Document Moscow_doc_c79f0d3fa8

PARTIES STATE/LOCAL AGREEMENT (PROJECT DEVELOPMENT) PROJECT NO. A014(337) MIDDLE SCHOOLS SR2S SAFETY IMPROVEMENTS, MOSCOW LATAH COUNTY KEY NO. 14337 -'flu TH11 AGREEME:rr is made entered into this day of Ll. j .t \1 d¢ aott_ I by and between the IDAHO TRANSPORTATION BOARD, by and through the IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT, hereafter called the State, and the CITY OF MOSCOW, acting by and through its Mayor and Council, hereafter called the Sponsor. PURPOSE The Sponsor has requested funding under the Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) as detailed in the Project Application. A copy of the Project Application is attached as Exhibit A. The purpose of this Agreement is to set out the terms and conditions necessary to obtain Federal-aid participation in the work . NOTE: Securing the services of a consultant for project development services must follow the process outlined in the Idaho Transportation Department Guidelines for Local Public Agency Projects. Since certain functions under this Agreement are to be performed by the State, requiring 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 incurred by the State related to the project. Authority for this Agreement is established by Section 40- 317 of the Idaho Code. The Parties agree as follows: 1 State/Local Agreement (PD) Middle Schools SR2S Safety Improvements Key No. 14337 ---PAGE BREAK--- SECTION I. GENERAL 1. It is necessary to develop construction plans and specifications in order that federal participation may be obtained in the construction costs of the project. Federal-aid for project development is available on this project. 2. Federal participation in the project is at the rate of 92. 66%; local participation is 7 . 34%. Scheduled funding for this project is listed on the approved Idaho Transportation Investment Program, and subsequent revisions. Current estimated funding is as follows: a. Project Development (State, Consultant, Local) $55, 000 b. c. d. Construction Engineering - Construction - $485, 000 Total Estimated Project Costs $540, 000 3. 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 (currently $40, 000) ; 4. This project shall be designed and constructed to an approved adopted standard. In the event that the Sponsor does not have an adopted standard for specific areas or items, then the State Standards as defined in the current version of the Idaho Transportation Department's Design Manual, or as subsequently revised, AASHTO, or other agency standards shall be identified and incorporated into the design and construction of the project. The current version of the Design Manual can be viewed at the following web site: http://itd. idaho. gov/manuals/ManualsOnline. htm . 5. All information, regulatory and warning signs, pavement or other mark ings, and traffic signals required and warranted will be developed as a part of the plans, regardless of whether the work is done as a portion of the contract or by the Sponsor's forces. 2 State/Local Agreement (PD) Middle Schools SR2S Safety Improvements Key No. 14337 ---PAGE BREAK--- 6. If the project is terminated prior to completion, the Sponsor shall repay to the State all federal funds received for the project, and shall be liable to the State for any un-reimbursed incidental expenses as provided for in Section II, Paragraph 1 of this Agreement. 7 . Sufficient Appropriation. It is understood and agreed that the State is a governmental agency, and this Agreement shall 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 terminate 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 termination shall tak e effect immediately upon notice and be otherwise effective as provided in this Agreement. SECTION II. That the State shall: 1. Provide the following services project development: incidental to the a. Assist Sponsor in the selection of a Consul ting Engineer and negotiations as needed, and furnish the Agreement for Engineering Services and any supplements thereto, to be used between the Sponsor and Consulting Engineers on this project. b. R eview Preliminary recommend other documentation. Environmental appropriate Evaluation and environmental c. Furnish to the engineers copies of materials test reports and other data applying to the project and available to the State. d. Provide a hearing officer to conduct a formal public hearing as necessary. 3 State/Local Agreement (PD) Middle Schools SR2S Safety Improvements Key No. 14337 ---PAGE BREAK--- 2. e. Assign State personnel or assist in hiring a qualified relocation agent to determine relocation entitlements and assistance which might be required by the project. f. File with the Federal Highway Administration applications for exceptions to AASHTO Standards when appropriate and for government land withdrawals for rights-of-way and airport clearance. g. If requested by the Sponsor, assist in negotiations with public carriers and utilities for agreements on behalf of the Sponsor. h. R eview the consultant plans, estimates, reports and environmental studies, and issue notice of approval to the Sponsor and the engineer following the Concept, Preliminary and Final Design R eviews and the Design Study R eport. i. Supply roadway summary sheets drawings as may be required plans. and such standard to supplement the J. Print and assemble plans, specifications and contracts. special provisions, k. Advertise for contract. Prior enter into a responsibilities construction. bids and let the construction to construction, the parties will separate agreement covering of the parties relating to Within sixty (60) documentation from funds for project at the approved expenses. days of receipt of appropriate the Sponsor showing expenditure of development, reimburse the Sponsor Federal-aid rate for el igible 3. Bill the Sponsor for costs incurred by the State under this Agreement for project development, if those costs exceed the amount set out in Section III, Paragraph 1. 4 State/Local Agreement (PD) Middle Schools SR2S Safety Improvements Key No. 1433 7 ---PAGE BREAK--- 4. Bill the Sponsor for any federal funds to be repaid by the Sponsor if the project is terminated prior to completion, and the Sponsor has been reimbursed with federal funds for preliminary engineering. SECTION III. That the Sponsor shall: 1. Pay to the State, before the State begins the incidental services referred to in Section II, 2 . Paragraph 1, the sum of TEN THOUSAND DOLLARS ($10, 000) , estimated to be the total expense to the State. In addition, pay to the State the cost of all incidental services provided by the State upon receipt of the billing provided for in Section II, Paragraph 3. Checks shall be made payable to the "Idaho Transportation Department". Sponsor warrants that it will reimbursements on this project terminated prior to completion. repay if the any federal project is 3 . With the assistance of the State, hire a consultant for development of the project. 4. Make timely payment of all consultant invoices throughout the design of the project. Periodically the Sponsor may submit allowable Consultant invoices and receipts to the State showing payment of same for reimbursement. The State will reimburse the Sponsor for eligible expenses less the Sponsor's match. 5. Advertise for formal public hearing if required. 6. Coordinate the relocation of utilities within the right-of-way of the project. Federal-aid utility relocations will be processed in accordance with the applicable provisions of 2 3 CFR and the Sponsor's utility policies and procedures. 7 . Acquire provide project. all for rights-of-way construction and and easements needed maintenance of to the 5 State/Local Agreement (PD) Middle Schools SR2S Safety Improvements Key No. 14337 ---PAGE BREAK--- 8. Employ an approved certified general appraiser to compl ete all appraisals and an independent certified general appraiser to review appraisals required for the project. 9. R eview the appraisal reviewer's statement of the estimated fair market value and approve an amount to be just compensation for each parcel to be acquired. 10. Provide a right-of-way status report 2161) and forward it to the project manager. (ITD- 11. Before initiating negotiations for any real property required for right-of-way, establish, in writing, an amount considered to be just compensation, under Idaho law, Federal R egulations or any other applicable law, and make a prompt offer to acquire the property for the full amount established. 12. Make a good faith effort, in accordance with Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, to acquire the real property by negotiation. Employ a State Approved Negotiator if necessary. 13. Inform the property owner, in those cases where he indicates a willingness to donate a portion of his real property for rights-of-way, of all his rights, including his right to full compensation in money for land and damages, if any, in accordance with Idaho Code. 14. Provide relocation assistance and payments for any displaced person, business, farm operation, or nonprofit organization in accordance with the Uniform R elocation Assistance and R eal Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970; 49 CFR 24; 23 CFR 710; the Idaho R eal Property Acquisition Act of 1971; Title 40, Chapter 20; and Title 58, Chapter 11; Idaho Code, as amended, and regul ations promulgated thereunder. No individual or family shall be displaced until decent, safe and sanitary replacement housing is available to the relocatees for immediate occupancy. In addition, advise the State of any relocations required by the project and authorize the State to negotiate in its behalf for all relocation assistance and payments, the cost of which will be assumed by the Sponsor at the time of negotiation. 6 State/Local Agreement (PD) Middle Schools SR2S Safety Improvements Key No. 14337 ---PAGE BREAK--- 15. Ensure to the greatest extent practicable that no person lawfully occupying the real property shall be :i;-equired to move from his home, farm or business without at least ninety ( 9 0) days' written notice prior to advertisement of the project. 16. Before advertisement for bids, provide a certification that all rights-of-way, easements, permits, materials sources and agreements necessary for the construction of the project have been acquired in accordance with the provisions of this Section. Provide a value of any right-of-way donations obtained, which may be credited as a matching share. 17. Evaluate the impact the project might have on the quality of the human environment and prepare and furnish to the State an environmental evaluation, that includes cultural resources, and any other documentation required by the National Environmental Policy Act. 18. At all required public hearings, furnish all necessary exhibits and provide for a representative of the Sponsor to describe the project; present information about the location and design, including alternatives; discuss the tentative schedules for rights-of-way acquisitions and construction; discuss the Sponsor's relocation assistance program; discuss the economic, sociological, and environmental effects of the project; and answer all questions concerning the project. 19. Comply with Appendix A, Title 49 CFR , Part 21, attached hereto and made a part hereof. By this agreement Sponsor agrees to comply with and be bound to the Civil R ights provisions of Title VI of the Federal Code and to generally insert those provisions in all contracts that it enters into that are federally funded on this project. If property acquired for this project with Federal financial assistance is transferred, the recipient of the property will be subject to Appendix A if the property is used for the same purpose it was originally acquired or for another purpose involving similar services or benefits to the general public. Sponsor should contact the State prior to disposing of any property acquired under this agreement. 7 State/Local Agreement (PD) Middle Schools SR2S Safety Improvements Key No. 14337 ---PAGE BREAK--- 20. Maintain all project records, including source documentation for all expenditures and in-kind contributions, for a period of three ( 3) years from the date of final acceptance. 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. 21. Comply with all other applicable State and Federal regulations. EXECUTION This Agreement is executed for the State by its Transportation Performance Division Administrator, and executed for the Sponsor by the Mayor, attested to by the City Clerk, with the imprinted Corporate Seal of the City of Moscow. (SEAL) By on hm:l4337 SLAPD.docx IDAHO TRANSPORTATION DEPARTMENT OlP4Mi'.JlED BY: District Engineer CITY OF MOSCOW 8 State/Local Agreement (PD) Middle Schools SR2S Safety Improvements Key No. 14337 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPENDIX A Non-Discrimination Agreement for Local Public Agencies Title VI Program Organization and Staffing Pursuant to 23 CPR 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 CPR Part 21.7 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 1973 added sex to the list of prohibitive factors. Disability was added through Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973. Age was subsequently added in 1975 under the Age Discrimination Act. Minority populations and low-income populations were added by Presidential Executive Order 12898. Limited English proficient persons was added by Presidential Executive Order 13166. 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 CPR 21.23(b) and and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987 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 1992. 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 1993), the Plan was to include a detailed schedule of how corrections would be made (CFR 28 35.105 & 35.150). 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 U.S.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 advertisement, disadvantaged business enterprises as defined at 49 CFR Part 23 will be afforded full 1 State/Local Agreement (PD) Middle Schools SR2S Safety Improvements Key No. 14337 ---PAGE BREAK--- 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 I 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 CPR 200 and 49 CPR 21. For the purpose of this agreement, "Federal Assistance" shall include: I. 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: I. 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 I 0 days of the date the complaint was received by the Sponsor. 2 State/Local Agreement (PD) Middle Schools SR2S Safety Improvements Key No. 14337 ---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 1964, the American with Disabilities Act of 1990, Section 504 of the Vocational Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Civil Rights Restoration Act of 1987, 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 180 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 10 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. 3 State/Local Agreement (PD) Middle Schools SR2S Safety Improvements Key No. 14337 ---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 7 129 Boise, ID 83707-1 129 [PHONE REDACTED] Federal Highway Administration Idaho Division Office 3050 Lakeharbor Lane, Suite 126 Boise, ID 83703 208-3 34-9180 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 Appendix A revised: 03-09, 08-10 4 State/Local Agreement (PD) Middle Schools SR2S Safety Improvements Key No. 14337 ---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 21, 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 21.5 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. s State/Local Agreement (PD) Middle Schools SR2S Safety Improvements Key No. 14337 ---PAGE BREAK--- Attachment 2 The following clauses shall be included in any and all deeds affecting or recording the transfer of real property, structures or improvements thereon, or interest therein from the United States. GRANTING CLAUSE NOW THEREFORE, Department of Transportation, as authorized by law, and upon the condition that the state of Idaho will accept title to the lands and maintain the project constructed thereon, in accordance with Title 23, United States Code, the Regulations for the Administration of Federal Aid for Highways and the policies and procedures prescribed by the United States Department of Transportation and, also in accordance with and in compliance with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to 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 ITD (hereinafter referred to as the Regulations) pertaining to and effectuating the provisions of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (78 Stat. 252: 42 USC 2000d to 2000d - 4) does hereby remise, release, quitclaim, and convey unto the state of Idaho all the right, title, and interest of the Department of Transportation in and to said land described in Exhibit A attached hereto and made a part thereof. HABENDUM CLAUSE TO HA VE AND TO HOLD said lands and interests therein unto the state of Idaho, and its successors forever, subject, however, to the covenants, conditions, restrictions and reservations herein contained as follows, which will remain in effect for the period during which the real property or structures are used for a purpose for which the federal financial assistance is extended or for another purpose involving the provisions of similar services or benefits and shall be binding on the state of Idaho, its successors, and assigns. The state of Idaho, in consideration of the conveyance of said lands and interests in lands, does hereby covenant and agree as a covenant running with the land for itself, its successors and assigns, that no person shall on the grounds of race, color, sex or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subject to discrimination with regard to any facility located wholly or in part on, over, or under such lands hereby conveyed that the state of Idaho, shall use the lands and interests in lands so conveyed, in compliance with all requirements imposed by or pursuant to Title 49, Code of Federal Regulations, Department of Transportation, Subtitle A, Office of the Secretary, part 21, Non-discrimination of federally assisted programs of the Department of Transportation - Effectuation of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, and as said Regulations may be amended and that in the event of breach of any of the above mentioned non-discrimination conditions, the department shall have a right to reenter said lands and facilities on said land, and the above described land and facilities shall thereon revert to and vest in and become the absolute property of the Department of Transportation and its assigns as such interest existed prior to this instruction.1 1 Reverter Clause and related language to be used only when it is determined that such a clause is necessary in order to effectuate the purpose of Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. ---PAGE BREAK--- RESOLUTION WHEREAS, the Idaho Transportation Department, hereafter called the State, has submitted an Agreement stating obligations of the State and the CITY OF MOSCOW, hereafter called the CITY, for development of Middle Schools SR2S Safety Improvements; and WHEREAS, the State 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 the State involve the expenditure of funds as set forth in the Agreement; and WHEREAS, The State can only pay for work associated with the State Highway system; and WHEREAS, the CITY is ful ly responsible for its share of project costs; and NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED: 1. That the Agreement for Federal Aid Project A014 (337) is hereby approved. 2. That the Mayor and the City Clerk are hereby authorized to execute the Agreement on behalf of the CITY. 3. That duly certified copies of the Resolution shall be furnished to the Idaho Transportation Department. CERTIFICATION I hereby certify that the above is a true copy of a Resolution passed at a regular, duly called special (X-out non-applicable term) meeting of the City Council, City of Moscow, held on (Seal) City Clerk ---PAGE BREAK--- G ù H City of Mos cow City of Moscow _J Applk•nto f c;ty of Mo"o f PO Box 9203 PO Box 9203 Address: f PO Box 9203 I 1 83843-1 703 83843-1 703 Zip: f 83843-1703 f r Alisa Stone Contact Person: * Title: I Grants Manager Ph I (208) 883-7600 * E ·1 I astone@ ci.rnoscow .id.us one: ma1: Co-Applicant/Sponsor (if different from Applicant): I dd I 1410 East Street A ress: 1 Moscow I ID City: State: Moscow School District #281 I 83843 Zip: j Gregory Bailey Contact Person: . • 1 j Superintendent, Moscow School District Tit e: I (208) 882-1 120 .1 _I _ g_ b- ai-le-y@- ms-d2_8 rg- - Phone: Ema1 : PROJECT INFORMATION 2A - .L - 99 _ 9_ø 2A.L999 ú * Strategy Number * * Page 1 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- tvloscow - tvloscow Mddle School SR2S Safety Project Strategy Name f Moscow - Mose.ow Middle School SR2S Safety Improvement Project Please select the program(s) you are applying for on this application.• Funding Source I CC4I CC4I I 1 010112014 Project Start Date: * Highway Routes: If not on the highway system please put NIA Project End Dat:e:I 09/30/2015 NIA * tvloscow - Moscow Mddle Schc f * Beginning Milepost: (0 if inapplicable) I o * Ending Milepost: (0 if inapplicable) I o * Project Name: tvloscow Mddle School - Safe Routes to School - Safety Project _J f 73 of300* Project Location (include street or trail name, city, county, and beginning/end points as applicable: Street between Grant Street & tvlountain View Road and the parking lot of tvloscow School between & Streets. The tvloscow School and adjacent parking lots/sports facilities are on the north side of Street and !he skate park, Eggan Youth Center and the Olyear Relds used for soccer practices and garres adjacent to the Oylear path running from to aeveland Street. ' :lJ S 391 of 400* Owner of project site or right-of-way: The City of tvloscow owns all of the public right-of-way on Street w here a majority of the safety irrproverrents w ill be constructed. The Moscow School District owns the parking lot w here additional safety irrproverrents w ill be also be installed. Please give a brief description of project. f 246of250* Page 2 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- The City of MJscow (aty) and the MJscow School District #281 (District) are proposing a project to increase w alking and biking safety and reduce street and parking lot congestion at the MJscow Mddle School (tvlv'IS) w hich is attended by students in grades 6th-8th. The proposed pedestrian, bicycle and traffic safety irrprovements to the area around tvlv1S includes roadw ay channelization on Street; raised and enhanced crossw alks; pedestrian and vehicle signage; irrproved and channelized parking lot entrances and circulation irrprovements; pavement markings; and a 8 foot w ide shared use pathw ay connection along the w estern edge of the tvlv1S upper parking lot property to provide safe, non-motorized access betw een and Street. = 733 of zooo* CONSISTENCY WITH EVALUATION CRITERIA Projects will be ranked based on project need, benefits, and feasibility. These criteria are described in detail in the Program Guide. If desired, applicants may attach a brief narrative describing the project's consistency with the evaluation criteria in addition to answering the questions that follow. Briefly describe the need(s) that the project would address: The WMS not only serves students in grades 6th-8th, but is the central hub for al students in the District. School buses are routed to and from the low er parking lot of WMS to drop off and pick up K-5th grade students from bussed areas w ho transfer to another bus to be transported to the school they attend. After school sports teams, school groups, and other organizations use the WMS facilnies. The congestion is intensified w hen there are numerous extracurricular activities happening in the same evening and afternoon. These uses also increases traffic on the streets adjacent to the tvlv1S and shared use pathw ays. The main parking lot has numerous potential hazards due to poor visibility, narrow parking spaces and pedestrians w alking and biking throughout the lot. l\!1any drivers use the lot as a short cut from to Streets at a high unsafe speed. Additional concern is the low er parking lot w here.-::J 4 _tJ 1 000 of 1000* The MMS not only serves students in grades 6th-8th, but is the central hub for all students in the District. School buses are routed to and from the lower parking lot of MMS to drop off and pick up K-5th grade students from bussed areas who transfer to another bus to be transported to the school they attend. After school sports teams, school groups, and other organizations use the MMS facilities. The congestion is intensified when there are numerous extracurricular activities happening in the same evening and afternoon. These uses also increases traffic on the streets adjacent to the MM5 and shared use pathways. The main parking lot has numerous potential hazards due to poor visibility, narrow parking spaces and pedestrians walking and biking throughout the lot. Many drivers use the lot as a short cut from to Streets at a high unsafe speed. Additional concern is the lower parking lot where buses/parents both wait to pick up students behind a crosswalk and try to pull out. Briefly describe how the need and the proposed solution were identified: Page 3 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Four students from the '10 University of Idaho (Uƒ graduate course "Sustainable Transportation & Corrrrunity Design" w ere paired w ith the fl.'loscow SR2S program for a service learning project. The focus w as to make recorrrrendations that combine the goals of SR2S w ith sustainable trarsportation _J and corrrrunity design to provide resources for future projects. The students assessed safety concerns by seeking input from school officials , parents , and members of the corrrrunity and by observing the proposed project area during peak times of day. The final report made recorrrrendations for each of the observed problems and contains nultiple diagrams and figures. The recorrrrendatiors for the surrounding streets include alternatives for parking lot layouts w ith a shared use pathway in order to mitigate safety concerns . The recorrrrended carrpus perimeter safety irrprovements include a median on '4 989 of 1000* Four students from the '10 University of Idaho (UI) graduate course "Sustainable Transportation & Community Design" were paired with the Moscow SR2S program for a service learning project. The focus was to make recommendations that combine the goals of SR2S with sustainable transportation and community design to provide resources for future projects. The students assessed safety concerns by seeking input from school officials, parents, and members of the community and by observing the proposed project area during peak times of day. The final report made recommendations for each of the observed problems and contains multiple diagrams and figures. The recommendations for the surrounding streets include alternatives for parking lot layouts with a shared use pathway in order to mitigate safety concerns. The recommended campus perimeter safety improvements include a median on Street with raised crosswalks and designated pick up and drop off zones on both and Streets. Briefly describe the public participation process aŅsociated _wiņŇ _t:he project, if any: J recorrrrendations that came about from the review and UI graduate students for their SR2S service learning project w ere presented at the !'vii/IS to educate adrrinistrators, faculty, parents and students . A summarization of the school assessments w ere provided to parents, students, tea::hers, and principals to review and provide feedback. An i"lJortant part of the project is being aw are of w hat parents and students think about the routes to their schools. The report w as distributed and discussed at the City of tv1oscow Transportation Corrrrission meetinƓ1 and also provided to City staff to include the Engineering and Street Departments. This report and its recorrrrendations has been reviewed and discussed by the City and presented to the Works/Rnance Corrrrittee on 7/8/13 and approved by City Council on 8/15113 to subrrit f:Jr this funding request. 997 of 1 ooo* After the UI students assessed the MMS and met with the principal, a variety of suggestions were made to remedy problems on the school campus. The recommendations that came about from the review and UI graduate students for their SR2S service learning project were presented at the MMS to educate administrators, faculty, parents and students. A summarization of the school assessments were provided to parents, students, teachers, and principals to review and provide feedback. An important part of the project is being aware of what parents and students think about the routes to their schools. The report was distributed and discussed at the City of Moscow Transportation Commission meeting and also provided to City staff to include the Engineering and Street Departments. This report and its recommendations has been reviewed and discussed by the City and presented to the Public Works/Finance Committee on 7 1 3 and approved by City Council on 8 / 1 5 / 1 3 to submit for this funding request. Briefly describe how the project would enhance mobility, improve safety, or increase economic opportunity (supporting data can be provided if available, such as estimated reduction in crashes, number of jobs created, etc. Page 4 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- The raised rredian on Street w ill constrict the existing traffic lanes w ithout actual narrowing and provide traffic calrring and separate vehicles and students. A raised crosswalk on Street from the main parking lot of the rvTv1S w ill be much more visible and aesthetically pleasing and increases _J vehicular aw areness. A designated zone for pick-up/drop-off separated from Street w ill reduce congestion. The current parking lot has narrow isles causing poor visibility and creates a danger zone for pedestrians and is used by unsafe drivers as a shortcut from to Street or vice versa. Realignrrent and w idening of the parking stalls and installation of a "traffic circle" w ill address the safety issues. It w ill direct motorists to take a certain path, w hich reduces conflict points simply by lirriting path options , thereby reducing confusion and risk of vehicles and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. All of º 999 of 1 000* The raised median on Street will constrict the existing traffic lanes without actual narrowing and provide traffic calming and separate vehicles and students. A raised crosswalk on Street from the main parking lot of the MMS will be much more visible and aesthetically pleasing and increases vehicular awareness. A designated zone for pick-up/drop-off separated from Street will reduce congestion. The current parking lot has narrow isles causing poor visibility and creates a danger zone for pedestrians and is used by unsafe drivers as a shortcut from to Street or vice versa. Realignment and widening of the parking stalls and installation of a "traffic circle" will address the safety issues. It will direct motorists to take a certain path, which reduces conflict points simply by limiting path options, thereby reducing confusion and risk of vehicles and pedestrian/bicyclist collisions. All of the improvements will reduce crash factors and create construction jobs. If the project purpose is to enhance mobility, identify the population group(s) that would benefit from the project, and the destinations that would be served. rvTv1S serves grades 6-8 w ith a current total of 551 students and 50+ teachers/staff. The area surrounding/serving the rvTv1S is one of the most popular locations in the City during the school year. All ages attend athletic events year-round to w atch children of all ages play sports. The l\tloscow "Bear Boosters" is one of the largest clubs in l\tloscow and is supported by all generations and levels of mobility. All of the athletic venues and other student activities held at the rvTv1S are ADA accessible and provide a source of entertainrrent and community for residents and guests. The safety irnproverrents proposed by this request w ill provide safer multi-modal options for all w ho visit and use this facility to include the Eggan Youth Center, skate park, and the Olyear multi-purpose play fields mainly used for soccer practice and garres in the spring and fall. Street to lltlountain View is one of the busiest traveled_:_] º g- 998 of 1 ooo* MMS serves grades 6-8 with a current total of 551 students and 50+ teachers/staff. The area surrounding/serving the MMS is one of the most popular locations in the City during the school year. All ages attend athletic events year-round to watch children of all ages play sports. The Moscow "Bear Boosters" is one of the largest clubs in Moscow and is supported by all generations and levels of mobility. All of the athletic venues and other student activities held at the MMS are ADA accessible and provide a source of entertainment and community for residents and guests. The safety improvements proposed by this request will provide safer multi-modal options for all who visit and use this facility to include the Eggan Youth Center, skate park, and the Olyear multi-purpose play fields mainly used for soccer practice and games in the spring and fall. Street to Mountain View is one of the busiest traveled streets in Moscow and is the main route from west to east traffic in the city. Would the project result in guidelines, procedures, research, or data that could be used in other areas of the state? E YesC No* If YES, please explain. Page 5 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- The project could be used as a rmdel statew ide as it w as originally designed by UI graduate students as a rmdel for the National Safe Routes to School program The students also assisted in developing the on-line safe route maps for each elementary school in the District. An I-Stop Neighborhood Assessment Tool w as used to include surveys distributed to collect data. This process w as assisted by the Safe Routes to School Coordinator from the UI w ho subcontracts w ith the Qty for education/encouragement activities. Another tracking tool proposed under this request is a Bicycle/Pedestrian Counter to collect consistent and reliable user data. Collecting this data w ill help plan for future infrastructure development and to help create safe and efficient multi-modal corridors for all users. ·J J 800 of 800 Is there stakeholder support for the project (stakeholders include adjacent property owners, populations affected by the project)? E YesC No* Briefly describe the project's consistency with the program's financial sustainability goal (i.e. , if the project will require future federal funding, does the applicant have a J:>lan for reducing the amoun! of fe_deral funds_!hat the project/activity will require over time?) The Qty annually budgets for ADA and multi-modal capital infrastructure improvements for projects that have been ranked/prioritized by the ADA Transition Aan for facilities in the public right of w ay. The corridor surrounding this project has projects surrounding it on connecting and parallel streets that have already been improved by multiple funding sources including prior Safe F«>utes to School awards. Those areas surrounding schools and places w here youth and those requiring ADA access travel are a high priority for t-ie aty. The proposed project is the one of the last links in this corridor coning from a main arterial, l'v1ountain View Drive that does not have complete funding allocated to its improvement. Once the project is complete, there w ill be safe access to the District's most "used" facility the tvMS. The Qty w ill fund and be responsible for the future maintenance and repair of this project,__:_] • § 998 of 1000* The City annually budgets for ADA and multi-modal capital infrastructure improvements for projects that have been ranked/prioritized by the ADA Transition Plan for facilities in the public right of way. The corridor surrounding this project has projects surrounding it on connecting and parallel streets that have already been improved by multiple funding sources including prior Safe Routes to School awards. Those areas surrounding schools and places where youth and those requiring ADA access travel are a high priority for the City. The proposed project is the one of the last links in this corridor corning from a main arterial, Mountain View Drive that does not have complete funding allocated to its improvement. Once the project is complete, there will be safe access to the District's most "used" facility the MMS. The City will fund and be responsible for the future maintenance and repair of this project, therefore; additional federal funding will not be needed for this location. Optional Narrative: If you have any other documentation that would benefit the evaluation criteria, please upload. r DELETE 1 pdf Page 6 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- APPLICATION SUMMARY Instructions: • Please complete this page and click SAVE. Fields will populate with information and any errors will be noted at this point. • Required fields are marked with a • Minimum match amount of total project cost is 7.34% Project Category Total Project Amount Match Minimum In-Kind Cash Match Federal Amount Percentage Required Match (Non-Cash) Requested Infrastructure l $540,000.00 7.41% S39,636.00 I $0 I $40.000.00 S500,000.00 Non-Infrastructure I % so I I so Totals S39,636.00 so S40,000.00 S500,000.00 Note: You may use non-cash items such as volunteered service or in-kind contributions toward the local match, but you must document the monetary value as an eligible cost for the project and include it in the project budget. SPENDING FORECAST Projected project spending over the next 12 months. ***Please note: These figures have no bearing on the evaluation of the project.••• November - 201 31 $0 * * December - 201 31 $0 January - 201 $5,000.00 * February - 201 “ $5,000.00 * March - 201’ $5,000.00 * April - 201‘ $5,000.00 * Page 7 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- May - 20141 $5.000.00 * June - 2014 $10,000.0C* July - 201 $23,ooo.oc. August - 20141 $24,00o.oc. September - 201 41 $1 1 ,00o.oc. October - 2014f $447,000.C* I ss40,ooo.o01 P' By checking the box and typing my name on the line below, I certify the above information is true and correct. I Alisa J. Stone Submission of this form is recognized as your digital signature Page 8 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow School District 281 650 N. Cleveland. Moscow, ID 83843 (208) 882-1120 fqx (208) 883-4440 www.mrd281.org Dale Kh,inert, Superintendent Deb Adair, BW1incss Manager Sarah Hanchey, Director ofCmTiculum June 26, 2013 To Whom It Mav Concern: This letter Is to support grant opportunities for the City of Moscow in cooperation with the Moscow School District to enhance traffic safety In the area of Moscow Middle School near the intersections of Street and Mountainview Road. This area of Moscow has grown considerably in the past several vears and has become a major collector for other major Intersections throughout the city. Moscow city staff, Safe and Drug Free Schools personnel and school staff studied the area in depth over the past four years and produced a substantlal report to support the Ideals of sustainable and safe transportation. The focus of the report was to develop practical recommendations that combine safe routes to schools with sustainable transportation and community desi1n, and to provide guidance for resources for future projects and programs within the traffic study area. ft wlll be important to use this report as guidance for project development. The area around Moscow Middle School not only serves age students, but In the morning and afternoon, the school ls a pedestrian collection point for many elementary students moving to and from four neighboring elementary schools. Fourteen Moscow School District bus routes also use the location to collect and t ransfer students to all of the other city schools, includin1 two charter schools, a private school, two more elementary schools and Moscow High School. After school, the Moscow Middle School campus becomes the hub of the community as It contains the only competition athletic fie Ids In the Moscow School District. Almost daily, multiple activities take place simultaneously on this 15 acre parcel Including soccer, football, baseball, track and and Indoor activities such as volleyball, wrestling, fitness activities and basketball. The school also contains public rooms for concerts, meetings and other events which happen concurrently with the athletfc practices and events. All of these uses Increase the amount of traffic on streets adjacent to the middle school as well as In the two parking lots. safety concerns e1dst mainly due to poor visibility primarily In the lot named the "'lower tennis court lot". The greatest concern in the parking lot Includes haphazard crosswalks that pass In front of, and beside moving cars and school buses. Children and grown pedestrians are often confused and cross the parking lot and street in an unsafe manner. Drivers are also unsure whether pedestrians are going to cross in front or beside them and hence, the driver does not always stop. The Safe Routes to Scnool study referenced at the beginning of this letter provides recommendations for the lower tennis court lot Including, but not lfmited to: • A raised sidewalk with vegetation bisecting the lot which would accommodate emergency-vehicle access with a portion to be kept clear of parking and vegetation. • A raised vegetated median on street just west of the main entrance to Moscow Middle School that would provide a mechanism to constrict the lanes to provide traffic calming. Page 9 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- • The crosswalk crossing from street from the main parking lot could be converted into a raised aosswalk as a traffic calming measure. • Traffic bulbs at strategic locations to identify tile end of parking areas and the of cross-walk locations would not only calm traffic, but provide for safer pedestrian crossing. After working In this location for the past thirty-one years, I have watched countless near miss accidents and Injury accidents. Over the years, I worked with the City of Moscow, Avista Utilities and other agencies to provide flashing and additional street lights In the area, but the growth and traffic in this part of the city has outgrown the tr;,ffic controls that eldst. I fully support any renovations and updates that can be provided for this critical project. Our deserve the best we can give them, and through this grant we will provide a safe lociltion for pedestrians and drivers alike. Dale Kleinert, Superintendent Moscow School District Page 1 0 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- July 27, 2013 To Whom it May Concern university of Idaho Physical Education Building, Room 101 PO Box 442401 Moscow ID 83844-2401 Phone: [PHONE REDACTED] Fa><: [PHONE REDACTED] [EMAIL REDACTED] This letter is to support the City of Moscow's application for Community Choices for Idaho project for enhanced active travel modes and vehicular safety focusing on the Moscow Middle School. The University of Idaho Movement Sciences department worked in partnership with the City of Moscow and the Moscow School District the past six years as the non-infrastructure component of the highly impactful Safe Routes to School (SR2S) Program. Two years ago the city, schools and the University of Idaho Safe Routes to School program identified the Middle School as an area requiring substantial improvements to increase safety and active travel modes. The University of Idaho engineering students studied the area extensively and developed prototype plans for school site improvements. The plan was presented to school and city engineering leadership and there was common agreement that these changes were greatly needed. This funding would allow the city and school to work together in a joint effort make the school and area safer and enhance all modes of active travel. The Middle School recently changed from a 7th-9th grade to a 6th-8th grade school configuration. The existing potential points of conflict between heavy traffic congestion in the area surrounding the school and the school parking lot is greater now with younger, smaller students. As there is one Middle School in the area, students are coming from all points in Moscow to attend school. This project includes important traffic calming measures, safer pedestrian and biking crossing, a safer, less congested parking Jot and other features that will separate vehicles from children. The Middle School area also serves as a community hub for many activities including the popular Eggan Youth Center, tennis courts, and sporting fields on both sides of the project area on Street. The Middle School is home to the main gym/field house for all high school and middle school sport activities, drawing hundreds of people and cars out for sporting events, including young less experienced drivers. Not only would this project greatly benefit the Moscow community, it would serve as a model for effective and important school site planning for active travel for the multitude of schools and organizations that take part in sports and other large events occurring on the school grounds. To enrich education through diversity the University of Idaho is an equal opportunity/o.ffinnativc action employer Page 1 1 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- One of the of the Moscow SR2S program is the partnership between active citizen groups and the University of Idaho. The city is able to tap into the creative energy of students and also mentor them in the practical application of project planning and implementation. Funding this project would provide benefits beyond safer travel modes; the project has the potential to ignite the passion for active travel among University of Idaho engineering, planning, architecture and health and wellness students. As a professor at the University of Idaho, I witness the transformation that occurs in students when they have the opportunity to work alongside professionals and make meaningful contributions to real world projects. Please let me know if I can answer any questions or be of further support for this effort. Moscow is greatly indebted to the support that the Idaho Department of Transportation has provided to increase safety and to transform Moscow in a more biking and walking friendly community. Thank you, I can be reached at [PHONE REDACTED](work), [PHONE REDACTED] (cell) or email [EMAIL REDACTED] Sincerely, Helen Brown Assistant Clinical Professor Movement Science, University of Idaho To enrich education through diversity the University of Idaho is en equal opportunity/affinnative action employer Page 12 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- · ; ÷ . F. · - · - . . I¡ - • • Hean: of t˜e Arts • t • Nancy J. Chaney Mayor Walter M. Steed Council President Sue Scott Council Vice-President Tim Brown Council Member Dan Carscallen Council Member Wayne Krauss Council Member Tom Lamar 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) 883-7018 Website: www.ci.moscow.id.us Hearing Impaired (208) 883-7019 P A L O U S E Knowledge CorTldor RIGHT-OF-WAY CERTIFICATE COMMUNITY CHOICES GRANT REQUEST SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL MOSCOW MIDDLE SCHOOL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The undersigned, City of Moscow, hereby certifies as noted below: 1 . That the undersigned has acquired and presently holds continuous and adequate rights-of-way on private lands needed for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities to be installed, or repaired with the proceeds of a grant from Idaho Transportation Department to the City of Moscow. 2. That the undersigned will acquired the necessary permits, and authorizations or other instruments by whatsoever name designated, from public utilities and public bodies, commissions, or agencies authorizing the construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities upon, along or across streets, roads, and public utilities. 3. That the attached Community Choice grant request documents show the location and describes the land and rights-of-way to be used for construction of a Safe Routes to School Safety Improvement Project adjacent to Moscow Middle School and adjacent properties on and Streets in Moscow, Idaho. Printed Name: Signature: Title: Acti · · or Cil Date: September 3, 201 3 Page 1 3 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Moscow School District #281 650 N. Cleveland St. Moscow, ID 83843 (208) 882-1120 fax (208) 883-4440 www.msd281.org Greg Bailey, Superintendent Deb Adair, Business Manager Sarah Hanchey, Curriculum Director Shannon Richards, Special Services Director RIGHT-OF-WAY CERTIFICATE COMMUNITY CHOICES GRANT REQUEST SAFE ROUTES TO SCHOOL MOSCOW MIDDLE SCHOOL SAFETY IMPROVEMENT PROJECT The undersigned, Moscow School District 281, hereby ce rtifies as noted below: l. That the undersigned has acquired and presently holds continuous and adequate rights-of-way on private lands needed for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities to be installed, or repaired with the proceeds of a grant from Idaho Transportation Department to the City of Moscow_ 2. That the undersigned will acquired the necessary permits, and authorizations or other instruments by whatsoever name designated, from public utilities and public bodies, commissions, or agencies authorizing the construction, operation, and maintenance of the facilities upon, along or across streets, roads, a nd public utilities. 3. That the attached Community Choice grant request documents show the location and describes the land a nd rights-of-way to be used for construction of a Safe Routes to School Safety Improvement Project in the Moscow Middle School pa rking lot and adjacent properties on and Streets in Moscow, Idaho. Printed Name: Gregory J. Bailey Date: September 3, 2013 Page 14 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Safe Routes National Center for Safe Routes to School Safe Routes to School Improvements Moscow Junior High Page 1 5 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 16 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- SrAfe Routes to scV\ooL r vvt:proveVlA,ei" =s I rn- I n· I I I I , . . I l!I' I I 0.r I IS I I 141.ѯ' 17 5' 113" 1•.Lj Page 30 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- IL. C> D N D ID D D ˛ C> D ID tN - Existing striping 1 1 1 1 1 [lj 1 1 1 Ir. Curved and offset aisles Traffic circle ( d) Divided lot FIGURE 7 - EXISTING AND PROPOSED PARKING LOT LAYOUTS Page 31 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- 0 0 ˚ 0 0 0 Existing striping Curved and offset aisles - - ( c) Traffic circle ( d) Divided lot FIGURE 8- POSSIBLE DIRECTIONS OF TRAVEL AT THE PARKING LOT CENTER (DOTS INDICATE CONFLICT POINTS) Page 32 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURE 9 - DEPICTION OF THE PROPOSED TRAFFIC CIRCLE The traffic circle in Figure 8c addresses all of these problems. It directs motorists to take a certain path, which reduces conflict points simply by limiting path options. For instance, under the current striping and alternative 1, a vehicle making a U-turn can take any number of paths depending on the vehicle's turning radius. This can be confusing to other drivers in the vicinity and could cause a collision if other drivers expect the vehicle to do something else. In contrast, the traffic circle directs the vehicle to take a very specific path, thereby reducing confusion and the risk of vehicles colliding. The conflict points that do exist are at small angles, reducing crash severity. The current risk of a vehicle striking a bicyclist is reduced by bringing vehicles around the traffic circle rather than allowing a sharp U-turn. The difficulties with the parking lot center are perhaps most effectively managed in by blocking access with the divided lot alternative in Figure 7 d. Guidance is much more intuitive, there is only one conflict point, and turning radii meet or exceed the 29-ft. minimum. Additionally, through traffic no longer poses a hazard to bicyclists. This is also the alternative with the greatest potential for green space, making it perhaps the most aesthetic choice. While this alternative is the most restrictive on parking lot functionality, it is also the most effective at addressing the multiple challenges at the parking lot center. Page 33 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- III. Lower Parking Lot The lower parking lot is the current location for bus turnarounds for drop-offs and pick-ups. Currently there are no restrictions on using the facility for parking, which occasionally results in buses being unable to access the lot. A crosswalk extends most of the southern boundary of the lot then crosses D St. at a diagonal. The current striping, which contains 55 spaces, can be seen in Figure 10a. One safety concern with the current layout is children running across the crosswalk, which runs along the front of the parking lot and diagonally across the road, in front of buses and cars that cannot see them. Some potential solutions to this problem are installing a mirror on the corner where buses exit to give bus drivers a better view of small children. Additionally, the alternatives include changing the crosswalk to an shape that crosses both directly across D St. and along the front of the parking lot, eliminating the diagonal design. This would encourage children who want to cross D St. to do so before the parking lot, minimizing the number of children crossing in front of the buses and cars that are using the parking lot as well as connecting students to the proposed pick-up / drop-off zone on the east side of the parking lot in front of the tennis courts. The diagonal crosswalk is also dangerous because drivers who see children on the crosswalk along the parking lot are unsure if the child is going to continue across D St. and are therefore unsure whether they need to stop. The shaped crosswalk would eliminate confusion, making it clear to drivers on D St. that they must yield to the pedestrians. Another safety concern with the lower parking lot is that there is not restricted access, meaning that drivers can enter and exit along the entire front of the parking lot, creating a much larger conflict zone for pedestrians, cyclists, and other drivers. Designated access points would provide pedestrians a safe space to use the crosswalk and would provide clear access points. A barrier along the front of the lot allowing only two entrances/exits so that buses would still be allowed to use the lot for turning around would minimize these conflicts. This could be accomplished by installing concrete blocks at the back of each space, or preferably, by providing a sidewalk with a crosswalk on either end to give pedestrians a safer and more comfortable crossing. A rendition of this can be seen in Figure 11. Shown in Figure 10b, alternative 1 provides 54 spaces and restricts parking in spaces that would inhibit bus access during select hours. An example pavement marking for the restriction is "NO PARKING 7AM-5PM." Shown in Figure 10c, alternative 2 proposes a walkway around the east and north ends of the parking lot to encourage students to use the school's front doors, reducing pedestrian traffic in the parking lot, and introduces a 4-ft wide raised area with vegetation on the south edge. This enhances protection for pedestrians crossing the lot and provides greenery. These safety and aesthetics improvements come at a cost to capacity, leaving the lot with 38 spaces. Page 34 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- i==::'.25-liso==:5100FT tN Existing striping r==:'.125ill-lli5r:o==:::J100 FT tN _llli5Co====::JlOO FT tN 1 1 1 I I I I I I I 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 " = No Parking Zones ( c) Restricted Access FIGURE 10 - CURRENT AND PROPOSED STRIPING ALTERNATIVES FOR THE LOWER PARKING LOT Page 35 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- FIGURE 11- EXAMPLE OF A SIDEWALK SEPARATED FROM THE PARKING LOT BY VEGETATION Summary Table The following is a table to assist in decision-making by summarizing the cost, safety, and ease of implementation of each of the proposed alternatives outlined above. TABLE 1 - SUMMARY TABLE OF PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS FOR Moscow JR. HIGH © School Raised Crosswalk f\f\f\ Perimeter Drop-off / Pick-up Zones f\ ® Existing Striping Main Alt. 1: Curved, offset aisles f\ $ e Parking Alt. 2: Traffic circle f\f\ © ® ® Lot Alt. 3: Divided lot f\f\f\ $$+access © Lower Existing Striping Parking Alt. 1: No Parking Zones f\ ® Lot Alt. 2: Restricted Access f\f\f\ © ® ® © 136 133 126 127 55 54 38 Page 3 6 o f 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter 4: School Zone Assessment We have created a sample assessment tool using the suggestions found in Appendix C, combining the Arizona (AZ) Checklist and the I-STOP Neighborhood Assessment into an example of what a new assessment tool could look like for the state of Idaho. For our sample assessment tool we worked off the model set by the AZ Checklist and created a tool to be completed by a team of multiple members representing different specializations. Our tool is divided into five sections to minimize confusion: street profile, intersections, school site, programs and policies, and neighborhood assessment. Each of the five sections is worth 20% of the overall rating and the questions in each section are weighted, based on importance, to add up to 20 points. Each section addresses pedestrian and bicycle needs to some extent as well as vehicular needs. In addition to the total score, each section rates the school based on these three modes so that the school can evaluate whether it is favoring one mode or another. We scored both McDonald Elementary School and Moscow Jr. High using the new assessment tool. The complete assessments are provided in Appendix C, but the results are summarized in Table 3. McDonald Elementary scored 55.5 out of a possible 100 points. The programs and policies section scored the best, as the City of Moscow has implemented several pedestrian­ friendly programs. The neighborhood section was also positive, even with such low density. This is because of good pedestrian connectivity even though there is only one street to access McDonald Elementary. The school's worst two categories are intersections and school site, where access was markedly the most in need of improvement. Shown in Table 4, the transportation mode analysis revealed approximately the same score (by percent) for pedestrians and bicycles, with a lower score for vehicles. Moscow Jr. High scored about the same as McDonald Elementary, with 54 overall points. Sharing with McDonald Elementary a high score in programs and policies, its other strong category was intersections. The neighborhood category was marginal, with low scores in both density and connectivity. The street profile and school site categories were alarmingly low, which does not come at a surprise. Many of the problems observed at the Jr. High fit into these two categories, as do many of the recommendations in this paper. In transportation mode analysis, the scores were fairly well distributed between the three modes, with pedestrians lagging in terms of the percentage of possible points. Page 37 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- TABLE 2 - ASSESSMENT RESULIS m McDONALIJ ELEMEN IAKY ANO Moscow JR. HIGH School and • • Planning Health and Wellness Transportation and Safety Subtotal Neighborhood Density Connectivity Subtotal Street Proftle Sidewalks Traveled Way Crosswalks Subtotal Intersections Layout Crosswalks Bicycle Lanes Subtotal School Site Access Biking •I Capacity - Subtotal Total Score Pedestrian Rating Bike Rating Vehicle Ratin 3 LI I 2 . I I - - · 7 Ir. 14.5 1 10 11 2 6.5 2 ·1 - 10.5 5.5 3 1 9.5 r 5.5 1- 1.5 - 3 1 - 10 55.5 - - TABLE 3 - ASSESSMENT RESULTS BY MODE 30 14 12 - I 25 1 5 15 4.5 6.5 2 2 7 8.5 16 20 3 6 7.5 14 10.5 20 1.5 4.5 3.5 13 1 2.5 6 20 - - - - 8 9 4 7.5 3 3.5 15 20 5.5 12 1 2 0 6 6.5 20 54 Ѯ - 100 - - 50 L_j 25 § 25 I Page 38 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Chapter 5: Conclusion This report has outlined the service learning project between graduate students from the University of Idaho's fall 2010 course CE 504: Sustainable Transportation and Community Design and Moscow Safe Routes to School's Brooke Lowry. The recommendations that came about from this project are specific to Moscow Junior High School and McDonald Elementary School. These recommendations were presented to each of the schools and their communities to educate administrators, faculty, and parents and students. The Google Maps portion of the project is also available to the public. The new school assessment tool created by the graduate students is a prototype which better matches Idaho schools and can be changed as Idaho Safe Routes to School sees appropriate. In the future this tool could be web-accessible to Idaho schools. We realize these suggestions have costs involved and won't come free. However, we feel that the increased safety to students and parents would outweigh any costs. Schools in Moscow and the Safe Routes to School program can use this report as a starting point for requesting grant monies to achieve the suggestions and recommendations associated with each school. Page 39 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 40 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Bibliography "About Us". National Center for Safe Routes to School. http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/about/ (accessed 18 September 2010) "History of SRTS". (n.d) National Center for Safe Routes to School. http://www.saferoutesinfo.org/about/history_of_srts.cf (accessed 18 September 2010) Karp, Grace Goe, and Helen Brown. "Growing the SRTS Movement Through Curriculum Integration" pdf document. University of Idaho. http://www.itd.idaho.gov/SR2S/ documents/Moscow _Ulprogram.pdf (accessed 18 September 2010) Traffic Engineering Handbook. (1999). Washington, DC: Institute of Transportation Engineers. p. 537. "SR2S". (26 February 2010). Idaho Transportation Department. http://www.itd.idaho.gov/SR2S/ (accessed 18 September 2010) Page 41 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 42 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix A: Project Objectives Objectives • Assess Moscow Jr. High School and McDonald Elementary School using two different methods for comparison. • Identify the problems areas for each school and make suggestions to remedy the problems. • Present findings to parents and teachers in the school district. • Create online maps of each school accessible by the public. • Create an assessment tool combining some sections from the I-stop and Arizona checklist assessments. Task Descriptions The following tasks were completed to provide children and parents in Moscow with information on safe biking and walking to area schools and to also begin the process of creating a new assessment tool for schools in Idaho. Task 1 : Assess two schools in Moscow Two groups of one engineer and one planner were formed to assess McDonald Elementary and Moscow Jr. High School. Genny and Karie chose to assess McDonald Elementary and Morgan and Christopher chose to work with Moscow Jr. High School. The current state of Idaho assessment (I-STOP) method and AZ checklist were completed for each school. Problems and details of the areas around the schools were noted. Task 2: Suggestions for fixing the problems found during assessment After assessing the problems that exist at each school, and meeting with the principals from both schools, a variety of suggestions were made to remedy the problems on each campus. Karie and Genny came up with suggestions for McDonald Elementary, including figures showing the school before and after the suggestions would be implemented. Morgan and Christopher made suggestions for Moscow Jr. High School that also include diagrams portraying before and after accounts of the school. Task 3: Provide assessment results A summarization of the school assessments will be made for parents, students, teachers and principals to review. The suggestions for possible solutions to the problems will be included. An important part of this project is being aware of what parents and students think about the routes to their schools and what things they want changed or kept the same. In order to hear parent, teacher and student feedback, the group will give an Page 43 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- educational presentation of the assessment results that parents, students and teachers can attend. This will allow the group to show what they did during the assessments, explain the assessment checklists and discuss solution ideas with the parents and teachers. The date and time of the educational presentation is December 6 for Moscow Jr. High and December 8 for McDonald Elementary. Task 4: Create online maps for the public Oniine maps of both Moscow Jr. High and McDonald Elementary were created using Google Maps. These maps show where sidewalks and crosswalks exist. They show ifthere is a crosswalk attendant present and where. They also show where parking lots and bus lanes are on each campus. Some walking paths and bike parking areas are shown for student and parent knowledge. These maps were created using Google Maps so that the public could find and use them for pedestrian and biking safety for each school. They are there for parents of current students, parents of new students or the students themselves. By showing where sidewalks, crosswalks and bike area exist, we hope students will take safer routes to use these amenities. Task 5: Create draft of improved Idaho assessment tool Using sections and information from the Idaho I-STOP assessment and the AZ Checklist assessment, a new assessment tool was created. This new assessment tool was produced by combining and altering questions from the I-STOP and AZ Checklist assessments that the graduate students both liked and disliked, respectively. A simple draft was created and is presented in the Appendix C of this report. Task 6: Give final presentation On December 13, a 40-minute presentation of this project will be provided to the UI class, summarizing the work completed throughout the fall 2010 semester. Page 44 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix B: Input from Moscow Jr. High In order to understand safety issues present at the school and determine possible solutions, our group observed the Jr. High during both peak and non-peak hours several times both in October and November. We also met with the Moscow Jr. High principal Mr. Hill on October 11. During our meeting with him we determined that the greatest concerns of the Jr. High were the safety of the main parking lot and bus area, drivers on D St. where students are crossing, and the congestion created due to sporting events at the school. An outline of the issues discussed with Mr. Hill is listed below. • Bus drop off and main parking lot are the main concerns. The parking lot is most active from 8-8:20 am and from 3-3:25 pm; school is open from 7:30 am-3:30 pm • Where kids park their bikes is right next to the parking lot and they get on the bikes and then j et out into the parking lot without looking (idea for a bike path?) • The "lower kingdom" lot next to the tennis courts is striped for parking, but it is used for a turnaround area for the buses • Main cross walk in front of the school on D street: right at the bottom of the hill-cars are at fast speed when they • Sporting events and other activities produce unwanted behavior: cutting through the parking lot to E St., confusion about where to park, and the number of parking spaces • Idea to cut the south lot and north lot with a fence to discourage cutting through • Other areas of concern: students walking through campus to go to other schools in Moscow Page 45 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 46 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Appendix C: Assessment Tool Review of the Arizona Checklist and I-Stop Assessment This review looks at the problems and recommendations for both of the assessments that have been tested and reviewed, the Arizona Checklist and the I-Stop Neighborhood Assessment, for how they could better serve Idaho schools. We found that the several pages of information at the start of the AZ Checklist create confusion rather than simplifying the process; the beginning should be revised to have a much shorter introduction, similar to the I-Stop Assessment. The format for the revised assessment tool is similar in nature to the Arizona Checklist, which currently requires a board with members in each of the following categories: technical/engineering, school district, principle/assistant principal, and recommends members from the PTA/PTO, community, city, police, and health field. Another format would be to create a tool with separate sections that could be filled out by different representatives from each category, including parents, students, and crossing guards who are well aware of different issues. The user should also have to select a school type when they start the assessment since the requirements for schools differ between an elementary school and a high school. This difference is not addressed in the I-STOP Assessment and is done in a confusing, question-by-question basis in the AZ Checklist. Additionally, each checklist could be done for different seasons because lighting and weather changes and affect visibility for drivers and pedestrians as well as safety of crosswalks. Concerning content, the current checklists focus primarily on safety, not on pedestrian or bike access or connectivity and health issues, which are equally important and something that a future assessment might need to address. Some safety issues that need to be addressed in the assessments include asking not only if a school speed zone is in place but how often it is enforced by the police, and the flashing beacons section, which should include categories of flashing beacons, with point values based on the presence of different beacons. There is no health section in the Neighborhood Assessment, and the health section of the AZ checklist does not have a predetermined score, which is something that needs to be considered if the scoring component is going to be included. The sections on crosswalks consider all crosswalks beneficial, however, there are safety concerns associated with crosswalks that are not adequately marked. Crosswalks make pedestrians feel safe and act less cautiously, however, without additional markings they can often be more dangerous because car are less aware of the crossing. The assessments should not consider crosswalks a benefit unless there are extra markers such as flashing lights or signs to alert drivers. The assessments also need to include truncated Page 47 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- dome pads for ADA ramps, ramp grade, and vertical lip between road surface and ramp for intersections and crosswalks, which are part of ADA ramp specifications. Overall, we found that the AZ checklist was more oriented to direct infrastructure and access directly around the school while the I-Stop Neighborhood Assessment looks at each street around the school and goes into more depth about certain characteristics. Because of this the AZ checklist, particularly the Remedial Pedestrian and Bicycle Signals Section, is less likely to be applicable for small towns in Idaho (i.e. focuses on freeways, 4- lane streets, 40mph speed limits, etc.) and should be revised to reflect this if it will be used in Idaho. However, the rating system used in the Arizona Checklist is very good at setting a rating scale and determining the overall score of the school zone for pedestrian, bicycle, and vehicular access. The Neighborhood Assessment is much more subjective in its ratings and less good at assessing the school overall. A new assessment that combined the Neighborhood Assessment's street segments evaluation with the pedestrian and biking sections from the AZ Checklist and reorganized them to reduce confusion and redundancy would be the most beneficial. Page 48 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Sample Tool Programs and Policies Safe Routes to school Active city/council/district­ wide SR2S program Walking and bicycling events, activities and clubs Walkability or Bikeability audits or SR2S maps School- or district-wide policies that prohibit walking School and planning Facility joint use policy Policies that minimize school size and/or promote non- sprawl locations Collaborative School Planning Transit Oriented Development policy/ordinance Health and Wellness Healthy Communities, Active Living, Community Health policies School or district wellness policy that promotes walking/bicycling to school School or district policy to promote healthy eating in conjunction with exercising Transportation and Safety Complete streets policy Sidewalk/replacement program Options yes = 1 yes = 0.5 yes = 0.5 no = 1 yes = -1 yes = 1 . 5 yes = 2 yes = 1 yes = 2 yes = 1 yes = 0.5 yes = 0.5 yes = 3 yes = 1 .5 McDonald Jr. High Ped/Bike/Car Question p 0.5 0.5 p/b 0 0 p/b l p 0 1 .5 c 2 2 p/b/c p/b/c 0 0 p 1 p/b 0.5 0.5 p/b 0.5 0.5 p/b 3 3 p/b/c 1 .5 1 .5 p Page 49 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Annual traffic signng and striping maintenance inspection yes = 1 . 5 1 . 5 1 .5 c Pedestrian or Bicycle Master/Comprehensive Plan yes = 1 0 0 p/b School zone speed enforcement policy yes = 1 p/b Bicycle helmet law or requirement yes = 0.5 0 0 b Subtotals Pedestrian Rating 10 Possible Bike Rating 5 Possible Vehicle Ratin 5 Possible Total Cumulative Score 20 Possible Page 50 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Neighborhood Assessment Options McDonald Jr. Ped/Bike/Car High Question Density What percentage of the 0-25% = 0 pt 1 3 p/b school enrollment area 25-50% = 1 pt falls within the walk/bike zone? 50-75% = 2 pt 75-1 00% = 3 pt Using the US Census 4,000+ = 3 0 0 p/b/c Data, determine the 2 - 4,000 = 2 populaiton density in the 1 - 2,000 = 1 school zip code. (Denser < 1 ,000 = 0 populations allow students to live closer to their schools, increasing walkability) Connectivity What percent of the 0-25% = 0 3 2 p school enrollment area is 25-50% = 1 free of walking barriers 50-75% = 2 such as: highways, 75-100% = 3 four+ lane roads, roads with speeds > 30 mph, dead end roads, railroads, or other obstacles that might prevent students from easily walking or biking to school. How prevalant are Prevalent = 0 1 .5 1 .5 p/b/c conventional cul-de-sacs Some present = in the surrounding 1 . 5 neighborhoods? Not present = 3 (conventional cul-de- sacs decrease connectivity and ease of walking or biking) How prevalant are Prevalent = 1 0.5 0.5 p/b modem cul-de-sacs in Some present = the surrounding 0.5 Page 51 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- neighborhoods? (modem Not present = 0 cul-de-sacs include pedestrian and/or bike paths that allow connectivity to other streets) For what percentage of 0-50% = 0 3 3 c students attending this 50-70%=1 school is this the nearest 70-90%=2 option? 90- 1 00%=3 Sidewalk Connectivity: Sidewalks on Do the majority of the both sides = 3 1 .5 0 p neighborhood streets Sidewalks on one surrounding the school side = 1 .5 have: No sidewalks = 0 Bike Lane Connectivity: Prevalent = 1 0.5 0.5 b How prevalent are Some present = designated bike lanes or 0.5 paths in the surrounding Not present = 0 neighborhoods and roads? Subtotals Pedestrian Rating JO Possible Bike Rating 5 Possible Vehicle Ratin 5 Possible Total Cumulative Score 20 Possible Page 52 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Street Profile Options McDonald Jr. High Ped/Bike/Car Question Sidewalks Are there sidewalks on both sides of the street? Yes = 0.5 0 0.5 p Are there portions of the sidewalks missing? No = 1 pt 0 0 p What is the sidewalk width less than 3 feet = for this segment? 0 1 1 p SR2S recommended: 5-6 ft 3 to 4.9 feet = 0.5 ADA Minimum: 3 ft 5 feet or more = 1 Do poles, signs, shrubs or other items physically and/or visually block any sidewalks? No = 0.5 pt 0.5 0 p/b Does the sidewalk grade meet ADA standards? Max allowable grade w/out handrails: 5% Yes = 0.5 pt 0.5 0 p Are there busy driveways that intersect sidewalks? No = 1 pt 0 0 p/b Traveled Way Is there a median restricting left-tum access to driveways? Yes = 3 0 0 c Is there a buffer separating Yes = 0.5 pt the sidewalk from traffic? 0 0 p Is there a school speed zone No = 0 pt 1 1 p/b of 20 mph? Yes = 1 pt Yes, and enforced by police = 1 .5 pt Are there any traffic No = 0 pt 0 0 p/b/c calming devices used to Yes = 2.5 pt slow traffic? How many vehicles per day > 5000 = 0 pt 1 .5 1 p/b/c use the road? 2000-5000=1 pt < 2000 = 1 .5 pt Are there blind horizontal or vertical curves along the road? No = 2 pt 2 0 p/b/c Page 53 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Are there bike lanes? Yes = 1 pt 1 1 b Do crime and/or drug activity occur on this roadway? No = 0.5 pt 0.5 0.5 p/b Is there adequate lighting along the road? Yes = 0.5 pt 0.5 0 p/b Crosswalks What is the height of the Flush = 1 0.5 1 p vertical lip between road Up to 0.5 in. = 0.5 pt surface and ramp at the Greater than 0.5 in. = 0 pt crosswalks? Are there curb ramps with high-visibility tactile pads on all comers? Yes = 0.5 pt 0.5 0 p Do the curb ramps meet ADA grade requirements of 8.33% or less? Yes = 0.5 0.5 0 p Do students cross the street where crosswalks are not marked? No = 0.5 pt 0.5 0 p Subtotals Pedestrian Rating 10 Possible Bike Rating 5 Possible Vehicle Ratin 5 Possible Total Cumulative Score 20 Possible Page 54 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Intersections Options McDonald Jr. High Ped/Bike/Car Question Layout Is the curb radius at intersections less than 40 ft? yes = 0.5 0.5 0.5 p Are intersections free of objects or parking that block visibility? yes = 1 1 1 p Are intersections on a fairly level grade? yes = 1 1 1 c no = -1 Are driveways set back adequately so as not to interfere with intersections? yes = 2 2 2 c Are intersections well lit? yes = 0.5 0 0.5 p/b Is the school zone free of two-way stops? yes = 1 0 0 p Are all intersection approaches 4 lanes or less, including tum lanes? yes = 1 1 1 p Does vehicle or pedestrian traffic back up at intersections? no = 2 0 2 c Are there other noticeable intersection problems? yes = -1 0 0 no = O Crosswalks At signals, do turning movements have flashing yellow arrows? For right turns, is turning on red prohibited, or is the start 1 if yes to more of a right-tum green than one or no delayed? Are there no free signalized channelized right turns? intersections 0 1 p 0.5 if yes to one, 0 if no to all Are there curb extensions to shorten the crosswalk distance? yes = 1 .5 0 0 p Page 55 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Are there well marked crosswalks at all intersection approaches, and are the markings in good c011diti011? yes = 1 1 I p/b Do intersections have sidewalks on all approaches? yes = 0.5 0 0 p/b Arc there items for 1 if ramps, tactile pedestrians with pads, and auditory disabilities at intersection systems 0.5 0.5 p comers? 0.5 if ramps with tactile pads abutting all crosswalks -0.5 if curb ramps w/o tactile pads no = -1 Is the landing at the comer large enough for pedestrians to wait away from the curb? yes = 0.5 0.5 0.5 p/b Are crosswalks wide enough for the number of pedestrians? yes = 0.5 0.5 0.5 p/b Is the stop bar set back at least four feet from the crosswalk? yes = 0.5 0 0 p Are crosswalks striped with lines parallel or diagonal to the travelled way? yes = 0.5 0.5 0.5 p Are crosswalks colored or textured? yes = 0.5 0 0 p Bicycle Lanes Do bicycle lanes continue to the stop bar at intersections? (0 if no bicycle lanes present) yes = 1 I l b Are bicycle lanes colored? yes = 0.5 0 0 b Page 56 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Is there a bicycle lane physically separated from traffic, i.e., not just striped? (Examples include a bike/ped path or a bicycle lane separated by a curb) yes = 2 0 2 b Subtotals Pedestrian Rating 10 Possible Bike Rating 5 Possible Vehicle Rat in 5 Possible Total Cumulative Score 20 Possible Page 57 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- School Site Options McDonald Jr. High Ped/Bike/Car Question Access Are walking and biking routes separated from traffic? yes = 0.5 0.5 0.5 p/b Do students have to cross one or more busy school driveways to access the main entrance? no = 1 .5 1 . 5 0 p Do students have safe access from the sidewalk to the school door? yes = 2 2 2 p Do at least two streets service the school property? yes = 1 0 1 C' Can cyclists and walkers enter the school property from 3-4 adjacent neighborhoods? (Entry can be via a safe street or driveway, or a sidewalk or path through a fence or gate) yes = 0.5 0 0.5 p/b Are volunteers or staff on yes, before and duty before and/or after after school = school to monitor students? 1 .5 1 .5 1 p yes, after school = 1 no = O Are there designated student pick-up I drop-off zones with sufficient capacity and accessibility? yes = 2 0 0 c Do poles, signs, shrubs or other items physically and/or visually block the walking/biking routes in front of the school? no = 0.5 0 0 p/b Are there curb ramps on all 1 if curb ramps sidewalk comers on school with high- property? visibility tactile pads 0 -1 p 0 if curb ramps w/o tactile pads no = -1 Page 5 8 o f 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Is there a designated walking path through main parking lots? yes = 1 0 I p Are there streetlights along the walking and biking routes on school grounds? yes = 0.5 0 0.5 p/b Biking Are there signs that indicate a bicycle route? yes = 0.5 0.5 0 b Is there sufficient bike parking capacity for the number of students at the school? yes = 0.5 0.5 0.5 b Is the bike parking safe and removed from the road? yes = 0.5 0 0.5 b Are bike racks designed to secure the bike frame, not just a wheel? yes = 0.5 0.5 0 b Capacity How many students are at this 0-500 = 2 2 p/b/c school? 500-800 = 1 >800 = 0 How many grade levels does K-12 = 2 0 - I p/b/c your school serve? K-8 = 1 5-8 = 0 <4 = -1 What is the size of your 1-3 acres = 2 0 p/b/c school in acres? 3-5 acres = 1 5+ acres = 0 Subtotals Pedestrian Rating 10 Possible Bike Rating 5 Possible Vehicle Ratin 5 Possible Total Cumulative Score 20 Possible Page 59 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- · . _ ' >Ѭ - , - - . ' : : · - ' r/V. ' 1 bA l:l. O ttetHk of tVie Arts • • • • Nancy J. Chaney Mayor Walter M. Steed Council President Sue Scott Council Vice-President Tim Brown Council Member Dan Carscallen Council Member Wayne Krauss Council Member Tom Lamar Council Member • • • • Gary J. Riedner City Supervisor City of Moscow, City Hall Gary J. Rledner, 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) 883-701 9 P A L O U S E ž . Knowledge Corridor August 30, 20 13 Idaho Transportation Department Division of Transportation Performance Program Development Team P.O. Box 7 129 Boise 7 1 29, ID 83707 Re: Community Choice for Idaho - Match Commitment Letter Dear Program Development Team: I first want to thank you for the opportunity to apply for the Community Choice for Idaho grant funding program. The funding we have received in the past has assisted the City in meeting the goals of our ADA Transition Plan for facilities in the public right of way and to provide safe routes for children to walk or bike to school. The current project request for Street and the Moscow Middle School will create a safe travel zone for 550+ students in addition to those students that change buses to go to other schools in the school district. The Moscow Middle School is also used by many other students in the district for athletic events as the soccer, baseball, football, and tennis facilities are all located on this campus. The City of Moscow has made it a priority to construct safe and accessible infrastructure in school zones and therefore we are committed to provide the necessary match for the project at the Moscow Middle School. We anticipate the match will not exceed $40,000 which will be proposed for City Council approval in the FY1 4 and FYl S budget years. If you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact me. Page 60 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- -u (Q Ol a CX> VICINITY MAP COMMUNITY CHOICES OF IDAHO MOSCOW, IDAHO LATAH COUNTY PROJECT LOCATION ; · -E St. Mary's  egos School ѫ, tf90nll!Wal School i i l ·2 es-.,,ƿ West Park Elementary radise Creek ional High School Propoaed Projects Current Projects Completed Projects Recommended Walking and Biking Route& Arterials Streeta Moscow Middle : school Moscow Charter School Eggan Youth Center McDonald Elementary t ;q 1 . i= Lena Whitmore ' , 1 • - • D Elementary Moscow High Palouse Prairie School Charter School ---PAGE BREAK--- E STREET D STREET l c.-'11.C; I ' • t!oD' crrv OF MOSCOW . ExHIBIT 3 · - . . en :P ˗ o o 0 0 0 0 r- 0 , m :E l!NGIN££RING DEPARTMENT D•AWH COMMUNIT'Y CHOICE D STREET AND Moscow MIDDLE SCHOOL IMPROVEMENTS MOSCOW, IDAHO =˙CCO IC Ll¦\.'r ao 13 ---PAGE BREAK--- ZB JO £9 ailed crrv OF MOSCOW ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MOSCOW, IDAHO SCALC: \ • 40' D"AWN l!IV: Ill auvr:&. CHICC>. ExHIBIT 2 COMMUNITY' CHOICE D STREET AND 3: 3: - 0 o en 8 0 r o r- m :E DAl'l:rl'Yi ˖ Moscow MIDDLE ScHoOL IMPROVEMENTS I I I I I 2013 nc11ƾ.• ---PAGE BREAK--- MOUNTAIN VIEW DRIVE SCALE: I ' ¥ IOO' ExHIBIT 1 CITY OF MOSCOW COMMUNITY CHOICE D ST1tE£1' AND ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT ѧѨ;"'N . . Moscow MIDDLE SCHOOL IMPRovEMENTs i- - MOSCOW, IDAHO :14ѩ0 llC . Wl,. 2013 ƽ -t"D-DI') ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 65 of82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Page66of82 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Page 68 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- 9 . I ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- ---PAGE BREAK--- Sub0Awardee Reporting For The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFAT A) ITD 0414 Rev. 01-1 3-1 1 itd.idaho.gov As required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act ("Transparency Act" or "FFATA" per P.L. 1 09-282, as amended by section 6202(a) of P.L. 1 1 0-252; note 31 U .S.C. 6 1 0 1 information on the first-tier sub­ awards related to Federal contracts and grants, and the executive compensation of awardees and sub-awardees must be made publicly available beginning October 1 , 201 0, Federal agencies and prime awardees will report to ensure disclosure of Federal contract and grant sub-award and executive compensation data 1 . T h f II . f r e o ow1no in orma ion mus t b rt d f d e repo e or pnme awar ees an d b d 2 su -awar ees : Sub-Awardee DUNS3 Sub-Awardee Name 958856338 City of Moscow Address I City I State I Zip Code 206 East Third Street, PO Box 9203 Moscow ID 83843 Names and total compensation of the five most highly compensated officers of the entity must be listed if: • the entity in the preceding fiscal year received 80 percent or more of its annual gross and revenues in Federal awards; • the entity in the preceding fiscal year received $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal awards; and • the public does not have access to this information about the compensation of the senior executives of the entity through periodic reports filed under section 1 3(a) or 1 5(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1 934 ( 1 5 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6 1 04 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1 986. See FFATA § 2(b)( 1 Name Total Compensation4 1 . 2 . 3 . 4. 5. Explanation for exemption from listing above The entity in the preceding fiscal year received 90% or more of its annual gross revenue in Federal awards; and the entity in the preceding fiscal year received $25,000,000 or mar in annual gross revenues from Federal awards. Definitions and Authority 1 . From Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, memorandum dated August 27, 201 0. 2. A sub-awardee is a recipient of a sub-award. I.E., where ITD loses programmatic control or resident oversight; functioning only as a trustee of an obligation. 3. Unique identifier used is the sub-awardee's Oun & Bradstreet (D&B) DUNS Number. See OMB M-09-1 9 at 1 1 . 4. ''Total compensation" means the cash and noncash dollar value earned by the executives during the sub-recipient's past fiscal year of the following (for more information see 1 7 CFR 229.402(c)(2)): Salary and bonus. Awards of stock, stock options, and stock appreciation rights. Use the dollar amount recognized for financial statement reporting purposes with respect to the fiscal year in accordance with FAS 1 23R. (iii). Earnings for services under non-equity incentive plans. Does not include group life, health, hospitalization or medical reimbursement plans that do not discriminate in favor of executives, and are available generally to all salaried employees. (iv). Change in pension value. This is the change in present value of defined benefit and actuarial pension plans. Above-market earnings on deferred compensation which are not tax qualified. (vi). Other compensation. For example, severance, termination payments, value of life insurance paid on behalf of the employee, perquisites or property if the value for the executive exceeds $1 0,000. Completed By (Sub-Awardee's Printed Name) Alisa J. Stone Title Grants Manager ---PAGE BREAK--- Site Checklist City of Moscow - Community Choices PART 1: QUESTIONS 1. Applicant: City of Moscow, 206 East Third Street. PO Box 9203, Moscow ID 83843 2. Project Name: Moscow Middle School - Safe Routes to School · Safety Improvement Project 3. Project Manager: Alisa Stone. Grants Manager and Kevin Lilly, City Engineer 4. Contact Information for Project Manager: [EMAIL REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] and [EMAIL REDACTED] [PHONE REDACTED] 5. Has the Applicant previously completed a federal aid project? Yes 6. 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? Yes Does the Applicant already have an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan? Yes 7. Facility Information - Bicycle and Pedestrian Project Includes: 8 foot wide and 600 linear feet in length shared use pathway/sidewalk (concrete, curb, gutter, parking stops, and asphalt patch); 10 curb ramps, planned or existing curb radii varies 5-15 feet. The project is: part of an existing road. Standards used: AASHTO, ITD and Local. Any areas where facility will narrow to accommodate trees, signs or other obstructions: Yes, installing traffic median strips for traffic calming. Are there funds/personnel to maintain the facility after it Is constructed (describe)? Yes. City of Moscow Street Department. Does your community normally require sidewalks or other pedestrian(bicycle Improvements as a condition of the subdivision or site plan (explain). Yes. Subdivision Ordinance. 8. Describe why the proposed facility type shoulder, bicycle lane, sidewalk, pathway, etc.) and design is appropriate for the site and for the need(s) proposed to be served by the project: This Safe Routes to School Safety Improvement Project on Street and in the Moscow Middle School (MMS) parking lot is intended to increase student safety by decreasing speed of motorists on Street and on school premises. bringing greater separation between the motorist and pedestrian/bicyclist and to i ncrease visibility to travelers in the area to include students. parents, teachers, and bus drivers. etc. Page 75 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- In order to decrease motorist speed on Street, a "Road Diet" will be installed. The Road Diet will not decrease the number of lanes but will decrease the perceived lane width by installing median islands, curb extension "Bulb-Outs" and speed tables/raised crosswalks. The raised crosswalks increase visibility to motorists and set the pedestrians/bicyclists higher in relation to their surroundings, making them more noticeable. Median islands a nd curb extensions on Street will also be installed to create refuges for pedestrians and bicyclists to wait while traffic stops during crossings. Actuated high visibility/intensity crosswalk indicators on the curb extensions will also be installed. The curb extensions bring the students past parked vehicles and into the motorist's view while keeping them behind a full height curb. Greater motorist and pedestrian/bicyclist separation will also include upgrad ing infrastructure in the area by installing new sidewalks to connect to existing sidewalks, which will encourage pedestrian usage and discourage walking in the street. In the main parking lot of MMS, blind spots. high speeds. and cross-cut traffic will be eliminated by reconfiguring the parking isles in a staggered, offset formation with parking bumpers and installation of a traffic calming circle at the high conflict area. Parking lot Improvements will also include an 8-foot wide shared use sidewalk/pathway extending from Street on the north end to the south end of the lot at Street. All of these improvements combined total approximately 1,300 square yards of new sidewalk, 2,000 linea r feet of new curb, 2 new raised crosswalks, lU new AUA pedestrian/bicyclist curb ramps, 4 ne w solar power crossing beacons and 4,000 square feet of zero scape vegetated/green space along with new utility and pavement patching/sealing to support these alterations. The project request a lso includes a "Bicycle/Pedestrian Counter" to be installed at the entrance of Oylear pathway leading to Street, which con nects to the MMS parking lot. The counter will assist in collecting consistent and relia ble bicycle and pedestrian user data. Collecting the data will provide information to assist in future inrastructure development and to help the City provide safe and efficie.nt multi-modal travel corridors for all users, including pedestrians and bicyclist. 9. Identify with specificity the type, source, and dollar value of local match items. Type: Source: Cash FY14 & FlS Capital Projects Budget Total Match PART 2: FORMS A. Environmenta l Screening Form - See Attached B. Project Cost Summary Sheet (for infrastructure projects) - See Attached Dollar Value $40,000 $40,000 C. Cost Estimate for Non-Infrastructure Projects: Safe Routes to School (for safe routes to school non-infrastructure projects) N/A D. Project Schedule (for infrastructure projects) - See Attached Page 76 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- ITD 021 1 (Rev. 9-10) 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 nQt 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 Type/Scope of Work landscaping, bike/pedestrian path, etc.) Project Name/Location Reduce Congestion for Pedestrian, Bicycle, and Vehicle Moscow Middle School - Safe Routes to School - Safety Traffic throuQh Channelization and Safety Improvements I mprovement Project located at 1410 East Street, Moscow I D Right of Way/Property Impacts - Will the project require acquisition of temporary o r permanent easements, 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? Yes No œ D Yes, temporary right-of-entry during construction. The project will be located on City and Moscow School District Explain: property. Yes, temporary disruption is anticipated but a detailed traffic management plan with be required prior to construction. Traffic - Does the project add traffic lanes or traffic capacity? 0 œ Explain: Ground Disturbance - Does the project disturb more than one acre of land? IZJ D Explain: Existing pavement and lawn but will be repaired and/or replaced at conclusion of construction. Stormwater - Where does the water (rain, snowmelt) from this project area drain? D Sheet flows to surface waters (canal, stream, lake) D Conveyed by ditch or pipe to surface waters [gl Storm Sewer System (Municipal system) 0 Infiltrate in Place (retention pond or topography with no drainage outlet [low area)) 0 Other - if none of the above conditions Explain: All drains to City of Moscow systems. Surface Waters - Does the project site contain any boggy, swampy, or wetland areas? D rzJ Does the project impact (fill or temporarily impact) any wetland, stream, lake or other water body? D IZJ Explain: Cultural Resources - Are there historical structures (such as buildings, bridges, canals, etc) over 45 years IZI D old within or adjacent to (in some cases within view) of the proposed project site? E 1 . . The original Moscow Middle School (aka Moscow Junior High School) was built in 1 958 with additions built in the xp am. mid 1 960's and also in 1 99 1 . ITD 021 1 , Rev. 9-10 Page 1 of 2 Page 77 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- Section 4f - Is the project site located next to or a part of a special designated land use (i.e. , designated IZI D park, wildlife refuge, historic district, etc)? Check with local land use map for information. Located across Street from the school's tennis courts is the Moscow Skate Park which is 7,000 square feet to Explain: include rest rooms, open play area, basketball court. Also located adjacent to the Skate Park is Eggan Youth Center also owned bv the Citv of Moscow. 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: 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 None. Preparer's Printed Name Alisa J. Stone Signi2!,/- - ITD usf..6:.i . y Reco‹dation - Title Agency or Firm Grants Manager City of Moscow Date 8/27/201 3 D IZI D IZI D IZI D IZI D fZI Šased 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 Title District Environmental Planner Date f3 2 7 ITD 021 1 , Rev. 9·10 Page 2 of 2 Page 78 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- CITY OF MOSCOW ENGINEERING DEPARTMENT MOSCOW, IDA.HO Ƽ 2? m c. H l! n • a. ! Br.Al F : NTB 1 i E EXHIBIT 4 Ѧ e . I - 00••0! ---PAGE BREAK--- Project Cost Summary Sheet ITD 1 1 50 (Rev. 05-13) Round Estimates to Nearest $1 ,000 a e City of Moscow - Community Choices 9/6/201 3 D str ct 2 Lengtn In 1es N/A N/A 0.2 Previous ITD 1 1 50 Initial or Revise To 1 a. Preliminary Engineering (PE) $55,000 1 b. Prelimlnarv Engineering by Consultant (PEG) 2. Right-of-Way: Number of Parcels Number of Relocations 3. Utility Adjustments: 0 Work 0 Materials D By State 0 By Others $1 0,000 4. Earthwork $1 4,000 5. Drainage and Minor Structures $5,000 6. Pavement and Base $54,000 7. Railroad Crossing: Grade/Separation Structure At-Grade Signals D Yes D No 8. Bridges/Grade Separation Structures: LJ New Structure Length/Width Location O Repair/Widening/Rehabilitation Length/Width Location 9. Traffic Items (Delineators, Signing, Channelization, Lighting, and SiQnals) $48,000 1 0. Construction Traffic Control (Sign, Pavement Markings, Flagging, and Traffic Separation) $6,000 1 1 . Detours 12. Landscaping $1 2,000 1 3. Mitigation Measures $5,000 14. Other Items (Roadside Development, Guardrail, Fencing, Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter, C.S.S. Items) $230,000 1 5. Cost of Constructions (Items 3 through 1 4) $384,000 1 6. Mobilization 1 0 % of Item 1 5 $38,000 1 7. Construction Engineer and Contingencies 1 5 % of Items 1 5 and 1 6 $63,000 1 8. Total Construction Cost (1 5 + 1 6 + 1 7} $485,000 1 9. Total Project Cost ( 1 + 2 + 1 8) $540,000 20. Project Cost Per Mile $2,700,000 Prepared By: Bob Buvel, PE, Engineering Technician Ill, City of Moscow Page 80 of 82 ---PAGE BREAK--- '1 (Q Ѫ a CX> N Project Function Year Quarter Oct-Dec State/Local Agreement and Consultant Services Agreement x Project Concept Environmental Review Right-of-Way; Easement Acquisition Final Design Target Date for Funding Obligation Advertise & Award Construction City of Moscow Community Choices Moscow Middle School Safe Routes to School Safety Improvement Project Project Schedule 2014 2015 Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep x x x x x x x x x x 2016 Oct-Dec Jan-Mar Apr-Jun Jul-Sep ---PAGE BREAK--- Sub0Awardee Reporting For The Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act (FFATA) ITD 041 4 Rev. 01-1 3-1 1 itd.idaho.gov As required by the Federal Funding Accountability and Transparency Act ("Transparency Act" or "FFATA" per P.L. 1 09-282, as amended by section 6202(a) of P.L. 1 1 0-252; note 31 U.S.C. 6 1 0 1 information on the first-tier sub­ awards related to Federal contracts and grants, and the executive compensation of awardees and sub-awardees must be made publicly available beginning October 1 , 201 0, Federal agencies and prime awardees will report to ensure disclosure of Federal contract and grant sub-award and executive compensation data 1. T . f he fo low1nQ m orma ion mus t b t d f d e repor e or prime awar ees an d b d 2 su -awar ees : Sub-Awardee DUNS3 Sub-Awardee Name 958856338 City of Moscow Address I City I State I Zip Code 206 East Third Strnet, PO Box 9203 Moscow ID 83843 Names and total compensation of the five most highly compensated officers of the entity must be listed if: • the entity in the preceding fiscal year received 80 percent or more of its annual gross and revenues in Federal awards; • the entity in the preceding fiscal year received $25,000,000 or more in annual gross revenues from Federal awards; and • the public does not have access to this information about the compensation of the senior executives of the entity through periodic reports filed under section 1 3(a) or 1 5(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1 934 (1 5 U.S.C. 78m(a), 78o(d)) or section 6 1 04 of the Internal Revenue Code of 1 986. See FFATA § 2(b)( 1 Name Total Compensation4 1 . 2. - 3. 4. 5. Explanation for exemption from listing above The entity in the preceding fiscal year received 90% or more of its annual gross revenue in Federal awards; and the entity in the preceding fiscal year received $25,000,000 or mor in annual gross revenues from Federal awards. Definitions and Authority 1 . From Executive Office of the President, Office of Management and Budget, memorandum dated August 27, 2010. 2. A sub-awardee is a recipient of a sub-award. I.E., where ITD loses programmatic control or resident oversight; functioning only as a trustee of an obligation. 3. Unique identifier used is the sub-awardee's Dun & Bradstreet (D&B) DUNS Number. See OMB M-09-19 at 1 1 . 4. "Total compensation" means the cash and noncash dollar value earned by the executives during the sub-recipient's past fiscal year of the following (for more information see 1 7 CFR 229.402(c)(2)): Salary and bonus. Awards of stock, stock options, and stock appreciation rights. Use the dollar amount recognized for financial statement reporting purposes with respect to the fiscal year in accordance with FAS 1 23R. (iii). Earnings for services under non-equity incentive plans. Does not include group life, health, hospitalization or medical reimbursement plans that do not discriminate in favor of executives, and are available generally to all salaried employees. (iv). Change in pension value. This is the change in present value of defined benefit and actuarial pension plans. Above-market earnings on deferred compensation which are not tax qualified. (vi). Other compensation. For example, severance, termination payments, value of life insurance paid on behalf of the employee, perquisites or property if the value for the executive exceeds $1 0,000. Completed By (Sub-Awardee's Printed Name) Alisa J. Stone Title Grants Manager