Full Text
Program Category: 08 Project # 09 Project # 10 Project # Street Improvements S23 S-17 S-20 Yes No NA X Funding Source Accounting Code FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 Assessments 550,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 550,000 Street Division in Kind 20,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 20,000 Gas Tax 30,000 30,000 CDBG 110,000 110,000 710,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 710,000 Budgeted Funds Accounting Code FY10 FY11 FY12 FY13 FY14 A. Land Cost B. Construction Cost 568,000 112,000 112,000 112,000 112,000 C. Contingencies (10% of B) 56,800 11,200 11,200 11,200 11,200 D. Design & Engineering (15% of B) 85,200 16,800 16,800 16,800 16,800 E. Percent for Art of B) F. Equipment Costs G. Other 710,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 140,000 - 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 45 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: Several neighborhoods have undertaken infrastructure studies to enhance safety and neighborhood access. Public works will generate project lists from these plans for implementation. Some plan examples include: Franklin to Fort Infrastructure Plan, Johnson Street sidewalks, Emma Dickinson Infrastructure Plan, River Road curbs and sidewalks. Phase I is part of the Franklin to the Fort Infrastructure Plan priority one areas, which includes Johnson between 11th and 3rd and between North and Mount, as well as 14th between Johnson and Eaton. This project is scheduled to start construction in summer 2009. Approximately 23 households have received approval for CDBG grants for this phase. Spent in Prior Years OPERATING BUDGET COSTS Spent in Prior Years Funded in Prior Years REVENUE EXPENSE Project Title: Neighborhood Infrastructure Street Improvements Date Submitted to Finance 02/20/2009 Today's Date and Time 06/03/2009 14:31 Description of additional operating budget impact: ---PAGE BREAK--- Program Category: 10 Project # Street Improvements S-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 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 Sidewalk/pedestrian facilities encourage and accommodate non-motorized travel. Sidewalk/pedestrian facilities encourage and accommodate non-motorized travel. Meets City goals for livability as defined in neighborhood comprehensive infrastructure plans. Quantitative Analysis Comments No general fund support required. Sidewalk assessments will spread costs t the benefitted neighborhood. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (See C.I.P. Instructions For Explanation of Criteria) Qualitative Analysis Comments Project Rating Project Title: Neighborhood Infrastructure Street Improvements