Document Missoula_doc_fbe9e92597

Contract #105145 Safe Routes to School Non-Infrastructure Contract CFDA #20.205 - Safe Routes to School This Contract is entered into between the State ofMontana, Department of Transportation, Transportation Planning Division, 2701 Prospect Avenue, P.O. Box 201001, Helena, Montana (State) and, City ofMissoula, 435 Ryman, Missoula, Montana 59802 (Grantee), John Engen, Mayor (Program Sponsor). Liaison for the State is Audrey Allums, Transit Supervisor. Liaison for the Grantee is Phil Smith. The State, having received grant monies from the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA), through Section 1404, SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PROGRAM" and desiring to assist the Grantee, enters into the following contract with Grantee. Actual award is contingent upon the availability of FHWA funding. ARTICLEl. PROJECT SECTION 1.1 Purpose of Contract. This contract provides assistance for the Grantee to execute a Safe Routes to School Non-Infrastructure program in accordance with the Safe Routes to School funding application submitted to and approved by Montana Department of Transportation Transit Section. SECTION 1.2 Scope ofProject. Grantee shall undertake, implement, and complete the project as described in its Safe Routes to School Missoula 2011 application (Attachment 1) in accordance with the regulations of Section 1404 Safe Routes to School program. The Grantee shall use its best efforts to efficiently and economically complete the Project. Approved activities for reimbursement include, but are not limited to: Non-infrastructure: Continuation of successful programs (walking Wednesdays); Not awarded ($4,500) non infrastructure funds for maintenance on bicycle fleet and bicycle trailer; Continuation of phased infrastructure improvements SECTION 1.3 Period of Performance. This contract will be effective from July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2011. SECTION 1.4 Cost ofProject. The total amount ofreimbursements made by the State cannot exceed $ 43,000.00 for completion of the approved Safe Routes to School Non- Infrastructure Project. State will make quarterly reimbursement payments to Grantee based upon the State's approval ofreports and invoices submitted by the Grantee. The cost of the Project shall be shared as follows: 100 Percent FHWA Reimbursement Funding for Non-Infrastructure: $ 43,000.00 SECTION 1.5 Purchase ofProject Equipment. The State, on behalf of the Grantee, or the Grantee with the State's prior approval, shall purchase all Project equipment in accordance with applicable State law and the standards set forth by the Uniform Administration Requirement for Grant and Cooperative Agreement to State and Local Government. Project ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- equipment shall be purchased in conformity with the latest approved Cost of Project as shown in Section 1.4. SECTION 1.6 Title to Project Equipment. The Grantee shall not hold title to Project equipment purchased. The State shall be the first secured party. The State shall be the first secured party. The State may enforce this provision through legal action to protect its security interests in the Project equipment. SECTION 1.7 Use ofProject Equipment. The Grantee shall use Project equipment for Safe Routes to School program service described in the Project Application and in accordance with FHWA regulations. If any Project equipment is no longer needed for this service, the Grantee shall immediately notify the State and the State shall release any secured interest of such Project equipment. SECTION 1.8 Maintenance. During the contract period Grantee shall maintain the Project equipment and facilities at a high level of cleanliness, safety and mechanical soundness. In addition, all accessible features and equipment used by persons with disabilities must be maintained in operating condition. Equipment must be repaired and reasonable steps must be taken to continue serving persons with disabilities while the repairs are being made (reference 49 CFR, Subpart G, 37.161 and 37.163). The State reserves the right to rehabilitate any Project equipment covered under this contract, after proper application by Grantee and approval by the State. SECTION 1.9 Insurance. During the Contract term, the Grantee shall maintain insurance or self-insurance (property damage and liability) adequate to protect the federal funded portion of Project facilities and equipment. Grantee will furnish proof of such insurance for the State's approval. SECTION 1.10 Records, Reports and Information Access. 1.10.1 Recordkeeping. The Grantee shall keep records regarding the use ofProject property, compliance with the provisions of this Contract, the federal assurances, and such records as the State and the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) may require, including financial statements, program operation data, contracts and other Project-related documents. If a third party has exclusive possession of any required information and refuses or fails to provide that information, the Grantee shall inform the State and set forth its efforts to obtain this information. Grantee shall maintain these records for at least three years after any final payment and all other matters pending under this Contract are closed. 1.10.2 Reporting. Grantee shall advise the State in writing ofProject progress at such times and in such manner as the State and FHWA may require, butnot less than quarterly. 1.10.3 Media. Acknowledge funding for this project is provided through the Montana Department of Transportation in all publicity and earned media. 1.10.4 Information Access. The Grantee shall permit the State, FHWA, or their authorized representatives, to inspect all equipment purchased for the Project, accounts, and all records, data, and materials pertaining to the Project. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ARTICLE 2. DEFAULT AND TERMINATION SECTION 2.1 Default. Nonperformance by the Grantee of any obligation imposed by this Contract, including noncompliance with the federal assurances in Articles 3 and 4, or reduction of local project cost funding, will constitute default. SECTION 2.2 Termination. This Contract may be terminated by the State by serving a notice of termination on the Grantee. Termination may occur for either convenience or default. If termination is for convenience, the notice shall give the Grantee thirty days to wind down its activities under this Contract. If termination occurs due to default, the notice shall state the nature of the Grantee's default, and offer the Grantee ten (10) days for an opportunity to explain its nonperformance. If the State finds that the Grantee has a reasonable excuse for nonperformance, which is beyond the control of the Grantee, the State may set up a new work schedule and allow the completion of this Contract. In any termination, the State will make its contractual payments proportionate to the work properly performed in accordance with this Contract to the time oftermination. Grantee shall account for any Project property in its possession. SECTION 2.3. Litigation. Controversy arising from this contract may result in litigation. Arbitration is not available. This Contract shall be governed by Montana law. SECTION 2.4 Venue. In the event of litigation concerning this contract, venue shall be in the First Judicial District of the State of Montana, in and for Lewis and Clark County. ARTICLE 3. MISCELLANEOUS SECTION 3.1 Contract Modification. Any change to this contract will only be by written agreement of the Parties. SECTION 3.2 Assignment and Subcontracting. The Grantee shall not assign any portion of the work to be performed under this contract, or execute any contract, amendment or change order thereto, or obligate Grantee in any manner with any third party with respect to Grantee's rights and responsibilities under this contract, without the prior written concurrence of the State. SECTION 3.3 Subcontracts. The Grantee shall include in all subcontracts entered into pursuant to this Agreement a copy of this Contract, and the subcontract will make the provisions of this Contract a specific part of the subcontract. In addition, the Grantee shall include the following provisions in any advertisement or invitation to bid for any procurement under this contract: Statement of Financial Assistance This agreement is subject to a financial assistance contract between the Montana Department ofTransportation, the U. S. Department of Transportation, and the Federal Highway Administration. SECTION 3.4 Indemnification. The Grantee shall indemnify, defend, and hold harmless the State ofMontana, its Department ofTransportation, its employees and agents from and against all claims, demands, or actions from damages to property or injury to persons or other damage to persons or entities arising or resulting from the performance of this Contract. SECTION 3.5 Settlement ofThird Party Contract Disputes or Breaches. The term "third-party contract," as used in this Contract, is defined as a contract between the Grantee and its subcontractor in which the Grantee has procured a good and/or service commercially from the subcontractor. FHWA has a vested interest in the settlement of disputes, defaults, or breaches ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- involving any federally assisted third party contracts. FHWA retains the right to a proportionate share, based on the percentage of the Federal share committed to the Project, of any proceeds derived from any third party recovery. Therefore, the Grantee shall avail itself of all legal rights available under any third party contract. The Grantee shall notify the State of any current or prospective litigation or major disputed claim pertaining to any third party contract. FHWA reserves the right to concur in any compromise or settlement of the Grantee's claim(s) involving any third party contract, before making Federal assistance available to support that settlement. If the third party contract contains a liquidated damages provision, any liquidated damages recovered shall be credited to the Project account involved unless FHWA permits otherwise. SECTION 3.6 Notice. All notices arising from the provisions of this Contract shall be in writing and given to the parties at the addresses listed above, either by regular mail or delivery in person. SECTION 3.7 Agency Assistance. No assistance, other than provided for by this Contract, will be required, but may be provided at the discretion of State. SECTION 3.8 Severability and Integration. If any part, or parts, of this contract are determined to be void, the remaining parts will remain valid and operative. This document, together with its schedules, attachments, and exhibits, represent the complete and entire understanding of the parties on its subject matter. No provision, express or implied, arising from any prior oral or written request, bid, inquiry, negotiation, contract, or any other form of communication, shall be a provision of this contract unless it is reduced to writing, signed by the parties, and attached to this document. SECTION 3.9 Prohibited Interest. No employee, officer, board member or agent ofthe Grantee shall participate in the selection, award, or administration of a contract if a conflict of interest, real or apparent, would be involved. Such a conflict would arise when: The employee, officer, board member or agent; Any member of his or her immediate family; His or her partner; or . An organization which employs, or is about to employ any of the above; has a financial or other interest in the firm selected for award. The Grantee's employees, officers, board members or agents shall neither solicit nor accept gratuities, favors or anything of monetary value from contractors, potential contractors, or parties of subagreements. SECTION 3.10 Interest of Members of or Delegates to Congress. No member of or delegate to the Congress of the United States shall be admitted to any share or part ofthis contract or to any benefit arising therefrom. SECTION 3.11 Waivers. A party's failure to enforce any provision of this Contract shall not be construed as a waiver excusing the other party's future performance. SECTION 3.12 Ineligible Bidders. Bidders or Suppliers whose names appear on the U. S. Comptroller General's List ofIneligible Contractors are not eligible for award of, or participation in, any contract that may be awarded as a result of this contract. Submission of a bid by any bidder constitutes certification that he or any subcontractor or suppliers to him, on this proposed contract, if one is awarded, are not on the Comptroller General's ListofIneligible Contractors. A subsequent determination by FHWA that a bidder knowingly made any misstatement of facts in this regard will be cause for immediate disqualification, suspension or termination of the contract for cause. SECTION 3.13 Prohibition Against Use of Federal Funds for Lobbying. The Grantee or its subcontractor shall not use Federal assistance funds for publicity or propaganda purposes ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- designed to support or defeat legislation or appropriations pending before Congress or a state legislature. SECTION 3.14 Employee Political Activity. The provisions of 5 U.S.C. 1501-1508, 7324-7326 (the "Hatch Act"), and implementing regulations set forth in 5 C.F.R. Part 151 are applicable to State and local agencies and their officers and employees to the extent covered by the statute and regulations. The "Hatch Act" restricts the political activity of an individual principally employed by a State or local executive agency in connection with a program financed in whole or in part by Federal loans, grants, or cooperative agreement. SECTION 3.15 False or Fraudulent Statements or Claims. The Grantee acknowledges that, should it make a false, fictitious, or fraudulent claim, statement, submission, or certification to the State or Federal Government in connection with this project, MDT reserves the right to pursue the procedures and impose on the Grantee the penalties of 18 U.S.C. 1001,31 U.S.C. 3801, et seq., and/or 49 U.S.C. 5307(n)(1), as may be deemed by MDT to be appropriate. SECTION 3.16 Debarment and Suspension. The Grantee shall obtain from its third party contractors certifications required by Department ofTransportation regulations, "Government-wide Debarment and Suspension (Nonprocurement)," 49 C.F.R. Part 29, and otherwise comply with the requirements of those regulations. SECTION 3.17 No State Obligations to Third Parties. The State shall not be subject to any obligations or liabilities to any third party in connection with the performance of this Project without the specific written consent of the State and FHWA. Neither the concurrence in nor the approval of the award of this contract or any subcontract, or the solicitation thereof, nor any other act performed by the State under this contract shall constitute such consent. SECTION 3.18 Federal Changes. Grantee shall at all times comply with all applicable FHWA regulations, policies, procedures and directives. SECTION 3.19 Authority. The Grantee warrants that it has the lawful authority to enter this contract (Signature Authority), and that it has taken all actions and complied with all procedures necessary to execute the authority lawfully in entering this contract, and that the undersigned signatory for Grantee has been lawfully delegated the authority to sign this contract on behalf of Grantee. SECTION 3.20 Compliance with Laws. Some of the clauses contained in this contract are not governed solely by Federal law, but are significantly affected by State law. The laws and regulations cited in this contract are not all-inclusive ofthose which may apply to the successful completion of this contract. The Grantee understands that it is its responsibility to learn what federal, state and local laws and regulations will apply to its operation under this contract, and that Grantee is solely responsible for its lawful compliance with them. SECTION 3.21 Audit Requirement. The Grantee shall perform an audit in compliance with the Single Audit Act Amendments of 1996,31 U.S.c. 7501 et seq. and OMB Circular No. A-133, "Audits of States, Local Governments, and Non-Profit Organizations." The Grantee will provide the MDT Transit Section with a copy of the audit report for each fiscal year FHWA funds are received by the Grantee if funding thresholds are met. SECTION 3.22 Elderly and Handicapped. The Grantee agrees to comply with all applicable requirements of the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, 42 U.S.C. 6101 et seq., and implementing regulations, which prohibit emploYment and other discrimination against individuals on the basis of age. The Grantee also agrees to comply with the requirements of 49 U.S.C. 5301(d), 29 U.S.C. 794, the Americans with Disabilities Act, as amended (42 U.S.c. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 12101 et seq.), and the Architectural Barriers Act of 1968, as amended (42 US.c. 4151 et seq.), as well as the applicable requirements of the regulations implementing those laws. SECTION 3.23 Air Pollution. No facilities or equipment shall be acquired, constructed, or improved as a part of the Project unless the grantee obtains satisfactory assurances that they are (or will be) deigned and equipped to limit air-pollution as provided in accordance with EPA regulations, applicable federally-approved State Implementation Planes), appropriate FTA directives and all other applicable standards. SECTION 3.24 Energy Conservation. The Grantee and its third party contractors shall recognize mandatory standards and policies relating to energy efficiency which are contained in the State energy conservation plan issued in compliance with the Energy Policy and Conservation Act (42 US.C. 6321, et seq.). SECTION 3.25 Federal Changes. Grantee shall at all times comply with all applicable FHWA regulations, policies, procedures and directives, including without limitation those listed directly or by reference in the Master Agreement between the State and FHWA, as they may be amended or promulgated during the term of this contract. Grantee's failure to so comply shall constitute a material breach of this contract. SECTION 3.26 Incorporation ofFHWA Terms. The preceding provisions include, in part, certain Standard Terms and Conditions required by DOT, whether or not expressly set forth in the preceding contract provisions. All contractual provisions required by DOT, are hereby incorporated by reference. Anything to the contrary herein withstanding, all FHWA mandated terms shall be deemed to control in the event of a conflict with other provisions contained in this Agreement. The Grantee shall not perform any act, fail to perform any act, or refuse to comply with any State requests which would cause the State to be in violation of the FHWA terms and conditions. . SECTION 3.2TPrivacy Act. The Grantee agrees to comply with, and assures the compliance of its employees with, the information restrictions and other applicable requirements of the Privacy Act of 1974, 5 US.C. § 552a. Among other things, the Grantee agrees to obtain the express consent of the Federal Government before the Grantee or its employees operate a system ofrecords on behalf ofthe Federal Government. The Grantee understands that the requirements of the Privacy Act, including the civil and criminal penalties for violation of that Act, apply to those individuals involved, and that failure to comply with the terms of the Privacy Act may result in termination of the underlying contract. ARTICLE 4. NON-DISCRIMINATION NOTICE During the performance of this contract, City Of Missoula (hereafter in this Section "the Party"), for itself, its assignees and successors in interest, agrees as follows: A) COMPLIANCE WITH TITLE VI OF THE CIVIL RIGHTS ACT OF 1964 FOR FEDERAL-AID CONTRACTS Compliance with Regulations: The Party shall comply with all Regulations relative to nondiscrimination in Federally-assisted programs of the Department of ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation, 49 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR), Part 21, as they may be amended (hereafter referred to as the Regulations), which are incorporated by reference and made a part ofthis Agreement, even if only state funding is here involved. Nondiscrimination: The Party, with regard to the work performed by it during the Agreement, shall not discriminate on the grounds of sex, race, color, or national origin in the selection and retention of subcontractors, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The Party shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by 49 CFR Sec. 21.5. Solicitations for Subcontracts, Including Procurement of Materials and Equipment: In all solicitations, whether by competitive bidding or negotiation by the Party for work to be performed under a subcontract, including procurement of materials or leases of equipment, any potential subcontractor or supplier shall be notified by the Party of the Party's obligations under this Agreement and the Regulations relative to nondiscrimination. Information and Reports: The Party will provide all reports and information required by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto, and permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information and its facilities as may be determined by State or the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with Regulations or directives. Where any information required of the Party is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, the Party shall so certify to the Department or FEWA as requested, setting forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information. Sanctions for Noncompliance: In the event of the Party's noncompliance with the nondiscrimination provisions of this Agreement, State may impose sanctions as it or the FHWA determines appropriate, including, but not limited to, Withholding payments to the Party under the Agreement until the Party complies, and/or Cancellation, termination or suspension of the Agreement, in whole or in part. Incorporation of Provisions: The Party will include the provisions ofparagraphs through in every subcontract, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto. The Party will take such action with respect to any subcontract or procurement as the State or the FHWA may direct to enforce such provisions including sanctions for noncompliance: Provided, however, that in the event the Party is sued or is threatened with litigation by a subcontractor or supplier as a result of such direction, the Party may request the State to enter into the litigation to protect the interests of the State, and, in addition, the Party or the State may request the United States to enter into such litigation to protect the interests ofthe United States. ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- B) COMPLIANCE WITH THE MONTANA GOVERNMENTAL CODE OF FAIR PRACTICES, SEC. 49-3-207, MCA In accordance with Section 49-3-207, MeA, the Party agrees that for this Agreement all hiring will be made on the basis of merit and qualifications and that there will be no discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, political ideas, sex, age, marital status, physical or mental disability, or national origin by the persons performing the Agreement. C) COMPLIANCE WITH AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) The Party will comply with all regulations relative to implementation of the AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT. The Party will incorporate or communicate the intent of the following statement in all publications, announcements, video recordings, course offerings or other program outputs: "The Party will provide reasonable accommodations for any known disability that may interfere with a person in participating in any service, program or activity offered by the Party. In the case of documents, recordings or verbal presentations, alternative accessible formats will be provided. For further information call the Party." All video recordings produced and created under contract and/or agreement will be closed-captioned. D) COMPLIANCE WITH PARTICIPATION ENTERPRISES IN DEPARTMENT OF ASSISTANCE PROGRAMS, 49 CFR PART 26 BY DISADVANTAGED BUSINESS TRANSPORTATION FINANCIAL Each Agreement the Department signs with a Party (and each subcontract the prime contractor signs with a subcontractor) must include the following assurance: The Party, subrecipient or subcontractor shall not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, or sex in the performance of this contract. The Party shall carry out applicable requirements of 49 CFR Part 26 in the award and administration of DOT-assisted contracts. Failure by the Party to carry out these requirements is a material breach of this contract, which may result in the termination of this contract or such other remedy as the recipient deems appropriate. ---PAGE BREAK--- I I ---PAGE BREAK--- IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this contract to be executed. CITY OF MISSOULA BY: DATE: MONTANA DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION BY: _ Lynn Zanto, Administrator DATE: _ Approved for Civil Rights Content ---PAGE BREAK--- 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 I ---PAGE BREAK--- City of Missoula ATIACHMENTA 2009 Program Application Montana Safe Routes to School General Information Project Sponsor The sponsor is the entity applying for Safe Routes to School (SRTS) funds to be used to pay for all or part of the project. The sponsor must be the person with budget- setting authority. The named person is generally a mayor, county commissioner, tribal chair, director, school superintendent, etc. Local governments are encouraged to use their SRTS funds to supplement CTEP bicycle and pedestrian infrastructure projects within two miles of a school serving K-8th grade. The address and telephone number should be that of the sponsoring agency office. Contracts will be sent to project sponsor. Sponsor:--- Name/Title: John Engen, Mayor Address: 435 Ryman, Missoula, MT 59802 Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] IE A..l1..1 [EMAIL REDACTED] Il:.-mah uuress: _ Project Manager The applicant name provided is the project manager/contact. MDT will coordinate with this person on project information and reporting. Phi! Smith Name: _ 435 Ryman, Missoula, MT 59802 Address:, _ [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] Phone=-- IE-mail Address: _ Project Name The project name will be used to identify this project in all correspondence and int.ernal processing within MDT. For infrastructure projects, this name many be modified to fit. t.he project. name structure used by MDT. Please keep this project name brief. The name should reflect t.he school name and project scope/purpose. Pmject Safe Routes to School Missoula ---PAGE BREAK--- Project location Missoula Missoula Missoula District 1 See below School School District Superintendent: Dr. Alex Apostle Please provide the following information for each school affected by the project: Student Age Student *Title I School Name Range Population School? (K-5, 6-8, etc.) Yes/No Lewis and Clark K-5 461 Yes Franklin K-5 264 Yes Paxson I K- 5 339 Targeted Russell K-5 304 Yes Lowell K-5 251 Yes Chief Charlo K-5 447 Targeted Rattlesnake K-5 389 No Cold Springs K-5 472 No *Note: Must have a school-wide Title 1 Program At any point in the application process, when questions or comments arise, contact the Montana SRTS Coordinator or the Montana Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinator at (406) 444- 9273. ---PAGE BREAK--- Safe Routes to School Application I. PROJECT OUTLINE/DESCRIPTION Summary: We will continue development of a multi-year project to get more kids to walk more often to school, safely. The effort involves working with 7 elementary schools, trying to expand to one or two more which are located in quite "unwalkable" neighborhoods, and exploring expansion to middle schools. We will continue working with and supporting "teams" established at each school. Teams provide leadership to each local school SR2S activities- encouragement, incentives, education, and walk-to-school route mapping and evaluation. A great deal of progress has been made in the preceding 3 years; much work remains to be done. Below, we will provide the following in accord with the application requirements: 1. The needs for a SR2S program 2. Goals of the program 3. The project approach and project activities a. Non-Infrastructure b. Infrastructure 4. Public Involvement 5. Maps 6. ADA Compliance 7. Environmental Certifications 8. Evaluation A significant decline in the number of children who walk to school in the past 3 decades has been well-documented nationally - and form the basis for including a Safe Routes to School title in the last federal transportation bill. Similarly, the consequences for both children and community have been well documented - health impacts, reduced skills at navigating their environments, and negative effects on classroom learning. There is no need to replay all of the data on this point. Missoula's experience is similar to that found throughout the country. As a result, it is easy to establish the overall goal as getting more kids to walk to school more often, safely. However, the next step is to identify the reasons children do not walk, and then develop strategies to address these reasons. Over a period of several years, we have collected data about why kids don't walk. Thatis presented as Attachment A. In general, we know that less than half of the kids who live within walking distance of elementary schools actually walle We know that the two SPECIFIC primary reasons for this are ---PAGE BREAK--- • parent concern about traffic, and parent concern about strangers along the walking route. While fears of stranger danger are generalized, the much greater concerns about traffic are very specific to location from one school to another. Further, from meetings with the various school safe-route teams, we know that these concerns documented over the past several years are just as true today. However, we also know from numerous conversations with parents and with school staff, that another less tangible factor is also true: making a child walk to school is not always "the thing to do." One parent expressed it this way: "I'm afraid other parents will think I'm a bad parent if I make my son walk to school by himself." There is a vague generalized expectation that a "good parent" protects their child every inch ofthe way from home to school and thus prevents any risk to their child. The need for a walk-to-school program can be summarized: 1. Children need the benefits which come from walking to school. 2. More than half of the children who could reasonably walk to elementary school do not. 3. Reasons for not letting (making) children walk to school include apprehension about traffic, fear of strangers, and conformance to a social norm about what constitutes a good parent. The overall mission is: All Missoula City school children who can walk or bike and who live within reasonable distances from school should be able to get to school under their own power in reasonable safety. To achieve this, the following goals have been set. GOAL OBJECTIVE The 5 "E"s Goal 1: To have a school-based team of parents and school personnel to provide leadership for Safe Routes to School activities for each of schools in this project. lA: Maintain and support teams created at Encouragement 7 schools. is: Create a functioning team at 1 new Encouragement school. lC: Provide funds for teams to provide Encouragement encouragement and incentives to parents and students to walk/bike to school. ---PAGE BREAK--- Goal 2: To get the computer-based, interactive maps of safe or preferred routes to school for each school based in the individual schools and in the school district. 2A: Continue supporting the map base and Education systems developed seven schools. 2B: Develop a computer-based map Education capability for any school added to the Encouragement program. Goal 3: Provide increased law enforcement attention to key street crossings and speeding on streets near schools. 3A: To provide 200 hours of law Enforcement enforcement attention to traffic near the all schools in the program. Goal 4: To inform residents about Safe Routes to School. 4A: To have school teams distribute safe Education routes maps to parents of all school children Encouragement in all schools involved in the project, accompanied by other explanatory literature. 4B: To disseminate information community- Education wide about walk-to-school programs and Encouragement benefits. Goal 5: To support and enhance the bicycle/pedestrian education effort currently in the district elementary schools. 5A: To provide a bicycle/pedestrian Education education training/workshop for district physical education teachers. 5B: To provide a trailer to move one fleet of Education bicycles from one school to another for bike education, and to provide for maintenance/upgrades of those bicycles. Goal 6: To evaluate the program. 6A: To collect evaluative information about Evaluation the ways in which children get to school for all participating schools. Goal 7: To provide some infrastructure improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- 7A: To install curb ramps and appropriate Engineering crossing facilities at all intersections which lack them in Priority zones 1 and 2 for each of the 7 schools. Number of students involved/affected: Each of the first 6 goals is intended to reach every elementary student. Every student is counted when we ask how they get to school in fall and spring. Every student gets handouts to take home and information about the prizes and incentives for walking or biking to school. Every student gets to participate in the "bigger" events....on International Walk to School day in the fall, and during Bike Walk Bus Week in the spring. The i h goal, providing for infrastructure improvements, will similarly reach or affect most students, as have infrastructure improvements over the past 3 years in those affected schools. Overall project guidance is provided by the Steering Group. A variety of other organizations play crucial roles. Please see Attachment C, pages 17-18, for more information. NON-INFRASTRUCTURE. I. THE SCHOOL TEAMS. The underlying strategy of Missoula's Safe Routes to School program is to empower local, school-based teams to implement activities which will result in more kids walking to school more often, safely. This requires several steps: 1. Create / organize the teams. This involves identifying local school leadership, typically through the Parent-Teacher Organization (or equivalent), and typically with the school's Family Resource Center specialist. It also involves the commitment of the school principal. A particular challenge is maintaining the membership of the teams - as kids move to middle schools, parents' interest moves with the kids, and parent volunteers tend to burn out. In 2010 - 2011, we will provide incentives to parents to participate on school teams. 2. Working with the teams to organize a slate of activities for the year. A "menu" of possible activities is included as Attachment B. Typically, this begins with International Walk to School Day in the fall - for which teams will orchestrate school-wide incentives. It concludes with the week~long Bike Walk Bus Week at the end of April, again with large efforts to reward kids for walking or biking during the week. In between these two end- points, activities include a weekly walking-incentive program ("Walkable Wednesdays" or "Footloose Fridays"), again with the teams providing incentives and rewards for both parents and kids involved in walking / biking to school. Teams also organize other activities of their own invention, suited to their own needs. One example from Russell School is selecting and training 5th grade students to be walking ---PAGE BREAK--- leaders. Teams utilize incentives and prizes for kids walking to school, for parents to volunteer to walk with kids, for teachers and staff to support the program. 3. Supporting teams efforts to distribute information to parents. They do this with flyers and bulletins sent home with kids, items in the school newsletters, principal's notices, posters at school, and the like. Information includes electronic access to the maps on the www.missoulawalks.org website; teams also have the same maps on their school computers so can reproduce just selected portions of the routes. 4. Getting teams to review the quality and condition of the walk-to-school routes they've identified. This is an on-the-ground examination of the routes, documenting presence or absence of sidewalks, condition of street crossings, traffic volumes, and so on. 5. Ultimately, encouraging teams to mobilize more parents and school personnel for improved physical facilities. Small improvements, like enhanced crossings or curb ramps, can be sometimes covered through Safe Routes to School grants. Major improvements like sidewalks require a much more extensive process, residents' support, and funding by adjacent property owners. II. ENFORCEMENT. As you can see in the attached data, by far the most common reason mentioned by parents for not letting their children walk to school is traffic - high speeds, drivers not yielding to pedestrians, and so on. Using SRTS grant funds, we get the police department to do extra patrol on streets adjacent to and near the elementary schools. This has been effective for the past two years, and we would like to continue doing it. The numbers of citations is part of the story; parents report that simply the visibility of the patrol cars more often makes a difference on driver behavior. III. COMMUNITY-WIDE EDUCATION. In addition to the information distributed to parents, teachers, and staff at each school by the school teams, we intend to use the mass media to remind all members of the community of the value of children walking to school. This will include some radio spots in the fall, and a full-page ad in the Missoulian. IV. BIKE/PED SAFETY TRAINING. In order to give elementary school kids bike and pedestrian safety training, fifteen years ago, we purchased a curriculum for physical education teachers to use in grades Kthrough 5. We also provided training for those teachers in how to use this curriculum, with the result that this teaching unit is a standard element in the PE curriculum. However, because most of those original trained teachers have retired or moved to other schools, we very much need to again train the current PE teachers in how to use this curriculum. Training will include a new/updated version of the curriculum. We are aiming at a 2-day training workshop in Fall, 2010. The curriculum focuses on ped safety in the early grades, adds in bike safety basics, and by 4th grade provides on-bike skills training. The outcome of this will be that all children in grades K ~ 5 in all Missoula elementary schools will get current training/education in bike/ped safety. ---PAGE BREAK--- A key factor in this education program is having 2 fleets of 16 bicycles which rotate among all the elementary schools. We also need to do some serious maintenance on one fleet, and purchase a trailer to move the 2nd fleet between schools. V. EXPANSION TO MIDDLE SCHOOLS. Numerous school team members and members of the Safe Routes Steering Group have pushed to start including middle schools. The unique challenge is that middle schools are not neighborhood-based; they draw from the attendance areas of 3 elementary schools. Many students live too far to walk. However, the national Safe Routes to School Partnership includes information about successful programs with middle schools. It's time for Missoula to include them too. We will begin by talking with principals, resource room staff people, and selected parents to determine what sort of incentives will work with middle school kids. We are budgeting funds in this grant for incentives and support for the middle school program. INFRASTRUCTURE. The first and most pressing need has been for kids to get across major streets safely. Thus, in our first three years, we targeted most critical crossing needs at or around the 7 elementary schools, and installed bulbouts (and related infrastructure) with federal SRTS funds. We also installed sidewalks through assessments to adjacent property owners. These most critical crossing needs are largely satisfied. C 3 2 ~ r; 2 2 ~ (1 ~ ~ 2 ~ 1 0 2 ~ ~ 2) 2 3 - 3 3 Now, we are doing a more systematic evaluation of walk-to-school infrastructure. The graphic illustrates this approach. The priorities are: the sidewalks and curb cuts surrounding the school, without crossing the street. just across the street from the school, including curb ramps on the opposite side of the street, appropriate markings, and sidewalks where needed. the sidewalks, ramps, and crossings for the first 3 blocks on the designated walk-to-school routes. sidewalks, crossings, and ramps on designated walk-to-school routes more than 3 blocks from school. ---PAGE BREAK--- Even with this approach, some additional needs have been expressed by school teams, principals, or other residents. The most frequently requested infrastructure improvement is sidewalks. In some neighborhoods, there are either none or very sporadic. However, SRTS funds are inadequate to build sidewalks. In FYll, we propose to complete all of the Priority 1 and Priority 2 needs for all 7 elementary schools involved in our safe routes program. While the Priority 1 and 2 needs are complete at 3 schools, they are not at 4 others. This project will include 16 curb ramps at Lewis and Clark, 5 curb ramps at Chief Charlo, 6 ramps at Lowell, and 3 ramps and a corner curb at Franklin. Please see the detailed drawings in Attachment D. Further, we propose to move a "flashing crossing light" approximately 1 block to the northwest, so it is located at a bulb-out crossing for Chief Charlo school. The light was installed 20 years ago when the subdivision was newly constructed and before it was certain where appropriate crossings of Hillview Way would be. In addition to SRTS funds, we anticipate using funds under Montana HB645 to install additional curb ramps in these Priority 1 and 2 areas. From the beginning, this effort has been driven by "the public" and continually involves the public. We receive concerns and comments consistently throughout the year from citizens, school personnel, city officials, and even students occasionally. Comments are compiled and fed into a review process by the Safe Routes to School Steering Group. The proposed activities above reflect this input. Frankly, what we have heard during the past year echoes what we heard during the several years of developing the safe routes program. Attachment C includes new input this fall, and minutes of meetings and other public processes from the previous four years. In the current year, we have had several meetings with various school teams, requested input from each of the school principals, consulted with the Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Board and the Safe Routes to School Steering Group, and collected comments from individual parents. Involvement of the public is crucial in another way than planning: implementation. City staff function as coordinators/facilitators/encouragers; the real work gets done by folks connected with each school- parents, teachers, family resource center staff, principals. When they are involved in planning the program, they are much more effective in implementing it. Attachment D includes the overall school attendance area map, and maps showing the affected elementary school areas along with drawings of proposed improvements. ---PAGE BREAK--- All infrastructure is specifically attentive to ADA requirements. Some thirty curb cuts/ramps will be constructed, which will complete sidewalks and curb ramps on both sides of the streets immediately surrounding 7 elementary schools. These will be done to standards with appropriate detectable warnings. In non-infrastructure activities, we expect school teams to reach out to students of all abilities and encourage them to participate. Attachment E includes the appropriate environmental certifications. We do in-classroom counts in fall and in spring to determine how kids get to school (by their own reporting). Two years ago we did a more elaborate counting system, involving both parent-reported counts and in-person adult counting of children as they arrived at school. Both of these methods established that the student self-report was accurate. ---PAGE BREAK--- II. BUDGET AND BUDGET NARRATIVE Non-Infrastructure. Item A (the non-infrastructure budget) is on the next page. The budget explanation, by project activity, is given here. , Activity Amount 1. The School Teams. $1000 per school is budgeted for student incentives $15,000 and educational materials for 7 elementary schools. An additional $500 is budgeted for each team to offer incentives to teachers to participate; another $500 is budgeted as an incentive to get more parent involvement. The total is $2000 per school team. In addition, $1000 is budgeted for inter- school competition/incentives. 2. Enforcement. $10,000 is budgeted for police hours for traffic $10,000 enforcement around schools. Note - this is in addition to the regular police patrol in these areas. 3. Community-wide education. $3000 is budgeted for radio ads (which are $ 6000 matched at least one-for-one by the stations). $3000 is also budgeted for a full-page Missoulian ad showing the variety of walk-to-school efforts in late fall. 4. Teacher training. $5000 is budgeted to contract with Journeys From $11,500 Home, to provide a 2-day workshop for up to 24 teachers and parent volunteers. $2000 is budgeted to help with the cost of substitute teachers. budgeted to do necessa~1';Daill{enance, long overdue, on one of ~~~2fl~~tso!1~~icycle?~Fin;lIl\~;3g0g.jsbudgeted for a second trailer to ""hciufbikes from scho(it;~choolf~r bike education with 4th and 5th graders, since there are customarily 2 fleets of bicycles in use at anyone time. 5..~xpansionto middle schools. $5000 is budgeted to provide incentives and $ 5000 encouragement to parents, staff, and teachers for walk-to-school activities at middle schools. Total non-infrastructure $47,500 ---PAGE BREAK--- IlemA Non-Infrastructure Budget (SRTS Application FY11) Other: $15,000 is budgeted for grants to the various elementary school teams (see budget narrative, activity 1, above). $4000 is budgeted as incentives to initiate work with middle schools (see budget narrative, activity 5, above). Show the total estimated project costs. If there is no cost in a particular account, indicate a zero amount. If unknown, indicate as "unknown." Minimum project size is $1,500. Project Phase Total Cost SRTS funds Additional funds (please explain below & identify source)* Promotion/Advertising $ 12,000 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 Printing (flyers, letters, etc) $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 0 Equipment $ 4,500 $ 4,500 $ 0 Educational Materials/Supplies $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Evaluation Materials $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Enforcement $ 20,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Training $ 7,000 $ 7,000 $ Contract Service (please explain below)** $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 Other {please explain below)*** $ 19,000 $ 19,000 $ Total cost $ 63,500 $ 47,509/ $ 16,000 *Note: No local funds are required for an SRTS award. However, given tMlimited funding available in this program, additional local funding is encouraged. Additional Funds and Funding Source Explanation: : $6000 in promotion/advertising is the minimum value of the matched/donated ads. I I I I: $10,000 is the value of the regular police officers patrol of school areas. I I I I I I I I 1 ~ Contract Service Explanation I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I 1 J End of Item A (SRTS Application FY11) ---PAGE BREAK--- Infrastructure. The infrastructure budget includes $74,900 for constructing curb ramps and those sidewalks essential at corners for curb ramps to be installed. Detail is shown in the spreadsheet on the next page, following which is the required ITEM B - the infrastructure budget. The costs for ramps at Lewis and Clark are $27,000; at Chief Charlo are $16,000; at Lowell are $23,200; and at Franklin are $8,700. In addition, a flashing school crossing light installed 20+ years ago on Hillview Way needs to be moved one block to the crossing - at which we constructed bulbouts in 2009. The cost for this will be $5000. ---PAGE BREAK--- 5-11 5-1 RB~ AT 20 SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL PH IV COST ETIMATES PROJECT 10-003 FRANKLIN TYPE OF PER RAMP NOOF REM NOOF REM REM REM REMjlNI I I, RAMP RAMP DESCRIPTION COST TOTAL COST RMPS CURB REMSW REM "A"rOTAL COST RMPS CURS SW ASPH CURB IN SW IN IN ASPH 1 11"l" 20 RAD 5-10' $3,200 $GADO 2 BO 400 $0 ! 0 0 oj 01 01 I 0 iTT' 20 RAD , 21 20 RAD 5-10' $13,4.0.9 4 80 $0 0 01 I 1 01 0 ttREF! l"A" 20 RAD 3 MID BLK CURBSIDE q)O( $7,200 6 90 450 $0 0 0 0, 0 01 1 0 #REF! !MID BLK CU I .:U.CS ENDING AT COR _~S2,OOO $0 $0 0 0 0 0, 01 0 UREF! CS ENDING sics TO BOUl20 RAO I $2,900 $0 o Ii $8,700 3 90 600 ~80l 90~01 i 180~~.9 BOUl $27;000 170 sse on $8,700 90 600 o 1801 90. 6001 01 180 PROG TOTAL $74,900 700 4,050 80 $1;400 $8,100 $2;4Dt TYPE OF APPROX PER CALC PER RAMP RAMP DESCRIPTION RAMP COST RAMP COST 1 20 RAO 5-10' $3,200 $3,186 1 $80 $400 3 <20 RAD >10' $2,400 52,390 1 $60 ! $300 4 <20 RAD 5-10' $2,700 $3,335 1 $60 $500 5 20 RAD 5-10' $3,350 $2,862 1 I S60f I 6 20 RAD >10" $4,700 $4,685 l' $1,051 ---PAGE BREAK--- Item B (SRTS Application FY11) Infrastructure Budget The budget is intended to show that the cost of the project is covered. Show the total estimated project costs. If there is no cost in a particular account, indicate a zero amount. If unknown, indicate as "unknown." Infrastructure projects should be larger than $10,000 and less than $250,000. Project Total project SRTS CTEP CTEP local Additional Phase cost Funds Federal Match Funds 100% Funds 13.42%* (please 86.58% identify source)** Preliminary $ $ $ $ $ EnQineerinQ Utility $ $ $ $ I Relocation RiQht of Way $ $ $ $ $ Construction $ 79,900 $ 79,900 $ $ $ Construction $ $ $ $ $ Engineering Other $ $ $ $ $ (please explain) Total $ $ $ $ $ Cost Note: If more detailed project specifications and estimates are available, please attach them. *While CTEP projects require a match, SRTS projects do not. Fill out the columns concerning CTEP only if you are applying for additional funding through CTEP. Additional funding sources and amount 1\ let Funding Source Amount If additional funding is included in the project's overall costs, please provide a source document as assurance that total project costs have been secured/committed. End of Item B (SRTS Application FY11) ---PAGE BREAK--- III. SIGNATURES Item C (SRTS Application FYl1) a. Reimbursement The Safe Routes to School Program is a reimbursable funding program, meaning that recipients of the funds will front the cost of the project and will be reimbursed during the course of the project. All costs submitted for reimbursement are subject to eligibility requirements. Any costs incurred before a project's authorization in writing are not eligible for reimbursement. Funding for the SRTS Program is flexible to encourage innovative solutions; however, applicants are advised that certain projects are ineligible. Ineligible projects include the following: Projects that do not specifically serve the stated purposes of the SRTS Program. e Recurring costs such as crossing guard salaries unless there are plans in place for alternative sources of funding to perpetuate the program in the future. • Projects that reorganize pick-up and drop-off primarily for the convenience of drives rather than to improve the safety of walking and bicycling for students. • Education programs that are primarily focused on bus safety. • Improvements to bus stops. b. Certifications and Assurances We, the undersigned: Submit this project to the Montana Department of Transportation (MDT) for approval of the project concept. e Assure MDT that the local government(s) or school district will maintain (or cause to be maintained) this project in a safe and serviceable condition and that the MDT will not be responsible for maintenance of this project. e Assure that all minority groups, as well as the general public within the appropriate jurisdiction, have been provided adequate opportunity to participate in the process of identifying and selecting this project for SRTS funding. • Understand the project costs in this proposal are preliminary estimates only and that actual final costs may be more than or less than those reflected herein. If there is any variance from the proposed cost, we are prepared to accommodate any additional SRTS requirements. 1& Understand SRTS payments will be reimbursed by MDT on a work-progress basis; i.e., no payments will be made for any work until it has been completed and proper documentation submitted to MDT. ---PAGE BREAK--- f> Understand because this is a Federal-aid project, it must conform to all federal and state laws and regulations pertaining to procedures for design, the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), rights-of-way, contract letting, and construction standards, including the proper and applicable payment of Federal-aid prevailing wage rates, Disadvantaged Business Enterprise (DBE) regulations, and Equal Employment Opportunity (EEO) contract compliance. We understand failure to meet these requirements may, by law or policy, render this project ineligible for SRTS funding. Oil SRTS is a Federal-aid program. The entire SRTS project must meet federal requirements regardless of funding source. f!I Understand the information contained herein indicates the general concepts of the project and does not constitute in any way a final plan for project implementation. s Understand there will be written agreements between MDT and the sponsor to complete certain activities, and the sponsor may not proceed with any activity to be funded with SRTS funds prior to written MDT approval. e Understand the sponsor is responsible for completing all phases of project development and implementation (except in some cases where SRTS projects may be included with a planned MDT highway project). Iil Understand that the sponsor will complete and submit quarterly progress reports. Understand that the sponsor will establish a regular or quarterly) reimbursement request schedule with the SRTS coordinator. Date I? c. Requires;t,Si Additional Partners/TiQ~ Atanypoint in the application process, when questions or comments arise, contact the Montana SRTS Coordinator or the Montana Bicycle/Pedestrian Coordinatorat (406) 444-9273. End. of Hem C (SRTS Application FY1.1.) ---PAGE BREAK--- IV. lETIERS Following are letters of support from the Superintendant of the Missoula School District, and the commitment to maintain facilities from the City's Public Works Director. We have received numerous expressions of support (from the Police Department, the Health Department, principals and some staff from most of the schools. However, because these people have been involved directly with our program efforts for several years, we felt it would be superfluous to ask them for written support. ---PAGE BREAK--- Alex P. Apostle, Ph.D Superintendent Missoula County Public Schools 215 South 6th West Missoula, MT 59801 728-2400 Ext. 1022 December 10, 2009 John Engen, Mayor, City of Missoula Phil Smith, Bicycle Pedestrian Program Manager, City of Missoula 435 Ryman Missoula, MT 59802 Dear John and Phil, I am happy to provide you with a letter of support for the Missoula Safe Routes to School Project. Missoula County Public Schools (MCPS) has eagerly participated in the Bike Walk Bus Week for the past nine years. The school district has also been a part of the Safe Routes to School project for the past five years. The Safe Routes to School project and Walking School buses have encouraged students to get to school under their own power in a safe manner. I see this grant as a means to continue improving a program that allows the opportunity for children to walk and bicycle to and from school safely in groups. This grant would again provide the funding necessary to increase the education of the children, their parents, and the community in the safest way to allow their child to bike/walk to school each day. It would also help provide a partnership with local law enforcement agencies. This gives students a chance to be more physically active, to practice safe pedestrian skills, and to learn more about their neighborhood environment. At the same time, Safe Routes to School intends physical improvements in neighborhoods to make walking a safe and enjoyable part of everyone's lives. As you are both well aware, MCPS has a long history of implementing successful programs within the Missoula Community. Both Missoula County Public Schools and the Missoula Community consider the safety of our children of the highest priority. This program provides an exciting opportunity to have MCPS and the Missoula Community work together to solve some of our pressing safety, transportation, environmental and health challenges for our youth through this Safe Routes to School grant. Sincerely, Alex P. Apostle Superintendent ---PAGE BREAK--- DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS I ENGINEERING DIVISION M{SSOULA 435 RYMAN' MISSOULA, MT 59802 - 4297 • (406) 552-6345 • FAX: (406) 327-2125 E-2009-0932 December 21, 2009 Safe Routes to School Coordinator Attn: Rail, Transit & Planning Division Montana Depmiment of Transportation P.O. Box 201001 Helena, Montana 59620-1001 Re: Missoula Safe Routes to School Grant Application To Whom It May Coneern: This letter is to serve as a statement of our eommitment to maintaining the facilities to be constructed with Safe Routes to School funding as described in this proposal, should the City of Missoula receive such funding. Further, this letter is to clearly identify that all the facilities proposed to be constructed with Safe Routes to School funding, as described in this proposal, are on publicly-owned property. Sincerely, /i R. Steven King, PE Public Works Director RSK/cg cc: Phil Smith, Bicycle/Pedestrian Program Manager AN EOUAL EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITY AFFIRMt,TIVE ACTION EMPLOYEI', M / F / V / H ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment A Documentation ofneed (6 pages) Numbers of children walking to school, and reasons from parents for not walking. Part 1: How kids get to school studies showing per cent of children walking to school in Missoula A 1999 survey at 4 Missoula schools depicts the number of kids traveling to school by various modes, shown by how far they live from school. The graph below shows for each of the schools, how many children lived within walkable distance (under 12 mile, or 12 mile to 1 mile), or outside a walkable distance (more than 1 mile). Per cent of children living within walking distance of 4 schools 1999 " " , , , " , 70 50 40 30 20 10 o IEJ unde r .5 mile 111 .5 - 1 mile Dover 1 mile o 3-D Column 4 Clearly, the largest group lives within easy walking distance (99 ofthe 241 surveys returned). Of these 99, less than halfregularly walk to school (41 while an astonishing 34% never walk, as the next chart shows. Per cent of children living within % mile of school who walk to school 1999 never walk walk sometimes o walk usually 24% ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment A At Dickinson, Lewis and Clark, and Meadow Hill, only one-third who lived within ready walking distance walked regularly (4-5 times per week). At Paxson, the figure is over 50%. The share of children living within easy biking distance who actually bike to school regularly is negligible. More recent surveys from February 2003 at Lowell and Franklin elementary schools show that a significant number ofkids did not walk to school even though they lived close enough to walk (note - individual numbers don't add to the total because respondents answered more than one choice): 64 total surveys o Of 25 kids living within half a mile: III 16 walked to school 4-5 days per week (9 did not) III 12 drove to school 4-5 days per week o Of 27 living between half and one mile: III 1 walked to school 4-5 days per week (17 did not) 21 mile drove to school 4-5 days per week How many walk, by how far they live 20 15 10 5 o walk II don't walk Live within .5 mile Live.5 to 1 mile A separate survey at Russell School in fall, 2003, was more careful in defining walkable distance: Walkable (50 kids) is: under 3 blocks for kindergarten, 1 St, 2nd, 3rd grades, and up to 6 blocks for grades 4 and 5. Mavbe walkable (46 kids) is: from 3 to 6 blocks for grade 3, and more than 6 blocks for grades 4 and 5. Too far to walk (94 kids) is: More than 3 blocks for grades K - 2, more than 6 blocks for grade 3, and considerably more than 6 blocks for grades 4 and 5. In the charts below (next page), note the relatively high number of children who live within a walkable distance but never walk and the number who live too far to walk yet do walk. 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Within Walkable Distance Attachment A Per cent of Russell School children who walk to school, by distance from school 2003 Within Maybe Walkable Distance I£illwalk at least sometimes III Never walk I3l walk at least sometimes mJJ Never walk Too Far to Walk I3l walk at least sometimes mJJ Never walk In yet another survey, in Fall, 2004, kids in grades I - 5 at Rattlesnake Elementary indicated how they got to school and from school on each of six days in a I-month period. Of those respondents living in the Rattlesnake, 38% walked or biked to school on the survey day, and 44% walked home. The remainder rode the bus or was driven. In each grade, a larger per cent walked to home in the afternoon than walked to school in the morning. And, as might be expected, the share who walked or biked increased as the age increased. For example, 67% of sth graders walked or biked to school on survey day compared to 14% of 1st graders. Finally, a larger survey did 110t distinf,'Uish distance from school, but only noted travel mode. The Missoula Elementary School Transportation Survey (September 1997) reveals an average ofonly 37% of elementary school age children walked or biked to school. Data is shown in the following chart. 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- 90 80 70 60 III OJ 50 111., OJ l: 40 OJ 0. Missoula Elementary School Transportation Survey Results per cent of children traveling by each mode o Unknown Schools 5 Attachment A ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment A Part 2 - Parents perceptions of safety for their kids walking to school. In 1999 we surveyed parents at 4 schools: Paxson, Lewis and Clark, Dickinson, and Meadow Hill. Responses were sorted by distance from school. At Paxson, 54 of the 56 respondents lived within 1 mile of school (walking distance). At Lewis and Clark, 48 of 74 respondents lived within 1 mile. We asked parents to indicate the concerns they had about their child walking to school. Shown are the numbers of parents who indicated "it worries me a lot" or "I am somewhat concerned". Paxson Lewis and Dickinson MeadowUill Clark # ofrespondents 56 74 70 i Live within Yi 37 23 33 mile Live within 1 17 25 15 mile CONCERNS Children cross 30 24 26 11 the street mid- block Kids walk in the 22 20 20 10 street Personal 30 26 27 10 security/threats from ~trangers Intersection 30 23 22 9 crossings seem dangerous Cars drive 38 29 23 8 dangerously at intersections Cars drive a little 40 28 27 10 too fast sometimes Cars drive much 31 25 25 11 too fast, often Clearly, these data indicate a significant parent concern about safety - traffic as well as personal security. In 2003 we conducted a similar survey at Franklin and Lowell school, with similar results. Results were repOlied differently than in 1999. In this case, we simply noted the top responses. 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment A At Franklin School, 44 surveys were returned; at Lowell 20 were returned. We tallied the top concerns parents indicated about their child(ren) walking to school. Concern # of responses at Franklin # of responses at Lowell Cars drive a little too fast sometimes 19 11 Cars drive much too fast often 18 11 Cars drive dangerously at 17 9 I intersections Kids walk in the streets 13 5 Personal security/threat from 13 10 strangers No crossing guards 7 8 Finally, in 2004 we asked parents at Rattlesnake Elementary School to complete a much shorter survey. Although the data is not as detailed as that from previous surveys, the results are similar. Question 1 asked "Did you have room to walk?" Of32 responses, 19 indicated some problems, including no or incomplete sidewalks, and "too much traffic." For Question 2, "Was it easy to cross streets?" 14 respondents indicated some problems, with comments like "traffic does not stop", "people do not stop," and "traffic is fast. Comments for Question 3, "Did drivers behave well?" were also illustrative: "Cars pass on the shoulder - I saw a child almost hit by a passing car right across from the school. It, "they drive too fast", and Drivers on Rattlesnake are not so considerate." With the earlier surveys, we also asked parents to indicate which of several conditions would get them to allow their children to walk or bike to school more. Most common responses were "My children went to school with an adult," My children went to school with other children," and "School speed zones were strictly enforced." There were also many responses "We lived closer to school", reflecting the increasing sprawl in Missollla. 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B Project activities for a school team. 1. Supporting individual school activities. The project supports teams created at each of the seven schools currently involved with our SR2S program. Each school team develops its own program of activities, which will fall in the five areas below. Each team is also encouraged to develop active partnerships - an extensive range of collaborating organizations including law enforcement, health agencies, church associations, local govemment, schools and PTAs. These will parallel the partnerships created by the city-wide Steering Group. Further, each team will be expected to reach out to disadvantaged families, to determine ifthere are any walk-to-school needs unique to this population, and to assure that the efforts immediately below are also responsive to this population. MAPPING The desired map is an aerial photo of each school's attendance area, showing where the kids live, where risks to kids' walking exist, and preferable routes to school. Mapping involves: Cl\ Identifying routes - involving parents, kids, and school personnel 1& Computerized maps -Maps now exist for the seven schools. School teams have some limited ability to add information to the map, print out any of the various layers (see description in budget narrative above), and make copies for distribution to children and parents. 9 Route evaluations and problem identification - using our checklist to determine the condition of each route block by block, identifying conditions which need improvement, and including this information on a map. This detailed route evaluation information will also be the basis for further infrastructure improvements. EDUCATION @ Using maps - maps developed for each school attendance area (above) can be reproduced and distributed to kids and parents. fill Flyers, brochures - and other printed material describing Safe Routes to School and encouraging parents and kids to walk to school e Public media - radio, television, news media will be helpful in increasing community-wide awareness of the benefits of walking to school III In-classroom ~ducational units, including use of the counts of how kids get to school III Bicycle and pedestrian safety programs III Political leadership local elected officials, elected school board members, and chief administrators of city govemment, the school district, and individual schools helping to carry the message to parents. 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment B, p. 2 ENCOURAGEMENT/INCENTIVES III Using maps - maps developed for each school attendance area (above) can be reproduced and distributed to kids and parents. • Incentives for students- individual schools provide incentives, rewards, and recognition, from shoe laces and other "small stuff' to having a raffle for a new bicycle to encourage children to participate in walking to school. III Incentives for parents and school staff- including recognition and rewards for getting children to walk or bike to school. WALKING ACTIVITIES , III WSB - walking school buses have been successful for many years in Missoula. These can be expanded to weekly or even daily schedules in all schools, to cover "horne from school" as well as to school, and to reach more parts of the school attendance area. III Walkable Wednesdays, Footloose Fridays or other regular parent/student walk-to- school programs. • Other special activities such as Walk to School Day in October or Bike Walk Bus Week in the spring. e Individual parent efforts such as walking with children to school or until they join in a walking school bus " Remote drop off- for children who live too far to walk, designating a parking lot away from the school to which parents can drive their children; from there, kids walk in a group to school. SAFETY ENHANCEMENTS 1& Crossing guards - there are currently some adults serving as crossing guards and key locations; more are needed. III Other parent actions -residents posting a "safe house" sign in house window, and standing on selected comers to serve as additional "eyes and ears" on kids' walking to school III Providing guidance to law enforcement on areas needing attention e Calling for specific detailed safety improvements to infrastructure, such as bulbouts, refuge islands, or sidewalks. 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment C Public involvement efforts for this project. FALL 2009 SUMMARY OF INPUT WHAT NEEDS THE SRTS PROGRAM SHOULD ADDRESS Rattlesnake (meeting with SR2S team) Digital speed readers on RS Drive closer to school Flashing light ...school zone, at Pineview More signs along the routes Use community ed money to let people know about the map Send the map home with kids Subsidize sidewalk installation Paxson: From Bob Jaffe: ramps on the south side of Beckwith along the walk to school route Chief Charlo (meeting with their SR2S team) Sidewalks on 23rd Improve the trail in Moose Can Gully Painted crosswalk across 55th where the 24th street trail connects Connect the Peery Park Trail to 23rd and to Hillview Way Need painted crosswalks on 55th and 23rd both the west and north side Address concerns about high school kids bus pickup being in the 55th/23 rd/HiIlview triangle Continue law enforcement, small grants. Lowell (meeting with their SR2S team) Sidewalks, on all comers of Lowell On Shakespeare south of Sherwood Crosswalk painted, signed across Toole at Hawthorne Curb ramps all along the routes Address illegal parking with parent drop-off on both Phillips and Sherwood Continue law enforcement and small grants. Franklin (meeting oftheir SR2S team) Need sidewalks on routes, especially on Grant south of the school Lewis and Clark (from Doug Harby) Protect the crosswalk across Park at Mary (from principal) Continue support ofprograms BWBW, WSB, maps printing Russell (from Doug Harby) Sidewalk gaps on McDonald and on Ernst (from the principal): renovate the drop-off area in front of school to reduce threat of kids being hit by cars General: 10 ---PAGE BREAK--- Renovate all ramps which need it Work on the priorities per the chart on all elementary schools, then to middle schools Comments solicited bye-mail from all school teams and all principals and all schools Family Resource Center staff. In-person meeting with teams at Chief Charlo, Lowell, Rattlesnake. Report from team meeting at Franklin. In person meeting with reps of Rattlesnake, Franklin, Paxson, Lewis and Clark, Russell on 12-1-09. Comments solicited from city engineer and public works director and city construction projects manager. 2010 - 2011 Grant ideas Consolidation: Non-infrastructure 1. Continue the small grants to schools...definite yes. 2. Continue suppOliing increased law enforcement. 3. Try to do some broader community education, but various ideas about what: billboards, radio, educate the larger public about the maps etc Infrastructure 1. Sidewalk help 2. Curb cuts/ramps ....look at entire system starting at schools and working outward 3. Painting crosswalks...Lowell, Chief Charlo 4. Improve parent drop-off areas at Russell and Lowell. 5. Digital Speed Readout sign on Rattlesnake 6. Flashing light at Pineview (Rattlesnake) 7. Trail connections in Chief Charlo area 8. Ramps along the Beckwith route 9. Protect crosswalk on Park at Mary with bulbouts ~.OlO - 2015: directions Very limited ideas and input on this longer-range topic. Three general comments: 1. Keep up the grants to schools and law enforcement with any schools involved 2. Expand to middle schools which are fed by Missoula elementary schools 3. Figure out how to use SR2S money to help with sidewalks 4. See the proposed prioritization scheme, stmiing at the school and working outward 11 ---PAGE BREAK--- SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL MISSOULA STEERING GROUP Meeting October 28, 2009 1. Present: Rob Henthorn (Russell School), Erin Scott (City Office of Neighborhoods, Community Forum), Desirae Ware (The University of Montana Rural Institute: Center for Excellence in Disability Education), Jessie Nichols (Franklin School team), Greg Robertson (Russell School team), Scott Bixler (School Board), John Weber (Missoula Police), Brenna Vestre (Chief Charlo team), Melissa Moss Larson (Rattlesnake School team), Mary McCourt (Health Department), Robin Spaziani (Bike Ped Board), Phil Condon (Bike Ped Board), Phil Smith (Bike Ped Office). 2. Review: Smith reviewed the past 5 years of history, including the past 2 years of activity since this Steering Group last met. A summary of his report is attached. 3. Forward: given the progress made so far, and the needs yet ahead, members expressed what they felt would be desirable results ofthe walk-to-school effort over the next five years. Individual comments are at the end of these notes. Here is a summary: SYNOPSIS OF 5-YEAR DIRECTIONS 1. Include both the middle schools and outlying other districts (Target Range, Hellgate etc) 2. Be sure the walking infrastructure (sidewalks, curb cuts, crossings) is present, continuous, in good condition, and broaden the sidewalk funding resources. 3. Actively include more of the community: school board, neighborhood councils, more parents to keep the teams renewed 4. Lower speed limits in school zones 5. Improve the safety on the walking routes with safe "safe houses" and more parents walking with the kids. 6. Have less frequent bus stops with kids walking more to the bus. 7. Continue the incentives and rewards, and tracking how kids get to school (evaluation). 4. Specifics: what would you like to see done next year, included in our grant application for the 2010--2011 year? SYNOPSIS OF I-YEAR ACTIVITIES 1. Do some sidewalk work. Use SR2S grant to leverage other sidewalk funding. Evaluate the physical condition and continuity of all of the walk-to-school routes. 2. Flashing yellow lights at crossings of major streets. 3. Incentives: keep the small grants, develop competition between the schools, have a raffle in each school. 4. Continue the radio ads and PSAs, in the morning during the drive to work/school. 12 ---PAGE BREAK--- 5. Keep up the added law enforcement for traffic around schools. 6. Develop a way for kids to log in on a website (maybe the Way to Go website) 7. Monitor changes in bus ridership. 5. Each school team is asked to discuss what it would like in next year's grant - both infrastructure and non-infrastructure. This discussion could include the PTA/PTO. Smith will attend the Chief Charlo PTO on Monday, Nov. 2, at 6:30. Smith will follow up specific ideas with the person who offered it. He needs to have the grant written by the middle of December so wants team input soon. The group set its next meeting for Wednesday, December 2, at 3:30 pm. ADJOURNED 5-year direction comments. Weber: add the middle schools, especially POlier. Middle-school age kids are more likely to walk to school, and more able. Ware: Must have walking facilities (sidewalks) in good condition. Moss Larson: More sidewalks where there are none currently. Have continuous sidewalks on all the routes to school. Vestre: Get sidewalks on 23rd. Nichols: While all ofJohnson now has sidewalks, other important route streets need them, like Eaton. Condon: We need another way to fund sidewalks. Bixler: Can we use our safe routes grant money to help subsidize sidewalks? McCourt: looking at all ofthe schools here, can we bring all ofthem up to the level of the best one? McCourt: Would like reduced speeds, 20mph or less, around all schools (1/2 mile). Bixler: Keep the school board actively informed about the program. Ware: Maintain, expand full program ofincentives for kids and parents. Ware: Develop systems to track how kids get to school- use for both incentives and evaluation. Nichols: Consider the elementary schools as feeder schools to the middle schools; kids who got into walking in elementary can carry that with them as middle school students. Condon: some of the middle school kids now have kids who staried walking as elementary students. Bixler: Include outlying elementaries: Bonner, Target Range, de Smet, Hellgate, maybe Clinton. Smith: would like to see evidence throughout the community that walking to school is the norm. Moss Larson: Have bus pickup points less frequent; kids can walk another block or too. Smith: would like to see teams more readily renewed at each school, and have the program institutionalized. 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- Bixler: The school superintendent has led the district in setting five goals, the first of which is academic. To get school system buy-in, the program must relate to at least I of the 5 goals. Weber: More safe houses. Vestre: Need safe house people to be fingerprinted and background-checked. Bixler: Can we resume the RAD kids (kids handling of strangers) training? Scott: Involve the neighborhood councils. Next I-year activities comments. Robertson: infrastructure. Get the City to put priority on using federal aid money for safe routes to school sidewalks - say within 1/2 mile of school. Ware: Evaluate the physical conditions of all existing routes to detennine needs and priorities. Henthorn: would like more of the flashing school zone lights. Robertson: More of the electronic speed read-out signs. Nichols, Henthorn, Robertson: keep doing the small grants. Keep the amount at least the $1500 it is now. Nichols: would like some competition between schools, comparable to the YMCA fun run. Bixler: Hire a monitoring service to track bus ridership, to see if it goes down as more people walk and bike. Bixler: concentrate the radio ads during the drive-to-work (school) time in early spring. All: generally not too enthused about the radio ads. Do free Public Service Announcements encouraging people to think about walking (not safe behavior ads). McCourt, Bixler: keep the ads. They are important to continue reminding the public about the need for kids to walk. McCourt: do walk-to-school events which get TV news coverage. Scott: do a kids component on the website. Ware: do a kids school raffle as part of walking to school during Bike Walk Bus Week. All: Maintain the law enforcement attention to traffic near schools. 14 ---PAGE BREAK--- PRIOR TO FALL, 2009. From its earliest stages, this has been an open public-process project. Ten years ago, when we first started organizing walking school buses, key individuals at each school actively recruited participation by parents and other members of their "public". Flyers and posters were widely distributed; notices were sent home with every child. This general process has been true for all ofour schools, for both "Walk to School Day" every fall, and during Bike Walk Bus Week every spring. Participation and ideas have been widely solicited for many years. The first safe route mapping project, at Russell School, began with a classroom activity and rapidly spread to appeal to all parents. The Family Resource Center helped with distribution ofposters and flyers; tables were set up at school open houses. Again, ideas and participation were widely solicited. Key at every school is the Family Resource Center (FRC), whose function is to increase participation ofparents in the school. Over several years, the FRC staffhave recruited parents, solicited comments, involved parents in walking activities, and generated numerous comments about how to improve walking to school. The activities proposed under this grant are the result ofinput and participation of these people over many years. More specifically, e-mails with building principals and meetings with the "team" at various schools has given us more input. Particularly, teams at Lewis and Clark, Paxson, and Rattlesnake have discussed how to improve routes to school-including expanding the team in the context ofthis grant. The project is structured to give the team at each school the capability of implementing activities which are targeted to their own populations. The FRCs have the ability, and will be expected to specifically reach out to disadvantaged families. Especially, Franklin and Lowell School are included because they have the highest percent oflow-income families. Traditionally, we have had the most difficulty getting parents involved here; with this b'fant, the effort will be bolstered. Further, all schools have a significant number oflow income families, evidenced by the number offree and reduced lunches (see General Information Question 4 table). Clearly, even though some schools don't meet the threshold for being a Title 1 school, they have a sizable lower income population. Over the past 10 years, there have been innumerable meetings on the subject ofhow kids get to school safely - with PTA groups, parents and staffin Family Resource Centers, 15 ---PAGE BREAK--- special projects like the parents open house at Russell School in fall 2004. Many meetings have involved staff from the city Bicycle Pedestrian Office; many have been just between the parents and staff working to establish a walking school bus. At very few of the meetings were minutes kept. We have had walking school buses and other incentive programs since 1998; all of them required considerable parent and community involvement. In 2005 we began organizing a city-wide Safe Routes to School Steering Group to provide coordination among and support for all of the individual school efforts. Minutes of most of the meetings of that Steering Group are attached, along with other evidence of having solicited input directly. However, the Steering Group includes many years of input into the question of "what constitutes a safe route to school." Surveys ofparents have been conducted; data from them is also included above. Input for this current grant has been solicited on the basis of a long-established relationship with parents and the principals at the seven schools, via e-mails, phone calls, and personal visits. We believe that the teams at each school are the functional leadership for this project. We have called on them for guidance for this application. There is one exception: we are proposing to include Cold Springs Elementary into the program next year. The principal has been less than enthusiastic in past years; still, the need to encourage children to walk more remains. We are being a little bit "directive" with this school, and will seek to develop active interest there. One indication ofpublic involvement is the role played by the many partners in the project. They are as follows. The following organizations have formally endorsed the Safe Routes to School concept; most have designated a person to participate actively on our Safe Routes Steering Group: Missoula City Council District 1 School Board Mayor John Engen Missoula Police Department Missoula Bicycle Pedestrian Advisory Board School principals Karen Allen Roberta Stengel Cindy Christensen Mike Williams Russ Lodge Jerry Seidensticker School PTAs at Lewis and Clark Russell Lowell School School of Education at University of Montana Missoula City County Health Department St. Patrick Hospital Missoula Central Labor Council Missoula Downtown Association Missoula Community Forum (association of neighborhood councils) Missoula Ministerial Association Adventure Cycling Association Beach Transportation 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- The project is managed by the Bicycle Pedestrian Program Manager for the City of Missoula. This office provides some staff for outreach to the various schools, help with mapping projects, and support to school teams. Other roles: • The Health Promotion Manager at the City County Health Department similarly provides staff time in organizing and supporting school teams, coordinating work of the SR2S Steeling Group, and encouraging involvement ofother health organizations. • The Division of Educational and Research Service in the School of Education at the University of Montana has provided computerized mapping capability, which served to get us started doing mapping for all the elementary schools. • Principals at each of the schools actively support walk-to-school activities oftheir staff and PTA groups. • Some teachers and the Family Resource Center staff at each school work directly with parents and children, helping them find and use safe routes, helping organize walking school buses, assisting in distribution ofbrochures, pamphlets, and maps, coordinating incentives programs for children. In the past, some teachers have involved their classroom in evaluating routes to school. • Parents are involved as walking school bus "drivers", members ofthe team at each school and thereby helping to define the routes and define the education/encouragement programs, participating in operation of incentive programs, and helping to identify improvements needed on the routes. e Students are the centerpiece of the entire SR2S program: they are the walkers and bikers to school. They will participate on the school teams, and will help with both mapping and identification of conditions on each route to school. • Law enforcement is present on the streets when children are going to school; in addition, the police department has School Resource Officers which work in and near schools. If funded, this grant will again make possible a noticeable improvement in law enforcement presence at key intersections (crossings) and will help control speeding on streets near schools. In addition, law enforcement is a participant in the SR2S Steering Group. e City elementary schools periodically have traffic crossing guards; these will continue. lfl City of Missoula Public Works Department has a Master Sidewalk Plan which includes priorities on major streets going to public schools. Sidewalk installation is a complex and sometimes political process, with the costs typically billed to the adjacent property owners. Over the next several years, some sidewalks in the vicinity of our target schools will be installed, although not using federal SR2S funding. Next are a selected letters, memos, and minutes ofmeetings. 17