Full Text
Program Category: 08 Project # 09 Project # 10 Project # Parks, Recreation and Open Space PR-22 Yes No NA x Funding Source Accounting Code FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 Tax Increment 200,000 Army Corp of Engineers 1,197,000 3,803,000 Other 360,000 MRA and Others TBD 2,132,000 1,757,000 5,935,000 - - - - Budgeted Funds Accounting Code FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 A. Land Cost B C t ti C t Project Title: Riverbank Restoration and Flood Control Spent in Prior Years Funded in Prior Years REVENUE SE Is this equipment prioritized on an equipment replacement schedule? Are there any site requirements: How is this project going to be funded: 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: This project highlights how urban brownfields can be revitalized to restore degraded riverbanks, address flooding concerns and provide public open space and recreation amenities while also supporting innovative redevelopment projects along the Clark Fork River. Currently the Clark Fork's riverbanks through the core of downtown are characterized by a century of urban neglect from concrete and asphalt, decaying rip-rap, old car parts and a steep denuded bank. This project is an opportunity to address deteriorating banks, deficiencies in existing levees, restoration of native riparian vegetation to improve water quality, create river access for citizens, and extend and improve existing pedestrian trails and riverfront parks along the Clark Fork River. The first phase of this project will include project design/planning for: Southside Riverbank restoration; Northbank riverbank restoration; and Diversion Improvement project development. It will also include Project Implementation of: river access and boat ramp at Silver Park; bank restoration, concrete fill removal, slope grading, and revegetation along Silver Park; and slope grading, concrete fill removal, riparian re-vegetation and construction of 300' trail at Liberty Lanes redevelopment site. This project incorporates previous CIP project #PR-03 URD II West Broadway Island Trail and Bridge Phase I. B. Construction Cost C. Contingencies (10% of B) D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) E. Percent for Art of B) F. Equipment Costs G. Other - - - - - - 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 Ellen Buchanan MRA kln 48 Date Submitted to Finance Today's Date and Time 5/27/2009 11:10 Description of additional operating budget impact: OPERATING BUDGET COSTS EXPENS Does this project have any additional impact on the operating budget: Spent in Prior Years ---PAGE BREAK--- Program Category: 10 Project # Parks, Recreation and Open Space PR-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) CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Project Rating Project Title: Riverbank Restoration and Flood Control Quantitative Analysis Comments 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 The project restores and preserves a portion of a major waterway in Montana. Components of this project address a variety of issues including restoration of degraded riverbanks, deficiencies in levees, restoration of native vegetation for improved water quality and river access and recreational amenities. Portions of this project are components of a variety of community vision plans and priorities. The project leverages congressional appropriations through the Army Corp of Engineers through tax increment expenditures on Silver Park and other projects. Once the appropriation is made time will be of the essence.