used through out the year and is important for meeting the increasing demands of the clean up and leaf removal in our expanding park system. The age, condition and difficulty acquiring parts for repairs and continuing operation requires the equipment be replaced. ---PAGE BREAK--- For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: UNIT 294 VACTOR By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1967 ( 39 YEARS) Project: Vacuum Truck CONDITION: VERY TIRED Unit 294 USAGE: PARKS LEAF REMOVAL UNIT 294 2006 OR NEW TRAILER STYLE VACUUM TRUCK Total Hours 10,000+ Total Hours <250 Operating Costs Per Hou $8.62 Operating Costs Per Hour $5.31 Repair Costs Per Hour $19.14 Repair Costs Per Hour $10.43 Depreciation $0.00 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $5.50 Unit is fully depreciated Based on 10,000 hour life Total Cost Per Hour $27.76 Total Cost Per Hour $21.24 Expected Cost Savings p -$6.52 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage 93 Based on La Estimated Annual Expen -$606.36 Estimated 2nd Year Expe -$831.74 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.3717 Estimated 3rd Year Expe -$1,151.72 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.3847 New unit cost estimates provided by Normont Equipment. Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-25 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund CIP 109,000 16,000 Title 1 (current & return from Cemetery) ADA $25,000 See ADA CIP CS #29 MRA URD1 (pond) 45,000 Vitalogy/private/grants 200,000 CIP GF Cregg Hickory Imp 13,000 SID Cregg Hickory Imp 8,000 MRA URD1 (Skate park) 130,000 LWCF Grant 50000 Fisheries Grant $27,500 Totals 580,000 - 27,500 - - 16,000 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel 2,140 660 A. Land Cost Supplies 4,280 B. Construction Cost 486,000 Purchased Services 2,688 C. Contingencies (10% of B) 48,600 Fixed Charges 340 D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 72,900 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs 2,142 F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service 11,250 1,000 607,500 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:52 PM DS Total Score 45 Donna Gaukler Parks & Recreation Operations costs reflect Skatepark. No expected increases beyond aquatic and skate park budgets Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation McCormick Park Site plan Implementation Site plan, design, renovation McCormick Park is one of Missoula's premiere parks, both because of its' size and its' location. A number of changes are occurring in the area that provide opportunity for improvements to the Park. In addition, there are a number of problems in the Park that need attention. Changes occurring include Orange St and Cregg Lane, Civic Stadium, new trails, Central maintenance, new restrooms, indoor aquatics facility and new skate park. Problems include aging pool, issues related to fish/ice pond, aging irrigation system, poor restroom condition, unfinished parcels within the Park, tennis courts in need of replacement. The Department proposes a multi-phase approach to consider the following: New master plan for the Park to create improved NMT hub, review of aquatics feasibility study to determine future community aquatic needs at McCormick Park, skate park, community center, improved and safer fishing and skating, improved and safer parking, improved restrooms, accessibility, etc. Planning included the neighborhood, the region the Park serves and the community. Funds transferred back to Parks from MRA in FY04 for A&E of Hickory Cregg Lane. In FY07 ADA Improvements per ADA plan - trails, pond, play areas, access/connections @ $28,000 Was PR-23 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin Bike/Ped Connections PR-25 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 3 4 12 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 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 45 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Parks, trails, green spaces, healthy recreation MPP, growth policy Growth policy, site plan, MPP, Aquatics plan Quantitative Analysis Comments Yes, number of funding sources, MRA, private, partnerships Yes, number of funding sources, MRA, private, partnerships ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-26 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 CTEP 333,333 Open Space 70,417 NRTF 35,000 Totals - - 70,417 368,333 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel 1,200 1,200 A. Land Cost 170,000 Supplies 300 300 B. Construction Cost 215,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 21,500 Fixed Charges 500 500 D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 32,250 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs 300 300 F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service 2,300 2,300 438,750 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:53 PM ABC Total Score 49 David Shaw Parks & Recreation Labor costs for trails determined at $2300 per linear mile. Cost of routine resurfacing approximately every 7 years dependent on weather not included in budget. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Milwaukee Railroad Trail West This project will create a bicycle/pedestrian trail along the Milwaukee Corridor between Russell St. and Reserve St. Corridor acquisition is the #1 priority of the adopted 2001 Non-Motorized Plan. This project enables a coordinated effort to acquire access to land, through purchases or easements. Development of selected areas would follow acquisition. The project leverages federal funds (CTEP) and possible National Recreational Trails Fund grants. Matching funds are from the Open Space Bond. Open Space funds shown represent the balance of the initial $235,000 approved by City Council for BCN, as well as $200,000 recommended by OSAC and approved by resolution of City Council for future commuter trail projects (see note). Note: About $158,000 balance from OS Bond 1st allocation; $200,000 from second allocation. CTEP $187,000 = $87,000 spent on BCN phase II; $100,000 under agreement with MDT for Milwaukee West Trial. CTEP has approved the project and acquisition negotiations have begun. Construction is expected to begin summer 2007 (FY 08). Was PR-20 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- Milwaukee Railroad Trail PR-26 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 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments The City has an agreement in effect with MDT. Corporate and community support is high. Development is threatening the continuous corridor for the trail way between Russell St. and Mullan Rd. Air quality improvements and quality of life improvements are benefits of the project. Yes. The project will preserve the Milwaukee Corridor which is eligible for historic status. It will allow continuation of the historic use, transportation in a related mode, via non-motorized means. The project works in concert with plans to conserve open space. It encourages use of non-polluting non-motorized transportation mitigating air quality problems. It is an integral part of the City's TDM plan to reduce VMT The project contributes to Strategic goal of liability by providing an inexpensive, convenient and safe means of travel and healthy recreation linking neighborhoods with community resources. Specifically, it is a primary component of the 2001 Non-motorized Plan, with specific reference to corridor preservation as #1 goal. The project is also in the Transportation Plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments Yes. The City's match leverages TEA21 and other grant funds. Progress attract corporate donations of easement and cash, such as MRL, Diocese of Helena, US Forest Service, BFI, Bob Wards, Safeway & ARCO. Yes. Each year more development occurs along the corridor, making establishment of a continuous corridor more problematic. Also, the CTEP agreement is in effect. Federal appropriation availability over the long term is always in question. ---PAGE BREAK--- COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS PROJECT NAME: Bicycle Commuter Network PROJECT SPONSOR: Parks and Recreation RESPONSIBLE PERSON: Dave Shaw BENEFITS: • Primary commuter trail elements in irreplaceable corridors. • Important element of City's Transportation Demand Management strategy; essential to reduce VMT 5-6% over a five-year period. Facilities are the foundation of TDM programs. • In Transportation Plan Update, Non-motorized Plan, Open Space Plan, Comp Master Park Plan. • Very popular with citizens; derived from most-requested trails • Successful in attracting multiple funding sources: Open Space Bond-$235,000 + $200,000 City Council-approved; ARCO-$50,000 (in County); National Recreational Trails Act Grants-$5,000, 25,884 (Phase One); $6,500 (Phase Two); $20,000 (Milwaukee Trail). COSTS: • Cost of project is approximately $435,000. • Operations cost, estimated at $2,300 annually per mile (including maintenance, plowing, railroad insurance), are about 1% of construction cost. This is consistent with national average. Note: some of trail is on-street, some in County, and may be paid from other sources. Some of the trail corridor may be subject to development: some sections may be part of subdivision developments; others may not be possible. Community Benefit: • A primary goal of the 2001 Non-motorized Transportation Plan; top goal is corridor preservation before development hinders continuous trail alignment. • 1996 Missoula Transportation Plan Update estimates 5-6% reduction in vehicle miles traveled as a result of building a complete bicycle system, along with other strategies. Assuming: a 25-year life for the project; that this and other current proposed trail projects in the CIP constitute about 1/3 of the entire future system; and using an estimated 4% reduction figure, to allow for times of lower use: the cost of construction, distributed over this estimated reduction of trips over a 25-year period, is two cents per trip. • Trail user numbers are significant: one thousand bicyclists used the Riverfront Trail in one day in a recent trail traffic count. These numbers catch the attention of national advocacy groups, attracting diverse funding sources. • There are important public health benefits of using the non-motorized transportation. Personal health and well-being is enhanced. Public health is enhanced by reduction in amount of particulate from motor vehicle use. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-27 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 30,559 Future CTEP 122,234 250,000 Future Open Space 50,000 Future NRTF County-ARCO Future Hwy. & Roadway Improvements Totals - - - - - 152,793 300,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 452,793 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 452,793 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:55 PM ABC Total Score - City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Bicycle Commuter Network Create a multipurpose path network linking with streets, to improve non-motorized access east/west and north/south Create well-connected off-street bicycle commuter network. Acquisition is the #1 priority of the adopted 2001 Non-motorized Plan. This project enables a coordinated effort to acquire access to land, through purchases or easements. Development of selected areas would follow acquisition. The project leverages federal funds (CTEP), donations and grants, such as RTP. Matching funds are from the Open Space Bond. Open Space funds shown represent the balance of the initial $235,000 approved by City Council for BCN, as well as $200,000 recommended by OSAC and approved by resolution of City Council for future commuter trail projects (See note). ARCO funds are with the County; now being used for an under crossing of BNRR at the end of KW Trail linking new trail easements at Canyon River subdivision. This is a placeholder should the City and County combine funds for matching with City resources. Note: About $158,000 balance from OS Bond 1st allocation; $200,000 from second allocation. CTEP $187,000 = $87,000 spent on BCN phase II; $100,000 under agreement with MDT for Milwaukee West Trail. RTP is anticipated; not in hand. The funding cycle is now on a biannual schedule with applications due June 1, 2003. Potential Projects Include: Milwaukee Trail – Reserve St. to Mullan Rd. Milwaukee Trail - Mullan Rd. to Deschamps Lane Kim Williams Trail East Expansion Bitterroot Branch Trail – North Ave. to Livingston Ave. BNRR under crossing at Kim Williams Missoula to Lolo Trail – Reserve/Brooks to the south FY10 - Trail lighting FY11 - Ron MacDonald Riverfront Trail Asphalt Surfacing David Shaw Parks & Recreation The maintenance impact will not be realized until trails are developed. Corridor acquisition itself does not require additional maintenance. Cost shown is per mile; multiply by mileage of total developed trail for total cost. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-27 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 5 - investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score - Yes. The project will preserve the Milwaukee Corridor which is eligible for historic status. It will allow continuation of the historic use, transportation in a related mode, via non-motorized means. Portions of the trail are adjacent to riparian areas. The project works in concert with plans to conserve open space. It encourages use of non-polluting non-motorized transportation mitigating air quality problems. It is an integral part of the City's TDM plan to reduce VMT The project contributes to Strategic goal of liability by providing an inexpensive, convenient and safe means of travel and healthy recreation linking neighborhoods with community resources. Specifically, it is a primary component of the 2001 Non-motorized Plan, with specific reference to corridor preservation as #1 goal. The project is also in the Transportation Plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments Yes. The City's match will leverages SAFETEA-LU and other grant funds. Progress attracts corporate donations of easement and cash, such as MRL, Diocese of Helena, US Forest Service, BFI, Bob Ward, Safeway, ARCO. Yes. Each year more development occurs along many potential trail corridors in the City, making establishment of a continuous trail system more problematic. Corporate and community support is high. Development is threatening the continuous corridor for the trailway between Russell Street and Mullan Road. Air quality improvements and quality of life improvements are benefits of these projects. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS PROJECT NAME: Bicycle Commuter Network PROJECT SPONSOR: Parks and Recreation RESPONSIBLE PERSON: Dave Shaw BENEFITS: • Primary commuter trail elements in irreplaceable corridors. • Important element of City's Transportation Demand Management strategy; essential to reduce VMT 5-6% over a five-year period. Facilities are the foundation of TDM programs. • In Transportation Plan Update, Non-motorized Plan, Open Space Plan. • Very popular with citizens; derived from most-requested trails • Successful in attracting multiple funding sources: Open Space Bond-$235,000 + $200,000 City Council-approved; ARCO-$50,000 (in County); National Recreational Trails Act Grants-$5,000, 25,884 (Phase One); $6,500 (Phase Two); $20,000 (Milwaukee Trail). COSTS: • Cost of project is approximately 1.5 million dollars • Operations cost, estimated at $2,300 annually per mile (including maintenance, plowing, railroad insurance), are about 1% of construction cost. This is consistent with national average. Note: some of trail is on-street, some in County, and may be paid from other sources. Some of the trail corridor may be subject to development: some sections may be part of subdivision developments; others may not be possible. Community Benefit: • A primary goal of the 2001 Non-motorized Transportation Plan; top goal is corridor preservation before development hinders continuous trail alignment. • 1996 Missoula Transportation Plan Update estimates 5-6% reduction in vehicle miles traveled as a result of building a complete bicycle system, along with other strategies. Assuming: a 25-year life for the project; that this and other current proposed trail projects in the CIP constitute about 1/3 of the entire future system; and using an estimated 4% reduction figure, to allow for times of lower use: the cost of construction, distributed over this estimated reduction of trips over a 25-year period, is two cents per trip. • Trail user numbers are significant: one thousand bicyclists used the Riverfront Trail in one day in a recent trail traffic count. These numbers catch the attention of national advocacy groups, attracting diverse funding sources. • There are important public health benefits of using the non-motorized transportation. Personal health and well-being is enhanced. Public health is enhanced by reduction in amount of particulate from motor vehicle use. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-28 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund- ADA 5,000 350 General Fund 10,000 in-kind labor HHPC 1,000 Donations 550 Totals 5,000 350 - - 11,550 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 16,550 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 16,550 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 15-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:55 PM BW Total Score 28 Rob Thames Parks & Recreation no net impact on general budget Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Moon-Randolph Property-Building stabilization Root Cellar Stabilization In order to protect the site, effectively manage programs, and sustain the Homestead's spirit as a living place, it is vitally necessary to provide accommodations for an on-site manager as well as securing the site for safe public access. The HHPC taking its directives form the strategic has a responsibility to secure the site for public access. Preservation of Historic Structures outlines the actions and objectives needed in order to secure the buildings (see p.4, Moon-Randolph Homestead, strategic plan, attachment There is an immediate need to stabilize the root cellar. Initial assessment of the root cellar was completed in October of 2002, by Jason Lonski, Construction and Historic Preservation. At that time the root cellar was in stable condition except for a small hole in the roof of the structure. From the report, (see attached, Report from Jason Lon ski, attachment 2) "there is a hole approximately 2'x2' in size in the roof structure of the north half. It is currently covered up with some scrap tin, but this isn't preventing the infiltration of moisture." Because of the prolonged exposure to moisture the root cellar's roof caved in the Spring of 2003 making the hole as large as 3 feet across in diameter. In order to temporarily repair the hole, HHPC volunteers and with the help of the Montana Conservation Crew built a 10x12 wood frame to cover the hole of the root cellar roof. A protective tarp was also placed on top. Please refer to cost/benefit analysis for full stabilization of root cellar. CIP funds would go towards the full stabilization of the root cellar in order to secure the site and prevent any injuries associated with falling through or slipping on the sod roof of the root cellar. Was PR-24 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-28 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 1 5 5 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 1 3 3 pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 28 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Moon-Randolph Property -Root Cellar Stabilization Qualitative Analysis Comments There is a hole in the root cellar roof approximately 2' X 2' and creates public health and safety risk and further deterioration of the structure. Conserves the cultural heritage and landscape of the Moon Randolph Homestead while remaining accessible to the public and local school tours as well as increasing trail usage and development of the 1997 Open Space acquisition of the Randolph Property. Community livability. Expansion on cultural, historical and recreation opportunities. Quantitative Analysis Comments Yes Yes, the root cellar is in need of a roof repair. Further delay will impinge on public access and deterioration of the structure. ---PAGE BREAK--- COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS PROJECT NAME: Root Cellar Stabilization PROJECT SPONSOR: Parks and Recreation RESPONSIBLE PERSON: Caitlin DeSilvey, Caretaker DATE: The proposed root cellar stabilization at the publicly owned historic site in Missoula's North Hills will significantly improve the current state of the root cellar and enhance opportunities for public access and provide a foundation for further development for education, restoration and conservation activities at the Homestead. Project Details: Root Cellar Stabilization Project Budget: Moon-Randolph Homestead Estimate from Jason Lonski, Construction & Historic Preservation CIP/2009 INCOME: City of Missoula/CIP 10,000 In-kind labor/ HHPC 1000 In-kind/BFI 300 In-kind materials/local businesses 250 Total income 11,550 EXPENSE: Building rehabilitation Labor 3,380 Materials 5,430 Fees and permits 250 Sub-contracts 1,490 Admin/Oversight 1,000 Total expense 11,550 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-29 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 GO Bond Proceeds $5,000,000 4,545,000 $455,000 Totals 5,000,000 4,545,000 455,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 5,455,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:56 PM KM Total Score 49 Jackie Corday Parks & Recreation Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Open Space Acquisition Purchase Open space per bond passed in November 1995. Funds from the $5,000,000 open space bond passed in November 1995, are being used to acquire open space funds. Currently approximately 95% of the money has been expended, with a remaining balance of $455,000 as of January 2006. Of this money $200,000 has been earmarked for the Bicycle Commuter Network. We are also pursing other potential acquisitions or easements that would be funded partially or wholly from the Open Space Bond fund. Earmarked Funds: American Public Fund Exchange $1,000 Stahl Property $2,000 Lafray Property $10,000 BCN $200,000 Mastel $90,000 McCauley Butte $18,000 Mt Jumbo Saddle $25,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- Open Space Bond PR-29 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 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Green spaces greatly enhance clean air, water and provide improved wildlife habitat Based on Citizen polls related to open space, environment, quality of life Yes, Goal 2, Open Space Plan Quantitative Analysis Comments Open Space funds typically leverage other funds: CTEP:OS 85%:15%, CDBG - 50%:OS 50% Growth is quickly consuming opportunity ---PAGE BREAK--- To date, 1995 open space bond expenditures have totaled over $4.5 million. Through gifts and local, state, and federal matches these funds have been leveraged to protect approximately $8.5 million of open space. Approximately $455,000 remains in the open space bond account, of which approximately $200,000 has been committed to the bicycle commuter network of trails and Stahl Property (west of Tower St) The Stahl property consists of 80 acres of riparian area along the Clark Fork River west of the 80 acres known as the Tower Street property. In September ’04, the City purchased a 40-acre parcel (Simon property) sandwiched between the Tower Street property and the Stahl Property. The Parks Dept. proposed to offer $120,000 to Mr. Stahl for his 80 acres together with an exclusive trail riding concession right for five years. However, Mr. Stahl decided to not sell his land as this property has been part of their family ranch for so long. We have negotiated the terms of a conservation and trail easement on his property in exchange for his right to a horse trail easement on the Tower Street and the Simon properties for a potential future horse-riding business. Mr. Stahl will find private property for the barn, corral, loading facility, trailers, etc. that he will need for the concession operation. He would like to create a trail loop over his 80 acres and extend it into the Simon and Tower properties and then back again. The proposed conservation easement will be reviewed by the Missoula Consolidated Planning Board in late February and then it will move forward to City Council for their review and approval in March. There will be recording costs and the continued cost of having American Public Land Exchange involved with the transaction. McCauley Butte In 2004, Northern Lights Development purchased approximately 300 acres that includes McCauley Butte, a large pasture to the west of the butte, and a big section of Clark Fork riparian corridor. They intend to place dense housing in the relatively flat area at the eastern base of the butte and preserve as open space the butte, the riparian area along the Clark Fork River, and the large pasture area in 3 separate conservation easements to be held by Five Valleys Land Trust. They have offered the City an approximately 2 acre parcel of riverfront that is adjacent to the 86 acres JTL has agreed to gift to the City at the end of 2012 when they have finished gravel mining the area. Additionally, if the City develops the 86 acres as a public park within approximately 1½ years (which is what we intend to do under the Fort Missoula Regional Park Master Plan), then they will grant a public access trail easement to the top of the butte from the east face. FVLT requested OSAC members to consider using Open Space Bond funds to pay approximately $18,000 for Northern Lights Development conservation easement fees on McCauley Butte. FVLT charges land owners $5,000 per easement for Land Stewardship fees and other misc. costs incurred, such as recording fees. OSAC will vote on the matter in January and then it will go to the City Council for final review and approval. Mt. Jumbo Saddle Road Mr. Gibbs has owned a 5-acre parcel on the east side of the Mt. Jumbo saddle since the early 1970’s. This year he purchased a utility easement from Plum Creek Timber to install electrical power and also installed a septic system with the intention of building his residence in 2006. Since my contact with him in late May, I have been trying to negotiate an agreement that he would not use the saddle road in exchange for the City purchasing an alternative access route from Plum Creek Timber off the Marshall Creek Road. Plum Creek agreed to sell the easement for $15,000. There may be other minor costs involved to reach an agreement. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-30 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund - CIP 82,290 - To Be Determined 200,000 200,000 250,000 Pattee St (Streets) 40,000 40,000 101,000 Patte St Labor/Eq. in-kind (Streets) 40,000 40,000 40,400 Ltl League Asphalt 65,260 - 37,640 Ltl League Labor/Eq. in- kind (Streets) 65,000 - CIP-ADA 20,000 - Refer to ADA CIP CS-29 Other Funding SID 524 21,000 10,624 Cash In-lieu Impact Fees 34,000 34,000 Totals 333,550 80,000 $175,400 71,640 200,000 200,000 250,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years total project Through FY13 Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Thru FY13 1,120,475 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 112,048 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 168,071 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) 11,205 Other Costs F. Other Costs In Kind 125,400 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 1,537,199 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-05 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:57 PM km Total Score 48 Donna Gaukler Parks & Recreation Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Playfair Park-site plan, design, renovation Redesign Playfair Park and renovate over a number of years, based on public input. Playfair Park is Missoula's Central Park. Citizen groups are already exploroing ways to change and fund an improved park aka the Central Park Committee. In addition, many features in the Park are outdated such as the pool, irrigation system, and restrooms. Other features are the "best" in Missoula such as the tennis courts, basketball courts, sand volleyball courts, etc. A final site design was completed in January 2005. The design incorporates many elements that enhance the function of the park after construction impacts resulting from SID 524. In FY06, funding was requested for construction on design elements that address parkign lot construction as a final component of SID 524 and the impacts of the aquactics facility, safety issues due to uncontrolled vehicle access on the levees and outfall area, a picnic area that enhances the use of the park and address the loss of a picnic shelter due to the new aquatics facility. Figures per site plan from Rocking M Please review attached file for description of phased implementation of Playfair Park Master Site Plan. NOTE: $54,860was allocated in FY06 Aquatics CIP for Picnic shelter and restroom at Playfair from impact fees. Was PR-21 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-30 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 3 4 12 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 48 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Yes, Paving the parking lots will reduce fugitive particulate matter from the gravel parking lots. Yes, as stated in the Master Park Plan, facilities such as picnic areas should be upgraded where necessary as in Playfair Park. Further, the new picnic area reduces the primary use of the park from programmed sports to more self directed, community gathering functions. Complies with parking surface regulations. Provides appropriate parking for park. Improves access for all. Yes, this project complies with the Master Park Plans recommendations for diversifying recreational uses at Playfair Park. Also meets Aquatics plan needs, restores park attributes following dike construction. Quantitative Analysis Comments Yes, External ADA funding and in-house labor will offset construction costs of improvements. Reduces risk exposure on dikes. Allows for appropriate parking at Aquatics Facility which will support generation of revenue Yes, Many of the improvements are required due the construction of the new Playfair Aquatics Facility Parking and picnic facilities will be adversely affected if the funding and construction are not implemented in conjunction with the aquatics facility. ---PAGE BREAK--- 04/24/2006 Projects Funding In Kind Description Amount Authorized FY 04 LL asphalt 65,260 Authorized FY 2005 SID 524 21,000 Aquatics Parking 40,000 Trail Connectors/Safety 20,000 81,000 Authorized FY06 South Entry/parking/sidewalks/ concrete Dike Safety mitigation (concrete, Outfall, maintenance) Total 82,290 Grand Total Prior Authorized 228,550 (Does not include in-kind) New Requests: FY 2007 Curb sidewalk with parking lot/access & expansion 36,000 ada 34,000 Impact Fees Streets 101,000 40,400 171,000 FY 2008 Baseball Parking** 37,640 funded 04 $65,260 Park Entries/Beautification 41,000 ADA Impact Fees 34,000 Streets in-kind/SID** "funded" 04 $65k 40,000 112,640 FY 2009 Irrigation* Plantings 200,000 FY 2010 Irrigation* Plantings 200,000 FY 2011 Playground 100,000 Boulevards 30,000 Trails/surfacing/lighting/landscaping/ baseball Diamonds 120,000 250,000 FY 2012 Parking/Paving 181,000 FY 2013 Parking/Concession Plaza 194,000 Total Project through FY13 1,537,190 Total Inkind 125,400 NOTE: Figures based on Rocking M Design Estimates Dec 04 park improvements SID 524/gas Spring 07 figures from Doug Harby, PW Parking costs/estimates Construction completed/proposed Contracts and Materials Streets in-kind Total Parking lot baseball Sep-07 102,900.00 $ 40,000.00 $ 142,900.00 $ Parking lot Pattee St west Jun-07 101,000.00 $ 40,400.00 $ 141,400.00 $ Parking lot Pattee St east Jun-06 113,700.00 $ 45,000.00 $ 158,700.00 $ Playfair Park Master Site Plan *Replace entire irrigation system Spring 2009-Fall 2010 includes soil amendments, turf repair, plantings, adding baseball irrigation ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-31 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund $6,990 Totals - - 6,990 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies 100 B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs $6,990 Estimated Annual Debt Service - 100 6,990 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 15-Dec-05 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:57 PM DS Total Score 31 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Resistograph F550S Package Purchase the F550S Resistograph package to improve public safety via accurate hazard tree assessment data. This project is necessary to help ensure public safety by providing detailed data for analysis of hazardous trees during assessments. This tool will allow us to see the soundness of a trunk, branch, utility pole, or playground equipment with a computerized printout of the actual internal wood structure. It will show pockets of decay and the depth of sound wood. These factors are necessary for decisions in finding the threshold of significance for complete tree removal. The current techniques using an increment borer are much more invasive to the tree and much less accurate as to the amount of solid wood present, observations are based on color and hardness of the core samples. Audio detection, by use of a hammer, is usually the first step in finding a soft or hollow spot within the tree. The resistograph can tell us exactly what is going on within the location of concern by measuring the resistance of woody material showing the amount of sound wood surrounding a column of decay. A great deal of public resistance and question has occurred in the removal of hazardous trees in Greenough Park due to reactions based on personal opinion and feelings, as opposed to the actual tree physiology issues and accurate field data. This tool will give us the accurate field data necessary to educate the public and reduce the number of appeals helping protect the citizens from partial or complete tree failures resulting in loss of life and or property. This unit will also help with intergovernmental cooperation working on projects with other Federal, State and municipalities throughout the state. Underground inspection of the utility poles used on the high element ropes course and inspection of wooden playground equipment is another benefit and use for the resistograph, further ensuring and providing public safety. Scott Stringer Parks & Recreation This unit will need replacement drill bits and wax paper for the computer printout data on an as needed basis. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- Resistograph F550S PR-31 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 1 5 5 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 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 31 Yes, this device will help conserve energy, cultural and natural resources, as well as reduce pollution by giving us the information required to actually see the amount of solid wood within the tree. If there proves to be enough wood to sustain the trees structure and stability, trees will be saved and continue to provide the benefits listed. It is essential for accurate hazard tree evaluations to protect the public from partial and complete tree failures that could potentially impact multiple departments within the city. This will also reduce the amount of time necessary for essential service to deal with tragic accidents associated with tree failures. Action can be taken much sooner once the hazards are identified. This unit is necessary to increase the community livability strategic goal for Parks and Recreation, in addition to helping achieve and implement Goals number 4 and 5 in the Master Parks & Rec. Plan (maintain property at a high level of quality and protect and enhance the natural environment) Quantitative Analysis Comments Yes, this tool is key to accurate hazard tree assessment for the decision making process whether or not to remove a tree based on the amount of decay. The cost is minimum compared to the potential loss of property and life due to a tree failure. It is also helpful to prevent litigation for tree removals based on personal opinion in regards to the actual health of the tree, saving tax dollars for court fees and claims. Yes, the sooner we have this tool we will be able to have the physical scientific evidence to back up our hazard tree assessments and be able to provide the public this information in cases where an appeal is made in regards to tree removal. This will expedite the removal process and help save lives and property. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Cost/Benefit Analysis Resistograph FY 2007 Costs The cost of the Resistograph as part of our hazard tree program is very minimal when you compare the costs of loss of public life and property which can be in excess of $1,000,000. This unit is a one time cost and will be a valuable asset to the citizens of Missoula and the State of Montana by ensuring accurate hazard tree assessments. Benefits Hazard trees are constantly being located throughout the city. This tool will help give us the ability to assess the amount of internal decay and solid wood within trees by measuring the relative density and distribution of wood which is extremely important information for public safety and will allow for timely removal of hazardous trees. As we have seen in Greenough Park, hazardous trees can and will fail over public property and people utilizing city property. It will also help provide scientific evidence to a hazard tree assessment when the public or Advisory Committee members feel that a tree should not be removed due to its habitat values. The protection of the public in one incident will more than pay for the cost of this unit. The resistograph can also be used to assess the utility poles used on the high element ropes course and playground equipment located in city parks. This will detect decay in different stages, as well as cracks and voids within the wood structures. The specialized drill bit is able to detect decay in not only above ground but also the underground regions of trees, utility poles and playground equipment in which 90% of decay is found. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-32 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund Skid-Steer 31,000 attachments 13,000 Totals - - - - - 44,000 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 44,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 44,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:58 PM ABC Total Score - This would be a new piece of equipment requiring little maintenance. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Skid-Steer Skid-Steer + attachments and Trailer This equipment is multi-purpose. It can be used in summer for landscaping and in winter for snow removal. It can be used by the Forestry Division for tree plantings. Each year, the Department is developing new parks. This equipment can be used for landscaping as well as irrigation installation and ballfield grading. We have many attachments which increases its usefulness to Operations for all seasons. We are also asking for a trailer to haul the equipment to job sites. This would be an addition to the Department's fleet. The Skid-Steer is small and fits on City sidewalks and trails as well as in tighter areas of parks where maneuverability is important. Attachments: Breaker (pavement) - $4030 Hose Kit - $390 Construction bracket - $364 Cab/heater - $1232 Dual Controls - $257 Suspension seat - $228 Trailer - $6500 Total - $13001 Trailer can also be used to haul other equipment. Was PR-07 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-32 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 5 - investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments n/a We are under contract with the County and State to remove snow from right of ways, and would use this equipment for this purpose. Yes, this equipment helps us meet Goal #4 of MPP: Develop and maintain parks, rec facilities, trails and open space areas at a high level of quality, appropriate for the type of use and nature of the facility. Quantitative Analysis Comments Missoula has several new and renovated park projects on-line to meet demands of citizens in newly annexed areas and in "older" Missoula. This equipment is multi-use and multi-season that can help build parks. rentals of this type of equipment would run $2600/year When a second skid-steer becomes available, the Department can run two crews on park/trail construction projects at one time. The Bobcat efficiently removes snow, which is necessary as we gain more trails. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-33 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 CTEP 105,000 NTRF Grant $23,000 Open Space Bond 31,000 Totals 159,000 - - - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel 600 A. Land Cost 5,000 Supplies 150 B. Construction Cost 123,200 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 12,320 Fixed Charges 250 D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 18,480 Additional Capital Outlay 150 E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service 1,150 - 159,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 04-Feb-03 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:59 PM DS Total Score 49 David Shaw Parks & Recreation Cost of maintaining the trail system is estimated to be $2,300 per mile per year (some trails are more expensive if they incorporate cost of railroad insurance). The total mileage of the anticipated improvements is about 1/2 mile. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation South Hills Trail System Update.project in process (changes to front page only) Repair of existing unimproved trails, grading and surfacing some existing pathways. Derived from the Non-motorized Plan, this project comes from the neighborhood. It may include repair of existing unimproved trails, grading and surfacing some existing pathways. The South Hills has many dead ends, steep hills and few sidewalks. Convenient bicycle/pedestrian access is urgently needed. Students walk on muddy paths or in the street. The project improves access to the Bicycle Commuter Network. $10,000 is requested from Open Space Bond this year, reflecting inflation in construction costs. These funds would be drawn from $200,000 earmarked for trail projects previously recommended by OSAC and recognized in a resolution of City Council. (Current stimated budget based on design at 60% is attached) It may be necessary to buy an easement across land belonging to three owners. (NOTE: Two easements were gained for minimal costs, such as agreeing to fence placement.) Most funding comes from CTEP. This funding requires the project to be ranked; the City uses the CIP method. Therefore, the project is shown funded in FY 2004.The project was submitted in 2003 but is on hold pending construction and coordination with the South Hills storm drainage project which covers the same exact area. A consultant will be selected in Spring 2003, and construction is anticipated in Fall 2003. (With the completion of the South Hills storm water project and the hiring of the new Park and Trail Mgr, this project was started summer 2005. Construction is slated for summer 2006.) Most of the project is on park land; however, if it is possible to acquire critical easements, these areas will contribute greatly to the non- motorized circulation in the area. Was PR-23 in 2005 ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin Bike/Ped Connections PR-33 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 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Currently, the existing trails have grade, surface and physical barriers (ditches) limiting accessibility. Minor improvements will create major gains in access. Vigorous adoption of non-motorized facilities can produce 5-6% reduction in VMT. To take advantage of CTEP, the City will use Trail Fund dollars for the matching requirement. Lack of defined trail corridors allows vehicles to be parked or driven into the area, conflicting with park uses. This damages the land and creates hazards to park users. Walking is hazardous where there are few sidewalks. Yes. This project will provide an alternative to polluting internal combustion engine use, preserving valued local air and natural resource qualities. Note: OPG trail traffic count registered over 1000 trail users in a 12-hour period on the Riverfront Trail. The actual volume of trail use is much higher than early predictions. The project will address damage to park lands from overuse of poorly located "informal" user-made trails. Yes. This project will improve the accessibility and utility of important routes between homes and schools. In addition, this type of project is part of the overall TDM strategy to reduce motor vehicle usage 5-6%. Yes. This is part of the primary trail corridors in the Non-motorized Plan. The project addresses the strategic goal of livability by providing an inexpensive and convenient means of travel Quantitative Analysis Comments Yes. City trail funds will leverage CTEP funds and National Recreational Trail Fund grant. Improvements of air quality, through alternative transportation, improvement of park corridors for public use, and additional healthful recreation are other benefits. TDM strategy includes aggressive implementation of non-motorized trails to reduce VMT 5-6%. Yes. CTEP application is complete and accepted. One neighborhood grant is pending for the funding of benches along the trail. Also, there are a number of parks used for access that are not developed to a safe and utilitarian standard. ---PAGE BREAK--- COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS PROJECT NAME: South Hills Trail System PROJECT SPONSOR: Parks & Recreation RESPONSIBLE PERSON: Dave Shaw BENEFITS: • Initiated by neighborhood process • Provides off-street transportation to schools in lieu of sidewalks: steep hills, many cul-de-sacs • In City’s Transportation Plan Update • In Non-motorized Transportation Plan • Part of City's overall Transportation Demand Management strategy to reduce VMT 5-6% in five years. • Facilities are the foundation of TDM programs. • Consistent with Strategic Plan goals. • Washington Trail Fund and OS Bond provides match. • Addresses damage to parks from user-developed trails by providing designated trail • Improves lower foothill trail system between Miller Creek and Wapikiya areas. • Gives improvements in accessibility to existing undeveloped parklands. COSTS: • CTEP funds and local match from trail fund and OS Bond. • Operations costs (including plowing), est. at $1000, equal .01 of project cost, consistent with national average COMMUNITY BENEFIT: • This trail is an important and well-used resource for the neighborhoods above 39th Street and in the South Hills, Wapikiya, and Bellecrest/Playfair areas. It is an important part of the City-wide trail network. It offers an alternative to walking in streets in areas of few sidewalks; allows convenient travel through parks instead of along long winding cul-de-sac streets. • 1996 Missoula Transportation Plan Update estimates 6% reduction in vehicle trips per day as a result of building a complete bicycle system, along with other strategies. Assuming: a 25-year life for the project; that this and other current proposed trail projects in the CIP constitute about 1/3 of the entire future system; and using an estimated 4% reduction figure, to allow for seasonal times of lower use: the cost of construction, distributed over this estimated reduction of trips over a 25-year period, is two cents per trip. • Trail user numbers are significant: one thousand bicyclists used the Riverfront Trail one day in April 2000. These numbers catch the attention of national advocacy groups, attracting diverse ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-37 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No X N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 To Be Determined 29,000 Impact Fees Totals - - - 29,000 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies 500 500 B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 29,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service 500 500 29,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:59 PM BW Total Score 31 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation/Cemetery Turf Topdresser 4 Cu. Yd. Topdresser/ Spreader This is a vital piece of equipment to the Departments Turf Maintenance Program. This piece of equipment will be used on the athletic fields, lawns and parks to add soil, amendments and seed for improving turf quality, improve soil structure, as well as, aid in landscape and irrigation installation and repair. This equipment can also be used for handling materials such as shredded mulch and sand to playgrounds, sand for snow and ice removal, composting flower beds, backfilling irrigation trenches, and transporting materials. Healthy turf requires soil amendments and compost to provide nutrients and aid in water retention. The increased demands to reduce weeds and dandelions requires equipment which aids in developing healthy turf. Equipment will be shared between Parks & Rec and Cemetery Scott VanOmmeran Parks and Recreation The cost includes the annual fuel, fluids and maintenance supplies for this equipment. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-37 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 1 5 5 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 31 This equipment adds organic nutrients essential for healthy turfgrass and reduces the need for chemical fertilizers and pesticides. Using the turf-topdresser helps achieve exceptional turfgrass surfaces and improved playing conditions. Yes, meets Master Parks Plan Goal #4.4. Manage fields to prevent overuse and significant damage to playing surfaces. Citizens want access better quality turf for recreational activities. Providing this supports a good relationship between citizens and the City of Missoula Yes, meets Master Parks Plan Goal #4.2. Establish maintenance standards, vegetation standards and management plans for the various types of parks and other properties the city maintains. Providing high quality recreational opportunities for Community livability Quantitative Analysis Comments Yes, increasing the quality of our turf allows for quality recreational opportunities. The implementation of this equipment is important to the Turf Maintenance Program to provide high quality athletic field surfaces. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Turf TopDresser Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Benefits: The turf top dresser and materials handler has numerous benefits to the Parks Maintenance Division to develop and improve the turf grass and landscapes in our parks, athletic fields and common lawn areas for recreation. The reduction of weeds, water requirements and soil management are necessary elements for establishing and maintaining . quality lawns. The increasing recreational use of our park system requires efficient methods to meet the demand for quality athletic fields and turf grass. The turf to dresser also provides and opportunity to handle materials for application to flower beds, mulch and weed control in boulevards, filling and leveling our unpaved trails, and maintain landscape beds and lawn areas around our parks, buildings and facilities. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-38 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund Financing (Bond/20 years) $800,000 Debt Service - 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 GO Bond 1.35 million (design, upsizing, construction docs, construction) Swim Missoula 300,000 Totals - - 1,100,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 65,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 880,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 88,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 132,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service 25,000 - 1,100,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 15-Mar-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 2:59 PM ABC Total Score 41 Donna Gaukler Parks and Recreation Additional annual subsidy required over current Aquatics Operating budget. See attached spreadsheet for operating budget. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget* Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks and Recreation Phase 2 Aquatics: 50 m pool at Playfair Park The final phase of the overall aquatics project includes a 50 m pool to be built and Playfair Park The community aquatics plan, the Master Site Plans and construction documents, the GO Bond Resolution, and Swim Missoula Agreement clearly state that a 50 m pool will be an integral component of the overall community aquatic facilities project. The Swim Missoula Agreement and the Resolution state that Swim Missoula will raise funds necessary to add the 50 meter pool and directly related deck, filtration, heating, etc. and the City will provide adequate and appropriate parking, showers, restroom, filtration building, etc so that the 50 m pool is one of the components at the Playfair Aquatics Complex, "Splash Montana". Fund raising for Swim Missoula has been extremely difficult. In addition, much discussion on what the City should provide compared to Swim Missoula continues to divide our community rather than unite our community as was intended. This proposal provides an opportunity for the City and Swim Missoula to work cooperatively to complete this community project. ---PAGE BREAK--- PR-38 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 2 5 10 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 1 3 3 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 41 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments The old 50 m pool at McCormick is losing water and has inefficient systems. There will be many efficiencies created by adding this facility to splash Montana at Playfair. Based on past public comment, vote, and all agreements, resolutions, plans etc…yes. This is in the strategic plan, the resolution supporting the 2003 ballot, and agreements with Swim Missoula. Quantitative Analysis Comments This is the last phase of the aquatics project which was supported by the 2003 GO bond The old 50 m pool at McCormick is failing. We need this pool operating by summer 07 and no later than summer 08. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-39 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A x 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 22,000 22,000 $32,848 38,061 Totals 22,000 22,000 32,848 - - 38,061 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services 4,639 C. Contingencies (10% of B) Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 70,909 Estimated Annual Debt Service - 4,639 70,909 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 3:00 PM DS Total Score 41 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation Maintenance Management System Implementation costs of MMS for Parks. This project is to assist us in moving forward with Managers using the AMS in the field. Phase 1 - Complete in FY06 - MMS Software data setup - Dept will go live April 2006 - Purchase GPS unit and software to map Park amenities Phase 2 - Bring MMS capability to managers in field - Verizon wireless service for Parks Operations laptops @ $2640 - 4 ruggedized laptops for Parks Operations wireless @ $16,000 - Maintenance Mgr, Urban Forester, Conservation Land Mgr, Athletic Field Crew Coordinator - Tripod Mounted computer stands @ $233.40 each ($934) - Antenna boosters @ $320 ($1280) - 5 ACCELA MMS site licenses @ $9,995 - Contracted MMS software yearly maintenance @$1999 Total Cost FY07 - $32,848 Phase 3 - Bring MMS capability to District Leaders in field - Verizon wireless service for Parks Operations Dist. Leaders laptops @ $3300 - 5 ruggedized laptops for Parks Operations Dist. Leaders wireless @ $20,000 - Tripod Mounted computer stands @ $233.40 each ($1167) - Antenna boosters @ $320 ($1600) - 5 ACCELA MMS site licenses @ $9,995 - Contracted MMS software yearly maintenance @$1999 Total Cost FY10 - $38,061 Was CS-22 in FY06 David Claman Parks & Recreation Yearly maintenance agreement for software, charges for Verizon Wireless Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- Franklin Bike/Ped Connections PR-39 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 3 4 12 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 41 Yes, Managers will no longer have to return to the main office to prepare work orders or document issues. Can be done on site, saving in fuel costs and reducing pollution Yes, initiates implementation of the MMS that provides for service requests, work orders, and accountability to citizen requests. The customer service request module is essential in maintaining community involvement in all functions of the City and directly meets the Community Involvement 2005 Strategic objective. Assists in the implementation of Master Park Plan goals Quantitative Analysis Comments Maximizes departmental efficiency, accountability, and cost tracking. Yes, This program will provide electronic tracking which will improve efficiency. Currently, there is minimal structured tracking of service requests. Speedy implementation allows for speedy controls. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- COST/BENEFIT ANALYSIS PROJECT NAME: Maintenance Management Software Implementation PROJECT SPONSOR: Parks and Recreation RESPONSIBLE PERSON: David Claman BENEFITS: • Allow efficient service request, work order, project cost and labor tracking • Allows greater potential to meet Strategic Plan Organizational Management Goals. • Allows for citizen requested service documentation. • Allows for more realistic budgeting based on documented maintenance costs. • Allows for more efficient staffing estimations COSTS: • Include ruggedized wireless laptops for our field managers • Yearly software maintenance, Verizon wireless service Community Benefit: • Documents citizen service requests, allows for quicker response to these requests. Better tracking of maintenance records, inventory and supplies. ---PAGE BREAK--- MAINTENANCE MANAGEMENT SOFTWARE BENEFITS Description of Process and Benefits The ability to efficiently prepare and track work orders and citizen requests, from the field. For example, work orders can be prepared by manager, on the job site, scheduling work immediately. Allows for better planning, reduced travel time The ability to prepare budget information will be greatly enhanced. A number of future budget scenarios can be identified during the budget process. Configuration to the Maintenance Management System will allow for automated tracking of worker hours and productivity. Equipment use will be tracked automatically enabling future budget rational for rentals versus purchase. Currently, inventory is performed manually. The MMS will track materials, tools, expendables, parts and supplies by project and work order. Inventory will be updated automatically. Position Department Director, Superintendent and Operations Managers Administrative Secretary Department Director, Superintendent and Operations Managers Operations Managers, maintenance staff Operations Managers, maintenance staff Annual Time Redirection 120 hours 160 hours 60 hours 20 hours 80 hours ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-40 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 CDBG 150,000 150,000 Open Space Bond 150,000 140,000 10,000 GFCIP- Acq Lot 1 112,000 Debt Service 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 Totals 300,000 290,000 148,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 26,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel 750 2,300 A. Land Cost Total incl Acq cost 122,000 Supplies 150 615 B. Construction Cost Purchased Services 300 C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges 200 398 D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs 100 F. Other Costs 300,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service 1,200 3,613 422,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 3:00 PM KM Total Score 41 Jackie Corday Parks & Recreation Operational budget also shown within the "new park development" CIP. Operational costs for the unimproved parcel approximately $1200 per year. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks and Recreation ED/OH park on Lafray (Acquisition) Purchase of final .20 acres from Missoula Housing Authority for a 1.55 acre park on Lafray Lane 1.35 acres was purchased in July 2005 per Council Resolution. The second purchase, Lot 1, to augment the size, visibility and access to the park is to be purchased by Sept 2006 based on Council Resolution. An Option to Purchase has been signed by the City with Missoula Housing Authority. How the acquisition of Lot 1 was listed in the Resolution #6908: Purchase price: $105,000 Relocation of Sec. 8 tenant: $1,000 Carrying Costs for MHA till 9/06: $5,000 Other costs: $1,000 Demolition & cleanup: $10,000 Total Costs: $122,000 Open Space bond funds available: $10,000 Approx. General funds needed: $112,000 The request for park development is within a separate "New Development" CIP. PR - 27 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- ED/OH on LaFray PR-40 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 2 5 10 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 1 3 3 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 41 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Resolution #6908 and #6909 plus the option to purchase Lot 1 commit the City to the acquisition of the park in Sept 2006. Parks and Green space positively impact our natural environment. Per the Master Park Plan and all other plans named in the description on the front of this form, this Park clearly has been recognized as essential. This park is addressed in virtually every plan (see page 1 of this form). It is referred to in Strategic Goal 3, P&R Quantitative Analysis Comments CDBG, Open Space and Cash in lieu are good leverages for the general fund Per the development that has already occurred and our commitment to the neighborhood and Missoula Housing Authority it is important that we follow through by Sept 2006. ---PAGE BREAK--- Please note: This is a multiple page document RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION OF THE MISSOULA CITY COUNCIL APPROVING THE DESIGN DEVELOPMENT DOCUMENTS, SITE LOCATIONS AND EXTIMATED BUDGETS FOR THE COMMUNITY AQUATIC FACILITIES WHEREAS, the community of Missoula passed an approximate $8.1 million general obligation bond in November 2003 for the purpose of building over $11 million in new aquatic facilities in Missoula to include a family aquatic center and competition pool in Playfair Park, an indoor family aquatic center in McCormick Park, and 4 new splash decks in Bonner, Franklin, Westside and Marilyn Parks: and WHEREAS, the entire capital project for all Aquatic improvements is $11 million dollars and includes the $8.1 million general obligation bond for family aquatic features, $1.4 million of from private sources such as Swim Missoula, Inc for a 50 meter competitive pool to be integrated into the family aquatic center at Playfair Park, and $1.5 million in URD1 funds from the Missoula Redevelopment Agency for the indoor family aquatic center at McCormick Park; and WHEREAS, the community of Missoula has been involved in public process since May 2002 involving numerous public open houses, public meetings, design charrettes and comment periods relating to the November 2002 aquatic feasibility study, the July 2003 McCormick Park site planning adoption and process, the summer 2003 Aquatics Task Force, the November 2003 campaign, the March 2004 selection of a qualified aquatics design team, and the summer 2004 design charrettes and public open houses for all six aquatic facilities; and WHEREAS, the Missoula City Council adopted the McCormick Master Site Plan on July 28, 2003, and the Site Plan included a set aside footprint, not to exceed 80,000 square feet, for a period of five years, ending December 31, 2008, for the non-profit organization Missoula Community Center, Inc to explore support and funding for a year round community center; and WHEREAS, the Parks Department is required to vacate the buildings at 100 Hickory Street to meet requirements of the Land and Water Conservation Fund to maintain adequate outdoor recreation space within McCormick Park and the Department also must relocate park and urban forestry operations to Centralized Maintenance while recreation, planning and administrative offices must also be relocated to a new site; and WHEREAS, the 4 splash decks shall be sited at the existing locations in Bonner, Franklin and Marilyn Park and at a new location along Phillips Street in Westside Park, and each splash deck shall have a theme related to literature, nature, or exploration based on neighborhood and community input, and ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PR-41 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2006 FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 MRA 1.5M Sept 03 + .3 Jun 0 1,800,000 GO Bond (Nov 3, 2003) 8.1M McC, Sp, Splashd 8,100,000 Donation/Partners/grants 1.4M for 50M pool at PF 1,400,000 CIP Transfer (White Pine)-financed-20 yrs 400,000 CIP Transfer (Parks M&I re-prioritize) 200,000 200,000 195,000 20 Yr internal finance begin i 2005-July 1,400,800 CIP Impact fees 50,000 Debt Service-20 years 145,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 145,000 Totals - 9,900,000 345,000 2,195,800 1,740,000 145,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 10,225,341 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 219,891 Fixed Charges D. Design, Engineering, Surveying, Consultants 1,157,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B + C - Donations) 88,000 Other Costs F. Other Costs (Cost of Issuance) 175,000 G. Addl proj: office, recr bldg, PF parking,shelter,RR 109,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service Furnishings, security, etc 371,568 - - 12,345,800 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 3:01 PM BW Total Score 48 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2006-2010 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Parks & Recreation UPDATE: Municipal Swimming Facilities 2003 Voter approval for GO Bond for Aquatics The construction of new modern community aquatics facilities is necessary to meet national trends State and Federal health and safety codes and the City of Missoula strategic goals and affordable, accessible services for all citizens. For the McCormick Pool indoor aquatics facility construction we shall rely on funding from MRA- donations/partners and in-kind services, GO Bond and the General Fund. The proposed project budget is $4.5 million, with $1.5 million from MRA. For Spartan Pool outdoor family aquatics & competitive swim center the project budget is $5.5 million with $1.4 million from private resources. On November 4, 2003, citizens passed referendum #2003-01which includes $8.1 million dollars toward $11 million in aquatics projects. $1 million is for splashdecks (see PR 34), the balance is for McCormick & Spartan pools. Bond proceeds were equal to $8,002,800 ($8,100,000 minus discount of $97,200). Cost of Issuance were equal to $57,848. The pool project retained all of the proceeds less the issuance cost, less the $1,000,000 set aside for the wading pools ($8,100,000 - $1,000,000 - $97,200 - $57,848 = $6,944,952) available for construction. In January 2005 Council approved a budget transfer of approximately $1,086,000 to the aquatics project in light of significant increase to construction costs and for the addition of P&R administrative and recreation offices in McCormick Park. In July 2005 the final budget and contract award were approved Was PR-06 in 2006 Donna Gaukler Parks & Recreation Subsidy requirement will range from 125K to 160K dependent of fee structure Council agrees to asuuming no 50M pool built in FY06 Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 3 3 9 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 48 Quantitative Analysis Comments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See "Definition of Criteria" in the C.I.P. Handbook For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments GO Bond See attached See attached See attached See attached See attached See attached See attached ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PS-01 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 GENERAL FUND 310,700 Totals - - - - 310,700 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 310,700 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 310,700 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 3:02 PM ABC Total Score 45 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data PUBLIC SAFETY STRUCTURAL FIRE ENGINE (TYPE 1) One Structural Fire Engine (Type 1) This project will replace one 1979 structure engine (Type 1) currently in reserve status, move one 1999 from front-line service to reserve status and provide one new engine in front-line service. This project adheres to our equipment replacement schedule that recognizes structural fire engines have a useful life span of 10-12 years front-line service. The 1979 Mack being replaced was substantially refurbished in 1993 which has contributed to it's extended service life. The geographic expansion and population growth of Missoula have led to substantial increases in the number of emergency incidents and in the miles traveled per apparatus. Since 1995 our call volume has increased 46% and average miles traveled per apparatus has increased 36%. Each year apparatus are responding to more calls and being worked harder, therefore the timely replacement of apparatus is critical. In addition, replacement parts for certain older apparatus* are becoming rare or unavailable, which can make maintaining these apparatus impossible. *Note: Mack discontinued production of fire apparatus in 1990. The 1979 Mack no longer meets the current Federal Motor Vehicle Safety Standards or current Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) guidelines for vehicle emissions, making cost effective refurbishment impossible. Was PS-04 in FY06 TOM STEENBERG FIRE Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- PS-01 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 1 4 4 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 45 New model fire apparatus are more fuel efficient and produce fewer emissions than their predecessors. This project ensures the maintenance of current levels of service. Reliable front-line apparatus are essential to the effective delivery of fire department services. This project has been identified in the Capital Improvement Program replacement schedule, the City Strategic Plan, and the fire department Comprehensive Fire Master Plan Draft. Quantitative Analysis Comments Reliable fire apparatus are essential to the effective delivery of fire departments services. The investment in fire apparatus is small in relation to the benefits gained through the protection of human lives and over 2.9 billion dollars of property within our community (2005 total market value). Front-line and reserve fire apparatus are a component of the Insurance Services Office (ISO) Fire Suppression Rating Schedule. Ensuring the maintenance of Missoula's current ISO classification of 3 benefits the entire community through lower property insurance premiums. For maximum effectiveness this project requires timely implementation. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Structural Fire Engine (Type 1) Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Increase in call volume and mileage per apparatus (front-line) 1995 Call Volume 3600 Average Mileage Per Apparatus 5150 2005 Call Volume 5259 Average Mileage Per Apparatus 7008 Percent Increase 46% 36% ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PS-02 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 GENERAL FUND 310,700 Totals - - - - - 310,700 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 310,700 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 310,700 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 3:41 PM ABC Total Score - City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Public Safety STRUCTURAL FIRE ENGINE (TYPE 1) One Structural Fire Engine (Type 1) This project will replace one 1990 structure engine (Type 1) currently in reserve status, move one 1999 from front-line service to reserve status and provide one new engine in front-line service. This project adheres to our equipment replacement schedule that recognizes structural fire engines have a useful life span of 10-12 years front-line service. Was PS-05 in FY06 TOM STEENBERG FIRE Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- PS-02 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 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 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- 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 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 5 - investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score - Quantitative Analysis Comments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) PS-0X Structural Fire Engine (Type 1) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PS-03 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: N/A 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 GENERAL FUND 75,000 Totals - - - - 75,000 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 75,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 75,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 3:41 PM ABC Total Score 45 TOM STEENBERG FIRE Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data PUBLIC SAFETY Wildland Engine (Type 6) Purchase Type 6 Wildland Engine This project will replace one 1999 wildland engine (Type This project adheres to our equipment replacement schedule that recognizes wildland fire engines have a useful life span of 10 years. The geographic expansion and population growth of Missoula have led to substantial increases in the number of emergency incidents and in the miles traveled per apparatus. Since 1995 our call volume has increased 46% and miles traveled per apparatus has increased 36%. Each year apparatus are being used more and worked harder, therefore the timely replacement of apparatus is critical. Our wildland apparatus are used extensively during the wildland fire season and are contracted throughout the region. Wildland firefighting subjects these apparatus to harsh conditions in extreme environments. In recent active wildland fire seasons these apparatus have generated substantial revenue for the City of Missoula. In the last six years wildland apparatus generated over $200,000. Was PS-01 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- PS-03 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 1 4 4 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 45 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Wildland Engine (Type 6) Qualitative Analysis Comments New model fire apparatus are more fuel efficient and produce fewer emissions than their predecessors. This project ensures the maintenance of current levels of service. Reliable front-line apparatus are essential to the effective delivery of fire department services. This project is identified / referenced in the Capital Improvement Program replacement schedule, the City Strategic Plan, and the fire department Comprehensive Fire Master Plan Draft. Quantitative Analysis Comments Reliable fire apparatus are essential to the effective delivery of fire departments services. The investment in fire apparatus is small in relation to the benefits gained through the protection of human lives and over 2.9 billion dollars of property within our community (2005 total market value). Front-line and reserve fire apparatus are components of the Insurance Services Office (ISO) Fire Suppression Rating Schedule. Ensuring the maintenance of Missoula's current ISO classification of 3 benefits the entire community through lower property insurance premiums. For maximum effectiveness this project requires timely implementation. ---PAGE BREAK--- Wildland Equipment Revenue (FY01-FY06) FY01 $18,313 FY02 $4,878 FY03 $58,772 FY04 $117,422 FY05 $0 FY06 $12,662 Total $212,047 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PS-04 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: N/A 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 GENERAL FUND 75,000 Totals - - - - - 75,000 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 75,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 75,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 3:42 PM ABC Total Score - TOM STEENBERG FIRE Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Public Safety Wildland Engine (Type 6) Purchase Type 6 Wildland Engine This project will replace one 2000 wildland engine (Type This project adheres to our equipment replacement schedule that recognizes wildland engines have a useful life span of 10 years. ---PAGE BREAK--- PS-04 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 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 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- 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 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 5 - investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Wildland Engine (Type 6) Qualitative Analysis Comments Quantitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PS-05 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 45,000 Totals - - - - - - 45,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 45,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 45,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 3:42 PM ABC Total Score - TOM STEENBERG FIRE Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Public Safety DEFIBRILLATORS Replacement defibrillators (per equipment replacement schedule) According to the American Heart Association, early defibrillation is the key to survival in a cardiac emergency. As Missoula's population continues to grow and our geographic boundaries expand, overall demand for emergency services will continue to increase. Specifically, Missoula's population is aging and with that demographic trend comes a projected increase in the number of cardiac emergencies. With this in mind, it is imperative we have a reliable defibrillator on every front-line engine. According to manufacture’s recommendations the life expectancy of the Life Pak 12 defibrillator is approximately 10 years. Our five current defibrillators were purchased in 2002. In order to disperse the financial impact, we are proposing the purchase of three defibrillators in 2011 and two in 2012. ---PAGE BREAK--- PS-05 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 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 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- 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 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 5 - investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Quantitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PS-06 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No X N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 GENERAL FUND 20,000 40,000 10,000 Totals - - - 20,000 40,000 10,000 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 70,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 70,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 3:42 PM ABC Total Score 33 TOM STEENBERG FIRE Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data PUBLIC SAFETY Information Systems Information Systems for the engines (MDCs with GIS) Mobile Data Computers on apparatus allow information to be transferred directly from dispatch to responders. Information transferred can include: dispatch information, high risk occupancy preplan information, hazardous material and owner/occupant information needed for emergency scene control. GIS software and GPS (global positioning system) software will allow for nearest engine response dispatch, mapping, hydrants, incident location by geocode, statistical reporting information and community emergency notification. * 7 mdt's with GIS & GPS capability (phased in with being purchased as prototypes). Per Dave McGinnis at the County (our IS department does not handle MDC's) the radio modem is $3500, the software is $1500, the Laptop cost per city cost sheet is $1800 plus $1100 for software needed for our system. The additional cost is for the bracketing and installation. This project was originally proposed in FY04 and has since been pushed back to FY08 due to current communications infrastructure limitations, i.e. the inablity of fire department software to interact with 911 software. With the planned upgrade of the county-wide communications system, we are hopeful that this problem will soon be resolved. There is also the possiblity that we may receive several MDCs through law enforcement Lewis and Clark Centennial Grant funding. Was PS-02 in FY05 ---PAGE BREAK--- PS-06 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 1 5 5 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 3 - 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 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Substantial improvement of all essential fire department services by permitting immediate access to information such as dispatch, maps, building preplans, hazardous materials and owner/occupant. Strategic Plan FY2004-2008, Goal 1 - Organizational Management Research new equipment and technology to improve operational performance and efficiency including hand-held computers for the inspection Bureau, Mobile Data Computers (MDC's) and GIS capabilities. Quantitative Analysis Comments Immediate access to response information will reduce response time, increase safety of firefighters and the public. The 911 Center cannot currently support our use of this technology. Immediate access to response information on an emergency scene is critical in many circumstances. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PS-07 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: N/A 8. Schedule of Prior Funding Sources Authorization FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund $459,313 181,850 Impact Fees 278,050 Debt Service 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 Totals - 459,313 501,900 42,000 42,000 42,000 42,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 365,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 36,500 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 54,750 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) 3,650 Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 459,900 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 3:43 PM ABC Total Score 42 This proposal is the second phase of a two year project. The first phase, station stabilization and enhancements was approved in FY 06. Stabilization of the facility is complete and remaining improvements / enhancements are being addressed The addition of a maintenance bay is proposed for FY07. Station 4 was originally designed as a three bay station; one of these bays is currently being used as the apparatus maintenance area. This practice is not consistent with industry standards for fire departments of similar size. A separate and dedicated maintenance bay will provide the following benefits: 1. As our fleet of fire apparatus continues to grow, an additional bay is necessary to meet the increasing maintenance demands well into the future. 2. The proposed maintenance bay will have an increased ceiling height which will allow for the indoor servicing of ladder trucks. Currently this work can only be performed outdoors. 3. The current maintenance area is often congested with apparatus / equipment awaiting the delivery of necessary parts; a dedicated maintenance bay will allow for space to conduct maintenance on additional apparatus / equipment during these times. 4. The current maintenance area presents tripping and head injury hazards due to the limited space for apparatus, tools, hoses, parts, and other equipment stored in traffic areas; a dedicated maintenance bay will correct these deficiencies. 5. The addition will free up space for apparatus currently being stored outdoors. Apparatus stored outdoors has higher maintenance costs and a shorter service life expectancy. City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data PUBLIC SAFETY Fire Station #4 Maintenance Bay Maintenance Bay addition to Fire Station Four Was Ps-07 in FY06 TOM STEENBERG FIRE Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- PS-07 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 1 3 3 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 42 This structure will be well-insulated to conserve energy and minimize facility and maintenance costs. Service and maintenance of fire apparatus is essential to provide for both firefighter and public safety. A dedicated maintenance bay will improve our ability to perform routine and emergency repairs, while ensuring response capabilities and maximizing the service life of fire apparatus. This project relates to all the strategic directions for pubic safety by ensuring emergency apparatus readiness and maximizing the service life of apparatus in which our community is invested. The draft Comprehensive Fire Master Plan also identifies the need to make improvements to our maintenance facility. Quantitative Analysis Comments This project results in maximum benefit to the community investment dollar by ensuring emergency apparatus readiness and providing space for apparatus currently being stored outdoors. As Missoula grows and service demand increases, the number of fire apparatus neccessary to provide service also increases. A dedicated maintenance bay will enable us to effectively maintain our growing fleet o fire apparatus for the next 50 years. Costs will be offset by more than 50% as the project will be leveraged with impact fees. The implementation of this project would isolate hazards and alleviate serious safety issues. With the current situation, we believe injury to firefighters is inevitable. It would improve the Maintenance Division's ability to serve the growing fire apparatus fleet and protect valuable City of Missoula resources. We will take delivery of two more apparatus this fiscal year which will compound the need for additional apparatus maintenance and storage space and exacerbate the safety issues mentioned above. This project will enhance our ability to abide by mandates contained in Montana Code. Per MCA 7-33-4104, the fire department administration "shall have charge of and be responsible for the engines and other apparatus and the property of the town or city furnished the fire department and see that they are at all times ready for use in the extinguishing of fires". While not an emergency, our ability to maximize apparatus service life is severely impacted by the lack of a dedicated maintenance facility. This provides for and improves public safety by ensuring the readiness of our apparatus and the ability to rapidly respond to emergencies. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- With the addition of Fire Station 5, we will add two more pieces of apparatus to our fleet, bringing the total number of fire apparatus to 19. Since 1998 the fire apparatus fleet has nearly doubled, increasing the demands upon the Maintenance Division (Master Mechanic) and exacerbating problems with the existing maintenance facility. Ceiling height limitations in the maintenance area prohibit servicing of our two aerial apparatus indoors. Service work must be performed outdoors and only when weather conditions allow. This makes scheduling of regular maintenance difficult and can impair response capability and safety if emergency repairs must be postponed. In 2003 and 2004, required Underwriters Laboratories inspections were delayed due to weather conditions. Rescheduling U.L. inspections may cost as much as $800. The current space limitations prevent maintenance and repair of more than a single apparatus at a time. Apparatus will often remain out of service in the maintenance area for several days while waiting for necessary parts to arrive. If the apparatus is drivable, it may be transferred to another station for temporary storage. This practice wastes time and reduces efficiency as the Master Mechanic must drive the apparatus across town to another station. Other on-duty staff are required to transport him back to Station 4. Storing additional apparatus in other stations creates other operational problems when apparatus must be moved to retrieve needed equipment such as the Cataraft trailer. This process takes around 90 minutes to complete and must be done approximately twice each week. With the maintenance area currently incorporated into the apparatus bay of Station 4, potential trip / fall / head injury hazards exist. The maintenance area is presently located next to the rear entry door of the apparatus bay and also abuts the utility sink. Firefighters must travel through this area when performing daily housekeeping, facility and equipment maintenance, and apparatus check-in duties. Because the area is often congested with apparatus in various states of repair, air hoses, tools, automotive fluids, parts and other equipment, employees risk injury while traveling through the area in performance of simple tasks such as taking out the trash or filling a mop bucket. Separating the maintenance area will isolate these hazards and reduce the likelihood of injury. These hazards and the need for a separated maintenance facility are noted int the draft Comprehensive Fire Master Plan. Due to the lack of interior space, several pieces of apparatus are currently being stored outdoors. With the addition of a dedicated maintenance bay, the existing maintenance area will available to house apparatus. Apparatus and equipment stored outdoors deteriorates more rapidly due to exposure to extreme temperatures, repetitive freezing and thawing, excessive sunlight, and moisture. These apparatus are also prone to theft and vandalism. These conditions reduce the apparatus service life by approximately fifteen percent (15%) and also increase ongoing maintenance costs. The ability to house all apparatus indoors will maximize service life and ensure the security of fire apparatus. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PS-08 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 GENERAL FUND 200,000 Totals - - - 200,000 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - - 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 3:43 PM ABC Total Score 26 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data PUBLIC SAFETY Land for Fire Station #6 Purchase land for construction of Fire Station #6 west of Missoula. This project will provide the land necessary for construction of Fire Station #6 west of Missoula. While we are exploring the possibility of land being donated by developers, we believe we need to consider purchasing property before development increases the cost. 2.0 acres of land for construction of Fire Station #6 Was PS-03 in FY06 TOM STEENBERG FIRE Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- PS-08 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 26 This project expands and improves upon essential services by providing a station west of town and reducing emergency response times. Community Livability Fire Station #6 is not within the range of the strategic plan but is included in the 10 year financial plan. The Wye Mullan Plan addresses the fact that response times do not meet our goals with current levels of service. Quantitative Analysis Comments This project results in maximum benefit to the community by providing a station west of Missoula. Without the addition of another engine company and station, we expect our response times to continue to increase. Delays in response time place both the public and firefighters at greater risk. Land should be purchased before prices are driven up by further development. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PS-09 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 19,845 11,000 Donations 2,155 Totals - - 22,000 - 11,000 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 33,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 33,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 3:50 PM ABC Total Score 38 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data PUBLIC SAFETY THERMAL IMAGERS Replacement Thermal Imagers (per equipment replacement schedule) 2007 - Purchase thermal imagers to replace in service on front line apparatus - purchased in 2001. Life expectancy is 6 years. 2009 - Purchase thermal imager to replace in service on front line apparatus - purchased in 2003. Thermal Imager Advantages / Uses: * Increases safety for firefighters during fire operations - quicker location of seat of the fire, identify danger of flashover, identify structural components damaged by fire * Increases safety for the public - facilitates quicker search & rescue, direct fire attack * Reduces overhaul time & call-up crew personnel costs * Reduces property damage & loss * Assists in location of hot spots during wildlands & urban interface fires * Assists in location of rescue victims during rescue operations - water rescue (river / ice), confined space / extrications * Assists in location of hazardous materials Was PS-06 in FY06 TOM STEENBERG FIRE Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- PS-09 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 3 4 12 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 38 Use of the cameras helps reduce fire loss in the community, preserving property, cultural and natural resources. Maintains current level of service - we currently have three cameras in use and our current operating procedures provide at least two on the scene of a structure fire. Those cameras provide for the safety and increase the efficiency of the fire attack crew and increase the effectiveness of assigned rescue crew or rapid intervention team. Community Livability Not listed specifically in the strategic plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments MFD continues to expand our use of thermal imaging cameras. The cameras provide a safer environment for our firefighters - during fire attack, for rescue of the public and firefighters, throughout salvage & overhaul operations. They assist us in reducing the need for call-in crews and help reduce property damage and loss. We have only recently begun to identify other areas in which the cameras provide quicker response - in wildlands / urban interface fires and in some rescue situations (river / ice rescue, some confined space and extrication emergencies). We have $2157 remaining in donations from area service clubs to put toward thermal imager cameras. The need to replace emergency response equipment on a regular replacement schedule ensures working equipment during response - equipment used beyond its predicted life expectancy puts emergency responders and the public at risk. Properly functioning thermal imagers tremendously improve firefighter and public safety. The thermal imagers presently in service are functional, but require repairs on an increasingly frequent basis. In order to ensure the reliability of these devices, scheduled replacement is critical. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Salary Totals for Standard Response to a Structure Fire TOTAL $210 per hour (based upon a crew of three @ $35/hour composite OT rate) $105 savings per 1/2 hour $52.50 savings per 1/4 hour Average number of structure fires per year - 64 (estimated) Average on-scene time - 2 hours (estimated) Potential on-scene time reduction with thermal imagers is 60 minutes per fire. Potential savings per year is 64 (avg number fires) times $210 (salary cost) equals $13440 Average Dollar Fire Loss for Structure Fires in Excess of $20,000 is $95,317 (MFD 5/22/01-1/22/06) 50% Reduction = $47,659 25% Reduction = $23,829 10% Reduction = $9,531 5% Reduction = $4,765 Thermal imagers save lives, improve firefighter safety, and aid in property conservation. Thermal imagers allow firefighters to locate trapped or unconsious occupants much more rapidly in a smoke-filled environment. When a person is overcome by smoke inhalation, time is critical. The sooner firefighters can locate and remove the victim from the toxic environment, the greater the chances of survival. Firefighter safety is tremendously improved through the use of thermal imagers. They enable firefighters to "see" and avoid compromised areas of a building that may collapse, such as conditions that could result in a firefighter falling through a floor into a burning basement. These devices also enable firefighters to check for residual heat and fire that may be concealed inside of walls without tearing into the wall itself. This results in less damage of the property and reduces the possibility of a rekindle. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: Public Safety 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PS-10 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund $26,776 Impact Fees $26,776 Totals - - 53,552 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost (building, tower pad & tower) 42,581 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 4,258 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 6,387 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs (permits) 325 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 53,552 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 16-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 3:52 PM ABC Total Score 42 R. Wickman/T.Steenberg/R.Larson Police & Fire Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Funding this project will also replace the inadequate tower structure at the site. The current tower assembly poses a hazard to both the workers who service the tower and the citizens using the adjacent open space lands. 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Water Works Hill Radio Building Replacement and Upgrade Install a new radio communications building at the Water Works Hill site including a new tower assembly and back-up power generator. The proposed building is designed to sit on pin down curbing. There will be some excavation necessary for the tower foundation. Was CS-14 in FY06 (See analysis report for further detail of need and leveraged funding.) As an upgrade to this site, a propane generator will be added to ensure uninterrupted operation in the event of a power failure. As a public safety radio site that serves the majority of the Missoula Valley, the failure of this site is an unacceptable risk. In addition, a grass fire in the area could jeopardize the decrepit building. Grass fires in this area are inevitable . Since 2000, the fire department has responded to seven grass fires in the vicinity of Water Works Hill. If the building were to be compromised the city could lose approximately $100,000 in radio equipment and essential public safety radio communications would be severely crippled. An additional $108,000 in equipment is scheduled to be installed at this site in the near future. City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 The Water Works Hill radio site currently provides public safety radio coverage for both the police and fire departments. In the future the site will also provide coverage for the street department and building division. This project will replace the existing structure that houses radio communications equipment. The current structure is a 7x9 military surplus van body converted into a building; it is approximately 50 years old and the base of the building is badly rusted. The rust presents structural problems and is a possible source of unwelcome radio interference. ---PAGE BREAK--- PS-10 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 1 3 3 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 42 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments The City of Missoula is required to provide emergency services and an essential element for First Responders and Incident Management is a reliable communications system. There is a $2.7 million radio inter-operabability federal grant received by DES that will provide us with equipment that must become part of the radio infrastructure. No federal funding is available for site development costs, like buildings, land, construction costs, etc. The building and tower need to be replaced as soon as possible. The new equipment to be installed needs the room and protected environment that a new building would provide and in order to maintain our Emergency preparedness level, the radio system needs redundancy of power sources and protection from the elements. First Responders effectiveness in recovering from any incident rests on having adequate communications within an Incident Command structure to facilitate public safety. Reliable radio communication is a critical component of Public safety that is currently at risk with the inferior state of the building and tower. This new structure and the radio equipment and power supply improvements will improve public safety. The new equipment coming from the grant will give additional repeater coverage to the Fire Department for managing multiple incidents or locations which is critical to their operational safety. The new building will be better insulated and should reduce cooling costs in the summer months. The new building will also replace an "eyesore" on Water Works Hill and improve the viewscape of the Missoula valley. This project facilitates the addition of new repeaters for fire services and protecting vital radio equipment infrastructure that improves the safety, security, and reliability of public safety communications for the City of Missoula. (See analysis report.) As per the City's Strategic Goals and Objectives this project is an investment in emergency preparedness. The project also takes advantage of new and improved technology to increase our operational effectiveness and efficiency. It will also serve as an enhancement to a larger statewide public safety radio interoperability project. Quantitative Analysis Comments The project will help to ensure the reliability of the public safety radio system. Failure of the building or tower's integrity would result in the compromise of one of the most critical links in our radio infrastructure. The investment leverages federal funds for additional equipment. Leveraging of impact fees and 2.7 million grant. These site improvements are necessary to house and protect the City's current investment in radio infrastructure and allow for the new equipment coming from a federal grant to be properly installed and maintained. Labor costs for site improvements will double if not done prior to getting new equipment. ---PAGE BREAK--- Building (Metal exterior, wood interior A/C and wired) 27,400.00 Generator & Propane tank 5,603.00 Tower pad (Concrete) 5,000.00 Crane 340.00 Transmission line 508.20 Tower (40 foot radio tower) 3,730.00 Construction costs 42,581.20 Contingency (10%) 4,258.12 Design and Engineering (15%) 6,387.18 Permits (city) 325.00 Total 53,551.50 Existing Equipment 94,978 New Equipment 104,294 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PS-11 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 35,000 35,000 GO Bond 11/07 10,598,227 Totals 35,000 35,000 - 10,598,227 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Unknown Supplies B. Construction Cost 8,374,547 Purchased Services 50,000 50,000 C. Contingencies (10% of B) 837,455 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 1,256,182 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) 83,745 Other Costs F. Other Costs (Adjustment to match analysis) 46,298 Estimated Annual Debt Service 50,000 50,000 10,598,227 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 03-Apr-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 3:55 PM ABC Total Score 29 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data PUBLIC SAFETY New Police Facility - GO Bond Issue Provide funds for construction of new Police Department headquarters, including possible option of co-locating with county. This project first appeared in the CIP budget in FY2001-2005. A general fund expenditure of $35,000.00 was approved in FY'05 to conduct a joint space needs analysis with Missoula County for a combined facility, including the Sheriff's Office, DES, 9-1-1 and a regional training center. The current Police Department facilities were evaluated in a 1996 assessment and it was noted at that time the police department was "critically overcrowded, with narrow corridors, inadequate security and inadequate office, storage and support spaces." The new assessment just completed by Wilson-Estes Police Architects has identified current space needs and projections for 20 years out. The assessment report identifies multiple options for joint and separate facilities. Requirements of a City police facility in a stand-alone option are identified at 30,036 sf. and for 20 year growth needs rise to 39,278 sf.. The present space being occupied 11,535 sf., inclusive of our indoor firearms range and Academy area. The costs identified in this proposal represent a hypothetical downtown site, without land costs and without any form of parking structure. The site assumes suitability for a 22,000 sf. building footprint. Other options include moving to a joint facility located next to the Detention facility (lowest cost) and building adjacent to the current City Hall with a parking structure (highest cost.) Suitable for 22,000 s.f. building footprint, plus parking requirements. Ideally requires 178,835 s.f. area. (4.1 acres) Mark Muir Police Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- PS-11 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 1 5 5 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 - 3 - 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 29 A new Police operations facility will improve the departments service through efficiency and improvement in communication with the public, between employees and dramatically improve the security of persons and information within the Department. The City of Missoula Strategic plan identifies under the Goal of Organizational Management that we strive to be efficient in our operations. This new facility is vital to improving the efficiency of service and effectiveness in providing quality police service to the community. Quantitative Analysis Comments It is believed that the maximum benefit for the community is to keep Police operations in a downtown vicinity. From a strictly dollar investment perspective, these costs are higher than moving to the Detention center site. The costs for construction keep rising with inflation and in the past ten years this project budget has grown four fold. Speedy implementation would provide cost savings and free up additional space within City Hall for other growth needs. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Police Facility CIP Request In 1995, the City and County conducted a Facility Assessment concluding with a 1,5 and 20 year Master Plan. At the time the assessment was conducted, the “old fire station” was vacant and the police department was using the building as general and vehicle storage. At the time of the assessment, the police department had 83 FTE’s, today we have 119 FTE’s, plus many volunteers also spending time in the building who require space. At the time of the assessment, the primary Problem/Observation made by the assessment team was “the police department is critically overcrowded, with narrow corridors, inadequate security and inadequate officer, storage and support space.” Since this observation, 36 FTE’s have been added plus many volunteers. The importance of an efficient and effective police facility is emphasized by the inclusion of a study for a new facility in Goal #1 of the FY2004 City Strategic Plan. Lack of proper space is conducive to a poor work environment, precludes the ability to conduct private conversations with the public on very sensitive matters, wastes valuable employee time by trips from one floor to another and presents a poor image to the public. Police management has attended several facility planning seminars since the fall of 1999. Some issues that have come from those seminars included: --Needs analysis: while a needs analysis was conducted in 1995, it was superficial in terms of real police needs. The needs of the Missoula Police Department have now been re-evaluated by specialists in police planning. --The design of a new police facility should include sufficient space for a 20 year life span. --Co-location with the sheriffs department is desirable, but can also have political drawbacks. Generally, co-location is not a cost saving factor to be considered. In our case, it may be very desirable due to the cost of the land, but the community desire to keep the Police department in a downtown location has been strong. police facility, meeting the needs of the department and the community should include: -physical fitness/workout facilities and equipment -meeting room available to the public -growth capability for 20 years. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: PS-12 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Gen Fund/Design/Fire 92,944 - GO Bond (Station 2) 1,836,192 GO Bond (Station 3) 928,155 GO Bond (Station 5) 2,814,652 GO Bond (Fire Art) Totals 92,944 - 4,650,844 928,155 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel 107,636 A. Land Cost - Supplies 2,326 B. Construction Cost Purchased Services 269 C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges 11,982 D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service 122,213 - - 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 25-May-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 3:58 PM ABC Total Score 49 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data PUBLIC SAFETY Public Safety GO Bond Issue - Fire Stations 2, 3 and 5 (new) Design, construct & acquire equipment for a new FS#5 ; demolish, design, construct, & equip FS#2; remodel, expand & equip FS#3. The need for a fire station to serve the Linda Vista / Miller Creek area was identified in the late 1990s during the City of Missoula annexation studies. A fire station in this area will allow our department to meet our response time goals to both fire and medical emergencies. We are currently constructing Station Five at 6501 Lower Miller Creek Road. While Station Five will serve the rapidly growing Linda Vista / Miller Creek area, it will be part of the overall network of fire stations designed to provide fire and emergency services to our entire community. Station Two was constructed in 1954 and has served the fire department and city well for over 50 years. It has not been updated since 1954, though we have discussed remodeling this station for over 20 years. Station Two will be rebuilt at its present location, 247 Mount Avenue. Station 3, located at 1501 39th Street, was built in 1975. It needs to be upgraded to house modern fire apparatus and meet our needs. On November 8, 2005, Missoula voters approved the issuance and sale of General Obligation Bonds in the amount of $5.74 million to fund these facilities projects. Maloney Ranch, LLC has donated 1.5 acres of property for Fire Station 5. No site requirements for Stations 2 & 3. Tom Steenberg Fire Personnel - 4 firefighters - $107,636 FY07, this includes personal protective equipment, uniforms, physicals and evaluations. Supplies - cleaning supplies, office supplies, fuel. Purchased Service - apparatus and facilities maintenance. Fixed Charges - water, gas, electric and garbage. These expenses are netted by the savings from the temporary closure of Station 2 (3 months). Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- PS-12 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 Stations 5 & 2 will be constructed to conserve energy. We are researching current technologies, including ground water heating / cooling, solar energy generation, and solar hot water. Response times are critical during fire & emergency medical emergencies for both firefighter & public safety. City of Missoula Strategic Plan 2004-2008. Goal 2 - Community Livability: Plan for and construct a fire station to meet response time goals. This station has also been identified in our department's draft master plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments On November 8, 2005, over 70% of Missoula voters approved the issuance and sale of General Obligation bonds in the amount of $5.74 million to finance these facilities projects. Station 5 will allow us to meet our response time goals to the rapidly developing Linda Vista / Miller Creek area. These goals (outlined above) are derived in part from National Fire Protection Association (NFPA) standards, Insurance Services Office (ISO) recommendations, and other fire service guidelines. Station 5 is necessary to meet our response time goals. These include: 1) Establishing our first-due engine company on the scene within 6 minutes 90% of the time for both fires and medical emergencies. 2) Establishing our first alarm assignment (2 engine companies, 1 ladder company, 1 Battalion Chief) on the scene within 10 minutes 90% of the time. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- STATIONS 2, 3 AND 5 Station 4 Station 4 Station 2 Station 3 Station 5 Addition Stabilization Site Costs 132,375 94,702 288,188 100,513 41,118 Roof Building Costs 276,919 145,833 322,956 30,611 Bay Structural Costs 253,743 101,524 296,169 96,718 191,112 Settlement Mechanical Costs 311,657 115,387 w/boiler alt 333,751 53,846 48,525 Road Electrical Costs 127,512 57,739 w/boiler alt 134,311 22,988 2,203 Kitchen Civil Costs 36,862 146,325 6,032 Dorm SUB-TOTAL 1,139,068 515,185 1,521,700 274,065 15,698 Classroom Gross Receipts 1% of su 11,391 5,152 15,217 2,741 8,317 Tower Art Work 1% 11,391 5,152 15,217 2,768 58,959 HVAC Contractor Costs 205,601 89,092 254,885 71,206 500 Gutter heat tape Design Contingency 25,759 17,539 12,694 Landscaping SUB-TOTAL 1,367,450 640,340 1,807,019 368,319 415,769 Owner's Costs 379,763 242,839 471,241 Apparatus 400,000 190,007 Owner's Total Estimate of Probable Construction Cost & Owner's Budget Items 1,747,214 883,179 2,678,260 368,319 605,776 5% Inflation Escalation fo 1,834,574 927,337 2,812,173 386,735 636,065 ION CONTRUCTION TOTAL 5,579,000 BOND ISSUANCE COSTS 85,000 UNDERWRITERS 74,620 ROUNDING 1,380 TOTAL BOND ISSUE SIZE 5,740,000 0.023 41,200 20,826 63,155 125,181 125,181 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: SE-01 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund $146,000 Totals - - 146,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 146,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 146,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 06-Mar-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 3:59 PM CJK Total Score 31 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Equipment Paint Striper Replacement (Unit #560) Purchase of a paint striper to replace existing equipment reaching the end of serviceable life. Project is to purchase equipment to replace the existing Paint Striper in the Traffic Services Division fleet. The existing Paint Striper is 18 years old and is reaching the end of its service life. This unit is identified in the City's fleet replacement schedule. It is a front line piece of equipment used more than 500 hours per year. Was SE-07 in FY06 Wayne Gravatt Public Works This is a replacement of an 18 year old piece of equipment that is scheduled for replacement. There should be a minimal impact on the operating budget. The new piece of equipment should have less down time than the old piece, there will be some efficiency gained in the operation. This gain cannot be calculated. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- SE-01 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 1 5 5 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 31 Modern equipment uses less fuel and reduces emissions, conserving fuel resources and protecting air quality. New paint striper would improve the result of the City's annual street striping program. Paint Striper replacement was scheduled in the City Fleet Vehicle Replacement Schedule for 2005. Quantitative Analysis Comments Provides a more dependable unit capable of producing a better end product. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis For: CIP\Council Committee By: Jack Stucky Project: Paint Stripe Truck Unit 560 Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 560 Paint Stripe Truck 2005 or New Truck Total Miles (new meter) 10,505 Total Miles <10,000 Total Hours (new meter) 751.00 Total Hours N\A Operating Costs Per Mile $0.41 Operating Costs Per Mile $0.11 Repair Costs Per Mile $1.03 Repair Costs Per Mile $0.21 Fixed Costs Per Mile $0.00 Fixed Costs Per Mile $0.81 Unit is fully depreciated Depreciated at 100,000 miles Total Cost Per Mile $1.44 Total Cost Per Hour\Mile $1.13 Expected Cost Savings per Mile -$0.31 Based on Total Cost Per Mile Estimated Annual Usage Rate 515 Based on Last years usage Estimated Annual Expense Increase -$159.65 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Increase -$209.37 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.3114 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Increase -$252.62 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.2066 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: SE-02 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 78,000 Totals - - - - 78,000 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 78,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 78,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:00 PM CJK Total Score 20 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Equipment Tarco Leaf Machine Replacement (Unit 159) Replacement for existing leaf machine scheduled in City's Vehicle Replacement Schedule. Replace existing leaf machine used during annual leaf collection season. This machine is important and used only during the leaf collection program. This equipment is identified in the City's fleet replacement schedule. Was SE-01 in FY06 Brian Hensel Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- SE-02 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 1 5 5 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its - 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 20 New equipment will use less fuel and create less exhaust emissions. The public seems to be very appreciative of the City leaf collection program. Leaf collection is part of keeping City streets clean, which help maintain air and water quality. Quantitative Analysis Comments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis 09/15/2006 For: CIP/Council Committee MAKE: TARCO By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1987 ( 20 YEARS) Project: Leaf Machine CONDITION: FAIR - POOR Unit # : 159 USAGE: LEAF REMOVAL Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 159 Leaf Machine New Leaf Machine Total Hours on Meter (Meter changed) 1,086 Total Hours N\A Total Hours (Estimated) 9000+ Total Hours N\A Operating Costs Per Hour (year to date) $12.17 Operating Costs Per Hour $10.10 Repair Costs Per Hour (year to date) $13.67 Repair Costs Per Hour $10.43 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.00 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $2.60 15,000 hour life expectancy Total Cost Per Hour $25.84 Total Cost Per Hour $23.13 Expected Cost Change Per Hour -$2.71 Estimated Annual Usage Rate 64 Based on last years usage rates Estimated Annual Expense Increase -$173.44 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Increase -$173.69 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.00144 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Increase -$174.07 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.00221 *Depreciation based on $40,000 at 15,000 hours with a $1,000 salvage value. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: SE-03 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 202,460 Totals - - - - 202,460 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 202,460 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 202,460 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:01 PM cJK Total Score 27 Brian Hensel Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Equipment Cat Grader Replacement (Unit 123) Replacement for existing Unit 123 grader as identified in City's Vehicle Replacement Schedule. The new cat grader will replace Unit 123 which is a 1982 Caterpillar 12 G. Existing Unit 123 will be traded in or sold at auction. Unit 123 is used for all snow removal, street construction, and alley maintenance operations. Unit 123 was scheduled for replacement in FY 2008 in accordance with the City's Vehicle Replacement Schedule, but was bumped ahead to FY 2009 due to expected budget limitations. Was SE-02 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- SE-03 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 1 5 5 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 27 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Yes, new unit would reduce polluting emissions and would consume less fuel. Yes, Street Division graders are used year round for construction project, alley maintenance, and snow plowing. A reliable and productive grader is essential to Street Division activities. Yes, Street Division upgrade of its older equipment in the City's inventory. Quantitative Analysis Comments Yes, A grader is required for every street construction project, alley maintenance, and frequently for winter plowing. The existing grader is over 24 years old and has become increasingly expensive to acquire parts and maintain. ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis 09/15/2006 For: CIP/Council Committee MAKE: CATERPILLAR By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1982 ( 24 YEARS) Project: Road Grader CONDITION: FAIR Unit 123 USAGE: CONSTRUCTION / SNOW REMOVAL Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 123 Road Grader New Road Grader Total Hours on Meter (Meter changed) 8,353 Total Hours N\A Total Hours (Estimated) 10,000+ Total Hours N\A Operating Costs Per Hour (year to date) $10.53 Operating Costs Per Hour $4.21 Repair Costs Per Hour (year to date) $10.14 Repair Costs Per Hour $6.87 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.00 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $11.60 15,000 hour life expectancy Total Cost Per Hour $20.67 Total Cost Per Hour $22.68 Based on 2006 Cat 140G Grader Expected Cost Change Per Hour $2.01 Estimated Annual Usage Rate 390 Based on last years usage rates Estimated Annual Expense Increase $783.90 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Increase $795.89 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.0153 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Increase $796.87 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.001227 At this time it is not cost effective to replace this unit. This is due to the increase in the cost of a new grader. *Depreciation based on $194,000 at 15,000 hours with a $20,000 salvage value. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: SE-04 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 160,000 Totals - - - - 160,000 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 160,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 160,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:02 PM CJK Total Score 20 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Equipment Chip Spreader Replacement (Unit 142) Replacement for existing chip spreader machine identified in City's Vehicle Replacement Schedule. Purchase one chip spreader machine for use with the annual chip and seal program. The current machine is a 1974 model with a gas engine and 12.5 foot spreader head. A diesel powered unit with a 13 foot head would be more efficient. The current unit is underpowered for working in the hills. Further, many City streets have a 12' driving lane with a 1 foot shoulders, which often requires an extra pass to cover a 6" wide strip on each side of street. This unit is identified in the City's fleet replacement schedule. This is for a used piece of equipment. Was SE-03 in FY 2006-2010 Brian Hensel Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- SE-04 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 1 5 5 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 20 New equipment will use less fuel and create less exhaust emissions. A chip spreader is essential equipment for chip seal projects. Continuing annual chip seal program is extremely important to maintaining City streets. Chip sealing is recognized as one of the most effective maintenance methods for increasing life span of asphalt streets. Maintaining City Streets is one of Street Division foremost priorities. Quantitative Analysis Comments Chip spreaders are required for use on chip seal projects conducted annually by Street Division. Chip seals are one of the most effective ways to maintain asphalt streets. If a chip spreader is not owned by the City or not available for lease chip seal would not be possible. Occasionally Street Division has been able to borrow a chip spreader from MDT if the City owned machine breaks down. However, MDT cannot be continuously relied upon for equipment use. Typically chip seal is done the same time of summer by private contractors and government agencies Availability of a chip spreader for lease or borrow during chip seal season can be very limited. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: SE-05 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 104,030 Totals - - - - - 104,030 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 104,030 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 104,030 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:13 PM CJK Total Score - Brian Hensel Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Equipment Single Drum Roller Replacement (Unit 143) Replace existing single drum roller identified in City's Vehicle Replacement Schedule. Replace the existing 1974 single drum roller (Unit 143) used primarily for construction projects and as a back-up paving roller. This unit is identified in the City's fleet replacement schedule. Was SE-04 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- SE-05 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 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 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- 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 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 5 - investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Quantitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis For: CIP\Council Committee By: Jack Stucky Project: Flusher / Deicer Truck Unit 131 Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 131 Flusher Truck 2004 or New Flusher Truck Flusher / Deicer Total Hours (estimated) 15,000+ Total Hours N\A Operating Costs Per Hour $4.98 Operating Costs Per Hour $3.48 Repair Costs Per Hour $11.92 Repair Costs Per Hour $5.68 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.00 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $3.76 Unit is fully depreciated Based on 15,000 Hour life expectancy Total Cost Per Hour $16.90 Total Cost Per Hour $12.92 Expected Cost Savings per Hour -$3.98 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage Rate 363 Estimated based on last years usage rate. Estimated Annual Expense Reduction -$1,444.74 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Reduction -$1,509.05 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.04451 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Reduction -$1,524.02 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.00992 Note, this is an old dump truck that we converted to flusher several years ago. ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: INTERNATIONAL By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1991 ( 16 YEARS) Project: Flusher Truck CONDITION: TIRED Unit 137 USAGE: STREET SWEEPING Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 137 Flusher Truck 2005 or New Flusher Truck Total Hours (estimated) 12000+ Total Hours N\A Operating Costs Per Hour (year to date) $8.71 Operating Costs Per Hour $6.01 Repair Costs Per Hour (year to date) $18.10 Repair Costs Per Hour $6.70 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.00 *Depreciation Costs Per Hour $8.34 Unit is fully depreciated Based on 15,000 Hour life expectancy Total Cost Per Hour $26.81 Total Cost Per Hour $21.05 Expected Cost Savings per Hour -$5.76 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage Rate 1,634 Estimated based on last years usage rate. Estimated Annual Expense Reduction -$9,411.84 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Reduction -$9,780.31 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.03915 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Reduction -$10,182.48 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.04112 *Based $130,000 cost less $5,000 residual over 15,000 hour life. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: SE-06 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund/Storm 24,000 CMAQ 136,000 Totals - - 160,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 160,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 160,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:13 PM CJK Total Score 49 Brian Hensel Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Equipment Tandem Axle Flusher Truck Replacement (Unit 131) Purchase one new tandem axle flusher truck replacement identified in City's Vehicle Replacement Schedule. Purchase one new tandem axle flusher truck. The new flusher would replace a 1980 International second line tandem axle flusher truck (Unit 131) used for all aspects of City sweeping program. The flusher truck is used for street sweeping throughout the year for construction projects, chip and seal, reclamite sand, winter sand clean-up, leaf removal, dust control, summer sweeping. Flusher trucks are essential for preserving air quality and compliance with EPA regulated airborne particulate levels. This truck would be traded/sold and the current front line flusher (137) would move to the secondary role. FY07, replace 1 flusher truck with MACI or CMAQ funding depending upon availability. Estimated City matching fund at 15% of equipment cost. Estimated purchase price: TYPE INCREMENTAL COST Flusher Truck $ 130,000 Was SE-05 in FY 2006-2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- SE-06 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 3 4 12 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 49 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Street sweeping is essential for City compliance with EPA air quality regulations. Montana Department of Transportation contracts with the City Street Division to maintain State Routes within City limits including street sweeping. Street sweeping is necessary for limiting air borne particulate to preserve respiratory health for the public. Yes, a new flusher truck would reduce polluting emissions and consume less fuel. Sweeping is an essential part of maintaining Missoula air quality. A new unit would improve sweeping production by decreasing down time due to repairs. Decreased maintenance costs would also result. Reliable and efficient flusher truck is an essential part of the City's street maintenance programs including, chip & seal, reclamite, reduction of air borne particulate, leaf pick-up, and clean streets. Quantitative Analysis Comments The CMAQ funding contributions are a tremendous benefit to the City to allow purchase of new equipment at an estimated 15 cents on the dollar for high leveraging. Cities must apply for funding through CMAQ or MACI sources every year. If an allocation is made the funds must be spent that year. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: SE-07 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 Possible Impact Fees? Totals - - - 190,000 190,000 190,000 190,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 760,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 760,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:15 PM CJK Total Score 29 Brian Hensel Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Equipment Single Axle Deicer/Plow Trucks Eight Single Axle Deicer/Plow Truck Replacements identified in City's Vehicle Replacement Schedule. These single axle deicer/plow trucks replace five existing units ranging from 1985 to 2001 models. These units are typically used in the City's snow removal operations and occasionally in the annual street maintenance program. In accordance with the City's Vehicle Replacement Schedule these units are planned for replacement as follows: FY 2007 Units 128 (1985 with 107,562miles) FY 2008 Unit 125, 129, 130 (1991 with 83,149 miles and 1991 with 79,176 miles and, 1996 with 57,896 miles) FY 2010 Units (167, 168, 169, and 176) Was SE-09 FY 2006 ---PAGE BREAK--- SE-07 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 29 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Yes, new unit would reduce polluting emissions and would consume less fuel. This truck is a front line snow plow/deicer unit used extensively during winter months. Yes, Street Division upgrade of its older equipment in the City's inventory per the vehicle equipment replacement schedule. Quantitative Analysis Comments Replacement of unit 128 is necessary due to the age of the truck (1985) and deterioration caused by frequent exposure to liquid deicer. ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: INTERNATIONAL By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1991 ( 15 YEARS) Project: Snow Plow Deicer CONDITION: FAIR TO POOR Unit 125 Single Axle Dump Truck USAGE: SNOW REMOVAL \ DEICER Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 125 Single Axle Dump **2005 or New Single Dump With Plow De-Icer Unit With Plow and Sand Spreader Total Miles New Meter Total Mileage <1,000 85,000+ Total Hours (estimated) 12,000.00 Total Hours New Operating Costs Per Hour (year to date) $14.58 Operating Costs Per Hour $7.06 Repair Costs Per Hour (year to date) $23.61 Repair Costs Per Hour $13.68 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.00 *Depreciation Costs Per Hour $8.45 Unit is fully depreciated. Total Cost Per Hour $38.19 Total Cost Per Hour\Hour $29.19 Expected Cost Savings per Hour -$9.00 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage Rate 133 Based on last years usage rates Estimated Annual Expense Reduction -$1,197.00 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Reduction -$1,244.53 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.03971 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Reduction -$1,283.26 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.03112 *Based $87,500 cost less $3,000 residual over 10,000 hour life. **Composite average (year to date) of operation and repair costs of 4 new units less set up costs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: INTERNATIONAL By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1991 ( 15 YEARS) Project: Snow Plow Deicer CONDITION: FAIR TO POOR Unit 128 Single Axle Dump Truck USAGE: SNOW REMOVAL \ DEICER Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 128 Single Axle Dump **2005 or New Single Dump With Plow De-Icer Unit With Plow and Sand Spreader Total Miles New Meter Total Mileage <1,000 89,000+ Total Hours (estimated) 12,000.00 Total Hours New Operating Costs Per Hour (year to date) $8.67 Operating Costs Per Hour $7.06 Repair Costs Per Hour (year to date) $22.15 Repair Costs Per Hour $13.68 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.00 *Depreciation Costs Per Hour $8.45 Unit is fully depreciated. Total Cost Per Hour $30.82 Total Cost Per Hour\Hour $29.19 Expected Cost Savings per Hour -$1.63 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage Rate 324 Based on last years usage rates Estimated Annual Expense Reduction -$528.12 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Reduction -$534.31 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.01173 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Reduction -$540.72 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.01199 *Based $87,500 cost less $3,000 residual over 10,000 hour life. **Composite average (year to date) of operation and repair costs of 4 new units less set up costs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: INTERNATIONAL By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1991 ( 15 YEARS) Project: Snow Plow Deicer CONDITION: FAIR TO POOR Unit 129 Single Axle Dump Truck USAGE: SNOW REMOVAL \ DEICER Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 129 Single Axle Dump **2005 or New Single Dump With Plow De-Icer Unit With Plow and Sand Spreader Total Miles New Meter Total Mileage <1,000 89,000+ Total Hours (estimated) 12,000.00 Total Hours New Operating Costs Per Hour (year to date) $7.61 Operating Costs Per Hour $7.06 Repair Costs Per Hour (year to date) $21.93 Repair Costs Per Hour $13.68 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.00 *Depreciation Costs Per Hour $8.45 Unit is fully depreciated. Total Cost Per Hour $29.54 Total Cost Per Hour\Hour $29.19 Expected Cost Savings per Hour -$0.35 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage Rate 338 Based on last years usage rates Estimated Annual Expense Reduction -$118.30 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Reduction -$118.43 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.001138 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Reduction -$118.61 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.001442 *Based $87,500 cost less $3,000 residual over 10,000 hour life. **Composite average (year to date) of operation and repair costs of 4 new units less set up costs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: FORD F800 By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1995 ( 11 YEARS ) Project: Snow Plow Deicer CONDITION: FAIR TO GOOD Unit 130 Single Axle Dump Truck USAGE: SNOW REMOVAL \ DEICER Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 130 Single Axle Dump **2005 or New Single Dump With Plow De-Icer Unit With Plow and Sand Spreader Total Miles 56,505 Total Mileage <1,000 Total Hours 5,097.00 Total Hours New Operating Costs Per Hour (year to date) $7.22 Operating Costs Per Hour $7.06 Repair Costs Per Hour (year to date) $18.32 Repair Costs Per Hour $13.68 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.00 *Depreciation Costs Per Hour $8.45 Unit is fully depreciated. Total Cost Per Hour $25.54 Total Cost Per Hour\Hour $29.19 *Expected Cost Savings per Hour $3.65 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage Rate 245 Based on last years usage rates Estimated Annual Expense Increase $894.25 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Increase $902.76 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.00952 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Increase $911.81 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.01002 *Based $87,500 cost less $3,000 residual over 10,000 hour life. **Composite average (year to date) of operation and repair costs of 4 new units less set up costs. ***At this time it is not cost effective to replace this unit. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: SE-08 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 95,000 285,000 95,000 Totals - - 95,000 285,000 95,000 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 380,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 380,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:21 PM CJK Total Score 35 Brian Hensel Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Equipment Tandem Axle Dump Truck Replacements Five each tandem axle dump truck replacements identified in City's Vehicle Replacement Schedule. Replace six tandem axle dump truck units numbered 126, 136, 164,135, and 165 ranging from 1978 to 1987 models. In accordance with the City's Vehicle Replacement Schedule, the units are scheduled for replacement as follows: FY 2007 Unit 126 & 136 FY 2008 Unit 164 & 135 FY 2009 Unit 165 See the analysis sheets attached for each unit. Was SE-10 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- SE-08 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 1 5 5 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 3 4 12 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 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 35 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Yes, new units will use less fuel and will discharge fewer emissions. Street Division uses the tandem dump trucks daily and new efficient trucks could make a significant impact on reducing City fuel expenses reduce emissions. Expands or improves on all services the Street Division accomplishes throughout a yearly period. Street Division's strategic plan to update older equipment in a timely manner. Quantitative Analysis Comments Updates existing equipment in the City Street Division fleet. Yes, replacement of dump trucks should be accomplished as soon as possible. Trucks being replaced are old and expensive to maintain. ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: GMC By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1985 ( 22 YEARS) Project: Tandem Axle Dumps CONDITION: WORN Unit 126 USAGE: CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 126 Tandem Axle Dump **2005 or New Tandem Dump Total Hours (estimated) Unknown Total Hours N\A Operating Costs Per Hour $6.65 Operating Costs Per Hour $4.56 Repair Costs Per Hour $9.75 Repair Costs Per Hour $5.66 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.00 *Depreciation Costs Per Hour $5.70 Unit is fully depreciated Based on 15,000 Hour life expectancy Total Cost Per Hour $16.40 Total Cost Per Hour $15.92 Expected Cost Savings per Hour -$0.48 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage Rate 842 Based on last years usage rates Estimated Annual Expense Reduction -$404.16 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Reduction -$418.04 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.03434 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Reduction -$427.37 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.02231 *Based $90,500 cost less $5,000 residual over 15,000 hour life. **Composite average (year to date) of operation and repair costs of 3 new units less set up costs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: FREIGHTLINER By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1988 ( 18 YEARS) Project: Tandem Axle Dumps CONDITION: FAIR TO POOR Unit 135 Tandem USAGE: CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 135 Tandem Axle Dump **2005 or New Tandem Dump Total Hours (estimated) Unknown Total Hours N\A Operating Costs Per Hour (year to date) $5.59 Operating Costs Per Hour $4.56 Repair Costs Per Hour (year to date) $11.56 Repair Costs Per Hour $5.66 . Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.00 *Depreciation Costs Per Hour $5.70 Unit is fully depreciated Based on 15,000 Hour life expectancy ***Total Cost Per Hour $17.15 Total Cost Per Hour $15.92 Expected Cost Savings per Hour -$1.23 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage Rate 1,163 Based on last years usage rates Estimated Annual Expense Reduction -$1,430.49 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Reduction -$1,460.76 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.02116 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Reduction -$1,513.55 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.03614 *Based $90,500 cost less $5,000 residual over 15,000 hour life. **Composite average (year to date) of operation and repair costs of 3 new units less set up costs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: GMC By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1985 ( 22 YEARS) Project: Tandem Axle Dumps CONDITION: WORN Unit 136 USAGE: CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 136 Tandem Axle Dump **2005 or New Tandem Dump Total Hours (estimated) Unknown Total Hours N\A Operating Costs Per Hour (year to date) $7.17 Operating Costs Per Hour $4.56 Repair Costs Per Hour (year to date) $9.21 Repair Costs Per Hour $5.66 . Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.00 *Depreciation Costs Per Hour $5.70 Unit is fully depreciated Based on 15,000 Hour life expectancy Total Cost Per Hour $16.38 Total Cost Per Hour $15.92 Expected Cost Savings per Hour -$0.46 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage Rate 429 Based on last years usage rates Estimated Annual Expense Reduction -$197.34 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Reduction -$200.72 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.01712 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Reduction -$203.45 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.01362 *Based $90,500 cost less $5,000 residual over 15,000 hour life. **Composite average (year to date) of operation and repair costs of 3 new units less set up costs. ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: INTERNATIONAL By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1978 ( 28 YEARS) Project: Tandem Axle Dumps CONDITION: TIRED Unit 164 Tandem USAGE: CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 164 Tandem Axle Dump **2005 or New Tandem Dump Total Hours (estimated) Unknown Total Hours N\A Operating Costs Per Hour (year to date) $10.49 Operating Costs Per Hour $4.56 Repair Costs Per Hour (year to date) $22.45 Repair Costs Per Hour $5.66 . Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.00 *Depreciation Costs Per Hour $5.70 Unit is fully depreciated Based on 15,000 Hour life expectancy ***Total Cost Per Hour $32.94 Total Cost Per Hour $15.92 Expected Cost Savings per Hour -$17.02 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage Rate 522 Based on last years usage rates Estimated Annual Expense Reduction -$8,884.44 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Reduction -$9,196.28 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.0351 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Reduction -$9,542.06 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.0376 *Based $90,500 cost less $5,000 residual over 15,000 hour life. **Composite average (year to date) of operation and repair costs of 3 new units less set up costs. ***Total Cost per hour increased significantly due to corrosion damage and temporary repairs to the dump box. ***If this unit is not replaced in FY07 the Dump box should be replaced. Note, this unit is fitted with snow removal equipment that contributes to the higher than normal cost per hour. ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: INTERNATIONAL By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1987 ( 19 YEARS) Project: Tandem Axle Dumps CONDITION: TIRED Unit 165 Tandem USAGE: CONSTRUCTION & MAINTENANCE Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 165 Tandem Axle Dump **2005 or New Tandem Dump Total Hours (estimated) Unknown Total Hours N\A Operating Costs Per Hour (year to date) $9.67 Operating Costs Per Hour $4.56 Repair Costs Per Hour (year to date) $22.41 Repair Costs Per Hour $5.66 . Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.00 *Depreciation Costs Per Hour $5.70 Unit is fully depreciated Based on 15,000 Hour life expectancy ***Total Cost Per Hour $32.08 Total Cost Per Hour $15.92 Expected Cost Savings per Hour -$16.16 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage Rate 437 Based on last years usage rates Estimated Annual Expense Reduction -$7,061.92 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Reduction -$7,256.90 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.02761 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Reduction -$7,512.34 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.0352 *Based $90,500 cost less $5,000 residual over 15,000 hour life. **Composite average (year to date) of operation and repair costs of 3 new units less set up costs. ***Total Cost per hour increased significantly due to corrosion damage and temporary repairs to the dump box. ***If this unit is not replaced in FY07 the Dump box should be replaced. Note, this unit is fitted with snow removal equipment that contributes to the higher than normal cost per hour. ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis For: CIP\Council Committee By: Jack Stucky Project: Sign Truck Unit 582 Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 582 SignTruck 2005 or New Truck Total Miles (new meter) 10,505 Total Miles <10,000 Total Hours (new meter) 751.00 Total Hours N\A Operating Costs Per Hour $1.73 Operating Costs Per Hour $0.23 Repair Costs Per Hour $2.37 Repair Costs Per Hour $0.47 Fixed Costs Per Hour $0.00 Fixed Costs Per Hour $2.90 Unit is fully depreciated Depreciated at 15,000 Hours Total Cost Per Hour $4.10 Total Cost Per Hour $3.60 Expected Cost Savings per Hour -$0.50 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage Rate 206 Based on Last years usage Estimated Annual Expense Increase -$103.00 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Increase -$131.54 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.2771 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Increase -$157.76 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.1993 ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: SE-09 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 45,580 Totals - - - 45,580 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 45,580 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 45,580 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:24 PM CJK Total Score 20 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Equipment Sign Maintenance Truck (Unit 582) Replacement for existing 1993 sign maintenance service truck. Replacement of an existing, in service 1993 GMC Cabover sign maintenance truck (Unit 582). This sign maintenance truck is used for both City and State maintenance sign activities. Unit 582 was planned for replacement in FY 2004 in accordance with the City's Vehicle Replacement Schedule. Was SE-12 in FY06 Wayne Gravatt Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- SE-09 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 1 5 5 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 20 New vehicles should be more efficient and reduce fuel usage and polluting emissions. Should increase the efficiency of operations. Corresponds to the community livability goal of the City-wide Strategic Plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments See fleet replacement schedule. This truck is used in the installation and maintenance of City traffic control devices as required by law. This truck is used in fulfilling duties related to the State Maintenance Contract. This truck is scheduled for replacement according to the City's Vehicle Replacement Schedule. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: SE-10 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund $84,800 Totals - - 84,800 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 84,800 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 84,800 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:25 PM CJK Total Score 41 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Equipment Rubber tire roller replacement (Unit 153) Purchase one new rubber tire roller or two newer used rollers dependant on availability. Replace a 1964 Ingram rubber tire roller (Unit 153). This type of roller is used extensively for the City's annual street chip seal program. The 1964 roller has been taken out of service due to irreparable and unsafe brakes. Further, due to the age of this equipment replacement parts are becoming increasingly difficult to find. An effort will be made to locate used rollers if any are available. It may be possible to purchase two newer used rollers for the funds requested. Two rollers are required for City chip seal projects. Typically, Street Division will use one of the two City owned rollers (Unit 153 or Unit 155) and borrow or lease another one from MDT or local contractor. Currently availability for leasing rubber tire rollers is extremely limited, see cost/benefit analysis for further information. This type of roller is also used for compaction of street base materials on reconstruction projects and for compaction on Grade D pavement (asphalt with larger size aggregate). Grade D asphalt is used on streets with large traffic volumes and is difficult to compact with steel drum roller alone. Rubber tire rollers have the compactive ability to knead the large aggregates together and seal the surface to help prevent water infiltration. Brian Hensel Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- SE-10 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 3 4 12 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 41 New equipment will use less fuel and create less exhaust emissions. Rubber tire rollers are essential equipment for chip seal projects. Continuing annual chip seal program is extremely important to maintaining City streets. Rubber tire rollers are necessary to achieve adequate compaction on paving projects using Grade D asphalt. All MDT projects require use of Grade D asphalt. Street Division historically does one or two major MDT paving projects every summer. Chip sealing is recognized as one of the most effective maintenance methods for increasing life span of asphalt streets. Maintaining City Streets is one of Street Division foremost priorities. Quantitative Analysis Comments Rubber tire rollers are required for use on chip seal projects conducted annually by Street Division. Chip seals are one of the most effective ways to maintain asphalt streets. If a rubber tire roller is not owned by the City or not available for lease chip seal would not be possible. 5-year payback ($13,000/year rental or buy at $170,000) Street Division does not own a rubber tire roller available for use. It is necessary to borrow or lease two rubber tire rollers a local contractor or another government agency. MDT cannot continuously lease one for City use. Typically chip seal is done the same time of summer by private contractors and government agencies. As a result, leasing rubber tire rollers during chip seal season may not be possible. Use of the existing roller is not possible due to safety concerns relating to inadequate brakes. Use of the existing roller on streets located in the hills would present an even greater hazard to the operator and public should the breaks fail causing an uncontrolled "run-away" machine through residential areas. Rubber tire rollers of this size can weigh up to 12 tons. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Roller Replacement To: CIP Committee\Carla Krause From: Jack Stucky Date: 02/01/2006 Re: CIP Roller Replacement Project Unit 153 is a 1964 Ingram Rubber Tired Roller. In January of this year this old roller was taken out of service, do to its age and the metal fatigue associated with 42 years of “stop start” service. It is no longer cost effective to keep it in service. This unit is 42 years old and was completely depreciated in 1984. Parts are difficult if not impossible to find and often times have to be fabricated or machined. The unit is under powered to the point where it is difficult to get up to a working speed. Should an operator reach a working speed it is Unit 155 is a 1965 Gallion Rubber Tired Roller. This unit is 41 years old. It was completely depreciated in 1985. In January of this year this roller was taken out of service. The brake system on this unit is not safe. After replacing all of the major brake components the backing plates that the shoes attach to have broken loose. Attempts to fabricate these parts have not been effective in terms of cost or reliability. Continuing to operate this unit will result Due to budget restraints, we have continued to operate both of these old units beyond reasonable safety and cost effective limits. Each winter we bring them in the shop and try to make them operational for the next year. They have now reached a point where replacing the old parts with fabricated parts only results in failure at the point of attachment. The drive It is not in the best interests of the City of Missoula to continue to operate these units. In the event of a brake failure, these old heavy units will crush whatever is in their path. In spite of regular preventative maintenance, both of these old units have had brake failures in the past. Fortunately no one was hurt or killed. Avoiding one pinch point injury will pay for numerous ---PAGE BREAK--- Data gathered January 2006 for reserving a roller during Summer of 2006. Phone survey conducted by Rod Wegner, Paving Supervisor, Missoula Street Division Vendor Availability Lease cost Cat Rental Store No roller available in the Missoula area and they don't usually rent this type of equipment. NA ABC Rental No roller available NA Norm Jones Contracting No roller available NA JTL Group, Inc. Have one roller in Missoula, which could be leased if not being used by JTL. May have to share. $55.00/hr L.S. Jensen May be able to rent roller with Jensen operator only, subject to company work schedule. Modern Machinery May have a used machine available with a 1 month minimum rental. $ 3500/month Western Plains Machinery 2 rollers available, but are usually gone for entire summer by April or May $3500-$5000/month Triple W Equipment No roller available NA Montana Department of Transportation May have 1 roller available dependent on work load, but District Manager expressed concern about City relying on MDT every season for a roller. NA AVAILABILITY SURVEY FOR LEASING RUBBER TIRE ROLLER ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: SE-11 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 51,000 Totals - - - - - - 51,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 51,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 51,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:26 PM CJK Total Score - Brian Hensel Public Works Department Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Equipment Skid Steer Loader Replacement (Unit 171) Purchase new skid steer loader to replace existing loader. Replace existing 1996 skid steer front end loader. This machine is used for general loading and construction demolition on construction projects. It is also used for snow plowing on sidewalks and parking lots. This unit is identified in the City's fleet replacement schedule. ---PAGE BREAK--- SE-11 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 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 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- 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 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 5 - investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Quantitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: JOHNSTON By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1999 ( 7 YEARS) Project: Street Sweeper CONDITION: TIRED Unit 118 USAGE: SWEEPING PROGRAM Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 118 Street Sweeper 2005 or New Sweeper Total Hours (estimated) 6,660.00 Total Hours New Operating Costs Per Hour $12.40 Operating Costs Per Hour $10.86 Repair Costs Per Hour $14.63 Repair Costs Per Hour $12.44 Depreciation per hour $8.49 *Depreciation Per Hour $11.34 Total Cost Per Hour $35.52 Total Cost Per Hour $34.64 Expected Cost Savings per Hour -$0.88 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage Rate 933 Based on Last years usage Estimated Annual Expense Reduction -$821.04 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Reduction -$868.42 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.05771 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Reduction -$902.59 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.03934 *Based $175,000 cost less $5,000 residual over 15,000 hour life. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: SE-12 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No X N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Fund 25,500 CMAQ 124,500 MACI 164,500 Street Expansion Impact Fee 25,500 Totals - - 340,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 340,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 340,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:26 PM CJK Total Score 52 Brian Hensel Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Equipment Vacuum Street Sweepers Purchase Purchase of two new vacuum type street sweepers. In FY07, purchase 2 new vacuum type street sweepers contingent on MACI or CMAQ funding availability for FY07. City would be responsible for approximately 15% of the total purchase price with MACI or CMAQ picking up the rest. The new FY07 sweepers would replace 1 of 3 front line 1999 Johnston sweepers and one Tennent mechanical sweeper. The vacuum sweepers are used extensively for the annual summer sweeping program, reclamite sand clean-up and winter sweeping when temperatures are above 32 degrees Fahrenheit. All City sweepers are essential for preserving air quality and compliance with EPA regulated airborne particulate levels. Estimated purchase prices: TYPE INCREMENTAL COST TOTAL COST FY 07 Vacuum Sweeper $170,000 each $340,000 City matching fund is estimated at 15%. ---PAGE BREAK--- SE-12 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 3 4 12 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 3 9 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 52 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Street sweeping is essential for City compliance with EPA air quality regulations. Montana Department of Transportation contracts with the City Street Division to maintain State Routes within City limits including street sweeping. Street sweeping is necessary for limiting air borne particulate to preserve respiratory health for the public. Yes, new sweepers would reduce polluting emissions and consume less fuel. Sweeping is an essential part of maintaining Missoula air quality. New units would improve sweeping production by decreasing down time due to repairs. Decreased maintenance costs would also result. Reliable and efficient sweepers are an essential part of the City's street maintenance programs including, chip & seal, reclamite, reduction of air borne particulate, leaf pick-up, and clean streets. Quantitative Analysis Comments The MACI funding contribution is a tremendous benefit to the City to allow purchase of new equipment at an estimated 15 cents on the dollar. Cities must apply for funding through CMAQ or MACI sources every year. If an allocation is made the funds must be spent that year. The current sweeper fleet was purchased in conjunction with CMAQ funding. As a result, the sweepers are not on the City vehicle replacement schedule. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-01 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 City Assessments $50,000 Assessments 40,000 Totals - - 90,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel N/A N/A A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 72,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 7,200 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 10,800 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 90,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:27 PM CJK Total Score 36 Doug Harby Public Works Parks and Recreation Department estimates an impact on their budget for maintenance of the sidewalks and snow removal of $1,700 per year. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Bellevue Park Curb and Sidewalk Improvements Install sidewalks in a City park. City parks are a destination for pedestrians including people with accessibility requirements. The City has been installing sidewalks in its parks for many years and this is a continuation of the program. The work has been formally requested by the SouthGate Triangle Neighborhood Council. See attached letter. Citizen initiated. Funding will be from curb and sidewalk assessments to the City. This work will take place on the 34th/35th Street rights-of-way adjacent to the City's Bellevue Park and properties on the north side of 34th. Parks snow removal maintenance of sidewalks: $ 7.50 truck/hour $12.00 sm tractor/hour $22.00 person/hour 35 to 50 times per year / averaging 42.5 times per year $1,700 per year average None Was S-01 in FY 2006-2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- S-01 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 2 5 10 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 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 36 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Increase pedestrian uses. Increases access, and was requested by a public group. Quantitative Analysis Comments Funding through City sources. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-02 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments 565,000 $600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 Gas Tax 55,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 Totals - 620,000 670,000 670,000 670,000 670,000 670,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel N/A N/A A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 2,680,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 268,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 402,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 3,350,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:28 PM CJK Total Score 49 Doug Harby Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Annual Sidewalk Replacement Program Ph. III This program would systematically replace hazardous and deteriorated sidewalks and install ADA upgrades. This program would systematically replace hazardous and deteriorated sidewalks and install curb ramps throughout the existing sidewalk system of Missoula. The Public Works Master Sidewalk Plan will be used to prioritize the area that will be upgraded first. This program would replace 40 to 50 blocks of sidewalk annually. The cost of replacing sidewalks will be assessed to property owners. The costs of installing curb ramps will be shared by property owners and general fund monies depending on the situation. Phase III will be bounded by Mount, Higgins and Brooks. Phase IV will be bounded by Orange, 3rd, Walnut and River Street. The curb ramps will be funded by the adjacent property owners if the curb and/or sidewalk is deteriorated within the ramp area. The City will fund all other ramps. See also related projects S-06 Spruce-Madison-Greenough 21st Century and S-12, Slant Street Pedestrian Improvement Program Phases I and II. None Was S-02 in FY 2006-2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- S-02 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 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Allows for the mobility impaired to use pedestrian facilities. A safe sidewalk system encourages non- motorized transportation. ADA is mandated. M.M.C.'s require the replacement of hazardous sidewalks. Strategic plan Goal 2: Livability Quantitative Analysis Comments 100 percent leveraging. Court cases stating City's liability. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-03 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments/residents 212,500 122,242 $36,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 General Fund/CIP 106,500 61,316 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 DEQ Grant 50,000 50,000 ISTEA/CMAQ Grant 10,200 10,000 Totals 379,200 243,558 54,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 172,222 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 17,222 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 25,833 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) 1,722 Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 217,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:31 PM CJK Total Score 46 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Neighborhood Initiated Traffic Calming Neighborhood initiated street improvements to slow motorized travel and enhance non- motorized travel. These projects demonstrated effectiveness slowing motorized traffic and enhancing non-motorized travel, reducing auto-generated air pollution, improving the efficiency of traffic flow, and preserving the residential character of neighborhood streets. State DEQ grant provided funding for FY96, 97, 98. ISTEA/CMAQ grant provided funding in FY98. Finished circles were installed on Evans as a demonstration project 1997 with 50% of costs paid by SID. Finished circles were installed at 9 intersections in University area 2001, with bulbouts at 2 locations on Beckwith, CIP paid 34% of total costs. Traffic calming projects were completed on Clearview (1 bulbout- median combination), Christian Drive (bulbout-median combinations at 6 locations) at traffic circles on 4th at both California and Prince in 2004, using FY03 CIP funds to match residents contributions. 4 circles installed in Hickory St area 2005; 7 circles will be installed in Slant Streets late spring 2006. This CIP request includes City funding to match the residents' SID funding, for potential projects in FY07: a) 2 circles on 4th estimated cost $15,000; b) Bulb-outs piloted on Pattee Creek Drive did not work successfully; other devices will be tried summer 2006 with expectation of permanent devices in spring 2007, estimated cost $14,000; c) Temporary devices will be installed on Pattee Canyon in summer 2006, expecting permanent devices in spring 2007, estimated cost $25,000. Have customarily budgeted $18,000 CIP funds to match residents funding. Considering these 3 projects, this would provide 1 City dollar for every 2 residents' dollars. Was S-03 in FY06 Phil Smith Public Works City participates in traffic calming projects by pavement removal, sump moving as needed, engineering, installation of temporary devices, and painting and striping. For this coming year, this participation is estimated to be $7,500. These amounts will be accommodated within existing budgets. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- S-03 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 1 3 3 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 46 Air quality will benefit; energy will be conserved; the bicycling/pedestrian environment will be enhanced. With the visible demonstrated success of traffic calming in several locations, other residents are insisting on traffic calming to address their concerns. Many residents feel that managing residential traffic is an essential service. We have been repeatedly asked to make Missoula safer for biking and walking, and reduce the volumes and speeds of traffic on many residential streets. Traffic calming has been a specific planning objective in the City's Strategic Plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments At current cost estimates, one requested CIP dollar will leverage at least two residents' dollars. A similar program in Seattle resulted in a 94% reduction in accidents...a high benefit. Traffic calming is neighborhood responsive; a major benefit is improved neighborhood livability and confidence in local government. Traffic calming on 4th was first tried nearly 10 years ago; residents have been eager for traffic circles ever since and finally have enough neighborhood support. Residents on Pattee Creek worked for 3 years to get traffic calming; the first devices tried proved to not work. They are very eager to get their traffic calmed. Residents on Pattee Canyon have similarly wanted the high speeds slowed on their street for at least 2 years. Though not legally required, the project will improve air quality, conserve energy, mitigate traffic congestion, improve neighborhood safety. Applicant neighborhoods customarily feel that their traffic improvements are urgently needed. The primary reason residents state for requesting traffic calming is to increase safety on their residential streets. Slowing traffic, especially at intersections, materially improves safety for both motorists and pedestrians. A preliminary survey of crash data for the two years prior and two years after the devices in the University Area shows a reduction from 38 crashes to 17. There were 17 t-bone (right angle crashes) prior, there were 6 after installation, none of which were at intersections with circles. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Pre-circles Post circles Per cent reduction Cost savings per Monaco figures Benefit/cost (Public cost of $18,000) Cost savings per Jomini Benefit/cost (Public cost of $18,000) Total crashes 36 17 53 $551,000 30:01:00 $396,000 22:01 Right angle crashes 18 5 72 $377,000 21:01 $286,000 16:01 In the table below, I’ve used Monaco’s numbers and the very conservative “possible injury crash” numbers from Jomini. We consider two different benefits: total crash reductions, and reduction in the more severe right-angle crashes. Conclusion: Using the conservative numbers (right angle crashes rather than total crashes, and Jomini’s costs rather than Monaco’s), the LEAST benefit/cost ration is 16:1. PRELIMINARY COST / BENEFIT ANALYSIS TRAFFIC CALMING IN MISSOULA In June, 2001 the City installed traffic circles at nine intersections in the university area, in a pattern of roughly one every other intersection. The total project cost $50,095, of which $18,000 was City funds. During the 31 months prior to installation, there were 36 motor vehicle crashes, of which 18 were right-angle (t-bone) crashes. During the 31 months following installation, there were 17 motor vehicle crashes, of which 5 were right angle (t-bone) crashes. The “cost value” of a crash varies widely, considering these factors: specifics of the particular crash, costs in a particular part of the state or country, inclusion of appropriate other factors (economic loss, personal injury, property damage, cost of public services such as police or fire, and administrative costs). Mark Monaco of the Missoula Police Department has calculated that an average motor vehicle crash, attended by the Missoula Police, has a total cost of $29,000 – incorporating all the factors above. Pierre Jomini, the Montana Department of Transportation Safety Engineer, uses national cost data: a fatal injury crash million), an incapacitating injury crash ($210,000), a non- incapacitating injury crash ($42,000), a possible injury crash ($22,000), and a property-damage-only crash ($2300). ---PAGE BREAK--- LEGEND: Phillips:Bulbouts – no support Vine/Monroe: Bulbout with median installed University area: 9 circles installed Evans: 1st three circles installed Sussex: Data didn’t support TC S. 4th, Orange – Bulbouts at 2003 Takima Dr: Circles requested; data didn't support Slant Streets: 7 permanent traffic circles to be installed spring 2006 Hickory area: 4 permanent circles installed 2005 Wyoming: data didn’t support and S/W needed S. 4th,, Russell – RR: 2 permanent circles Jefferson School area: temporary circles effective but no neighborhood support Christian Dr: 6 median-bulbouts installed Clearview: permanent circle installed Mount: 2 temporary bulbouts in place Traffic Calming applications 1996 - 2005 Polaris Way: data doesn’t justify action Pattee Creek Drive: temps unsuccessful River Road: options being studied 2005 Cottonwood/Rollins /Florence: data didn’t support 2004 Crestline/Highland Park, and 5 blocks on Pattee Canyon: new requests 2005 TC installed Action pending ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-04 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 City Gas Tax $2,600 State Pilot Program 50,000 50,000 147,400 MDT Urban Funds 200,000 CTEP 100,000 Totals 50,000 50,000 150,000 300,000 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost 50,000 Supplies B. Construction Cost 225,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 25,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 150,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 450,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:32 PM CJK Total Score 49 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Traffic Control Improvements - Higgins / Beckwith / Hill Installation of traffic control improvements. This intersection is currently the only unsignalized major intersection on the east-west traffic corridor, which consists of Mount Avenue, 14th Street, Hill and East Beckwith that goes from Reserve Street to the University of Montana. Installation of this improvement would provide a much needed east-west route across the entire city. Prior traffic engineer analysis did indicate that intersection control was warranted. Engineer has completed the preliminary design of a roundabout. Project Status: 1. MOU signed at State 2. Preliminary design completed 3. Final design to be completed 2007 4. Construction scheduled for 2008 Funding: 1. Urban pilot program funds for ROW and construction 2. City gas tax for 13% of design engineering costs 3. Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP) for landscaping, lighting, and non-motorized amenities 4. MDT Urban Funds for right-of-way and construction design and public process Was S-05 in FY 2006-2010 Steve King Public Works No change in operating costs. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- S-04 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 3 4 12 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 49 This will reduce motor vehicle delays, ease bicycle/pedestrian access and reduce cut through traffic in neighborhoods. The enhancement of the transportation plan. Livability. Quantitative Analysis Comments The whole community will benefit from the completion of an east-west corridor. Leveraging of local money is 100%. the remainder of the corridor is in place. Pilot program funding requires speedy implementation. Under contract. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-05 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Gas Tax (materials) $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 Assessments 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 City Assessments 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Gas Tax (construction) 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Street Division In Kind 570,000 570,000 570,000 570,000 570,000 Totals - - 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel N/A N/A A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 6,200,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 620,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 930,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 7,750,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:33 PM CJK Total Score 46 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Street Improvements and Major Maintenance Program Annual street reconstruction and maintenance program. Work is done by City forces and private contractors. Paid by special assessments and Gas Tax. Most streets are designed for and have a useful life span of 20 years if no major maintenance is performed. The street improvements and major maintenance program has changed from all reconstruction to a combination of: 1. Reconstruction of completely deteriorated streets. 2. Overlays on the streets showing the most duress. 3. Chip sealing or application of reclamite to prolong the life of the streets with only moderate deterioration. Overlaying, chip sealing and reclamiting before complete deterioration will extend the life of a street beyond the normal 20 years. See also related projects S-03 Neighborhood Initiated Traffic Calming and S-12, Slant Street Pedestrian Improvement Program Phases I and II. None Was S-06 in FY 2006-2010 Doug Harby Public Works No additional operating costs. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- S-05 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 1 3 3 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 46 Quantitative Analysis Comments Gas tax funds are allocated to each city based on miles of streets and population. Funds are earmarked for the maintenance and construction of streets. Long term maintenance of community infrastructures is more cost effective than major reconstruction. Postponement of any part of the street program means increased future costs to replace deteriorated streets. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-06 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Now, BS FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Revenue $12,500 Assessments 29,600 Gas tax 13,000 City In-Kind Labor 13,000 Totals - - 68,100 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 44,080 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 4,408 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 6,612 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 13,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 68,100 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:37 PM CJK Total Score 46 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Spruce-Madison-Greenough 21st Century Project Participate with citizens and other city departments over several years in fixing an inadequate street section. The section of Greenough Drive from the bottom of the hill at Vine St to its intersection with Madison/W. Spruce is for the most part without sidewalks, curbs, and other street improvements. For several years, neighborhood groups have worked to design this area to be both functional and attractive. The overall project is a multi-party, multi-year effort, involving 3 major activities: fixing the road (curbs/gutters, sidewalks, bike lanes, driving lane reconfiguration), repairing the railroad crossing for all modes, and cleaning up and beautifying the landscape surrounding the street. The aerial photo/graphic attached shows these: Red lines show curbs and gutters needing to be installed. Blue shows sidewalks needing to be installed. Light green shows a potential trail to be built up the west side of the hill to the trailhead at Waterworks Hill. Magenta shows the railroad tracks crossing. Green shows areas to be landscaped. The citizen group is willing to spearhead and coordinate the overall effort. This CIP item focuses on the critical first activity defining the street: curbs/gutters and sidewalks on both sides. We anticipate a significant portion of the cost can be assessed to property owners. Once the roadway is properly defined, citizens can create partnerships with the Parks Dept and private interests (e.g. landscapers) to do the landscaping and trail work. We have submitted a separate CIP item for fixing the railroad crossing. Funding would be assessments, General Revenue, Gas Tax and City in-kind labor. Was S-07 in FY06 Phil Smith Public Works Eventually there will likely be some street surface work by Streets Division, and some striping by Traffic Services; $13,000 is included in the "gas tax" item above for materials (asphalt, sumps etc) to do this. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- S-06 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 1 3 3 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 46 The project will define the pedestrian, bike, and motor vehicle facilities; folks will be more likely to travel on foot or by bike because of this, thus having some impact on air pollution. Clearly, appropriate and safe facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists is an essential City service. In this location, those facilities are mostly lacking or deficient. Community livability (Public Works #10): "Complete projects approved in the 1996 Transportation Plan, and implement…in the 2003 Transportation Plan." This project is specifically mentioned in the 2003 Transportation Plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments The total project will include significant participation by many parties: the railroad, Parks Dept, citizens and volunteer labor, and the Public Works Dept. The General Revenue request is 23% of the total (better than a 3:1 leverage). The neighborhood has committed to landscaping, using grants they have obtained. This covers 16,700 square feet at a value of $2.00 per square foot, or $33,400. Thus the general revenue leverage total is 7:1. Work in this area has been pending for many years; each year the conditions in that short corridor get worse. The condition of the pedestrian facilities on both sides of Greenough Drive is marginal, at best…in some situations barely usable by wheelchairs. On the east side, cars routinely drive and park across the so-called pedestrian walkway. This portion of our city has been in need of attention for many years; residents have asked/begged/pleaded for some assistance in fixing it up. With the very poor condition of pedestrian facilities, and the significant risk to bicyclists at the tracks, the situation is becoming urgent. Definitely provides for improved public safety. Facilities provide NO separation of pedestrians on either side south of the Interstate no curb, no boulevard, no nothing! There is substantial motor vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic in this stretch, with marginal facilities separating them. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Pedestrians are ON the so-called "walkway." Cars drive across freely. Sidewalk just disappears into this mess. No curbs; cars routinely push the edges of the space which should be for pedestrians. No sidewalks and unneeded guardrail on W. Side; enough room for bike lane. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-07 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments 500,000 420,000 CTEP 160,000 160,000 240,000 Assessments to City 80,000 Totals 660,000 160,000 - - 740,000 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 592,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 59,200 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 88,800 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs 2,000 2,000 F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service 2,000 2,000 740,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:38 PM CJK Total Score 45 Doug Harby Public Works $2,000 per year for maintenance required. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Master Sidewalk Plan Implementation Phase I An implementation project for the installation of sidewalks where none exist. The increasing concern for air quality and energy conservation has placed more emphasis on non- motorized transportation. New regulations on the ADA mandate access for the disabled community. Recent Supreme Court decisions have laid part of the responsibility for assuring that sidewalks are in a safe condition upon local government. The most likely source of federal funds will be Surface Transportation Program Enhancement Activity. This program will supplement the assessments with CTEP funds in areas where the normal costs for sidewalk improvements are substantially increased by existing conditions such as topography, or lack of fight-of-way. Phase I will be the installation of sidewalks on 23rd from 39th to 55th. None Was S-08 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- S-07 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 1 4 4 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 45 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments The implementation of the Master Sidewalk Plan will complete the sidewalk system and construct the sidewalks to ADA standards as well as eliminate hazardous sidewalks as mandated by State and City codes. The City can be held liable for damages resulting from unsafe sidewalks as well as not meeting ADA requirements and may result in civil actions against the City. Quantitative Analysis Comments Leveraging of federal funds. ---PAGE BREAK--- Note: These projects are not listed in any particular order. 23rd - 39th to Hillview Way Gharrett - 39th to 55th High Park All Lincoln Hi Rattlesnake to Contour Duncan - Vine to Lolo Lolo - All POTENTIAL PROJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE CTEP MASTER SIDEWALK PLAN IMPLEMENTATION This selection is based on sidewalk installation projects located on high priority corridors or in high priority areas. These projects all have existing conditions, which makes them more expensive or impactive than the norm. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-08 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 State Pilot Program 325,000 Assessments 175,000 CTEP Totals - - - - - 500,000 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost 20,000 Supplies B. Construction Cost 384,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 38,400 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 57,600 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 500,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:39 PM CJK Total Score - Steve King Public Works Reduction of street maintenance costs ($500/year). Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements VanBuren Street Reconstruction I-90 to Missoula Avenue: reconstruction of sidewalks, curbs, pavement, drainage and utilities. VanBuren Street was reviewed through public input as part of a list of seven corridors considered for reconstruction. Improvements will consist of new curbs, sidewalks, drainage, pavement and utility reconstruction. Neighborhood gateway treatments, lighting and landscaping will be considered. This is a 2 lane cost estimate. Funding: 1. State Pilot Program for asphalt and drainage. 2. Assessments to area property owners. 3. CTEP funds for landscaping and lighting. 4. City Street Division provides labor and equipment to meet budget (estimate of $125,000 work). The State Pilot Program is depending on state allocation in the future. This funding is undetermined at this time. Some additional right-of-way may be needed. Was S-09 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- S-08 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 5 - investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Quantitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-09 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments 400,000 Gas Tax (materials) 200,000 In Kind Labor 100,000 Totals - - - - - 700,000 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 560,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 56,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 84,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 700,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:39 PM CJK Total Score - City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Gravel Streets Paving Paving of urban public roads including curb, sidewalks and drainage. The City would obtain engineering and construction services to construct paved streets with curbs, sidewalks and drainage improvements. Portions of Burlington, Strand, Kensington and Margaret in the East Reserve area would be paved. A Special Improvement District (SID) would be created to fund curbs, sidewalks, paving and drainage material costs. The City Streets Division would provide labor and equipment for construction. Project will use existing right-of-way. Was S-10 in FY 2006-2010 Steve King Public Works Savings of $400 per year in street maintenance. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- S-09 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 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 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- 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 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 5 - investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score - Reduces air pollution; protection of Missoula's air quality. Air quality is an objective under Community Livability. Quantitative Analysis Comments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-11 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments $900,000 900,000 Gas Tax 6,000 City Assessments 80,000 Totals 6,000 - 900,000 980,000 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 1,504,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 150,400 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 225,600 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 1,880,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:40 PM CJK Total Score 41 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Hillview Way Reconstruction Road widening with curbs, sidewalk and drainage improvements from Black Pine to 55th Street. Hillview Way between Black Pine and 55th Street is currently a narrow rural section with no drainage structures, curbs or sidewalks. Present and future development adjacent to this road section has increased the need for improvements. Phase I from Black Pine to Clearview Phase II from Clearview to 55th Street. Was S-12 in FY06 Steve King Public Works This project will reduce operating and maintenance costs. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- S-11 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 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 41 Installation of sidewalks provides transportation options. Reduced dust from shoulder enhancements. Improved street surface and drainage. Enhanced community livability. Quantitative Analysis Comments Greater than 2:1 funding ratio. Several subdivisions have posponed street improvements pending this comprehensive project. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-12 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments $30,000 30,000 CTEP 30,000 30,000 Totals - - 60,000 60,000 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel N/A N/A A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 96,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 9,600 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 14,400 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 120,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:40 PM CJK Total Score 49 Doug Harby Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Slant Street Pedestrian Improvement Program Phases I and II This program will systematically install curb, sidewalks and ADA improvements. This program will systematically install curb and sidewalks in the Slant Street Area. Hazardous and deteriorated sidewalks will also be replaced as needed. ADA improvements will be made at each corner. The Public Works Master Sidewalk Plan has been used to prioritize the areas that will be upgraded first. Curb ramps will be funded by general fund monies if there is no other work adjacent. The property owners will pay for the ramps if the curb or sidewalk is installed or replaced in the area of the ramp. The cost of installing new sidewalks will be paid with a combination of property owner assessments and CTEP funds under the Slant Street Pedestrian Improvement Program CIP. Replacement of curbs and sidewalks will be paid with a combination of property owner assessments and Gas Tax funds under the Annual Sidewalk Replacement Program Phase III CIP. CTEP funds will be used to supplement the cost of the installation of sidewalks on a 50-50 split if the property owner installs the sidewalk at the preferred boulevard location. Phase I will encompass the area bounded by Brooks, Higgins and Mount Streets. Phase II will be bounded by Beckwith, Mount and Stephens. See also related projects S-05 Street Improvement and Major Maintenance Program, and S-03 Neighborhood Initiated Traffic Calming. None Was S-15 in FY 2006-2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- S-12 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 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments 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. Strategic Plan Goal Two: Livable Community. Quantitative Analysis Comments 100 percent leveraging. Court cases stating City's liability. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-13 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments 220,000 220,000 Gas Tax 50,000 50,000 Street Division In Kind 50,000 50,000 Totals - - - 320,000 320,000 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 512,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 51,200 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 76,800 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 640,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:41 PM CJK Total Score 36 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Rattlesnake Drive Sidewalk (Lolo to Creek Crossing) Curb and sidewalk installation from Lolo to Creek Crossing. Rattlesnake Drive is a neighborhood collector street without continuous pedestrian facilities. Conversion of Rattlesnake School to an elementary school has increased the need for new sidewalks. Funding would be through property owner assessments with Street Division assistance. Requested by citizens. Was S-16 in FY 2006-2010 Doug Harby Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- S-13 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 36 Sidewalks provide transportation options. Enhanced community livability. Quantitative Analysis Comments Funding sources other than City's general fund. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-14 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments $800,000 Gas Tax 500,000 City In-Kind Labor 200,000 Totals - - 1,500,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 1,040,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 104,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 156,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 200,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 1,500,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:41 PM CJK Total Score 45 Steve King Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements South 3rd (Catlin to Darlene) Reconstruction Install new curbs, sidewalk, pavement, drainage and parking improvements. South 3rd from Russell to Reserve was reviewed through public input as part of a list of seven corridors considered for reconstruction. Improvements from Catlin to Darlene will consist of new curbs, sidewalks, drainage, pavement and parking areas. Funding: 1. Local gas tax for pavements and drainage. 2. Assessments to area property owners. 3. City in-kind labor. ---PAGE BREAK--- S-14 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 45 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Improves both motorized and non-motorized transportation options. Fulfills Missoula Transportation Plan. These type enhancements benefit community livability. Quantitative Analysis Comments Funding sources other than the City's general fund. The current street is deficient for safety. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-15 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Lighting Improvement District $200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Totals - - 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 1,000,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 1,000,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 06-Mar-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:42 PM CJK Total Score 39 Steve King Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Arterial Street Lights Lighting Improvement Districts for arterial street lighting. Several of the City's arterial streets do no have street lighting. Street lights enhance corridor safety for all modes of traffic and pedestrians, and improve the efficiency of night-time operations. Funding would be by Lighting Improvement Districts (LID). Major streets include, but are not limited to: • Broadway • Southwest Higgins • Russell • South Brooks • South Avenue • South 3rd Street • Mullan Road ---PAGE BREAK--- S-15 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 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce - 3 - 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 39 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Enhances safe operation of streets. Community livability will be improved. Quantitative Analysis Comments LID assesses 90% of the costs to the adjacent property owners. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-16 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Gas Tax $50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Totals - - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 250,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 250,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 06-Mar-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:46 PM CJK Total Score 45 Steve King Public Works Savings are estimated to be approximately $10,000 per year for 5-years for every $50,000 spent. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Epoxy Street Paint Epoxy paint for longer lasting street markings. Epoxy street paint lasts more than 5-times longer than standard paint. The epoxy paint provides year round street markings, which enhances traffic safety. Over time, the costs of epoxy paint are offset by reduced maintenance costs. Gas Tax is the funding source. Major streets to be prioritized include, but are not limited to: • Rattlesnake Drive • Grant Creek Road • Mullan Road • South Avenue • Miller Creek Road • Hillview Way Epoxy costs about $0.25 per foot and regular street paint costs about $0.05 per foot. ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 1 4 4 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 45 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Reduced operation costs will result from fuel savings. Provide for year round street markings. Enhances community livability and public safety. Quantitative Analysis Comments Costs are estimated to be fully recovered by operational savings. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-17 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Gas Tax $15,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 MRL 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 General Fund 15,000 Totals - - 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 60,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 6,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 9,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 75,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 10/03/2006 9:05 AM CJK Total Score 50 Phil Smith Public Works This project would be coordinated by city project staff in the Engineering Division; no additional funds are budgeted for this. There is a potential reduction in operating budget costs with reduced maintenance of these crossings if (when) we get them properly upgraded. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Improve Railroad Crossings Make railroad crossings safe for bicyclists and pedestrians We frequently receive requests to "fix" the crossings of streets at railroad tracks. Some of these are specific to motor vehicle movement; some are particular to bicycle or pedestrian movement. Most recently, we've been asked to fix the crossings of the tracks on Greenough Dr. immediately north of E. Spruce. The surface condition is very broken up; motor vehicle lanes are also used by bicycles. There are no sidewalks at this location. In the past, Montana Rail Link has offered to make such repairs if the City would buy the materials which would (then) have cost $26,000. This CIP item is to establish an annual amount to upgrade crossings of railroad tracks, of which we have many: the one mentioned above crossing the mainline, and the Bitterroot Branch line crossing at Spruce, Pine, 1st, 2nd , 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and so on out to the city limits. Broken up crossings are a hazard to bicyclists and pedestrians; this risk is exacerbated by motorists who swerve out of the driving lane to avoid the poor road surfaces. ---PAGE BREAK--- S-17 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 3 4 12 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 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 50 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Not legally required, although we have some obligation to maintain streets in a safely passable condition. Railroad crossings tend to get "beat up"; when bicyclists or folks in wheel chairs pass over these deteriorated conditions, there is both a safety and potential liability issue for the City. Maybe. If we improve a crossing, we may be required to provide ADA accessible crossings. In the specific case of Madison/Spruce/Greenough, there are no sidewalks. In some locations, such as the crossing of the tracks at Madison/Spruce/Greenough, the conditions are poor enough that they must be tended to very soon. This is decidedly a public safety issue. Bicyclists crossing the tracks in regular motor vehicle lanes are at risk of crashing; when followed by a motor vehicle are at risk of being run over. Safe surfaces for crossing are critical. Making the bike and ped crossings will encourage more bike and ped travel. Improving the crossings will reduce braking and acceleration by motor vehicles, resulting in less pollution. Safe streets are generally regarded as essential City services. When a street crosses a railroad tracks, it should be similarly safe. The Strategic Plan specifically refers to implementing bike and pedestrian projects. The Non- Motorized Plan emphasizes maintenance of bicycle facilities which would include crossing of railroad tracks. Quantitative Analysis Comments These are very expensive items, unfortunately. With MRL being willing to do all the labor if the City buys the materials, we have leveraged a value of 60% of the project cost born by MRL (40% by the City gas tax). This is a "good deal" for the City; whether we could expect such a matching benefit in the future is uncertain. However, the benefit is also avoiding the safety and potential liability problems with substandard crossings We will take on the most severely damaged crossings first. Further, there may be exposure to liability once we know of deficient crossings and fail to remedy them. In addition, the railroad's offer is "on the table" now; whether it will be in the future is unknown. ---PAGE BREAK--- Crossing at Madison/Spruce/Greenough ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-18 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Now, BS FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Revenue $14,000 Gas Tax $14,000 Assessments 7,000 Totals - - 35,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 28,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 2,800 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 4,200 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 35,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:48 PM CJK Total Score 41 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements McLeod Neighborhood Traffic Calming Install traffic calming devices at select locations in the Jefferson School neighborhood. Traffic calming, generally, is now well-justified in Missoula. In the area north and west of Brooks - South - Russell, residents asked for traffic calming several years ago. While they couldn't agree on which particular traffic calming devices they wanted, the City promised that we would install traffic calming to mitigate the of the reconfigured BSR intersection. Now, BSR is complete, and we've gotten continuing complaints about through traffic in this neighborhood. Traffic counts show 1486 cars on Grant a half-block north of South Ave; there are 1098 on the one block of Sussex between Grant and Garfield; there are 1615 vehicles on Garfield just south of North Ave. On Washburn, counts are 930 at the northern end and 1012 at the southern end. These volumes are clearly in excess of the 500 - 700 vehicles per day we would customarily regard as "residential" traffic. We are still evaluating options for traffic calming in this area, considering bulbs and smaller center medians on the Garfield-Sussex-Grant bus route, and circles on Washburn. We will be ready to install appropriate traffic calming by late-summer 2006. Phil Smith Public Works This project is planned to have 4 traffic circles and one bulb-out-with-2-medians intersection; gas tax and general revenue will split the cost. Landscaping and related costs, including asphalt removal, will be in a neighborhood SID. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- S-18 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 2 5 10 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 1 3 3 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 41 If the project successfully gets motorists to use the Johnson-North connection, there will be noticeably less start/stop traffic with its resulting pollution in the neighborhood. Further, traffic-calmed streets are more encouraging for travel by bike and on foot. Traffic calming is recognized as a necessary and effective service in residential neighborhoods in our city. The project extends this technique to yet another neighborhood. Traffic calming has been a specific planning objective in the City's strategic plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments We are matching general revenue dollars with gas tax dollars, and then adding in some assessment funding. General revenue dollars are only 40% of the total. Work in this neighborhood has been pending completion of BSR. Now that project is completed, it is important to do this follow-up mitigation. No, but some residents feel they were due a fulfillment of a promise made by the City long ago to do traffic calming when BSR was done. The promise certainly isn't contractual, but … our word is our word. No emergency. However, cut-through traffic through this neighborhood to avoid the lights or east-bound route of South Avenue around BSR is generating an concerns about neighborhood safety including one complaint from a Cit police officer. With traffic increasing through the neighborhood, traffic volumes are starting to cause conflicts particularly at Grant/Sussex, Sussex/Garfield, and at a couple of locations on Washburn where east-bound motorists turn left around the barrier intended to prevent that movement. Additional traffic calming at these locations will help manage traffic, and increase the attractiveness of using collectors (Johnson - North). CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-19 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Now, BS FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Gas Tax $30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Totals - - 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 24,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 2,400 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 3,600 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 30,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:48 PM CJK Total Score 46 Phil Smith Public Works This is work that will have to be supervised by the projects section of City engineering; in relation to the multitude of projects they manage, the cost impacts of this will be negligible. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Phase II Bike Lanes Bike lanes to be installed on arterial and collector streets which currently lack them. Missoula has a target of bike lanes wherever possible on every collector and arterial street. To date, we have lanes on most the streets on which it was relatively easy to install bike lanes. Now, we are intending to "complete the system." This means systematically getting bike lanes installed on the rest of our arterials and collectors a few at a time. We have identified 37 street segments lacking bike lanes. Some of them are exceedingly difficult for installing bike lanes; others are just challenging. Attached is the full list; the targets for FY '07 are highlighted. We are budgeting $30,000 of gas tax revenues each year for several years to eventually complete the system. ---PAGE BREAK--- S-19 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 1 3 3 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 46 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments In the process of developing the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the Public Works Department publicly pledged to determine which segments of potential bike lane system completion efforts could be implemented in FY '07, and to then implement them. While not urgent, meaning we can predict a catastrophe unless we act now, the inconsistency of bike lanes constitutes a safety and traffic flow challenge which should not be left untended. We've had the bike lanes for several years, fortunately with very few mishaps. In many locations, bike lanes rather abruptly end, and then continue again in a few blocks for example, crossing south over the Orange Street bridge on bike lanes, then having to merge with traffic, then into bike lanes again on Stephens. This creates a definite safety issue. There are frequent complaints from residents about the inconsistency of our bike lanes, and from many this deters them from riding. As we complete the bike lanes system, we can expect more people riding, which will reduce pollution. Clearly the bike lanes are regarded as an essential public service. This project improves and expands moves toward completing this system. The City's Strategic Plan refers to implementing bicycle and pedestrian projects per the Transportation Plan. The Non-Motorized Plan specifically calls for completely continuous, interconnected on-street system." Action steps for achieving this are listed in that plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments Of course. Now, however, the sections of bike lanes to be installed are the "tougher" ones, and will be more expensive than the initial "easy" ones. However, a completed bike lane system is beneficial to bicyclists (giving them a place to ride on major streets), motor vehicles (by moving bicyclists out of the regular traffic lanes), and pedestrians (by providing a buffer lane between them on sidewalks and motor vehicle traffic). 100% leveraged. The Phase II Bike Lanes Project will take several years to complete. Some portions will be accomplished as we rebuild major streets (e.g. Russell). Others will only be done when we prioritize them. The sooner we get started, the sooner we can provide the benefits to residents. ---PAGE BREAK--- type Street location Paved width # of travel lanes lane widths curbs Parking C complete lanes Russell 34th to 39th 49 2-3 8-17-17-8 y y C complete lanes Russell Mount to South 52 5 11-10-10-10-11 y n C complete lanes Stephens Mount to Brooks 49 4 13-12-12-13 y n C complete lanes Stephens Brooks to Sussex 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y C complete lanes Van Buren Broadway to Vine 45 at underpass 4 +median 9-10-7-10-9 y n C complete lanes Orange River to Stephens 59 5 13-11-12-11-13 y n L Russell Broadway to RR tracks varies 2-5 y & n n L convert route to lane 2nd-Woody- 1st N Greenough to Wolf varies 2 y & n y & n L convert route to lane 3 rd Walnut to Higgins 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y L convert route to lane Bancroft 39th to South 49 2 8-17-17-8 y y L convert route to lane Bancroft South to Brooks 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y L convert route to lane Beckwith Stephens to Arthur 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y L convert route to lane Johnson South to 3rd 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y L convert route to lane Mount Higgins to Reserve 40 2-3 8-12-12-8 y y & n L convert route to lane Spruce Orange to RR tracks 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane Greenough Lolo to Mountain View 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane Greenough Vine to Lolo 26 2 13-13 y y N new bike lane Greenough Spruce to Vine 24 2 12-12 y n N new bike lane Mullan West from Clarkfork 24 2 12-12 n n N new bike lane 23 rd 39th to Clearview 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane 3 rd Reserve to Tower 24 2 12-12 no some N new bike lane 5th Russell to Maurice 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane 6th Russell to Ivy 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane 6th Ivy to Higgins 32 2 8-12-12 y N side N new bike lane 6th Higgins to Maurice 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane Beckwith/Wal nut Stephens to 1st 40 2 8-12-12-8 most y N new bike lane Briggs Miller Cr to school 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane Broadway California to city limits 79 5 11-11-15-11-11 y some ---PAGE BREAK--- N new bike lane Broadway Madison to Van Buren 68 5 17-11-12-11-17 y some N new bike lane Broadway Van Buren to Easy Street varies 2-3 varies some n N new bike lane Clearview 23rd to Hillview Way 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane Gharrett 39th to Briggs 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane Lower Miller Cr Y to Maloney Ranch 26 2 12-12 n n N new bike lane Pattee Canyon Higgins to Upper Canyon Gate 32-40 2 12-12 y y N new bike lane Paxson Mall to 39th 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane Whitaker Pattee Canyon to 39th 23 2 12-12 y n N new bike lane Whitaker 39th to Ben Hogan 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y Future Project 3rd S Russell to Reserve Future Project California River to trail Future Project Hillview Way 39th to 55th P Rattlesnake Missoula to Creek Crossing 32-36 2 11-11 n n P Rattlesnake Creek Crossing to Tamarack 24-32 2 12-12 n n Future Project W Broadway condos to Easy St X Higgins at Brooks, slip lane ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-01 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 City Assessments $50,000 Assessments 40,000 Totals - - 90,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel N/A N/A A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 72,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 7,200 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 10,800 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 90,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:27 PM CJK Total Score 36 Doug Harby Public Works Parks and Recreation Department estimates an impact on their budget for maintenance of the sidewalks and snow removal of $1,700 per year. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Bellevue Park Curb and Sidewalk Improvements Install sidewalks in a City park. City parks are a destination for pedestrians including people with accessibility requirements. The City has been installing sidewalks in its parks for many years and this is a continuation of the program. The work has been formally requested by the SouthGate Triangle Neighborhood Council. See attached letter. Citizen initiated. Funding will be from curb and sidewalk assessments to the City. This work will take place on the 34th/35th Street rights-of-way adjacent to the City's Bellevue Park and properties on the north side of 34th. Parks snow removal maintenance of sidewalks: $ 7.50 truck/hour $12.00 sm tractor/hour $22.00 person/hour 35 to 50 times per year / averaging 42.5 times per year $1,700 per year average None Was S-01 in FY 2006-2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- S-01 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 2 5 10 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 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 36 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Increase pedestrian uses. Increases access, and was requested by a public group. Quantitative Analysis Comments Funding through City sources. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-02 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments 565,000 $600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 600,000 Gas Tax 55,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 70,000 Totals - 620,000 670,000 670,000 670,000 670,000 670,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel N/A N/A A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 2,680,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 268,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 402,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 3,350,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:28 PM CJK Total Score 49 Doug Harby Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Annual Sidewalk Replacement Program Ph. III This program would systematically replace hazardous and deteriorated sidewalks and install ADA upgrades. This program would systematically replace hazardous and deteriorated sidewalks and install curb ramps throughout the existing sidewalk system of Missoula. The Public Works Master Sidewalk Plan will be used to prioritize the area that will be upgraded first. This program would replace 40 to 50 blocks of sidewalk annually. The cost of replacing sidewalks will be assessed to property owners. The costs of installing curb ramps will be shared by property owners and general fund monies depending on the situation. Phase III will be bounded by Mount, Higgins and Brooks. Phase IV will be bounded by Orange, 3rd, Walnut and River Street. The curb ramps will be funded by the adjacent property owners if the curb and/or sidewalk is deteriorated within the ramp area. The City will fund all other ramps. See also related projects S-06 Spruce-Madison-Greenough 21st Century and S-12, Slant Street Pedestrian Improvement Program Phases I and II. None Was S-02 in FY 2006-2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- S-02 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 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Allows for the mobility impaired to use pedestrian facilities. A safe sidewalk system encourages non- motorized transportation. ADA is mandated. M.M.C.'s require the replacement of hazardous sidewalks. Strategic plan Goal 2: Livability Quantitative Analysis Comments 100 percent leveraging. Court cases stating City's liability. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-03 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments/residents 212,500 122,242 $36,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 General Fund/CIP 106,500 61,316 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 18,000 DEQ Grant 50,000 50,000 ISTEA/CMAQ Grant 10,200 10,000 Totals 379,200 243,558 54,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 36,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 172,222 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 17,222 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 25,833 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) 1,722 Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 217,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:31 PM CJK Total Score 46 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Neighborhood Initiated Traffic Calming Neighborhood initiated street improvements to slow motorized travel and enhance non- motorized travel. These projects demonstrated effectiveness slowing motorized traffic and enhancing non-motorized travel, reducing auto-generated air pollution, improving the efficiency of traffic flow, and preserving the residential character of neighborhood streets. State DEQ grant provided funding for FY96, 97, 98. ISTEA/CMAQ grant provided funding in FY98. Finished circles were installed on Evans as a demonstration project 1997 with 50% of costs paid by SID. Finished circles were installed at 9 intersections in University area 2001, with bulbouts at 2 locations on Beckwith, CIP paid 34% of total costs. Traffic calming projects were completed on Clearview (1 bulbout- median combination), Christian Drive (bulbout-median combinations at 6 locations) at traffic circles on 4th at both California and Prince in 2004, using FY03 CIP funds to match residents contributions. 4 circles installed in Hickory St area 2005; 7 circles will be installed in Slant Streets late spring 2006. This CIP request includes City funding to match the residents' SID funding, for potential projects in FY07: a) 2 circles on 4th estimated cost $15,000; b) Bulb-outs piloted on Pattee Creek Drive did not work successfully; other devices will be tried summer 2006 with expectation of permanent devices in spring 2007, estimated cost $14,000; c) Temporary devices will be installed on Pattee Canyon in summer 2006, expecting permanent devices in spring 2007, estimated cost $25,000. Have customarily budgeted $18,000 CIP funds to match residents funding. Considering these 3 projects, this would provide 1 City dollar for every 2 residents' dollars. Was S-03 in FY06 Phil Smith Public Works City participates in traffic calming projects by pavement removal, sump moving as needed, engineering, installation of temporary devices, and painting and striping. For this coming year, this participation is estimated to be $7,500. These amounts will be accommodated within existing budgets. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- S-03 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 1 3 3 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 46 Air quality will benefit; energy will be conserved; the bicycling/pedestrian environment will be enhanced. With the visible demonstrated success of traffic calming in several locations, other residents are insisting on traffic calming to address their concerns. Many residents feel that managing residential traffic is an essential service. We have been repeatedly asked to make Missoula safer for biking and walking, and reduce the volumes and speeds of traffic on many residential streets. Traffic calming has been a specific planning objective in the City's Strategic Plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments At current cost estimates, one requested CIP dollar will leverage at least two residents' dollars. A similar program in Seattle resulted in a 94% reduction in accidents...a high benefit. Traffic calming is neighborhood responsive; a major benefit is improved neighborhood livability and confidence in local government. Traffic calming on 4th was first tried nearly 10 years ago; residents have been eager for traffic circles ever since and finally have enough neighborhood support. Residents on Pattee Creek worked for 3 years to get traffic calming; the first devices tried proved to not work. They are very eager to get their traffic calmed. Residents on Pattee Canyon have similarly wanted the high speeds slowed on their street for at least 2 years. Though not legally required, the project will improve air quality, conserve energy, mitigate traffic congestion, improve neighborhood safety. Applicant neighborhoods customarily feel that their traffic improvements are urgently needed. The primary reason residents state for requesting traffic calming is to increase safety on their residential streets. Slowing traffic, especially at intersections, materially improves safety for both motorists and pedestrians. A preliminary survey of crash data for the two years prior and two years after the devices in the University Area shows a reduction from 38 crashes to 17. There were 17 t-bone (right angle crashes) prior, there were 6 after installation, none of which were at intersections with circles. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Pre-circles Post circles Per cent reduction Cost savings per Monaco figures Benefit/cost (Public cost of $18,000) Cost savings per Jomini Benefit/cost (Public cost of $18,000) Total crashes 36 17 53 $551,000 30:01:00 $396,000 22:01 Right angle crashes 18 5 72 $377,000 21:01 $286,000 16:01 In the table below, I’ve used Monaco’s numbers and the very conservative “possible injury crash” numbers from Jomini. We consider two different benefits: total crash reductions, and reduction in the more severe right-angle crashes. Conclusion: Using the conservative numbers (right angle crashes rather than total crashes, and Jomini’s costs rather than Monaco’s), the LEAST benefit/cost ration is 16:1. PRELIMINARY COST / BENEFIT ANALYSIS TRAFFIC CALMING IN MISSOULA In June, 2001 the City installed traffic circles at nine intersections in the university area, in a pattern of roughly one every other intersection. The total project cost $50,095, of which $18,000 was City funds. During the 31 months prior to installation, there were 36 motor vehicle crashes, of which 18 were right-angle (t-bone) crashes. During the 31 months following installation, there were 17 motor vehicle crashes, of which 5 were right angle (t-bone) crashes. The “cost value” of a crash varies widely, considering these factors: specifics of the particular crash, costs in a particular part of the state or country, inclusion of appropriate other factors (economic loss, personal injury, property damage, cost of public services such as police or fire, and administrative costs). Mark Monaco of the Missoula Police Department has calculated that an average motor vehicle crash, attended by the Missoula Police, has a total cost of $29,000 – incorporating all the factors above. Pierre Jomini, the Montana Department of Transportation Safety Engineer, uses national cost data: a fatal injury crash million), an incapacitating injury crash ($210,000), a non- incapacitating injury crash ($42,000), a possible injury crash ($22,000), and a property-damage-only crash ($2300). ---PAGE BREAK--- LEGEND: Phillips:Bulbouts – no support Vine/Monroe: Bulbout with median installed University area: 9 circles installed Evans: 1st three circles installed Sussex: Data didn’t support TC S. 4th, Orange – Bulbouts at 2003 Takima Dr: Circles requested; data didn't support Slant Streets: 7 permanent traffic circles to be installed spring 2006 Hickory area: 4 permanent circles installed 2005 Wyoming: data didn’t support and S/W needed S. 4th,, Russell – RR: 2 permanent circles Jefferson School area: temporary circles effective but no neighborhood support Christian Dr: 6 median-bulbouts installed Clearview: permanent circle installed Mount: 2 temporary bulbouts in place Traffic Calming applications 1996 - 2005 Polaris Way: data doesn’t justify action Pattee Creek Drive: temps unsuccessful River Road: options being studied 2005 Cottonwood/Rollins /Florence: data didn’t support 2004 Crestline/Highland Park, and 5 blocks on Pattee Canyon: new requests 2005 TC installed Action pending ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-04 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 City Gas Tax $2,600 State Pilot Program 50,000 50,000 147,400 MDT Urban Funds 200,000 CTEP 100,000 Totals 50,000 50,000 150,000 300,000 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost 50,000 Supplies B. Construction Cost 225,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 25,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 150,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 450,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:32 PM CJK Total Score 49 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Traffic Control Improvements - Higgins / Beckwith / Hill Installation of traffic control improvements. This intersection is currently the only unsignalized major intersection on the east-west traffic corridor, which consists of Mount Avenue, 14th Street, Hill and East Beckwith that goes from Reserve Street to the University of Montana. Installation of this improvement would provide a much needed east-west route across the entire city. Prior traffic engineer analysis did indicate that intersection control was warranted. Engineer has completed the preliminary design of a roundabout. Project Status: 1. MOU signed at State 2. Preliminary design completed 3. Final design to be completed 2007 4. Construction scheduled for 2008 Funding: 1. Urban pilot program funds for ROW and construction 2. City gas tax for 13% of design engineering costs 3. Community Transportation Enhancement Program (CTEP) for landscaping, lighting, and non-motorized amenities 4. MDT Urban Funds for right-of-way and construction design and public process Was S-05 in FY 2006-2010 Steve King Public Works No change in operating costs. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- S-04 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 3 4 12 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 49 This will reduce motor vehicle delays, ease bicycle/pedestrian access and reduce cut through traffic in neighborhoods. The enhancement of the transportation plan. Livability. Quantitative Analysis Comments The whole community will benefit from the completion of an east-west corridor. Leveraging of local money is 100%. the remainder of the corridor is in place. Pilot program funding requires speedy implementation. Under contract. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-05 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Gas Tax (materials) $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 $370,000 Assessments 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 500,000 City Assessments 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Gas Tax (construction) 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 Street Division In Kind 570,000 570,000 570,000 570,000 570,000 Totals - - 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 1,550,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel N/A N/A A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 6,200,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 620,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 930,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 7,750,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:33 PM CJK Total Score 46 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Street Improvements and Major Maintenance Program Annual street reconstruction and maintenance program. Work is done by City forces and private contractors. Paid by special assessments and Gas Tax. Most streets are designed for and have a useful life span of 20 years if no major maintenance is performed. The street improvements and major maintenance program has changed from all reconstruction to a combination of: 1. Reconstruction of completely deteriorated streets. 2. Overlays on the streets showing the most duress. 3. Chip sealing or application of reclamite to prolong the life of the streets with only moderate deterioration. Overlaying, chip sealing and reclamiting before complete deterioration will extend the life of a street beyond the normal 20 years. See also related projects S-03 Neighborhood Initiated Traffic Calming and S-12, Slant Street Pedestrian Improvement Program Phases I and II. None Was S-06 in FY 2006-2010 Doug Harby Public Works No additional operating costs. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- S-05 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 1 3 3 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 46 Quantitative Analysis Comments Gas tax funds are allocated to each city based on miles of streets and population. Funds are earmarked for the maintenance and construction of streets. Long term maintenance of community infrastructures is more cost effective than major reconstruction. Postponement of any part of the street program means increased future costs to replace deteriorated streets. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-06 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Now, BS FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Revenue $12,500 Assessments 29,600 Gas tax 13,000 City In-Kind Labor 13,000 Totals - - 68,100 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 44,080 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 4,408 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 6,612 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 13,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 68,100 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:37 PM CJK Total Score 46 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Spruce-Madison-Greenough 21st Century Project Participate with citizens and other city departments over several years in fixing an inadequate street section. The section of Greenough Drive from the bottom of the hill at Vine St to its intersection with Madison/W. Spruce is for the most part without sidewalks, curbs, and other street improvements. For several years, neighborhood groups have worked to design this area to be both functional and attractive. The overall project is a multi-party, multi-year effort, involving 3 major activities: fixing the road (curbs/gutters, sidewalks, bike lanes, driving lane reconfiguration), repairing the railroad crossing for all modes, and cleaning up and beautifying the landscape surrounding the street. The aerial photo/graphic attached shows these: Red lines show curbs and gutters needing to be installed. Blue shows sidewalks needing to be installed. Light green shows a potential trail to be built up the west side of the hill to the trailhead at Waterworks Hill. Magenta shows the railroad tracks crossing. Green shows areas to be landscaped. The citizen group is willing to spearhead and coordinate the overall effort. This CIP item focuses on the critical first activity defining the street: curbs/gutters and sidewalks on both sides. We anticipate a significant portion of the cost can be assessed to property owners. Once the roadway is properly defined, citizens can create partnerships with the Parks Dept and private interests (e.g. landscapers) to do the landscaping and trail work. We have submitted a separate CIP item for fixing the railroad crossing. Funding would be assessments, General Revenue, Gas Tax and City in-kind labor. Was S-07 in FY06 Phil Smith Public Works Eventually there will likely be some street surface work by Streets Division, and some striping by Traffic Services; $13,000 is included in the "gas tax" item above for materials (asphalt, sumps etc) to do this. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- S-06 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 1 3 3 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 46 The project will define the pedestrian, bike, and motor vehicle facilities; folks will be more likely to travel on foot or by bike because of this, thus having some impact on air pollution. Clearly, appropriate and safe facilities for pedestrians and bicyclists is an essential City service. In this location, those facilities are mostly lacking or deficient. Community livability (Public Works #10): "Complete projects approved in the 1996 Transportation Plan, and implement…in the 2003 Transportation Plan." This project is specifically mentioned in the 2003 Transportation Plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments The total project will include significant participation by many parties: the railroad, Parks Dept, citizens and volunteer labor, and the Public Works Dept. The General Revenue request is 23% of the total (better than a 3:1 leverage). The neighborhood has committed to landscaping, using grants they have obtained. This covers 16,700 square feet at a value of $2.00 per square foot, or $33,400. Thus the general revenue leverage total is 7:1. Work in this area has been pending for many years; each year the conditions in that short corridor get worse. The condition of the pedestrian facilities on both sides of Greenough Drive is marginal, at best…in some situations barely usable by wheelchairs. On the east side, cars routinely drive and park across the so-called pedestrian walkway. This portion of our city has been in need of attention for many years; residents have asked/begged/pleaded for some assistance in fixing it up. With the very poor condition of pedestrian facilities, and the significant risk to bicyclists at the tracks, the situation is becoming urgent. Definitely provides for improved public safety. Facilities provide NO separation of pedestrians on either side south of the Interstate no curb, no boulevard, no nothing! There is substantial motor vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle traffic in this stretch, with marginal facilities separating them. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Pedestrians are ON the so-called "walkway." Cars drive across freely. Sidewalk just disappears into this mess. No curbs; cars routinely push the edges of the space which should be for pedestrians. No sidewalks and unneeded guardrail on W. Side; enough room for bike lane. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-07 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments 500,000 420,000 CTEP 160,000 160,000 240,000 Assessments to City 80,000 Totals 660,000 160,000 - - 740,000 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 592,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 59,200 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 88,800 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs 2,000 2,000 F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service 2,000 2,000 740,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:38 PM CJK Total Score 45 Doug Harby Public Works $2,000 per year for maintenance required. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Master Sidewalk Plan Implementation Phase I An implementation project for the installation of sidewalks where none exist. The increasing concern for air quality and energy conservation has placed more emphasis on non- motorized transportation. New regulations on the ADA mandate access for the disabled community. Recent Supreme Court decisions have laid part of the responsibility for assuring that sidewalks are in a safe condition upon local government. The most likely source of federal funds will be Surface Transportation Program Enhancement Activity. This program will supplement the assessments with CTEP funds in areas where the normal costs for sidewalk improvements are substantially increased by existing conditions such as topography, or lack of fight-of-way. Phase I will be the installation of sidewalks on 23rd from 39th to 55th. None Was S-08 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- S-07 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 1 4 4 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 45 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments The implementation of the Master Sidewalk Plan will complete the sidewalk system and construct the sidewalks to ADA standards as well as eliminate hazardous sidewalks as mandated by State and City codes. The City can be held liable for damages resulting from unsafe sidewalks as well as not meeting ADA requirements and may result in civil actions against the City. Quantitative Analysis Comments Leveraging of federal funds. ---PAGE BREAK--- Note: These projects are not listed in any particular order. 23rd - 39th to Hillview Way Gharrett - 39th to 55th High Park All Lincoln Hi Rattlesnake to Contour Duncan - Vine to Lolo Lolo - All POTENTIAL PROJECTS FOR CONSIDERATION IN THE CTEP MASTER SIDEWALK PLAN IMPLEMENTATION This selection is based on sidewalk installation projects located on high priority corridors or in high priority areas. These projects all have existing conditions, which makes them more expensive or impactive than the norm. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-08 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 State Pilot Program 325,000 Assessments 175,000 CTEP Totals - - - - - 500,000 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost 20,000 Supplies B. Construction Cost 384,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 38,400 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 57,600 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 500,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:39 PM CJK Total Score - Steve King Public Works Reduction of street maintenance costs ($500/year). Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements VanBuren Street Reconstruction I-90 to Missoula Avenue: reconstruction of sidewalks, curbs, pavement, drainage and utilities. VanBuren Street was reviewed through public input as part of a list of seven corridors considered for reconstruction. Improvements will consist of new curbs, sidewalks, drainage, pavement and utility reconstruction. Neighborhood gateway treatments, lighting and landscaping will be considered. This is a 2 lane cost estimate. Funding: 1. State Pilot Program for asphalt and drainage. 2. Assessments to area property owners. 3. CTEP funds for landscaping and lighting. 4. City Street Division provides labor and equipment to meet budget (estimate of $125,000 work). The State Pilot Program is depending on state allocation in the future. This funding is undetermined at this time. Some additional right-of-way may be needed. Was S-09 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- S-08 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 5 - investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score - CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Quantitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-09 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments 400,000 Gas Tax (materials) 200,000 In Kind Labor 100,000 Totals - - - - - 700,000 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 560,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 56,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 84,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 700,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:39 PM CJK Total Score - City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Gravel Streets Paving Paving of urban public roads including curb, sidewalks and drainage. The City would obtain engineering and construction services to construct paved streets with curbs, sidewalks and drainage improvements. Portions of Burlington, Strand, Kensington and Margaret in the East Reserve area would be paved. A Special Improvement District (SID) would be created to fund curbs, sidewalks, paving and drainage material costs. The City Streets Division would provide labor and equipment for construction. Project will use existing right-of-way. Was S-10 in FY 2006-2010 Steve King Public Works Savings of $400 per year in street maintenance. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- S-09 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 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 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- 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 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 5 - investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score - Reduces air pollution; protection of Missoula's air quality. Air quality is an objective under Community Livability. Quantitative Analysis Comments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-11 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments $900,000 900,000 Gas Tax 6,000 City Assessments 80,000 Totals 6,000 - 900,000 980,000 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 1,504,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 150,400 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 225,600 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 1,880,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:40 PM CJK Total Score 41 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Hillview Way Reconstruction Road widening with curbs, sidewalk and drainage improvements from Black Pine to 55th Street. Hillview Way between Black Pine and 55th Street is currently a narrow rural section with no drainage structures, curbs or sidewalks. Present and future development adjacent to this road section has increased the need for improvements. Phase I from Black Pine to Clearview Phase II from Clearview to 55th Street. Was S-12 in FY06 Steve King Public Works This project will reduce operating and maintenance costs. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- S-11 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 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 41 Installation of sidewalks provides transportation options. Reduced dust from shoulder enhancements. Improved street surface and drainage. Enhanced community livability. Quantitative Analysis Comments Greater than 2:1 funding ratio. Several subdivisions have posponed street improvements pending this comprehensive project. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-12 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments $30,000 30,000 CTEP 30,000 30,000 Totals - - 60,000 60,000 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel N/A N/A A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 96,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 9,600 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 14,400 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 120,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:40 PM CJK Total Score 49 Doug Harby Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Slant Street Pedestrian Improvement Program Phases I and II This program will systematically install curb, sidewalks and ADA improvements. This program will systematically install curb and sidewalks in the Slant Street Area. Hazardous and deteriorated sidewalks will also be replaced as needed. ADA improvements will be made at each corner. The Public Works Master Sidewalk Plan has been used to prioritize the areas that will be upgraded first. Curb ramps will be funded by general fund monies if there is no other work adjacent. The property owners will pay for the ramps if the curb or sidewalk is installed or replaced in the area of the ramp. The cost of installing new sidewalks will be paid with a combination of property owner assessments and CTEP funds under the Slant Street Pedestrian Improvement Program CIP. Replacement of curbs and sidewalks will be paid with a combination of property owner assessments and Gas Tax funds under the Annual Sidewalk Replacement Program Phase III CIP. CTEP funds will be used to supplement the cost of the installation of sidewalks on a 50-50 split if the property owner installs the sidewalk at the preferred boulevard location. Phase I will encompass the area bounded by Brooks, Higgins and Mount Streets. Phase II will be bounded by Beckwith, Mount and Stephens. See also related projects S-05 Street Improvement and Major Maintenance Program, and S-03 Neighborhood Initiated Traffic Calming. None Was S-15 in FY 2006-2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- S-12 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 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments 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. Strategic Plan Goal Two: Livable Community. Quantitative Analysis Comments 100 percent leveraging. Court cases stating City's liability. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-13 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments 220,000 220,000 Gas Tax 50,000 50,000 Street Division In Kind 50,000 50,000 Totals - - - 320,000 320,000 - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 512,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 51,200 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 76,800 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 640,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:41 PM CJK Total Score 36 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Rattlesnake Drive Sidewalk (Lolo to Creek Crossing) Curb and sidewalk installation from Lolo to Creek Crossing. Rattlesnake Drive is a neighborhood collector street without continuous pedestrian facilities. Conversion of Rattlesnake School to an elementary school has increased the need for new sidewalks. Funding would be through property owner assessments with Street Division assistance. Requested by citizens. Was S-16 in FY 2006-2010 Doug Harby Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- S-13 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 2 5 10 investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 1 4 4 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 36 Sidewalks provide transportation options. Enhanced community livability. Quantitative Analysis Comments Funding sources other than City's general fund. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-14 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments $800,000 Gas Tax 500,000 City In-Kind Labor 200,000 Totals - - 1,500,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 1,040,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 104,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 156,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 200,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 1,500,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:41 PM CJK Total Score 45 Steve King Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements South 3rd (Catlin to Darlene) Reconstruction Install new curbs, sidewalk, pavement, drainage and parking improvements. South 3rd from Russell to Reserve was reviewed through public input as part of a list of seven corridors considered for reconstruction. Improvements from Catlin to Darlene will consist of new curbs, sidewalks, drainage, pavement and parking areas. Funding: 1. Local gas tax for pavements and drainage. 2. Assessments to area property owners. 3. City in-kind labor. ---PAGE BREAK--- S-14 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 45 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Improves both motorized and non-motorized transportation options. Fulfills Missoula Transportation Plan. These type enhancements benefit community livability. Quantitative Analysis Comments Funding sources other than the City's general fund. The current street is deficient for safety. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-15 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Lighting Improvement District $200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Totals - - 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 1,000,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 1,000,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 06-Mar-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:42 PM CJK Total Score 39 Steve King Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Arterial Street Lights Lighting Improvement Districts for arterial street lighting. Several of the City's arterial streets do no have street lighting. Street lights enhance corridor safety for all modes of traffic and pedestrians, and improve the efficiency of night-time operations. Funding would be by Lighting Improvement Districts (LID). Major streets include, but are not limited to: • Broadway • Southwest Higgins • Russell • South Brooks • South Avenue • South 3rd Street • Mullan Road ---PAGE BREAK--- S-15 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 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce - 3 - 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 39 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Enhances safe operation of streets. Community livability will be improved. Quantitative Analysis Comments LID assesses 90% of the costs to the adjacent property owners. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-16 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Gas Tax $50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 Totals - - 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 250,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 250,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 06-Mar-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:46 PM CJK Total Score 45 Steve King Public Works Savings are estimated to be approximately $10,000 per year for 5-years for every $50,000 spent. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Epoxy Street Paint Epoxy paint for longer lasting street markings. Epoxy street paint lasts more than 5-times longer than standard paint. The epoxy paint provides year round street markings, which enhances traffic safety. Over time, the costs of epoxy paint are offset by reduced maintenance costs. Gas Tax is the funding source. Major streets to be prioritized include, but are not limited to: • Rattlesnake Drive • Grant Creek Road • Mullan Road • South Avenue • Miller Creek Road • Hillview Way Epoxy costs about $0.25 per foot and regular street paint costs about $0.05 per foot. ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 1 4 4 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 45 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Reduced operation costs will result from fuel savings. Provide for year round street markings. Enhances community livability and public safety. Quantitative Analysis Comments Costs are estimated to be fully recovered by operational savings. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-17 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Gas Tax $15,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 MRL 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 General Fund 15,000 Totals - - 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 60,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 6,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 9,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 75,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 10/03/2006 9:05 AM CJK Total Score 50 Phil Smith Public Works This project would be coordinated by city project staff in the Engineering Division; no additional funds are budgeted for this. There is a potential reduction in operating budget costs with reduced maintenance of these crossings if (when) we get them properly upgraded. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Improve Railroad Crossings Make railroad crossings safe for bicyclists and pedestrians We frequently receive requests to "fix" the crossings of streets at railroad tracks. Some of these are specific to motor vehicle movement; some are particular to bicycle or pedestrian movement. Most recently, we've been asked to fix the crossings of the tracks on Greenough Dr. immediately north of E. Spruce. The surface condition is very broken up; motor vehicle lanes are also used by bicycles. There are no sidewalks at this location. In the past, Montana Rail Link has offered to make such repairs if the City would buy the materials which would (then) have cost $26,000. This CIP item is to establish an annual amount to upgrade crossings of railroad tracks, of which we have many: the one mentioned above crossing the mainline, and the Bitterroot Branch line crossing at Spruce, Pine, 1st, 2nd , 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, and so on out to the city limits. Broken up crossings are a hazard to bicyclists and pedestrians; this risk is exacerbated by motorists who swerve out of the driving lane to avoid the poor road surfaces. ---PAGE BREAK--- S-17 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 3 4 12 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 1 3 3 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 50 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Not legally required, although we have some obligation to maintain streets in a safely passable condition. Railroad crossings tend to get "beat up"; when bicyclists or folks in wheel chairs pass over these deteriorated conditions, there is both a safety and potential liability issue for the City. Maybe. If we improve a crossing, we may be required to provide ADA accessible crossings. In the specific case of Madison/Spruce/Greenough, there are no sidewalks. In some locations, such as the crossing of the tracks at Madison/Spruce/Greenough, the conditions are poor enough that they must be tended to very soon. This is decidedly a public safety issue. Bicyclists crossing the tracks in regular motor vehicle lanes are at risk of crashing; when followed by a motor vehicle are at risk of being run over. Safe surfaces for crossing are critical. Making the bike and ped crossings will encourage more bike and ped travel. Improving the crossings will reduce braking and acceleration by motor vehicles, resulting in less pollution. Safe streets are generally regarded as essential City services. When a street crosses a railroad tracks, it should be similarly safe. The Strategic Plan specifically refers to implementing bike and pedestrian projects. The Non- Motorized Plan emphasizes maintenance of bicycle facilities which would include crossing of railroad tracks. Quantitative Analysis Comments These are very expensive items, unfortunately. With MRL being willing to do all the labor if the City buys the materials, we have leveraged a value of 60% of the project cost born by MRL (40% by the City gas tax). This is a "good deal" for the City; whether we could expect such a matching benefit in the future is uncertain. However, the benefit is also avoiding the safety and potential liability problems with substandard crossings We will take on the most severely damaged crossings first. Further, there may be exposure to liability once we know of deficient crossings and fail to remedy them. In addition, the railroad's offer is "on the table" now; whether it will be in the future is unknown. ---PAGE BREAK--- Crossing at Madison/Spruce/Greenough ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-18 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Now, BS FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 General Revenue $14,000 Gas Tax $14,000 Assessments 7,000 Totals - - 35,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 28,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 2,800 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 4,200 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 35,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:48 PM CJK Total Score 41 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements McLeod Neighborhood Traffic Calming Install traffic calming devices at select locations in the Jefferson School neighborhood. Traffic calming, generally, is now well-justified in Missoula. In the area north and west of Brooks - South - Russell, residents asked for traffic calming several years ago. While they couldn't agree on which particular traffic calming devices they wanted, the City promised that we would install traffic calming to mitigate the of the reconfigured BSR intersection. Now, BSR is complete, and we've gotten continuing complaints about through traffic in this neighborhood. Traffic counts show 1486 cars on Grant a half-block north of South Ave; there are 1098 on the one block of Sussex between Grant and Garfield; there are 1615 vehicles on Garfield just south of North Ave. On Washburn, counts are 930 at the northern end and 1012 at the southern end. These volumes are clearly in excess of the 500 - 700 vehicles per day we would customarily regard as "residential" traffic. We are still evaluating options for traffic calming in this area, considering bulbs and smaller center medians on the Garfield-Sussex-Grant bus route, and circles on Washburn. We will be ready to install appropriate traffic calming by late-summer 2006. Phil Smith Public Works This project is planned to have 4 traffic circles and one bulb-out-with-2-medians intersection; gas tax and general revenue will split the cost. Landscaping and related costs, including asphalt removal, will be in a neighborhood SID. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- S-18 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 2 5 10 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 1 3 3 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 41 If the project successfully gets motorists to use the Johnson-North connection, there will be noticeably less start/stop traffic with its resulting pollution in the neighborhood. Further, traffic-calmed streets are more encouraging for travel by bike and on foot. Traffic calming is recognized as a necessary and effective service in residential neighborhoods in our city. The project extends this technique to yet another neighborhood. Traffic calming has been a specific planning objective in the City's strategic plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments We are matching general revenue dollars with gas tax dollars, and then adding in some assessment funding. General revenue dollars are only 40% of the total. Work in this neighborhood has been pending completion of BSR. Now that project is completed, it is important to do this follow-up mitigation. No, but some residents feel they were due a fulfillment of a promise made by the City long ago to do traffic calming when BSR was done. The promise certainly isn't contractual, but … our word is our word. No emergency. However, cut-through traffic through this neighborhood to avoid the lights or east-bound route of South Avenue around BSR is generating an concerns about neighborhood safety including one complaint from a Cit police officer. With traffic increasing through the neighborhood, traffic volumes are starting to cause conflicts particularly at Grant/Sussex, Sussex/Garfield, and at a couple of locations on Washburn where east-bound motorists turn left around the barrier intended to prevent that movement. Additional traffic calming at these locations will help manage traffic, and increase the attractiveness of using collectors (Johnson - North). CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: S-19 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Now, BS FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Gas Tax $30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 Totals - - 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 24,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 2,400 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 3,600 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 30,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:48 PM CJK Total Score 46 Phil Smith Public Works This is work that will have to be supervised by the projects section of City engineering; in relation to the multitude of projects they manage, the cost impacts of this will be negligible. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Street Improvements Phase II Bike Lanes Bike lanes to be installed on arterial and collector streets which currently lack them. Missoula has a target of bike lanes wherever possible on every collector and arterial street. To date, we have lanes on most the streets on which it was relatively easy to install bike lanes. Now, we are intending to "complete the system." This means systematically getting bike lanes installed on the rest of our arterials and collectors a few at a time. We have identified 37 street segments lacking bike lanes. Some of them are exceedingly difficult for installing bike lanes; others are just challenging. Attached is the full list; the targets for FY '07 are highlighted. We are budgeting $30,000 of gas tax revenues each year for several years to eventually complete the system. ---PAGE BREAK--- S-19 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 1 3 3 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 46 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments In the process of developing the annual Transportation Improvement Program (TIP), the Public Works Department publicly pledged to determine which segments of potential bike lane system completion efforts could be implemented in FY '07, and to then implement them. While not urgent, meaning we can predict a catastrophe unless we act now, the inconsistency of bike lanes constitutes a safety and traffic flow challenge which should not be left untended. We've had the bike lanes for several years, fortunately with very few mishaps. In many locations, bike lanes rather abruptly end, and then continue again in a few blocks for example, crossing south over the Orange Street bridge on bike lanes, then having to merge with traffic, then into bike lanes again on Stephens. This creates a definite safety issue. There are frequent complaints from residents about the inconsistency of our bike lanes, and from many this deters them from riding. As we complete the bike lanes system, we can expect more people riding, which will reduce pollution. Clearly the bike lanes are regarded as an essential public service. This project improves and expands moves toward completing this system. The City's Strategic Plan refers to implementing bicycle and pedestrian projects per the Transportation Plan. The Non-Motorized Plan specifically calls for completely continuous, interconnected on-street system." Action steps for achieving this are listed in that plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments Of course. Now, however, the sections of bike lanes to be installed are the "tougher" ones, and will be more expensive than the initial "easy" ones. However, a completed bike lane system is beneficial to bicyclists (giving them a place to ride on major streets), motor vehicles (by moving bicyclists out of the regular traffic lanes), and pedestrians (by providing a buffer lane between them on sidewalks and motor vehicle traffic). 100% leveraged. The Phase II Bike Lanes Project will take several years to complete. Some portions will be accomplished as we rebuild major streets (e.g. Russell). Others will only be done when we prioritize them. The sooner we get started, the sooner we can provide the benefits to residents. ---PAGE BREAK--- type Street location Paved width # of travel lanes lane widths curbs Parking C complete lanes Russell 34th to 39th 49 2-3 8-17-17-8 y y C complete lanes Russell Mount to South 52 5 11-10-10-10-11 y n C complete lanes Stephens Mount to Brooks 49 4 13-12-12-13 y n C complete lanes Stephens Brooks to Sussex 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y C complete lanes Van Buren Broadway to Vine 45 at underpass 4 +median 9-10-7-10-9 y n C complete lanes Orange River to Stephens 59 5 13-11-12-11-13 y n L Russell Broadway to RR tracks varies 2-5 y & n n L convert route to lane 2nd-Woody- 1st N Greenough to Wolf varies 2 y & n y & n L convert route to lane 3 rd Walnut to Higgins 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y L convert route to lane Bancroft 39th to South 49 2 8-17-17-8 y y L convert route to lane Bancroft South to Brooks 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y L convert route to lane Beckwith Stephens to Arthur 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y L convert route to lane Johnson South to 3rd 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y L convert route to lane Mount Higgins to Reserve 40 2-3 8-12-12-8 y y & n L convert route to lane Spruce Orange to RR tracks 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane Greenough Lolo to Mountain View 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane Greenough Vine to Lolo 26 2 13-13 y y N new bike lane Greenough Spruce to Vine 24 2 12-12 y n N new bike lane Mullan West from Clarkfork 24 2 12-12 n n N new bike lane 23 rd 39th to Clearview 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane 3 rd Reserve to Tower 24 2 12-12 no some N new bike lane 5th Russell to Maurice 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane 6th Russell to Ivy 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane 6th Ivy to Higgins 32 2 8-12-12 y N side N new bike lane 6th Higgins to Maurice 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane Beckwith/Wal nut Stephens to 1st 40 2 8-12-12-8 most y N new bike lane Briggs Miller Cr to school 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane Broadway California to city limits 79 5 11-11-15-11-11 y some ---PAGE BREAK--- N new bike lane Broadway Madison to Van Buren 68 5 17-11-12-11-17 y some N new bike lane Broadway Van Buren to Easy Street varies 2-3 varies some n N new bike lane Clearview 23rd to Hillview Way 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane Gharrett 39th to Briggs 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane Lower Miller Cr Y to Maloney Ranch 26 2 12-12 n n N new bike lane Pattee Canyon Higgins to Upper Canyon Gate 32-40 2 12-12 y y N new bike lane Paxson Mall to 39th 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y N new bike lane Whitaker Pattee Canyon to 39th 23 2 12-12 y n N new bike lane Whitaker 39th to Ben Hogan 40 2 8-12-12-8 y y Future Project 3rd S Russell to Reserve Future Project California River to trail Future Project Hillview Way 39th to 55th P Rattlesnake Missoula to Creek Crossing 32-36 2 11-11 n n P Rattlesnake Creek Crossing to Tamarack 24-32 2 12-12 n n Future Project W Broadway condos to Easy St X Higgins at Brooks, slip lane ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: WW-01 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Sewer R&D 2,236,521 2,236,521 $200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 Totals 2,236,521 2,236,521 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 2,589,217 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 258,922 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 388,383 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 3,236,521 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:49 PM CJK Total Score 45 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Wastewater Facilities Sewer Pipe Rehabilitation Program Pipe rehab program using new techniques such as slip lining, pressure grouting, insituform or other methods that don't require replacement. Digging & replacing may repair local problems. New equipment and training allows the Wastewater Facility staff to evaluate the condition of the sewer collection system. These evaluations, conducted during routine line maintenance, help identify and prioritize system upgrades. The City annually repairs and maintains a significant amount of sanitary sewer mains and related appurtenances. Since 1994 the City has spent $957,320 to complete repairs to: * 29 STEP sewer system repairs * 37 Flush tank and tank repairs * 41 Manhole repairs * 175 Main repairs consisting of 8,542 lineal feet None Was WW-02 in FY06 Steve King Public Works Continuance of existing operations. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- WW-01 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 45 Repair of older sewer lines helps reduce water pollution resulting in better water well protection. Maintenance of the wastewater collection system is a necessary obligation. Providing additional capacity allows the City to continue providing sewer services to the adjacent unsewered areas, per the 2001 Wastewater Facility Plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments A small investment in line rehabilitation will reduce the need for plant expansion. 100% Leveraging. Reduction of inflow resulting from sewer repairs enhances treatment plant capacity. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Performance: Annual Video Inspection Footage 0 20,000 40,000 60,000 80,000 100,000 120,000 140,000 FY2003 FY2004 FY2005 Feet Wastewater Mains - Lineal Feet Repaired Annually 0 200 400 [PHONE REDACTED] 1200 1400 1600 1800 2000 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Year Lineal Feet ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: WW-02 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Sewer R&D 965,000 2,925 $200,000 Totals 965,000 2,925 200,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 200,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 20,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 30,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 250,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 21-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:49 PM CJK Total Score 44 Starr Sullivan Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Wastewater Facilities University Sewage Lift Station Upgrade and Rehabilitation University sewage lift station requires up grade and rehabilitation The University lift station was installed in the mid 1960's and is at the end of its service life. Additionally, this lift station is of obsolete design which hinders maintenance, requires confined space entry and egress and has potential for operational difficulties. This project will replace pumps, equipment, controls, coat the inside of the existing wet well with polyurethane and eliminate confined space entries for maintenance. This project will bring this critical lift station up to current lift station standards established by the City and maximize safe and reliable service. Five other aging lift stations with this design should be upgraded and rehabilitated in the next five years, Caras Park, Reserve St., Dickens St., East Missoula and Grant Creek. Was WW-03 in FY 2006 ---PAGE BREAK--- WW-02 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 3 3 9 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 44 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Will improve protection of the environment Wastewater operations are essential for continued sewer service to the community this project fulfills obligations outlined in the Wastewater Facilities Plan Quantitative Analysis Comments No general fund money will be used for this project Project is a system upgrade ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: WW-03 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 County RSID $7,000,000 SDF 50,000 950,000 Totals - - 7,050,000 950,000 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 6,400,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 640,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 960,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 8,000,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 21-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:49 PM CJK Total Score 48 Steve King Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Wastewater Facilities Airport Interceptor Phase II and "Wye" Collection System Construction of a sewer interceptor line west of the airport and sewer collectors in the "Wye" area. This interceptor would allow extended sewer service to the Butler Creek/"Y" area. The interceptor would start at the airport and run west past Butler Creek and on to the area. The project would be funded by a rural special improvement district (RSID) assessments. This would be citizen initiated to allow extended sewer service. A sewer collection system would be constructed in the area to serve the properties in the RSID. City Sewer Development Fees would complete the Interceptor portion near the Airport when capacity would be required. Was WW-04 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- WW-03 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 3 3 9 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 48 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Sole source aquifer protection. Sewer interceptor identified in the updated 2001 Facility Plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments Use of sewer funds to construct this project will open up new areas of the community to public sewers and accommodate infill. 3:1 leverage of private funds (assessments). ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: WW-04 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Revenue Bonds 477,000 477,000 Sewer Development Funds 791,000 791,000 2,950,000 Private Development Funds 130,000 130,000 Grants-TCEP/DNRC Totals 1,398,000 1,398,000 2,950,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 2,500,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 250,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering 200,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 2,950,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:50 PM CJK Total Score 48 Steve King Public Works Continuation of existing operating costs. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Wastewater Facilities West Reserve Sewer Interceptor Phase III Construction of a sewer trunk line west of Reserve Street from South Avenue to River Road. The 2000 Sewer Facilities Plan update identifies the West Reserve Sewer Interceptor as a project to bring gravity sanitary sewer to an area approximately six blocks west of Reserve Street. Preliminary engineering studies indicate that it is more efficient to use the existing sewer lift station at Community Hospital to serve the neighborhood adjacent to South Avenue just west of Reserve Street. Then construct a new lift station on the west side of the project area with gravity sewer lines running from east to west to serve South 3rd Street, 7th Street, and portions of Spurgin Road. This project is planned to be constructed in several phases to install a gravity sewer system of trunk lines in the Target Range/Orchard Homes area. Construction of the first section of pipe, in the River Road and Grove Street area, was completed in 1999. The second phase was completed in the Short Street/Juneau Drive area in 2001. Private development funds contributed to the first and second sections. Future sections were designed in 2003 with major construction beginning in 2006-2007 dependent upon County permits. None Was WW-05 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- WW-04 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 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 3 9 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 48 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments VNRP done - reduce septic systems by 50% over next 10 years. This area ranks number two in the Missoula Valley Water Quality District Unsewered Area Study. Sole source aquifer protections. Number one priority sewer interceptor in the updated 2001 Facility Plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments Use of sewer funds to construct this project will open up new areas of the community to public sewers and accommodate infill. This project will enable other leveraged projects to be completed. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: WW-05 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Assessments 710,000 710,000 $936,000 2,392,000 Revenue Bond 671,000 671,000 1,008,000 2,862,000 Grant Funds TSEP/DNRC 600,000 SID 533 Assessments Totals 1,381,000 1,381,000 1,944,000 5,854,000 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 6,238,400 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 623,840 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 935,760 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 7,798,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:50 PM CJK Total Score 44 Steve King Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Wastewater Facilities Rattlesnake Neighborhood Wastewater Collection System Installation of gravity sewer mains in the various neighborhoods in the Rattlesnake Valley as plans are developed & residents participate in SID's for the cost of installation. Portions of the central and upper Rattlesnake Valley are served by onsite septic systems. These systems are contaminating the ground waters and are impacting the Rattlesnake Creek and the Missoula Aquifer water quality. These areas were ranked as a priority for installation of wastewater collection systems. A petitioned SID was created for over 120 housing units in the Central Valley in 2000. Construction of SID 525 was completed in 2001. Completion of the Rattlesnake sewer collection system will be funded by a combination SID assessments, State and Federal grants, and City sewer utility funds. Preliminary design was completed in FY2003. SID 528 was created to serve 477 properties. In 2004, property owners on Gilbert Street petitioned to create SID 533 for a smaller project to serve their area. In 2005, Lincolnwood property owners also petitioned for sewer service and SID 534 and 536 were created. Construction for the 157 properties in these three SIDs will be completed in spring 2006. Construction on the sewer to serve the remaining 320 properties is planned for 2007. Future sewer projects will be necessary to complete service to the Upper Rattlesnake. Was WW-06 in FY 2006 ---PAGE BREAK--- WW-05 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 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 3 9 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 44 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments This area ranks number five in the Missoula Valley Water Quality District's Unsewered Area Study. It is number two for areas in the city limits. The project will protect our sole source aquifer. The project enhances community livability by protecting the environment. The project has been identified in the updated 201 Facility Plan. Quantitative Analysis Comments This SID would be matched for 50% revenue bond matching. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: WW-06 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Sewer Development Fees 1,000,000 2,000,000 Totals - - - - - 1,000,000 2,000,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel N/A N/A A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 2,400,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 240,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 360,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 3,000,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 21-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:50 PM CJK Total Score - City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Wastewater Facilities West Reserve Sewer Interceptor IV Interceptor sewer lines adjacent to South Avenue to serve the Target Range area. This master planned sewer will serve suburban growth areas west of the current city limits. Continued land development in the area and water quality concerns make this sewer necessary. The project is expected to be funded by sewer development fee funding. This project will complete the remaining portions of Target Range and Orchard Homes. South Avenue is planned as the next major project starting in 2010. None Was WW-07 in FY 2006 Steve King Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- WW-06 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 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 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- 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 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 5 - investment dollar? (0-3) 6. Does the project require speedy implementation in order to assure its 4 - maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 - pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 4 - 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 4 - plans? Total Score - Quantitative Analysis Comments CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: WW-07 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Sewer 80,000 41,000 $275,000 Totals 80,000 41,000 275,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 275,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 275,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:51 PM CJK Total Score 37 Starr Sullivan Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Wastewater Facilities Landscape WWTF Buffer Zone and Entrance Landscape newly acquired 6.5 acre property "buffer zone" adjacent to WWTF. As commercial and residential development encroaches toward the Wastewater Treatment Plant it is apparent there is a need to enhance the buffer zone between the WWTP and surrounding development to minimize the spread of odors off site inherent to the WWTP and provide a visual screen. The proposed enhancement and screening to the buffer zone will consist of an earth berm, perimeter tree plantings, native grasses, irrigation system, top soil and ground contouring on approximately 6.5 acres. This landscaping will be designed around and incorporated with the proposed equipment storage building (Truck barn) on the north side of the WWTP site. This type of passive odor control is widely used in the wastewater industry has been demonstrated to reduce the need for more expensive mechanical, structural and chemical odor control for Additionally, landscaping will control the spread and propagation of weeds. Was WW-09 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- WW-07 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 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 37 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Landscaping will help control the propagation of noxious weeds. This project will reduce odors in areas surrounding the WWTP, provide visual aesthetics and serve as a small "open space" between the WWTP and surrounding development. It is critical that the WWTP remain a "good neighbor" to surrounding development to prevent complaints and concerns that may result in future liabilities. This project will in part serve as a small "open space" between the WWTP and surrounding development. Quantitative Analysis Comments This project will ultimately protect the surrounding public from nuisance odors that maybe generated a the WWTP. This project will ultimately reduce or eliminate the need for more expensive odor control systems. 100% leveraging. Landscaping and maintenance will facilitate weed management issues during the coming growing season and initiate growth of a windbreak. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: WW-08 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Sewer R&D 250,000 Totals - - - - - 250,000 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 250,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 250,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:51 PM CJK Total Score 36 Starr Sullivan Public Works This project will reduce the need to purchase utility electricity thus resulting in cost saving. Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Wastewater Facilities Methane Gas Powered Micro-Turbine Purchase a Micro-turbine to use methane gas produced at the WWTF to create electricity. Operation of a methane gas powered micro-turbine can produce electricity to off set the cost of purchased utility electricity. The WWTP currently produces excess methane gas during warmer seasonal temperatures that could be used to produce electricity. The estimated "pay back" of capital costs of this project is estimated at 10 to 15 years at current electrical cost. If electrical costs increase then review for future consideration. Was WW-10 in FY 2006-2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- WW-08 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 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 3 9 pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 36 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Quantitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- For the 30kw (max output) micro turbine that we have discussed in the past, I would recommend that you plan for no more than an average output of 25 kw to allow for planned and unplanned maintenance, gas disruptions, etc. In a 24 hours period, this equates to 600 kw-hrs; in 1 year, this equates to 219,000 kw-hrs. @ $.05/kw-hr = $10,950/year @ $.08/kw-hr = $17,520/year As you may recall, the Capstone micro turbine we built the capital estimate around is only 20- 27% efficient (typical of the technology). Quite a bit of heated gas is given off by these units. Recovery of that heat will result in a better payback since less gas will have to be burned in a boiler for tank/building heat. If we assume that the gas used by this micro turbine is currently flared (not sure this is good assumption...), then the payback based on a $175,000 project is 10-16 years. If we assume that the gas is currently used in the boiler, then the payback calculation becomes complicated and would need more detailed analysis. In the latter case, there is the value of the gas as gas in the boiler (adds to the payback period) + the value of heat recovered from the micro turbine (subtracts from the payback period). Scott PS - note the number above are different from the ones we discussed on the phone. After consulting the micro turbine info again I thought the assumption of 25 kw/hr average was more realistic. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: WW-09 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Developers 500,000 Sewer Development Fee Fund 70,000 200,000 Totals - - 70,000 700,000 - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 616,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 61,600 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 92,400 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 770,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:51 PM CJK Total Score 49 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Wastewater Facilities Miller Creek Interceptor Sewer Construction of a sewer interceptor for sewer capacity expansion in southwest Missoula. This interceptor would expand capacity of existing sewer systems in the Miller Creek, Linda Vista and Maloney Ranch areas. A capacity analysis was prepared by a consultant that confirms the need for this expansion. The project would be funded by area developers with the addition of Sewer Development Fee funds. Was WW-12 in FY06 Steve King Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- WW-09 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 3 4 12 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 49 Sanitary sewer reduces pollution. Sanitary sewer is an essential City service. Sanitary sewer has been identified as necessary to a livable community. Quantitative Analysis Comments A combination of 35% City sewer development funds and 65% private developer funds are being used for this Facilities Plan upgrade. This project is necessary to increase capacity in an existing system currently serving the southwest Missoula area. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: WW-10 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Sewer R&D 154,000 30,000 $42,000 Totals 154,000 30,000 42,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 33,600 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 3,360 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 5,040 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 42,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:52 PM CJK Total Score 40 Starr Sullivan Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Wastewater Facilities Hybrid Poplar Tree Effluent Land Application Pilot Project Create an effluent land application pilot project to demonstrate its effectiveness specific to the Missoula WWTF. As part of the Voluntary Nutrient Reduction Program the City has agreed to encourage development of alternatives to municipal wastewater disposal to reduce nutrients from new development (such as land application, wetlands and nutrient removal septic systems). Additionally, the 2000 Missoula Wastewater Facilities Plan Update recommends seasonal and partial "Effluent Load Diversion" to land application sites to address future Total Maximum Daily Load of Phosphorus and Nitrogen to the Clark Fork River. Although the Wastewater Treatment Plant will meet numerical P and N concentration limits for the foreseeable future, eventually the plant will exceed any proposed TMDL limit for the CFR. The strategy to address this will be to seasonally divert a portion of the P and N load out of the CFR and to a land application site. Studies of Wetlands and a feasibility study of hybrid poplars has been completed indicating hybrid poplars are the most effective and economical way to uptake plant effluent in a land application of effluent. This will move the project to a functioning pilot project to assess the actual efficiency on nutrient uptake specific to the WWTP effluent and ambient conditions specific to the site. If the pilot project proves to be successful the next phase will be to do a hybrid poplar project on a much larger scale. A 1,500 acre poplar project is projected to generate revenues of $7M after each 14 year growing cycle. The pilot project will be done on existing City property adjacent to the WWTP. Was WW-14 in FY 2006-2010 ---PAGE BREAK--- WW-10 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 3 3 9 pollution? (0-2) 8. Does the project improve or expand upon essential City services where such 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 40 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments The VNRP agreement is a legal contract with the MDEQ and USEPA along with the other VNRP signatories. This project will remove nutrient pollution from the CFR as well as produce commercial wood products. Provides alternate and additional wastewater treatment. Provides environmentally friendly wastewater treatment. Quantitative Analysis Comments Land application of wastewater effluent has been demonstrated to be far less expensive than building a mechanical treatment facility. Given the time it takes to grow poplar trees, the project should begin soon. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: WW-11 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Sewer R&D 50,000 450,000 Totals - - - - 50,000 450,000 - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 400,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 40,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 60,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 500,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:52 PM CJK Total Score 45 Steve King Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Wastewater Facilities Russell Street Interceptor (6th - Idaho) Reconstruction of an existing interceptor. The reconstruction of Russell Street will cause evaluation of the existing 21" to 30" Russell Interceptor sewer line. Portions of the existing sewer are planned to be reconstructed or relined. Televised inspection has rated portion of the pipe for relining or reconstruction. Funding would come from the Sewer R&D Fund. Was WW-15 in FY06 ---PAGE BREAK--- WW-11 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 2 4 8 plans? Total Score 45 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Sanitary sewer reduces pollution. Sanitary sewer is an essential City service. Sanitary sewer has been identified as necessary to a livable community. Quantitative Analysis Comments City Sewer R&D funds are being used for this interceptor replacement. This project must be completed prior to site redevelopment and Russell and 3rd Street improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: WW-12 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes X No N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Sewer R&D $225,000 Totals - - 225,000 - - - - First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) - Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs 225,000 Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 225,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 17-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:52 PM CJK Total Score 45 Starr Sullivan Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Wastewater Facilities Hydro-Jet Sewer Cleaning Truck (Unit 329) Scheduled replacement of a 1995 hydro-jet sewer cleaning truck. This equipment is used for routine maintenance and emergency response. Replace aging sewer maintenance equipment used for routine cleaning of sewer mains as a preventative maintenance to reduce sewer line back ups and over flows. This equipment is also used to clear sewer line plugs that result in sewer back ups and overflows. Routine sewer main maintenance and timely, reliable emergency response result in lower costs to the City through reduced damage claims and insurance costs. Unit 329 is identified in the City's fleet replacement schedule. ---PAGE BREAK--- WW-12 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 3 4 12 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 45 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Routine cleaning and emergency repair of sewer mains is critical in preventing sewage overflows. This is required for expanding sewer service. Routine cleaning and emergency repair of sewer mains is critical in maintaining sewer services to the customers. Quantitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis For: CIP\Council Committee MAKE: FORD By: Jack Stucky AGE: 1995 ( 11 YEARS) Project: Jetter Truck CONDITION: WORN Unit 329 USAGE: SEWER LINE CLEANING Existing Vehicle or Equipment New Vehicle or Equipment Unit 329 Jetter Truck 2005 or New Jetter Truck Total Hours (estimated) 9,565.00 Total Hours N\A Operating Costs Per Hour (year to date) $8.71 Operating Costs Per Hour $6.59 Repair Costs Per Hour (year to date) $22.80 Repair Costs Per Hour $10.05 Depreciation Costs Per Hour $0.00 *Depreciation Costs Per Hour $12.35 Unit is fully depreciated Based on 15,000 Hour life expectancy Total Cost Per Hour $31.51 Total Cost Per Hour $28.99 Expected Cost Savings per Hour -$2.52 Based on Total Cost Per Hour Estimated Annual Usage Rate 252 Estimated based on last years usage rate. Estimated Annual Expense Reduction -$635.04 Estimated 2nd Year Expense Reduction -$658.00 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.03616 Estimated 3rd Year Expense Reduction -$679.95 Based on Life To Date Increase Trend 0.03336 *Based $190000 cost less $5,000 residual over 15,000 hour life. ---PAGE BREAK--- Vehicle Replacement Cost Benefit Analysis ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: WW-13 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No N/A X 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Sewer R&D $50,000 800,000 Totals - - 50,000 - - - 800,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 680,000 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 68,000 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 102,000 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 850,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 06-Mar-06 Person: Department: Version 09/25/2006 4:32 PM CJK Total Score 33 Steve King Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Wastewater Facilities Northwest Broadway Area STEP Sewer System Enhancements Project to improve portions of the STEP sewer system serving commercial and industrial property in Northwest Broadway Area. Project to improve and enhance the STEP sewer system serving the primarily commercial and industrial properties in the West Broadway Area. The first step is to obtain an engineer's preliminary design of the proposed improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- WW-13 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 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 33 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Quantitative Analysis Comments ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Program Category: 2. Project Title: 3. Project No.: WW-14 4. Description: 7. Justification of Project and Funding Sources: 5. Is this equipment prioritized in an equip- ment replacement schedule? Yes No X N/A 6. Site Requirements: 8. Schedule of Prior Spent in Funding Sources Authorization Prior Years FY 2007 FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Sewer R&D 160,000 164,000 168,000 172,000 Totals - - - 160,000 164,000 168,000 172,000 First Year Succeeding Operations Years Personnel A. Land Cost Supplies B. Construction Cost 531,200 Purchased Services C. Contingencies (10% of B) 53,120 Fixed Charges D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 79,680 Additional Capital Outlay E. Percent for Art of B) - Other Costs F. Other Costs Estimated Annual Debt Service - - 664,000 11. Descriptions of impacts on Operating Budget: Original Date Responsible Responsible Submitted: 21-Feb-06 Person: Department: Version 09/15/2006 4:54 PM CJK Total Score 40 City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2007-2011 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM 9. Impact on Operating Budget Supplemental Cost Data Wastewater Facilities Sewage Lift Station Upgrade and Rehabilitation Five sewage lift station require scheduled up grades and rehabilitation Five sewage lift stations are approaching the end of their service life. Additionally, these lift station are of obsolete design which hinders maintenance, requires confined space entry and egress and has potential for operational difficulties. This project will replace pumps, equipment, controls, coat the inside of the existing wet wells with polyurethane and eliminate confined space entries for maintenance. This project will bring these critical lift stations up to current lift station standards established by the City and maximize safe and reliable service. The five sewage lift stations with this design should be upgraded and rehabilitated in the next five years: 2008 - Caras Park 2009 - Reserve St. 2010 - Dickens St. 2011 - East Missoula 2012 - Grant Creek Starr Sullivan Public Works Total Annual City Cost - Operating Budget Total Capital Costs ---PAGE BREAK--- WW-14 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 1 4 4 maximum effectiveness? (0-3) 7. Does the project conserve energy, cultural or natural resources, or reduce 3 3 9 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 1 4 4 plans? Total Score 40 Will improve protection of the environment Wastewater operations are essential for continued sewer service to the community this project fulfills obligations outlined in the Wastewater Facilities Plan Quantitative Analysis Comments No general fund money will be used for this project Project is a system upgrade CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM Project Rating (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments