Full Text
Program Category: 07 Project # 08 Project # 09 Project # 10 Project # Street Improvements S-06 S-15 S-07 S-14 Yes No NA X Funding Source Accounting Code FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 TBD 4,500 21,000 12,500 Assessments (MRL, MTN Water) 25,000 36,000 29,600 Gas Tax (MRL,MDT) 13,000 Funding to be determined 52,000 Street Division In Kind 10,000 10,000 13,000 Neighborhood Grant Funds 3,000 City Park Assessments 35,000 - 94,500 102,000 - - 68,100 Budgeted Funds Accounting Code FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 A. Land Cost B. Construction Cost 75,600 81,600 - C. Contingencies (10% of B) - 7,560 8,160 - - D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) - 11,340 12,240 - - E. Percent for Art of B) F. Equipment Costs G. Other - 94,500 102,000 - - - Expense Object Accounting Code FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 Personnel Supplies Purchased Services Fixed Charges Capital Outlay Debt Service - - - - - - Responsible Person: Responsible Department: Preparer's Initials Total Score Doug Harby Public Works CJK - Is this equipment prioritized on an equipment replacement schedule? Are there any site requirements: How is this project going to be funded: Does this project have any additional impact on the operating budget: How is this project going to be spent: CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM City of Missoula CIP Project Request Form FY 2010-2014 Description and justification of project and funding sources: Greenough Drive from Vine St to Madison/W. Spruce is mostly without sidewalks, curbs and other improvements. For years, neighborhood groups have worked to design this area to be functional and attractive. The project is a multi-party, multi-year effort, involving 4 major activities: 1) fixing the road (curbs/gutters, sidewalks, bike lanes, driving lane reconfiguration); 2) repairing the railroad crossing for all modes; 3) extending curb and sidewalk up Greenough Drive to serve Waterworks Trail Head and redirect access to Greenough Park; 4) cleaning up and beautifying the landscape around the street. (See attached graphic.) The project focuses on defining the street: curbs/gutters and sidewalks on both sides. A portion of the cost can be assessed to property owners. Citizens have created partnerships with Parks Dept and private interests (e.g. landscapers) to do landscaping and trail work. This is a 2-stage project: portions for which the cost is assessable will be completed in FY2011; the remainder is anticipated to be completed in FY2012. With almost no gas tax available, it is critical to appeal to General Revenue for completion. Phase I: replacement of RR Crossing was completed in 2009, Installation of Curb and Sidewalk accross BNSF row to be completed in 2011. Phase II: Install curbs and sidewalks on Greenough along Greenough Park and on west side of Greenough from BNSG row to Mtn Water road. Spent in Prior Years OPERATING BUDGET COSTS Spent in Prior Years Funded in Prior Years REVENUE EXPENSE Project Title: Rattlesnake Gateway Project Date Submitted to Finance 03/26/3009 Today's Date and Time 06/03/2009 14:16 Description of additional operating budget impact: ---PAGE BREAK--- Program Category: 10 Project # Street Improvements 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 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 - 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. 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 Including the railroad crossing which has no City funds now, the General Revenue request is 16% of the total (roughly a 7:1 leverage). The neighborhood has committed to landscaping using grants they expect to obtain. 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 8:1. Work in this area has been pending for many years; each year the conditions in that short corridor get worse. With part of the project to be completed in FY07, it's important to finish it in FY08. 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. 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. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Project Rating Project Title: Rattlesnake Gateway Project ---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.