Document Moscow_doc_6b7c30b09c

STATE/LOCAL AGREEMENT (DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION) PROJECT NO. A020(17l) PARADISE PATH UNDERPASS & MULTIMODAL EXT, CITY OF MOSCOW LATAH COUNTY KEY NO. 20172 PARTIES Y-L fliiIJF.MF.NT is made and enten:d into this (e dny of , by and between the IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARENTthefeaftijthe State, and the CITY OF MOSCOW, acting by and through its Mayor and City Council, hereafter called the Sponsor. PURPOSE The Sponsor has requested funding under the Transportation Alternatives (TAP) Program as detailed in the project Application, a copy of which is attached as Exhibit A. The purpose of this Agreement is to set out the tenns and conditions necessary to obtain Federal-aid participation in the work. The Sponsor acknowledges that this Agreement covers a project wherein federal-aid funds will be allocated, and Sponsor will comply with the requirements of 23 U.S.C. §313, 23 CFR §635.410, and 28 CFR Part II. NOTE: The Sponsor is responsible for complying with all project requirements and project administration procedures outlined in the Transportation Alternatives Program Manual available at http://apps.itd.idaho.gov/apps/mnuals/nu111ua1sonline.html . Since certain functions under this Agreement are to be performed by the State, involving the expenditure of funds, and since the State can only pay for work associated with the State Highway System, the Sponsor is fully responsible for all costs related to the project for work off the State Highway System. Authority for this Agreement is established by Section 40-317 of the Idaho Code. The Parties agree as follows: SECTION I. GENERAL I. This Agreement is entered into for the purpose of complying with certain provisions of the Federal-Aid Highway Act, in obtaining federal participation in the design and construction of the project. .\greement No le {a i 9 State/Local Agraemanl Paradise Path Upass & Mullimodal Ext Key No. 20172 2-D\{-D37 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Federal participation in the costs of the project will be governed by the applicable sections of Title 23 U.S. Code (Highways) and rules and regulations prescribed or promulgated by the Federal Highway Administration, including, but not limited to, the requirements of23 U.S.C. §313, 23 CFR §635.410, and 28 CFR Part II. 3. Funds owed by the Sponsor shall be remitted to the State through the ITD payment portal at: httv.-;:/kums.itd.idalw.govll'llYl1'V. 4. Federal participation in the project is at the rate of 92.66%; local participation is 7.34%. The maximum Federal-aid for this project is $499,789.51. 5. Scheduled funding for this project is listed in the approved Idaho Transportation Investment Program, and subsequent revisions. Current estimated funding is as follows: a. Project Development - $72,400 • (PE-$10,860, PC-$61,540) b. Construction Engineering - $83,260 • (CE-$10,860, CC-$72,400) c. Construction - 5383, 720 d. Total Estimated Project Costs - $539,380 6. The Sponsor's match for this project will be provided as follows: a. Cash in the amount of 7.34 percent of the entire project (cuJTently $39,590.49); 7. This project shall be designed to State Standards as defined in the current version of the Idaho Transportation Department's Roadway Design Manual, or as subsequently revised. The current version of the Roadway Design Manual can be viewed at the following web site: htt1>://itd.idnho.gov/manuals/MonualsOnline.hhn. SECTION II. That the Sponsor shall: 1. Provide a funding match of 7.34% of the Total Estimated Project Costs of $539,380, and assume responsibility for all costs of the project over and above the $499,789.51 federal-aid limit. 2. Pay to the State the sum of THREE THOUSAND NINE HUNDRED FIFTY NINE DOLLARS AND FIVE CENTS ($3,959.05), estimated to be the total expense to the State for this project. This amount will be applied towards the Sponsor's match. Upon project completion, if the estimated expense does not reflect the true cost of the work performed by the State, the Sponsor shall remit to the State the additional sum needed to cover the actual costs incurred by the State. 2 Ststell..ocsf Paradise Path Upsss & Multlmodaf Ext Kay No. 20172 ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. With the assistance of the State, secure the services of a consultant to design the project, and provide a copy of the project plans, specifications and estimate to the State for review and approval. 4. Before advertisement for bids, provide to the State a certification that all rights­ of-way, easements, pennits, materials sources, and agreements necessary for the construction and maintenance of the project have been acquired. The Sponsor will also certify that the contract proposal includes FHWA Form 1273 (Federal­ aid Contract Provisions), and will provide an environmental determination in accordance with 23CFR 771. 117. 5. Before advertisement for bids, provide to the State for review and approval a copy of the Contract Proposal fonn, Notice to Contractors, and construction plans, specifications and estimate. After the project is advertised for bids, provide the State with a copy of the bidding documents. 6. Advertise for the construction of the project, open bids, prepare a contract estimate of cost based on the successful low bid in accordance with State laws on procurement procedures for local governments, and request State concurrence prior to award. 7. Award a contract for construction of the project based on the successful low bid, and provide the State a copy of the contract. 8. During construction of the project, Sponsor will provide a project manager and staff to administer and inspect the project, and to provide inspection diaries and support to the State's Engineer. The individuals who will be perfonning inspection or certifying the samp1ing and testing results of any materials must be qualified in the appropriate inspector/sampler/tester area as identified in Memo 17B in the Transportation Alternatives Program Manual. 9. The Sponsor shall prepare all and final contract estimates and change orders, and submit all major change orders to the State for approval. During the life of the construction contract, prior approval of the State wilJ be obtained if it is necessary to deviate from the plans and specifications to such a degree that the nature of the completed work is significantly changed. 1 O. In cooperation with the State, establish 1111d cause to be maintained all construction traffic controls deemed necessary to best serve the public interests and to expedite the work in accordance with the MUTCD. 11. At no cost to the federal-share, cause to be rep,1aced to original, equal or better condition any existing pavement, regulatory signs, and other similar items damaged as a result of the contractor's operation, except as hereafter stated as obligations of the State. 3 StateA.oca/ Agreement Paradise Path Upass & Mulllmoda/ Ext Key No. 2CJ172 ---PAGE BREAK--- 12. During design and construction of the project, be responsible for payment of all invoices for work performed on the project. The Sponsor will provide invoices, and proof of payment of same, to the State for reimbursement of the federal-aid share, up to a maximum of $499,789.51. 13. Maintain all project records, including source documentation for all expenditures for a period of three years from the date of final acceptance. Provide the State an electronic copy of these documents and records upon completion of the project. If any litigation, claim, negotiation, or audit has been started before expiration of the three-year period, the records shall be retained until completion of the action and resolution of all issues that arise from it. l4. Maintain the project upon completion to the satisfaction of the State. Such maintenance includes, but is not limited to, preservation of the pathway as is necessary for its safe and efficient utilization. Failure to maintain the project in a satisfactory manner will jeopardize the future allotment of federal-aid highway funds for projects within the Sponsor's jurisdiction. l5. Comply with Exhibit B, Title 49 CFR, Part 21, attached hereto and made a part hereof. 16. Comply with all other applicable State and Federal regulations. 17. To the extent pennitted by Idaho law and as provided by the Idaho Tort Claims Act, indemnify, save hannless the State, regardless of outcome, from the expenses of and against suits, actions, claims or losses of every kind, nature and description, including costs, expenses and attorney fees that may be incurred by reason of any act or omission, neglect or misconduct of the Sponsor or its consultant in the design, construction and maintenance of the work which is the subject of this Agreement, or Sponsor's failure to comply with any state or federal statute, law, regulation or rule. Nothing contained herein shall be deemed to constitute a waiver of the State's sovereign immunity, which immunity is hereby expressly reserved. SECTION 111:. That the State shall: 1. Enter into an Aareement with the Federal Highway Administration covering the federal government's pro rata share of design and construction costs, up to a maximum of$499,789.Sl. 2. Assist in the selection of a Consultant, negotiate, and furnish the Agreement for Consultant Services and any supplements thereto, to be used between the Sponsor and Consultant on this project. 3. Review and approve the project plans and specifications. 4 State/Local Agre6msnt Paradise Path Upass & Multlmodal Ext Kay No. 20172 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Authorize the Sponsor to administer the project and make any necessary changes and decisions within the general scope of the plans and specifications. 5. Appoint the Local Highway Technical Assistance Council (LHTAC) as the contract administrator for the State. 6. Designate a resident engineer and other personnel, as the State deems necessary, to supervise construction in accordance with the plans, specifications and estimates in the manner required by applicable state and federal regulations. Review for approval all major change orders submitted by the Sponsor, and conduct a final inspection of the project when completed. 7. Upon receipt of invoices from the Sponsor, submit same to the Federal Highway Administration for reimbursement at the federal-aid participation rate of 92.66%, up to a maximum of$499,789.51. 8. Maintain complete accounts of all project funds received and disbursed, which accounting wilt detennine the final project costs. 9. Cooperate with the Sponsor in selection and designation of suitable construction traffic control during project construction. SECTION IV. Both Parties agree as follows: 1. Federal participation is contingent upon ultimate completion of the project. If for any reason the project is removed from the program without beina completed, then the Sponsor shall be responsible for One Hundred Percent (100%) of all project costs, and shall pay back to the State all costs previously reimbursed. If the Sponsor 's deposit exceeds project costs, then the State shall return the unspent balance to the Sponsor. 2. Sufficient Approprjotjon. It is understood and agreed that the State is a governmental agency, and this Agreement shalt in no way be construed so as to bind or obligate the State beyond the term of any particular appropriation of funds by the Federal Government or the State Legislature as may exist from time to time. The State reserves the right to tenninate this Agreement if, in its sole judgment, the Federal Government or the legislature of the State of Idaho fails, neglects or refuses to appropriate sufficient funds as may be required for the State to continue payments. Any such tennination shall take effect immediately upon notice and be otherwise effective as provided in this Agreement. 3. All infonnation, regulatory and warning signs, pavement or other markings, traffic signals required, the cost of which is not provided for in the plans and estimates, must be erected at the sole expense of the Sponsor upon the completion of the project. 5 Slste/Locaf Agreement Paradise Path Upsss & Mult/mod11/ Ext Key No. 20172 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. The location, fonn and character of all signs, markings and signals installed on the project, initially or in the future, shall be in confonnity with the Manual of Unifonn Traffic Control D» as adopted by the State. S. This Agreement shall become effective on the first day mentioned above, and shall remain in fu]J force and effect until amended or replaced upon mutual consent of the State and the Sponsor. EXECUTION This Agreement is executed for the State by its Engineering Services Division Administrator, and executed for the Sponsor by the Mayor, attested to by th\ City Clerk, with the imprinted Corporate Seal of the City of Moscow. (SEAL) · . · . ( - • By reĒarlspecial meeting· : : · · on‚đl1 · Reviewed by FS: ML 2-10-17 hm:20l 72 SLA.docx Engineering Services Division Administrator CITY OF MOSCOW TMENT 6 Statell.ocal Af}fffment Paradfse Path Upass & Multlmodal Ext Key No. 20172 ---PAGE BREAK--- RESOLUTION NO. 2017 - 06 A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY OF MOSCOW, IDAHO, A MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF THE STATE OF IDAHO, TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT FOR PROJECT DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF PARADISE PATH UNDERPASS AND MULTIMODAL EXTENSION; PROVIDING THAT THIS RESOLUTION SHALL BE IN EFFECT UPON ITS PASSAGE AND APPROVAL. WHEREAS, the Idaho Transportation Department (hereinafter "ITD") has submitted a State/Local Agreement for Project No. A020(172), Paradise Path Underpass & Multimodal Extension, Latah County, Key No. 20172 (hereinafter "Agreement") stating obligations oflTD and the City of Moscow (hereinafter "City") for the design and construction of a highway underpass and multimodal pathway extension including excavation, grading, paving, and associated improvements which will be included as part of the plans; and WHEREAS, ITD is responsible for obtaining compliance with laws, standards and procedural policies in the development, construction and maintenance of improvements made to the Federal-aid Highway System when there is federal participation in the costs; and WHEREAS, certain functions to be performed by ITD involve the expenditure of funds as set forth in the Agreement; and WHEREAS, ITD can only pay for work associated with the State Highway system; and WHEREAS, City is fully responsible for its share of Project costs; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and City Council of the City of Moscow as follows: That the Agreement for Federal Aid Highway Project A020(172), to develop Paradise Path Underpass & Multimodal Extension, is hereby approved; That the Mayor and City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of City; and That duly certified copies of the Resolution shall be furnished to the Idaho Transportation Department. That this Resolution shall become effective as of the 20th day of March, 2017. PASSED AND APPROVED by the Mayor of the City of Moscow, Idaho, this 20th day of March, 2017. PARADISE PATH UNDERPASS & MULTIMODAL EXT ambert, Mayor I :ar, : . xt.1 к. } ׫ I ( 0 T/ . . PAGE I OF I ---PAGE BREAK--- Project Cost Summary Sheet Round Estimates to Nearest $1,000 State Hi hwa 8/Paradise Path 'Unde ass and Multimodal S stem Connection (Adjacent to) SMA 006440 1.00 1 a. Preliminary Engineering (PE) 1 b. Preliminary Engineering by Consultant (PEC) 2. Right-of-Way: Number of Parcels N/A Number of Relocations N/A 3. Utility Adjustments: 0 Work D Materials D By State 0By0thers 4. Earthwork 5. Drainage and Minor Structures 6. Pavement and Base 7. Railroad Crossing: N/A Grade/Separation Structure At-Grade Signals D Yes 0No 8. Bridges/Grade Separation Structures: D New Structure Length/Width Location D Repair/Widening/Rehabilitation Length/Width Location 9. Traffic Items (Delineators, Signing, Channelization, Lighting, and Signals) 10. Construction Traffic Control (Sign, Pavement Markings, Flagging, and Traffic Separation) 11. Detours NIA 12. Landscaping 13. Mitigation Measures 14. Other Items (Roadside Development, Guardrail, Fencing, Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter. C.S.S. Items) 15. Cost of Constructions (Items 3 through 14) 16. Mobilization 10 % of Item 15 17. Construction Engineer and Contlni:iencies 29 % of Items 15 and 16 18. Total Construction Cost (15 + 16 + 17) 19. Total Project Cost ( 1+2 + 18) 20. Project Cost Per Mile ת PrepariZ ' / - KE". \ \J ' ate ITD 1150 (Rev. 09-13) ltd.Idaho.gov 5/17/2016 Dist 2 Previous ITD 1150 Initial or Revise To S11.000 $62,000 SJ0,000 S5,000 $130.000 $5,000 $5,000 $7,000 $5,000 $142,000 $329.000 $33,000 $105,000 $467,000 $540,000 $1.019,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- TAP: Project Estimating Wortsheet (Infrastructure) Project Name: State Highway 8/Paradise Path Underpa$S and Multlmodal System Connection Instructions: • Only input information in grey shaded areas below only. • Enter 0 in the percentages column if not seeking federal participation. • For infrastructure projects, the maximum federal funding is $500,000.00. • Only work performed after the execution of the State and Local agreement is eligible for federal reimbursement. • The minimum local match amount is 7.34% of total project cost. • Local match is limited to cash only. In-kind contributions are not elfgible. • Initial sponsor cash match payment is due prior to execution of the State and Loco/ Agreement and counrs rhe local cqsh (See amount below) Proposed funding Match Rates Local 7.34% Federal 92.66% Infrastructure Project Local Portion Federal Portion Phase Code CN CN CE cc PE PC Proposed Local Proposed Federal Project Local Match Cash Federal A9nt Description (Include •9nts for federal-aid items only) Percentages Totals Percentage Match Percentage Requested Preliminary Construction Estimate (PCE) $362,000.00 $26,570.80 $335,429.20 (Construction cast only) Construction Contingency 5% to 10% of PCE 6.00% $21,720.00 $1,594.25 $20,125.75 (Quontitl/ overruns, chonae orders) ILOnstruction tng1neenng 111 uJ ̣%to lll"A> OT n c - {î3.ïuu minimum) (for ITD construction administrative expenses) If PCf iS less than $50k, use 10% of PCE 3.00% $10,860.00 $797.12 $1D,062.88 If PCf is between $50k $100k, use 8% of PCE If PCE is between $l00k $200k, use 5% of PCE If PCE is more than $200k, use 3% of PCE Construction Engineering (Consultant) 5% to 25% of PCE 7.34% 92.66% (Consultants shall be selected thrauoht /TD established procedures) 20.00% $72,400.00 $5,314.16 $67,085.84 Preliminary Engineering (ITD) 3% to 10% of PCE ($3,500 minimum) (for ITD design administrative expenses) If PCE is less than $5Dk, use 10% of PCf 3.00% $10,860.00 $797.12 $10,062.88 If PCE is between $50k $100k, use 8% of PCE If PCE is between $100k - $2001<, use 5% of PCE If PCf is mare than S200k, use 3" of PCf Preliminary Engineering (Consultant) 5% to 30% of PCE 17.00% $61,540.00 $4,517.0'I $57,022.96 (Consultants shall be selected throught /TD establiShed procedures) Total Estimate 5539.380.00 Sl9.S90A9 $499,789.51 Total Project Estimate I Total Local Match l Total Federal Match l $539.380.00 I 539,590.49 I sa.-.u maximum federal Omit for ln/ros!tucturt!. l Initial cash match payment (10% of Total Local Match, $3,500 minimum): $3,959.05 Fundin]Year • In this section, Jndloore rhe [1Scal years in which 1he profect will be rJes/gried and conwuaed. Design octivirles shoukf occur one year prior to construction. For scheduling flexibility, provide two options. Activity Flscal Year {Option 11 Fiscal Year (Option 2) 2018 2019 1׮--1 Y-r The f1Scal year is the accounting period for the federal government which begins on October 1 Design nd ends on September 30. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar yeor in which it ends; for Construction 2019 2020 'iscal year 2016 begins an October l, 201S and ends an ̤prember 30, 2016. ---PAGE BREAK--- OATE REVISIONS ENG'INt:l!:I{: CHECKED: BY ICHK I OATE... SIOEWALK.EйNSION "L PROPOSED PATH ̢NDERPASS - . . ' A HEITMANN APPROVED S FIROR 111(1!1 A HEITMANN 1115/2015 , ' - CITY OF MOSCOW PARADISE PATH HIGHWAY 8 UNDERPASS MOSCOW, IDAHO s 75 150 SCALE: 1" = 150' -I Cl z 0 0: 0: ft g ר ̞ , - WHITE AVE \ A - ̜ ̝ • ж " NOTE: PARCEL BOUNDARIES OBTAINED FROM THE CITY OF MOSCOW '.'ND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED. PARADISE PATH UNDERPASS AND EXTENSION OVERVIEW SKEET NAME: DATE PROJECT NO tal L1>cal Match, $3,500 minimum): $3.959.0S FundinR Year • In this section, rhe fiscal years in which the pra)ect will be designed and cansrruaed. Design octivlt/es should occur one year prior to construction. For scheduling flexibility, provide two options. Activity Fiscal Year (Option 1) Fiscal Year (Option 21 2018 2019 Flst:al - The fiscal year is the accounting period for the federal government which begins on October 1 Desiץn and ends on September 30. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends; for ucmple, Construction 2019 2020 rr$C{I/ year 2016 begins on October l, 2015 and ends on September 30, 2016. I I I ---PAGE BREAK--- CHE.Cl'i.En REV'510NS BY ICHK DATE: SIOEWAl.k еTENSJON "L PROPOSED PATH UNDERPASS - ' S)FIROR 1n&n01i DATC 1'•150' '-HJ!.HW.\ml UU.'l!>U Đ ; ( en 0 z 0 a: • a: г ·l s 75 150 SCALE: 1" : 150' Ƕ i' • . , I  © : \ \ ' y' w Ƿ I ' . - Ǹ ' :r I - CITY OF MOSCOW PARADISE PATH HIGHWAY 8 UNDERPASS MOSCOW, IDAHO " ' 1\ \ \ ' ' \ . ' ' > ·'1;1 NOTE: PARCEL BOUNDARIES OBTAINED FROM THE CITY OF MOSCOW AND HAVE NOT BEEN INDEPENDENTLY VERIFIED . . PARADISE PATH UNDERPASS AND EXTENSION OVERVIEW SHEET NAME: O..l'L PROJECT NO SHEET C1 11151*15 14096 20f6 ---PAGE BREAK--- Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) 2016 Application Identification I.D. (Department use only) TAP 2016-19 Application deadline: June 1, 2016 at 12:00 p.m., Mountain Standard Time The Idaho Transportation Department is now soliciting applications for the Transportation Alternative Program (TAP) to add projects to our fiscal year 20 1 7, 20 1 8 and 20 1 9 program. The purpose of TAP is to provide for a variety of alternative transportation projects and to advance the Idaho Transportation Department's (ITD) strategic goals of Mobility, Safety and Economic Opportunity while maximizing the use of federal funds. The TAP provides funding for programs and projects defined as transportation alternatives, including on- and off-road pedestrian and bicycle facilities, infrastructure projects for improving non-driver access to public transportation and enhanced mobility, and safe routes to school educational projects. Final applications must be submitted to ITD electronically. Applications including attachments may be submitted by e-mail to [EMAIL REDACTED]. Additionally, all questions regarding this application are to be submitted to [EMAIL REDACTED]. For all e-mail correspondence, please indicate "20 1 6 TAP Application" in the subject line along with the sponsor's name. For example (Subject: 20 1 6 TAP Application - City of Moscow). Format: Application form must be saved electronically and then transmitted to the Department. All supporting maps, letters and other documents must be saved as a pdf and transmitted to the Department with the application form. If the file size of any or all of the attachments exceeds e-mail transmittal capabilities (15MB), files may be saved to either a disc or thumb drive and submitted via postal mail. All postal mail is to be sent to the following address and must be received prior to the designated application deadline. Idaho Transportation Department Attn: Jared Holyoak (HQ - Contracting Services) P.O. Box 7 129 Boise, Id. 83 707- 1 129 If sponsor is submitting multiple applications, please prioritize them in order of importance from 1 to X with 1 being the most important project. Priority Number l._1 _ ̘ ---PAGE BREAK--- Applicant Information Applicant: Mailing Address City Zip Code Contact person Phone Co-Applicant (if different from Applicant) Mailing Address City Zip Code Contact Person Phone Project Cost Estimate Instructions: lCity of Moscow lPO Box 9203 I Moscow 183843 !Jen Pfiffner 12088837123 I State l._ID Title !Assistant City Supervisor Email [EMAIL REDACTED] State Title Email *Project estimate must include all related project costs, including administrative. *For both infrastructure and non-infrastructure type projects, the minimum sponsor cash match amount of total project cost is 7.34%. * Cash match only: Non-cash items such as volunteer services or in-kind contributions (such as work performed by sponsor or right-of-way purchase) are not eligible to count towards the sponsor's match. *Use the ITD provided TAP Project Estimating Worksheet to indicate the total project estimate. A copy of the worksheet can be accessed at http://itd.idaho.gov/ContractingServices!fAP/default.htm Separate applications need to be submitted for infrastructure and non-infrastructure type projects. Infrastructure: Federal funding is being requested for: (select all that apply) Non-infrastructure: Federal funding is being requested for: Ill Design activities Ill Construction activities D Non-Infrastructure activities ---PAGE BREAK--- Even if the sponsor is requestingfederalfundsfor construction activities only, there are still administrative costs that !TD will incur in order to review project documents, provide oversight, and authorize a project for competitive bidding. The sponsor will need to account for these costs within the project estimate. Eligible Project Activities For a list of eligible project activities, please reference FHWA's publication of the Transportation Alternatives at http ://www.fhwa.dot.gov/fastact/factsheets/transportationalternati vesfs. cfm From the list below, select the main project activity that best describes proposed project. @ Infrastructure: Design and/or construction of infrastructure and systems that will provide safe routes for non-drivers. 0 Infrastructure: Design and/or construction of infrastructure to improve the ability of students to walk or bicycle to school. Q Non-Infrastructure: Safe routes to school coordination and education. Environmental requirements for infrastructure projects shall not exceed Categorical Exclusion. The acquisition of right-of-way is not an eligible activity for TAP funding. All right-of-way acquisition activities must be completed prior to submitting an application. Eligible Project Sponsors Only certain entities are eligible sponsors. From the selection below, select the one description that best categorizes your organization as the project sponsor. @ Local government Q Regional transportation authority 0 Transit agency Q Natural resource or public land agency Q School district, local education agency, or school Q Tribal government Q Nonprofit entity responsible for the administration of local transportation safety programs Q Any other local or regional governmental entity with responsibility for oversight of transportation or recreational trails (other than a metropolitan planning organization or a State agency) that the State determines to be eligible, consistent with the goals of subsection of section 2 1 3 of title 23. ---PAGE BREAK--- Project Information Project Name lsH-8/Paradise Path Underpass & Multimodal Sys. Conn. Project location (include street or trail name, city, county, and beginning/end points as applicable) (Maximum 500 Characters) The project will include construction of an underpass using the existing State Highway 8 (SH-8) Paradise Creek brige structure at White/Styner Ave in Moscow, Idaho -Latah, County. Work will begin at milepost 1 end at milepost 1.53 on SH-8. Path to be constructed includes a connector from the south underpass approach to Paradise Path with pathway to be installed to connect the north approach to the sidewalk east of White Ave and the Moscow Greenway system via the Fairgrounds parking lot. Route(s) if applicable ._ls_ta_ t _e _H w_ y_8 Beginning Mile Posts(s) if applicable 1 Ending Mile Posts(s) if applicable l .53 Project Area Q Urbanized -Areas with population over 200,000 @ Urban -Areas with population of 5,00 1 to 200,000 0 Rural -Areas with population of 5,000 or less ---PAGE BREAK--- 1. Description of Project (25 pts) Describe existing conditions and provide a clear description of the purpose of the project and the scope of work. Supplemental materials such as pictures, maps, project plans, exhibits, diagrams, etc. may be provided as necessary to explain existing conditions and proposed improvements. Vague descriptions may result in lower evaluation scores and lower ranking. Information about the project scope should be consistent with the project budget. (Max 1 200 Characters) The City of Moscow (City) is proposing a project to enhance alternative transportation options and increase access and safety for travelers in Moscow. The proposed underpass north and south approaches) on SH-8 at White/Styner Ave utilizes the existing Paradise Creek Bridge infrastructure and new path improvements to provide connections to Paradise Path with links to Latah Trail, Moscow Greenway system, and sidewalk network at White A venue with connection to the Heron's Hideout path section. Preliminary review of the project with TerraGraphics, ITD and City staff outlines additional features of the project to include storm sewer pipe relocations, a retaining wall, culvert placement, sidewalk extension, and path safety features including lighting, railings and signage. The project will mitigate ongoing safety issues for multimodal traffic currently crossing SH-8 with 2 lanes, a turning lane, and an ADT from 200 1 of 12,1 69. The project was identified in the Moscow Multi-Modal Transportation Plan (MMT Plan) to provide a safe crossing for multimodal traffic traveling to downtown, the University of ldaho (UI), medical and retails centers from the motor business and residential zones. Project/Program Elements Complete this section for infrastructure type projects For infrastructure type projects, this project includes the following facilities. (select all that apply) D Sidewalks D Crosswalks Ill Curb Ramps D On-Street Bicycle Facilities (bike lane, shared lane, cycle track) Ill Shared-Use Path/Trail D Signalization/Traffic Control D Bicycle Parking/Racks/ Amenities Ill Pedestrian Amenities/Streetscape (lighting, landscaping, etc.) D Transit Stops and Amenities D Traffic Calming D Other .....-ĊċČčĎďĐđĒē--. For non-infrastructure type projects, this project includes the following activities. (select all that apply) D Education materials and activities D Encouragement materials and activities D Traffic education and enforcement activities D Other ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Property Ownership and Acquisition Information (15 pts or Pass/Fail if deemed incomplete) Has all of the property needed for the project construction been acquired (select one) @ Yes Q No, Property must still be acquired for the project construction. 0 Not Applicable Note: Applications that indicate a No response will be deemed incomplete. Have all necessary easements or access agreements been acquired for the project? (select one) 0 Yes Q No @ Not Applicable If no, describe how and when the easement or access agreement will be acquired. Note: the application must include a commitment letter by the current property owner indicating an easement or access agreement is under development and will be granted. Applications that indicate a No response and do not include a commitment letter by the current property owner will be deemed incomplete. (Maximum 500 Characters) Projects proposing to build facilities along or through railroad right-of-way must include documentary evidence from the railroad granting a right of entry or an executed encroachment permit. Has the railroad granted a right of entry or an executed encroachment agreement? (select one) 0 Yes Q No @ Not Applicable If no, describe how and when the agreement will be executed. Note: the application must include a commitment letter by the railroad that a right of entry or an executed encroachment agreement is under development and will be granted. Applications that indicate a No response and do not include a commitment letter from the railroad will be deemed incomplete. (Maximum 500 Characters) ---PAGE BREAK--- 3. Financial Readiness (15 pts) TAP is a reimbursement program and through progress payments, ITD will reimburse eligible expenses up to the approved federal-aid limit for each reimbursement request. Explain how the project will be funded and the timeline for funding. Is there a written commitment to bring this project forward for approval of funds at town meeting, through capital reserve funds, through inclusion in the capital improvement plan, etc. or are there funds already raised/appropriated and dedicated to this project? (Maximum 750 Characters) This -project is included in the City's MMT Plan, however, given the many needs our community faces, funds for this project have not been accumulated. The proposed timeline for the project includes design activities in 20 18 and construction in 20 1 9. Funds are available through current capital accumulation with the full match amount to be included in the FY16 and FYI 7 budgets. At the May 16, 2016 City Council meeting, Council approved staff to submit an application for the TAP program and acknowledged the responsibility to provide funding for the project as well as the resulting match requirement. The Moscow Urban Renewal Agency (MURA) has also committed to contributing $ 10,000 to the project match requirements. Is the proposed project in a Transportation Plan? @ Yes Q No 0 Not Applicable If project is in a Transportation Plan, is the plan current (updated and/or re-adopted within last 5 years? @ Yes Q No 0 Not Applicable ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Need (20 pts) Briefly describe the need the project will address. (For example, describe what this project will provide in such terms as capacity; enhancement; system connectivity to employment destinations, schools, transit facilities, or other major destinations; and improves connections between neighborhoods, cities, and counties. (Maximum 1 200 Characters) Paradise Path is a connector between the Latah Trail to the east of Moscow and the Bill Chipman Trail to the west. Specifically, the connection at White/Styner Ave at SH-8 is noted "a notoriously difficult crossing location for those seeking access to the trail network" by the MMT Plan. This project will provide greater multimodal access to the network to allow neighborhoods north and south of SH-8 with a safe crossing on SH-8 where there currently is no crosswalk. This includes access to the local Headstart program, just .2 miles south of the proposed underpass and a direct link to the multimodal network to access the largest elementary school and Moscow's only middle school. Additionally, despite the safety issues at this site, the intersection ofWhite/Styner Ave at SH-8 is part of the Safe Routes to School route for Paradise Path Charter School. This project will also provide a direct link to the Intermodal Transit Center (ITC) located on campus along Paradise Path miles from the proposed underpass. The ITC is home to SMART Transit, the local public transit provider; Northwest Trailways, the regional public transit provider; and UI campus shuttle services. 5. Improving Safety (15 pts) Is there a safety issue for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers in the project area? @ Yes Q No Q Not Applicable If yes, describe the safety issue and explain how the project will improve safety for pedestrians, bicyclists, and other non-drivers. (Maximum 750 Characters) The underpass will provide an alternative to crossing at an unsignalized intersection that is a significant point of contact for pedestrians and bicyclists attempting to access the Paradise Path, Moscow Greenway, and other sidewalk sections. ADA access is limited for those attempting to cross the busy SH-8 to gain access to other areas such as the ITC. This intersection is along the SR2S route for Paradise Prairie Charter School and is adjacent to the local Headstart program facility and is traveled regularly by small children. With considerable vehicular traffic moving at high speeds, this crossing provides a great safety hazard as other options for crossing are significantly further away which discourages multimodal travel. ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. Economic Opportunity (10 pts) Does the project improve economic opportunity? @ Yes Q No 0 Not Applicable If yes, briefly describe how the project would increase economic opportunity (supporting data can be provided if available, such as estimated number of jobs created, etc.) (Maximum 750 Characters) This trail connection includes access to employment destinations such as the UI miles) the community's largest employer that hosts more than 1 1,000 students; Eastside Marketplace miles) the largest center of retail and office space on the east side of Moscow and home to 22 businesses and more than 600 employees; Alturas Technology Park with 200+ highly skilled jobs at an average wage of $50,000+. Access to downtown Moscow would be improved to growing firms such as EMSI a Career Builder subsidiary and New Saint Andrews College, among other bustling retail entities and restaurants. Moscow's population currently supports 14% of citizens that report commuting to work using non-motorized transportation on a regular basis. ---PAGE BREAK--- Funding Year Indicate below the fiscal years in which funding will be required to support the proposed project. As a means to facilitate project scheduling, if available, indicate two options that will work for your project. Fiscal Year - The fiscal year is the accounting period for the federal government which begins on October 1 and ends on September 30. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends; for example, fiscal year 2016 begins on October 1, 2015 and ends on September 3 0, 2016. Infrast1ucture Proiects: * If applying for both design and construction activities, indicate the fiscal year in which these activities will be performed. Design activities need to be scheduled at least one year in advance of construction. If applying for construction funding only, it is assumed that all design expenses will be covered by the sponsor and that the design will meet federal requirements (i.e. environmental clearance, right-of-way clearance, applicable design standards, etc.). Option 1 : Design Funding Year Q FY2017 @ FY2018 Q FY2019 0 No design funding requested, construction only Construction Funding Year Q FY2017 Q FY2018 @ FY2019 Non-Infrastructure Projects Option 2: Design Funding Year @ FY2017 Q FY2018 Q FY2019 0 No design funding requested, construction only Construction Funding Year Q FY2017 @ FY2018 Q FY2019 If applying for eligible non-infrastructure funding, indicate the fiscal year in which activities will begin. Option 1 : Funding Year Q FY2017 Q FY201 8 Q FY2019 Option 2: Funding Year Q FY2017 Q FY2018 Q FY2019 ---PAGE BREAK--- Project Schedule Instructions: * Provide a project schedule showing critical project milestones and logical time lines for design and/or construction activities. A copy of the base schedule format can be found at http://itd.idaho.gov/ ContractingServ ices/TAP I default.htm TAP Coordinator Endorsement (Infrastructure projects only) Prior to submitting this application, consultation with the ITD District TAP Coordinator must occur. See list below for contact information. To find the district in which your project is located, use the ITD map located at http://itd.idabo.gov/ Select District TAP Coordinator: Q District 1 (North Idaho): Greg Brands, (208)772-1274 @ District 2 (North-Central Idaho): Ken Helm, (208)799-4223 Q District 3 (Southwest Idaho): Blaine Schwendiman, (208)334-8925 Q District 4 (South-Central Idaho): Trey Mink, (208)886-7848 0 District 5 (Southeast Idaho): Melodie Halstead, (208)239-3370 Q District 6 (East Idaho): Eric Verner, (208)745-5667 By checking the box below, the sponsor certifies that the proposed infrastructure project has been endorsed by the District TAP Coordinator. Ill This serves as the sponsors electronic signature to certify that the appropriate District TAP Coordinator (in4icated above) was provided the opportunity to perform an initial review of the project. Furthermore, the District TAP Coordinator has endorsed this project as an acceptable TAP project candidate and would offer full support if project is selected. Applicants that do not check this box will be deemed incomplete. ---PAGE BREAK--- Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) Coordination If a proposed project is located within a Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) boundary, the project applicant should coordinate with the MPO to have the proposed project reviewed and approved by the MPO. The MPO will require that the proposed project within their boundary be identified through their planning process and be consistent with their long-range transportation plan. Contact the appropriate MPO prior to submitting the application for more information and specific requirements designated by the affected MPO. A list of our MPO partners can be found at http://itd.idaho.gov/Projects/mpos.htm. As part of the application, if the project falls within an MPO boundary, provide a letter of support from the MPO. Is the proposed project within an MPO boundary? 0 Yes @ No 0 Not Applicable If yes, has the proposed project been identified as part of the MPO planning process or is in any MPO planning document like a Long Range Transportation Plan or Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan? 0 Yes Q No Does the MPO support the proposed project? If proposed project is not within an MPO boundary, mark Not Applicable. 0 Yes Q No 0 Not Applicable Select MPO area: If proposed project is not within an MPO boundary, mark Not Applicable. 0 Bannock Planning Organization (BPO) 0 Bonneville Metropolitan Planning Organization (BMPO) Q Community Planning Association of Southwest Idaho (COMPASS) 0 Kootenai Metropolitan Planning Organization (KMPO) 0 Lewis-Clark Valley Metropolitan Planning Organization @ Not Applicable ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachments The following attachments are to be completed and submitted with the application. Copies of the attachment forms can be found at http://itd.idaho.gov/Contract1ngServicesfrAP/default.btm. Attachments required for both infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects - Budget -including match (TAP: Project Estimating Worksheet) - Letter(s) of support from local government or facility owner - Match commitment letter(s) - Project delivery schedule (construction and/or design) or (educational program) Additional attachments for infrastructure projects only - Project site photos - Site Map(s) - Right-of-Way Certificate for infrastructure projects (ITD-1983) - Environmental Screening (ITD-021 1) - Site Checklist Additional attachment.for non-infi·astructure projects only - Cost Estimate for Non-Infrastructure Projects: Safe Routes to School ---PAGE BREAK--- Project Cost Summary Sheet Round Estimates to Nearest $1 ,000 Begin Mile Post (Adjacent to) SMA 006440 1.00 1 a. Preliminary Engineering {PE) 1 b. Preliminary Engineering by Consultant (PEC) 2. Right-of-Way: Number of Parcels NIA nd Mile Post Number of Relocations NIA 3. Utility Adjustments: 0 Work D Materials D By State 0 By Others 4. Earthwork 5. Drainage and Minor Structures 6. Pavement and Base 7. Railroad Crossing: N/A Grade/Separation Structure At-Grade Signals D Yes O No 8. Bridges/Grade Separation Structures: D New Structure Length/Width Location D Repair/Widening/Rehabilitation Length/Width Location 9. Traffic Items (Delineators. Signing, Channelization. Lighting, and Signals) 1 0. Construction Traffic Control (Sign, Pavement Markings, Flagging, and Traffic Separation) 1 1 . Detours NIA 1 2. Landscaping 1 3. Mitigation Measures 14. Other Items (Roadside Development, Guardrail, Fencing, Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter, C.S.S. Items) 1 5. Cost of Constructions (Items 3 through 14) 1 6. Mobilization 1 0 % of Item 1 5 1 7. Construction Engineer and Contingencies 1 8. Total Construction Cost ( 1 5 + 1 6 + 17) 19. Total Project Cost ( 1 +2 + 1 8) 20. Proiect Cost Per Mile - Pre par ' KE" I N 1 29 % of Items 1 5 and 1 6 Length m Miles 0.53 ate ITD 1 150 (Rev. 09-13) itd.idaho.gov 5/17/201 6 District 2 Previous ITD 1 150 Initial or Revise To $1 1 ,000 $62,000 $30,000 $5,000 $1 30,000 $5,000 $5.000 $7,000 $5,000 $142,000 $329.000 $33,000 $1 05,000 $467.000 $540,000 $1 ,01 9,000 ---PAGE BREAK--- TAP: Project Estimating Worksheet (Infrastructure ) Project Name: State Highway 8/Paradise Path Underpass and Multimodal System Connection Instructions: * Only input information in grey shoded oreos below only. • Enter 0 in the percentages column if not seeking federal participation. * For infrastructure projects, the maximum federal funding is $500,000.00. * Only work performed after the execution of the State and Local agreement is eligible for federal reimbursement. • The minimum loco/ match amount is 7.34% of total project cost. • Loco/ match is limited to cash only. In-kind contributions are not eligible. * Initial sponsor cash match payment is due prior to execution of the State and Local Agreement and counts towards the local cash match. (See amount below) Proposed Funding Match Rates Local 7.34% Federal 92.66% Infrastructure Project Local Portion Federal Portion Phase Code CN CN CE cc PE PC Proposed Local Proposed Federal Project Local Match Cash Federal Amount Description (Include amounts for federal-aid items only) Percentages Totals Percentage Match Percentage Requested Preliminary Construction Estimate (PCE) $362,000.00 $26,570.80 $335,429.20 (Construction cost only) Construction Contingency 5% to 10% of PCE (Quantity overruns, chanqe orders) 6.00% $21,720.00 $1,594.25 $20,125.75 1construction tngmeering {ITU) to 1U% or - minimum) (for ITD construction administrative expenses) If PCE is less than $50k, use 10% of PCE 3.00% $10,860.00 $797.12 $10,062.88 If PCE is between $50k - $100k, use 8% of PCE If PCE is between $100k -$200k, use 5% of PCE If PCE is more than $200k. use 3% of PCE 7.34% 92.66% Construction Engineering (Consultant) 5% to 25% of PCE 20.00% $72,400.00 $5,314.16 $67,085.84 (Consultants shall be selected thrauqht /TD established procedures) Preliminary Engineering (ITD) 3% to 10% of PCE - ($3,500 minimum) (for ITD design administrative expenses) If PCE is less than $50k, use 10% of PCE 3.00% $10,860.00 $797.12 $10,062.88 If PCE is between $50k - $100k, use 8% of PCE If PCE is between $100k - $200k, use 5% of PCE If PCE is more than $200k, use 3% of PCE Preliminary Engineering (Consultant) 5% to 30% of PCE 17.00% $61,540.00 $4,517.04 $57,022.96 (Consultants shall be selected throught /TD established procedures) Total Estimate (lnfraStructure): $539,380.00 $39,590.49 $499,789.51 Total Project Estimate I Total Local Match I Total Federal Match $539,380.00 I $39,590.49 I $499,789.51 Meets ma1timum federol limit for mfrastructure. Initial cash match payment (10% ofTotal Local Match, $3,500 minimum): $3,959.05 Funding Year • In this section, Ind/core the fiscal years in which the project will be designed and constructed. Design activities should occur one year prior to construction. For scheduling flexibility, provide two options. Activity Fiscal Year (Option 1) Fiscal Year (Option 2) 2018 2019 Fis.col Year - The fiscal year is the accounting period for the federal government which begins on October 1 Design and ends on September 30. The fiscal year is designated by the calendar year in which it ends; for example, Construction 2019 2020 fiscal year 2016 begins on October 1, 2015 and ends on September 30, 2016. ---PAGE BREAK--- • • • • Bill Lambert Mayor Art Bettge Council President Jim Boland Council Vice-President Bonzo Council Member Dan Carscallen Council Member Walter Steed Council Member John Weber Council Member • • • • Gary J. Riedner City Supervisor • • • • City of Moscow, City Hall Gary J. Riedner, City Supervisor 206 East 3rd Street P.O. Box 9203 Moscow ID 83843 Phone (208) 883-7000 Fax (208) 883-701 8 Website: www.ci.moscow.id.us Hearing Impaired (208) 883-7019 • • • • May 27, 2016 Idaho Transportation Department Attn: Jared Holyoak (HQ - Contracting Services) P.O. Box 7129 Boise, ID 83 707-1 129 RE: Transportation Alternatives Program - Endorsement Letter Dear Review Panel: As Mayor of the City of Moscow I whole-heartedly endorse the Moscow's Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) for our State Highway 8/Paradise Path Underpass and Multimodal System Connection project. This project is a high-priority for the City as the safety of Moscow's citizens is of the upmost importance to myself as Mayor and the City Council. The City Council initially considered this project in 201 1 when presented with a preliminary study completed by a University ofldaho Engineering class. Further consideration of the concept was given in the development of the Moscow Multi-Modal Transportation Plan, which was adopted in July of 2014. Since that time, staff has worked diligently to explore the options to make this project a reality. In 2014, the City Council authorized $12,150 for a comprehensive concept review of the project which was completed by TerraGraphics in 2015. This concept review provided a good foundation for the Council' s consideration of City staffs request to apply for TAP funding for the project. This request was reviewed by the Administrative Committee of the City Council on May 9, 2016 and formal approval to apply was unanimously given at the subsequent City Council meeting on May 16, 2016. On behalf of the City and community of Moscow, I encourage our continuing partnership with the Idaho Transportation Department. I look forward to continuing the good work and collaborative efforts we have both enjoyed in recent years. If there is any additional information the City can provide or questions we can answer, please don't hesitate to contact Assistant City Supervisor Jen Pfiffner, who is managing the TAP application on our behalf. Sincerely, Bill Lambert Mayor ---PAGE BREAK--- of tVie Arts • • • • Bill Lambert Mayor Art Bettge Council President Jim Boland Council Vice-President Bonzo Council Member Dan Carscallen Council Member Walter Steed Council Member John Weber Council Member • • • • Gary J. Riedner City Supervisor • • • • May 27, 201 6 Idaho Transportation Department Attn: Jared Holyoak (HQ - Contracting Services) P.O. Box 7 1 29 Boise, ID 83707-1 129 RE: Transportation Alternatives Program - Match Commitment Letter To Whom It May Concern: The City of Moscow is grateful for the opportunity to apply for TAP funding for the State Highway 8/Paradise Path Underpass and Multimodal System Connection project. The City has a longstanding commitment to constructing safe and accessible infrastructure that provides alternatives to traditional motor vehicle travel and the underpass project is directly in line with that focus. We look forward to working with the Idaho Transportation Department to develop a safe solution to crossing State Highway 8 at Styner/White A venue for bicyclists and pedestrians, reducing the potential for interaction of those travelers with vehicles on the roadway. The project for which we are currently seeking funding will dramatically increase the multimodal access to residential and commercial centers in our community, and will provide a safe route for children to travel to school. As a link to our area bicycle and pedestrian path system, the underpass and connection project will link several trail and greenway systems, providing a safe and efficient link from residential areas to the University of ldaho campus, area elementary middle school and charter schools, as well as downtown and eastside business areas including Alturas Technology Park. The City of Moscow is committed to providing the necessary match of $39,000 for this project. In 201 6, $ 1 0,000 has been designated, with the balance to be proposed for City Council approval in the 201 7 budget. Thank you for your consideration of this important project. Please don't hesitate to contact me if there are additional questions or if additional information is needed. City of Moscow, City Hall Gary J. Riedner. City Supervisor Sincerely, 206 East 3rd Street P.O. Box 9203 Moscow ID 83843 Phone (208) 883-7000 Fax (208) 883-701 8 Website: www.ci.moscow.id.us Hearing Impaired (208) 883-701 9 • • • • ---PAGE BREAK--- Project Function Year 2017 Quarter Jan- Apr- Jul- Mar Jun Sep State/Loca l Agreement x Obligate Design Funds Project Charter Environmental Evaluation Cultura l Resources Evaluation Design Project Approval of Plans, Specifications & Engineer's Estimate Obligate Construction Funds Advertise & Award Construction Project Construction Contract Award Construct Project Project Completion Transportation Alternatives Project Schedule 2018 Oct- Jan- Apr- Jul- Dec Mar Jun Sep x x x x x x x x 2019 Oct- Jan- Apr- Jul- Oct- Dec Mar Jun Sep Dec x x x x x x x ---PAGE BREAK--- ISS Path State Hwy 8/Pa radise Path U nderpass and Multimodal System Connection Proposed TAP Funding Proiect Area ̕ I North Approach to SH-8 Crossi ng on Styner/Wh ite Ave. ---PAGE BREAK--- I SS Path State Hwy 8/Paradise Path U nderpass and M u ltimodal System Connection Prooosed TAP Funding Project Area North Approach to SH-8 Crossi ng on Styner/White Ave. ---PAGE BREAK--- lSS Path State Hwy 8/Paradise Path U nderpass and Multimodal System Connection Prooosed TAP Funding Proiect Area North Approach to SH-8 Crossi ng on Styner/White Ave. ---PAGE BREAK--- State Hwy 8/Paradise Path U nderpass and M u ltimodal System Connection Prooosed TAP Fundine Proiect Area North Approach to SH-8 Crossing on Styner/Wh ite Ave. ---PAGE BREAK--- State Hwy 8/Paradise Path U nderpass and M u ltimodal System Con nection Proposed TAP Fu nding Project Area Current Crossing Area at Intersection of SH-8 & Styner/White Ave. with No Crosswal k ---PAGE BREAK--- State Hwy 8/Pa radise Path Underpass and M u ltimoda l System Connection Proposed TAP Funding Project Area L - - ' U nderpass Eliminates Vehicletpeaestrian nteraction ̒ _ ' - I ntersection of SH-8 & Styner/White Ave. ---PAGE BREAK--- c 0 u Q) c c 0 u E Q) V'l ~ ro Q) 0 E b.O · - cc :J = b.O c c Vl ro x V'l UJ V'l ro a. ן 0 7 Q) c V) ro Q) V'l ro 7 ro 00 > 3: Q) ro V> ---PAGE BREAK--- c 0 · - u QJ c c 0 u E QJ V'l > V) ro 0 E · - :J = c ro V'l V'l ro QJ c ro a. QJ V'l ro ro a. 00 > 3: I QJ ro V) • ro ---PAGE BREAK--- Path State Hwy 8/Paradise Path U nderpass and M u ltimodal System Connection Proposed TAP Fun€ing Projec_A _ r _ e ‚ a South a pproach to SH-8 on Styner/Wh ite Ave. ---PAGE BREAK--- ISS Path State Hwy 8/Paradise Path U nderpass and M u ltimodal System Con nection Prooosed TAP Fundine Proiect Area South a pproach to SH-8 on Styner/Wh ite Ave. ---PAGE BREAK--- State Hwy 8/Paradise Path U nderpass and M u ltimodal System Con nection P roposed TAP Funding Prqjct Area . ď Pa rad ise Path & Styner/White Ave. I ntersection Looki ng East ---PAGE BREAK--- Path State Hwy 8/Paradise Path U nderpass and M u ltimodal System Connection Proposed TAP Funding P roject Area Wh ite Ave. at Fai rgrou nds Entra nce ---PAGE BREAK--- } PARADISE PATH UNDERPASS AND EXTENSION OVERVIEW Blaine St11 u , eet ---PAGE BREAK--- STREE! ST Ulll l i a . ; = a . Ri 11 1i -EJ CHERRY ̏ I C Ier I ' STREET JEFFERSON STREET ̐ ̑ : JEYl'ERSON r· J 8TREBT L • в · . I q_J LJ M· 'o yS POLK STREET HOWARD om - D lJNCOLN - _ D STREET I HO•ARD STREET D i I n ; n I . I CMIFllU.D STREET ST : M = STREET ---PAGE BREAK--- l J 11iv ·r 1 ly . . 1 td, ho For more maps and sidewalk information visit: www.sr2smoscow.com * Drop-off & Walk Locations Walking and Biking to School , • Recommended Routes' Pathways Moscow School District Elementary School Boundaries A Sl 0 f 8 West Park and Russell Bike or Walk Zone West Park and Russell Bus Zone Lena Whitmore Bike or Walk Zone N Lena Whitmore Bus Zone * McDonald Bike or Walk ZonEf E McDonald Bus Zone Conestoga Dr Victoria Or Anderson Fronder Park s City olJ!loscow 1 WgJl!.Jo School Map iii i dz Quail Run Dr Pinlail Ln Rodeo Dr iii iii iii c j e ם . ID k ;ii c ל iii Seventh StЯ j Dz g k י Eighth St i Lewis St Britton Ln Highland Dr Orchard Ave Tamarack Dr o-?Ofu,...o Virginia Ave IS'̍ Lola Clyde Park iii מ a. 'O St. Mary's School iii iii ǰ c DZ § ך :c Seventh St Ǵ < c Eighth St Harold Ave Kenneth Ave St iii i :c While Ave i! iii כ ]i ID v Alturas Dr I 0 minute distance by foot I 0 minute distance by bike 0.25 iii " c . б (j East Gate Park Latah County Fairgrounds 0.5 ǵ .Q UJ Daves Ave Lexinglon Ave Concord Ave Heron's Hideout White Ave 09'0 0.75 Moser SI Itani Dr iii iii f » iii а ט 5 :c 5 " Miles *Recommended routes are based on public improvements. Decisions on a route to and from school 5/26/2016 should be based on the child's age, developmental level, and experience with traffic safety, among other things. ---PAGE BREAK--- PART 1: QUESTlONS Applicant: Project Name: Project Manager: Contact Information for Project Manager: SITE CH ECKLIST All questlons contained in this checklist are for infrastructure projects only and are to be completed in collaboration with the District TAP Coordinator. City of Moscow State Highway 8/Paradise Path Underpass and Multimodal System Connection Kevin Lilly, Deputy Director Engineering [EMAIL REDACTED]; [PHONE REDACTED] Is the applicant an eligible sponsor? Has the applicant previously completed a federal aid project? Does the applicant acknowledge that receipt of funds requires compliance with several federal and state requirements, including but not limited to wage, equal opportunity, and environmental requirements? BICYCLE FACILITIES (IF APPLICABLE) 181 Yes D No 181 Yes D No 181 Yes D No Bicycle Facility description 181 Shared use pathway D Other D Sharrow D Striped bicycle lane D Widened shoulder Width of pathway, bicycle lane, shoulder, etc.: 10 feet Length: 2,100 feet Distance from curb (for pathways): N/A Materials used: 181 Asphalt 181 Concrete D Other Standards Used: D AASHTO D Idaho State Public Works Construction 181 ITO This project is: D part of road widening D part of an existing road 181 extension of existing pathway system D Local Are there any areas where the facility will narrow to accommodate trees, signs or other obstructions? 181 Yes 0 No If yes, explain: In the area of the bridge over Blaine Street, to the Fairgrounds, and along the creek to the Fairgrounds, the to-be­ developed path Will accommodate trees and utility poles as best as possible - see utilities section for more information. What is the plan for maintaining the facility after construction is complete? The City of Moscow will maintain the facility through it parks and street maintenance departments. Does your community normally require sidewalks or other pedestrian/bicycle improvements as a condition of subdivision or site plan approval? Explain: 181 Yes D No Permitted uses are outlined in the City's Zoning Code - Title 4, with additional improvement conditions listed in the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted Street Standards. PEDESTRIAN FACILITIES (IF APPLICABLE) Pedestrian Facility description D Sidewalk D Sidewalk with curb and gutter 181 Pathway D Other Width of pathway, bicycle lane, shoulder, etc.: Distance from curb (for pathways): 10 feet N/A Materials used 181 Asphalt 181 Concrete D Other Length: 2, 100 feet Number of curb ramps: Two ramps at Blaine Street and Hansen Avenue, with potential modifications for existing. Standards Used: This project is: D AASHTO D Idaho State Public Works Construction 181 ITO D Local D part of road widening D part of an existing road 181 extension of existing pathway system Are there any areas where the facility will narrow to accommodate trees, signs or other obstructions? If yes, explain: 181 Yes D No ---PAGE BREAK--- In the area of the bridge over Blaine Street, to the Fairgrounds, and along the creek to the Fairgrounds, the to-be­ developed path will accommodate trees and utility poles as best as possible - see utilities section for more information. What is the plan for maintaining the facility after construction is complete? The City of Moscow will maintain the facility through it parks and street maintenance departments. Does your community normally require sidewalks or other pedestrian/bicycle improvements as a condition of subdivision or site plan approval? Explain: f Yes D No Permitted uses are outlined in the City's Zoning Code - Title 4, with additional improvement conditions listed in the City's Comprehensive Plan and adopted Street Standards. RIGHT-OF-WAY Does the sponsor possess the necessary right-of-way to construct the project? If not, explain how f Yes 0 No right-of-way will be acquired. Does the sponsor hold necessary easements to construct the project? If not, explain how easements f Yes D No will be obtained. I Additional ITO Permit to be obtained during course of project development. ENVIRONMENTAL r Is it apparent that the project will meet the environmental criteria for Categorical Exclusion? f Yes D No Is it apparent that the proposed project will require extensive cultural clearance? O Yes f No I Is it apparent that supplemental environmental documentation will be required to support a Categorical Exclusion determination? f Yes O No For example: 181 Wetlands 181 Endangered Species D Other I Is it apparent that the project will cause an adverse effect to environmental resources? If yes, 0 Yes 181 No explain: Are there any permitting requirements for the project? If yes, explain: 181 Yes O No I Will require an ITD 404 (IDWR) and right of way use permit_. UTIUTIES : Is it apparent that the project will have utility conflicts? If yes, explain and identify affected utilities and how conflicts will be mitigated. f Yes 0 No If accommodation of utility poles cannot be addressed through path design, AVISTA may be called upon to relocate potential utility pole conflicts, mitig_ation cost to_ be covered by the utili!'(. IRRIGATION Is it apparent that the project will have crossings or conflicts with irrigation facilities? If yes, explain and identify affected irrigation facilities and how conflicts will be mitigated. PART 2: FORMS A. Environmental Screening Form B. Right-of-Way Certification D Yes 121 No C. TAP: Project Estimating Worksheet (used during application process to establish initial estimate) D. ITD-1150: Project Cost Summary Sheet (for infrastructure projects and used during development stage) Instructions: 1. Line 16 of this form is for Mobilization, calculated as a percentage of the construction items listed on Lines 3 through 14. It is up to the Applicant to determine the appropriate percentage for the project, but 5 to 10% would be considered typical. ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. Line 17 of this form is for Construction Engineering and Contingencies, calculated as a percentage of the construction items listed on Lines 3 through 14 and the Mobilization cost listed on Line 16. Again, it is up to the Applicant to determine the appropriate percentage for the project, but 15% would be considered typical, with 10% allocated to Construction Engineering and 5% allocated to Contingencies. E. Cost Estimate for Non-Infrastructure Projects: Safe Routes to School (for safe routes to school non­ infrastructure projects) F. Project Schedule (for infrastructure projects) PART 3: SUMMARY OF REQUIREMENTS FOR FEDERAL AID RECIPIENTS Applicants should keep in mind that receipt of federal funds requires compliance with the following federal and state requirements (note: this is not an exhaustive list): 1. Equal Opportunity requirements (non-discrimination) for construction contracts in excess of $10,000. The non-discrimination requirements apply to a wide range of project elements, including contracting opportunities. A non-discrimination agreement must be signed as part of the award process, and records must be kept to show compliance. Disadvantaged Business Entity (DBE) requirements might apply. 2. Minimum wage requirements (Davis-Bacon Act) and anti-kickback requirements (Copeland Act) for construction contracts in excess of $2,000. Records must be kept to show compliance. 3. No use of federal funds for lobbying, for construction contracts in excess of $100,000. 4. National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). a. The National Environmental Policy Act requires federal actions (including local transportation projects receiving federal aid) to be evaluated for potential impacts to the environment. ITO and the FHWA jointly conduct this review. i. For major actions that significantly affect the quality of the human environment, an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) must be prepared. This is a (and expensive) process that requires consideration of alternatives, analysis of impacts, and compliance with a series of public notice and comment periods. Projects requiring an EIS would not be able to be completed within Community Choices time constraints. ii. For projects in which the significance of the environmental impact is uncertain, an Environmental Assessment (EA) must be prepared. This document is more limited in scope than an EIS, and the procedure is not as If through the EA process it is determined that there will not be significant impacts, a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONS!) is issued. If it is determined that there will be significant impacts, an EIS must be prepared. iii. Most federal aid projects qualify for a "categorical exclusion," meaning that the project will not have a significant effect on the human environment. For these projects, neither an EIS nor an EA need be prepared. Federal regulations have identified several project types that typically receive a categorical exclusion (such as installation of utilities along a road; construction of bicycle and pedestrian paths; landscaping; installation of fences, signs, pavement markings and traffic signals, where no substantial land acquisition or traffic disruption would occur; alterations to facilities to make them accessible to elderly and handicapped persons; and other types of projects). Even though a proposed project might fall within an exclusion category, applicants must obtain clearance from ITO. iv. Contact District Environmental Staff (listed at http:l/ltd.jdaho.gov/enviro/District.Staff. htm) for assistance with navigating the environmental review process. 5. Compliance with audit requirements: a. An entity expending $500,000 or more in a year in combined Federal awards (including any funds received from Federal sources outside ITO: US federal contracts, subcontracts, loans grants, ---PAGE BREAK--- subgrants, and/or cooperative agreements) requires an A-133 Single Audit or program-specific audit each fiscal year. b. An entity whose annual budget (from all sources) exceeds $250,000 and expends any amount in a year in combined Federal awards are required to have a full and complete audit of financial statements each fiscal year. c. An entity whose annual budget (from all sources) exceeds $100,000 but does not exceed $250,000 and expends any amount in a year of combined Federal awards has a minimum requirement of financial statements audit on a biennial basis. Biennial audits shall include an audit of each fiscal year since the previous audit. d. An entity whose annual budget (from all sources) exceeds $50,000 but does not exceed $100,000 and expends any amount in a year of combined Federal awards has a minimum requirement of financial statements review on a biennial basis. Biennial review shall include a review of each fiscal year since the previous review. e. An entity whose annual budget (from all sources) does not exceed $50,000 and expends any amount in a year of combined Federal awards has a minimum requirement of financial statements review by ITO on a biennial basis. Biennial ITO reviews shall include a review of each fiscal year since the previous review. 6. Compliance with Americans with Disability Act requirements. This includes a compliance Self-Evaluation, and for agencies with 50 or more employees, an ADA Transition Plan. Transition Plans identify physical obstacles to accessibility, describe methods to make facilities accessible, specify a schedule for completion, identify a responsible official, estimate the cost of each modification, and record completion dates. 7. Compliance with U.S. Office of Management and Budget (OMB) circulars on allowable costs, as follows: For the costs of a: Use the principles in: State, Local or Indian Tribal Government 2 CFR 225 Private, nonprofit organization other than an i2 CFR 230 institution of higher education, hospital, or organization named in 2 CFR 230 as not subject to that circular Educational institution Œ2 CFR 220 For-profit organization other than a hospital and '48 CFR Part 31, Contract Cost Principles and Procedures, or an organization named in 2 CFR 230 as not :uniform cost accounting standards that comply with cost subject to that circular :principles acceptable to the Federal agency. 8. Compliance with ITO Grant Administration Team reimbursement requirements. Recipients must request reimbursement of an expense within 60 days or the expense will not be reimbursed. ITO has up to 30 days to issue the reimbursement. 9. Compliance with minimum liability insurance requirements. Contractors must have comprehensive public and general liability insurance of at least $500,000.00 per occurrence, and $1,000,000.00 aggregate. District TAP Coordinator Endorsement According to the information provided by the sponsor and in this Site Checklist, the Idaho Transportation Department district office endorses this project as a potential TAP project candidate and would offer full support if project is :::mem: /ĎCi:č-Ordinator District ---PAGE BREAK--- ITD 1983 (Rev. 10-15-10) td.idaho.gov Key Number Project Number Local Public Agency's Certificate Of Completion Of Right-Of-Way Activities Idaho Transportation Department Project Name State Highway 8/Paradise Path Underpass and Multimodal Local Public Agency City of Moscow r.nnn.,,.rtinn Complete the applicable section below and the Certification section. Right of Way is Not Required IZ! All work will be done within the existing right of way IZ! No utilities are involved in this project D Utilities are impacted and agreements are in place. Number of Utilities _ _ _ _ &ight of Way is Required Number of ownerships acquired _ _ Total amount paid $ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ Number of parcels in condemnation or pending final settlement _ _ _ _ Number of Relocations 0 No utilities are involved in this project D Utilities are impacted and agreements are in place. Number of Utilities _ _ _ _ ::ertification I hereby certify that all acquisitions and relocations, if any, were performed in accordance with our assurances to comply with state and federal laws and regulations related to the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970 and amendments thereto. It is further certified that in all cases where the real property rights were obtained through donation, that the property owner(s) was fully informed of the right to receive just compensation and the owner has released our agency from its obligation to appraise the property in the event that the estimated value may exceed $5,000.00. Agency Contact's Name (Printed) Phone Number Kevin Lilly, Deputy Director of Engineering [PHONE REDACTED] At sler's Signature (Clerk or Secretary) Date 5/3 1 /201 6 E-Mail Address [EMAIL REDACTED] Date 5/31/2016 ---PAGE BREAK--- ITD 021 1 (Rev. 9-1 0) itd.idaho.gov Environmental Screening For Community Transportation Enhancement (CTE), Safe Routes to School (SR2S) and Scenic Byway Projects Background - All project actions which involve a federal nexus (federal funds, federal permits or federal lands) must have an approved environmental document. ITD follows Federal Highway Administration guidelines for environmental documentation. Responsibility - ITD will be responsible for the review and approval of the environmental document. The sponsor is responsible for the preparation of the environmental document. Pre-application coordination with the district office (environmental} is needed. In some cases the sponsor may arrange for ITD to complete all or part of the environmental documentation. Purpose of Form - This form is not an environmental clearance. The questions screen for issues that could require additional analysis or work. If you answer yes to any of the following questions, the environmental requirements or impacts may be greater than expected. The impacts may not be compatible with your budget or schedule. You should seek further assistance from ITD regarding the viability of the project. Contacts - For assistance with the environmental process please contact the ITD District Environmental Planner. An abbreviated environmental clearance is available for pavement marking projects. Answer the following questions and explain in detail any response that is not clear from simply marking the box. When completed electronically, the form will expand to allow room for explanations. Project Name/Location Project Type/Scope of Work landscaping, bike/pedestrian path, etc.) The project will develop a bike/pedestrian path (underpass) using the existing bridge structure on State Hwy 8 connectinQ White/Styner Avenue. State Hwy 8/Paradise Path Underpass and Multimodal System Connection Right of Way/Property Impacts - Will the project require acquisition of temporary or permanent easements, D or right of way? Is the project on, or through, federal lands or tribal lands? Will the project cause a temporary or permanent disruption to a commercial property or residential neighborhood? Explain: Traffic - Does the project add traffic lanes or traffic capacity? D Explain: Ground Disturbance - Does the project disturb more than one acre of land? D Explain: Stormwater - Where does the water (rain, snowmelt) from this project area drain? D Sheet flows to surface waters (canal, stream, lake) Z Conveyed by ditch or pipe to surface waters D Storm Sewer System (Municipal system) D Infiltrate in Place (retention pond or topography with no drainage outlet [low area]) D Other - if none of the above conditions Explain: Surface Waters - Does the project site contain any boggy, swampy, or wetland areas?  Does the project impact (fill or temporarily impact) any wetland, stream, lake or other water body?  Explain: Cultural Resources - Are there historical structures (such as buildings, bridges, canals, etc) over 45 years D old within or adjacent to (in some cases within view) of the proposed project site? Explain: ITD 021 1 , Rev. 9-1 0 Page 1 of 2    D D  ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 4f - Is the project site located next to or a part of a special designated land use designated park, wildlife refuge, historic district, etc)? Check with local land use map for information. Explain: Hazardous Waste - Is there any indication of waste spill or stain on the project site? Are there any gas stations, dry cleaner, or other industrial facilities adjacent to the project? Explain: Public Involvement - Based on your public involvement, has any public controversy or issue been identified? Do you anticipate any temporary or permanent disruption to a commercial property or residential neighborhood (access changes or detours, construction noise etc?) Explain: Irrigation - Does the project require irrigation? Describe whether the project will require watering and what source will be used for watering. Explain: Right of Way Encroachment - Are there any signs, trees or other features you plan to locate within ITD right of way? Explain: All signs are within the City's ROW. Offsite Work - Will the project require off-site grading, excavation or trenching for utilities, lighting, drainage or other work? Explain: Describe any other known or suspected environmental issue that has not been covered Since the project will add fill below the OHWM of Paradise Creek, a 404 permit from the USACE will be required. anticipated that some form of off-site m itigation along Paradise Creek will be required . Preparers Printed Name Kyle Steele Signature Q ,I4 . v - ITD Use Only - RĊmendation Tiiie Env. Services Supervisor Agency or Firm City of Moscow Date 05/1 6/201 6 0  0 Č D  D rgi D  D  It is ċ Based on the information in the project application and on this form, the project is likely to be eligible for a Categorical Exclusion. D Based on the information in the project application and on this form, there were environmental areas of concern that should be further discussed prior to funding this project. D There was not enough information in the project application and on this form to assess potential environmental issues. Comment =>rinted Name Shawn W. Smith 51gnature 'D 021 1 , Rev. 9·10 Page 2 of 2 Tiiie District Environmental Planner Date May 26, 2016 ---PAGE BREAK--- Tim Bishop J. T. BISHFORDffi Paradise Creek Ted Sorenson Zach Swafford Jazmine Watson May 6, 201 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- J. T. BISHFORDffi Zach Swafford 4.679 Chipwood Dr. Sparks, Nevada • 89436 (775) 351 -7927 swaf41 [EMAIL REDACTED] Margaret Littlejohn Paradise Path Task Force 206 East Third Street Moscow, ID • 83843 Dear Margaret Littlejohn, Our firm has completed the design of a safe and cost-effective route for the Paradise Creek Path to cross State Highway 8 The design includes connecting the path from Styner Avenue to Heron's Hideout. Contained in this report is a discussion of the procedures used to complete the hydrological, geotechnical, and open-channel hydraulic aspects of this project. A rendering of the project area was created in Google Sketchup, and specific portions were drawn in AutoCAD. A major emphasis was put into the cost analysis. The proposed pathway design is both technically and economically feasible. A main factor in the selection of this design is the safety for the community. This is a preliminary report and design for the proposed project. If you have any inquires about the design, please contact Zach Swafford, the project manager, at (775) 35 1-7927. The members of our firm have enjoyed the opportunity to work on this project, and look forward to working with you again in the future. Sincerely, Zach Swafford 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Executive Summary Contained in this document are the evaluated options for crossing State Highway 8 (SH-8), including the recommended final design. The selected design is cost-effective and meets Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) standards. Two design options were explored. The first alternative is a surface crossing on SH-8 by signalizing an intersection. The second alternative is a bike path along Paradise Creek, under a bridge on SH-8 at White Avenue. Before design of the alternatives was initiated, the area was surveyed, traffic volume data were collected, geotechnical conditions were analyzed, and site condition constraints were evaluated. The first alternative was determined to be unsafe, costly, and not acceptable by ITD due to the traffic delay it would cause on SH-8. The second alternative was explored in further detail. This scope of this project includes connecting the existing path at Styner A venue to Heron's Hideout. The primary feature of the second alternative is the design of an 8-foot wide path under the bridge mentjoned above, constructed of pavement on top of grouted rip rap. 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table of Contents Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Design Alternatives . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Open Channel Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Restriction Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7 Manning's Roughness Coefficient . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . : 8 Hydro logic Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Data Collection and Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 50-Year Flood Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 9 Path Flooding 1 0 Design of Path 1 1 Design Considerations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Error! Bookmark not defined. Schedule/Project Management . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Error! Bookmark not defined. Cost Analysis . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Error! Bookmark not defined. Conclusion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 References . 20 Appendices . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 1 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Introduction The objective ofthis project, sponsored by the Paradise Path Task Force (PPTF), was to assess alternatives and design a safe route for the Paradise Creek Path to cross State Highway 8 (SH-8) in Moscow, Idaho. If the design is implemented, it will help the City of Moscow in developing the city's system of bicycle facilities. This project involved coordinating with the PPTF to develop recommendations for the location, design, and implementation of a crossing on SH-8, and address concerns about design elements. This report is the culmination of four months of work, and covers the background of the situation, alternatives considered, and the recommended alternative. The process and scheduling of design is then addressed, as well as analysis of the cost of implementing the design. Also included are maps of the proposed bicycle facilities, drawings of components of the design, and rendered images of the design. Background The PPTF was originally established as the Linear Park Task Force in May 1 994, and renamed in 2000. Its purpose is to study options for city and regional path connections. The PPTF is immediately concerned with the completion of Paradise Loop, which can be seen in Figure 1 below highlighted in pink. The yellow box in Figure 1 is the project site and can be seen in greater detail in Figure 3. ̋ sctK0 !1W4 ̌ - .;f'f a " ו·.זח1 Figure 1 : Paradise Loop , . The end goal is for the Paradise Loop to be an off-street path circumscribing the city of Moscow. The region that our project concerns is confined to the south-east portion of the loop, where a safe path across SH-8 is desired. This crossing will allow Paradise Creek Path to connect to the proposed Paradise Loop at Heron's Hideout. Not all bike paths are created equal. Depending on the situation, a bike path is categorized as one of six classes. These six classes can be seen in the images below. 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Class 1: Class 2: Class 3: Off-Street Path Buffered Bike Lane Standard Bike Lane Class 4: Class 5: Class 6: Shared Use Lane Signed Bike Route Bikeable Local Street Figure 2: Identification of Bike Path Classes For this project, based on the input of the PPTF, the design will employ class one for the majority of the path, with class four used at the fairgrounds. An off-road path is the PPTF's preferred choice for this project, because many bicyclists and pedestrians prefer the safety, comfort and convenience that an off­ road path provides. The path needs not only to be designed and constructed within specifications, but also to take these objectives into consideration. The feasibility of each proposed alternative was evaluated and compared. Another particular concern of the PPTF is cost, so the cost of each alternative was evaluated and compared. The alternatives are displayed in Figure 3. The existing Paradise Creek Path is shown in red parallel to SH-8, the ideal underpass option is shown in yellow, and the alternative surface street options are shown in orange. 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 3: Route Alternatives Discussion Design Alternatives Four alternatives were considered for crossing SH-8 safely. Three of the alternatives were signalized intersection crossings: at White Avenue, at Blaine Street, and at Mountain View Road. The fourth, and preferred alternative, is to have an off-road, class one, bike path alongside Paradise Creek, under the SH-8 bridge, located west of the White A venue intersection. All of the alternatives were analyzed and compared for efficiency, cost, and safety. After examining the three signalized intersection crossings, it was obvious that none of these alternatives should be used. IT Bishford Engineering spoke with Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) employee, Jared Hopkins, about the surface crossing alternatives and it was clear that the state did not want an additional signalized intersection on SH-8. A signalized intersection on SH-8 would slow traffic flow and would cause a large queue to build up. A VISSil\1 simulation was conducted to show how an increase in pedestrians would affect the already existing intersection at Blaine St. The model demonstrated that there would be an increase in queue in both east-west directions and north-south directions. Another main reason the surface crossing alternatives were not chosen is that they are not an ideal class one bike path and are not as safe. The final basis for not choosing any of the three designs was cost. A rough estimate from ITD indicates a signalized intersection would cost about $200,000 to design and construct. The final and recommended design alternative is an underpass crossing of SH-8, west of the White A venue intersection. The underpass option was chosen because it is safer and will not disrupt traffic flow. It will also keep the ambiance of the class one bike path. The design of the underpass is covered in greater detail in upcoming sections. 6 ---PAGE BREAK--- To determine what specifications the path would need to meet, the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities was used. This guide is the standard for bike path design in the U.S., and is referenced by the Federal Highway Administration, Open Channel Analysis Restriction Analysis In the preliminary open channel calculations, it was found that the water depth under the bridge was not governed by the cross section under the bridge. With further investigation, it was suspected that a restriction point existed and that this restriction point was backing up the water and raising the elevation of the surface. A site survey was completed on various cross-sections With further open-channel analysis, a restriction point was confinned. Figure 4 shows a physical picture of this restriction. Figure 4: Restrictions The top of Figure 5 shows an AutoCad drawing of this governing cross-section. This restriction point is located at the edge of the bridge. This is significant because if it were located away from the bridge, a backwater calculation would need to be performed. Before After Figure 5: Cross Section of Restriction 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- In discussion with the ITD (Idaho Transportation Department), they made it clear that in order for this project to be approved, the hydraulic capacity of the bridge could not decrease after construction of the project was complete. It was determined that the most efficient way to satisfy this requirement was to excavate the channel The excavated cross-section of the governing cross-section is shown at the bottom of Figure 5. Another cross-section of the streambed was surveyed approximately 50 feet from the governing restriction point. Figure 6 shows the cross-section before and after excavation. By using the survey data and the Trapezoidal Method, it was detennined that an estimated 95 yd3 would need to be excavated. It was detennined that the hydraulic capacity of the bridge would increase after construction. This satisfies ITD's requirement. Detailed information on the increase in hydraulic capacity is illustrated in the 50-Y ear Flood section. Before Figure 6: Cross Section of Second Restriction Manning's Roughness Coefficient An extremely important aspect of the open-channel hydraulic analysis was the determination of the Manning's Roughness Coefficient The first method used to determine the roughness coefficient was by use of the USGS Water Supply Paper 1 849 ("USGS Water Supply Papers"). It appeared that the roughness factor was approximately 0.040. One of the main factors in selecting this value was the 90 degree bend location at the restriction point. To ensure the proper selection of the roughness coefficient, a more accurate method was used. The back calculation method involved varying Manning's n until the flow measured at a specific time matched with the water depth. The open channel hydraulic program, Civil Tools Pro, was used to complete this calculation. The measured water surface elevation was 2.99 feet at 40cfs at the time of the survey. Manning's N value was varied until the calculated flow depth matched the measured flow depth. The corresponding Manning's Roughness Coefficient was 0.060. This was the value used in all open-channel calculations. Also, according to ITO documentation, the slope of the stream bed is 0.00322 V:H. 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Hydrologic Analysis Data CoJlection and Analysis Data of water flow in Paradise Creek was needed to analyze the project both hydrologically and hydraulically. Data was collected from the United States Geological Survey (USGS) website ("USGS Water Data"). 31 years of daily flow data was used in the analysis of path flooding, and 31 years of annual peak flow data was used in the analysis of the 50-year flood. All flo:w data on the USGS site was taken from a gage of the site at the University of ldaho. Because of the difference in flow between the project site and the gage station, the flow data had to be reduced. The watershed area shown on the left in Figure 7 corresponds to the project site, while the watershed on the right corresponds to the USGS gage. The areas of these regions were used to calculate the watershed reduction coefficient. As shown at the bottom of Figure 7, the calculated coefficient was 0.8 1 7. All flow data from the USGS gage was multiplied by this coefficient. Figure 7: Watershed Area of Project Site and USGS Gage 50-Y ear Flood Analysis According to ITD documentation, the 50-year flood under the bridge is 890 cfs. To ensure this value was accurate, a Log Pearson Type III analysis (Mays 380-385) was performed. This was done by use of the book Water Resource Engi.neering. The frequency factor equation for this method is as shown below in Equation 1 . log(Qso) = xBAR + (Kr * S) Equation 1 9 ---PAGE BREAK--- In this equation, Q50 is the 50-year flood and XBAR is the average value of the logarithm of all 3 1 annual peak flows. KT is the frequency factor that was determined according to the regional skew coefficient and an exceedance probability of 0.02. The standard deviation of the logarithm of the flows was calculated to be 0.255. A table of the calculations can be found in the Appendix B, and specific values for the frequency factor equation are presented in Table 1 . The 50-year flood was calculated at 843 cfs. This value is a reasonable value when compared to ITD's value. Table I : Frequency factor equation variables Skew Coefficient -0.3 Exceedance Probability 0.02 K1 1.89 XSAR(CFS) 2.443· Standard Deviation 0.255 In Table 2, an open channel hydraulic analysis demonstrates the increased hydraulic capacity after this project is completed. The left side ofthis table demonstrates that the 50-year flood under current conditions will have a water depth of 9 .3 1 feet. The right side of this table demonstrates that the 50-year flood after channel excavation will be 7.34 feet. This demonstrates that the hydraulic capacity will increase after construction of this project. Table 2: Open channel calculations Current Channel Channel After Excavation Flow Depth = 9.31 fl Flow Depth = 7.34 ft Flow Rate = 843.00 cfs Flow Rate = 843.00 cfs Channel Slope = 0.0032 V: H Channel Slope = 0.0032 V:H Wetted Area = 188.01 sq ft Wetted Area = 1 79.36 sq ft Wetted Perimeter = 48.88 ft Wetted Perimeter = 43.81 ft Flow Velocity = 4.48 ft/s Flow Velocity = 4.70 ft/s Froude's Number = 0.32 Froude's Number = 0.34 Flow Regime sub-critical flow Flow Regime = sub-critical flow Path Flooding To have 8 feet of vertical clearance the bike path will be placed 3.21 feet above the bottom of the stream bed. This results in the path flooding every time the water depth of the stream is greater than 3 .21 feet. An open channel hydraulic analysis was performed to determine the flow corresponding to a water depth of 3 .21 feet. It was determined that the fl.ow that would cause flooding is 1 64 cfs. A statistical analysis was performed to determine how many days per year on average the path would be flooded. This analysis was done using the 3 1 years of average daily flow data collected from USGS. A table was generated relating the flow to how many days per year a certain flow was exceeded. It was determined that the flooding flow of 1 63 cfs would be exceeded an average of about 1 day per year. Specific details and calculations concerning this can be found in Appendix B. 1 0 ---PAGE BREAK--- Design Considerations To detennine what specifications the path would need to meet, the AASHTO Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities was used. This guide is the standard for bike path design in the U.S., and is referenced by the Federal Highway Administration. The guide specifies that the minimum vertical clearance to obstructions should be 8 feet, though 1 0 feet is desirable for under crossings and tunnels. To minimize how often the path floods, a clearance of 8 feet was chosen. Similarly, a 1 0-foot wide path is recommended, with a minimum of 2 feet of gradual ( 1 :6 ratio) slope on each side, but a reduced width of 8 feet can be adequate. Based on comparison with other bike paths in the city, as well as to maximize hydraulic capacity under the bridge, a width of 8 feet was chosen. Due to the abrupt drop off along the undercrossing, hand rails are necessary for safety. The minimum rail height of 42 inches specified by the guide was chosen. The cross slope of the path, for water runoff purposes, is limited to 2-3% by ADA guidelines, so a cross slope of 2% was chosen. Tables of various design speeds and radii of curvature are also specified in the guide. For this project, the terrain is not conducive to choosing optimal curve radii. So although avoiding sharp curves was attempted, curves are dictated by the terrain rather than by design. The grade of a bike path ought to be as small as terrain permits, with grades greater than 5% being undesirable. The AASHTO guide specifies that grades greater than 5% ought to be limited to short distances, with limits ranging from 800 feet for a 5-6% grade, through 50 feet for 1 1 % and greater grades. For the design of this path, the grade was taken as 8.3%, to comply with ADA guidelines, which require limits as listed in Table 3 below. Table 3 : Grade and Distance Requirements Grade Maximum Length of Path 8.3% 200 feet 1 0.0% 30 feet 12.5% 10 feet For safety along the path at night, lighting also ought to be added; especially due to the undercrossing being shielded from residual road and vehicle light. Design of Path Path construction begins on the south side of SH-8 with the new path branching off of the existing Paradise Creek Path. A basic path design, shown in Figure 8a, will be used for all areas currently on grade with the existing Paradise Creek Path. Once the path drops in elevation as it heads toward the bridge, the second path design, as shown in Figure 8b, will be used. The only difference between these is the placement of geotextile fabric under the crushed aggregate for the floodable path areas. This fabric is Miragrid N-Series geotextile, to allow drainage for when water levels are above the path. 1 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- Dry Pavement Design Wet Pavement Design Figure Sa (top) and Sb (bottom): Cross Section of Pavement Designs The only major design concern on the north side of the bridge is a water diversion pipe placed just south of the culvert. The pipe will need to be moved ifthe path is going to graded appropriately. This will take additional excavation on top of the hydraulic excavation discussed previously. This excavation is estimateq to be 50 yd3 based on measurements taken at the site. Once the pipe is moved, the path will be constructed within the grade considerations discussed above to reach the level of the existing path. Figure 9: Cross Section of Underpass Path The path underneath the bridge will be constructed to the specifications shown in Figure 9. It will be 8 feet wide and will be constructed 3 .25 feet above the stream bed. This is the highest that path can be constructed and still meet the eight foot minimum vertical clearance to the top of the bridge. The minimum clearance was chosen to reduce the flooding of the path. The support for the path will be loose rip rap roughly one foot in diameter, and will be grouted together with concrete. This will provide an impermeable barrier for the water and will prevent scouring. The area under the path will also be excavated one foot below the streambed, and will also be grouted. This will provide stability for the path as well as protection from soil erosion. This step is merely a precaution, as the backfill currently under the bridge is a reasonably stable material. No serious settlements or erosion problems are anticipated for the path design under the bridge, due to these conditions. A two inch layer of asphalt will be laid on top of this for a good bike path surface. 1 2 ---PAGE BREAK--- On the north side of the bridge there are a few problems that needed to be addressed. The first of these was to discover how much cut and fill will be required to bring the path up to street level. The second was to figure out how the path would be routed due to obstructions in the area. These include a power pole and tree on the north slope, where ideal path placement would be. To deal with these problems a site survey was conducted, and the slope profile was drawn in AutoCAD. This can be seen in Figure 10. After the terrain was drawn in AutoCAD, a path within slope and length requirements was added to the illustration. The cross section data collected was compared to the modified cross sections developed after the creation of the path. These values were collected for analysis, and can be seen in Appendix C. Cross section differences were multiplied by to achieve total cut and fill requirements. Total cut was about 100 yd3• Fill requirements were negligible at 1 yd3. Any area that needs filling will use existing cut. We anticipate that a large portion of the cut material will be reusable for stabilizing the banks against erosion. This fill will be placed at the behest of the contractor during construction. The final path was 8% grade with a total length of 140 feet. This falls within the grade and length requirements displayed in Table 3. Figure 10: North Section Land Profile, Before and After Construction Where the path reaches the height of thĠ road it will curve to the east to meet White A venue and travel along the north side of the road. An optional addition to the path is a bridge to cross over Paradise Creek to Lynn Street. This entire system around the underpass design is depicted on the left side of Figure 1 1 . The orange in the picture represents the underpass length, and the red represents the optional bridge to Lynn Street. The advantage provided by the bridge is demonstrated on the right side of Figure 1 1 . Again, the red represents the bridge option. The orange represents the path to Lynn Street if the bridge is not constructed, which is far from ideal. 1 3 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 1 1 : Proposed System and Advantages The path will continue along White Avenue all the way to the Fairgrounds. There are several portions of this stretch that could be problematic. Though the city has 40 feet of right-of-way on the north side of White A venue there are a variety of obstructions that would need to be removed or avoided. This stretch and its problems can be seen in Figure 12. The problems include trees, signs, power poles and curbs. Fortunately, the majority of these can be dealt with relatively easily. It is recommended that the tree circled in Figure 1 2 be cut back or removed. The three signs on the west end of White Avenue and the stop sign near Blaine Street will need to be moved. Other minor obstacles will be present, and are accounted for in the cost analysis. Figure 12: White Avenue stretch At the fairgrounds the path will change from a class one off-road path to a class four shared use lane. This is ideal for the fairgrounds, since the road has a low traffic density. The path will continue along the Fairgrounds to Mountain View Road at Heron's Hideout. This stretch can be seen in Figure 1 3 . 1 4 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 13: Fairgrounds Shared Use Lane Potential Problems Debris · In designing the bike path underpass three significant problems arose and were taken into consideration. The first problem is debris, since the path is expected to flood at least once a year. When it floods, debris from the creek may get caught on the railing of the path. This problem can be overcome simply by removal of the debris by the Paradise Path maintenance crew after any flooding event. Pipe Diversion Another problem that was analyzed and addressed is a water runoff drainage pipe that empties in the way of the prop.osed underpass. A picture of the existing pipe is shown in Figure 14. This was solved by deciding to cut the 36" corrugated galvanized uncoated metal pipe flush with the concrete wall and diverting the flow to drain to the north after passing under the proposed path. A plan view of the pipe diversion is shown in Figure 1 5 . 1 5 ---PAGE BREAK--- Figure 14: Culvert Pipe to be Removed Figure 15: Plan View of Pipe Diversion 404 Permit Because construction of the project concerns a stream, a 404 permit must be applied for and granted. This pennit is an outcome of the Clean Water Act, which regulates the discharge of dredged, excavated, or fill material in wetlands, streams, rivers, and other U.S. waters. The permit is issued through the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Schedule/Project management Upon receiving this project the tasks and time required were determined, and the scheduling was organized into a Gantt chart. This Gantt chart is presented in Figure 1 6, followed by the Gantt chart of actual time spent on each task. Three main differences can be seen between the two charts. The first is that two more site investigations were required for the completion of the project. The second is the elimination of soil sampling and analysis, which was determined to not be necessary. The last was the 16 ---PAGE BREAK--- extension of the cost analysis, which turned out to be a big emphasis in the project. The PPTF stressed this during a meeting with them in February. Planned Gantt Chart Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 H 9 10 1 1 1 2 1 3 1 4 1 5 1 6 17 18 Task 1/10 1/17 1/24 1/31 2/7 2/14 2/2 1 2/20 3/7 3/14 3/21 3/28 4/4 4/11 4/18 4/25 5/2 5/9 I MOcting with Sponsor 2. Site Evaluation " • - 3. Silב Survey o!!l 4. Assess Altcmatlves IЫ S. Statistical Flow Analys is = · 6. Traffic I• 1׉ = 7. White Ave. Extension Design ·:Iǯ IJ. Assessing l>l fferenl 1:iows Ii t11ood I: Ir:= 10. Soi l Sampling and Analysis I 1ג׭- 11. 0C$lgn 1 1 12. l!conornic Analysis I" ̃ 13. ng.5 - - ̄ ̅ - ¤ IPli: , _ 1׌ 14. Write Paper F 15. Prcsent:ttions Final Gantt Chart Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 u 9 10 1 1 1 2 13 14 15 16 17 18 Task 1/10 1/17 1/21 1/31 2/7 2/14 2/2 1 2/28 3/7 3/14 3/21 3/20 4/4 4/1 1 4/18 4/25 5/2 5/9 1. Meeting wt th Sponsor 2. Si le Evaluation 1א 1- 1- 1- , 3. SI te Survey Ir. . 1ד 1 ה 4. Assess l\ltemati ve!i IÉ 1 - 5. Statistical Flow Analysis iii= 6, !ntersactlon/Ped. Traffic 1ׯ1- ̂ 7. White l\ve Extension Design ׍ 8. Assessing Different fllows I• ́ 1 1 - 9. Flood Analysis 1 10. So I Sarnpling 1111d l\nalysis ¦ § - 11. Guotechnical Design 1׊ · : ¥ 12. Economic 1 I' I: - 13. 1.ayout/Oesrgn/Drawings 1 14. Write Paper rh 'Ir 15. Presentations · - Figure 16: Gantt Chart (Planned & Final) Some tasks were primarily completed by one member of the group, based on areas of proficiency. For tasks that any member could complete, a component of determining which team member to assign a task to was how many hours of work each team member had. The goal was for each team member to spend about the same amount of time on the project. A summary of hours spent on the project by each team member can be seen in Table 4 below, as well as the time commitment of the faculty project sponsor liaison. These hours exclude the midterm and final presentations, as well as other time spent in class. A breakdown of specific hours spent by each team member is available in the appendix. 1 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- Table 4: Individual Hours Category Hours Tim Bishop 95 Ted Sorenson 93 Zach Swafford 92 Jazmine Watson 90 Total 370 Cost Analysis As previously mentioned, the cost of implementing the design is a primary concern of the PPTF. According to an engineer for the Idaho Department of Transportation, the cost of modifying an intersection to be signalized is about $200,000. Since the alternatives involving a signalized intersection were already eliminated, the breakdown of this price was not determined. Table 5: Cost Analysis Category Cost Boundary line surveying $2604 Pipe diversion $6406 Earthwork (cut, fill, rip rap, etc.) $6494 Pavement and concrete $10837 Rails, lights, and signs $1 8678 Gates $ 1 5 1 69 Subtotal $601 88 Allowances $20000 Overhead $8019 Total $86207 White A venue Path $146608 With overhead $161269 Bridge $54378 With overhead $598 16 The summary o f cost breakdown for the recommended design can b e seen in Table 5 above, and a line item cost analysis can be found in the Appendix H. These costs were determined by multiplying quantities of items by price rates from RSMeans, and adjusting the prices according to a regional factor. These e·stirnates include the cost of materials and labor, but not taxes. 1 8 ---PAGE BREAK--- Conclusion The engineers at JT Bishford feel that this project is both feasible and highly beneficial. Building this path would encourage pedestrian traffic through Moscow and would be the safest option for crossing SH-8. After analyzing the street personally it is obvious that the current crossing of SH-8 is slow, but most importantly, dangerous. For these reasons we feel an underpass option at the White Avenue bridge is ideal. A final rendering of the design can be seen in Figure 1 7: Figure 17: Final Rendering of Path Design 19 ---PAGE BREAK--- References Mays, Larry W. "Water Resources Engineering." Log Pearson Type Ill. Ed. Jenny Welter. Denver: Hamilton Printing Company, 2005. "Stream Stats." United States Geological Survey. N.p., n.d. Web. 27 Feb 201 1 . . "USGS Water Data." United States Geological Survey. N.p., 3 1 Dec 2010. Web. 14 Jan 201 1 . . RSMeans Site Work & Landscape Cost Data 2011. USA. R. S. Means Company, 2010. Print. ISBN: [PHONE REDACTED] 1 90 RSMeans Commercial Renovation Cost Data 2011. USA. R. S. Means Company, 2010. Print. ISBN: 978-19363351 76 Guide for the Development of Bicycle Facilities. Washington, DC: American Association of State Highway and Transportation Officials, 1 999. Print. ISBN: 978-15605 1 1021 20 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendices 2 1 ---PAGE BREAK--- June 1 , 2016 Idaho Transportation Department Attn: Jared Holyoak (HQ - Contracting Services) P.O. Box 7 1 29 Boise, ID 83707-1 129 Dear Mr. Holyoak: It is with great pleasure that I am allowed to express my support of the City of Moscow's application through Transportation Alternative Programs for an underpass bridge structure at State Highway 8 and Styner/White Avenue. It has been discussed far too long and is desperately needed for safety and public access. Currently there is not a safe crossing from Mountain View Road for bikers, pedestrian and those using adaptive devices for mobility to cross Highway 8. Yet, those same individuals daily take risks by crossing the heavily used and fast moving highway. The only logical crossing on the east side of town I have found which funnels foot traffic, bikers and people like myself using a wheelchair is the junction of the grant applications designated site. Getting from one side to the other is needed to access the mini shopping area of White Avenue and Highway 8. Also, the Paradise Path which is highly used and accesses untold miles of continuous trail is most feasible through this intersection. Styner enters from the University direction and is highly comprised of renters using bikes for travel. Currently Crossing the Highway is simply a "foot-race" as no street lights are currently installed and the regular lanes and turning lanes make crossing quite ambiguous. I understand that by stopping traffic to cross the highway creates a huge backlog of vehicles. It has long-been agreed by several traffic committees studying foot travel that an underpass is the only way to keep everyone moving across the intersection safely. A project acceptance like this would greatly affect my life for the positive. The Transportation Alternative Project's funding will not only increase the quality of life for Moscow but will provide better access to safe, uniform, and alternative routes of travel between areas of excessive residential housing, universities, schools, recreation, the business district and parks and pathways. I am a quadriplegic from a broken neck. For that reason I use a motorized chair as I attempt to travel around town as much as possible for therapy and recreation. This project would not only allow me better access to the resources in our community but it would eliminate my traveling by wheelchair out of the normal flow of traffic because of safety. Access alone to the path system allows me quick, easy, and safe travel within Moscow. Currently, travel done by bikers, joggers, walkers and wheelchair users is done at severe risk of bodily injury. The travel method is extremely inconvenient and dangerous for those involved. ---PAGE BREAK--- Bikers and children are forced to travel at their own risk over a long extended route that circles numerous extra block around this intersection to simply access the resources on the other side. With an underpass at this location, it would complete the creation of a route for safe movement of residents in an ever-increasing congested area. Also, as the population ages, this project would provide a continuous slower and safer route for older people accessing community resources as pedestrians. The underpass would keep people from being forced into traffic's harm. As a wheelchair user and someone who has twice been hit by cars while trying to negotiate the community s current intersections. I would greatly appreciate this marvelous improvement. Please accept my support and recommendation that this grant be approved. Thank you for your consideration and investment in the success of this great community. Sincerely, Larry Clott Moscow Citizen ---PAGE BREAK--- May 20, 2016 Idaho Transportation Department Attn: Jared Holyoak (HQ-Contracting Services) P.O. Box 7129 Boise, ID 83707-1129 Dea r M r. Holyoak, Sincerely, Please accept this sincere recommendation for the City of Moscow's a pplication for Transportation Alternatives Progra m (TAP) reimbursement program for the State Hwy 8/Paradise Path Underpass and Multimodal System Connection project. The location of the project addresses a key section of alternative transportation infrastructure that would im prove multi-modal access to many of the large business and retail sectors of our community. The difficult to traverse intersection on State Highway 8 at Styner/White Avenue impedes travel between many neighborhoods and these economic centers. With the installation of an underpass and the connections to the existing bike and pedestrian network, safe travel to a reas such as the downtown core, University of Idaho, Eastside Ma rketplace including the local Department of Labor office would be possible. This would a lso provide for safe non-vehicular travel options for those in the southern section of our community. Connections such as these are key to the economic vitality of Moscow. Please accept the Moscow Chamber of Commerce's support and recommendation for this project for TAP funding. Thank you for your consideration and investment in the success of this great community. Sincerely, Gina Ta ruscio Executive Director Moscow Chamber of Commerce 4 1 1 5. Main , f.Q. 5ox 89)6 + Moscow, Idaho 8)84) (208)8 82- 1 800 + www.moscowcha mber.com < ---PAGE BREAK--- ǭ ! Щ Moscow School District #281 650 N. Cleveland St. Moscow, ID 83843 (208) 882-1120 fax (208) 883-4440 www.msd281.org Jl-49CHO,c(>"(rl l • I vЪ Ǯo · Op THIS Dr. Greg Bailey, Superintendent Carrie Brooks, Director of Curriculum Admi11istration 650 N. Cleveland Moscow, ID 83843 208 882 1 1 20 FAX: [PHONE REDACTED] Moscow High School 402 E. Fifth Street Moscow, ID 83843 [PHONE REDACTED] FAX: 208.892.1 136 Moscow Middle School 1410 East D Street Moscow, ID 83843 [PHONE REDACTED] FAX: 208.892.1 1 82 Lena Whitmore Elementary 1 1 0 S, Blaine Moscow, ID 83843 208,882,2621 FAX: 208.892 1 202 A.B. McDonald_ Elementary 2323 East D Street Moscow, ID 83843 [PHONE REDACTED] FAX: 208.892.1 2 1 6 J. Russell Elementary 1 19 N. Adams Moscow, ID 83843 208.882 271 5 FAX: 208,892. 1241 West Park Elementary 5 1 0 Home Street Moscow, ID 83843 208.882.27 1 4 FAX: [PHONE REDACTED] Paradise Creek Regional High School 1 3 1 4 S. Main Moscow, ID 83843 208,882.3687 FAX: 208,882 6815 Support Services Facility FAX: 208.892. 1 265 Location: 2245 White Avenue Facilities 208.892. 1 1 29 Food Service 208.892. 1 1 23 Transportation 208,882,3933 Susan Clark, Business Manager Shannon Richards, Special Services Director May 27, 201 6 Idaho Transportation Department Attn: Jared Holyoak (HQ - Contracting Services) P.O. Box 7129 Boise, ID 83707- 1 129 To Whom It May Concern: The Moscow School District would like to share its support for the City of Moscow's Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) reimbursement program for the State Hwy 8/Paradise Path Underpass and Multimodal System Connection project. Infrastructure improvements such as these are a tremendous benefit for the community. Specifically, this project will address safety and connectivity concerns of parents as their children travel from neighborhoods south of State Highway 8 to schools north of the highway. Additionally, the project location served as a main crossing point for access to one of the largest charter schools just over a half mile away, and our Alternative High School. The underpass will provide for enhanced active travel infrastructure for our youth. The increased safety is also of great importance to the community as we work to provide safe routes of travel for even our youngest citizens. This project fits well with the Safe Routes to School endeavors in this regard as well. The importance of this project is realized by many of our community members. We hope you'll consider the City of Moscow's application favorably as this project will provide important access and safety improvements for our residents, especially children and families served by the Moscow School District. Thank you for your time and consideration. Sincerely, 4/4 Gregory J. Bailey, Ph.D. Superintendent ---PAGE BREAK--- M OS COW Urban Renewal Agency May 24, 2016 Honorable Mayor a nd City Council Members 206 E. Third Street Moscow, ID 83843 Dear Mayor Lambert and Moscow City Councilors, At the May 19, 2016 meeting of the Moscow Urban Renewal Agency (MURA), the Board of Commissioners discussed the City's May 13, 2016 request to provide financial assistance to the proposed Styner/White Avenue Highway 8 underpass project. It is the MU RA's understanding that the proposed project would utilize the existing State Highway 8 bridge structure to construct a pedestrian and bicycle underpass to connect the Paradise Path to the Latah County Fairgrounds. The Legacy Crossing Urban Renewal District Plan contains a significant focus upon the development and enhancement of pedestrian a nd bicycle facilities and connections within and surrounding the Legacy Crossing District. State Highway 8 currently is a significant barrier to pedestrian and bicyclists wishing to cross the highway to access and utilize the Paradise Path which is the City's largest non-motorized transportation facility. The proposed underpass will provide a critical link between the Legacy Crossing District and the large residential a nd commercial district areas to the north and east providing a safe and efficient crossing in increasing non-motorized transportation. As the location of the Highway underpass component of the project is located within the Legacy Crossing District and supports the goals and objectives of the Legacy Crossing Plan, the MURA Board would be pleased to provide a financial commitment to this important project in the amount of ten thousand dollars ($10,000) as requested in the City's May 13, 2016 letter. Sincerely, AP Steve McGeehan, Chair Moscow Urban Renewa l Agency Cc: Gary Riedner, Interim Treasurer Dwight Curtis, Parks & Recreation Director PO Box 9203 221 E Second Street Moscow ID 83843 P: [PHONE REDACTED] F: [PHONE REDACTED] www.moscowura.com ---PAGE BREAK--- • • Joscow Pathways · Commission A Volunteer Commission of the City of Moscow • • • • David Schott Parks/Facilities Manager Staff Liaison Gary J. Riedner City Supervisor • • • • Regular Meeting Time: Second Tuesday of the month 5:00 p.m. Mayor's Conference Room of City Hall Please check with City Hall to confirm meeting times or to volunteer for this cir other City Commissions Moscow Pathways Commission c/o David Schott P.O. Box 9203 Moscow, ID 83843-1703 Website: www.ci.moscow.id.us City Hall 206 East 3rd Street Phone (208) 883-7000 Fax (208) 883-701 8 Hearing Impaired (208) 883-701 9 0 Ill May 26, 201 6 Idaho Transportation Department Attn: Jared Holyoak (HQ - Contracting Services) P.O. Box 7 1 29 Boise, ID 83707-1 1 29 To Whom It May Concern, On behalf of the Moscow Pathways Commission, I am writing a letter of support in favor of the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) application for the State Hwy 8/Paradise Path Underpass and Multimodal System Connection project in Moscow, Idaho. As chair of the Moscow Pathways Commission, and one who lives without a motor vehicle, this grant will provide much-needed funds for this undertaking, which will connect schools, residences and other businesses-as well as parts of the existing pathway system-which are currently divided north/south by the highway, with naught but an unmarked crosswalk currently in this location. The research and analytical work completed by TerraGraphics in their three-phase study of the project highlights the safety features of the underpass. Given the underpass location and the inclusion of Paradise Creek, the hydrological study was key to determining the feasibility of the project which has been determined to be sound. Safety and utilization will be improved with this grant, with its provisions for lighting and other safety features. The nearby city of Pullman, Washington, has a similar underpass installed years ago as part of its parks/trail system; the proposed underpass for Moscow is an even better design. This project would also complement the underpass located further east on SH-8. With the help of this grant, this additional underpass structure would provide for wonderful model for other communities in Idaho. The Moscow Pathways Commission and I wholeheartedly support this grant application and seek its approval. Thank You, N O JG/jp Jonathan Gradin Chair, Moscow Pathways Commission 208-596-8 1 3 9 City Commissions are advisory to the Mayor and City Council and this communication does not represent the official position of the City of Moscow. ---PAGE BREAK--- May 27, 2016 Idaho Tra nsportation Department Attn: Jared Holyoak (HQ - Contracting Services) P.O. Box 7129 Boise, I D 83707-1129 To Whom It May Concern: I am writing in support of the City of Moscow's a pplication request for the 2016 Tra nsportation Alternatives Progra m (TAP) reimbursement program for the State Hwy 8/Paradise Path Underpass and Multimodal System Connection project. SMART Transit, with the support of its pa rtners the University of Idaho and the City of Moscow, provides local transit services to the Moscow community. In 2012, the City of Moscow collaborated with the University of Idaho to complete the Moscow lnterrnodal Tra nsit Center ( ITC) as a centralized location fo r multiple modes of transportation within the city including SMART Tra nsit's fixed route and demand response services, the U I ca m pus shuttle service, a connection hub for intercity bus service, and bicycle and pedestrian access, as it sits a longside Paradise Path. The ITC itself is an im pressive architectura l addition to the region. The TAP Program would p rovide direct access to the ITC fo r many in the south east quadrant of Moscow via Paradise Path. This direct access for pedestria ns and bicyclists to reach the ITC and the add itional services would improve access to public transit throughout M oscow. Additionally, the nearest public tra nsit bus shelter is at Styner Avenue and Hawthorne Drive, just blocks south of the proposed underpass area. This project will assist members of our community as well as vulnerable populations (persons with d isabilities and the elderly), traversing State Hig hway 8 to reach this stop. SMART Transit is a proud partner of the City of Moscow. Together we are working toward provid ing safe accessible services for the community. This project would provide a tremendous benefit to the high n u m ber of citizens that use a lternative transportation in our com munity. Please consider suppo rting this im porta nt project. Jenny Ford Executive Director Regional Public Transportation, Inc. • SMART Transit PO Box 3854, Moscow Idaho 83843 • Administration: [PHONE REDACTED] • Scheduling: [PHONE REDACTED] • www.r2transit.com ---PAGE BREAK--- May 23, 20 16 Idaho Transportation Department Attn: Jared Holyoak (HQ - Contracting Services) P.O. Box 7129 Boise, ID 83707-1 129 To Whom It May Concern: University of Idaho College of Education Movement Sciences Physical Education Building, Room 101 875 Perimeter Dr MS 2401 Moscow ID 83844-2401 Phone : [PHONE REDACTED] Fax : [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] Please accept this letter of support for the City of Moscow's Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) reimbursement program for the State Hwy 8/Paradise Path Underpass and Multimodal System Connection project. The local Safe Routes to School (SR2S) program in Moscow has enjoyed a long partnership with the City of Moscow. It has been a terrific opportunity to partner on previous years grant applications for infrastructure and non-infrastructure projects and look forward to continuing to support these complementary efforts in the future. This project provide for an important improvement and connection to the existing and well­ traveled system. As a key intersection in SR2S routes leading to Palouse Prairie Charter School and as a connection to many other SR2S identified routes, this underpass and connection to the system would be of great benefit to the safety of youth engaged in active travel. In addition, this connection will connect the existing system in a way that will provide more options for engaging in active travel. The proximity of the underpass to the Lewis-Clark Early Childhood facility also provides opp011unities for great examples of active travel at an early age as well. Given the busy nature of State Highway 8, having an underpass option for the community to bridge the divide between n011h and south in a safe manner provides for important connections to be made across neighborhoods. We sincerely support this project and look forward to improving the safety and connectivity with the Idaho TransportatiQn Department and our local partners. Sincerely, i; JKJ VYlL- SM CVJ Helen Brown Safe Routes to School Project Manager ---PAGE BREAK--- 1-tettn: of tl-!e Arl:.s • • • • Transportation Commission A Volunteer Commission of the City of Moscow • • • • Les MacDonald Public Works Director Staff Liaison Gary J. Riedner City Supervisor • • • • Regular Meeting Time: Second & Fourth Thursdays of the month 4:00 p.m. Council Chambers at City Hall Please check with City Hall to confirm meeting times or to volunteer for this or other City Commissions Transportation Commission c/o Les MacDonald P.Q Box 9203 Moscow, ID 03843-1 703 Website: www. ci moscow. id.us City Hall 206 East 3rd Street Phone (200) 883-7000 Fax (208) 883-7018 Hearing Impaired (208) 883-7019 • • May 3 1 , 2016 Mr. Jared Holyoak HQ-Contracting Services Idaho Transportation Department P.O. Box 7 129 Boise, ID 83707- 1 129 RE: City of Moscow 20 16 TAP Application Dear Mr. Holyoak, On behalf of the Moscow Transportation Commission, I am writing this letter of support for the City of Moscow application to the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) for the State Hwy 8/Paradise Path Underpass and Multimodal System Connection project in Moscow, Idaho. Part of the role of the Moscow Transportation Commission is long term planning for transportation infrastructure for all modes of travel within the City. The bicycle and pedestrian network will benefit greatly from the installation of this underpass and the associated mitigation of the State Highway 8 crossing. This project will provide a safe and comfortable connection of the Paradise Path trail system to the bicycle and pedestrian routes existing and planned throughout the eastern portion of the City . On behalf of the City of Moscow, we respectfully request funding for this Transportation Alternatives Program. Thank you for your consideration, Sincerely, lb/ . Ben CalabrettaJ Chair Moscow Transportation Commission City Commissions are advisory to the Mayor and City Council and this communication does not represent the official position of the City of Moscow. ---PAGE BREAK--- May 23, 2016 Idaho Transportation Department Attn: Jared Holyoak (HQ - Contracting Services) P.O. Box 7129 Boise, ID 83707-1 129 To Whom It May Concern: University of Idaho Division of Infrastructure Bld1. 209 875 Perimeter Drive MS 3162 Moscow ID 831M4-316Z Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] F.x: [PHONE REDACTED] The University of Idaho is proud to support the City of Moscow's Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) reimbursement program for the State Hwy 8/Paradise Path Underpass and Multimodal System Connection project The underpass at State Highway 8 at White/Styner Avenue will provide the needed safety improvements to allow faculty and students the ability to commute to the University using the existing Paradise Path system from neighborhoods that are currently lacking the connection needed to make the commute. As reported through the City's biennial citizen survey, a combined 14% of citizens in Moscow walk or bike to work. Additionally, many University of Idaho students traverse our community by walking, biking, or through public transit. With the enhanced access to the Intermodal Transit Center that this project provides, individuals will be able to better access services such as the campus shuttle and regional bus service. Improvements such as these are a good example of Moscow's forward thinking planning process. The Moscow Multi-Modal Transportation Plan that identified this very project as a key priority for leaders is an example of that dedication to planning and preparation. As outlined in the research and analysis portion for development of that plan, citizens regularly brought up the need for a safer crossing option at the project location at State Highway 8 and White/Styner Avenue. A safer crossing and the minimal pathway connections needed to link that important element to Moscow's network of multi-modal paths throughout the community will surely bolster bicycle and pedestrian use and safety. Thank you for your consideration and investment in the success of Moscow, Idaho and the University of Idaho. Sincerely, / , Daniel R Ewart Vice President for Infrastructure and Chief Information Officer University of Idaho To ecklatlon throuah the of Idaho Is 111 equal action employer. ---PAGE BREAK--- Exhibit B Non-Discrimination Agreement for Local Public Agencies Title VI Program Organization and Staffing Pursuant to 23 CFR 200, the Sponsor has designated a Title VI Coordinator who is responsible for monitoring practices, procedures, policies, and documents for compliance with Title VI. This individual is the designated liaison for Title VI program activities and for coordinating compliance monitoring with the Idaho Transportation Department Equal Employment Opportunity Office. Assurances of Non-Discrimination 49 CFR Part 2 1 . 7 The Sponsor hereby gives assurances: 1 . That no person shall on the grounds of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subjected to discrimination under any program or activity conducted by the Sponsor regardless of whether those programs and activities are Federally funded or not. The Federal-aid Highway Transportation Act of 1 973 added sex to the list of prohibitive factors. Disability was added through Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1 973. Age was subsequently added in 1 975 under the Age Discrimination Act. Minority populations and low-income populations were added by Presidential Executive Order 1 2898. Limited English proficient persons was added by Presidential Executive Order 1 3 1 66. 2. That it will take any measures necessary to effectuate this agreement. 3. That each program, activity, and facility (i.e. lands change to roadways, park and ride lots etc.) as defined at 49 CFR 2 1 .23(b) and and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1 987 will be (with regard to a program or activity) conducted, or will be (with regard to a facility) operated in compliance with the nondiscriminatory requirements imposed by, or pursuant to, this agreement. Further assurance is given that the Sponsor will comply with all requirements of Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA) and Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Public agencies are required to have completed a self-evaluation of all their programs and services (including pedestrian facilities) by 1 992. In addition, public agencies with 50 or more employees were required to develop an ADA Transition Plan describing in detail how corrections would be made. If corrections could not be made within one year (or 1 993), the Plan was to include a detailed schedule of how corrections would be made (CFR 28 35.1 05 & 35. 1 50). 4. That these assurances are given in consideration of and for the purpose of obtaining any and all Federal grants, loans, contracts, property, discounts or other Federal financial assistance extended after the date hereof to the Sponsor by the Idaho Transportation Department (ITD) under the Federally-Funded Program and is binding on it, other recipients, sub-grantees, contractors, sub-contractors, transferees, successors in interest and other participants. 5. That the Sponsor shall insert the following notification in all solicitations for bids for work or material subject to the Regulations and made in connection with all Federally-Funded programs and, in adapted form all proposals for negotiated agreements: The (Sponsor), in accordance with Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 78 Stat. 252, 42 US. C. 2000d to 2000d-4 and Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, Part 21, Nondiscrimination in Federally-assisted programs of the Department of Transportation issued pursuant to such Act, hereby notifies all bidders that it will affirmatively ensure that in any contract entered into pursuant to this 2 State/Local Agreement Paradise Path Upass & Multimodal Ext Key No. 201 72 ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. Collect statistical data (race and sex) of participants in, and beneficiaries of the Transportation programs and activities conducted by the Sponsor. 7. Conduct Title VI reviews of the Sponsor and sub-recipient contractor/consultant program areas and activities. Revise where applicable, policies, procedures and directives to include Title VI requirements. 8. Attend training programs on Title VI and related statutes conducted by ITD's EEO Office. 9. Participate in an annual review of the Sponsor's Title VI Program, the purpose of which is to determine to what extent the Sponsor has complied with Title VI requirements including the ADA. This review is conducted one year from the date of approval of the Non-Discrimination Agreement and then annually on the same date. The format for the Title VI review will be provided each year to the Sponsor for completion. A determination of compliance will be made by ITD's EEO Office based on the information supplied in the review. This review of the Sponsor's Title VI Program may also include an on-site review in order to determine compliance. Discrimination Complaint Procedure Any person who believes that he or she, individually, as a member of any specific class, or in connection with any disadvantaged business enterprise, has been subjected to discrimination prohibited by Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1 964, the American with Disabilities Act of 1 990, Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1 973 and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1 987, as amended, may file a complaint with the Sponsor. A complaint may also be filed by a representative on behalf of such a person. All complaints will be referred to the Sponsor's Title VI Coordinator for review and action. In order to have the complaint consideration under this procedure, the complainant must file the complaint no later than 1 80 days after: a) The date of alleged act of discrimination; or b) Where there has been a continuing course of conduct, the date on which that conduct was discontinued. In either case, the Sponsor or his/her designee may extend the time for filing or waive the time limit in the interest of justice, specifying in writing the reason for so doing. Complaints shall be in writing and shall be signed by the complainant and/or the complainant's representative. Complaints shall set forth as fully as possible the facts and circumstances surrounding the claimed discrimination. In the event that a person makes a verbal complaint of discrimination to an officer or employee of the Sponsor, the person shall be interviewed by the Title VI Coordinator. If necessary, the Title VI Coordinator will assist the person in reducing the complaint to writing and submit the written version of the complaint to the person for signature. The complaint shall then be handled according to the Sponsor's investigative procedures. Within 10 days, the Title VI Coordinator will acknowledge receipt of the allegation, inform the complainant of action taken or proposed action to process the allegation, and advise the complainant of other avenues of redress available, such as ITD and USDOT. The Sponsor will advise ITD within 1 0 days of receipt of the allegations. Generally, the following information will be included in every notification to ITD: a) Name, address, and phone number of the complainant. b) Name(s) and address( es) of alleged discriminating official(s). c) Basis of complaint race, color, national origin or sex) d) Date of alleged discriminatory act(s). e) Date of complaint received by the Sponsor. 4 State/Local Agreement Paradise Path Upass & Mu/timodal Ext Key No. 201 72 ---PAGE BREAK--- f) A statement of the complaint. g) Other agencies (state, local or Federal) where the complaint has been filed. h) An explanation of the actions the Sponsor has taken or proposed to resolve the issue raised in the complaint. Within 60 days, the Title VI Coordinator will conduct an investigation of the allegation and based on the information obtained, will render a recommendation for action in a report of findings to the Sponsor's authorized representative. The complaint should be resolved by informal means whenever possible. Such informal attempts and their results will be summarized in the report of findings. Within 90 days of receipt of the complaint, the Sponsor's authorized representative will notify the complainant in writing of the final decision reached, including the proposed disposition of the matter. The notification will advise the complainant of his/her appeal rights with ITD, or USDOT, if they are dissatisfied with the final decision rendered by the Sponsor. The Title VI Coordinator will also provide ITD with a copy of this decision and summary of findings upon completion of the investigation. Contacts for the different Title VI administrative jurisdictions are as follows: Idaho Transportation Department Equal Employment Opportunity Office - External Programs EEO Manager PO Box 7 1 29 Boise, ID 83707-1 1 29 [PHONE REDACTED] Federal Highway Administration Idaho Division Office 3050 Lakeharbor Lane, Suite 126 Boise, ID 83703 208-334-91 80 Sanctions In the event the Sponsor fails or refuses to comply with the terms of this agreement, the ITD may take any or all of the following actions: 1 . Cancel, terminate, or suspend this agreement in whole or in part; 2. Refrain from extending any further assistance to the Sponsor under the program from which the failure or refusal occurred until satisfactory assurance of future compliance has been received from the Sponsor. 3. Take such other action that may be deemed appropriate under the circumstances, until compliance or remedial action has been accomplished by the Sponsor; 4. Refer the case to the Department of Justice for appropriate legal proceedings. Distribution: EEO Office Exhibit B revised: 03-09, 08-10 5 State/Local Agreement Paradise Path Upass & Multimodal Ext Key No. 201 72 ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 1 This Attachment is to be inserted in every contract subject to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and associated Regulations. During the performance of this contract, the contractor/consultant, for itself, its assignees and successors m interest (hereinafter referred to as the "contractor") agrees as follows: 1. Compliance with Regulations The contractor shall comply with the Regulations relative to non-discrimination in federally assisted programs of United States Department of Transportation (USDOT), Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, part 2 1 , as they may be amended from time to time, (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations), which are herein incorporated by reference and made a part of this contract. 2. Non-discrimination The contractor, with regard to the work performed by it during the contract, shall not discriminate on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin in the selection and retention of sub-contractors, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment. The contractor shall not participate either directly or indirectly in the discrimination prohibited by Section 2 1 .5 of the Regulations, including employment practices when the contract covers a program set forth in Appendix B of the Regulations. 3. Solicitations for Sub-contracts, Including Procurement of Materials and Equipment In all solicitations either by competitive bidding or negotiations made by the contractor for work to be performed under a sub-contract, including procurement of materials or leases of equipment, each potential sub-contractor or supplier shall be notified by the contractor of the contractor's obligations under this contract and the Regulations relative to non­ discrimination on the grounds of race, color, sex, or national origin. 4. Information and Reports The contractor shall provide all information and reports required by the Regulations or directives issued pursuant thereto, and shall permit access to its books, records, accounts, other sources of information, and its facilities as may be determined by the contracting agency or the appropriate federal agency to be pertinent to ascertain compliance with such Regulations, orders and instructions. Where any information required of a contractor is in the exclusive possession of another who fails or refuses to furnish this information, the contractor shall so certify to ITD or the USDOT as appropriate, and shall set forth what efforts it has made to obtain the information. 5. Sanctions for Non-compliance In the event of the contractor's non-compliance with the non-discrimination provisions of this contract, the contracting agency shall impose such contract sanctions as it or the USDOT may determine to be appropriate, including, but not limited to: • Withholding of payments to the contractor under the contract until the contractor complies, and/or; • Cancellation, termination, or suspension of the contract, in whole or in part Incorporation of Provisions The contractor shall include the provisions of paragraphs through in every sub-contract, including procurement of materials and leases of equipment, unless exempt by the Regulations, or directives issued pursuant thereto. The contractor shall take such action with respect to any sub-contractor or procurement as the contracting agency or USDOT may direct as a means of enforcing such provisions including sanctions for non-compliance. Provided, however, that in the event a contractor becomes involved in, or is threatened with, litigation with a sub­ contractor or supplier as a result of such direction, the contractor may request ITD enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the state and, in addition, the contractor may request the USDOT enter into such litigation to protect the interests of the United States. 6 State/Local Agreement Paradise Path Upass & Multimodal Ext Key No. 201 72 ---PAGE BREAK--- advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises as defined at 49 CFR Part 23 will be afforded full opportunity to submit bids in response to this invitation and will not be discriminated against on the grounds of race, color, national origin, sex, or disability in consideration for an award. 6. That the Sponsor shall insert the clauses of Attachment 1 of this Agreement in every contract subject to the Act and the Regulations. 7. That the Sponsor shall insert the clauses of Attachment 2 of this Agreement, as a covenant running with the land, in any deed from the United States effecting a transfer of real property, structures, or improvements thereon, or interest therein. 8. The Sponsor agrees that the United States has a right to seek judicial enforcement with regard to any matter arising under the Act, the Regulations, and this agreement. Implementation Procedures This agreement shall serve as the Sponsor's Title VI plan pursuant to 23 CFR 200 and 49 CFR 2 1 . For the purpose of this agreement, "Federal Assistance" shall include: 1 . grants and loans of Federal funds, 2. the grant or donation of Federal property and interest in property, 3 . the detail of Federal personnel, 4. the sale and lease of, and the permission to use (on other than a casual or transient basis), Federal property or any interest in such property without consideration or at a nominal consideration, or at a consideration which is reduced for the purpose of assisting the Sponsor, or in recognition of the public interest to be served by such sale or lease to the Sponsor, and 5. any Federal agreement, arrangement, or other contract which has as one of its purposes, the provision of assistance. The Sponsor shall: 1 . Issue a policy statement, signed by the Sponsor's authorized representative, which expresses its commitment to the nondiscrimination provisions of Title VI. The policy statement shall be circulated throughout the Sponsor's organization and to the general public. Such information shall be published where appropriate in languages other than English. 2. Take affirmative action to correct any deficiencies found by ITD or the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT) within a reasonable time period, not to exceed 90 days, in order to implement Title VI compliance in accordance with this agreement. The Sponsor's authorized representative shall be held responsible for implementing Title VI requirements. 3. Designate a Title VI Coordinator who has a responsible position in the organization and easy access to the Sponsor's authorized representative. The Title VI Coordinator shall be responsible for initiating and monitoring Title VI activities and preparing required reports. 4. Adequately implement the civil rights requirements. 5. Process complaints of discrimination consistent with the provisions contained in this agreement. Investigations shall be conducted by civil rights personnel trained in discrimination complaint investigation. Identify each complainant by race, color, national origin, sex, or disability; the nature of the complaint; the date the complaint was filed; the date the investigation was completed; the disposition; the date of the disposition; and other pertinent information. A copy of the complaint, together with a copy of the Sponsor's report of investigation, will be forwarded to ITD's EEO Office - External Programs within 1 0 days of the date the complaint was received by the Sponsor. 3 State/Local Agreement Paradise Path Upass & Mu/timodal Ext Key No. 201 72