HomeMy WebLinkAboutFiscal Years 2009-2013 Capital Improvements Program, City of Bozeman
City of Bozeman, Montana
Capital Improvements
Program
Fiscal Years 2009-2013
Adopted March 17, 2008
City of Bozeman, Montana
Capital Improvements Program
For Fiscal Years 2009-2013
Adopted During Public Hearings held
March 17, 2008
City Commission
Kaaren Jacobson, Mayor
Jeff Krauss, Deputy Mayor
Sean Becker, Commissioner
Eric Bryson, Commissioner
Jeff Rupp, Commissioner
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director
Stacy Ulmen, City Clerk
3
Table of Contents
INTRODUCTION PAGE
Transmittal Letter 5
City Mission, Vision & Goals 9
Why Adopt a Capital Improvement Plan? 10
CIP Process 10
SUMMARIES
Financial Summary—ALL FUNDS 14
FUND PLANS—Summaries and Project Descriptions
General Fund 15
Street Maintenance 91
Building Inspection 107
Tree Maintenance (Forestry) 112
Water 124
Wastewater 140
Solid Waste 155
Vehicle Maintenance 170
Street Impact Fee 174
Fire Impact Fee 193
Water Impact Fee 200
209 Wastewater Impact Fee
Fire Equipment & Capital Replacement Fund 119
4
Transmittal Letter
March 17, 2008
City of Bozeman Commission:
I am pleased to present the adopted Capital Improvements Program (CIP) for the Fis-
cal Years 2009-2013. This plan strives to meet the facility needs of our growing com-
munity with the limited resources the City has available. This year, we have taken fur-
ther strides in planning for our communities capital needs, some of the most notable
being:
1. The voters approved both the Police and Fire levies, providing for the pur-
chase of vehicles and a long-term Fire Equipment and Capital Replacement program,
an entirely new funding source for capital needs.
2. The Parks, Recreation, Open Space and Trails (PROST) Plan was adopted,
identifying long term needs and wants in our community.
3. The Long-Term Police Facility Study was completed.
4. New Water, Wastewater and Streets Impact Fee studies were adopted, which
previously hadn’t been analyzed since 1995.
The recently adopted City Charter requires a CIP be submitted by the City Manager to
the City Commission before December 15th of each year. Although not formally in ef-
fect until December 15, 2008, we were able to meet that deadline this year by develop-
ing and following a CIP Update schedule that will be used for years to come.
Community Goals: The City Commission of 2002 adopted goals for our community.
I am happy to report that this CIP document and process directly applies to all but one
of those goals, as follows:
1. Encourage and promote opportunities for citizenship. Through the public hearing
process and utilization of Advisory Board input, the Capital Improvements Pro-
gram we are presenting has been open to much citizen involvement.
2. Provide and communicate quality customer service. For many of our programs,
capital facilities and equipment play a critical role in providing quality service.
Police Patrol Officers need vehicles for patrol, Swimming Lessons require a swim-
ming pool, Tree Maintenance requires bucket trucks, etc. This CIP plans for the
adequate procurement and replacement of these important assets.
5
3. Build a strong team of staff, elected officials, and citizens.
4. Anticipate future service demands and resource deficiencies and be proactive in ad-
dressing them. Because the CIP seeks to project for the next 5 years, it is a critical
part of our “proactive” planning.
5. Develop a visually appealing and culturally rich community. Because the CIP
plans for the construction and maintenance of City owned properties, it plays a
role in ensuring the public buildings and projects are kept in good repair and fol-
low existing regulations for visual appeal.
6. Commit to a strong financial position. The CIP seeks to identify, across the organi-
zation, the capital costs that are expected to be incurred over a 5-year term. It
also serves as the tool to document equipment replacement cycles and track the
progress of capital facility plans. This financial planning is critical to the City’s
overall fiscal health.
7. Provide excellent and equitable public services which are responsive to the commu-
nity within available resources. In addition to identifying the capital projects and
equipment that are needed, the CIP seeks to estimate the cost of those items and
identify a source of revenue to pay for them (and, point out where we lack the
ability to fund them.)
Sustainability
As you are well aware, the sustainability of Bozeman’s economic vitality and commu-
nity atmosphere is critically linked to the infrastructure we have available. People do
not choose to live in towns that have dilapidated street systems, inadequate parks and
trails, or polluted water. Businesses don’t build in areas that can not provide access for
customers and employees, necessary water and sewer services, or protection from
crime and fire.
In order to properly plan for continued growth, we have been engaged in numerous
long-range planning studies. We strive to follow the recommendations in these plans
as a way to ensure adequate infrastructure and service delivery for our community.
• Water Treatment & Distribution Facilities (20 year),
• Wastewater Collection & Treatment Facilities (20 year),
• Fire Station & Staffing (20 year),
• Police Station & Staffing (20 year),
• Transportation Plan (20 year),
6
City of Bozeman—
Year
Projected Population—
Utilized for Facility Studies
2005 33,450 Residents; 5% annual growth
2010 42,700 Residents; 5% annual growth
2015 54,500 Residents; 5% annual growth
2020 69,500 Residents; 5% annual growth
2025 88,700 Residents; 5% annual growth
• Bozeman 20/20 Plan (20 year),
• Water & Wastewater Utility Rate Studies (5 year), and
• Water, Wastewater, Street, and Fire Impact Fee Studies (10 year).
Our long-range planning efforts have been aimed at projecting growth and growth pat-
terns so that we can plan for the increased volume on our streets, water, sewer, police,
fire and other services. This CIP plan incorporates the recommendations of the three
most recently completed facility plans, rate and impact fee studies, as well as the cur-
rent Transportation Plan, and the overarching goals of the Bozeman 20/20 Plan. We
look forward to updating the Transportation Plan and 20/20 Plan in the coming year.
The City’s ability to fund recurring fire equipment replacement has been varied for dec-
ades. In the past, we frequently relied on item-specific bond elections whenever an en-
gine or ladder truck needed to be purchased. In November 2007, we proposed an an-
nual, perpetual 4 mill levy to fund Fire Equipment and Capital Replacement. The levy
was approved and will go into effect for Fiscal Year 2009, the first year of this plan.
This greatly enhances the sustainability of excellent fire service in the City of Bozeman.
Population Growth
For our facility plans, we analyzed historic trends, building permits and other sources
in order to project future populations that will be relying on City services. We experi-
enced a significant “under-estimation” of population increases in the Bozeman 20/20
Plan, developed in 1999/2000. City population data available for the last four years
indicates a high rate of growth and an upward trend in growth rates. On a yearly aver-
age basis the growth rate over the last 3 years has averaged 4.7%. Based on recent
growth rates and continued growth trends, all facility plans used a 5% growth rate for
their 20 year facility planning period, resulting in the estimated resident populations
below. Because of Bozeman’s role as a regional retail center and home to many of the
Valley’s largest employers, daily commuters swell our existing resident populations by
nearly 10% during daytime hours.
7
Measuring Outcomes
The outcomes of adopting and implementing a Capital Improvement Plan are numer-
ous and can be quite varied. The intended outcome is to have a well planned system
for identifying and funding capital improvements and equipment purchases. In some
instances, items being removed from the CIP plan can be a positive outcome for the
community. The need may have been met by another organization, or technological
improvements may have solved the problem or provided a lower cost solution
At times, though, even the best-laid plans must be changed due to any number of cir-
cumstances. Noteable project changes in this plan include:
• The removal of the Shops Complex as an impact fee funded project. Although
Phase I of the Shops Complex was appropriated in 2007, a facility has not been
constructed. The City was seeking the opportunity to purchase the Cardinal Dis-
tributing Property, but the deal fell through when a lease agreement could not
be negotiated with the Railroad. At the point the Railroad negotiations came to
a standstill, our Impact Fee consultant also recommended that we not pursue
using impact fees for the project. We anticipate having further details on the
Shops Complex Plan for the January public hearing on this CIP.
• The addition of the Fire Equipment and Capital Replacement Fund, as approved
by the voters in November 2007.
• The addition of the Story Mansion as a city-owned, renovated and operated as-
set.
In conclusion, this annual CIP process is meant to assist City government in planning
for the future needs and goals of our growing community. The plan’s sustainability and
positive outcomes will be measured in future years.
Respectfully submitted,
Chris Kukulski, City Manager
Anna Rosenberry, Finance Director
8
City of Bozeman Vision, Mission & Goals
Vision: Bozeman, Montana: The most livable place.
Mission: To enhance the quality of life
through excellence in public service.
Goals:
1. Encourage and promote opportunities for citizenship
2. Provide and communicate quality customer service.
3. Build a strong team of staff, elected officials and citizens.
4. Anticipate future service demands and resource deficiencies
and be proactive in addressing them.
5. Develop a visually appealing and culturally rich community.
6. Commit to a strong financial position.
7. Provide excellent and equitable public services which are
responsive to the community within available resources.
9
Why Adopt a Capital Improvements Program (CIP)?
One of the primary responsibilities of local government is to properly preserve,
maintain, and improve a community’s stock of buildings, roads, parks, water and sewer
lines, and equipment. Planning for these capital improvements is a matter of prudent fi-
nancial management, as well as sound development practice. In a rapidly growing com-
munity, such as ours, the need for expanded public facilities and services is at its peak. A
carefully developed CIP can plan for these expansions and communicate our intent to citi-
zens and the development community.
City’s CIP Process—Calendar
September: Departments make requests for new CIP items.
Staff reviews existing CIP projects and makes note of any changes.
October: City Manager and staff meet to review new and existing projects;
modify any timing, cost or revenue estimates.
Impact Fee Advisory Committee receives and reviews proposed
Impact Fee CIP schedules and forwards comments to City Com
mission.
December: City Manager presents Draft CIP to City Commission prior to
December 15th.
January: City Commission holds public hearings, takes public comment
and adopts CIP Plan for ensuing fiscal year.
May: Adopted CIP is integrated into City Manager’s Recommended
Budget for ensuing fiscal year.
August: Commission, via adopting a final budget, appropriates dollars for
CIP projects for the fiscal year.
The Charter’s CIP Requirements
In Section 5.06 of the recently adopted City Charter, the City Manager is responsi-
ble for preparing and submitting a multi-year capital program to the City Commission no
later than December 15 for the ensuing fiscal year. The plan must be revised and ex-
tended each year with regard to projects not yet completed. This plan is required to in-
clude:
1. A clear general summary of contents;
2. Identification of the long-term goals of the community;
3. A list of all capital improvements and other capital expenditures which are pro-
10
posed to be undertaken during the fiscal years next ensuing, with appropriate supporting
information as to the necessity for each;
4. Cost estimates and recommended time schedules for each improvement or other
capital expenditure;
5. Method of financing upon which each capital expenditure is to be reliant;
6. The estimated annual cost of operating and maintaining the facilities to be con-
structed or acquired;
7. A commentary on how the plan addresses the sustainability of the community or
region of which it is a part; and
8. Methods to measure outcomes and performance of the capital plan related to
the long-term goals of the community.
Definition of Capital Improvement:
The CIP Plan covers any expenditure $10,000 or greater, that results in the acquisition
of an asset with a useful life of 1 year or more.
Current Facilities and their Condition:
The City has recently completed a number of long-range (20 year) facility plans:
• Water Treatment & Distribution Facilities,
• Wastewater Collection & Treatment Facilities, and
• Fire Station, Equipment & Staffing.
• Police Station & Staffing
Over the course of the next year, the Transportation Plan is expected to be completed.
These studies examine the condition and placement of existing facilities, area growth pro-
jections and pattern, regulatory changes, and possible funding mechanisms. The plans
analyze various alternatives and make recommendations for implementation.
Policies for the Physical Development of our Community
The City’s Unified Development Ordinance (UDO) is a combination of both Subdivision and
Zoning regulations for development within the City. The Ordinance is subject to amend-
ment by the Commission, after public notices and hearings are held. The UDO applies to
both private and city-owned projects, and is available online at http://www.bozeman.net/
planning/unified_development_ordinance.aspx.
11
The Communities Ability to Pay for Planned Improvements
In a community with relatively high cost of living, the ability of citizens to afford the
needed utility rate, fee, and assessment levels is of concern. At the same time, the City
strives to keep existing facilities properly maintained — and not pass deferred maintenance
costs and problems on to future generations.
The City has recently adopted on Utility Rate Studies for Water, and Wastewater ser-
vices. These studies give us an indication of how and when utility rates must be increased
to pay for the needed water and wastewater system improvements.
In conjunction with the Utility Rate Studies, we are also undergoing/have completed
review of our existing Water, Wastewater, Street and Fire Impact Fee levels. This review
is required by state law and has not been done since the City implemented impact fees in
1995. This review will indicate what changes, if any, in the fee levels are necessary to
fund future system capacity expansion. The Water, Wastewater and Street studies are
complete, while the Fire study is still underway.
For General Fund (Administration, Parks, Recreation, Library, Police and Fire) facilities
and Street construction, the City does not have the ability to easily increase tax levels for
funding. Any tax levy increase must be approved by the City’s voters, and maximum debt
levels are established by state law.
In November 2007, the city of Bozeman voters approved a 4 mill perpetual levy to es-
tablish a Fire Equipment and Capital Replacement fund. This fund has been added to the
CIP plan, and will address our need to plan for and replace fire engines, our ladder truck,
and other capital improvements to fire stations. At the same time, the voters also ap-
proved a perpetual levy for staffing and equipping additional police officers. In that levy,
$74,560 in vehicle replacements per year were approved; it is intended to purchase one
patrol vehicle and one detective vehicle, although as needs change, a different mix vehicle
mix may be warranted.
It is anticipated that levy increases for the police station, as well as an aquatics center,
will be proposed in the future, with their adoption critical to our plans to expand our facili-
ties.
The City does have a couple outside sources of funding available for street construction;
State Urban Funds and Special Improvement District Assessments. State Urban Funds are
available for use on Urban Routes within the City. Special Improvement District Assess-
ments can be levied on property owners within an area whose property directly benefits
from the improvements being built.
Level of Service (LOS) Standards
Most of the City’s long range plans establish level of service standards. These standards
12
are critical to planning for the needs of future residents of the city. In some cases, such as
water quality or wastewater discharge, these standards are often established or guided by
outside regulating bodies. The CIP does not frequently reference specific LOS, but the un-
derlying facility and staffing plans will contain detailed discussions of levels of service, and
how the city should address increasing or decreasing levels of service through infrastruc-
ture and staffing recommendations.
~~~~~~~~~
13
CI
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
L
A
N
ALL
F
U
N
D
S
-
S
U
M
M
A
R
Y
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
TO
T
A
LUNSCHEDULED
GE
N
E
R
A
L
F
U
N
D
15
,
4
5
6
,
0
4
0
$
7,
1
3
7
,
1
8
2
$
1,
1
8
5
,
0
1
3
$
1,
2
1
8
,
8
5
0
$
1,
1
3
8
,
5
8
4
$
26
,
0
5
0
,
7
9
0
$
27,680,600$
ST
R
E
E
T
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
40
6
,
0
0
0
26
3
,
4
6
4
23
2
,
8
5
8
41
0
,
8
6
2
10
0
,
0
0
0
1,
4
1
3
,
1
8
4
2,172,000
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
I
O
N
58
,
2
4
0
60
,
5
7
0
62
,
9
9
2
65
,
5
1
2
68
,
1
3
3
315,447
-
TR
E
E
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
(
F
O
R
E
S
T
R
Y
)
15
,
6
0
0
70
,
3
0
4
67
,
4
9
2
‐
‐
153,396
-
FI
R
E
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
&
C
A
P
I
T
A
L
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
‐
49
6
,
1
2
5
‐
‐
1,
2
7
6
,
2
8
2
1,
7
7
2
,
4
0
7
-
WA
T
E
R
F
U
N
D
2,
4
7
3
,
0
0
0
1,
1
3
8
,
9
0
0
11
,
1
8
6
,
3
2
0
10
,
0
9
0
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
25
,
8
8
8
,
2
2
0
25,000
WA
S
T
E
W
A
T
E
R
F
U
N
D
8,
9
7
0
,
0
0
0
9,
7
8
3
,
9
5
6
8,
9
9
4
,
9
9
5
1,
3
5
9
,
9
6
1
90
,
0
0
0
29
,
1
9
8
,
9
1
1
25,000
VE
H
I
C
L
E
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐
‐ -
ST
R
E
E
T
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
6,
9
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
11
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
60
0
,
0
0
0
2,
9
5
0
,
0
0
0
27
,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
14,950,000
FI
R
E
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
65
7
,
0
0
0
‐
‐
‐
3,
3
6
9
,
7
3
0
4,
0
2
6
,
7
3
0
-
WA
T
E
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
65
0
,
0
0
0
50
0
,
0
0
0
5,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1,
8
7
4
,
8
8
6
13
,
0
2
4
,
8
8
6
45,180,000
WA
S
T
E
W
A
T
E
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
5,
4
9
2
,
0
0
0
4,
3
6
0
,
0
0
0
7,
0
0
3
,
6
4
8
89
9
,
8
9
1
4,
3
2
8
,
4
7
7
22
,
0
8
4
,
0
1
6
‐
TO
T
A
L
A
L
L
F
U
N
D
S
41
,
0
7
7
,
8
8
0
29
,
1
6
0
,
5
0
1
44
,
9
8
3
,
3
1
8
19
,
6
4
5
,
0
7
6
16
,
1
9
6
,
0
9
1
15
0
,
9
7
7
,
9
8
6
90,032,600
14
GE
N
E
R
A
L
F
U
N
D
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
O
F
C
I
P
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
S
,
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
A
N
D
E
X
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
CI
P
P
l
a
n
F
Y
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
3
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
a
s
h
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
-
$
2
0
2
,
9
0
0
$
5,
3
7
3
$
36
,
4
5
4
$
66
,
5
2
8
$
99,694$
A
d
d
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
2,
5
3
2
,
0
0
0
15
,
2
5
8
,
5
1
3
7,
1
6
8
,
2
6
3
1,
2
1
5
,
0
8
7
1,
2
5
2
,
0
1
6
1,272,728
L
e
s
s
:
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
C
I
P
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
2,
3
2
9
,
1
0
0
15
,
4
5
6
,
0
4
0
7,
1
3
7
,
1
8
2
1,
1
8
5
,
0
1
3
1,
2
1
8
,
8
5
0
1,138,584
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
e
a
r
-
E
n
d
C
a
s
h
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
20
2
,
9
0
0
$
5,
3
7
3
$
36
,
4
5
4
$
66
,
5
2
8
$
99
,
6
9
4
$
233,838$ Page 1
15
GE
N
E
R
A
L
F
U
N
D
CI
P
R
A
T
E
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY12FY13
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
:
Fr
o
m
P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
Y
e
a
r
(
s
)
4.
7
0
5.
2
0
5.
2
0
5.
2
0
5.20
5.20
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
0.
5
0
-
-
-
-
-
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
5.
2
0
5.
2
0
5.
2
0
5.
2
0
5.20
5.20 Page 2
16
GE
N
E
R
A
L
F
U
N
D
CI
P
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY
1
2
FY13
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
1,
0
3
2
,
0
0
0
$
1,
0
5
8
,
9
5
3
$
1,
0
9
0
,
7
2
1
$
1,
1
2
3
,
4
4
3
$
1,
1
5
7
,
1
4
6
$
1,174,504
$
Ad
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
:
2
0
0
7
P
o
l
i
c
e
L
e
v
y
-
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
s
74
,
5
6
0
77
,
5
4
2
80
,
6
4
4
83
,
8
7
0
87,225
2
0
0
7
F
i
r
e
L
e
v
y
-
V
e
h
i
c
l
e
65
,
0
0
0
S
a
l
e
o
f
C
i
t
y
H
a
l
l
-
M
a
i
n
S
t
r
e
e
t
S
i
t
e
1,
4
0
0
,
0
0
0
B
o
n
d
I
s
s
u
e
-
P
o
l
i
c
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
13
,
2
6
0
,
0
0
0
B
o
n
d
I
s
s
u
e
-
O
u
t
d
o
o
r
A
q
u
a
t
i
c
s
F
a
c
i
l
i
t
y
6,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
S
t
o
r
y
M
a
n
s
i
o
n
-
S
A
T
G
r
a
n
t
10
0
,
0
0
0
40
0
,
0
0
0
S
t
o
r
y
M
a
n
s
i
o
n
-
F
Y
0
8
V
a
c
a
n
c
y
S
a
v
i
n
g
s
28
3
,
5
0
0
S
t
o
r
y
M
a
n
s
i
o
n
-
G
e
n
e
r
a
l
F
u
n
d
C
a
s
h
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
11
6
,
5
0
0
C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
i
o
n
O
v
e
r
l
a
y
D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t
F
e
e
s
11
,
0
0
0
11
,
0
0
0
11,000
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
2,
5
3
2
,
0
0
0
$
1
5
,
2
5
8
,
5
1
3
$
7
,
1
6
8
,
2
6
3
$
1
,
2
1
5
,
0
8
7
$
1
,
2
5
2
,
0
1
6
$
1
,
2
7
2
,
7
2
8
$
Page 3
17
CI
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
GE
N
E
R
A
L
F
U
N
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
Re
f
#
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
s
b
y
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
T
i
t
l
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY
1
2
FY
1
3
TotalScheduled
GF
-
0
1
P
R
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
E
L
E
V
A
T
O
R
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
- 65,600
GF
-
0
2
R
E
C
O
R
D
S
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
FA
C
I
L
I
T
Y
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
- 550,000
GF
-
0
3
C
E
M
E
T
E
R
Y
W
A
T
E
R
M
A
I
N
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
CE
M
E
T
E
R
Y
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
6
0
,
0
0
0
60,000
GF
-
0
4
4
x
4
1
-
T
O
N
F
L
A
T
B
E
D
T
R
U
C
K
CE
M
E
T
E
R
Y
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
35
,
0
0
0
35,000
GF
-
0
5
4
X
4
H
A
L
F
-
T
O
N
P
I
C
K
U
P
T
R
U
C
K
CE
M
E
T
E
R
Y
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
35
,
0
0
0
35,000
GF
-
0
6
4
X
4
3
/
4
T
O
N
P
I
C
K
U
P
T
R
U
C
K
CE
M
E
T
E
R
Y
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
35
,
0
0
0
35,000
GF
-
0
8
E
X
P
A
N
D
C
U
R
R
E
N
T
C
E
M
E
T
E
R
Y
O
F
F
I
C
E
C
E
M
E
T
E
R
Y
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
- 105,000
GF
-
0
9
N
E
W
C
E
M
E
T
E
R
Y
O
F
F
I
C
E
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
CE
M
E
T
E
R
Y
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
- 350,000
GF
-
1
0
C
E
M
E
T
E
R
Y
M
O
W
E
R
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
CE
M
E
T
E
R
Y
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
1
3
,
0
0
0
13
,
0
0
0
13
,
0
0
0
13
,
0
0
0
13
,
0
0
0
65,000
GF
-
1
4
M
U
N
I
C
I
P
A
L
W
I
R
E
L
E
S
S
N
E
T
W
O
R
K
IT
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
- 2,400,000
GF
-
1
5
P
L
O
T
T
E
R
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
GI
S
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
1
8
,
0
0
0
18,000
GF
-
1
6
2
P
I
C
K
U
P
T
R
U
C
K
S
;
3
/
4
T
O
N
&
1
/
2
T
O
N
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
35
,
0
0
0
35
,
0
0
0
70,000
GF
-
1
9
A
D
A
U
P
G
R
A
D
E
S
T
O
P
L
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
E
Q
U
I
P
P
A
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
3
0
,
0
0
0
30
,
0
0
0
30
,
0
0
0
30
,
0
0
0
30
,
0
0
0
150,000
GF
-
2
2
B
O
G
E
R
T
P
A
R
K
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
A
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
20
,
0
0
0
20,000
GF
-
2
3
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
B
O
G
E
R
T
P
A
R
K
T
E
N
N
I
S
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
15
0
,
0
0
0
150,000
GF
-
2
4
C
E
N
T
E
N
N
I
A
L
P
A
R
K
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
A
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
25
,
0
0
0
25,000
GF
-
2
5
C
H
A
I
N
L
I
N
K
F
E
N
C
I
N
G
R
E
P
A
I
R
S
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
1
0
,
0
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
50,000
GF
-
2
7
C
O
O
P
E
R
P
A
R
K
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
A
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
- 45,000
GF
-
2
8
E
A
S
T
G
A
L
L
T
I
N
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
L
O
T
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
55
,
0
0
0
55,000
GF
-
2
9
P
A
R
K
G
A
R
B
A
G
E
T
R
U
C
K
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
7
5
,
0
0
0
75,000
GF
-
3
0
A
R
T
I
C
U
L
A
T
I
N
G
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
90
,
0
0
0
90,000
GF
-
3
1
P
A
R
K
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
G
R
A
N
T
S
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
15
0
,
0
0
0
15
0
,
0
0
0
15
0
,
0
0
0
15
0
,
0
0
0
750,000
GF
-
3
2
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
U
P
G
R
A
D
E
S
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
4
0
,
0
0
0
40
,
0
0
0
40
,
0
0
0
40
,
0
0
0
40
,
0
0
0
200,000 40,000
GF
-3
4
L
A
R
G
E
D
E
C
K
L
A
W
N
M
O
W
E
R
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
4
5
,
0
0
0
50
,
6
1
9
54
,
9
0
0
150,519
GF
-
3
5
L
I
N
D
L
E
Y
P
A
R
K
E
N
T
R
A
N
E
&
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
- 82,000
GF
-
3
6
M
A
X
I
C
O
M
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
S
Y
S
T
E
M
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
- 65,000
GF
-
3
7
P
O
L
E
B
A
R
N
I
N
L
O
W
E
R
Y
A
R
D
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
35
,
0
0
0
35,000
GF
-
3
8
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
B
O
G
E
R
T
P
L
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
P
A
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
8
0
,
0
0
0
80,000 Page 4
18
CI
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
GE
N
E
R
A
L
F
U
N
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
Re
f
#
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
s
b
y
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
T
i
t
l
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY
1
2
FY
1
3
TotalScheduled
GF
-
3
9
S
O
F
T
B
A
L
L
C
O
M
P
L
E
X
I
R
R
I
G
A
T
I
O
N
U
P
A
G
R
A
D
E
P
A
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
-
- 90,000
GF
-
4
1
S
O
U
T
H
S
I
D
E
P
A
R
K
S
I
D
E
W
A
L
K
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
A
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
20
,
0
0
0
20,000
GF
-
5
0
P
O
L
I
C
E
A
N
D
M
U
N
I
C
I
P
A
L
C
O
U
R
T
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y
P
O
L
I
C
E
/
C
O
U
R
T
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
1
3
,
2
6
0
,
0
0
0
13,260,000
GF
-
5
1
A
N
I
M
A
L
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
PO
L
I
C
E
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
22
,
0
0
0
22,000
GF
-
5
2
I
N
V
E
S
T
I
G
A
T
I
V
E
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
PO
L
I
C
E
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
2
5
,
0
0
0
25
,
0
0
0
25
,
0
0
0
25
,
0
0
0
25
,
0
0
0
125,000
GF
-
5
3
P
O
L
I
C
E
C
A
R
S
PO
L
I
C
E
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
1
4
4
,
0
0
0
14
9
,
7
6
0
15
5
,
7
5
0
16
1
,
9
8
0
16
8
,
4
6
0
779,950
GF
-
5
4
S
W
I
M
C
E
N
T
E
R
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
RE
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
- 235,000
GF
-
5
5
B
O
G
E
R
T
P
O
O
L
G
U
T
T
E
R
R
E
P
A
I
R
&
R
E
S
U
R
F
A
C
I
N
GRE
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
- 200,000
GF
-
5
6
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
C
E
N
T
E
R
RE
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
- 16,000,000
GF
-
5
7
S
W
I
M
C
E
N
T
E
R
E
X
P
A
N
S
I
O
N
RE
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
- 1,000,000
GF
-
5
8
W
E
B
T
R
A
C
C
O
M
P
U
T
E
R
I
Z
E
D
W
E
B
R
E
G
I
S
T
R
A
T
I
O
NRE
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
1
6
,
0
0
0
16,000
GF
-
6
1
O
U
T
D
O
O
R
F
A
M
I
L
Y
A
C
Q
U
A
T
I
C
C
E
N
T
E
R
R
E
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
6,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
6,000,000
GF
-
6
2
P
E
R
S
O
N
A
L
C
O
M
P
U
T
E
R
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
I
T
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
9
0
,
0
0
0
90
,
0
0
0
10
0
,
0
0
0
11
0
,
0
0
0
11
0
,
0
0
0
500,000
GF
-
6
4
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
25
,
0
0
0
25,000
GF
-
6
5
A
E
R
I
A
L
P
H
O
T
O
G
R
A
P
H
Y
EN
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
95
,
0
0
0
95,000
GF
-
6
6
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y
A
S
S
E
S
S
M
E
N
T
S
FA
C
I
L
I
T
Y
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1
4
,
0
0
0
-
14,000
GF
-
6
7
P
R
O
F
E
S
S
I
O
N
A
L
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
P
A
R
K
I
N
G
L
O
T
L
I
G
H
T
SFA
C
I
L
I
T
Y
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
28
,
0
0
0
-
-
28,000
GF
-
6
8
H
I
S
T
O
R
I
C
R
E
S
O
U
R
C
E
S
I
N
V
E
N
T
O
R
Y
U
P
D
A
T
E
P
L
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
11
0
,
0
0
0
11
0
,
0
0
0
11
0
,
0
0
0
330,000
GF
-
7
1
M
A
T
E
R
I
A
L
S
F
L
O
W
M
A
N
A
G
E
M
E
N
T
S
Y
S
T
E
M
L
I
B
R
A
R
Y
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
12
2
,
0
0
0
122,000
GF
-
7
2
S
E
L
F
C
H
E
C
K
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
&
L
C
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
O
R
L
I
B
R
A
R
Y
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
2
3
,
5
0
0
23,500
GF
-
7
3
L
C
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
O
R
S
F
O
R
M
E
E
T
I
N
G
R
O
O
M
S
L
I
B
R
A
R
Y
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
-
- 26,000
GF
-
7
4
P
U
B
L
I
C
A
D
D
R
E
S
S
S
Y
S
T
E
M
LIB
R
A
R
Y
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
-
- 35,000
GF
-
7
5
S
T
A
C
K
L
I
G
H
T
I
N
G
F
O
R
L
I
B
R
A
R
Y
S
H
E
L
V
E
S
L
I
B
R
A
R
Y
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
-
- 225,000
GF
-
7
6
S
E
N
I
O
R
C
E
N
T
E
R
D
I
N
I
N
G
H
A
L
L
F
L
O
O
R
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
5
0
,
0
0
0
50,000
GF
-
7
7
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
I
E
S
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
FA
C
I
L
I
T
Y
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
-
- 22,000
GF
-
7
8
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
C
O
P
I
E
R
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
1
0
,
0
0
0
10,000
GF
-
7
9
N
E
T
W
O
R
K
C
O
R
E
S
W
I
T
C
H
E
S
IT
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
10
0
,
0
0
0
100,000
GF
-
8
0
R
E
M
O
T
E
C
L
O
S
E
T
S
W
I
T
C
H
A
N
D
R
O
U
T
E
R
R
E
P
L
C
MIT
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
4
0
,
0
0
0
40
,
0
0
0
40
,
0
0
0
40
,
0
0
0
40
,
0
0
0
200,000 Page 5
19
CI
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
GE
N
E
R
A
L
F
U
N
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
Re
f
#
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
s
b
y
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
T
i
t
l
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY
1
2
FY
1
3
TotalScheduled
GF
-
8
1
L
E
V
Y
-
A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D
P
O
L
I
C
E
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
S
PO
L
I
C
E
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
7
4
,
5
6
0
77
,
5
4
2
80
,
6
4
4
83
,
8
7
0
87
,
2
2
5
403,840
GF
-
8
2
S
T
O
R
Y
M
A
N
S
I
O
N
I
N
T
E
R
I
O
R
R
E
N
O
V
A
T
I
O
N
P
A
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
800,000
GF
-
8
3
C
E
M
E
T
E
R
Y
B
A
C
K
H
O
E
CE
M
E
T
E
R
Y
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
10
0
,
0
0
0
100,000
GF
-
8
4
P
A
R
K
S
R
E
S
T
R
O
O
M
U
P
G
R
A
D
E
S
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
1
2
5
,
0
0
0
15
0
,
0
0
0
10
0
,
0
0
0
12
5
,
0
0
0
12
5
,
0
0
0
625,000
GF
-
8
5
F
I
R
E
S
C
B
A
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
FI
R
E
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
1
8
7
,
9
8
0
187,980
GF
-
8
6
L
E
V
Y
A
P
P
R
O
V
E
D
S
H
I
F
T
S
U
P
E
R
V
I
S
O
R
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
F
I
R
E
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
6
5
,
0
0
0
65,000
GF
-
8
7
N
E
W
I
N
D
O
O
R
A
Q
U
A
T
I
C
S
C
E
N
T
E
R
RE
C
R
E
A
T
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
- 6,000,000
GF
-
8
8
R
O
S
E
P
A
R
K
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
- 100,000
GF
-
8
9
B
M
X
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y
A
T
W
E
S
T
L
A
K
E
P
A
R
K
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
- 45,000
GF
-
9
0
A
D
D
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
T
E
N
N
I
S
&
B
A
S
K
E
T
B
A
L
L
C
O
U
R
T
S
P
A
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
- 100,000+
GF
-
9
1
O
F
F
L
E
A
S
H
D
O
G
P
A
R
K
S
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
- 45,000 EA
GF
-
9
2
ADD
I
T
I
O
N
A
L
P
L
A
Y
G
R
O
U
N
D
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
(
1
/
4
M
I
L
P
A
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
- 25,000 EA
GF
-
9
3
M
U
L
T
I
U
S
E
F
I
E
L
D
S
PA
R
K
S
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
- UNKNOWN
GF
-
9
4
F
I
R
E
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
T
R
A
I
N
I
N
G
F
A
C
I
L
I
T
Y
F
I
R
E
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
74
,
8
8
0
GF
-
9
5
S
T
U
D
Y
-
T
R
I
P
E
X
C
H
A
N
G
E
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
PL
A
N
N
I
N
G
D
I
V
I
S
I
O
N
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
1
0
,
0
0
0
15
,
4
5
6
,
0
4
0
$
7,
1
3
7
,
1
8
2
$
1,
1
8
5
,
0
1
3
$
1,
2
1
8
,
8
5
0
$
1,1
3
8
,
5
8
4
$
26,050,790$ 27,680,600$ Page 6
20
Project Name:
Elevator Replacement – Professional Building
Estimated Cost: $65,600
Project Number: General Fund-01 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
The elevator in the Professional Building is a three stop Otis elevator. The
elevator was installed when the second floor was added in 1972. Since
the City purchased the building re-modeling has occurred on both the
main floor and second floor.
Maintenance contracts are in place for the elevator and as the contracts
have been negotiated upgrades and general improvements have been
included in these contracts. The elevator is to the point where many
technological improvements have been made in elevator technology and a
change out would yield both improved service and some reductions in
energy savings.
While the elevator is still a safe system, there are some inherent problems
with the operation of the elevator. Of the four elevators owned by the City,
this system experiences the most downtime. One big problem is the
leveling systems and the way the rails and tracks are mounted in the
building. If someone loads the elevator heavy to one side or another the
balance alarm will engage and the elevator has to be reset. A new car
and track system would solve the nuisance trips associated with this
elevator.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to maintain and adjust the elevator operating systems throughout
the year. The current electronics for the building are also a source of
increased vigilance on the system and the electrical components on the
system had to be traced back this year on two occasions to determine the
problems of uneven voltages associated with the system.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
A new car, rail system and control package would add to the reliability of
the elevator operation and the address the accessibility requirements for a
municipal building.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
A new system would reduce some of the maintenance costs currently
associated with this elevator. A new system would also include a number
of technological improvements such as a solid state slow start motor
yielding reduced energy costs associated with the high demand motors
used in elevator systems.
Funding
Sources:
General Fund and Building Inspection Fund
21
Project Name: Records Storage Building
Estimated Cost: $550,000
Project Number: General Fund - 02 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The City of Bozeman was incorporated in 1883. Needless to say, over the
past 120 years, we have generated many permanent documents and
many that have a long life. In conjunction with the development of a
comprehensive records management program for the City, it is imperative
that we have a place for storing and managing those records. At the
present time, those documents are scattered throughout the community.
We have the old jail cells in the basement of the City Hall Complex that
are quickly becoming full to overflowing, and the basement of City Hall is a
royal organizational nightmare. The Police Department is leasing space
for storage of some of their records, and I’m sure there are many other
unmet needs in various departments. The costs of this facility would not
need to be borne by the general fund; the building inspection, water,
sewer, and garbage funds could also be tapped.
A concrete masonry block building of adequate size for current and future
storage. The cost estimate is for the building and contents and assumes
that it could be constructed on existing city land. The building, to be a
good records storage area, must be climate and humidity controlled. Also,
rows of metal shelving would be required, along with the availability of
shelving for open documents and shelving to accommodate boxes.
As we are becoming more technological, it would also be beneficial to
have a small area to store the various electronic mediums. One of the
critical things is ensuring that the information on electronic mediums is
migrated through technology changes so it can be retrieved years in the
future.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to struggle with inadequate and scattered records storage space
and the potential that permanent or long-term documents become
damaged, destroyed or lost.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Protecting the history of the City and ensuring it is available for the future.
Currently a good deal of usable building space is given over to record
storage. A proper storage area would allow a higher and better use of
some of our existing building space.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: There would be ongoing utility
and maintenance costs involved. I’m assuming that those costs would be
minimal in the overall operations of the City (probably less than $20,000
per year).
Funding
Sources:
General Fund and Enterprise Funds (As their records could be stored in
the facility, too.)
22
Project
Name:
Cemetery 2” Water Main Extension
Estimated Cost: $60,000
Project Number: General Fund - GF03 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The cemetery is currently in the process of expanding and developing a 15
acre area for future burial sites. This extension will have six 2” water main
taps to eventually irrigate over 1000 new individual burial lots.
It is critical that this area be developed within five years as a possible
shortage of burial lots could occur. The 2” water main extension is an
essential part of this process.
Alternatives
Considered:
None. A permanent water source has to reach this area. Purchasing the
materials and possibly having the assistance of the Water Department
would cut the cost of this project considerably over contracting it out.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
New modern irrigation systems will be installed from this water main
extension. This will improve the effectiveness and efficiency of water
distribution. The next cemetery expansion won’t be needed for another 15
to 20 years due to this project.
Estimated New
Future
Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: A slight increase of irrigation
costs because of increased water volume usage. Eventual increased
income from future burial lot sales.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
23
Project Name:
Cemetery 1Ton 4x4 Flatbed Truck
Estimated Cost: $35,000
Project Number: General Fund - GF04 Date
Scheduled:
FY13
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
A new 4x4 1-ton flatbed truck will replace the 1984 flatbed truck currently
in use. Cemetery crews use it to water the grounds in the summer and to
sand cemetery roads, parking lots and the Highland pedestrian/bike path
in the winter. Crews also use this truck for grave work and to irrigate sod
when the cemetery water flow is shut off.
Replacing the vehicle fleet on a regular basis allows for higher trade-in
values. A new truck will increase efficiency for cemetery crews and will
result in cost savings for repair and down-time.
Replacement schedule will be on a 10-year cycle.
Alternatives
Considered:
A used 1-ton flatbed truck could be purchased.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Advantages to the City for approving this request include savings on fuel
as all new vehicles will have to capacity to use alternative fuels, such as
bio-diesel fuel or propane. Repair and maintenance costs will be
substantially lower for a new truck. A new truck will increase safety and
reliability for moving and hauling equipment and it will provide a greater
flexibility for crews to use it for multiple needs.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
24
Project Name:
Cemetery ½ Ton 4x4 Truck
Estimated Cost: $35,000
Project Number: General Fund – 05 Date
Scheduled:
FY12
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
The cemetery crew uses a 1985 4 X4 3/4-ton pickup which is in fair to
poor condition with over 97,000 miles. The engine will need to be replaced
in the near future and the body is rusted around the wheels and under the
doors. It has had 12 years of seasonal use.
Replacing the vehicle fleet on a regular basis allows for higher trade-in-
values, reliability, fewer repairs, possibly reduced fuel consumption and
less down-time would all help towards cost savings in future budgets.
Replacement schedule will be on a 5-7 year cycle.
Alternatives
Considered:
Alternatives to buying a new pickup include buying a used truck, acquiring
a used truck from another City division or continuing to repair the current
vehicle.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Advantages to the City for approving this request include savings on fuel
as all new vehicles will have to capacity to use alternative fuels, such as
bio-diesel fuel or propane and savings on repair and maintenance costs. A
new truck will increase safety and reliability for moving and hauling
equipment and it will give seasonal employees another truck to drive,
thereby reducing mileage and hours on the 1-ton dump trucks.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
25
Project Name:
Cemetery ¾ Ton 4x4 Truck
Estimated Cost: $35,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF06 Date
Scheduled:
FY11
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
The 1992 4 X4 1-ton pickup currently used by the cemetery crew is in poor
shape. It was used as a dump truck and has over 134,000 miles. The
doors barely close and seal, and the windshield, outside mirrors, and
engine will all need to be replaced in the near future.
Replacing the vehicle fleet on a regular basis allows for higher trade-in
values. Using a 3/4-ton truck instead of a 1-ton truck saves money by
reducing fuel consumption. A new truck will be more reliable than the
current truck and will result in cost savings for repair and down-time.
Replacement schedule will be on a 5-7 year cycle.
Alternatives
Considered:
Alternatives to buying a new pickup include buying a used truck, acquiring
a used truck from another City division or continuing to repair the current
vehicle.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Advantages to the City for approving this request include savings on fuel
as all new vehicles will have to capacity to use alternative fuels, such as
bio-diesel fuel or propane. A new truck will increase safety and reliability
for moving and hauling equipment and it will give full-time employees
another truck to drive, thereby reducing mileage and hours on the 1-ton
dump trucks.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: expected to decrease
compared to existing vehicle.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
26
Project Name: Cemetery Office Expansion
Estimated Cost: $105,000
Project Number: General Fund - GF08 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The cemetery lacks adequate office, storage and personnel space.
The current small 120 square foot office in the maintenance shop can be
expanded to the north and west. Up to a possible 1000 square feet could
be added to the current office and shop building. This expansion could
more than double the office size; provide needed storage for cemetery
archives such as maps, permits, deeds and files.
It would also provide additional personnel space and improved customer
meeting area.
Alternatives
Considered:
Build a new small office building with a rear parking garage and small
parking lot off of Golf Way
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Would provide much needed additional office space and storage which
has been inadequate for some time. Improved customer service due to a
more inviting, roomier atmosphere with increased privacy. The addition
would provide employees with a more comfortable environment that
improves accessibility and service needs.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: The addition would be
designed to be more energy efficient. Small increases to future utility
costs.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
27
Project Name:
Replace Cemetery Office Building
Estimated Cost: $350,000
Project Number: General Fund - GF09 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The Cemetery Division lacks adequate office, storage and personnel
space, along with indoor parking. A small 2000 square foot office building
with an attached rear garage would be built just off of Golf Way to replace
the current 120 square foot office and 200 square foot employee and
conference meeting room.
An office building would enhance the overall appearance of the Cemetery
Complex area, relieve over crowded space in the maintenance building
and provide better customer service to the public. The garage would
house cemetery pickups and free up space in the maintenance shop to
park heavier equipment such as dump/plow and water/sand trucks which
are parked outside at times.
Alternatives
Considered:
Expand and remodel the current office in the maintenance shop. This
would help to relieve some space in the maintenance building and provide
better customer service.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improve customer service with a more inviting, personal and private
atmosphere. The new building would provide employees with a roomier,
more comfortable work environment that meets codes, service needs and
improved accessibility. Equipment life would be extended with all vehicles
and equipment being stored inside would create a more appealing
appearance to the overall cemetery complex area. Additional office space
and storage would be the most important improvement.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
28
Project Name:
Cemetery - Turf Mower Replacement Program
Estimated Cost: $13,000 each year
Project Number: General Fund – GF10 Date
Scheduled:
FY09-FY13,
Each Year
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
Replace 1 mower as part of scheduled replacement program.
Cemetery mowers must be replaced due to sever operating conditions,
high cost of repair, and expense of down time.
Alternatives
Considered:
Lease purchase: Unknown
Lease: No information available. Cost would need to be less than
$5400/year. To compensate for down time we would need two additional
mowers.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Lower repair costs. Most mowers of this type will operate in the cemetery
for three years without major breakdowns. After three seasons, the
annual repair costs exceed the depreciation values.
Fewer complaints from the public about the quality of turf care in the
cemetery.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Much lower repair costs.
Stabilized repair budgets with scheduled 3 year replacements.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
29
Project Name: Municipal Wireless Network – City-wide
Estimated Cost: $2.4 Million
Project Number: General Fund – GF14 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The City is looking to expand on our existing Main Street Wireless Pilot
Project. Outcomes are expected to: improve wireless internet access for
low to median households and create community public safety information
technology access. This project is also designed to create access to
information technology for other public service agencies.
Full expansion of this project will bring free 256K internet access to all
citizens and visitors of Bozeman, providing internet services to those that
can-not currently afford them. This limited free bandwidth will fill the
needs of school children researching homework and households needing
basic email communications and access to public information via the web.
This project will also enhance the capabilities of the city’s public safety
agencies through communication and data sharing capabilities. Police
Officers will have real-time access to digital building schematics that can
improve response time and physical safety on the street. Officers will have
the capability to access important criminal justice system information
through the system enhancing communications and officer safety. Officers
will truly carry their office in their cars – meaning more police officers on
the street, not at a desk.
After providing low income accessibility and city-services, Bozeman plans
to wholesale excess bandwidth, via a competitive bid process, to local
Internet Service Providers. We expect this to increase the availability of
wireless internet services in our area, especially for those that do not
currently have cable or phone services.
Alternatives
Considered:
Pay private sector ISPs (Bresnan/Qwest) for leased services. This still
doesn’t address the need for mobility in communications and connectivity.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased response time and accuracy for emergency services personnel;
Improved network sustainability in the event of a natural disaster; Cost
advantages to municipal owned bandwidth versus leased services;
Economic development leveraged by technology; Better overall public
service by increasing field services efficiency through mobile
communications.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Annual operating costs are
estimated at $400,000. Much of this is expected be recovered by the sale
of excess bandwidth to the private sector for purchase by
citizens/visitors/businesses in town. In this way, the city won’t be
operating an Internet Service Provider, but existing ISP’s can make use of
the network.
Funding
Sources:
Grant Funds, possible General Funds or Enterprise Funds, possible
private contributions.
30
Project Name: GIS – Plotter Replacement
Estimated Cost: $18,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF15 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
Replacement for aging plotter that provides critical large-format printing
needs to the entire organization including maps made available to the
public for purchase.
Alternatives
Considered:
Try to maintain current equipment past its acceptable life-span.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
- Continued availability of large-format printing capabilities for the whole
organization.
- Sustained service of maps available for public purchase.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
31
Project Name:
Parks - 2 FLEX FUEL PICKUP TRUCKS
Estimated Cost: $70,000 Total; $35,000 each
Project Number: General Fund – GF16 Date
Scheduled:
FY11 & FY12
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
The fleet is outdated and unsafe. With the exception of a 2006 Chevy
Sahara, 2001 ¾ ton Mower truck and a 1998 Dodge ½ ton, all vehicles
have well over 100,000 miles on them. Four wheel drive is needed for the
many occasions we have to drive off road, and during the winter. Funding
could be utilized even more efficiently if we were to purchase used
vehicles rather than ordering new.
Alternatives
Considered:
Without budgeting for newer trucks we can expect higher maintenance
costs for replacement of engines, transmissions, etc.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Safe and reliable transportation for both the full time and seasonal
employees.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Reduced maintenance costs,
less down time, increased service and efficiency.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
32
Project Name:
Parks – Bogert Sidewalk Replacement
Estimated Cost: $20,000 ($4/sq.ft.)
Project Number: General Fund – GF22 Date
Scheduled:
FY11
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Replace sidewalk along South Church Ave. with new 6’ (six foot) wide
concrete sidewalk. The new sidewalk must meet or exceed city code.
This sidewalk serves as a main route to Main St. from the Linear trail
system. Replacing the old sidewalk will result in a safer sidewalk year
around and enable the side walk plows to better meet the snow removal,
municipal code 12.24.020.
Alternatives
Considered:
Leave existing sidewalk and maintain as needs arise.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Reduce safety concerns and liabilities.
Improve our capability to meet the snow removal, municipal code
12.24.020 requirements.
Improve the appearance of the Bogert Park
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
33
Project Name:
Parks - REPLACE BOGERT PARK TENNIS & BASKETBALL
COURTS
Estimated Cost: $150,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF23 Date
Scheduled:
FY12
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The basketball court and tennis court surfaces at Bogert Park are in need
of total replacement.
Alternatives
Considered:
Leave courts in current condition.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Repaired court surfaces.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Maintenance of new court
surfaces.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
34
Project Name:
Parks – Centennial Park Sidewalk Replacement
Estimated Cost: $25,000 ($4.00, sq. ft.)
Project Number: General Fund – GF24 Date
Scheduled:
FY13
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Replace sidewalk along South Tracy Ave. and front N. Tracy to N. Willson
along E. Cottonwood St. with new 6’ (six foot) wide concrete sidewalk.
The new sidewalk must meet or exceed city code. This sidewalk serves
as a route to the Senior Center. The existing sidewalk has many uneven
surfaces and cracks. Replacing the old sidewalk will result in a safer
sidewalk year around and enable the sidewalk plows to better meet the
snow removal, municipal code 12.24.020.
Alternatives
Considered:
Leave exiting sidewalk and maintain as needs arise.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Reduce safety concerns and liabilities.
Improve our capability to meet the snow removal municipal code
12.24.020 requirements.
Improve the appearance of Centennial Park.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
35
Project Name:
Parks – Chain Link Fence Repair/Upgrades
Estimated Cost: $10,000/year
Project Number: General Fund – GF25 Date
Scheduled:
Each Year
FY09-FY13
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Repair and/or upgrade existing chain link-type fence throughout the park
system. Almost all of the fencing in the parks, sports complexes is in need
of repair or needs to be replaced.
Alternatives
Considered:
Keep patching up the old fence as dictated by the severity of the liability.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Safe, attractive and functional fencing throughout the parks.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: New and/or upgraded fence
that will not be an eye sore and a liability.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
36
Project Name:
Parks – Cooper Park Sidewalk Replacement
Estimated Cost: $45,000 ($4.00/sq. ft.)
Project Number: General Fund – GF27 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Replace existing sidewalk with new 6’ (six foot) wide concrete sidewalk.
The new sidewalk must meet or exceed city code. This sidewalk serves
as a main route to and from the University. Replacing the old sidewalk will
result in a safer sidewalk year around and enable the sidewalk plows to
better meet the snow removal, municipal code 12.24.020.
Alternatives
Considered:
Leave existing sidewalk and maintain as needs arise.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Reduce safety concerns and liabilities.
Improve our capability to meet the snow removal, municipal code
12.24.020 requirements.
Improve the appearance of Cooper Park.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Reduce winter and spring
maintenance costs. Reduce liability concerns.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
37
Project Name:
Parks – Pave East Gallatin Parking Lot
Estimated Cost: $55,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF28 Date
Scheduled:
FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is to pave the parking lot at the East Gallatin Recreation Area
to reduce maintenance and upkeep, dust, and to comply with city codes.
Alternatives
Considered:
Leave parking lot as is.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improves access
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Will reduce grading and
regrading costs. Paving lot will require stripping and periodic overlays.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
38
Project Name:
Parks – Manual Side Load Garbage Truck
Estimated Cost: $51,000 TOTAL ($17,000 Side load compactor & $34,000 new one ton
truck)
Project Number: General Fund – GF29 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
With the increasing number of Bozeman’s parks and the long drive to
Logan to dump garbage a second 6 yard manual side load garbage truck
is needed. The projected cost would include a new “Manual side load”
compactor and a new or used 1 ton truck.
Alternatives
Considered:
Use a one ton dump truck to assist in picking up parks garbage.
Use a one ton dump truck as a back up during break down.
Pick up garbage as time allows.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Less labor hours needed to pick up garbage.
More labor hours for park maintenance.
Reduce the possibility of litter driving to Logan.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Reduce time spent on
garbage pick up. Reduce maintenance costs.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
39
Project Name:
Parks - ARTICULATING TRACTOR
Estimated Cost: $90,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF30 Date
Scheduled:
FY11
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This item is the replacement of an existing MT tractor. The replacement
offers excellent safety in any weather condition with a low center of gravity
and a hydrostatic four wheel drive, all around visibility with 9 windows,
breakaway mirrors, and overhead work lights. The replacement also has
a 3.8 foot turning radius and excellent maneuverability that the articulating
frame with a stabilizer system provides. Additional features include a tilt-
forward cab for easy maintenance, an efficient 45 HP Kubota turbo diesel
engine. The attachments needed for this vehicle are a 1/3 yard Sander, ¾
yard Dump Body, a 60” broom and a 60” angle plow.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue attempts to extend the life of the MT by doing expensive repairs
or borrow another department’s vehicle and plow the sidewalks at their
convenience.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
This implement would be an excellent addition to or replace the Trackless
MT; however the attachments are not interchangeable.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Lower maintenance costs and
improved snow removal times.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
40
Project Name:
Parks Improvement Grants
Estimated Cost: $150,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF31 Date
Scheduled:
Each Year,
FY09-FY13
Purpose: ■ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This request is to contribute $150,000 each year from the general fund
toward implementing the priorities of the Parks Master Plan. Currently, the
public can apply for matching funds to implement improvements in parks.
Alternatives
Considered:
Contribute a higher amount of money toward implementing the Parks
Master Plan.
Contribute a lesser amount of money toward implementing the Parks
Master Plan.
Contribute no money toward implementing the Parks Master Plan.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Expands the existing level of service after a period of strong growth in
population. The program is currently set up as a matching funds program
with individuals and community groups. This request provides us with
double the funding by leveraging the money.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: As more parks and facilities
are improved, park division maintenance, operations and labor costs will
increase.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
41
Project Name:
Parks – IRRIGATION UPGRADES
Estimated Cost: $40,000 Annually
Project Number: General Fund – GF32 Date
Scheduled:
Each Year,
FY09-FY13
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This request is to repair and upgrade aging irrigation systems in city parks.
Irrigation systems in most parks have outlived their useful life, as most
systems have been in place for more than 30 years. Staff has
continuously been repairing these systems over the past 10 years. The
number of repairs, breakdowns, and replacements causes some irrigation
systems to be out of use until mid-July. Upgrading and balancing the
systems will improve turf condition, as the most efficient way to keep grass
green is to begin watering before it is needed, and to keep watering
throughout the spring, summer and fall with regular watering.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to repair systems as needed.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Makes sports fields safer, prevents hydrophobic soil.
Improved distribution of water and the saving of treated water. Proper
watering will help balance the fertilization and reseeding programs.
Upgrading the systems is less time consuming, and more cost effective
than installing complete new systems. Irrigation is the number one factor
in the success of seeding and fertilizing trees and tree/shrub survival.
Irrigation systems allow for efficient use of water and will reduce citizen
complaints about brown grass. Where possible, systems will be converted
to wells and will be taken off of treated water.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Reduced turf care costs, water
costs and high maintenance cost of older sprinkler heads.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
42
Project Name:
Parks – LARGE DECK LAWN MOWER
Estimated Cost: $45,000 in FY09, $50,619 in FY11 & $54,900 in FY13
Project Number: General Fund – GF34 Date
Scheduled:
FY09, FY11 &
FY13
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is a regularly-scheduled replacement of the 455D and 3325D lawn
mowers. Two 10' deck mowers and one 7' deck mower are needed. Our
mowers log more hours during the season than any other piece of
equipment. Wide mowers are necessary for mowing the large open areas
we maintain. The 7’ deck mower is used for smaller areas, trails, and to
help the larger mowers keep up. Safe, reliable mowers are a necessity
because if we are behind in the mowing schedule, it is difficult to catch up.
Mowers would be replaced every 2 years.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to repair as break downs occur
Replace mowers as they breakdown.
Lease mowers on a 2 - year program.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Proper mowing of sports fields is imperative to safety.
Regular replacement will reduce maintenance costs and decrease the
number of breakdowns we have been experiencing.
Well mowed parks are an important reflection on our City and how it is
perceived by visitors and citizens. Having the right mower to do the job
will ensure well mowed parks.
New mowers will be more reliable, safer, productive, and will reduce the
workload on the vehicle maintenance shop personnel
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Improve scheduling of mowing
and increase crew efficiency because of reliable equipment.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
43
Project Name:
Parks - LINDLEY PARK ENTRANCE & PARKING
Estimated Cost: $82,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF35 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The curbs on Buttonwood Avenue are badly eroded and need to be
replaced. The parking lot is unpaved and is poorly designed. The project
will upgrade the area and provide paved parking
Alternatives
Considered:
Overlook deterioration and continue to re-gravel the lot.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Provide safer more efficient use of parking area/reduce erosion.
Improve looks, drainage and function n of the area and discourage vehicle
traffic on lawns.
Protect street pavement on Buttonwood.
Provide ADA parking and accessibility.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
44
Project Name:
Parks - MAXICOM IRRIGATION SYSTEM
Estimated Cost: $65,000 to Initialize
Project Number: General Fund – GF36 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Maxicom is a "smart" irrigation control system that ties each of the park
irrigation systems to a central weather station. Factors such as
precipitation, humidity, etc. determine the amount of water that used. This
money is for the initial hookup - other systems would be less expensive.
The MSU weather station may be able to be utilized, which would save
money.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to rely on timers to water parks, which will occur regardless of
the weather conditions.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
A substantial amount of water can be saved once the system is fully
installed. Right now, irrigation system clocks are set to turn on at certain
times of the day, regardless of weather conditions. The new system
detects water breaks, shuts that station down, and notifies via computer.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: It will take time and additional
costs to get all parks on this system but those costs will eventually be
offset in the long run by reduced water usage.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
45
Project Name:
Parks - POLE BARN IN LOWER YARD
Estimated Cost: $35,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF37 Date
Scheduled:
FY10
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Some of the parks department equipment is only used seasonally. To
keep the equipment in good condition and to protect hydraulics, a covered
storage area is needed. Space is at a premium at the current City Shop
Complex. A pole barn-type building for cold storage would be constructed
at the lower yards for use by the Parks and Forestry Division. The cost
would be shared by Parks and Forestry.
Alternatives
Considered:
Construct a combined facility at the cemetery for use by Cemetery, Parks,
and Forestry. See combined facility proposed under Building
Maintenance.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Additional storage space is not available at any other city location.
Equipment will last longer because it would be stored indoors, security
from vandalism because of indoor storage, less costly than the combined
facility at the cemetery.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Less maintenance on
equipment and improved appearance of grounds.
Maintain equipment value.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
46
Project Name:
Parks – REPLACE BOGERT PLAYGROUND EQUIPMENT
Estimated Cost: $80,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF38 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
The original existing play structure at Bogert Park was installed in 1976.
Most playground safety standards and specifications have changed since
then. We have been trying to upgrade the structures as money allows, but
some of the equipment is past its useful life. Retrofitting equipment could
open the city to liability, it is unsafe.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue piecemeal replacement.
Remove equipment as needed because of liability concerns and do not
replace.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Bogert is a heavily used park. The number of reservations and scheduled
activities in the park, Farmers Market, Municipal Band, and the swimming
pool all contribute to the heavy use it receives.
Equipment replacement will reduce liability concerns.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
47
Project Name:
Parks - SOFTBALL COMPLEX IRRIGATION UPGRADE
Estimated Cost: $90,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF39 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This request is to completely install a new irrigation system at the softball
complex. The system was installed in 1973. The pipe has begun to
deteriorate to the point that we are experiencing mainline and lateral
breaks at least 3 to 4 times a year. Each breakdown in the system causes
a closure of at least one field for 2 weeks, typically, and costs are routinely
around $1,000 per occurrence. Inability to irrigate the grass during the
heat of summer causes the grass to go dormant and we are then unable
to fertilize and reseed. This also causes the ground to become
hydrophobic, which is the inability to accept water. The high volume of
use on these fields can cause.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to repair the system as needed.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
It is more cost and time effective to replace the entire system than to
continue to spend a few weeks here and there repairing breaks as they
occur. Fewer games will be canceled because of fields being flooded out.
Proper watering will conserve water and keep the reseeding and
fertilization programs on track as well as keeping the grass from going
dormant, making the fields safer for play. We will also be able to expand
the irrigation into the dog park.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Reduced maintenance, water,
fertilizer, seed and pesticide costs. Reduced liability.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
48
Project Name:
Parks - SOUTH SIDE PARK SIDEWALK REPLACEMENT
Estimated Cost: $20,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF41 Date
Scheduled:
FY13
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Replace 730’ of sidewalk along South 5th Ave. and along West Alderson
St. with new 6’ (six foot) wide concreted sidewalk. The new sidewalk must
meet or exceed city code. This sidewalk serves as a main route to and
from the University. Replacing the old sidewalk will result in a safer
sidewalk year around and enable the sidewalk plows to better meet the
snow removal, municipal code 12.24.020.
Alternatives
Considered:
Leave existing sidewalk and maintain as needs arise.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Reduce safety concerns and liabilities.
Improve our capability to meet the snow removal, municipal code
12.24.020 requirements and comply with ADA standards of no more than
one half inch abrupt change in level surface.
Improve the safety and appearance of South Side Park.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Reduce winter and spring
maintenance costs. Reduce liability concerns.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
49
Project Name:
Police and Municipal Court Facility
Estimated Cost: $13,260,000 (without land and site development costs)
Project Number: General Fund – GF50 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The 2007 Police Facility report by Carter Goble Lee (GCL) outlines the
anticipated space needs for the City’s Police Department, Municipal Court
and Prosecution function for the next 20 years.
The report calls for a 5 acre site and 52,000 square foot facility. Design &
construction is estimated to cost $12,750,000 (2007 dollars; $13,260,000
inflated to 2009). The cost estimate does not include extraordinary site
work or any land costs.
Alternatives
Considered:
Staying in the existing facilities at the Law and Justice center is an
alternative - the CGL report discusses the operational needs of the
departments and the lack of the existing Law & Justice Center (L&J)
space. They developed two alternate options that require other L&J
functions to move off-site.
CGL rates locations for this facility: L&J grounds, City Shops Site
(Tamarack Street & Rouse Ave.), and the City’s Mandeville Farm property.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Police Department would have adequate room for existing staff – and
projected staff for 20 years.
A new Municipal Court could be added to handle the large case-load of
the court.
Space would be created to locate the Prosecutor’s offices near the courts
and police.
This facility would be programmed and built with the PD, Court, and
Prosecution needs in mind from the beginning. Public areas, secured
areas, office locations, and space adjacencies could be maximized for
the best and safest utilization (as opposed to a retro-fit of an existing
building).
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Not estimated at this time.
Currently, the City pays facility costs to the County for our square footage
at the L& J.
Funding
Sources:
General Fund: Voter approved levy.
20 year General Obligation Bonds would be issued.
50
Project Name:
Animal Control Vehicle – Flex Fuel 4x4
Estimated Cost: $22,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF51 Date
Scheduled:
FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
Purchase a new extend cab, 4wd pickup to replace the current 1999
model year vehicle.
The current truck is a 2wd, 7 years old and has 50,000 miles and
hundreds of hours of idle time on the engine and mechanical system. It is
anticipated that this vehicle will begin accumulating repairs and increasing
maintenance costs within the next few years. It is very difficult to navigate
the city streets during winter months with the 2wd truck. As we are seeing
an increased demand for animal services and a growing response area
the mileage on this vehicle will increase quickly over the next couple of
years.
The anticipated purchase date for a new truck would be FY09 so this
request is being submitted for planning purposes. Purchase of a new
truck would ensure many years of service without incurring high
maintenance costs. The current truck could be used by another city
department, be sold at auction, or used as a trade in.
Alternatives
Considered:
The purchase of a newer-lease return vehicle is a viable option and one
that should be looked at before a final decision is made.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Would drastically reduce maintenance costs and provide many years of
reliable service. Possible reduction in fuel costs.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Reduction in costs expected.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
51
Project Name:
Police Investigation (Detective) Vehicles
Estimated Cost: $25,000 each year, beginning in FY09
Project Number: General Fund – GF52 Date
Scheduled:
FY09-13, each
year.
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
Purchase two mid-size passenger vehicles per year over the next four
years to replace old patrol line cars currently driven by detectives.
Historically, detectives have taken old patrol cars rotated off the line to use
as unmarked police cars. These cars always have high mileage and are
very worn when received. Due to the demands placed on these vehicles
during patrol, they are historically expensive to maintain and in many
cases are mechanically unsafe to drive as an emergency response
vehicle. Several of the cars currently being used by detectives are over 10
years old with over 90,000 miles on them and hundreds of hours of idle
time on the engine and mechanical system. In addition, the current patrol
line cars are painted black and white which, if rotated to the investigations
division would require a paint job at a cost of approximately 1/3 the price
of a lease return vehicle and they would still be expensive to maintain and
mechanically unsafe. The purchase of low-mileage lease returns would
allow us to add different color vehicles to our fleet, reduce vehicle
maintenance costs, and provide detectives with reliable and mechanically
sound vehicles that should last at least 4 to 5 years.
Old detective cars could be rotated into the police department parking
program, travel cars, traded in, sold at auction or transferred to another
division within the city that will not need them to perform as an emergency
vehicle.
Alternatives
Considered:
Purchase of new vehicles, however due to costs, I believe lease returns
will be more cost efficient to the city.
Continue to take used line cars rotated from the patrol division.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Would drastically reduce maintenance costs, mechanical concerns and
provide many years of reliable service. Increased public safety and officer
safety in providing mechanically sound emergency response vehicles,
reduced risk and liability related to use of unreliable cars.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Reduction in maintenance
costs and possible reduction in fuel costs.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
52
Project Name:
Police Patrol Car Replacement
Estimated Cost: $87,000 each year
Project Number: General Fund – GF53 Date
Scheduled:
FY09-13, each
year
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
3-3-3 plan. This would maintain a patrol fleet of 13 vehicles, and would
allow replacement of older Department vehicles that are unreliable and
costly to repair as emergency response vehicles.
Patrol vehicles are an essential item in the operation of the Police
Department. Police vehicles are used 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
These vehicles are used to respond to emergency and non-emergency
calls for service, investigate accidents, effect traffic enforcement and for
general patrol duties. The present fleet of patrol vehicles is composed of
10 vehicles (2 vehicles are dedicated and assigned to K-9 use).
Maintenance costs have greatly increased due to increased calls for
service and additional officers using the cars. These patrol vehicles
average 2,000 miles a month, or 24,000 miles annually. The useful life of a
vehicle for patrol use is 3 years each; however, by increasing the patrol
fleet to 13 units this useful life should be able to be extended, thus
reducing overall operational costs.
Alternatives
Considered:
None.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
This insures safe and reliable emergency response vehicles for patrol use,
as well as lower annual maintenance costs due to lower annual miles
driven per vehicle and a lower number of miles driven per year per unit.
When patrol vehicles are retired from service, they are cycled to Support
Services and as travel cars for Department employees who need to attend
out-of-town training and events. Support Services Division includes
downtown parking, residential parking and animal control services.
Additionally, the oldest vehicles in the fleet are offered to other
Departments within the City, thus offering a substantial cost savings to
them.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: There may be a moderate
increase in preventive maintenance costs such as oil changes, filter
replacements, etc. These should be more than offset by the increased
useful life of each unit for patrol.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
53
Project Name:
Swim Center Additional Parking
Estimated Cost: $235,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF54 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The Swim Center is in need of additional parking. We have more
programs than the facility’s parking lot can handle. The City has an
excellent facility and additional parking is needed. The $235,000 would
include a paved lot of 34 spaces on the west side of the Swim Center,
sidewalk, lighting, drainage and landscaping. Design on file at the Swim
Center.
We need to be part of the High School Remodel Project. The plans are
scheduled to be unveiled in the spring of 2007.
Alternatives
Considered:
#1 – A graveled lot on the west of the building could be put in for $55,000.
This would include curbing and a gravel path to the south.
#2 – The Swim Center expansion could be put into place for $900,000.
We have drawings and building specifications.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improve health, wellness, and quality of life of the community. Allow
individuals and families room to park so they may participate in the Swim
Center programs.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Additional parking would
enable increase attendance in programs and therefore increase revenue.
There would be no additional operating costs to the City.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
54
Project Name:
Bogert Pool Gutter Repair and Resurface
Estimated Cost: $200,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF55 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Remove and replace gutter tile and resurface the large and small pools.
The gutter has deteriorated and may cave in. The existing gutter tiles
crack and many need to be replaced every year. This is an ongoing
maintenance expense and requires many labor hours to repair every
spring. The pool shell is 30 years old and requires $1500 in paint every
year, in addition to the labor hours required to paint the pool in 2-3 days
with 6 staff members. Pools normally are resurfaced after 10 years.
Bogert Pool was last resurfaced in 1974.
Alternatives
Considered:
Do only the gutter repair work at cost of $20,000.
Continue to patch and paint pool shell and gutter crack until it deteriorates
completely.
Resurface pool only at cost of $50,000
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Maintain integrity of pool structure allowing pool to remain open for future
generations. Keep Bogert pool operational in that it is a great family
tradition that the community uses for their fun and fitness needs.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Save the City $4000 per year
in supply and labor costs
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
55
Project Name:
Multipurpose Community Recreation Center
Estimated Cost:
$16,000,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF56 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Build a Recreation Center to include a gym, running track, weight facility,
locker rooms, pool, game rooms, reception area, childcare facility, and
multi-purpose rooms. The Recreation Department would have a facility in
which to provide the community quality recreation programs. The facility
could be rented by the general public for indoor programs such as
basketball and soccer.
This item was identified as a “Top Ten Capital Facility Recommendation”
in the PROST plan, adopted Oct 2007.
Alternatives
Considered:
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
• Saves lives by teaching the community how to be safe in and
around the water
• Offers a safe and healthy place for families to play
• Serves Bozeman’s at risk youth
• Provides a revenue source
• Teaches young adults job skills that they will use for the rest of
their lives
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Undetermined at this point.
Funding
Sources:
General obligation bonds, user fees, memberships, impact fees,
foundation/donations.
56
Project Name:
Swim Center Expansion
Estimated Cost: $1,000,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF57 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The Swim Center is in need of additional parking, a meeting room, a
women's locker room, registration area, and lobby space and pool offices.
A meeting room would be used for community meetings, birthday parties,
class instruction, staff meetings, workshops, daycare, fitness, etc.
A 28 ft. by 80 ft. (2324 sq. ft.) addition would be built on the south end of
the Swim Center building. The lobby and the ladies’ locker room would be
enlarged. Four offices, approximately 8 ft. x 12 ft. (96 sq. ft.each) would be
added. Also included in the aquatic office area would be a public
reception-workstation area which could be secured after hours. On the
west side, a 30 ft. x 28 ft. (840 sq. ft.) meeting room would be added. The
ladies locker room would be expanded to provide needed space. To
handle lobby overflow, the lobby would be expanded to the south. The
new entry would enlarge the double door airlock entry, increasing energy
savings. A 70 ft. x 380 ft. parking lot would be added on the west side of
the Swim Center to provide two rows of parking and 34 additional parking
spaces.
Alternatives
Considered:
Construct needed parking on the west side of the building $235,000. The
High School 2007-2010 remodel project will determine Swim Center
remodel needs. This project should be adjusted to fit together with the
High School renovations.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased accessibility for the public to the Bozeman Swim Center.
Increased efficiency of the Swim Center and provide increased public
service. Increased energy efficiency of Swim Center building envelope.
Provide a meeting space for the public.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Energy costs would increase
slightly due to additional 2,324 square feet of space. The system would
be more efficient and the deterioration to the building would be less.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
57
Project Name:
WEBTRAC COMPUTERIZED WEB REGISTRATION
Estimated Cost: $16,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF58 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
The computer software will allow the public to register for classes and
purchase passes via the web. The software would improve customer
service, staff efficiency, and it would increase Recreation program and
Swim Center participation and thus revenue.
Citizens would not need to come to the Swim Center or Recreation
Department to register for classes.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to do registration at the Recreation Department or Swim Center.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
This project would free up staff to better serve the walk-in public. The web
registration would provide convenience for the public.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Annual maintenance fee of
$1,600.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
58
Project Name:
Outdoor Aquatics Facility
Estimated Cost: $6,000,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF61 Date
Scheduled:
FY10
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Build a new outdoor aquatics facility to meet the needs of our growing
community.
Bogert is the City’s only outdoor pool, and is nearly 70 years old. Given
the high community participation in swimming programs, a new facility is
expected to be highly utilized. Bogert Pool is overcrowded with a dire
shortage of parking. Bozeman needs an outdoor family aquatic facility
on the west side of town. The new pool needs to be designed so it
generates revenue for the City.
The facility should be a tourist draw and include something for everyone.
The facility would include state of the art equipment and attractions. The
center could feature splash playgrounds, zero depth, slides, lazy river, lap
pool, teaching pool, concession area, hot tubs and more.
The location of this project is undetermined at this point.
Cost is estimated, without any design work at this point.
The construction of a new outdoor swimming pool on the West or
Northwest side of the City was identified as a “Top Ten Facility
Recommendation” in the PROST plan, adopted October 2007.
Alternatives
Considered:
#1 – Build a Recreation Center with indoor/outdoor aquatic facility, gyms,
multi purpose rooms.
#2 – Wait until Bogert Pool is no longer functional and then attempt to
pass a bond issue for funding.
#3 – Build an indoor/outdoor aquatic facility.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased recreation opportunities for the community.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: unknown at this time. Some
costs of the facility are expected to be recovered through user fees.
Funding
Sources:
General Obligation Bonds, user fees, foundation/donations.
A voter-approved General Obligation Bond for construction is scheduled
for this project.
59
Project Name:
COMPUTER HARDWARE REPLACEMENT
Estimated Cost: $90,000 FY09, FY10, $100,000 FY11, $110,000 FY12, FY13
Project Number: General Fund – GF62 Date
Scheduled:
Each Year,
FY09 – FY13
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is a general item for replacement of personal computers for General
Fund related jobs and services. (Enterprise and Special Revenue fund
services pay for their own pc’s and servers.)
Alternatives
Considered:
Not replace computer hardware as frequently.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
City technology needs will be better met and the IT department will be able
to more efficiently support employees and citizens.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund.
60
Project Name:
Planning Department Vehicle Replacement
Estimated Cost: $25,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF64 Date
Scheduled:
FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
Replacement of the current vehicle utilized by the Planning Director, a
1998 Nissan Sentra. This is a small car which works well for single or two
person activities but does not have much cargo or personnel capacity.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to operate the existing vehicles with increasing maintenance
costs.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Provide functional transportation with reduced maintenance costs.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund.
61
Project Name:
Engineering – Aerial Photography
Estimated Cost: $95,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF65 Date
Scheduled:
FY13
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
Acquire aerial photography for the Bozeman Growth Policy Planning Area.
This would be a regularly scheduled update to the Spring 2007 aerial
photos that were recently taken.
Alternatives
Considered:
Purchase lower quality satellite photography.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Aerial photography benefits the entire organization as well as the
community by supplying a clear and accurate depiction of current
conditions. Aerial photographs are often used for viewing features that
currently exist on the ground with respect to present and proposed
projects.
- Contributes to on-going acquisition of aerial photos at regular intervals
for historical archives and modeling growth over time.
- Measurements and land use determinations are made on a local or
regional basis without requiring extensive field time.
- Management decisions are made more efficiently and effectively by
visualizing areas surrounding the project site.
- Aerial photographs are used extensively in several on-line mapping
applications.
- Elevation contour information is a product of aerial photography. We
currently lack any elevation data which is a recurring request.
- Visual background for existing and future GIS & CAD data and Facility
Plans.
- Meet public demand for current and accurate aerial photography.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund.
62
Project Name:
Facility Assessments
Estimated Cost:
$14,000 in FY09
Project Number: General Fund – GF66 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is to begin assessing the long-term maintenance needs of the
General Fund facilities (City Hall, Fire Station 1 & 2, Annex, Library,
Professional Building, Senior Center, etc.) Various experts in the trades
will be used to assess the condition of each building.
A report will provide a long-range plan for facility maintenance. This report
will likely generate new items to be added to the Capital Improvements
Plan in future years.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue with somewhat reactionary maintenance improvements.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Maintenance problems will be identified and a methodology will be
established for adequately maintaining the City’s general government
buildings.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: none
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund.
63
Project Name:
Professional Building Parking Lot Lighting
Estimated Cost: $28,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF67 Date
Scheduled:
FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is to improve the illumination of the parking lot at the
Professional Building. Many employees and citizens meet at this building
after dark and the existing parking lot is poorly lit.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue with existing lighting.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Safety will likely be improved.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: none
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund.
64
Project Name:
HISTORIC PRESERVATION PROPERTY INVENTORY
UPDATE
Estimated Cost: $110,000 each year
Project Number: General Fund – GF68 Date
Scheduled:
FY11, FY12,
FY13
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
The original historic resources inventory in 1984 evaluated and
documented the historic significance of the area now known as the
Neighborhood Conservation Overlay. The Neighborhood Conservation
Overlay area is rich in structures with historic significance. These
structures have had significant reinvestment and many have been
rehabilitated. This has increased property values with corresponding
revenue increases to the City.
The original survey was all paper based and has a limited opportunity to
be revised. An updated survey is needed to reflect the changed
conditions of the Conservation Overlay area and document the new and
remodeled structures. This effort will assist in keeping this area well cared
for and continuing to make a substantial contribution to the quality of life in
Bozeman. The update will enable a transition to a more user-friendly data
format and means to store the information which will reduce staff time in
reviewing projects, and make the information more easily available to the
public. This project is the third phase of work to update the inventory. The
two phases are underway.
In 2006 the City began to collect a fee with each review within the
Conservation Overlay District to help fund the update. Given the number
of structures to be inventoried, the completion of this project is expected to
require a three year effort. It is intended that this will be the last time
general funds are needed for this work.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue with the current inventory which is increasingly out of date.
Inaccurate or outdated information increases likelihood of errors in project
reviews and corresponding possible legal exposure.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Keep reference resource current which aids in pursuing grant applications,
facilitates private reinvestment in historic properties, supports retention of
property values, and helps preserve Bozeman’s quality of life.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: None
Funding
Sources:
90% General Fund
10% Planning Fund – Conservation Overlay District fees
65
Project Name:
Library Materials Flow Management System
Estimated Cost:
$122,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF71 Date
Scheduled:
FY10
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project would enable the use of radio frequency identification
technology (RFID) to optimize sorting, processing, and security of
materials checked out, checked in, and shelved throughout the library.
The system would include 1 customer self checkout machine, 1 customer
self check-in machine, 2 staff checkout stations, an RFID conversion
station and supplies, and a portable device for shelf management (shelf
reading, weeding, inventory, etc.) Components of this project could be
added over time as demand increases and money allows.
Alternatives
Considered:
In the past year the library has experienced a 13% increase in registered
borrowers with a 27% increase in door traffic, and the number of materials
circulated has increased 4%. With these increases, personnel available to
meet the needs of the community must increase. Through technology,
staff would be able to serve clientele more efficiently and effectively.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
This project would streamline and improve the automation of materials
processed by staff, thus allowing for more effective use of our limited
staff. This system also serves as loss protection due to theft and
facilitates locating incorrectly or mislabeled materials within the library.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Annual maintenance on
equipment could be 10% of the project cost, but staff efficiency is
improved 50-90%.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund.
66
Project Name:
Library - Self Checkout Station & LCD Projector
Estimated Cost:
$23,500, for both items combined.
Project Number: General Fund – GF72 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
One additional customer self checkout machine is needed to
accommodate library patrons.
An LCD Projector is needed in one of the conference rooms.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue with the current system of one self-checkout machine.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
This project would streamline and improve automation of materials
processed by staff, thus allowing for more efficient use of our limited
staff. The project would facilitate patron self check and would help
mitigate noise levels involving younger patrons by providing an
additional self check station in the children’s area.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: After one year free warranty,
the basic maintenance agreement would be 1,650 on the self check
station. Additional expenses include the thermal receipt paper at $9 per
roll.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund.
67
Project Name:
LCD Projectors for Meeting Rooms
Estimated Cost: $26,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF73 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
Three projectors are needed for the Small Conference Room, the
Board/Staff Conference Room, and the Computer Lab. The projectors
produce high light outputs, which provide a clear image and eliminate the
need for the limited amount of ambient light entering the rooms. The new
projectors would allow projection of media materials for presentations.
Alternatives
Considered:
Do nothing to improve the technology of the conference rooms.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
The civic contribution the Library provides for the general public benefits
the community. The conference rooms were designed to have LCD
projectors available for meetings and conferences, but construction
costs caused these items to be eliminated from the original plans for
conference rooms
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: The projectors come with a
comprehensive 2-year warranty, and support is provided free for the
duration of the warranty.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund.
68
Project Name:
Library Public Address System
Estimated Cost:
$35,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF74 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
A public address system is needed for paging and general
announcements in the event of a non-fire related emergency.
Alternatives
Considered:
Do nothing and continue to use the emergency fire system to make
announcements.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
The emergency fire announcement system currently used to broadcast
announcements was never designed to be used for any other purpose
than a fire emergency and does not provide adequate control for zonal
broadcasting. Events have occurred at the Library during the past year
which required police intervention; having the capability to make
emergency announcements to specific rooms would be an added
benefit. A system designed specifically for the purpose of public
address allowing general announcements which are made on a daily
basis such as closing of the Library, the start of events, and dog issues
would improve the communication to public patrons at the library.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund.
69
Project Name:
Stack Lighting for Library Shelves
Estimated Cost:
$225,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF75 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
Stack lighting was originally intended to be installed on all the Library
shelves both upstairs and downstairs. However, due to lack of building
funds, stack lighting was eliminated but wiring was placed into the shelving
units for future installation. On cloudy days and during evening hours, it is
extremely difficult to see the books on shelves. Stack lighting would
highlight the shelves to that patrons could see the materials.
Alternatives
Considered:
Do nothing and listen to patron complaints.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Patrons could view materials on shelves of the Library and be able to find
then more easily.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Would include changing bulbs
and ballasts, as well as energy costs.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund.
70
Project Name:
Senior Center Floor Replacement
Estimated Cost: $50,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF76 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The floor in the dining area of the Senior Center is vinyl tile over a strand
board sub floor. Areas of the tile are starting to de-laminate, an indication
that areas of the floor will need to be replaced in order to prevent cleaning
problems and potential trip hazards. In the Spring of 2007 areas of the
floor that were loose or broken were removed and replaced. The problem
areas seem to be the transition points where additions to the building were
made in past years. As a part of the replacement, the transition points
were bridged with sub floor material which should reduce the shifting.
The area will be monitored and if the replacement tiles do not take care of
the problem then a replacement of the floor will be necessary.
Alternatives
Considered:
An alternative of replacing only problem tiles has already been
implemented. An exact match of the tiles was not possible so the repairs
are noticeable.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Remain proactive in a facility management program to avoid further
deterioration of the floor and to reduce potential liability.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: None.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund, possible match from Senior Center could be
pursued.
71
Project Name:
Facilities Vehicle Replacement
Estimated Cost: $22,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF77 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
Facilities is using a 1997 Ford van with 64,533 miles on it. In order to stay
current on vehicle replacement, this vehicle will need to be replaced in the
next few years.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to retain the vehicle in the city fleet and face increasing
maintenance costs and a diminished return when the vehicle is finally
offered for sale.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Maintaining a safe and fuel efficient fleet.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Reduced maintenance costs
associated with a new vehicle and to take advantage of reduced fuel costs
offered from newer vehicles.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
72
Project Name:
Engineering - COPY MACHINE REPLACEMENT
Estimated Cost: $10,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF78 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The existing copy machine is well beyond its useful life – and is not
expected to continue to operate much longer. Repair and maintenance
costs show a steady increase as wear continues. This request is for a
replacement copier to meet the ongoing operational needs of the
department.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue using current copier with an increasing frequency of down time
and repairs.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
The new copier will help contain operational costs due to maintenance.
The new copier will also be utilized as a high capacity network printer and
scanner for the department which can bring some additional efficiencies in
utilization of staff time in the preparation of reports, commission packets,
and other materials.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: None, operating costs are
already incurred with the current copier.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
73
Project Name:
Network Core Switches (2 Locations: City Hall & Professional Building)
Estimated Cost:
$100,000 Total
Project Number: General Fund – GF79 Date
Scheduled:
FY11
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is a scheduled end of life switch that provides the backbone of the
entire network. These provide the technology platform for the entire
organization.
Alternatives
Considered:
Maintain current switches without critical support or maintenance.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Continued maintaining network stability and ensure phone services and
data without interruption.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund.
74
Project Name:
Remote Closet Switch and Router Replacement
Estimated Cost:
$40,000 Annually
Project Number: General Fund – GF80 Date
Scheduled:
FY09-FY13
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
WAN Site end of life for switch and router replacements throughout City to
include City Hall, Professional Building, City Shops, Landfill, L&J, Library,
WWTP, WTP, Swim Center, Beall Park, Cemetery.
Smaller sites (Landfill, Cemetery, Beall) will be consolidated on one year.
Alternatives
Considered:
Maintain current switches without critical support or maintenance.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Maintain uptime for all WAN locations throughout the City to include phone
services as well as data.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
General Fund – with costs shared with Enterprise, as location warrants.
75
Project Name:
Levy-Approved Police Vehicles
Estimated Cost:
$74,560 each year, plus growth of levy value
Project Number: General Fund – GF81 Date
Scheduled:
FY09-13, each
year
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
The November 2007 Police Levy election approved the annual purchase
and equipping of police vehicles in the amount of $74,560 (plus growth)
each year. It was anticipated that one Patrol and one Detective vehicle
would be needed.
Patrol vehicles are an essential item in the operation of the Police
Department. Police vehicles are used 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
These vehicles are used to respond to emergency and non-emergency
calls for service, investigate accidents, effect traffic enforcement and for
general patrol duties. Patrol vehicles average 2,000 miles a month, or
24,000 miles annually.
Alternatives
Considered:
None.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
This insures safe and reliable emergency response vehicles for patrol use,
as well as lower annual maintenance costs due to lower annual miles
driven per vehicle and a lower number of miles driven per year per unit.
When patrol vehicles are retired from service, they are cycled to Support
Services and as travel cars for Department employees who need to attend
out-of-town training and events. Support Services Division includes
downtown parking, residential parking and animal control services.
Additionally, the oldest vehicles in the fleet are offered to other
Departments within the City, thus offering a substantial cost savings to
them.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: There may be a moderate
increase in preventive maintenance costs such as oil changes, filter
replacements, etc. These should be more than offset by the increased
useful life of each unit for patrol.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund, supported by increased levy authority.
76
Project Name:
Story Mansion Interior Remodel
Estimated Cost: $800,000 Total, $400,000 from the General Fund
Project Number: General Fund – GF82
Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is for the interior remodel of the Story Mansion, beginning with
the basement and first floor renovations.
The funding source for 50% of the costs is the City’s Save Americas
Treasurers (SAT) matching grant, which must be expended by June 30,
2009.
$200,000 of work is expected to be completed in FY08 ($100,000 from the
General Fund and $100,000 from SAT), bringing the total cost of the
interior remodel project to $1 Million.
Alternatives
Considered:
Numerous.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
The City will be able to fully utilize the SAT grant allocated.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Not estimated at this time,
although the improvements are generally expected to reduce maintenance
costs from the facilities current state.
Funding
Sources:
50% General Fund or Donations/Fundraising- $400,000
50% SAT Grant - $400,000
77
Project Name:
Cemetery Backhoe
Estimated Cost:
$100,000
Project Number:
General Fund – GF83
Date
Scheduled: FY12
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This vehicle replaces the current cemetery backhoe that is used for
burials an average of 3 times per week. This is the main piece of
equipment utilized for cemetery burials.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to use older vehicle which is becoming unreliable and
costly to maintain.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased reliability and safety for staff and the families relying on
cemetery services.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Operating and repair
costs are expected to be lower than the existing vehicle.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
78
Project Name:
Parks – Restroom Replacements & Upgrades
Estimated Cost: Total $625,000, as listed below.
Project Number:
General Fund – GF83
Date
Scheduled: FY09-FY13
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is the general replacement and upgrading of the City
Park’s public restroom facilities. In order of priority:
1. FY09 - Bogert Park Restrooms - $125,000
2. FY10 - Lindley Park Restrooms - $150,000
3. FY11 - Kirk Park Restrooms - $100,000
4. FY12 - Christie Fields Restrooms - $125,000
5. FY13 - Tuckerman Park Restrooms - $125,000
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to try to maintain existing facilities.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Ease of maintaining new restrooms, increased cleanliness of public
facilities.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Operating and repair
costs are expected to be lower than the existing facilities.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund
79
Project Name:
Fire - Self Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA)
Replacement
Estimated Cost: $187,980.00 (retail pricing – bid pricing will be lower)
Project Number: General Fund – GF85 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project will fund the replacement of the department’s SCBA units.
The units being replaced were purchased in the mid 90’s and are nearing
the end of their safe and useful service lives.
30 – Scott NexGen7 air packs $4,350.00 ea.
60 – 4500psi 45 min duration cylinders $ 925.00 ea.
11 – AV3000 face pieces $ 180.00 ea.
These are retail ‘per unit’ prices. Bid pricing should be substantially
lower.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to use current SCBA units until they fail or spare parts become
unavailable. Used units are not a viable alternative as departments
typically upgrade when old units become obsolete or fail to meet annual
testing requirements.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Firefighters use SCBA’s to enter hazardous atmospheres in all aspects of
their jobs; firefighting, confined space entry, and hazmat response. The
health and safety of our personnel, as well as the ability of our fire
department to perform its function, is greatly dependent on these units.
The new SCBA units are safer than current units as they are certified for
chemical, biological, and radiological emergencies.
Estimated New
Future
Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: The department spends
about $2,500 annually on SCBA maintenance. Yearly checks and
certification is required regardless of SCBA age although maintenance
costs would decline with new units.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund – SCBA’s are Fire Act Grant eligible although we
have been turned down twice.
80
Project Name: Shift Supervisor Vehicle
Estimated Cost: $65,000 ($35,000 flex-fuel SUV - $30,000 equipment (radios, MDT,
emergency response & lighting package and installation))
Project Number: General Fund – GF86 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project would fund the purchase and equipping of an emergency
response vehicle for the department’s shift supervisor. This is a new
position funded through the fire department mill levy that will be
responsible for the daily operations of the department’s 3 fire stations,
including incident command and management of emergency scenes.
The equipment purchased with this vehicle may be transferable to
another vehicle depending on technology changes and requirements.
Alternatives
Considered:
Purchase a used vehicle although the equipment (radios, response
equipment, MDT, etc.) will still have to be funded in order to make any
vehicle usable in this role.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Reduce wear and tear of larger fire engines as the shift supervisor will
assume most of the routine operational readiness functions and
coordination of the 3 fire stations (station supplies, mail, administrative
duties, etc.). Provide a greater level of current staff efficiency by
assuming incident management and coordination roles allowing fire
suppression staff to fulfill response roles.
Estimated New
Future
Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: routine maintenance
including oil changes and normal wear and tear items should be similar to
current staff vehicles. Fuel usage will be determined by job function and
call volume.
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund – from the 2007 Fire Operations Levy
81
Project Name:
New Indoor Aquatics Center
Estimated Cost: $6,000,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF87 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is the construction of a new indoor aquatics center, as
described in the PROST Plan, adopted Oct 2007.
Alternatives
Considered:
Numerous.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased recreation opportunities for the community.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: no estimate at this time.
Funding
Sources:
General Obligation Bonds, user fees, foundation/donations.
82
Project Name:
Completion of Rose Park
Estimated Cost: $100,000 (In addition to FY08 PIG and General Fund amounts)
Project Number: General Fund – GF88 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is the completion of Rose Park improvements, as described in
the PROST Plan, adopted Oct 2007.
Alternatives
Considered:
Numerous.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased recreation opportunities for the community.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: no estimate at this time.
Funding
Sources:
General Obligation Bonds, PIG Grants, foundation/donations.
83
Project Name:
BMX Facility at Westlake Park
Estimated Cost: $45,000 (In addition to FY08 PIG and General Fund amounts)
Project Number: General Fund – GF89 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is the completion of BMX facility improvements, as described
in the PROST Plan, adopted Oct 2007.
Alternatives
Considered:
Numerous.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased recreation opportunities for the community.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: no estimate at this time.
Funding
Sources:
General Obligation Bonds, PIG Grants, foundation/donations.
84
Project Name:
New Court Facilities for Tennis & Basketball
Estimated Cost: $75,000 for each Tennis Court; $30,000 for each Basketball Court
Project Number: General Fund – GF90 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is for additional Tennis & Basketball Courts, as described in
the PROST Plan, adopted Oct 2007.
Tennis Courts: $75,000 to construct one new court with sub-grade,
concrete, acrylic surfacing, fencing, nets and posts (does not include land
costs.) Economies of scale accrue from constructing multiple courts at
one time.
Basketball Courts: $30,000 for each new court.
Alternatives
Considered:
Numerous.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased recreation opportunities for the community.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: no estimate at this time.
Funding
Sources:
General Fund, SID, impact fees, PIG Grants, foundation/donations.
85
Project Name:
Off Leash Dog Parks
Estimated Cost: $35,000 - $45,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF91 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is for new Off-Leash Dog Parks, as described in the PROST
Plan, adopted Oct 2007.
The costs are estimated, depending on amenities; includes fencing,
landscaping, water service, irrigation system, benches, surfacing and dog
stations (does not include the cost of land.)
Alternatives
Considered:
Numerous.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased recreation opportunities for the community.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: no estimate at this time.
Funding
Sources:
General Fund, SID, impact fees, PIG Grants, user groups,
foundation/donations.
86
Project Name:
Additional Playground Equipment
Estimated Cost: $25,000 - $50,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF92 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is for additional Playground Equipment, as described in the
PROST Plan, adopted Oct 2007. The goal is to have every home in the
city within ¼ mile of a playground.
The costs are estimated, depending on amenities.
Alternatives
Considered:
Numerous.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased recreation opportunities for the community.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: no estimate at this time.
Funding
Sources:
General Fund, SID, impact fees, PIG Grants, user groups,
foundation/donations.
87
Project Name:
Additional Multiuse Fields
Estimated Cost:
$1.00 to $2.50 per square foot
Project Number: General Fund – GF93 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is for additional Multi-Use Fields, as described in the PROST
Plan, adopted Oct 2007.
The costs are estimated, depending on the need for amended soils;
includes the costs of seeding, rough grade, irrigation system and
fertilization (does not include the cost of land).
Alternatives
Considered:
Numerous.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased recreation opportunities for the community.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: no estimate at this time.
Funding
Sources:
General Fund, SID, impact fees, PIG Grants, user groups,
foundation/donations.
88
Project Name:
FIRE DEPARTMENT TRAINING FACILITY
Estimated Cost:
$74,880
Project Number: General Fund – GF94 Date
Scheduled:
FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This facility would replace and improve upon the existing training facility at
the Lower Yards. It would be constructed of modular container units that
could be configured and replaced when needed.
The following types of training would occur: Live Fire, Flashover,
Ventilation, Forcible Entry, Confined Space, Hazardous Materials
Response, Trench Rescue.
The facility would be available to the City Police Department for their
training needs (Special Response Team, etc.) and to the Water and Sewer
Department for continued Trench Rescue training.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue with utilizing the existing site and Central Valley Fire training
center out of the city.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Firefighters can train when on-duty, reducing overtime costs.
Required for ISO compliance.
Located within the City Limits, firefighters would be close for call-outs.
Available when needed (unlike Central Valley Fire site.)
Shared facility with City Police and Water/Sewer Operations.
The location could be moved east of the existing site, making room for
expansion of the Street Department/Shops Complex.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: none
Funding
Sources:
100% General Fund.
89
Project Name:
STUDY: TRIP EXCHANGE DISTRICT
Estimated Cost:
$10,000
Project Number: General Fund – GF95 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: □ New □ Replacement □ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is to study the possible trip-sharing characteristics of the North
7th Avenue Corridor area.
The newly adopted Street Impact Fee ordinance includes the ability to
calculate and charge lower street impact fees for development areas that
demonstrate trip-exchange. The City’s currently has one such area:
Downtown Bozeman.
Alternatives
Considered:
No Study – continue to charge full impact fee amounts.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Less street capacity would need to be built if more trip-exchange occurred.
Lower Street Impact Fees may result due to decreased capacity needs in
the study area.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: none
Funding
Sources:
For the Capital Improvements planning purposes, this item was put into
the General Fund. During the FY09 Budget process, other funding
sources will be considered. These options include: N 7th TIF, Big Box
Funds – Economic Development, possible grant revenues, etc.
90
ST
R
E
E
T
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
O
F
C
I
P
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
S
,
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
A
N
D
E
X
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
CI
P
P
l
a
n
F
Y
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
3
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
I
P
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
37
,
1
4
6
$
(6
5
,
7
6
6
)
$
(2
2
8
,
5
7
3
)
$
(1
8
2
,
7
7
6
)
$
(3
0
,
3
8
4
)
$
829$
A
d
d
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
16
8
,
0
8
8
24
3
,
1
9
3
30
9
,
2
6
0
38
5
,
2
5
0
44
2
,
0
7
5
505,525
L
e
s
s
:
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
C
I
P
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
27
1
,
0
0
0
40
6
,
0
0
0
26
3
,
4
6
4
23
2
,
8
5
8
41
0
,
8
6
2
100,000
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
e
a
r
-
E
n
d
C
I
P
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
(6
5
,
7
6
6
)
$
(2
2
8
,
5
7
3
)
$
(1
8
2
,
7
7
6
)
$
(3
0
,
3
8
4
)
$
82
9
$
4
0
6
,
3
5
4
$ PAGE 1
91
ST
R
E
E
T
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
RA
T
E
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
&
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
0
N
O
F
C
U
S
T
O
M
E
R
G
R
O
W
T
H
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY12FY13
Ra
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
/
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
In
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.00
4.00
Ra
t
e
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
1.
0
0
3.
0
0
2.
0
0
2.
0
0
1.00
1.00
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
a
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
5.
0
0
7.
0
0
6.
0
0
6.
0
0
5.00
5.00
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
4.
0
0
3.
0
0
3.
0
0
3.
0
0
3.00
3.00
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
B
a
s
e
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
9.
0
0
10
.
0
0
9.
0
0
9.
0
0
8.00
8.00
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
:
Fr
o
m
P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
Y
e
a
r
(
s
)
9.
0
0
9.
0
0
12
.
0
0
14
.
0
0
16
.
0
0
17.00
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
3.
0
0
2.
0
0
2.
0
0
1.00
1.00
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
9.
0
0
12
.
0
0
14
.
0
0
16
.
0
0
17
.
0
0
18.00 PAGE 2
92
ST
R
E
E
T
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY12FY13
Ba
s
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
f
o
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
1,
6
7
4
,
1
9
4
$
1,
8
4
2
,
3
7
1
$
2,
0
2
6
,
6
0
9
$
2,
2
0
9
,
0
0
3
$
2,
4
0
7
,
8
1
4
$
2,600,439$
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
1,
8
4
2
,
3
7
1
$
2,
0
2
6
,
6
0
9
$
2,
2
0
9
,
0
0
3
$
2,
4
0
7
,
8
1
4
$
2,
6
0
0
,
4
3
9
$
2,808,474$
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
16
5
,
8
1
3
$
24
3
,
1
9
3
$
30
9
,
2
6
0
$
38
5
,
2
5
0
$
44
2
,
0
7
5
$
505,525$
Ad
d
:
G
r
a
n
t
s
B
o
n
d
I
s
s
u
e
s
I
N
T
E
R
C
A
P
O
t
h
e
r
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
16
5
,
8
1
3
$
24
3
,
1
9
3
$
30
9
,
2
6
0
$
38
5
,
2
5
0
$
44
2
,
0
7
5
$
505,525$ PAGE 3
93
CI
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
ST
R
E
E
T
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
D
I
S
T
R
I
C
T
F
U
N
D
It
e
m
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
s
b
y
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not
#
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
T
i
t
l
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
F
Y
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY
1
2
FY
1
3
TotalScheduled
ST
R
0
1
1
T
O
N
T
R
U
C
K
W
/
P
L
O
W
A
N
D
S
A
N
D
E
R
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
47
,
2
4
4
47,244
ST
R
0
3
2
S
T
A
G
E
S
N
O
W
B
L
O
W
E
R
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
- 60,000
ST
R
0
6
CO
M
P
A
C
T
U
T
I
L
I
T
Y
T
R
A
C
T
O
R
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
67
,
4
9
2
67,492
ST
R
0
7
FL
E
X
F
U
E
L
4
X
4
E
X
T
C
A
B
P
I
C
K
U
P
(
2
)
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
2
6
,
0
0
0
28
,
1
2
2
54,122
ST
R
0
9
LO
A
D
E
R
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
17
5
,
4
7
9
175,479
ST
R
1
1
ME
D
I
A
N
A
N
D
B
O
U
L
E
V
A
R
D
M
A
I
N
T
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
3
0
,
0
0
0
35
,
0
0
0
40
,
0
0
0
45
,
0
0
0
50
,
0
0
0
200,000
ST
R
1
3
PA
R
K
I
N
G
R
E
S
T
R
I
C
T
I
O
N
S
I
G
N
S
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
- 2,112,000
ST
R
1
6
SA
N
D
A
N
D
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
S
H
E
D
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
9
0
,
0
0
0
90,000
ST
R
1
7
SI
N
G
L
E
A
X
E
L
D
U
M
P
T
RU
C
K
W
/
P
L
O
W
A
N
D
S
A
N
D
E
R
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
14
0
,
3
8
3
140,383
ST
R
1
8
ST
R
E
E
T
S
W
E
E
P
E
R
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
2
1
0
,
0
0
0
210,000
ST
R
1
9
TA
N
D
E
M
A
X
E
L
D
U
M
P
T
RU
C
K
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
17
8
,
4
6
4
178,464
ST
R
2
0
BI
K
E
P
A
T
H
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
5
0
,
0
0
0
50
,
0
0
0
50
,
0
0
0
50
,
0
0
0
50
,
0
0
0
250,000
ST
R
2
1
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
TO
T
A
L
40
6
,
0
0
0
$
26
3
,
4
6
4
$
23
2
,
8
5
8
$
41
0
,
8
6
2
$
10
0
,
0
0
0
$
1,413,184$ 2,172,000$ PAGE 4
94
Project Name:
One Ton Flex-Fuel Truck
Estimated Cost: $47,244
Project Number: Street Maintenance – STR01 Date
Scheduled:
FY11
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is a request for a one ton 4x4 cab and chassis truck with bed. It
would be equipped with plow and sander.
It would replace an existing 1986 model that is now 20 years old.
This truck is used in the day to day operation of the Street Dept.
This truck would use alternative fuel such as Ethanol or BioDiesel.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to use 1986 model when it is operational.
Retire truck and not replace.
Lease
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
New vehicle would be more reliable and would be able to contribute to
snow removal operations. Would not need to budget money for major
repairs. Would achieve better fuel economy and use alternative fuels.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: minimal.
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Maintenance District Revenue
95
Project Name:
Two-Stage Snow Blower
Estimated Cost: $60,000
Project Number: Street Maintenance – STR03 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
The snow blower is for loading trucks and blowing snow off street rights-of-
way. It would replace the 1978 Root snow blower, now 28 years old.
The new blower would be more dependable and do a better job of blowing
snow into City dump trucks. Even though the blower is only used
approximately 7-8 times per year, without it the snow removal operation
would be increased by five times as much work. The snow blower is used
in cases of moving hard, packed drifted snow off the street rights-of-way.
There is no local contractor that has a blower available.
Alternatives
Considered:
Purchase a conveyor to accomplish same task but that would add more
labor hours.
Lease, but so far I have been unable to find one available.
Contract the removal of snow, but at this time there is none locally.
Continue to wait until MDT has theirs in t
o
wn but this is seldom when we
need it.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Replace the 1978 Root snow blower, now 28 years old. Increase snow
blowing efficiency by saving valuable personnel time and labor. Improve
procedures/service. Improve safety factor for Street Department
personnel. This would be a quieter piece of machinery. Existing is
extremely loud, and this work is typically done in the middle of the night.
Estimated New
Future
Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: minimal.
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Maintenance District Revenue
96
Project Name:
Compact Utility Tractor
Estimated Cost: $67,492
Project Number: Street Maintenance – STR06 Date
Scheduled:
FY11
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is a request for a 60 horsepower Utility Tractor that would replace the
Sign and Signal Departments 1969 model (now 37 years old) and the
Street Departments 1981 model (now 25 years old).
It would be used for sign post removal and installation, leaf cleanup, snow
removal, alley brush cleaning and misc. dirt and landscaping work.
This tractor would be powered by alternative fuels such as BioDiesel.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to use old unreliable tractors.
Rent when available.
Lease.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased production. Increase in safety. Use of alternative fuels. Able to
adapt our specialty attachments which we unable to do with lease
equipment. Better fuel economy and fewer maintenance costs due to
newer model.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: minimal.
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Maintenance District Revenue
97
Project Name:
Extended Cab Flex-Fuel 4x4 Pickup Trucks (2)
Estimated Cost: $26,000 in FY09 and $28,122 in FY11
Project Number: Street Maintenance – STR07 Date
Scheduled:
FY09 &
FY11
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
FY09 – Replace 1990 model, 19 years old.
FY11 – Replace 1999 model, 12 years old with extensive mileage.
This is a request for 2 pickups to replace a 1990 model and a 1999 model
used by the Street Dept. The 1990 model is a 2 wheel drive standard cab
which leaves no room for plans, maps and other equipment used in the
field. The 1999 model has 100,000 miles and is in need of replacement.
The new vehicles would be purchased thru the State of Montana
procurement program at a substantial savings over the bid method.
These trucks would be powered by alternative fuel such as BioDiesel or
Ethanol.
These trucks would be equipped with snowplows to aid in the snow
removal operations.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to drive older models.
Buy used.
Lease.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Better fuel economy. Fewer emissions. Use of alternative fuels.
Increased Reliability. Add to snow removal fleet.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating Costs:
Annual Maintenance Costs:
Other Non-Capital Costs: none.
Total:
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Maintenance District Revenue
98
Project Name:
Loader
Estimated Cost: $175,479
Project Number: Street Maintenance – STR09 Date
Scheduled:
FY12
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is a request for a front end loader to replace our 1978 Fiat, which is
now 28 years old. When this loader is used with any frequency it seldom
makes it thru an 8 hour shift.
It would be used as a back up or for limited use to other departments.
The new loader would use alternative fuels such as BioDiesel.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to use Fiat when it runs.
Lease
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Safer more reliable equipment. Newer technology would increase
production. Use of alternative fuels. Decrease in exhaust emissions.
Able to be more productive and not have to schedule our work around
whether the Fiat is operational.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: minimal.
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Maintenance District Revenue
99
Project Name:
Median & Boulevard Maintenance
Estimated Cost: $30,000 in FY09, Increasing $5,000 each year after.
Project Number: Street Maintenance – STR11 Date
Scheduled:
FY09-FY13
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This money would be used to repair and maintain the City’s boulevards
and medians. Projects might include irrigation, seeding, planting and
curbing.
Currently no money is budgeted for this type of work.
Money would be added to this fund yearly so as to continue to bring our
medians and boulevards up to the standards our citizens expect.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to do minimal repairs to the medians and boulevards using
Street Depts. operational funds.
Do nothing.
Recruit volunteers, this would be used any time it is possible with the
proposed funding.
Take out the medians and pave them.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Keeping boulevards and medians maintained help keep our street edges
intact. Many of our medians are in entryway corridors and are in dire need
of repair. Well maintained boulevards and medians help with storm water
runoff thus keeping it out of our streams. Not having to water by hand and
budget for the manpower to do so. Street edges bordered by medians not
having to be repaired yearly because of the curb edges breaking off.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: As scheduled.
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Maintenance District Revenue
100
Project Name:
Parking Restriction Signage Project
Estimated Cost: $2,112,000
Project Number: Street Maintenance – STR13 Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is a request to fund the installation of parking restriction signs. The 2
million + estimate is figuring that if we have 200 miles of streets and a sign
is placed every 100 feet on both sides of the street as they are in the
residential permit parking areas is some parts of town then a total of
21,120 signs would be needed. The average cost for a new sign
installation is about $100. This money or a portion of it would only be
needed if the commission passes the pending ordinance. This is just an
estimate; a more accurate number would be presented under the fiscal
note during ordinance review.
Alternatives
Considered:
Limit number of signs.
Not install signs making ordinance difficult to enforce.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Installing signs would make it easier for police to enforce. People will be
more likely to not park on the sides of the streets when they shouldn’t
making snow removal more productive. Traveling on narrow streets will
be easier in the winter with parking only on one side. Should be a one
time expense other than maintenance and replacing damaged signs.
Future signs would be installed at developers’ expense.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: minimal.
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Maintenance District Revenue
101
Project Name:
Sand and Equipment Coverall
Estimated Cost: $90,000
Project Number: Street Maintenance – STR16 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is a request for a storage coverall to store our winter sanding material
inside a building.
Currently the sand/salt is stored outside exposed to the elements.
Constant exposure to moisture causes the salt to leach out of the pile.
When this happens the pile can freeze making it difficult, if not impossible,
to load our sand trucks during freezing temps.
This facility would also have an attached lean-to for our sanders.
Currently they are also stored outside exposed to the elements causing
accelerated rusting of the bodies.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to store product outside.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
No leaching of salt into the ground. No blowing of sand causing increases
in dust particulate. Dry sand spreads more evenly. Dry sand accepts pre-
wetting better. Not have to add salt as it leaches out. Extended life of
sanders. Not have to construct runoff structure.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: minimal.
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Maintenance District Revenue
102
Project Name:
Single Axle Dump Truck
Estimated Cost: $140,383
Project Number: Street Maintenance – STR17 Date
Scheduled:
FY12
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is a request for a single axle dump truck with 4 yard box. A plow and
sander would also be included. This would replace a 1986 dump truck
(now 20 years old) that would be move to backup. The backup 1978
dump truck (now 28 years old) would be retired.
The 1986 truck is underpowered with a gas engine that averages 2-3
MPG.
This truck would be fueled with alternative fuels such as BioDiesel.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to use 1986 model.
Rent.
Lease.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
More productivity, current model can’t make it up Highland Blvd. fully
loaded. Better fuel economy and fewer emissions. Use of alternative
fuels. Reliability. Safer. Save on maintenance and repair costs. Less
fuel consumed.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: minimal.
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Maintenance District Revenue
103
Project Name:
Sweeper
Estimated Cost: $210,000
Project Number: Street Maintenance – STR18 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is a request for a full size vacuum sweeper. This would replace our
1990 model (now 16 years old) that the manufacturer has gone out of
business making parts hard to come by.
The MACI equipment program has not made a sweeper available in a
number of years. As a result, we are now planning for the full purchase
price to acquire one.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to keep the older sweeper running as best as possible.
Lease.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Better job of sweeping utilizing newer technologies. Less particulate put
into the air. Conform to newer air quality and storm water regulations.
Lessen chance of fines from DEQ for storm water violations. Less money
needed to repair older sweeper.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: minimal.
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Maintenance District Revenue
104
Project Name:
Tandem Axle Dump Truck
Estimated Cost: $178,464
Project Number: Street Maintenance – STR19 Date
Scheduled:
FY10
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is a request for a tandem axle dump truck. It would be equipped with
a plow and sander.
This would be an addition to our fleet.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to use the smaller trucks that take longer to do the snow routes.
Lease.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increase our snow removal fleet to provide better response to the citizens.
Able to haul more, tandem axle can haul more than twice as much as a
single axle. Spend less time traveling back to refill with sand with the
bigger capacity. Less wear and maintenance on the larger trucks.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Maintenance District Revenue
105
Project Name:
Bike Route Improvements
Estimated Cost:
$50,000 each year
Project Number: Street Maintenance Fund –
STR20 Date
Scheduled:
Annually
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This item would provide for bike-related infrastructure including (but, not
limited to) racks, signs, striping, curb-cuts, and separated pathways. The
currently-underway Transportation Plan Update could be a method for
prioritizing possible future projects which will rely heavily upon these funds
(as well as the recently adopted Safe Routes to School Program).
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue with existing infrastructure.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Safety will likely be improved.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: none
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Maintenance Fund
106
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
I
O
N
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
O
F
C
I
P
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
S
,
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
A
N
D
E
X
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
CI
P
F
Y
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
3
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
74
,
4
5
0
$
32
,
9
0
0
$
29
,
2
0
8
$
24
,
8
2
3
$
19
,
7
0
0
$
13,794$
A
d
d
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
52
,
4
5
0
54
,
5
4
8
56
,
1
8
4
57
,
8
7
0
59
,
6
0
6
60,798
L
e
s
s
:
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
C
I
P
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
94
,
0
0
0
58
,
2
4
0
60
,
5
7
0
62
,
9
9
2
65
,
5
1
2
68,133
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
e
a
r
-
E
n
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
32
,
9
0
0
$
29
,
2
0
8
$
24
,
8
2
3
$
19
,
7
0
0
$
13
,
7
9
4
$
6,460$ Page 1
10
7
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
I
O
N
RA
T
E
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
&
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
C
U
S
T
O
M
E
R
G
R
O
W
T
H
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY12FY13
Ra
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
/
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
In
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
Ra
t
e
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
m
t
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
-
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
a
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
-
-
-
-
-
-
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
-
4.
0
0
3.
0
0
3.
0
0
3.00
2.00
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
B
a
s
e
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
-
4.
0
0
3.
0
0
3.
0
0
3.00
2.00
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
:
Fr
o
m
P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
Y
e
a
r
(
s
)
5.
0
0
5.
0
0
5.
0
0
5.
0
0
5.00
5.00
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
5.
0
0
5.
0
0
5.
0
0
5.
0
0
5.00
5.00 Page 2
10
8
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
I
O
N
RE
V
E
N
U
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY12FY13
Ba
s
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
f
o
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
1,
0
4
9
,
0
0
0
$
1,
0
4
9
,
0
0
0
$
1,
0
9
0
,
9
6
0
$
1,
1
2
3
,
6
8
9
$
1,
1
5
7
,
3
9
9
$
1,192,121$
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
1,
0
4
9
,
0
0
0
$
1,
0
9
0
,
9
6
0
$
1,
1
2
3
,
6
8
9
$
1,
1
5
7
,
3
9
9
$
1,
1
9
2
,
1
2
1
$
1,215,964$
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
52
,
4
5
0
$
54
,
5
4
8
$
56
,
1
8
4
$
57
,
8
7
0
$
59
,
6
0
6
$
60,798$
Ad
d
:
G
r
a
n
t
s
B
o
n
d
I
s
s
u
e
s
I
N
T
E
R
C
A
P
O
t
h
e
r
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
52
,
4
5
0
$
54
,
5
4
8
$
56
,
1
8
4
$
57
,
8
7
0
$
59
,
6
0
6
$
60,798$ Page 3
10
9
CI
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
I
O
N
It
e
m
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
s
b
y
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
o
t
#
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
T
i
t
l
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
T
o
t
a
l
Scheduled
BI
0
1
S
T
A
F
F
V
E
H
I
C
L
E
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
BU
I
L
D
I
N
G
I
N
S
P
E
C
T
I
O
N
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
5
8
,
2
4
0
6
0
,
5
7
0
62
,
9
9
2
65
,
5
1
2
68
,
1
3
3
315,447
-
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
58
,
2
4
0
$
6
0
,
5
7
0
$
62
,
9
9
2
$
65
,
5
1
2
$
68
,
1
3
3
$
315,447$ -$ Page 4
11
0
City of Bozeman Capital Improvements Plan FY09-13
Project Name:
Staff Vehicle Replacement Program
Estimated Cost: $58,240 plus 4% inflation each year
Project Number: Building Inspection - BI01 Date
Scheduled:
FY09-FY13
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project consists of purchasing two new vehicles each year for the
next five (5) years, with the fully depreciated vehicles handed down to
other City Department staffs.
This program will address the long term vehicle needs of the Building
Division, and some related Fire Division positions which share Building
Code Enforcement responsibilities, through the regular rotation of new
vehicles into and out of the Division. This program is based on the
following positions and will change based upon the Division's staffing
changes: Fire Marshal, Chief Building Official, Plans Examiner, Building
Inspector II (2),and Building/Life Safety Specialist, (2) Plans Examiners,
(3) Building Inspector II.
**** 2 replacement vehicles per year requested for FY09-FY13
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to utilize vehicles beyond their depreciated life.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
As vehicles reach their five (5) year service with the Division, a new
vehicle is purchased as replacement and the used vehicle is handed off to
an appropriate City employee for his or her use.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: minimal.
Funding
Sources:
100% Building Inspection Fund Revenue
111
FO
R
E
S
T
R
Y
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
O
F
C
I
P
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
S
,
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
A
N
D
E
X
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
CI
P
P
l
a
n
F
Y
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
3
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
---
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
I
P
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
20
,
1
0
5
$
42
,
7
4
7
$
80
,
2
6
4
$
66
,
7
9
6
$
60
,
1
1
8
$
125,188$
A
d
d
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
49
,
6
4
2
53
,
1
1
7
56
,
8
3
5
60
,
8
1
4
65
,
0
7
1
68,324
L
e
s
s
:
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
C
I
P
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
27
,
0
0
0
15
,
6
0
0
70
,
3
0
4
67
,
4
9
2
-
-
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
e
a
r
-
E
n
d
C
I
P
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
42
,
7
4
7
$
80
,
2
6
4
$
66
,
7
9
6
$
60
,
1
1
8
$
12
5
,
1
8
8
$
193,513$ PAGE 1
11
2
FO
R
E
S
T
R
Y
RA
T
E
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
&
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
C
U
S
T
O
M
E
R
G
R
O
W
T
H
CI
P
P
l
a
n
F
Y
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
3
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY12FY13
Ra
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
/
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
In
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.00
3.00
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
-
-
-
-
-
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
a
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.00
3.00
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
4.
0
0
3.
0
0
3.
0
0
3.
0
0
3.00
2.00
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
B
a
s
e
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
8.
0
0
7.
0
0
7.
0
0
7.
0
0
7.00
5.00
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
:
Fr
o
m
P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
Y
e
a
r
(
s
)
14
.
5
0
14
.
5
0
14
.
5
0
14
.
5
0
14
.
5
0
14.50
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
14
.
5
0
14
.
5
0
14
.
5
0
14
.
5
0
14
.
5
0
14.50 PAGE 2
11
3
FO
R
E
S
T
R
Y
RE
V
E
N
U
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
CI
P
P
l
a
n
F
Y
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
3
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
---
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
jec
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
Ba
s
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
f
o
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
3
1
7
,
0
0
0
$
3
4
2
,
3
6
0
$
3
6
6
,
3
2
5
$
3
9
1
,
9
6
8
$
4
1
9
,
4
0
6
$
4
4
8
,
7
6
4
$
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
3
4
2
,
3
6
0
$
3
6
6
,
3
2
5
$
3
9
1
,
9
6
8
$
4
1
9
,
4
0
6
$
4
4
8
,
7
6
4
$
4
7
1
,
2
0
2
$
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
4
9
,
6
4
2
$
5
3
,
1
1
7
$
5
6
,
8
3
5
$
6
0
,
8
1
4
$
6
5
,
0
7
1
$
6
8
,
3
2
4
$
Ad
d
:
G
r
a
n
t
s
B
o
n
d
I
s
s
u
e
s
I
N
T
E
R
C
A
P
O
t
h
e
r
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
4
9
,
6
4
2
$
5
3
,
1
1
7
$
5
6
,
8
3
5
$
6
0
,
8
1
4
$
6
5
,
0
7
1
$
6
8
,
3
2
4
$ PAGE 3
11
4
CI
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
FO
R
E
S
T
R
Y
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
&
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
It
e
m
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
s
b
y
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not
#
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
T
i
t
l
e
De
p
t
/
D
i
v
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
T
o
t
a
l
Scheduled
FO
R
-
0
3
C
H
I
P
T
R
U
C
K
Fo
r
e
s
t
r
y
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
70
,
3
0
4
70,304 -
FO
R
-
0
5
S
P
A
D
E
A
T
T
A
C
H
E
M
E
N
T
F
O
R
S
K
I
D
S
T
E
E
R
F
o
r
e
s
t
r
y
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
1
5
,
6
0
0
15,600 -
FO
R
-
0
6
C
H
I
P
P
E
R
Fo
r
e
s
t
r
y
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
67
,
4
9
2
67,492
To
t
a
l
15
,
6
0
0
$
70
,
3
0
4
$
67
,
4
9
2
$
-
$
-
$
1
5
3
,
3
9
6
$ -$ PAGE 4
11
5
Project Name:
Flex Fuel Chip Truck
Estimated Cost: $70,304
Project Number: Forestry – FOR03 Date
Scheduled:
FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is a request for a Chip Truck to replace a 1990 Chip Truck (16 yrs
old) currently in use.
This truck is used to haul the chips that are produce by Forestry’s wood
chipper.
We would explore ways to make this truck more versatile such as with a
removable chip box so possibly a sander or snow box could be installed
for use during the winter.
This truck would be powered by an alternative fuel such as BioDiesel.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to utilize 16-year old vehicle currently in use.
Lease.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Retirement and replacement of 16 year-old piece of city equipment with a
safer, more reliable vehicle. The replacement vehicle will use of
alternative fuels and obtain better fuel mileage, as well as improve
efficiency with an interchangeable box.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Minimal.
Funding
Sources:
100% Tree Maintenance District Fund Revenue
116
Project Name:
Spade Attachment for Skid-Steer
Estimated Cost: $15,600
Project Number: Forestry – FOR05 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is a request for spade attachment for a skid steer. The skid steer
would be borrowed from the Parks, Streets or Water Dept.
The large spade we have now is mounted on a 1974 truck and often too
large for access to confined areas. When using the current spade on a
boulevard tree, the street must be closed in order to position the truck or
the hole must be dug by hand.
We would trade the old spade truck in to reduce the purchase price.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to dig by hand, which is time intensive and increases risk of
injury to employees. Use the old spade when there is room. Contract out
to local company. Use a backhoe.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
This attachment would move trees with no additional removal or
destruction of surrounding landscaping. We would not have to replace the
1974 truck to mount spade this new spade. Forestry would have easier
access to planting sites in tight areas. We would not have to contract out
tree plantings and be subject to contractors’ schedule. We could save
smaller trees that might otherwise have to be cut down and replaced with
new trees.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: minimal.
Funding
Sources:
100% Tree Maintenance District Fund Revenue
117
Project Name:
Chipper
Estimated Cost: $67,492
Project Number: Forestry – FOR05 Date
Scheduled:
FY11
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This a request to replace a 2000 model chipper.
This would be a scheduled equipment replacement as this chipper would
be over 10 years old.
This equipment would be powered by an alternative fuel such as
BioDiesel.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to use older, inefficient model.
Lease.
As directed by Commission.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
1. More reliable equipment.
2. Safer
3. Use of alternative fuels.
4. Lower exhaust emissions.
5. More production due to improvements in design.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: no increase. A new chipper
would be cheaper than the existing repairs required on the older model
currently in use.
Funding
Sources:
100% Tree Maintenance District Fund Revenue
118
FI
R
E
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
&
C
A
P
I
T
A
L
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
O
F
C
I
P
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
S
,
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
A
N
D
E
X
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
CI
P
F
Y
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
3
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
30
0
,
0
0
0
$
30
0
,
0
0
0
$
58
6
,
9
6
1
$
38
9
,
2
7
5
$
69
9
,
6
5
2
$
1,022,444$
A
d
d
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
-
2
8
6
,
9
6
1
29
8
,
4
3
9
31
0
,
3
7
7
32
2
,
7
9
2
335,704
L
e
s
s
:
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
C
I
P
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
-
-
4
9
6
,
1
2
5
-
-
1
,
2
7
6
,
2
8
2
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
e
a
r
-
E
n
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
30
0
,
0
0
0
$
58
6
,
9
6
1
$
38
9
,
2
7
5
$
69
9
,
6
5
2
$
1,
0
2
2
,
4
4
4
$
81,866$ Page 1
11
9
FI
R
E
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
&
C
A
P
I
T
A
L
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
RE
V
E
N
U
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY
1
2
FY13
Pr
i
o
r
Y
e
a
r
M
i
l
l
V
a
l
u
e
-
$
68
,
9
8
1
$
71
,
7
4
0
$
74
,
6
1
0
$
77
,
5
9
4
$
80,698$
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
0%
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
M
i
l
l
V
a
l
u
e
-
$
71
,
7
4
0
$
74
,
6
1
0
$
77
,
5
9
4
$
80
,
6
9
8
$
83,926$
Mu
l
t
i
p
l
y
b
y
4
M
i
l
l
s
-
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
L
e
v
y
No
t
A
u
t
h
o
r
i
z
e
d
f
o
r
F
Y
0
8
4
M
i
l
l
s
4
M
i
l
l
s
4
M
i
l
l
s
4
M
i
l
l
s
4
M
i
l
l
s
Le
v
y
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
A
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
f
o
r
C
I
P
-
$
28
6
,
9
6
1
$
29
8
,
4
3
9
$
31
0
,
3
7
7
$
32
2
,
7
9
2
$
335,704$
Ot
h
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
-
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
-
$
28
6
,
9
6
1
$
29
8
,
4
3
9
$
31
0
,
3
7
7
$
32
2
,
7
9
2
$
335,704$ Page 3
12
0
CI
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
FI
R
E
E
Q
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
&
C
A
P
I
T
A
L
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
It
e
m
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
s
b
y
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
o
t
#
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
T
i
t
l
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
T
o
t
a
l
Scheduled
FE
-
0
1
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
O
F
F
I
R
E
E
N
G
I
N
E
1
FI
R
E
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
-
4
9
6
,
1
2
5
-
-
- 496,125
FE
-
0
2
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
O
F
L
A
D
D
E
R
T
R
U
C
K
FI
R
E
D
E
P
A
R
T
M
E
N
T
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
1,
2
7
6
,
2
8
2
1,276,282
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
-
$
4
9
6
,
1
2
5
$
-
$
-
$
1
,
2
7
6
,
2
8
2
$
1,772,407$ -$ Page 4
12
1
Project Name: Fire Engine #1 – Replacement
Estimated Cost: $496,125 Total
Project Number: Fire Equipment & Capital
Fund – FE01
Date
Scheduled:
FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project will replace the front line fire engine at Station 1
which is nearing the end of its safe and useful service life.
This apparatus has recently required significant structural
remanufacture and requires extensive electrical system
rebuild. The compressed air foam system (CAFS) works
intermittently and the costs to rebuild the system to bring it up
to a minimum level of reliability are prohibitive when
compared to the value of the truck at this point in its service
life cycle.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continued use of current fire apparatus with significant
increases to our annual maintenance budget; buy a used
engine; lease/purchase an engine.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Reduced maintenance costs and increased reliability for a
significant piece of the City’s structural firefighting
resources.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Maintenance
costs for the current engine will cease. Other costs will
increase based upon insurance, maintenance and repair,
lubricants, fuel and oil expenses. Further increases will occur
based also upon the actual number of responses and hours
used.
Funding
Sources:
100% Fire Equipment & Capital Replacement Fund
122
Project Name: Ladder Truck Replacement
Estimated Cost: $1,276,282
Project Number: Fire Equipment & Capital
Fund – FE02
Date
Scheduled:
FY13
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project will fund the purchase and equipment of a new
aerial platform truck for the fire department in FY13.
An aerial platform truck is different from a ladder truck in that
it has a platform at the tip of the ladder that allows firefighters
to operate water streams and perform rescue and other
operations from the tip of the ladder device while it is in
operation, a capability we do not currently have.
The City’s ladder truck was purchased in 1986 and has
served the community well for over 20 years. Recent required
annual UL ladder tests have revealed that the ladder beds are
beginning to twist and warp from use and age. Additionally,
the open air rear cab violates firefighter safety requirements of
NFPA as firefighters are exposed to traffic during responses
and are not protected in the event of a crash.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to use current ladder truck until it must be taken out
of service, have present ladder and cab refurbished at
manufacturing facility, purchase used aerial platform truck,
lease/purchase new aerial platform truck.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Provide a critical life-safety resource that will enhance the fire
department’s ability to protect the city and its residents. This
aerial device is particularly important to provide fire and
rescue services to the downtown area, large commercial
structures and multi-family residential structures. It will also
gain us important points in ISO’s scoring matrix.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: The costs we pay
to maintain our current ladder truck will be reduced if it is
placed in a reserve role. Our costs will increase based upon
insurance, maintenance and repair, lubricants, fuel and oil
expenses. Further increases will occur based also upon the
actual number of responses and hours used.
Funding
Sources:
100% Fire Equipment & Capital Replacement Fund
123
WA
T
E
R
F
U
N
D
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
O
F
C
I
P
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
S
,
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
A
N
D
E
X
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
CI
P
F
Y
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
3
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
I
P
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
2,
1
1
5
,
5
0
0
$
1
,
7
4
7
,
8
1
1
$
2,
1
5
1
,
6
9
6
$
4,
0
2
8
,
8
2
4
$
42
,
5
0
4
$
252,504$
A
d
d
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
2,
7
4
0
,
8
1
1
2,
8
7
6
,
8
8
5
3,
0
1
6
,
0
2
8
7,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
10
,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
3,300,000
L
e
s
s
:
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
C
I
P
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
3,
1
0
8
,
5
0
0
2,
4
7
3
,
0
0
0
1,
1
3
8
,
9
0
0
11
,
1
8
6
,
3
2
0
10
,
0
9
0
,
0
0
0
1,000,000
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
e
a
r
-
E
n
d
C
I
P
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
1,
7
4
7
,
8
1
1
$
2,
1
5
1
,
6
9
6
$
4,
0
2
8
,
8
2
4
$
42
,
5
0
4
$
25
2
,
5
0
4
$
2,552,504$
12
4
WA
T
E
R
F
U
N
D
RA
T
E
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
&
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
C
U
S
T
O
M
E
R
G
R
O
W
T
H
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY12FY13
Ra
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
/
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
Ra
t
e
S
t
u
d
y
r
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
R
a
t
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
-
-
2.
6
%
2.
6
%
2.6%4.0%
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
a
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
-
-
2.
6
%
2.
6
%
2.6%4.0%
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
4.
0
%
5.
0
%
5.
0
%
5.
0
%
5.0%5.0%
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
B
a
s
e
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
4.
0
%
5.
0
%
7.
6
%
7.
6
%
7.6%9.0%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
:
To
t
a
l
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
45
.
2
%
4
5
.
2
%
4
5
.
2
%
4
5
.
7
%
4
4
.
9
%
4
3
.
2
%
12
5
WA
T
E
R
F
U
N
D
RE
V
E
N
U
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY12FY13
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
T
o
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
6,
0
6
9
,
8
0
5
$
6,
3
6
6
,
8
2
4
$
6,
6
7
6
,
7
4
2
$
7,
0
0
6
,
9
3
8
$
7,
3
4
9
,
6
4
3
$
7,643,629$
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
2,
7
4
0
,
8
1
1
$
2,
8
7
6
,
8
8
5
$
3,
0
1
6
,
0
2
8
$
3,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3,300,000$
Ad
d
:
G
r
a
n
t
s
S
R
F
L
o
a
n
4,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
C
a
s
h
O
n
H
a
n
d
2,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
C
a
s
h
I
n
L
i
e
u
o
f
W
a
t
e
r
R
i
g
h
t
s
-
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
2,
7
4
0
,
8
1
1
$
2,
8
7
6
,
8
8
5
$
3,
0
1
6
,
0
2
8
$
7,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
10
,
3
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3,300,000$
12
6
CI
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
WA
T
E
R
F
U
N
D
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
It
e
m
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
s
b
y
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
o
t
#
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
T
i
t
l
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
T
o
t
a
l
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
W0
3
BI
-
A
N
N
U
A
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
WA
T
E
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
90
,
0
0
0
90
,
0
0
0
180,000
W0
4
WA
T
E
R
B
I
-
A
N
N
U
A
L
U
P
G
R
A
D
E
S
WA
T
E
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1
,
00
0
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
3,000,000
W0
7
22
M
G
M
E
M
B
R
A
N
E
W
A
T
E
R
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
T
W
A
T
E
R
P
L
A
N
T
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
10
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
22,000,000
W0
9
AU
T
O
M
A
T
E
D
W
A
T
E
R
F
I
L
L
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
WA
T
E
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
3
3
0
,
0
0
0
330,000
W1
2
1 T
O
N
T
R
U
C
K
W
/
H
O
I
S
T
WA
T
E
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
46
,
7
9
4
46,794
W1
5
ME
T
E
R
V
A
N
WA
T
E
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
32
,
4
4
8
32,448
W1
6
BA
C
K
H
O
E
WA
T
E
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
10
7
,
0
7
8
107,078
W1
7
1 T
O
N
T
R
U
C
K
(
2
)
WA
T
E
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
3
5
,
0
0
0
36
,
4
0
0
71,400
W1
8
V
A
L
V
E
O
P
E
R
A
T
O
R
WA
T
E
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
4
1
,
0
0
0
41,000
W1
9
M
A
I
N
B
Y
P
A
S
S
WA
T
E
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
6
7
,
0
0
0
67,000
WW
2
2
LO
W
E
R
Y
A
R
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
WA
T
E
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
12
,
5
0
0
12,500
WW
2
3
MI
N
I
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
O
R
WA
T
E
R
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
E
q
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
- 25,000
To
t
a
l
2,4
7
3
,
0
0
0
$
1,
1
3
8
,
9
0
0
$
11
,
1
8
6
,
3
2
0
$
10
,
0
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
1,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
25,888,220$ 25,000$
12
7
Project Name:
Bi-Annual Engineering Design & Survey
Estimated Cost: $90,000 per year
Project Number: Water Operations – W03 Date
Scheduled:
FY10 &
FY12
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This item provides for design work to be completed every-other year, in
anticipation of the Bi-Annual System Upgrades. We alternate funding of
design work and construction work within the CIP.
As the Water Operations Division operates the existing system,
maintenance projects become apparent. Given our knowledge of system
conditions today, the following projects are candidates for design funding
and were identified in the Facility Plan:
1. South 8th Avenue
As annual operations occur, other more-urgent projects may be identified
and designed under this project heading.
Alternatives
Considered:
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Provides for the design of necessary water system maintenance work.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
None
Funding
Sources:
100% Water Utility Fund
128
Project Name:
Bi-Annual Water Upgrades
Estimated Cost: $1,000,000 per year
Project Number: Water Operations – W04 Date
Scheduled:
FY09 &
FY11 &
FY13
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This item provides for construction to be completed every-other year, after
the Bi-Annual Engineering Design. We alternate funding of design work
and construction work within the CIP.
As the Water Operations Division operates the existing system,
maintenance projects become apparent. Given our knowledge of system
conditions today, the following projects are candidates for construction
funding and were identified in the Facility Plan:
1. South 8th Avenue Water Main
As annual operations occur, other more-urgent projects may be identified,
designed, and constructed under this project heading.
Alternatives
Considered:
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Provides for the construction of necessary water system maintenance
work.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in general
maintenance costs. Current cost estimate of $12,500 per water-main mile
maintained annually.
Funding
Sources:
100% Water Utility Fund
129
Project Name:
22MG Membrane Water Treatment Plant
Estimated Cost: $33.2 Million Total
Project Number: Water Plant – W07 Date
Scheduled:
FY08-FY12
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This new Membrane Filter Treatment Plant is the preferred water treatment
alternative identified in the adopted Water Facility Plan. It is recommended
to be built with an initial configuration providing 22MGD of water treatment
capacity, with future expansion capability to 36MGD. This addresses both
the 10- and 20- year capacity requirement forecast for the City’s water
treatment system.
The current 15MGD WTP equipment is nearing the end of its useful life;
the plant’s direct filtration treatment process, while effective most of the
year, becomes only marginally effective during spring runoff or flash
thunderstorms in the watershed, dropping plant efficiency as low as 70%;
and, rapid population growth and expansion of city water services is
increasing demand for water. The current plant capacity may be exceeded
in as few as five years.
The New Plant will be sited at the existing WTP site in an 18,800 sf
building located directly north of the existing plant. It will include gravity
thickeners, a drying bed building with dual vacuum-assisted beds, triplex
micro strainers and sludge pumps. All these new facilities will easily fit on
the approximately 33-acre parcel of City-owned property on the site.
A 12-month pilot testing phase will need to be completed prior to design
finalization. We are required to have the new plant online by October 2013.
Extensions of that deadline are possible, but we are not relying on the
assumption that they would be granted.
Alternatives
Considered:
The Water Facility Plan considered numerous alternatives for water
treatment. This was identified as the preferred alternative in the adopted
plan.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Planning for increased water supply to meet growing demands and to
replace existing equipment that is at the end of its useful life.
Estimated New
Recurring
Costs:
This plant is estimated to require two new operators, in addition to existing
plant staff. Annual O&M costs = est. $1,735,901 (including existing staff
plus new plant expenses).
Funding
Sources:
FY08 Pilot Testing = $200,000 Total
67% Water Utility Fund = $133,000
33% Water Impact Fees = $67,000
FY09 & FY10 Design = $3,000,000 Total
67% Water Utility Fund = $2,000,000
33% Water Impact Fees = $1,000,000
FY11 & 12 Construction = $30,000,000 Total
67% Water Utility Fund = $20,000,000
33% Water Impact Fees = $10,000,000
130
Project Name:
Automated Water Fill Station
Estimated Cost: $330,000
Project Number: Water Operations – W09 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Replacement of the existing water fill station, which is operated on an
“honor system” for water sales. People using cisterns, constructing roads
or borings utilize this method to purchase necessary water from the city.
This recommendation includes a heated building, automated meter, and
24/7 operation of the fill station.
The deficiencies of the existing fill station were noted and a replacement
was recommended in the adopted Water Facility Plan.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue with existing system, susceptible to theft.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Ensures proper payment for quantity of water sold.
Estimated New
Recurring
Costs:
Unknown at this time. Will be better known when building is designed and
automated meter system selected.
Funding
Sources:
100% Water Utility Fund
131
Project Name:
1 Ton Truck With Hoist – Flex Fuel
Estimated Cost: $46,749
Project Number: Water Operations – W12 Date
Scheduled:
FY11
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This request replaces asset # 2914, a 2001 Dodge 1-ton with 22,374
miles with a 1-ton truck with a hoist. This truck is used daily in both water
and sewer operations to transport personnel and equipment. Average
yearly mileage is 7,000 +. If the truck is replaced in FY 2011, the
approximate mileage will be 70,000.
Flex Fuel Vehicles will be purchased.
Alternatives
Considered:
Keep the trucks and spend maintenance dollars to have truck serviceable.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Advantages to the City for approving this request include savings on fuel.
The new vehicles will improve safety of crews, there would be lower repair
costs and it would help maintain current operations levels.
Estimated New
Recurring
Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% Water Utility Fund
132
Project Name:
Meter Van
Estimated Cost: $33,746
Project Number: Water Operations – W15 Date
Scheduled:
FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
Meter Van is used daily in meter reading and installations.
This van gets high mileage due to the fact it travels every street in our city
once a month taking radio reads. Current mileage is 50,973.
Alternatives
Considered:
Increased cost for repairs and down time.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Minimize down time and increase safety in operation and daily duties.
Estimated New
Recurring
Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% Water Utility Fund
133
Project Name:
4x4 Backhoe
Estimated Cost:
$107,078
Project Number: Water Operations – W16 Date
Scheduled: FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This vehicle replaces current asset #2633, a 1999 John Deere
backhoe with 2168 hours on it. This hoe is used primarily for
compacting ditches, loading trucks with material and does not have
an extendable boom.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to use older vehicle which is becoming unreliable and
costly to maintain.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased reliability and safety for staff and water operations.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Operating and repair costs are expected to be lower than the
existing vehicle.
Funding
Sources:
100% Water Fund
134
Project Name:
4x4 Flex Fuel Trucks (2)
Estimated Cost:
FY09: $35,000, FY10: $36,400
Project Number: Water Operations – W17 Date
Scheduled:
FY09 &
FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
Fy09: This vehicle replaces current asset #2633, a 1998 Chevy
4x4 with over 60,872 miles on it. this truck is used to respond to
over 3,000 locate requests a year.
FY10: This vehicle replaces current asset #2647, a 1998 Chevy
4x4 with over 50,000 miles on it. This truck is used in our water
valve operation program and is used in various light duty jobs.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to use older vehicle which is becoming unreliable and
costly to maintain.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased reliability and safety for staff and water operations.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Operating and repair costs are expected to be lower than the
existing vehicle.
Funding
Sources:
100% Water Fund
135
Project Name:
Water Valve Operator with Vacuum
Estimated Cost:
$41,000
Project Number: Water Operations – W18 Date
Scheduled: FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is a trailer mounted hydraulic operated water valve operator.
This trailer also has a vacuum that can remove debris to gain
access to the valve and eliminate a second visit to vacuum with a
separate piece of equipment.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue operations with separate vehicles.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased efficiency with two functions on the same trailer.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Operating and repair costs are expected to be lower operating two
vehicles.
Funding
Sources:
100% Water Fund
136
Project Name:
Valve installation and bypass of 18” and 24” water
transmission mains
Estimated Cost:
$67,000.00
Project Number: Water Operations – W19 Date Scheduled: FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This work involve insertion of 2 line stops on each of the mains and
question and bypassing around the area that the work is being
done. The bypass will allow continuation of water service to town.
Operation crews can then cut in a valve on the isolated portion of
the main.
Alternatives
Considered:
None
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
We will be able to have the ability to shut down flow from the
Sourdough tank to town. Presently critical valves in these lines do
not operate properly. If there is a break in these lines now there is
a possibility of draining the tank.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs:
Once we gain control of these lines we will be inserting new valves
further down the line.
Funding
Sources:
100% Water Fund
137
Project Name:
Insulation/heat for lower yard storage building
Estimated Cost:
$25,000 Total ($12,500 to each fund)
Project Number: Wastewater Operations –
WW22
Date
Scheduled: FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This work will convert our cold storage building into a heated
storage area.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to use older building which is over 50 years old which is
becoming unreliable and costly to maintain.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Larger area to keep vehicles and equipment in a heated area.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Operating and repair
costs are expected to be lower than the existing building.
Funding
Sources:
50% Water Fund
50% Wastewater Fund
138
Project Name:
Mini Excavator
Estimated Cost: $50,000 Total ($25,000 to each fund)
Project Number: Wastewater Operations -
WW23
Date
Scheduled: Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This piece of equipment due to it’s small size, is very useful in
excavating where the backhoe cannot fit or due to it’s weight will
damage sidewalks and lawns. Could be used by the Street
Department for excavating storm sewers.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to rent this piece of equipment.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Give’s both the Water and Street Departments a piece of equipment
that can work in small spaces
Estimated New
Future
Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Operating and repair
costs are expected to be lower than a normal size backhoe.
Funding
Sources:
50% Water Fund
50% Wastewater Fund
139
WA
S
T
E
W
A
T
E
R
F
U
N
D
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
O
F
C
I
P
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
S
,
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
A
N
D
E
X
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
CI
P
F
Y
0
9
-
1
3
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
I
P
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
1,
6
4
1
,
1
7
5
$
6
7
4
,
4
7
5
$
4,
4
1
4
,
4
7
5
$
6,
1
1
5
,
5
1
9
$
(2
7
9
,
4
7
6
)
$
1,060,564$
A
d
d
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
1,
7
9
0
,
8
0
0
12
,
7
1
0
,
0
0
0
11
,
4
8
5
,
0
0
0
2,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
2,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
2,700,000
L
e
s
s
:
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
C
I
P
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
2,
7
5
7
,
5
0
0
8,
9
7
0
,
0
0
0
9,
7
8
3
,
9
5
6
8,
9
9
4
,
9
9
5
1,
3
5
9
,
9
6
1
90,000
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
e
a
r
-
E
n
d
C
I
P
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
67
4
,
4
7
5
$
4,
4
1
4
,
4
7
5
$
6,
1
1
5
,
5
1
9
$
(2
7
9
,
4
7
6
)
$
1,
0
6
0
,
5
6
4
$
3,670,564$
14
0
WA
S
T
E
W
A
T
E
R
F
U
N
D
RA
T
E
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
&
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
O
F
C
U
S
T
O
M
E
R
G
R
O
W
T
H
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY12FY13
Ra
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
/
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
Ra
t
e
S
t
u
d
y
R
e
c
o
m
m
e
n
d
e
d
R
a
t
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
s
5%
9%
9%
2%
2%4%
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
a
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
5%
9%
9%
2%
2%4%
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
5%
5%
5%
5%
5%5%
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
B
a
s
e
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
0.
1
0
14
%
14
%
7%
7%9%
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
:
To
t
a
l
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
40
.
2
%
5
1
.
7
%
5
2
.
0
%
4
8
.
2
%
4
9
.
0
%
4
7
.
2
%
14
1
WA
S
T
E
W
A
T
E
R
F
U
N
D
RE
V
E
N
U
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY12FY13
Es
t
i
m
a
t
e
d
T
o
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
4,
4
5
3
,
7
6
4
$
4,
8
5
4
,
6
0
3
$
5,
2
9
1
,
5
1
7
$
5,
3
9
7
,
3
4
7
$
5,
5
0
5
,
2
9
4
$
5,725,506$
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
1,
7
9
0
,
8
0
0
$
2,
5
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
2,
7
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
2,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2,700,000
Ad
d
:
G
r
a
n
t
s
S
R
F
L
o
a
n
-
N
e
t
o
f
I
s
s
u
a
n
c
e
C
o
s
t
s
/
R
e
s
e
r
v
e
9,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
8,
7
3
5
,
0
0
0
A
d
d
i
t
i
o
n
a
l
C
a
s
h
o
n
H
a
n
d
1,
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
1,
7
9
0
,
8
0
0
$
12
,
7
1
0
,
0
0
0
$
11
,
4
8
5
,
0
0
0
$
2,
6
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
2,700,000
14
2
CI
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
WA
S
T
E
W
A
T
E
R
F
U
N
D
It
e
m
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
s
b
y
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
o
t
#
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
T
i
t
l
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
F
Y
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY
1
2
F
Y
1
3
TotalScheduled
WW
0
2
1
T
O
N
T
R
U
C
K
W
/
H
O
I
S
T
WW
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
44
,
9
9
5
44,995
WW
0
3
3
/
4
T
O
N
4
X
4
P
I
C
K
U
P
WW
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
37
,
8
5
6
-
37,856
WW
0
4
6
6
%
W
W
T
P
B
N
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
WW
P
L
A
N
T
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
8
,
88
0
,
0
0
0
8,8
6
0
,
0
0
0
8,
8
6
0
,
0
0
0
26,600,000
WW
0
7
B
I
-
A
N
N
U
A
L
E
N
G
I
N
E
E
R
I
N
G
D
E
S
I
G
N
WW
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
9
0
,
0
0
0
90
,
0
0
0
90,000 270,000
WW
0
8
W
A
S
T
E
W
A
T
E
R
B
I
-
A
N
N
U
A
L
U
P
G
R
A
D
E
S
WW
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
78
0
,
0
0
0
84
3
,
6
4
8
1,623,648
WW
1
7
T
E
L
E
V
I
S
I
O
N
V
A
N
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
M
E
N
T
WW
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
26
3
,
2
1
8
263,218
WW
2
0
D
U
M
P
T
R
U
C
K
WW
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
93
,
6
0
0
93,600
WW
2
1
F
L
U
S
H
E
R
T
R
U
C
K
WW
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
25
3
,
0
9
4
253,094
WW
2
2
I
N
S
U
L
A
T
I
O
N
O
F
L
O
W
E
R
Y
A
R
D
B
U
I
L
D
I
N
G
WW
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
PR
O
J
E
C
T
12
,
5
0
0
12,500
WW
2
3
M
I
N
I
E
X
C
A
V
A
T
O
R
WW
O
P
E
R
A
T
I
O
N
S
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
- 25,000
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
8,9
7
0
,
0
0
0
$
9,7
8
3
,
9
5
6
$
8,
9
9
4
,
9
9
5
$
1,3
5
9
,
9
6
1
$
90,000$ 29,198,911$ 25,000$
14
3
Project Name:
1 Ton Flex Fuel Truck with Hoist
Estimated Cost: $44,995
Project Number: Wastewater Operations –
WW02
Date
Scheduled:
FY11
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This request replaces a 2000 1-ton truck with a hoist. At the time of
replacement, this truck will be 11 years old with 60,000 miles.
This truck is used daily in both water and sewer operations to transport
personnel and equipment.
The existing truck will not be traded in; it will be utilized as a back-up
vehicle when needed.
Alternatives
Considered:
Keep the truck and spend maintenance dollars to have truck serviceable.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Advantages to the City for approving this request include savings on fuel
and emissions. The new vehicles will improve safety of crews, there would
be lower repair costs and it would help maintain current operations levels.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating Costs:
Annual Maintenance Costs:
Other Non-Capital Costs: none.
Total:
Funding
Sources:
100% Wastewater Utility Revenue
144
Project Name:
¾ Ton Flex Fuel Pickup Truck
Estimated Cost: $37,856
Project Number: Wastewater Operations –
WW03
Date
Scheduled:
FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is to replace asset # 2916 which is a 2001 Dodge Dakota ½ ton
pickup which has 40,812 miles. At the time replaced, this vehicle will be 9
years old and have approx 73,000 miles.
This truck is used to transport operations crews performing one call
locates. Crews respond to over 5,000 calls a year for locate requests.
The existing vehicle will be traded in, to reduce the total purchase price.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to use older vehicle which is extremely small for the average
water department employee.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Advantages to the City for approving this request include continued
reliability in water operations. Repair and maintenance costs will be
minimized with replacement
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating Costs:
Annual Maintenance Costs:
Other Non-Capital Costs: none.
Total:
Funding
Sources:
100% Wastewater Utility Revenue
145
Project
Name:
BNR Plant Construction
Estimated
Cost:
$43.6 Million – Total, Phase I
Project
Number:
Wastewater Plant – WW04 Date
Scheduled:
FY07 – FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The Bozeman WWTP is nearing its original design capacity of 5.8 MGD. The
current organic loading to the facility (lbs of BOD) has now started to exceed the
plant’s original design capacity on a daily basis. These critical loading
parameters clearly point to the need for major facility expansion.
The facility will soon reach its DEQ imposed non-degradation limit for Total
Nitrogen. The existing facility is not designed to remove Total Nitrogen. Once
this non-degradation limit of 1010 lbs/day of Total Nitrogen is exceeded, the City
of Bozeman will be out of compliance with its MPDES permit and may be
subject to substantial fines or a “no growth” moratorium.
In January 2006 Morrison & Maierle Consulting Engineers completed a
comprehensive Wastewater Facilities Plan. The plan recommends the City
proceed with a 3-phased project schedule that includes the construction of a
new Biological Nutrient Reduction (BNR) facility that is capable of handling our
increased flows while also reducing the amount of Total Nitrogen discharged to
the East Gallatin River.
The design contract is being written to include LEEDS design features and a
Sterling Generator for 100% efficient use of the methane gas produced by the
plant. These features may add substantially to the construction cost, but would
reduce operating costs over the life of the plan.
Alternatives
Considered:
A variety of treatment technologies and alternatives are presented in the
January 2006 Wastewater Facilities Plan.
Advantages
of
Approving
this Project:
Major capital expansion of the Bozeman WWTP will enable the City to meet its
ever growing demand for wastewater services and still produce a high quality
effluent that is in full compliance with the City’s MPDES discharge permit.
Expansion of the Bozeman WWTP is consistent with the City’s long-term need
to accommodate rapid growth and economic development in the Gallatin Valley.
Estimated
Future
Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Similar to existing plant operations
costs. The Facilities Plan estimates a total of $1,439,360 annually including all
labor, power, chemicals, equipment maintenance, and equipment replacement.
We currently spend $1,574,764 (FY07) on operations and maintenance of the
existing wastewater treatment plant.
Funding
Sources:
FY07 Design: Total $3.9 Million
67% Wastewater Utility Cash = $2.33 Million
33% Wastewater Impact Fee Cash = $1.57 Million
FY09 & FY10 & FY11 Construction: Total $39.7 Million
67% Wastewater Utility Bonds = $26.6 Million
33% Wastewater Impact Fee Cash = $13.1 Million
*from HDR Opinion of Probable Cost – Aug 2007. Costs escalated through mid-point construction.
146
Photo #1 #1 – Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant – Located at 255 Moss Bridge Road.
City of Bozeman Capital Improvements Plan FY09-13 147
Project Name:
Bi-Annual Engineering Design
Estimated Cost: $90,000.00 per year
Project Number: Wastewater Operations –
WW07
Date
Scheduled:
FY09, FY11
and FY13
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This item provides for design work to be completed every-other year, in
anticipation of the Bi-Annual System Upgrades. We alternate funding of
design work and construction work within the CIP.
As the Wastewater Operations Division televises (views) the existing
system, maintenance projects become apparent. Given our knowledge of
system conditions today, the following projects are candidates for design
funding and were identified in the Facility Plan:
1. Replace 21” Trunk Line – rouse to Wal-mart Area.
2. Replace/Line Mendenhall to Tamarack
3. Replace/Line College to Babcock
4. Replace/Line 21” Interstate Crossing near Wal-mart Area
5. Replace Front Street
As annual televising continues, other more-urgent projects may be
identified and designed under this project heading.
Alternatives
Considered:
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Provides for design of necessary sewer system maintenance work.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
None
Funding
Sources:
100% Wastewater Utility Fund
148
Project Name:
Annual Wastewater Upgrades
Estimated Cost: $780,000 in FY10 & $843,648 in FY12
Project Number: Wastewater Operations –
WW08
Date
Scheduled:
FY10 &
FY12
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This item provides for construction to be completed every-other year, after
the Bi-Annual Engineering Design. We alternate funding of design work
and construction work within the CIP.
As the Wastewater Operations Division televises (views) the existing
system, maintenance projects become apparent. Given our knowledge of
system conditions today, the following projects are candidates for
construction funding and were identified in the Facility Plan:
1. Replace 21” Trunk Line – Rouse to Wal-mart Area.
2. Replace/Line Mendenhall to Tamarack
3. Replace/Line College to Babcock
4. Replace/Line 21” Interstate Crossing near Wal-mart Area.
5. Replace Front Street Collector
As annual televising continues, other more-urgent projects may be
identified, designed, and constructed under this project heading.
Alternatives
Considered:
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Provides for the construction of necessary sewer system maintenance
work.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
None.
Funding
Sources:
100% Wastewater Utility Fund
149
Project Name:
Television Van
Estimated Cost: $263,218
Project Number: Wastewater Operations –
WW17
Date
Scheduled:
FY12
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
Replacement for the existing Sewer TV Van, routinely replaced every 5
years. Current Van purchased in FY07.
This van should be equipped with all modifications to put into service for
video inspecting our existing and newly constructed sewage collection
infrastructure. The van will allow us to travel out of the sewer main and
not only inspect the city’s portion of the service but the homeowner’s side
and even into the structure itself. This is critical in identifying infiltration
issues and helps identify homes that have sump pumps dumping into our
system. This can be done from the street and service workers would not
have to enter private residences to televise back out to the main.
Alternatives
Considered:
To attempt to maintain our existing TV van, this is becoming obsolete and
outdated with the present and upcoming technology.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Provides for the timely replacement of critical maintenance equipment.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating Costs:
Annual Maintenance Costs:
Total:
Funding
Sources:
100% Wastewater Utility Revenues -
Approx. 5 year cost recover through TV Line Service Fee, currently 80
cents per foot inspected (FY07 price).
150
Project Name:
Dump Truck
Estimated Cost:
$93,600
Project Number: Wastewater Operations –
WW20
Date
Scheduled: FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This vehicle replaces current asset #1783, a 1995 Ford Dump
Truck with over 23,172 miles on it. T
his truck could be used by the Street Department to haul snow.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to use older vehicle which is becoming unreliable and
costly to maintain.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased reliability and safety for staff and water operations.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Operating and repair
costs are expected to be lower than the existing vehicle.
Funding
Sources:
100% Wastewater Fund
151
Project Name:
Sewer Flusher Truck with TV capability
Estimated Cost: $253,094
Project Number: Wastewater Operations –
WW21
Date
Scheduled: FY12
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This vehicle replaces current asset #3031, a 2002 Freightliner with
over 20,845 miles on it.
This truck is used to flush over 200 miles of sewer main every year
and is a critical piece of machinery for the sewer department.
This unit will have a TV camera which will allow us to see
objects/defects that cause the flusher to stop. This camera has
become an industry standard piece of equipment.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to use older vehicle which will be costly to maintain.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased reliability and safety for staff and wastewater operations.
Camera will eliminate need for follow up TV inspection by the TV
van.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Operating and repair
costs are expected to be lower than the existing vehicle.
Funding
Sources:
100% Wastewater utility fund
152
Project Name:
Insulation/heat for lower yard storage building
Estimated Cost:
$25,000 Total ($12,500 to each fund)
Project Number: Wastewater Operations –
WW22
Date
Scheduled: FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This work will convert our cold storage building into a heated
storage area.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to use older building which is over 50 years old which is
becoming unreliable and costly to maintain.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Larger area to keep vehicles and equipment in a heated area.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Operating and repair
costs are expected to be lower than the existing building.
Funding
Sources:
50% Water Fund
50% Wastewater Fund
153
Project Name:
Mini Excavator
Estimated Cost: $50,000 Total ($25,000 to each fund)
Project Number: Wastewater Operations -
WW23
Date
Scheduled: Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This piece of equipment due to it’s small size, is very useful in
excavating where the backhoe cannot fit or due to it’s weight will
damage sidewalks and lawns. Could be used by the Street
Department for excavating storm sewers.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to rent this piece of equipment.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Give’s both the Water and Street Departments a piece of equipment
that can work in small spaces
Estimated New
Future
Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Operating and repair
costs are expected to be lower than a normal size backhoe.
Funding
Sources:
50% Water Fund
50% Wastewater Fund
154
SO
L
I
D
W
A
S
T
E
F
U
N
D
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
O
F
C
I
P
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
S
,
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
A
N
D
E
X
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
C
I
P
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
1,
0
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
1
,
0
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
1,
0
0
7
,
0
0
0
$
1,
2
7
1
,
8
0
0
$
1,
6
1
8
,
9
6
8
$
1,841,752$
A
d
d
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
49
8
,
0
0
0
50
4
,
0
0
0
50
4
,
0
0
0
50
4
,
0
0
0
50
4
,
0
0
0
504,000
L
e
s
s
:
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
C
I
P
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
49
8
,
0
0
0
58
7
,
0
0
0
23
9
,
2
0
0
15
6
,
8
3
2
28
1
,
2
1
6
292,465
`
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
e
a
r
-
E
n
d
C
I
P
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
1,
0
9
0
,
0
0
0
$
1,
0
0
7
,
0
0
0
$
1,
2
7
1
,
8
0
0
$
1,
6
1
8
,
9
6
8
$
1,
8
4
1
,
7
5
2
$
2,053,287$
CI
P
P
l
a
n
F
Y
2
0
0
9
-
F
Y
2
0
1
3
15
5
SO
L
I
D
W
A
S
T
E
F
U
N
D
RA
T
E
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
&
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
0
N
O
F
C
U
S
T
O
M
E
R
G
R
O
W
T
H
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY12FY13
Ra
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
/
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
In
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
3.
5
0
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.00
4.00
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
-
-
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
a
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
3.
5
0
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.00
4.00
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
-
-
-
-
-
-
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
B
a
s
e
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
3.
5
0
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.
0
0
4.00
4.00
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
:
Fr
o
m
P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
Y
e
a
r
(
s
)
22
.
0
0
22
.
0
0
22
.
0
0
22
.
0
0
22
.
0
0
22.00
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
22
.
0
0
22
.
0
0
22
.
0
0
22
.
0
0
22
.
0
0
22.00
15
6
SO
L
I
D
W
A
S
T
E
F
U
N
D
RE
V
E
N
U
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY12FY13
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
1,
9
0
4
,
0
0
0
$
1,
9
8
0
,
1
6
0
$
2,
0
5
9
,
3
6
6
$
2,
1
4
1
,
7
4
1
$
2,
2
2
7
,
4
1
1
$
2,316,507$
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
17
0
,
0
0
0
$
46
4
,
0
0
0
$
46
4
,
0
0
0
$
46
4
,
0
0
0
$
46
4
,
0
0
0
$
464,000$
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
40
,
0
0
0
$
40
,
0
0
0
$
40
,
0
0
0
$
40
,
0
0
0
$
40,000$
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
17
0
,
0
0
0
$
50
4
,
0
0
0
$
50
4
,
0
0
0
$
50
4
,
0
0
0
$
50
4
,
0
0
0
$
504,000$
15
7
CI
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
SO
L
I
D
W
A
S
T
E
F
U
N
D
It
e
m
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
s
b
y
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not
#
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
T
i
t
l
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
FY
1
1
FY
1
2
F
Y
1
3
TotalScheduled
SW
0
1
Fr
o
n
t
L
o
a
d
G
a
r
b
a
g
e
T
r
u
c
k
-
R
e
p
l
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
11
8
,
1
1
1
118,111
SW
0
2
Si
d
e
L
o
a
d
G
r
a
b
a
g
e
T
r
u
c
k
-
R
e
p
l
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
14
0
,
6
0
8
140,608
SW
0
3
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
T
r
u
c
k
-
R
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
Re
c
y
c
l
i
n
g
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
146,232
146,232
SW
0
4
Pi
c
k
u
p
T
r
u
c
k
(
2
)
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
21
,
6
3
2
22
,
4
9
7
44,129
SW
0
5
Si
d
e
L
o
a
d
G
r
a
b
a
g
e
T
r
u
c
k
-
R
e
p
l
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
2
0
0
,
0
0
0
146,232
346,232
SW
0
6
Fr
o
n
t
L
o
a
d
G
a
r
b
a
g
e
T
r
u
c
k
-
R
e
p
l
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
1
8
0
,
0
0
0
180,000 456,245
SW
0
8
To
t
e
D
e
l
i
v
e
r
y
T
r
u
c
k
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
3
2
,
0
0
0
32,000 -
SW
0
9
Si
d
e
L
o
a
d
G
r
a
b
a
g
e
T
r
u
c
k
-
R
e
p
l
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
1
3
0
,
0
0
0
130,000 177,144
SW
1
0
Fr
o
n
t
L
o
a
d
G
a
r
b
a
g
e
T
r
u
c
k
-
R
e
p
l
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
10
9
,
2
0
0
109,200 -
SW
1
1
Of
f
i
c
e
/
B
r
e
a
k
r
o
o
m
s
/
S
h
o
w
e
r
R
m
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
PR
O
J
E
C
T
1
7
5
,
0
0
0
175,000 -
SW
1
2
Si
d
e
L
o
a
d
G
r
a
b
a
g
e
T
r
u
c
k
-
R
e
p
l
Co
l
l
e
c
t
i
o
n
EQ
U
I
P
M
E
N
T
13
5
,
2
0
0
135,200 -
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
58
7
,
0
0
0
$
23
9
,
2
0
0
$
15
6
,
8
3
2
$
28
1
,
2
1
6
$
292,465
$
1,556,713$ 633,389$
15
8
Project Name:
Solid Waste – Replacement FRONT LOAD GARBAGE TRUCK
Estimated Cost:
$118,111 ($180,000 less $75,000 Trade In, inflated)
Project Number: Solid Waste – SW01 Date
Scheduled:
FY12
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is the replacement of an existing Front Load Garbage
truck. These Trucks are replaced on a 5 year cycle, with a
current estimated trade-in value of $75,000
Alternatives
Considered:
Drive trucks longer and realize a smaller trade in value; would
require more maintenance on older trucks.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Fleet of garbage trucks will be fully functioning, with a little
down-time for repairs as possible.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: not expected to be greater
than existing truck – should be less.
Funding
Sources:
100% Solid Waste Fund
159
Project Name:
Solid Waste – SIDE LOAD GARBAGE TRUCK Replacement
Estimated Cost:
$140,608 ($200,000 less $75,000 Trade In, inflated)
Project Number: Solid Waste – SW02 Date
Scheduled:
FY12
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is the replacement of an existing Side Load Garbage
truck in our fleet. These Trucks are replaced on a 4 year
cycle, with a current estimated trade-in value of $75,000
Alternatives
Considered:
Drive trucks longer and realize a smaller trade in value.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Fleet of garbage trucks will be fully functioning, with a little
down-time for repairs as possible.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: not expected to be greater
than existing truck – should be less.
Funding
Sources:
100% Solid Waste Fund
160
Project Name:
Solid Waste – Recycling Truck Replacement
Estimated Cost:
$146,232 (less trade in)
Project Number: Solid Waste – SW03 Date
Scheduled:
FY13
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is the replacement of the Curbside Recycling Truck,
anticipated to be purchased in FY08. If the curbside recycling
program is not approved, this item will not be needed.
Alternatives
Considered:
Drive trucks longer and realize a smaller trade in value.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Recycling truck will be fully functioning, with a little down-time
for repairs as possible.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: not expected to be greater
than existing truck – should be less.
Funding
Sources:
100% Solid Waste Fund
161
Project Name:
Solid Waste – Pickup Trucks (2)
Estimated Cost:
$21,632 in FY11 & $22,497 in FY12
Project Number: Solid Waste – SW04 Date
Scheduled:
FY11 & FY12
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is the replacement of two pickup trucks used in the Solid
Waste division. These trucks are on a 10 year replacement
cycle.
Alternatives
Considered:
Drive trucks longer and realize higher maintenance costs and
decreased reliability.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Truck will be fully functioning, with a little down-time for
repairs as possible.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: not expected to be greater
than existing truck – should be less.
Funding
Sources:
100% Solid Waste Fund
162
Project Name:
Solid Waste – SIDE LOAD GARBAGE TRUCK
Estimated Cost:
$200,000 in FY09; $146,232 (less trade in) when replaced in FY13
Project Number: Solid Waste – SW05 Date
Scheduled:
FY09 & FY13
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is the addition of a Side Load Garbage truck in our fleet
to handle new accounts. These Trucks are replaced on a 4
year cycle, with a current estimated trade-in value of $75,000.
This truck will need to be replaced in FY13.
Alternatives
Considered:
Drive trucks longer and realize a smaller trade in value.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Fleet of garbage trucks will be fully functioning, with a little
down-time for repairs as possible.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: not expected to be greater
than existing truck – should be less.
Funding
Sources:
100% Solid Waste Fund
163
Project Name:
Solid Waste – New FRONT LOAD GARBAGE TRUCK
Estimated Cost:
$180,000
Project Number: Solid Waste – SW06 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is the addition of a Front Load Garbage truck to our fleet
to service new accounts. These Trucks are replaced on a 5
year cycle, with a current estimated trade-in value of $75,000
Alternatives
Considered:
Drive trucks longer and realize a smaller trade in value.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Fleet of garbage trucks will be fully functioning, with a little
down-time for repairs as possible.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: not expected to be greater
than existing truck – should be less.
Funding
Sources:
100% Solid Waste Fund
164
Project Name:
Solid Waste –Tote Delivery Truck
Estimated Cost:
$32,000
Project Number: Solid Waste – SW08 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is the replacement of the tote delivery truck. This truck
delivers totes to solid waste customers and is equipped with
the proper equipment to safely haul, lift and place totes.
These trucks are on a 10 year replacement cycle.
Alternatives
Considered:
Drive trucks longer and realize higher maintenance costs and
decreased reliability.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Truck will be fully functioning, with a little down-time for
repairs as possible.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: not expected to be greater
than existing truck – should be less.
Funding
Sources:
100% Solid Waste Fund
165
Project Name:
Solid Waste – SIDE LOAD GARBAGE TRUCK Replacement
Estimated Cost:
$130,000 ($200,000 less $75,000 Trade In, inflated)
Project Number: Solid Waste – SW09 Date
Scheduled:
FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is the replacement of an existing Side Load Garbage
truck in our fleet. These Trucks are replaced on a 4 year
cycle, with a current estimated trade-in value of $75,000
Alternatives
Considered:
Drive trucks longer and realize a smaller trade in value.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Fleet of garbage trucks will be fully functioning, with a little
down-time for repairs as possible.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: not expected to be greater
than existing truck – should be less.
Funding
Sources:
100% Solid Waste Fund
166
Project Name:
Solid Waste – Replacement FRONT LOAD GARBAGE TRUCK
Estimated Cost:
$109,200 ($180,000 less $75,000 Trade In, inflated)
Project Number: Solid Waste – SW10 Date
Scheduled:
FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is the replacement of an existing Front Load Garbage
truck. These Trucks are replaced on a 5 year cycle, with a
current estimated trade-in value of $75,000
Alternatives
Considered:
Drive trucks longer and realize a smaller trade in value; would
require more maintenance on older trucks.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Fleet of garbage trucks will be fully functioning, with a little
down-time for repairs as possible.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: not expected to be greater
than existing truck – should be less.
Funding
Sources:
100% Solid Waste Fund
167
Project Name:
Solid Waste –Office Expansion
Estimated Cost:
$175,000
Project Number: Solid Waste – SW11 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is the expansion of the existing Solid Waste office space
at the Landfill site. The expansion would include increased
office space, breakroom area and a shower facility for
employees.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to operate in existing limited space
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Employees will have adequate office, restroom and
breakroom facilities.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: not estimated at this time.
Increase utility costs are expected.
Funding
Sources:
100% Solid Waste Fund
168
Project Name:
Solid Waste – SIDE LOAD GARBAGE TRUCK Replacement
Estimated Cost:
$135,200 ($200,000 less $75,000 Trade In, inflated)
Project Number: Solid Waste – SW12 Date
Scheduled:
FY11
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This is the replacement of an existing Side Load Garbage
truck in our fleet. These Trucks are replaced on a 4 year
cycle, with a current estimated trade-in value of $75,000
Alternatives
Considered:
Drive trucks longer and realize a smaller trade in value.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Fleet of garbage trucks will be fully functioning, with a little
down-time for repairs as possible.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: not expected to be greater
than existing truck – should be less.
Funding
Sources:
100% Solid Waste Fund
169
VE
H
I
C
L
E
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
F
U
N
D
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
O
F
C
I
P
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
S
,
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
A
N
D
E
X
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
CI
P
F
Y
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
3
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
39
0
$
3
9
0
$
3
9
0
$
3
9
0
$
3
9
0
$
A
d
d
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
22
,
3
9
0
-
-
-
-
-
L
e
s
s
:
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
C
I
P
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
22
,
0
0
0
-
-
-
-
-
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
e
a
r
-
E
n
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
39
0
$
39
0
$
39
0
$
39
0
$
39
0
$
390$
17
0
VE
H
I
C
L
E
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
F
U
N
D
RA
T
E
C
H
A
N
G
E
S
&
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
0
N
O
F
C
U
S
T
O
M
E
R
G
R
O
W
T
H
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY12FY13
Ra
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
/
C
u
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
In
f
l
a
t
i
o
n
a
r
y
A
d
j
u
s
t
m
e
n
t
-
-
-
-
-
-
In
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
1.
5
0
-
-
-
-
-
To
t
a
l
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
a
t
e
C
h
a
n
g
e
s
1.
5
0
-
-
-
-
-
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
-
-
-
-
-
-
To
t
a
l
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
I
n
c
r
e
a
s
e
i
n
B
a
s
e
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
1.
5
0
-
-
-
-
-
Pe
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
:
Fr
o
m
P
r
e
v
i
o
u
s
Y
e
a
r
(
s
)
2.
1
5
3.
6
5
-
-
-
-
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
1.
5
0
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
To
t
a
l
P
e
r
c
e
n
t
a
g
e
o
f
R
a
t
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
3.
6
5
3.
6
5
-
-
-
-
17
1
VE
H
I
C
L
E
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
F
U
N
D
RE
V
E
N
U
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
---
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY12FY13
Ba
s
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
f
o
r
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
i
o
n
s
60
4
,
3
5
0
$
60
4
,
3
5
0
$
60
4
,
3
5
0
$
60
4
,
3
5
0
$
60
4
,
3
5
0
$
604,350$
To
t
a
l
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
u
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
60
4
,
3
5
0
$
60
4
,
3
5
0
$
60
4
,
3
5
0
$
60
4
,
3
5
0
$
60
4
,
3
5
0
$
604,350$
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
22
,
0
5
9
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-$
Ad
d
:
G
r
a
n
t
s
B
o
n
d
I
s
s
u
e
s
I
N
T
E
R
C
A
P
O
t
h
e
r
(
S
R
F
)
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
22
,
0
5
9
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-$
17
2
CI
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
VE
H
I
C
L
E
M
A
I
N
T
E
N
A
N
C
E
#
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
T
i
t
l
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
FY
1
1
FY
1
2
F
Y
1
3
TotalScheduled
No
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
L
i
s
t
e
d
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
-$ -$
17
3
ST
R
E
E
T
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
F
U
N
D
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
O
F
C
I
P
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
S
,
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
A
N
D
E
X
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
CI
P
P
l
a
n
F
Y
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
3
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
5,
0
9
1
,
0
0
0
$
6,
6
3
1
,
0
0
0
$
2,
8
5
1
,
0
0
0
$
2,
7
4
5
,
8
0
0
$
(7
9
,
6
0
8
)
$
4,179,968$
A
d
d
:
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
3,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
3,
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
3,
2
4
4
,
8
0
0
3,
3
7
4
,
5
9
2
3,
5
0
9
,
5
7
6
3,649,959
O
t
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
-
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
1,
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
-
L
e
s
s
:
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
C
I
P
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
1,
4
6
0
,
0
0
0
6,
9
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
11
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
60
0
,
0
0
0
2,950,000
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
e
a
r
-
E
n
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
6,
6
3
1
,
0
0
0
$
2,
8
5
1
,
0
0
0
$
2,
7
4
5
,
8
0
0
$
(7
9
,
6
0
8
)
$
4,
1
7
9
,
9
6
8
$
4,879,926$
17
4
ST
R
E
E
T
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
F
U
N
D
RE
V
E
N
U
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY
1
2
FY13
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
3,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3,
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
3,
3
0
7
,
5
0
0
$
3,
4
7
2
,
8
7
5
$
3,
6
4
6
,
5
1
9
$
3,828,845
$
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Im
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
3,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3,
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
3,
2
4
4
,
8
0
0
$
3,
3
7
4
,
5
9
2
$
3,
5
0
9
,
5
7
6
$
3,649,959
$
Ad
d
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
:
S
I
D
o
r
O
t
h
e
r
:
S
I
F
0
8
-
D
u
r
s
t
o
n
(
F
o
w
l
e
r
t
o
C
o
t
t
o
n
w
o
o
d
)
2,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
S
I
D
o
r
O
t
h
e
r
:
S
I
F
1
1
-
O
a
k
(
R
o
u
s
e
t
o
C
e
d
a
r
)
3,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
S
t
a
t
e
U
r
b
a
n
F
u
n
d
s
:
S
I
F
0
6
-
C
o
l
l
e
g
e
(
M
a
i
n
t
o
1
9
t
h
)
2,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
S
I
D
o
r
O
t
h
e
r
:
S
I
F
0
2
-
B
a
x
t
e
r
(
1
9
t
h
t
o
C
o
t
t
o
n
w
o
o
d
)
1,
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
-
-
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,
0
5
0
,
0
0
0
1,
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
-
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
A
l
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
3,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
3,
1
2
0
,
0
0
0
$
5,
2
4
4
,
8
0
0
$
8,
4
2
4
,
5
9
2
$
4,
8
5
9
,
5
7
6
$
3,649,959
$
17
5
CI
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
ST
R
E
E
T
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
It
e
m
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
s
b
y
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not
#
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
T
i
t
l
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
FY
1
1
FY
1
2
F
Y
1
3
TotalScheduled
SI
F
0
1
RIG
H
T
O
F
W
A
Y
A
C
Q
U
I
S
I
T
I
O
N
ST
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
10
0
,
0
0
0
10
0
,
0
0
0
10
0
,
0
0
0
10
0
,
0
0
0
500,000
SI
F
0
2
BA
X
T
E
R
(
1
9
T
H
T
O
C
O
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
)
ST
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
50
0
,
0
0
0
2,
8
5
0
,
0
0
0
3,350,000
SI
F
0
3
BA
X
T
E
R
(
7
T
H
T
O
1
9
T
H
)
ST
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
2
,
7
0
0
,
0
0
0
2,700,000
SI
F
0
4
CH
U
R
C
H
ST
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
-
5
,
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
SI
F
0
5
CO
L
L
E
G
E
(
8
T
H
T
O
1
9
T
H
)
ST
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
-
2
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
SI
F
0
6
CO
L
L
E
G
E
(
M
A
I
N
T
O
1
9
T
H
)
ST
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
25
0
,
0
0
0
4,
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
5,150,000
SI
F
0
8
DU
R
S
T
O
N
(
F
O
W
L
E
R
T
O
C
O
T
T
O
N
W
O
O
D
)
ST
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
4,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,000,000
SI
F
0
9
KA
G
Y
(
W
I
L
L
S
O
N
T
O
1
9
T
H
)
ST
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
-
6
,
6
5
0
,
0
0
0
SI
F
1
0
OA
K
(
C
E
D
A
R
T
O
M
A
I
N
S
T
R
E
E
T
)
ST
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
-
U
N
K
N
O
W
N
SI
F
1
1
OA
K
(
R
O
U
S
E
T
O
C
E
D
A
R
)
ST
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
50
0
,
0
0
0
6,
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
7,500,000
SI
F
1
5
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
:
1
1
T
H
&
C
O
L
L
E
G
E
ST
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
350,000
SI
F
1
6
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
:
1
1
T
H
&
K
A
G
Y
ST
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
500,000
SI
F
1
8
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
:
1
5
T
H
&
O
A
K
ST
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
500,000
SI
F
1
9
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
:
2
7
t
h
&
O
A
K
ST
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
-
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
SI
F
2
0
IN
T
E
R
S
E
C
T
I
O
N
C
O
N
T
R
O
L
:
7
t
h
&
K
A
G
Y
ST
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
500,000
SI
F
2
1
GR
A
F
S
T
R
E
E
T
C
O
N
N
E
C
T
I
O
N
ST
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1,000,000
To
t
a
l
6,
9
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5,
3
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
11
,
2
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
60
0
,
0
0
0
$
2,
9
5
0
,
0
0
0
$
27,050,000
$
14,950,000$
No
t
e
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
s
o
u
r
ce
s
(
i
e
.
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
o
n
s
,
g
r
a
n
t
s
,
u
r
b
a
n
f
un
d
s
,
o
r
d
ev
e
l
o
p
e
r
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
)
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
"
t
o
t
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
s
t
s
"
,
w
i
t
h
c
o
r
r
e
s
po
n
d
i
n
g
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
i
n
a
n
c
e
d
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
w
i
t
h
C
i
t
y
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
b
u
t
o
u
t
o
f
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
C
i
t
y
f
u
n
ds
a
r
e
s
h
o
w
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
m
o
u
n
t
i
n
ea
c
h
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
I
P
.
17
6
Project Name:
Right of Way Acquisition (on-going)
Estimated Cost: $100,000 each year
Project Number: Street Impact Fees – SIF
01
Date
Scheduled:
FY09 –
FY13
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Annual allocation available for right-of-way purchases as they become
available. Purchasing additional right-of-way is critical to expanding the
capacity of streets in the city.
This is deemed to be 100% impact fee eligible – as additional right-of-way
is not required if we are not expanding the capacity of the street.
Alternatives
Considered:
1. Condemn property for right-of-way; pay court costs as well as
appraised value of property. Time consuming for city staff and a relatively
expensive process.
2. Wait for land to develop and acquire additional right-of-way through
annexation or subdivision.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Provides dollars for the purchase of necessary right-of-way as it becomes
available on the market. Avoids the expensive, antagonistic
condemnation process where possible.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Street Impact Fees can not be
spent on operating and maintaining facilities. There is expected to be a
very minimal, incremental cost to the Street Maintenance District from this
expenditure.
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Impact Fees
177
Project Name:
Baxter (19TH to Cottonwood)
Estimated Cost: Total Project: $3,350,000; $2,000,000 from Street Impact Fees
Project Number: Street Impact Fees –
SIF 02
Date
Scheduled:
Design – FY12
Const. – FY13
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Reconstruct Baxter Lane (from 19th Avenue to Cottonwood) to a Minor
Arterial standard as shown in the Transportation Plan.
Continued development in the northwest quadrant of the City insures that
this improvement will be needed in the not too distant future.
It is estimated that approximately 60% of this project will be eligible for
impact fees. The remainder of project costs would need to come from
Special Improvement District assessments on property in the area.
Construction is expected to occur in FY13
Alternatives
Considered:
Full payment by SID, or developer constructed.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improved capacity and safety in this corridor;
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in
sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate
of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually.
Funding
Sources:
60% - Street Impact Fees = $2,000,000
40% - Special Improvement District (SID) or Other = $1,350,000
178
Project Name:
Baxter (7th to 19TH)
Estimated Cost: Total Project: $2,700,000
Project Number: Street Impact Fees –
SIF 03
Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Reconstruct Baxter Lane (from North 7th Avenue to North 19th Avenue) to
meet the collector standard identified in the Greater Bozeman Area
Transportation Plan 2001 Update.
Baxter Lane is positioned to become a major commercial thoroughfare
due to the presence of B2 zoning on the south side of the road from 19th
Avenue to 7th Avenue.
The 2001 Greater Bozeman Area Transportation Plan Update identifies
Baxter Lane as a collector standard and projects that by 2020 the road will
be carrying 5,500 vehicles per day, more than double what it currently
carries.
Proposals for development have recently been submitted to the City which
will necessitate that the roadway be improved prior to initiation of
construction of those developments. The presence of Interstate 90 along
most of the northern boundary of this roadway severely limits alternative
sources of funding, SID creation for instance.
Alternatives
Considered:
Use of Urban Funds, developer contributions, or creation of an SID.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improved safety and capacity, both for motorized vehicles as well as
bicycles and pedestrians. The use of street impact fee funds enables the
community to leverage the available State Urban transportation funds to
complete other projects and address more of the city’s pressing
transportation needs.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in
sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate
of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually.
Funding
Sources:
100% - Street Impact Fees = $2,700,000
179
Project Name:
Church
Estimated Cost: Total Project: $9,600,000; Street Impact Fees $5,800,000
Project Number: Street Impact Fees –
SIF 04
Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Reconstruct Church Avenue to the collector standard identified in the
Transportation plan from Main Street to Kagy Boulevard.
The need for this project comes from increased traffic due to growth in the
South Bozeman area as well as the county area south of Bozeman–
making this project eligible for impact fee funds.
While this improvement is identified in the transportation plan as
recommended major improvement 26, Right-of-Way issues will likely make
this one of the most difficult and expensive street projects in the City’s
future.
Church is designated an Urban Route, and would be eligible for the
expenditure of Urban Funds.
Alternatives
Considered:
Use of Urban Funds, or creation of an SID for full financing.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improved safety and capacity, both for motorized vehicles as well as
bicycles and pedestrians. The use of street impact fee funds enables the
community to leverage the available State Urban transportation funds to
complete other projects and address more of the city’s pressing
transportation needs.
Estimated New
Future
Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in
sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate
of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually.
Funding
Sources:
60% - Street Impact Fees = $5,800,000
40% - Urban Funds, SID, or other sources = $3,800,000
180
Project Name:
College (8th to 19th)
Estimated Cost: Total Project: $3,350,000; Street Impact Fees $2,000,000
Project Number: Street Impact Fees –
SIF 05
Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Reconstruct West College Street (from 8th Avenue to 19th Avenue) to a
minor arterial standard as shown in the Transportation Plan.
This section of West College has already exceeded the volume of traffic it
was projected to carry in 2020 according to the Transportation Plan.
Planned improvements to South 19th and increased development in the
South 19th corridor will only further increase traffic demand on this facility.
Additionally this facility lacks pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Alternatives
Considered:
Use of Urban funds for full financing, CTEP grants if available.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improved safety and capacity, both for motorized vehicles as well as
bicycles and pedestrians.
The use of street impact fee funds enables the community to leverage the
available State Urban transportation funds to complete other projects and
address more of the city’s pressing transportation needs.
Estimated New
Future
Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in
sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate
of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually.
Funding
Sources:
60% - Street Impact Fees = $2,000,000
40% - State Urban Funds = $1,350,000
Photo #1
181
Project Name:
College (Main to 19th)
Estimated Cost: Total Project: $5,150,000; Street Impact Fees $3,100,000
Project Number: Street Impact Fees –
SIF 06
Date
Scheduled:
FY09 - FY11
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Reconstruct West College Street from Main Street (Huffine Lane) to 19th
Avenue to a principal arterial standard as shown in the Transportation
Plan. This section of West College has already exceeded the volume of
traffic it was projected to carry in 2010 according to the Transportation
Plan. In the peak AM hour traffic is backed up from 19th to Huffine and
beyond.
Planned improvements to South 19th and increased development in the
Huffine Lane corridor will only further increase traffic demand on this
facility. In addition this facility lacks pedestrian and bicycle facilities.
Alternatives
Considered:
Use of Urban funds for full financing, CTEP grants if available.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improved safety and capacity, both for motorized vehicles as well as
bicycles and pedestrians.
The use of street impact fee funds enables the community to leverage the
available State Urban transportation funds to complete other projects and
address more of the city’s pressing transportation needs.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in
sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate
of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually.
Funding
Sources:
60% - Street Impact Fees = $3,100,000
40% - State Urban Funds = $2,050,000
Photo #1
182
Project Name:
Durston (Fowler to Cottonwood)
Estimated Cost: Total Project: $5,000,000; Street Impact Fees $3,000,000
Project Number: Street Impact Fees –
SIF 08
Date
Scheduled:
FY09 & FY10
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
While this section of Durston Road was not anticipated in the 1993
Transportation Plan to carry significant traffic volumes, it is apparent from
recent development activity that the areas served by this collector roadway
may cause the predicted volumes to be exceeded.
Incremental improvement of Durston Road with development projects may
be possible, thus preventing a severe drop in service level similar to that
experienced on West Babcock Street.
Alternatives
Considered:
SID for full financing, or incremental construction by developers.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improved safety and capacity, both for motorized vehicles as well as
bicycles and pedestrians.
The use of street impact fee funds enables the community to leverage the
available State Urban transportation funds to complete other projects and
address more of the city’s pressing transportation needs.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in
sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate
of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually.
Funding
Sources:
60% - Street Impact Fees = $3,000,000
40% - Special Improvement District = $2,000,000
183
Project Name:
Kagy (Willson to 19th)
Estimated Cost: Total Project: $6,650,000; Street Impact Fees $4,000,000
Project Number: Street Impact Fees – SIF
09
Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Widen Kagy Boulevard and add turning lanes at key intersections. This
portion of Kagy currently carries about 9,000 vehicles per day.
The capacity this two lane street can reasonably carry is about 12,000
vehicles per day. Expansion of capacity will be needed in the foreseeable
future to handle current and future traffic loads.
Kagy serves as an important element of Bozeman's perimeter street
system connecting Highland Blvd., Willson Ave. and S.19th. It also serves
as the primary access to Montana State University and the University's
major athletic facilities.
Alternatives
Considered:
Pursue the use of Urban Funds.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Kagy is a State Urban Route and is eligible for expenditure of State urban
funds designated annually for the City of Bozeman; however, the
availability of urban funds cannot match the pace of the City's
transportation improvement needs.
The need for this project comes from increased traffic due to growth in the
Bozeman area and the project is eligible for Impact Fee Funds. Use of
Street Impact Funds enables the community to leverage the available
State Urban transportation funds to complete projects and address more of
its pressing transportation needs.
Estimated New
Future
Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in
sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate
of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually.
Funding
Sources:
60% - Street Impact Fees = $4,000,000
40% - State Urban Funds = $2,650,000
184
Project Name:
Oak (Cedar to Main)
Estimated Cost: Total Project: UNKNOWN
Project Number: Street Impact Fees –
SIF 10
Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Construct Oak Street from Rouse to Cedar to a collector standard as
identified in the Transportation Plan.
This would make development of an important and underutilized portion of
the City possible, including reclamation of what was a superfund site
(Idaho Pole).
Because of the complicated right-of-way, superfund, and wetland issues, it
is very difficult to estimate the costs of this project. It is included in this
schedule with costs “Unknown” because it has been identified as a project
that could significantly improve travel, if it could be built.
Alternatives
Considered:
SID or Developer Contributions for full construction.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
The need for this project comes from increased traffic due to growth in the
Bozeman area and the project is eligible for Impact Fee Funds.
Use of Street Impact Funds enables the community to leverage the
available State Urban transportation funds to complete projects and
address more of its pressing transportation needs.
Estimated New
Future
Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in
sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate
of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually.
Funding
Sources:
Given the fact that this portion of street does not currently exist, the project
will likely be eligible for Street Impact Fees. However, given the scope of
the project, costs are unknown.
185
Project Name:
Oak (Rouse to Cedar)
Estimated Cost: Total Project: $7,500,000; Street Impact Fees $4,500,000
Project Number: Street Impact Fees –
SIF 11
Date
Scheduled:
FY09 –
FY11
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Construct Oak Street from Rouse to Cedar to a collector standard as
identified in the Transportation Plan.
This would make development of an important and underutilized portion of
the City possible, including reclamation of what was a superfund site
(Idaho Pole).
Alternatives
Considered:
SID or Developer Contributions for full construction.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Kagy is a State Urban Route and is eligible for expenditure of State urban
funds designated annually for the City of Bozeman; however, the
availability of urban funds cannot match the pace of the City's
transportation improvement needs.
The need for this project comes from increased traffic due to growth in the
Bozeman area and the project is eligible for Impact Fee Funds. Use of
Street Impact Funds enables the community to leverage the available
State Urban transportation funds to complete projects and address more
of its pressing transportation needs.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in
sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate
of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually.
Funding
Sources:
60% - Street Impact Fees = $4,500,000
40% - Other Sources (Developer Contribution, SID, TIF) = $3,000,000
186
City of Bozeman Capital Improvements Plan FY09-13
Project Name:
Warrant Analysis and Intersection Control: 11th
& College
Estimated Cost: $10,000 Warrant Analysis; $350,000 Intersection Control (if warranted)
Project Number: Street Impact Fees –
SIF 15
Date
Scheduled:
FY08 - Analysis
FY09 - Signal
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Control of the intersection of 11th Avenue and College Street, a collector
and a minor arterial. This intersection is currently under 4 way stop
control and back-ups at peak hours are already significant. Volumes are
approaching those predicted for 2020, and with increasing development to
the immediate west and south the city, warrants will likely be met in the
very near future (if they haven’t already).
There may be some emergency maintenance/repair events should the
signal fail per an existing agreement with MDT, but in general this will be
an MDT maintained signal.
This project is identified as TSM-32 in the Transportation Plan.
Alternatives
Considered:
Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by the Montana
Department of Transportation. Create an SID or identify and apply for
other potential sources of funding (CMAQ…)
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improved traffic flow and safety at this intersection.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Impact Fees can not be spent
on operating and maintenance costs. In general, signal maintenance
costs are borne by the State of Montana.
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Impact Fees
Photos #1
187
City of Bozeman Capital Improvements Plan FY09-13
Project Name:
Intersection Control: 11th & Kagy
Estimated Cost: $350,000
Project Number: Street Impact Fees –
SIF 16
Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Control of the intersection of 11th Avenue and Kagy Boulevard, a collector
and an arterial. Recent development proposals (primarily south of Kagy as
well as the Hospital) indicate that the need for this improvement will soon
be warranted.
If a signal is chosen, there may be some emergency maintenance/repair
events should a signal fail per an existing agreement with MDT, but in
general this would be an MDT maintained signal.
This project is listed as TSM 35 in the Transportation Plan.
Alternatives
Considered:
Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by the Montana
Department of Transportation. Create an SID or identify and apply for
other potential sources of funding (CMAQ…)
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improved traffic flow and safety at this intersection.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating Costs:
Annual Maintenance Costs:
Other Non-Capital Costs:
Total: none
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Impact Fees
188
Project Name:
Intersection Control: 15th & Oak
Estimated Cost: $500,000
Project Number: Street Impact Fees –
SIF 18
Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Control of the intersection of 15th Avenue and Oak Street, a collector and
an arterial. Recent development proposals indicate that the need for this
improvement will soon be warranted.
If a signal is chosen, there may be some emergency maintenance/repair
events should the signal fail per an existing agreement with MDT, but in
general this will be an MDT maintained signal.
Alternatives
Considered:
Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by the Montana
Department of Transportation. Create an SID or identify and apply for
other potential sources of funding (CMAQ…)
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improved traffic flow and safety at this intersection.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating Costs:
Annual Maintenance Costs:
Other Non-Capital Costs:
Total: none
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Impact Fees
189
Project Name:
Intersection Control: 27th & Oak
Estimated Cost: $500,000
Project Number: Street Impact Fees –
SIF 19
Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Control of the intersection of 27th Avenue and Oak Street, a collector and
an arterial. Recent development proposals indicate that the need for this
improvement will soon be warranted.
If a signal is chosen, there may be some emergency maintenance/repair
events should the signal fail per an existing agreement with MDT, but in
general this will be an MDT maintained signal.
.
Alternatives
Considered:
Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by the Montana
Department of Transportation. Create an SID or identify and apply for other
potential sources of funding (CMAQ…)
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improved traffic flow and safety at this intersection.
Estimated New
Future
Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating Costs:
Annual Maintenance Costs:
Other Non-Capital Costs:
Total: none
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Impact Fees
190
Project Name:
Intersection Control: 7th & Kagy
Estimated Cost: $500,000
Project Number: Street Impact Fees –
SIF 20
Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Control of the intersection of 7th Avenue and Kagy, a collector and an
arterial. Recent development proposals indicate that the need for this
improvement will soon be warranted.
If a signal is chosen, there may be some emergency maintenance/repair
events should the signal fail per an existing agreement with MDT, but in
general this will be an MDT maintained signal.
Alternatives
Considered:
Do nothing or consider other alternatives as suggested by the Montana
Department of Transportation. Create an SID or identify and apply for
other potential sources of funding (CMAQ…)
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improved traffic flow and safety at this intersection.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating Costs:
Annual Maintenance Costs:
Other Non-Capital Costs:
Total: none
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Impact Fees
191
Project Name:
Graf Street Extension/Connection
Estimated Cost: $1,000,000
Project Number: Street Impact Fees –
SIF 21
Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is to extend Graf Street approximately ¼ mile in order to
connect the street to allow through traffic to flow east from 19th Avenue.
This is an important connection for public safety purposes – allowing fire
service to meet their response time requirements in areas where they
currently cannot.
Alternatives
Considered:
Do nothing and wait for development to connect the street.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improved traffic flow and better emergency response to the local area.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Incremental increases in
sweeping, plowing and general maintenance costs. Current cost estimate
of $8,725 per street mile maintained annually.
Funding
Sources:
100% Street Impact Fee – to be recovered by developer payback.
192
FI
R
E
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
F
U
N
D
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
O
F
C
I
P
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
S
,
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
A
N
D
E
X
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
CI
P
F
Y
2
0
0
9
-
2
0
1
3
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
---
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
2
,
1
8
8
,
0
0
0
$
3
2
8
,
0
0
0
$
(
2
7
,
4
0
0
)
$
2
8
6
,
2
6
4
$
6
1
2
,
4
7
5
$
9
5
1
,
7
3
4
$
A
d
d
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
29
0
,
0
0
0
30
1
,
6
0
0
31
3
,
6
6
4
32
6
,
2
1
1
339,259
2,452,829
L
e
s
s
:
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
C
I
P
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
2,
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
65
7
,
0
0
0
-
-
- 3,369,730
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
e
a
r
-
E
n
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
32
8
,
0
0
0
$
(2
7
,
4
0
0
)
$
28
6
,
2
6
4
$
61
2
,
4
7
5
$
951,734
$
34,833$
**
F
Y
0
8
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
i
n
c
l
u
d
e
s
b
u
d
g
e
t
f
o
r
t
h
e
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
o
f
F
i
r
e
S
t
a
t
i
o
n
#
3
.
A
c
t
u
a
l
b
i
d
p
r
i
c
e
w
o
n
'
t
b
e
a
v
a
i
l
a
b
l
e
u
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
S
p
r
i
n
g
o
f
2
0
0
8
.
Page 1
19
3
FI
R
E
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
F
U
N
D
RE
V
E
N
U
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY
1
2
FY13
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
29
0
,
0
0
0
$
30
1
,
6
0
0
$
31
3
,
6
6
4
$
32
6
,
2
1
1
$
33
9
,
2
5
9
$
352,829
$
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Im
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
29
0
,
0
0
0
$
30
1
,
6
0
0
$
31
3
,
6
6
4
$
32
6
,
2
1
1
$
33
9
,
2
5
9
$
352,829
$
Ad
d
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
:
B
o
n
d
I
s
s
u
e
o
r
O
t
h
e
r
2,100,000
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
-
-
-
-
-
2
,
1
0
0
,
0
0
0
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
A
l
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
29
0
,
0
0
0
$
30
1
,
6
0
0
$
31
3
,
6
6
4
$
32
6
,
2
1
1
$
33
9
,
2
5
9
$
2,452,829
$
No
t
e
s
:
Page 2
19
4
CI
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
FI
R
E
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
It
e
m
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
s
b
y
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not
#
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
T
i
t
l
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Ca
t
e
g
o
r
y
FY
0
9
F
Y
1
0
FY
1
1
FY
1
2
F
Y
1
3
TotalScheduled
FIF
0
1
F
I
R
E
E
N
G
I
N
E
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
#
3
FI
R
E
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
4
9
4
,
0
0
0
494,000
FIF
0
3
T
R
A
F
F
I
C
S
I
G
N
A
L
P
R
E
E
M
P
T
I
O
N
FI
R
E
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
1
6
3
,
0
0
0
163,000
FIF
0
6
F
I
R
E
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
#
4
FI
R
E
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
2,771,366
2,771,366
FIF
0
7
F
I
R
E
E
N
G
I
N
E
S
T
A
T
I
O
N
#
4
FI
R
E
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
S
Eq
u
i
p
m
e
n
t
598,363
598,363
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
65
7
,
0
0
0
$
-
$
-
$
-
$
3
,
3
6
9
,
7
3
0
$
4,026,730$ -$ Page 3
19
5
City of Bozeman Capital Improvements Plan FY09-13
Project Name:
Fire Engine for Station #3
Estimated Cost: $494,000
Project Number: Fire Impact Fees – FIF01 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is the purchase of an engine and accompanying equipment
for use out of new Fire Station 3.
It will be necessary to have this engine at the Station when it opens.
There is an estimated X month lead time in delivery of this type of
equipment.
Because Station #3 is required to serve additional city growth since 1995,
100% of the costs of this equipment purchase can be paid for through
impact fees.
Alternatives
Considered:
Use of 1989 Pierce Reserve Pumper Darley; buy a used engine;
lease/purchase an engine.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Purchase of this unit will adequately equip Station 3 for fire and other
emergency responses.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Impact Fees can not be used for
annual operating and maintenance costs. The City’s General Fund will
pay for the increased fuel, maintenance and insurance costs associated
with this engine, estimated at less than $30,000 per year.
Funding
Sources:
100% Fire Impact Fees
196
City of Bozeman Capital Improvements Plan FY09-13
Project Name:
Traffic Signal Preemption Program
Estimated Cost: $163,000
Project Number: Fire Impact Fees – FIF03 Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is the installation of ten (10) fire apparatus emitters,
intersection wiring, and signal receivers at approximately 17 city
intersections to improve response times to emergencies throughout the
community. This dual priority system uses precisely timed impulses of high
intensity light in several wavelengths to activate a traffic control system
which facilitates emergency vehicle response. Its dual priority capability
allows the system to give top priority to emergency vehicles and
secondary priority to other users, such as snow plows.
For the last several years, most of the new traffic signals installed in
Bozeman have included the signal-based modules and will not require
upgrade as a part of this project.
The installation of this system will allow traffic the green signal in the
direction of the emergency responder, thus, facilitating travel to the
emergency. Nationwide, this system's installation has reduced average
emergency response times by as much as 17 to 20%, according to the
vendor. Because Station location is based on response time, improving
emergency response times generally decreases the need for additional
physical fire stations to be built.
This project will coincide with the MDOT’s installation of signal receivers
on Main Street during their Summer 2007 project. They will be funding the
costs for the Main Street portion, estimated at approx $9,000 per signal,
including labor.
Alternatives
Considered:
Continue to operate without a signal preemption system.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
This system's installation improves emergency response time and, more
importantly, response safety in those communities where it is used. Its
dual priority capability allows other users under a priority system to access
signal preemption. It severely reduces the need for our emergency
responders to occasionally travel into opposing lanes of traffic, a risky
route to negotiate. And, it clearly allows traffic movement in the direction
by the emergency responder.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Impact Fees can not be used for
annual operating and maintenance costs. The General Fund will need to
provide for repair and replacement of system components as they outlive
their useful life.
Funding
Sources:
100% Fire Impact Fees
197
City of Bozeman Capital Improvements Plan FY09-13
Project Name:
Fire Station #4 – South West Bozeman
Estimated Cost: $2,771,366
Project Number: Fire Impact Fees – FIF06 Date
Scheduled:
FY13
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is identified as the top priority in the adopted Fire Facility Plan
because most of the City's north and west areas are located such that our
response time exceeds four to six minutes for fire and medical
emergencies.
Land acquisition costs are not included. The City currently owns the site
on the southwest corner of 19th Avenue and Graf Street, which is ideally
situated for this station.
This station will be needed as our community grows in its South West
Quadrant. We will need to watch annexations and subdivisions within the
area and schedule this project accordingly. As of today, we believe that
this project will need to be constructed in FY13.
Alternatives
Considered:
Many are available: Scale down the project size and/or materials used in
construction to accommodate a residential type facility similar to Station
#2; require automatic sprinkler systems as built-in protection for all new
construction located outside of existing stations' response time service
districts; continue operating under current resources; relocated existing
stations; accept longer-than-historical response times and high life and fire
losses; acquire fire district's fixed facilities as annexation by the City
continues.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
The completion of this project would enhance our ability to respond to
growing parts of the community within a time frame that has been
historically acceptable to the citizens of Bozeman.
Station #1 and #2 are located in areas which ineffectively serve the
existing community as well as the portions which are on Rouse street, a
heavily traveled way with a stop light, which occasionally limits our drivers
to unsafe access to Rouse or Mendenhall.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Impact Fees can not be spent on
operations and maintenance costs. The City’s General Fund will bear the
annual operating and maintenance expenses associated with this facility,
estimated at $1,200,000, including all crew personnel.
Funding
Sources:
100% Fire Impact Fees
198
City of Bozeman Capital Improvements Plan FY09-13
Project Name:
Fire Engine for Station #4
Estimated Cost: $598,363
Project Number: Fire Impact Fees – FIF07 Date
Scheduled:
FY13
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement □ Facility ■ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is the purchase of an engine and accompanying equipment
for use out of new Fire Station 4.
It will be necessary to have this engine at the Station when it opens.
There is an estimated 12 month lead time in delivery of this type of
equipment.
This engine will be needed for Station #4, which will be required as our
community grows in its South West Quadrant. We will need to watch
annexations and subdivisions within the area and schedule this project
accordingly. As of today, we believe that this piece of equipment will need
to be purchased in FY13.
Alternatives
Considered:
Use of 1989 Pierce Reserve Pumper Darley; buy a used engine;
lease/purchase an engine.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Purchase of this unit will adequately equip Station #4 for fire and other
emergency responses.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Impact Fees can not be used for
annual operating and maintenance costs. The City’s General Fund will
pay for the increased fuel, maintenance and insurance costs associated
with this engine, estimated at less than $30,000 per year.
Funding
Sources:
100% Fire Impact Fees
199
WA
T
E
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
F
U
N
D
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
O
F
C
I
P
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
S
,
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
A
N
D
E
X
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
CI
P
F
Y
0
9
-
1
3
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
---
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
jec
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
5,
6
4
9
,
0
7
7
$
5,
6
5
7
,
3
3
5
$
7,
0
5
3
,
5
3
5
$
8,
6
8
1
,
5
8
3
$
5,
8
9
4
,
7
5
3
$
3,196,450$
A
d
d
:
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
1,
9
6
7
,
5
0
0
2,
0
4
6
,
2
0
0
2,
1
2
8
,
0
4
8
2,
2
1
3
,
1
7
0
2,
3
0
1
,
6
9
7
2,393,765
L
e
s
s
:
T
o
t
a
l
C
r
e
d
i
t
s
-
-
-
-
-
-
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
C
I
P
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
1,
9
5
9
,
2
4
2
65
0
,
0
0
0
50
0
,
0
0
0
5,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
1,874,886
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
e
a
r
-
E
n
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
5,
6
5
7
,
3
3
5
$
7,
0
5
3
,
5
3
5
$
8,
6
8
1
,
5
8
3
$
5,
8
9
4
,
7
5
3
$
3,
1
9
6
,
4
5
0
$
3,715,328$
20
0
WA
T
E
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
F
U
N
D
RE
V
E
N
U
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY
1
2
FY13
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
1,
9
6
7
,
5
0
0
$
1,
9
6
7
,
5
0
0
$
2,
0
4
6
,
2
0
0
$
2,
1
2
8
,
0
4
8
$
2,
2
1
3
,
1
7
0
$
2,301,697
$
Gr
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
Im
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
1,
9
6
7
,
5
0
0
2,
0
4
6
,
2
0
0
2,
1
2
8
,
0
4
8
2,
2
1
3
,
1
7
0
2,
3
0
1
,
6
9
7
2,393,765
Ad
d
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
:
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
-
-
-
-
-
-
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
A
l
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
1,
9
6
7
,
5
0
0
$
1,
9
6
7
,
5
0
0
$
2,
0
4
6
,
2
0
0
$
2,
1
2
8
,
0
4
8
$
2,
2
1
3
,
1
7
0
$
2,301,697
$
No
t
e
s
:
20
1
CI
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
WA
T
E
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
It
e
m
R
e
f
#
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
s
b
y
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
N
o
t
#
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
T
i
t
l
e
D
e
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
/
D
i
v
i
s
i
o
n
Cat
e
gor
y
FY
0
9
F
Y
1
0
FY
1
1
FY
1
2
F
Y
1
3
TotalScheduled
W0
7
2
2
M
G
M
E
M
B
R
A
N
E
W
A
T
E
R
T
R
E
A
T
M
E
N
T
P
L
A
N
T
Wa
t
e
r
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
5
0
0
,
0
0
0
50
0
,
0
0
0
5,0
0
0
,
0
0
0
5,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
-
1
1
,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
WI
F
0
1
S
O
U
R
D
O
U
G
H
C
R
EE
K
D
A
M
Wa
t
e
r
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
- 20,000,000
WI
F
0
3
5
.
3
M
G
C
O
N
C
R
E
T
E
W
A
T
E
R
S
T
O
R
A
G
E
R
ES
E
R
V
O
I
R
W
a
t
e
r
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
- 5,300,000
WI
F
0
5
R
E
D
U
N
D
A
N
T
T
R
A
N
S
M
I
S
S
I
O
N
M
A
I
N
F
R
O
M
W
T
P
Wa
t
e
r
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1,
87
4
,
8
8
6
1,874,886 19,880,000
WI
F
0
7
G
R
A
F
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
Wa
t
e
r
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1
5
0
,
0
0
0
150,000
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
65
0
,
0
0
0
$
50
0
,
0
0
0
$
5,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
5,
0
0
0
,
0
0
0
$
1,
8
7
4
,
8
8
6
$
13,024,886$ 45,180,000$
20
2
Project Name:
22MG Membrane Water Treatment Plant
Estimated Cost: $33.2 Million Total
Project Number: Water Plant – W07 Date
Scheduled:
FY08-FY12
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This new Membrane Filter Treatment Plant is the preferred water treatment
alternative identified in the adopted Water Facility Plan. It is recommended
to be built with an initial configuration providing 22MGD of water treatment
capacity, with future expansion capability to 36MGD. This addresses both
the 10- and 20- year capacity requirement forecast for the City’s water
treatment system.
The current 15MGD WTP equipment is nearing the end of its useful life;
the plant’s direct filtration treatment process, while effective most of the
year, becomes only marginally effective during spring runoff or flash
thunderstorms in the watershed, dropping plant efficiency as low as 70%;
and, rapid population growth and expansion of city water services is
increasing demand for water. The current plant capacity may be exceeded
in as few as five years.
The New Plant will be sited at the existing WTP site in an 18,800 sf
building located directly north of the existing plant. It will include gravity
thickeners, a drying bed building with dual vacuum-assisted beds, triplex
micro strainers and sludge pumps. All these new facilities will easily fit on
the approximately 33-acre parcel of City-owned property on the site.
A 12-month pilot testing phase will need to be completed prior to design
finalization. We are required to have the new plant online by October 2013.
Extensions of that deadline are possible, but we are not relying on the
assumption that they would be granted.
Alternatives
Considered:
The Water Facility Plan considered numerous alternatives for water
treatment. This was identified as the preferred alternative in the adopted
plan.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Planning for increased water supply to meet growing demands and to
replace existing equipment that is at the end of its useful life.
Estimated New
Recurring
Costs:
This plant is estimated to require two new operators, in addition to existing
plant staff. Annual O&M costs = est. $1,735,901 (including existing staff
plus new plant expenses).
Funding
Sources:
FY08 Pilot Testing = $200,000 Total
67% Water Utility Fund = $133,000
33% Water Impact Fees = $67,000
FY09 & FY10 Design = $3,000,000 Total
67% Water Utility Fund = $2,000,000
33% Water Impact Fees = $1,000,000
FY11 & 12 Construction = $30,000,000 Total
67% Water Utility Fund = $20,000,000
33% Water Impact Fees = $10,000,000
203
Project Name:
Sourdough Creek (Mystic Lake) Dam
Estimated Cost: $20 Million Total; Preliminary Design Work $50,000
Project Number: Water Impact Fees –
WIF01
Date
Scheduled:
FY08 – Prelim
Design
Unscheduled -
Construction
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The City currently has storage rights to approximately 1,955 Million
Gallons per Year, with a reservation for an additional 931 MGY, worth of
storage rights on Sourdough Creek. These rights were historically
allocated based on available storage in Mystic Lake. The Mystic Lake
Dam, however, has been breached, rendering these storage rights
essentially useless until a new dam is constructed on Sourdough Creek to
replace the Mystic Lake Dam.
Because this volume of storage right is very significant, the City intends to
utilize these rights to meet future water needs.
This option is suggested in addition to continued water conservation efforts
throughout the City.
Alternatives
Considered:
The Facility Plan explores many options for additional future water in
Section 3.C.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Additional water is secured to meet future resident needs.
Estimated New
Recurring
Costs:
Unknown at this time.
Funding
Sources:
100% Water Impact Fees
204
Project Name:
5.3MG Concrete Water Storage Reservoir
Estimated Cost: $5,300,000
Project Number: Water Impact Fees –
WIF03
Date
Scheduled:
Unscheduled
(Online by 2017)
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
A new 5.3MB partially buried concrete water storage reservoir is to be
constructed by 2017. The proposed location of the reservoir is on City
property adjacent (to the North) of the proposed new Hyalite/Sourdough
water treatment plant.
By the year 2017, current available storage will be inadequate to meet the
City’s needs according to MDEQ minimum system storage requirements.
This reservoir is sized to meet the City’s storage needs up to 2025,
assuming a 5% annual growth rate.
Locating the storage reservoir at the recommended site will raise the
hydraulic grade line in the City’s water system, which will increase
pressure for the southern part of the City and will allow future development
to occur in the south on a gravity system.
Alternatives
Considered:
The water facility plan reviewed numerous options. This is the preferred
alternative of the adopted plan.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Increased water storage to meet the needs of our growth community, and
the requirement of MDEQ. Increased system water pressure in the
southern part of the City.
Estimated New
Future
Recurring
Costs:
Requires minimal operation and maintenance. Checking of valves, level
sensors and vents on an annual basis and diver inspection and vacuuming
every five years. Estimated at $4,000 annually.
Funding
Sources:
100% Water Impact Fees
205
Project
Name:
New Transmission Main from Water Treatment Plant (System
Redundancy/Capacity Expansion)
Estimated
Cost:
$1,874,886 Scheduled; $19,880,000 Unscheduled
Project
Number:
Water Impact Fees– WIF05 Date Scheduled: FY13
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The Water Facility Plan identifies this project as the most critical redundancy issue in the City’s
water distribution system. The City receives the majority of its water from the Water Treatment
Plant through an existing 30 inch concrete transmission main. If this main is off-line for any
reason, the City will need to rely on storage from its three reservoirs. At 2005 water demand
levels, storage reserves would be depleted in three days during the average day demand, and in
24 hours during the maximum day demand.
Not only will a second transmission main provide the security of redundancy if the existing 30-
inch main is removed from service, but the existing 30-inch main is expected to reach capacity by
the year 2020.
Redundancy Area: Water Treatment Plant
New Size Description of Estimated Footage (ft)
Old Size Construction Cost
4,525 N/A 12" Install New 12" $ 911,335
2,636 N/A 24" Install New 24" $ 1,101,716
5,154 N/A 36" Install New 36" $ 3,481,785
17,093 N/A 48" Install New 48" $16,187,712
Total Project Cost $21,682,548
The precise location of the required mains is somewhat flexible, but in general will be from
Wagonwheel road (extended) in S. 19th to Goldenstein to South 3rd to Nash Road (see exhibit
5.B.3 of the facility plan).
Given the priority of the Water Treatment Plant project, the City is not currently planning
to complete these projects, only make Impact Fee funds available to qualifying projects in
the amounts shown:
Project Portion IF Eligible % Impact Fee $:
4,525 N/A 12" Install New 12" 55% $ 634,243*
2,636 N/A 24" Install New 24" 89% $1,240,643*
* includes 4% inflation factor through FY13
Alternatives
Considered:
Do not build redundant transmission main.
Advantages
of Approving
this Project:
The city will be assured that water can be supplied even if one transmission main sustains
damage and is offline for a number of days.
Estimated
New Future
Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Impact Fees can not be spent on annual operations and
maintenance costs. The Water Utility will see incremental increases in general maintenance
costs. Current cost estimate of $12,500 per water-main mile maintained annually.
Funding
Sources:
Impact Fee eligible portions are related to improvement costs beyond an 8” line capacity. At this
point in time, it is estimated that the 12” and 24” lines are most likely to be built within the next 5
years; the cost of over-sizing those lines would be eligible for impact fees and is estimated to total
$1,874,886.
206
Exhibit #1 –
New
Transmission
Main Map
City of Bozeman Capital Improvements Plan FY09-13 207
Project Name:
Graf Street Extension/Connection
Estimated Cost: $150,000
Project Number: Water Impact Fees – WIF
07
Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is to extend Water Mains below Graf Street approximately ¼
mile in order to connect infrastructure east from 19th Avenue.
This is an important connection for public safety purposes – allowing fire
service to meet their response time requirements in areas where they
currently cannot. The Water infrastructure should be installed at the same
time the street connection is made.
Alternatives
Considered:
Do nothing and wait for development to connect the infrastructure.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improved traffic flow and better emergency response to the local area.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% Water Impact Fee – to be recovered by developer payback.
208
WA
S
T
E
W
A
T
E
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
F
U
N
D
SU
M
M
A
R
Y
O
F
C
I
P
B
A
L
A
N
C
E
S
,
R
E
V
E
N
U
E
S
A
N
D
E
X
P
E
N
D
I
T
U
R
E
S
CI
P
P
l
a
n
F
Y
0
9
-
F
Y
1
3
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
F
Y
1
3
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
B
e
g
i
n
n
i
n
g
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
1
0
,
7
2
5
,
0
0
0
$
12
,
0
5
8
,
1
3
8
$
8,
9
3
2
,
1
3
8
$
7,
0
3
2
,
7
7
8
$
2,
5
8
8
,
1
9
6
$
4,349,733$
A
d
d
:
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
2,
3
6
6
,
0
0
0
2,
3
6
6
,
0
0
0
2,
4
6
0
,
6
4
0
2,
5
5
9
,
0
6
6
2,
6
6
1
,
4
2
8
2,767,885
O
t
h
e
r
F
u
n
d
i
n
g
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
31
8
,
6
0
0
-
7
9
3
,
0
9
4
-
-
L
e
s
s
:
S
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
d
C
I
P
E
x
p
e
n
d
i
t
u
r
e
s
1,
0
3
2
,
8
6
2
5,
4
9
2
,
0
0
0
4,
3
6
0
,
0
0
0
7,
0
0
3
,
6
4
8
89
9
,
8
9
1
4,328,477
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
Y
e
a
r
-
E
n
d
R
e
s
t
r
i
c
t
e
d
C
a
s
h
B
a
l
a
n
c
e
1
2
,
0
5
8
,
1
3
8
$
8,
9
3
2
,
1
3
8
$
7,
0
3
2
,
7
7
8
$
2,
5
8
8
,
1
9
6
$
4,
3
4
9
,
7
3
3
$
2,789,141$
20
9
WA
S
T
E
W
A
T
E
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
F
U
N
D
RE
V
E
N
U
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
I
O
N
S
Cu
r
r
e
n
t
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
FY
0
8
FY
0
9
FY
1
0
FY
1
1
FY
1
2
FY13
Pr
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
2,
2
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
2,
2
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
2,
3
6
6
,
0
0
0
$
2,
4
6
0
,
6
4
0
$
2,
5
5
9
,
0
6
6
$
2,661,428
$
Cu
s
t
o
m
e
r
G
r
o
w
t
h
R
a
t
e
4%
4%
4%
4%
4%
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
Im
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
D
e
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
t
o
C
I
P
2,
2
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
2,
3
6
6
,
0
0
0
$
2,
4
6
0
,
6
4
0
$
2,
5
5
9
,
0
6
6
$
2,
6
6
1
,
4
2
8
$
2,767,885
$
Ad
d
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
:
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
:
W
W
I
F
0
5
31
8
,
6
0
0
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
:
W
W
I
F
0
7
25
3
,
0
9
4
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
:
W
W
I
F
1
1
54
0
,
0
0
0
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
O
t
h
e
r
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
-
31
8
,
6
0
0
-
79
3
,
0
9
4
-
-
__
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
_
To
t
a
l
A
l
l
R
e
v
e
n
u
e
S
o
u
r
c
e
s
2,
2
7
5
,
0
0
0
$
2,
6
8
4
,
6
0
0
$
2,
4
6
0
,
6
4
0
$
3,
3
5
2
,
1
6
0
$
2,
6
6
1
,
4
2
8
$
2,767,885
$
No
t
e
:
D
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
C
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
f
o
r
t
h
e
a
b
o
v
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
c
o
v
e
r
t
h
e
n
o
n
-
c
a
p
a
c
i
t
y
e
x
p
a
n
d
i
n
g
p
o
r
t
i
o
n
o
f
c
o
n
s
t
r
u
c
t
i
o
n
.
U
n
t
i
l
t
h
e
C
i
t
y
'
s
W
a
s
t
e
w
a
t
e
r
Ut
i
l
i
t
y
f
i
n
d
s
i
t
n
e
c
e
s
s
a
r
y
t
o
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
t
h
e
s
e
s
e
g
m
e
n
t
s
,
a
n
y
r
e
p
l
a
c
e
m
e
n
t
c
o
s
t
s
w
i
l
l
h
a
v
e
t
o
b
e
b
o
r
n
e
b
y
t
h
e
o
u
t
s
i
d
e
e
n
t
i
t
y
w
h
i
c
h
b
e
n
e
f
i
t
s
f
r
o
m
t
h
e
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
.
21
0
CI
T
Y
O
F
B
O
Z
E
M
A
N
CA
P
I
T
A
L
I
M
P
R
O
V
E
M
E
N
T
S
P
R
O
G
R
A
M
WA
S
T
E
W
A
T
E
R
I
M
P
A
C
T
F
E
E
P
R
O
J
E
C
T
S
It
e
m
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
e
d
C
o
s
t
s
b
y
F
i
s
c
a
l
Y
e
a
r
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Not
#
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
T
i
t
l
e
De
p
a
r
t
m
e
n
t
C
a
t
e
g
o
r
y
F
Y
0
9
F
Y
1
0
F
Y
1
1
F
Y
1
2
FY
1
3
TotalScheduled
WW
0
4
W
W
T
P
B
N
R
C
O
N
S
T
R
U
C
T
I
O
N
WW
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
4
,
3
8
0
,
0
0
0
4,
3
6
0
,
0
0
0
4,
3
6
0
,
0
0
0
13,100,000
WW
I
F
0
5
H
O
S
P
I
T
A
L
T
R
U
N
K
:
H
A
G
G
E
R
T
Y
T
O
K
A
G
Y
WW
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1
,
0
6
2
,
0
0
0
1,062,000
WW
I
F
0
7
I
N
S
T
A
L
L
2
1
"
S
E
W
E
R
I
N
T
E
R
C
E
P
T
O
R
WW
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
84
3
,
6
4
8
843,648
WW
I
F
1
1
R
E
P
L
A
C
E
F
R
O
N
T
S
T
R
E
E
T
:
T
A
M
A
R
A
C
K
/
R
O
U
S
E
W
W
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
1,
8
0
0
,
0
0
0
1,800,000
WW
I
F
1
2
G
R
A
F
S
T
R
E
E
T
E
X
T
E
N
S
I
O
N
WW
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
5
0
,
0
0
0
50,000
WW
I
F
1
3
D
E
S
I
G
N
P
H
A
S
E
I
I
-
B
N
R
P
L
A
N
T
WW
I
m
p
a
c
t
F
e
e
s
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
89
9
,
8
9
1
4,
3
2
8
,
4
7
7
5,228,368
To
t
a
l
5,
4
9
2
,
0
0
0
$
4,
3
6
0
,
0
0
0
$
7,
0
0
3
,
6
4
8
$
89
9
,
8
9
1
$
4,
3
2
8
,
4
7
7
$
22,084,016$ -$
No
t
e
:
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
w
i
t
h
e
x
t
e
r
n
a
l
f
un
d
i
n
g
s
o
u
r
ce
s
(
i
e
.
F
e
d
e
r
a
l
A
p
p
r
o
p
r
i
a
t
i
on
s
,
g
r
a
n
t
s
,
u
r
b
a
n
fu
n
d
s
,
o
r
d
e
v
e
l
o
p
e
r
c
o
n
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n
s
)
i
n
di
c
a
t
e
"
t
o
t
a
l
p
r
o
j
e
c
t
c
o
s
t
s
"
,
w
i
t
h
c
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
i
n
g
re
v
e
n
u
e
s
o
u
r
c
e
s
i
n
d
i
c
a
t
e
d
o
n
t
h
e
r
e
v
e
n
u
e
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
.
P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s
f
i
n
a
n
c
e
d
c
o
m
p
l
e
t
e
l
y
w
i
t
h
C
i
t
y
d
o
l
l
a
r
s
b
u
t
o
u
t
o
f
s
e
p
a
r
a
t
e
C
i
t
y
f
u
n
ds
a
r
e
s
h
o
w
n
w
i
t
h
t
h
e
r
e
s
p
e
c
t
i
v
e
f
u
n
d
i
n
g
a
m
o
u
n
t
i
n
e
a
c
h
s
c
h
e
d
u
l
e
o
f
t
h
e
C
I
P
.
21
1
Project
Name:
BNR Plant Construction
Estimated
Cost:
$43.6 Million – Total, Phase I
Project
Number:
Wastewater Plant – WW04 Date
Scheduled:
FY07 – FY10
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The Bozeman WWTP is nearing its original design capacity of 5.8 MGD. The
current organic loading to the facility (lbs of BOD) has now started to exceed the
plant’s original design capacity on a daily basis. These critical loading
parameters clearly point to the need for major facility expansion.
The facility will soon reach its DEQ imposed non-degradation limit for Total
Nitrogen. The existing facility is not designed to remove Total Nitrogen. Once
this non-degradation limit of 1010 lbs/day of Total Nitrogen is exceeded, the City
of Bozeman will be out of compliance with its MPDES permit and may be
subject to substantial fines or a “no growth” moratorium.
In January 2006 Morrison & Maierle Consulting Engineers completed a
comprehensive Wastewater Facilities Plan. The plan recommends the City
proceed with a 3-phased project schedule that includes the construction of a
new Biological Nutrient Reduction (BNR) facility that is capable of handling our
increased flows while also reducing the amount of Total Nitrogen discharged to
the East Gallatin River.
The design contract is being written to include LEEDS design features and a
Sterling Generator for 100% efficient use of the methane gas produced by the
plant. These features may add substantially to the construction cost, but would
reduce operating costs over the life of the plan.
Alternatives
Considered:
A variety of treatment technologies and alternatives are presented in the
January 2006 Wastewater Facilities Plan.
Advantages
of
Approving
this Project:
Major capital expansion of the Bozeman WWTP will enable the City to meet its
ever growing demand for wastewater services and still produce a high quality
effluent that is in full compliance with the City’s MPDES discharge permit.
Expansion of the Bozeman WWTP is consistent with the City’s long-term need
to accommodate rapid growth and economic development in the Gallatin Valley.
Estimated
Future
Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: Similar to existing plant operations
costs. The Facilities Plan estimates a total of $1,439,360 annually including all
labor, power, chemicals, equipment maintenance, and equipment replacement.
We currently spend $1,574,764 (FY07) on operations and maintenance of the
existing wastewater treatment plant.
Funding
Sources:
FY07 Design: Total $3.9 Million
67% Wastewater Utility Cash = $2.33 Million
33% Wastewater Impact Fee Cash = $1.57 Million
FY09 & FY10 & FY11 Construction: Total $39.7 Million
67% Wastewater Utility Bonds = $26.6 Million
33% Wastewater Impact Fee Cash = $13.1 Million
*from HDR Opinion of Probable Cost – Aug 2007. Costs escalated through mid-point construction.
212
Photo #1 #1 – Existing Wastewater Treatment Plant – Located at 255 Moss Bridge Road.
City of Bozeman Capital Improvements Plan FY09-13 213
Project Name:
Hospital Trunk: Haggerty to Kagy
Estimated Cost: Total: $1,062,000; $743,400 Wastewater Impact Fees
Project Number: WWater Impact Fees -
WWIF05
Date
Scheduled: FY09
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
Construct ~7,900 LF of 12" and 15" sewer collector from manhole C0507
to 1E22.
Existing portions of this collector are not sized for anticipated future
development and the new portions of this collector, which will need to be
constructed with development, will need to be oversized to meet future
needs.
It is estimated that 70% of this project costs will be due to capacity
expansion and will be eligible for Wastewater Impact Fees.
The remaining 30% of the project costs will need to be provided by a
developer contribution or other source. At this time, the City’s Wastewater
Utility does not have a need to replace the existing facility; as such, no
utility dollars are scheduled to be spent.
Alternatives
Considered:
Limit future development in the area.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
If constructed to the line sizes master planned in the City’s Wastewater
Facilities plan, capacity will be provided for anticipating the long-term
future growth in this area.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Impact fees can not fund
operating and maintenance costs. The city’s wastewater utility will pay for
these costs, which are estimated to be a small increment of the city’s
system as a whole.
Funding
Sources:
70% Wastewater Impact Fees = $743,400
30% Developer Contribution = $318,600
214
Project Name:
Install 21” Sewer Interceptor at Davis/Fowler
(Oak to Durston)
Estimated Cost: Total: $843,648; $590,554 Wastewater Impact Fees
Project Number: WWater Impact Fees –
WWIF07
Date
Scheduled: FY11
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
The existing sewer trunk will need to be expanded or relieved for the
future planned expansion of the zone 2 service area south of Huffine Lane
(US 191) for future growth.
It is estimated that 70% of this project costs will be due to capacity
expansion and will be eligible for Wastewater Impact Fees.
The remaining 30% of the project costs will need to be provided by a
developer contribution or other source. At this time, the City’s Wastewater
Utility does not have a need to replace the existing facility; as such, no
utility dollars are scheduled to be spent.
Alternatives
Considered:
Limit future development in the area.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
If constructed to the line sizes master planned in the City’s Wastewater
Facilities plan, capacity will be provided for anticipating the long-term
future growth in this area.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Impact fees can not fund
operating and maintenance costs. The city’s wastewater utility will pay for
these costs, which are estimated to be a small increment of the city’s
system as a whole.
Funding
Sources:
70% Wastewater Impact Fees = $590,544
30% Developer Contribution = $253,094
215
Project Name:
Replace Front Street: Tamarack/Rouse
Estimated Cost: $1,800,000
Project Number: WWater Impact Fees –
WWIF11
Date
Scheduled:
FY11
Purpose: □ New ■ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project consists of construction of ~11,000 LF 18", 21" & 24" sewer
pipe from manhole F0330 to C0507.
The lower portion of the existing sewer is at capacity. Additional capacity
is needed to serve the future Bozeman Deaconess Hospital development
and lands to the south.
It is estimated that 70% of this project costs will be due to capacity
expansion and will be eligible for Wastewater Impact Fees.
The remaining 30% of the project costs will need to be provided by a
developer contribution or other source. At this time, the City’s Wastewater
Utility does not have a need to replace the existing facility; as such, no
utility dollars are scheduled to be spent.
Alternatives
Considered:
Limit development to only that capacity of the existing sewer.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
This project will significantly increase the service area and capacity of the
trunk sewer.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating and Maintenance Costs: Impact fees can not fund
operating and maintenance costs. The city’s wastewater utility will pay for
these costs, which are estimated to be a small increment of the city’s
system as a whole.
Funding
Sources:
70% Wastewater Impact Fees = $1,260,000
30% Developer Contribution = $540,000
216
Project Name:
Graf Street Extension/Connection
Estimated Cost: $50,000
Project Number: Wastewater Impact Fees –
WWIF 12
Date
Scheduled:
FY09
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
This project is to extend Wastewater Mains below Graf Street
approximately ¼ mile in order to connect infrastructure east from 19th
Avenue.
This is an important connection for public safety purposes – allowing fire
service to meet their response time requirements in areas where they
currently cannot. The Wastewater infrastructure should be installed at the
same time the street connection is made.
Alternatives
Considered:
Do nothing and wait for development to connect the infrastructure.
Advantages of
Approving this
Project:
Improved traffic flow and better emergency response to the local area.
Estimated New
Future Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs:
Funding
Sources:
100% Wastewater Impact Fee – to be recovered by developer payback.
217
Project
Name:
Design Phase II - BNR Plant Improvements
Estimated
Cost:
$5.2 Million Total
Project
Number:
Wastewater Plant – WWIF13 Date
Scheduled:
FY12 – FY13
Purpose: ■ New □ Replacement ■ Facility □ Equipment
Project
Description:
In January 2006 Morrison & Maierle Consulting Engineers completed a
comprehensive Wastewater Facilities Plan. The plan recommends the City
proceed with a 3-phased project schedule that includes the construction of a
new Biological Nutrient Reduction (BNR) facility that is capable of handling our
increased flows while also reducing the amount of Total Nitrogen discharged to
the East Gallatin River.
Phase I of the Plant improvements are scheduled for FY07-FY11.
This project is for the Engineering Pre-Design work and the Final Engineering
Design work for Phase II of the project. This phase will include one new
primary clarifier, more BNR reactor basins & clarifiers, tertiary deep bed
filtration, liquid sludge storage tanks, anaerobic digestion, dewatering cake
storage building and effluent re-use pumping station.
The vast majority of the Phase II improvements are capacity expanding, and the
project is estimated to be 100% impact fee eligible. However, once design
work begins, we will be continually evaluating the impact fee eligibility of the
features of the phase.
Alternatives
Considered:
A variety of treatment technologies and alternatives are presented in the
January 2006 Wastewater Facilities Plan.
Advantages
of
Approving
this Project:
Major capital expansion of the Bozeman WWTP will enable the City to meet its
estimated demand for wastewater services and still produce a high quality
effluent that is in full compliance with the City’s MPDES discharge permit.
Expansion of the Bozeman WWTP is consistent with the City’s long-term need
to accommodate rapid growth and economic development in the Gallatin Valley.
Estimated
Future
Recurring
Costs:
Annual Operating & Maintenance Costs: no estimates at this time.
Funding
Sources:
100% Wastewater Impact Fees
FY12 Pre-Design: $899,891
FY13 Final Design: $4,328,477
.
218