capital improvement projects - norwalk, ct

CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS SUMMARY PAGE

DEPARTMENT: Police

PROJECT TITLE

2011-12 REQUEST

2012-13 REQUEST

2013-14 REQUEST

2014-15 REQUEST

BEYOND 2016

1. Rifles 65,000

2. Portable Radios 75,000 75,000

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Police PROJECT TITLE: Rifles

PROJECT LIFE: 25 Years SCHEDULED START: July 2012 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Oct. 2012

RANKING: 1 _X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT ____ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION:

Twenty-Five – Colt M-4 Law Enforcement Carbines (.223/5.56 mm caliber Patrol Rifle) with four-position butt stock, two 30-round magazines, EOtech brand model 552 Holosight optics, Surefire Quad rail and light system, single point sling.

JUSTIFICATION: The Emergency Services Team has been outfitted with new rifles. Their older, Vietnam ear rifles now on loan from the National Guard through Project Northstar were handed down to Patrol. These need to be replaced. Agreement with Northstar has been extended, but replacement will allow new rifles to be used by patrol and the older carbines will be returned.

EXPENDITURE SCHEDULE (000's)

PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design

Site Costs & Acquisition

Construction

Equipment/Furnishings 33,000 65,000 98,000

Other/Contingency (Labor) TOTAL EXPENDITURES 33,000 65,000 98,000

REVENUE (Specify)

TRADE

NET COST 33,000 65,000 98,000 CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK

DEPARTMENT: Police PROJECT TITLE: Rifles 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five -year capital plan? Yes _X o N ____ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $33,000______________Approved $33,000 ___________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Estimates from potential vendors and historical purchases. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X____ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ________________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for the project. Current patrol rifles are on loan, and are very old Viet Nam eras weapons. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded? Current weapons are on loan, and very old Viet Nam era weapons that are in need of replacement to current models. Useful life is Coming to an end.

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Police PROJECT TITLE: Portable Radios

PROJECT LIFE: 15 Years SCHEDULED START: July 2014 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Oct. 2014

RANKING: 2 _X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT ____ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION:

Thirty Motorola 2500XTS portable radios with chargers and extra batteries.

JUSTIFICATION: Current Motorola HT1000 portable radios are now obsolete and require replacement. The majority (120) have been or are being replaced using grant funding. The balance (60) are in need of replacement. It is unknown if future grant funding will be available to complete the replacement program. Seeking to replace half in 2013-14 and the remainder in 2014-15. If appropriate grant funding is available, these requests may be removed in future years.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction


Other/Contingency (Labor) TOTAL EXPENDITURES 75,000 75,000 150,000

REVENUE (Specify)

TRADE

NET COST 75,000 75,000 150,000 CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012


DEPARTMENT: Police PROJECT TITLE: Portable Radios 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five -year capital plan? Yes _X o N ____ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $0___________________Approved $0_____ ___________ If not, why is the project now included? 3. How was your cost estimate derived? Estimates from potential vendors and historical purchases. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X____ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ________________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for the project. Current HT1000 model radios are old and becoming obsolete and will not be supported by Motorola. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded? Current radios will not be able to be repaired and will not be functional for officers on patrol.


DEPARTMENT: Fire

PROJECT TITLE

2011-12 REQUEST

2012-13 REQUEST

2013-14 REQUEST

2014-15 REQUEST

BEYOND 2016

1. New Fire Headquarters 13,600,000

2. Station Repairs 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000 35,000

3. Pumping Engine (#4) 450,000 450,000 450,000

4. SCBA Replacement Cylinders 20,000 20,000

5. Fire Station Paving 140,000

6. 100 Fairfield Avenue 475,000

7.

8.

9.

10

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

18.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

26.


DEPARTMENT: Fire PROJECT TITLE: New Fire Headquarters PROJECT LIFE: 50 years SCHEDULED START: 2010 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2013

RANKING:1 _X_NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT ___ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Project Project A. To construct a 32,000 square foot facility to replace the existing Volk Fire station. This estimate includes temporary quarters for responders and equipment which will be split between 100 Fairfield Av. and New Canaan Av facilities as well as temporary office space for administrative staff. Estimated cost: $14,000,000 The department will apply for grant funding to offset the cost of the Emergency Operations Center and the facility generator any and all grants will supplement the city expenditures for this project. Grant awards will not be know until late summer 2011. Project B. To construct an addition to the Westport Av Fire Station as part of the relocation of personnel displaced from Volk during construction. This project is intended to reduce the size of the Volk Replacement project as well as provide a permanent improvement of service delivery to the east side of the city and to the Cranbury neighborhood. Estimated cost: $600,000 Project C. To construct an IT Equipment Center for the City And Bd. of Ed. in the new fire headquarters facility to replace the existing data center in City Hall. Estimated cost: $500,000.

JUSTIFICATION: Project A: The project was studied by Matrix Consulting Group (2004) and Pacheco Ross Architects (2008) and both studies recommended replacement of the current facility. Renovation is not feasible. The current structure is not capable of supporting modern fire department operations due to lack of space and deteriorating conditions.

Project B: This project addresses the Insurance Services Office recommendation for a sixth station in the Cranbury neighborhood. The project follows a plan approved by the Board of Fire Commissioners for realignment of personnel and equipment to provide more uniform delivery of fire and emergency response services citywide.

Project C: This project completes the IT Equipment Center needs for the City and the Bd. of Ed. at cost which is less than 50% of the estimate for converting space at City Hall for this purpose. It provides a hardened, secure data center for the City Municipal Area Network and related servers.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design 750 70 820


Construction 750 13,530 14,280

Equipment/Furnishings

Other/Contingency

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,500 13,600 15,100

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 1,500 13,600 15,100

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Fire PROJECT TITLE: Fire Headquarters 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _x__ No ____ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_14,000,000 Approved $1,500,000 If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Contracted design consultants developed the total budget costs for all phases of this project. Those estimates

are consistent with previous estimates. The estimates were derived from the Architect and the Construction Manager as well as the IT Consultant. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes __x_ No ______ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses Operating costs for maintenance will increase (amount TBD) Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

Project A: This project is phase two of the process having completed the design work in 2010/11. The project is most economical in the current financial climate

Project B: The Department though various studies conducted over the past decade have determined that improved coverage and reduced response times is necessary for the east side of the City and the Cranbury neighborhood. This project addresses that need in the most economical solution. . The Department is replacing it’s Headquarters and realigning the staff and equipment to better allocate resources strategically around the city. The Department originally planned to build temporary quarters during the HQ construction project. During the design phase we determined that a modest improvement to Westport Av would significantly improve our service delivery especially to the Cranbury residential neighborhood. This project will negate the need for construction of a sixth station saving $3,000,000 in construction costs and $1,200,000 in annual staffing costs. The project will add living space associated with for an additional Ladder truck and staff. The building systems will also be upgraded so no further improvements are anticipated

Project C: The IT Data Center has been slated for replacement and this solution accomplishes that need at 50% of the previous estimate. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded?

Project A: The project will increase in cost and maintenance of the dilapidated facility will continue to escalate. Project B: The alternative is to build a sixth station in Cranbury for capital cost of 3M and a staffing cost of 1.2M Project B: The alternative to this project is completion of a data center at City Hall for 1,079,000 or $579,000 more than this solution.


DEPARTMENT: Fire PROJECT TITLE: Various Fire Stations, repairs and replacement

PROJECT LIFE: 20 years SCHEDULED START: 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: N/A

RANKING: 2 ____NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT XREPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: All five fire stations and the apparatus maintenance/Fire Marshals building are in continual need of repair of building systems

JUSTIFICATION: The age of the buildings has created the need for this work. The average age of the stations is 40+ years.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction

Equipment/Furnishings 103 35 35 35 35 35 278

Other/Contingency

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 103 35 35 35 35 35 278

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 103 35 35 35 35 35 278

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Fire PROJECT TITLE: Various Stations Repairs/Replacements 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _X_ No ____ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $__30,000_____ Approved $____30,000_____________ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? Various contractor estimates and historical expenditures Various contractor estimates and historical expenditures. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Age and condition of fire stations calls for continual replacement of systems, etc.

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. Increasing costs and shortened life span of buildings.


DEPARTMENT: Fire PROJECT TITLE: Apparatus Replacement PROJECT LIFE: 20 years SCHEDULED START: 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2016

RANKING: 3 X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Fire Apparatus replacement:

12-13 pumping engine ( #4) $ 450,000 13-14 pumping engine (#5) $ 450,000 15-16 pumping engine (#3) $ 450,000

JUSTIFICATION: Front line fire trucks to be replaced at 15 years, then moved to reserve status as recommended by Matrix Consulting.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction

Equipment/Furnishings 1,350 450 450 450 2,700

Other/Contingency

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,350 450 450 450 2,700

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 1,350 450 450 450 2,700

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Fire PROJECT TITLE: Apparatus Replacement 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes_X No ____ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_925,000____ Approved $_925,000_____________ If not, why is the project now included? 5. How was your cost estimate derived? Estimates from vendors 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Fire apparatus should be taken off front line status at 15 years. 8 units are in service at all times. A vehicle needs to be purchased at least every other year to stay on a 16 year replacement cycle. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded.

Maintenance costs increase as truck gets older, and down time increases. Cost of eventual replacement increases.


DEPARTMENT: Fire PROJECT TITLE: SCBA replacement cylinders PROJECT LIFE: 5-10 years SCHEDULED START: 2012 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2012

RANKING: 4 ____NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT ___ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Purchase of approximately 20 cylinders for self contained breathing apparatus.

JUSTIFICATION: OSHA requires cylinders to be hydrostatically tested every five years. After 3 tests, cylinders must be discarded. Also, several units are replaced each year due to damage at fires and during training. Department maintains 75+ cylinders.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction

Equipment/Furnishings 75 20 20 115

Other/Contingency

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 75 20 20 115

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 75 20 20 115

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Fire PROJECT TITLE: SCBA Replacement Cylinders 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _x___ No ____ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $__25,000_____ Approved $_25,000___________ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? Vendor pricing/state contract list. State contract pricing 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No __x___ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________

4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

Each fire truck carries 8 cylinders, plus several spares and 8-10 training units are needed at all times

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. Cylinders can be used for 15 years then must be replaced, per OSHA


DEPARTMENT: Fire PROJECT TITLE: Fire Station Paving PROJECT LIFE: 25+ years SCHEDULED START: 2012 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2013

RANKING: 5 ____NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Repaving of front and rear ramps and parking lots at Broad River, Westport Avenue, and Meadow Street Fire stations.

JUSTIFICATION: Areas were last paved when stations were built: Broad River: 1961 Westport Avenue: 1966 Meadow street: 1970 All have areas that are eroded and beyond patching. The timing of this project will coincide with the paving at the new Headquarters and will provide economy of scale.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 140 140


Other/Contingency

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 140 140

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 140 140

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Fire PROJECT TITLE: Fire Station Paving 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _X__ No ____ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $____$140,000_____________ Approved $___0______________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived?

Estimate based on DPW estimates. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X___ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comments on the demand/need for this project. Deterioration continues, potholes and broken pavement areas are getting worse. 6. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded.

Increased maintenance costs for fire trucks from suspension damage ,etc. Also increased costs for damage to snow plows.

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Fire PROJECT TITLE: 100 Fairfield Av Building Repairs PROJECT LIFE: 20+ years SCHEDULED START: 2013 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2014

RANKING: 6 ____NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT __X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Replace roof at Fire Marshals Office and Apparatus Maintenance facility (100 Fairfield Avenue). Complete stripping and painting of metal exterior.

JUSTIFICATION: The existing roof is original to the facility and over 25 years old. Emergency repairs were completed in 2007 to fix active leaks. The Department anticipates use of the facility for offices, vehicle maintenance, and storage far into the future. The base metal is unprotected from the elements. This City facility is the very first municipal building that residents and visitors see as they arrive in Norwalk from I-95 exit 14. The project is essential to protect the building from further deterioration and to present a good image of the city to the public.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 25 475 500


Other/Contingency

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 25 475 500

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 25 475 500

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Fire PROJECT TITLE: 100 Fairfield Avenue Building Repairs 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes __X__ No ____ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $__________425,000_________ Approved $__0_______________ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? $ 15/sq foot including roof decking and flashing

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No X_____ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________


This project is necessary for the safe and efficient continued use of the facility. The repairs made in 2007 will not provide more than several years of continued viability of the existing roof.

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. The department was forced to spend considerable funds to clean the building of extensive mold growth after the roof repairs were completed in 2007. As the building is used more extensively, the return of active roof leaks and mold would be a health hazard and would result in expensive damage.

2011-2012

PriorityFY 2010-11 Approved

FY 2011-12 Requested FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16

A BUILDING City Hall Repairs/Improvements 1 250,000 360,000 995,000 795,000 465,000 1,000,000MANAGEMENT Capital repairs,Replacements & Improvement 1 50,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 150,000

Public Works Center Repairs/Improvements 1 24,000 170,000 67,000 220,000 24,000 143,000Roosevelt Senior Center Repairs/Improve 2 188,000 175,000 30,000 35,000 35,000 35,000Energy Conservation Various Buildings 2 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000Ben Franklin Repairs/Improvements 3 15,000 85,000 175,000 91,000 86,000 438,000Nathaniel Ely Repairs/Improvements 3 78,000 125,000 125,000 35,000 750,000 Police HQ Repairs/Improvements 4 30,000 40,000 15,000 15,000 27,000 Various Bldgs. Environmental Remediation 4 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 Old Police Facility 1,300,000

1,852,000 1,098,000 1,632,000 1,481,000 860,000 2,593,000

B BRIDGES Rowayton Avenue Widening 1 87,000 85,000 Perry Avenue bridge over Norwalk River 1 50,000 24,000 1,124,500 James Street Bridge over Silvermine 1 60,000 1,750,000 East Avenue Roadway and Bridge 2 218,000 300,000 Westmere Avenue Bridge 2 1,300,000 General Bridge Repairs 2 65,000 65,000 Glover Avenue Bridge Railings 3 120,000 Crescent Street Wall Rehabilitation 150,000Old Tokeneke Bridge Removal 140,000

645,000 469,000 4,359,500 0 65,000 0

C FLEET Vehicles/equipment 1 695,000 1,486,000 708,000 678,000 518,000 518,000

D MAPPING

E PAVING Pavement Management 1 5,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 City building parking rehabilitation 2 220,000Norwalk River Valley Trail 3 1,500,000 1,500,000

5,000,000 6,000,000 7,720,000 6,000,000 7,500,000 6,000,000

F SIDEWALK Sidewalks and Curbing - Citywide 1 290,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 Sidewalks - City buildings/property 1 50,000 50,000 50,000 Footpath Replacement 2 150,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000Cudlip Sidewalks and Curbs 3 75,000 75,000Walter Avenue Sidewalk and Curbs 2 10,000

300,000 675,000 575,000 550,000 500,000 550,000

G STORM General Drainage 1 250,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 400,000 450,000 WATER Watercourse Maintenance 2 175,000 250,000 1,500,000 1,000,000 1,000,000

Stormwater Best Management Practices 3 100,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 200,000Water Street outlet maintenance 4 250,000 300,000Keeler Brook Drainage Area 5 1,000,000 750,000 4,000,000 2,000,000Culvert rehabilitation 6 280,000 400,000 Burlington Court 7 150,000 400,000 2,500,000 Buckingham/Lockwood 8 3,400,000Cedar Street Drainage Replacement 175,000West Main Street Drainage 300,000

1,000,000 2,100,000 1,780,000 6,500,000 6,500,000 5,350,000

H TRAFFIC Traffic Signals at Various Locations 1 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 System Enhancements 2 200,000 200,000 200,000 Roton Middle School Crossing 3 75,000 Traffic Sign Inventory 4 250,000 250,000 250,000Transportation Management Plan 5 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000Ward Street Traffic Calming 6 80,000 1,800,000Spring Hill Traffic Calming 7 100,000 1,200,000

- 775,000 600,000 1,030,000 3,750,000 700,000

I TREES Tree Planting - General 1 30,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000 45,000

J SAFETEALU FHWA Matching Funds 1 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000MATCH Fairfield/Washington Match 2 600,000

Safe Routes to Schools 2 200,000Route 1 Widening 3 450,000 400,000Strawberry Hill Ave/Green Street Match 4 200,000 600,000 650,000

0 250,000 1,500,000 1,450,000 900,000 250,000

K OTHER Document Management System 1 150,000

TOTALS 9,522,000 12,898,000 18,919,500 17,734,000 20,788,000 16,006,000

Department of Public WorksFive Year Capital Budget Requirements Forecast

C:\Documents and Settings\LMANZI\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\5 Yr Cap Bud Summary 2012-16 Submittal -DPW.xls 1/24/20114:25 PM

PriorityFY 2010-11 Approved

FY 2011-12 Requested

A BUILDING City Hall Repairs/Improvements 1 250,000 360,000MANAGEMENT Capital repairs,Replacements & Improvements 1 50,000 150,000

Public Works Center Repairs/Improvements 1 24,000 170,000Roosevelt Senior Center Repairs/Improve 2 188,000 175,000Energy Conservation Various Buildings 2 25,000 25,000Ben Franklin Repairs/Improvements 3 15,000 85,000Nathaniel Ely Repairs/Improvements 3 78,000Police HQ Repairs/Improvements 4 30,000Various Bldgs. Environmental Remediation 4 25,000Old Police Facility 1,300,000

1,852,000 1,098,000

B BRIDGES Rowayton Avenue Widening 1 87,000 85,000 Perry Avenue bridge over Norwalk River 1 50,000 24,000 James Street Bridge over Silvermine 1 60,000 East Avenue Roadway and Bridge 2 218,000 300,000 Westmere Avenue Bridge 2General Bridge Repairs 2Glover Avenue Bridge Railings 3Crescent Street Wall Rehabilitation 150,000Old Tokeneke Bridge Removal 140,000

645,000 469,000

C FLEET Vehicles/equipment 1 695,000 1,486,000

D MAPPING

E PAVING Pavement Management 1 5,000,000 6,000,000City building parking rehabilitation 2Norwalk River Valley Trail 3

5,000,000 6,000,000

F SIDEWALK Sidewalks and Curbing - Citywide 1 290,000 400,000Sidewalks - City buildings/property 1 50,000Footpath Replacement 2 150,000Cudlip Sidewalks and Curbs 3 75,000 Walter Avenue Sidewalk and Curbs 10,000

300,000 675,000

G STORM General Drainage 1 250,000 400,000WATER Watercourse Maintenance 2 175,000 250,000

Stormwater Best Management Practices 3 100,000 200,000Water Street outlet maintenance 4 250,000 Keeler Brook Drainage Area 5 1,000,000Culvert rehabilitation 6Burlington Court 7Buckingham/Lockwood 8Cedar Street Drainage Replacement 175,000West Main Street Drainage 300,000

1,000,000 2,100,000

H TRAFFIC Traffic Signals at Various Locations 1 250,000System Enhancements 2 200,000Roton Middle School Crossing 3 75,000 Traffic Sign Inventory 4 250,000Transportation Management Plan 5Ward Street Traffic Calming 6Spring Hill Traffic Calming 7

- 775,000

I TREES Tree Planting - General 1 30,000 45,000

J SAFETEALU FHWA Matching Funds 1 250,000MATCH Fairfield/Washington Match 2

Safe Routes to Schools 2 200,000Route 1 Widening 3Strawberry Hill Ave/Green Street Match 4

0 450,000

K OTHER Document Management System 1

TOTALS 9,522,000 13,098,000

Department of Public WorksFiscal Year 2011-2012 Capital Budget Summary

C:\Documents and Settings\LMANZI\Local Settings\Temporary Internet Files\OLKC\FY 2011 2012 Cap Bud Summary Submitta (Sheet 2)l.xls1/25/201111:46 AM

2011 - 2012 CITY OF NORWALK

DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Building Management PROJECT TITLE: City Hall Repairs and Improvements

PROJECT LIFE: 20 Years SCHEDULED START: Various SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Various

RANKING: A-1 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT DESCRIPTION: A. Replace five (5) air handlers, and upgrade variable air

volume dampers (VAV’s) and fan coil units with energy efficient equipment ($400,000) FY 2011-2012 ($200,000) FY2012-2013 ($200,000)

B. Next phase of exterior masonry repairs ($160,000) C. Roof replacement ($1,590,000)

FY 2012 – 2013 $795,000 FY 2013 – 2014 $795,000

D. Concert Hall repairs to ceiling and painting ($265,000) E. Replace heating boilers with energy efficient boilers

($200,000) F. Interior upgrade ($300,000)

G. Emergency generator ($700,000)

JUSTIFICATION: A. The five (5) air handler units and variable air volume dampers (VAV’s) and fan coil units at City Hall have reached the end of their life

cycle. B. Exterior brick, concrete and block walls, stone coping, mortar joints and parapet walls are deteriorating due to age and water penetration

and require replacement and repair where necessary. C. Roof installed in 1986 and has a life cycle of 20 - 25 years and we have reached this point. This roof replacement could be performed in

two phases to reduce budgetary impact to the City in FY 2012-13 and FY 2013-14. D. City Hall Concert Hall requires ceiling repairs and painting as a result of age and several roof leaks.

E. The heating boilers are approaching the end of their life cycle and will require replacement. Energy conservation rebates for this project

will be pursued. F. Building interior finishes and equipment such as but not limited to; security system, door hardware, ceiling and floor tiles, wallpaper, water

fountains and other interior finishes require replacement. G. Existing 250kW generator provides power for emergency equipment and a portion of the heating and air conditioning systems (HVAC).

New generator will provide sufficient power to support total building operations during power outages.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

TOTAL

Engineering/Design 103 103


Construction 1,531 360 995 795 465 1,000 5,146


Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,634 360 995 795 465 1,000 5,249

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 1,634 360 995 795 465 1,000 5,249

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Building Management PROJECT TITLE: City Hall Repairs & Improvements PROJECT COSTS BY FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

A 200 200 0 0 0 B 160 0 0 0 0 C 0 795 795 0 0 D 0 0 0 265 0 E 0 0 0 200 0 F 0 0 0 0 300 G 0 0 0 0 700

PRO

JEC

T

TOTAL 360 995 795 465 1,000 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes X_ No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request Ongoing_____ Approved __$250,000____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived?

Contractor Estimates 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No X_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. The building air handlers have reached the end of their life cycle. Replacement parts are becoming more difficult and expensive to source as these units age. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded? Due to deterioration and age, major operating equipment could cease to operate and impact day to day operations of the facility.


DEPARTMENT: Public Works

CATEGORY: Building Management TITLE: Various City Bldgs. –Capital Replacements, Repairs & Improvements

PROJECT LIFE: Various SCHEDULED START: Various SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Various

RANKING: A-1 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Capital replacements and repairs to City buildings infrastructure

JUSTIFICATION: Most buildings under Building Management are within a range of 20 – 70 years old and require replacement and repair of major building components often without notice. As buildings are aging, unplanned capital replacements and repairs of mechanical equipment are necessary. The following are examples of recently unexpected replacement projects that were completed:

• Public Works Garage – Replacement of water control valves and circulating pumps • Ben Franklin – Roof and coping repairs • City Hall - Air conditioning control components

Approval of this capital request will help to prolong major equipment replacements.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 50 150 150 150 150 150 750


Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 50 150 150 150 150 150 750

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 50 150 150 150 150 150 750

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Building Management PROJECT TITLE: Various City Bldgs. – Capital Replacements, Repairs & Improvements PROJECT COSTS BY FISCAL YEAR

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

A 150 150 150 150 150

PRO

JEC

T

TOTAL 150 150 150 150 150 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes___X__ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request Ongoing______ Approved ___$50,000__ __ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Contractor and Engineering estimates 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No X _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ________________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

Due to the age of the buildings ranging from 20 – 70 years, this project is necessary to maintain the mechanical, interior and exterior infrastructure at City buildings under Building Management.

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded?

Basic infrastructure and building systems which support heating, air conditioning etc. could be significantly impacted and depending on the severity could lead to building closure.


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Building Management TITLE: Public Works Center Repairs & Improvements


RANKING: A-1 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT DESCRIPTION: A. Install bearing frame and bridge crane in Fleet shop

($82,000) B. Installation of a building energy management system and

replacement of existing pneumatic controls with digital controls ($88,000)

C. Replacement of metal siding & overhead door frames

($45,000) D. Engineering assessment & design ($22,000) E. Raise roof structure of existing wash bay to enable trucks

to enter and be washed ($220,000) F. Replacement of deteriorating window gaskets in the

Admin. Building ($24,000) G. Back up boiler & related pumps and piping in the Admin.

Building ($143,000)

JUSTIFICATION: A. Currently there is no safe method for mechanics to hoist engines and vehicle bodies. The existing building frame will not

support a chain hoist. B. At the Administration Building the existing pneumatic controls are approximately 30 years old and have exceeded their life

expectancy. The install of a building energy management system will also include the replacement of the existing pneumatic controls with more efficient digital controls. The installation of this system and controls will allow for remote control of HVAC equipment, monitoring, scheduling and alarm notification. This system will also allow for more efficient operations and provide energy savings.

C. The Administration Building is approximately thirty years old. The building exterior has damaged and rusted sections of metal siding and overhead door framing that requires replacement.

D. Engineering assessment and design for raising roof structure of existing wash bay. E. Trucks are not able to fit in the current wash bay structure and are corroding faster than the City can afford to replace

them. The ability to wash down vehicles will extend their useful life by years. F. The window gaskets in the Administration Building are showing signs of failure and will need to be replaced to prevent

damage to the interior of the building from water infiltration. G. The installation of a back-up boiler, related pumps and piping will provide a secondary means of maintaining building systems

and operations in the event the primary boiler fails.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

TOTAL



Construction 777 170 45 220 24 143 1,401


Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 777 170 67 220 24 143 1,401

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 777 170 67 220 24 143 1,401

CAPITAL BUDGET

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Building Management PROJECT TITLE: Public Works Center Repairs & Improvements PROJECT COSTS BY FISCAL YEAR

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016A 82 0 0 0 0 B 88 0 0 0 0 C 0 45 0 0 0 D 0 22 0 0 0 E 0 0 220 0 0 F 0 0 0 24 0 G 0 0 0 0 143

PRO

JEC

T

TOTAL 170 67 220 24 143 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes X_ No __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request Ongoing______ Approved ___$ 24,000 ___ If not, why is the project now included? 3. How was your cost estimate derived? Consulting Engineers and Contractors Estimates 4. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No X _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ________________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 5. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Increase operating efficiency, protect safety of City employees, extend useful life of City vehicles and eliminate deterioration of buildings. 6. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded? Continuation of inefficient operations of building HVAC systems, inability to safely repair vehicles and equipment, accelerated deterioration of City vehicles and continued building deterioration.

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Building Management PROJECT TITLE: Roosevelt Center


RANKING: A-2 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: A. Re-roofing of the Senior Center portion of the

building ($175,000)

B. Replacement of windows for the Gymnasium, rooms A & B, and Fitness room ($30,000)

C. Exterior masonry repairs to brick , concrete block, mortar joints and coping ($105,000)

FY 2013-2014 ($35,000) FY 2014-2015 ($35,000) FY 2015-2016 ($35,000)

JUSTIFICATION: A. The Roosevelt Center is comprised of five (5) roof sections. Three (3) of the five

(5) roof sections were replaced under prior year capital plans. The final two sections of roof scheduled for replacement were installed in 1991 and 1992 and are approaching their twenty (20) year life cycle.

B. Windows in rooms A & B, the Gymnasium and the Fitness Room are approaching their life cycle; some are inoperable and are not energy efficient.

C. Exterior masonry, brick, concrete block, stone coping and mortar joints are deteriorating due to age of the building and water penetration into the building is occurring at various areas, and requires replacement and repair where necessary.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

TOTAL



Construction 218 175 30 35 35 35 528



REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 243 175 30 35 35 35 553

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Building Management TITLE: Roosevelt Center PROJECT COSTS BY FISCAL YEAR

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

A 175 0 0 0 0 B 0 30 0 0 0 C 0 0 35 35 35 PR

OJE

CT

TOTAL 175 30 35 35 35 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _X No __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request Ongoing ______ Approved _____$188,000______ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived?

Contractor Estimates

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No X _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ________________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Due to the age and condition of the existing roof it is recommended that the replacement of the roof be approved. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded? This section of roof is the last of five (5) sections to be replaced. Should the roof continue to deteriorate there could be an impact on the day to day operations in this area of the facility.


2011-2012

DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Building Management TITLE: Various Buildings – Energy Conservation


RANKING: A-2 NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Implementation of ongoing building energy conservation projects and equipment for city buildings with a favorable rate of return on investment.

JUSTIFICATION: This initiative is in response to continued energy conservation and operating cost reductions at various City buildings. Proposed projects would include, but not be limited to - lighting, off-hour temperature control, installation of energy program upgrades etc. The proposed funding would be used to supplement local utility conservation incentives, consulting services and development.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

TOTAL



Construction 321 25 25 25 25 25 446



REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 331 25 25 25 25 25 456

CAPITAL BUDGET 2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Building Management PROJECT TITLE: Various Buildings – Energy Conservation PROJECT COSTS BY FISCAL YEAR

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

A 25 25 25 25 25

PRO

JEC

T

TOTAL 25 25 25 25 25 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X__ No __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request Ongoing_ Approved _$ ____25,000___ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived?

Contractor Estimate 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ____ No X_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses Reduced utility costs or avoidance of utility cost increases. C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ___________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

Rising energy costs. Energy Conservation.


Increase utility costs, which would not be offset if this were deferred.

2011 – 2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Building Management PROJECT TITLE: Ben Franklin


RANKING: A-3 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT DESCRIPTION: A. Replacement of Air Handler Unit (AHU) in the Gym ($85,000) B. A/C Chiller System Replacement ($175,000) C. Replacement of Windows ($91,000) D. Exterior masonry repairs to brick , concrete block, mortar

joints, coping and retaining wall($86,000) E. Roof replacement.($238,000) F. Replacement of thirty-eight (38) fan coil units. ($200,000)

JUSTIFICATION: A. The Air Handler unit in the Gym that provides heat has reached its life expectancy and needs to be replaced with a new energy

efficient unit. The functionality of this unit is crucial to the Recreation & Parks programs that utilize the Gym. Energy conservation rebates for this project will be pursued.

B. The A/C Chiller System is reaching its life expectancy and will be replaced with a new energy efficient chiller. This system is critical to the day to day operation of various community programs at this location, especially the child care center. Energy conservation rebates for this project will be pursued.

C. The existing windows are approaching their twenty year life expectancy and are in need of replacement. The windows are no longer sitting securely within their frames, they are out of alignment and are missing hardware parts. These windows are not secure and need to be replaced with new energy efficient windows to reduce heating and cooling costs.

D. Exterior masonry, brick, concrete block, stone coping and mortar joints and retaining wall are deteriorating due to age of the building and water penetration into the building is occurring at various areas, requiring replacement and repair where necessary.

E. The roof has undergone several phases of repairs; most recently a project was completed in the summer of 2008 that entailed repair of all roof seams to eliminate water infiltration inside the building.

F. The fan coil units and all associated piping supporting heating and air conditioning are approximately twenty years old and require replacement.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

TOTAL



Construction 60 85 175 91 86 438 935


Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES

75

85

175

91

86

438

950

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 75 85 175 91 86 438 950

CAPITAL BUDGET 2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Building Management PROJECT TITLE: Ben Franklin PROJECT COSTS BY FISCAL YEAR

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016A 85 0 0 0 0 B 0 175 0 0 0 C 0 0 91 0 0 D 0 0 0 86 0 E 0 0 0 0 238 F 0 0 0 0 200

PRO

JEC

T

TOTAL 85 175 91 86 438 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes X _ No __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request Ongoing ____ Approved _____$15,000______ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Contractor and Engineer’s Estimate 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No X_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ________________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Item A is required due to the age of original building equipment. The functionality of this equipment is critical to the day to day operations at the facility. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded? If the replacement of the Air Handler in the Gym and Air Conditioning Chiller for Ben Franklin are deferred and not funded, it will impact the facility and the City and tenant programs that operate at this location.

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Building Management PROJECT TITLE: Nathaniel Ely


RANKING: A-3 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT DESCRIPTION: A. Replace heating & ventilation dampers and mechanical

equipment controls ($29,000) B. Replace and install pumps, motors, piping and electrical

upgrades to HVAC mechanical systems ($49,000) C. Replacement of seventy-eight (78) windows and frames in

rear of building ($250,000) D. Engineering assessment & design services for boiler

replacement ($35,000) E. Boiler Replacement ($750,000)

JUSTIFICATION: A. Replace three (3) dampers and mechanical controls that are original to the heating & ventilation unit

serving the gym. As part of this project two (2) dampers will be installed to regulate temperatures between classrooms 101 & 102.

B. Replacement of pumps, motors and piping and electrical upgrades to the original parts of the HVAC mechanical system to keep the integrity of the systems in place. Performing these preventive measures would extend the longevity of the total HVAC mechanical system.

C. The rear of the building has its original windows. They show signs of cracking, safety concerns, and are not energy efficient. The cost of this project includes design fee, waste disposal, new windows and frames.

D. Engineering assessment and design services for the replacement of existing steam boilers to Hydronic boilers and the conversion of the heating distribution system to a Hydronic system.

E. Although the boilers were replaced in 1997, the steam heat distribution system is original to the building. The existing boilers will be replaced with new energy efficient boilers. Energy Conservation rebates will be pursued for this project.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 73 78 125 125 35 750 1,186


Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 73 78 125 125 35 750 1,186

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 73 78 125 125 35 750 1,186

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Building Management PROJECT TITLE: Nathaniel Ely PROJECT COSTS BY FISCAL YEAR

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

A 29 0 0 0 0 B 49 0 0 0 0 C 0 125 125 0 0 D 0 0 0 35 0 E 0 0 0 0 750

PRO

JEC

T

TOTAL 78 125 125 35 750 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes X_ No __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request Ongoing______ Approved __0________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Contractor and Engineer’s Estimate 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No X_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ________________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. In order to improve operating and energy efficiency, preventative repairs to the HVAC mechanical systems and replacement of original windows should be made. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded? The building will not achieve improved operating and energy efficiency.

2011 – 2012 CITY OF NORWALK

DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Building Management PROJECT TITLE: Police Headquarters


RANKING: A-4 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT DESCRIPTION: A. Replacement of Inoperable Security Cameras &

DVR system upgrades ($30,000) B. Critical Replacement Spare Parts for HVAC

Equipment ($40,000)

C. Interior Painting ($30,000) D. Front entry retaining walls/planters ($27,000)

JUSTIFICATION: A. The current security cameras & DVR system for the building has experienced repeated failures. The

system is comprised of 4 DVR’s and controls 55 cameras for the building. Replacement of inoperable cameras and DVR’s are necessary as this is a security/safety issue for the building and its occupants.

B. The Police Headquarters building is a critical location that operates 24/7, additionally it houses the 911 Dispatch Call Center. The Community Room serves as the Emergency Command Center for the City in the event of a disaster. Due to the importance of this location, Building Management conducted an inventory of the necessary critical replacement parts for the HVAC mechanical equipment. These parts should be on site in the event of any equipment failures. Having these critical spare parts for the HVAC mechanical equipment on site will enable Building Management to provide continuous building operations without any disruptions. C. Painting of walls in main stairwell, common areas and cell block walls and floors. C. The planter retaining walls in the entry plaza are showing signs of deterioration. This is visually observed by stress cracks in the walls. The retaining walls may need to be replaced in future years.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 54 30 15 15 27 141

Equipment/Furnishings 40 40

Other/Contingency


REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 54 30 40 15 15 27 181

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Building Management PROJECT TITLE: Police Headquarters PROJECT COSTS BY FISCAL YEAR

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

A 30 0 0 0 0 B 0 40 0 0 0

C 0 0 15 15 0 D 0 0 0 0 27

PRO

JEC

T

TOTAL 30 40 15 15 27 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes X_ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request Ongoing ______ Approved __0_________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived?

Contractor’s Estimate

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No X _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ________________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

The need for items A&B is to protect the safety of the building and its occupants, as well as providing uninterrupted building operations. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded?

4. The deference of items A&B may result in a public and City safety hazard and interruption of building operations if not addressed.


DEPARTMENT: Public Works

CATEGORY: Building Management PROJECT TITLE: Various Buildings - Environmental Remediation

PROJECT LIFE: Permanent SCHEDULED START: Ongoing SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Ongoing

RANKING: A-4 NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT __X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Ongoing environmental remediation

JUSTIFICATION: In the past funds were allocated for environmental remediation of asbestos, lead paint and other hazardous materials present in older City buildings. With aging buildings, these environmental concerns are more prevalent. In order to make repairs and replacements of existing piping and equipment, access to floor and wall areas is necessary. Prior to the commencement of repair work in such areas, testing Is required and if positive, abatement must take place for environmental safety.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

TOTAL



Construction 83 25 25 25 25 25 208



REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 93 25 25 25 25 25 218

CAPITAL BUDGET

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Building Management PROJECT TITLE: Various Buildings - Environmental Remediation PROJECT COSTS BY FISCAL YEAR

2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

A 25 25 25 25 25

PRO

JEC

T

TOTAL 25 25 25 25 25 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ___ No _X_ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request Ongoing_______ Approved _____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived?

In House Estimate 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ____ No X_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ___________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. This project will eliminate any environmental concerns while maintenance and repair work is being performed.

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded? Should this project be deferred and maintenance repair work required in these areas the repair costs could be quadrupled.

2011-2012

DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Bridges TITLE: Rowayton Avenue Widening

PROJECT LIFE: 50 SCHEDULED START: Design Started SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2013

RANKING: B-1 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Roadway widening of Rowayton Avenue in vicinity of Rowayton Avenue RR Bridge. Construction is 100% Federal /State funding. Funds requested are for Design Costs and the City share of R.O.W. costs.

JUSTIFICATION: The State of Connecticut is presently replacing the railroad bridge over Rowayton Avenue with a new longer span bridge structure. Due to the longer span, a deeper structure depth is required, lessening the vertical clearance from its present substandard condition to approximately 10.0’. The Phase two portion of this project will lower the roadway in the vicinity of the bridge to provide 12.17’ clearance along with increasing the width of the roadway for improved traffic flow and for adding of needed sidewalks. This will create a much safer environment for this heavily traveled corridor. Requested funds are to cover the City’s 100% responsibility for providing the designs for this project and for the City’s required 10% share of the R.O.W. projected cost of $700,000. Construction will be 100% State & Federal Funds.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL


Site Costs & Acquisition 50 70 70

Construction

Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 87 85 85

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 87 85 85

CAPITAL BUDGET



DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Bridges TITLE: Rowayton Avenue Widening

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes_X_ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $ 87__ _ ____ Approved _$___ _____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Updated Engineers Estimate

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

Phase one of this project is in construction and is the construction of a new RR bridge over Rowayton Avenue. At the end of Phase one, which is expected to be completed by June 2011, an unacceptable substandard vertical clearance will exist below the newly constructed RR bridge. This project will increase the width of the roadway below the bridge and increase vertical clearance to allow for safer vehicular and pedestrian traffic to pass below the bridge. Presently there exists substandard sidewalks in this heavy pedestrian usage area. This project will also correct this condition.

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred or not funded?

Potential for hazardous pedestrian and vehicular traffic and not being able to have newer emergency vehicles pass below the bridge.

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Bridges TITLE: Perry Avenue Bridge over Norwalk River

PROJECT LIFE: 50 YEARS SCHEDULED START: 2012 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2013

RANKING: B-1 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT DESCRIPTION: Replace deteriorated bridge superstructure and Increase width of travelway between RR crossing and Main Avenue to add a dedicated left turn lane onto Main Avenue.

JUSTIFICATION: Federal Local Bridge Program (80%) Funded is going to provide a width of three lanes of bridge over the Norwalk River in order to maintain two lanes of traffic during construction. Due to the location of the CVS entrance/exit, The Metro North Railroad Crossing and the location of Main Avenue, insufficient room to queue traffic exists, causing a severely hazardous condition. This project will allow the City to increase the width of the travelway on Perry Avenue to add a third lane between the RR crossing and Main Avenue. Project Costs Total City Share@ 20% (For participating) Reimbursement

Design (Participating) $ 314,400 $ 62,880 $251,000

Design (Non-Participating) $ 24,500 $ 24,500

Construction (Participating) $2,500,000 $500,000 $2,000,000

Construction (Non-Participating) $ 600,000 $600,000

R.O.W. $ 120,000 $ 24,000 $3,588,900 $1,211,380 $2,251,000


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL




Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 465 24 3,100 3,589

REVENUE (Specify) 251 0 2,000 2,251

NET COST 214 24 1,100 1338

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Bridges TITLE: Perry Avenue Bridge over Norwalk River

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes x No If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $__465_ ____ Approved _$_465_ _____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Engineers Estimate

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

The current superstructure of the Perry Avenue Bridge is in poor condition. This project will replace the superstructure and provide the opportunity to correct the present condition at the RR Crossing which presents an extremely hazardous condition for traffic queuing at both Main Avenue and the Crossing signal. This project will allow for additional room to queue traffic, therefore promoting safety for the traveling public, as well as, rehabilitating of the Bridge.

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred or not funded? Dramatically increase chance of severe accidents between vehicles and train traffic and the possibility of the bridge being closed to through traffic if not replaced.

CITY OF NORWALK

DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY : Bridges TITLE: James Street Bridge

PROJECT LIFE: 50 Years SCHEDULED START: Current SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2013

RANKING: B-1 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT __ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Final design effort for superstructure replacement of James Street Bridge over Silvermine River, R.O.W. Costs, construction, construction administration, and inspection of construction Funds requested below are to cover the City’s 20% obligation.

JUSTIFICATION: The existing James Street Bridge was constructed in 1956 and is in a deteriorated condition. The new superstructure will be replaced to the same approximate dimensions, with a more aesthetically appealing railing system. This project will be funded at 80% Federal funding through the Federal Local Bridge Program. 20% of the overall cost is the City responsibility. Projected Costs Total City Share @ 20% Reimbursement Design (Participating) $145,350 $39,070 $116,000 Construction (Participating) $1,750,000 $350,000 $1,400,000 R.O.W. $300,000 $60,000 $2,245,350 $449,070 $1,516,000


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL


Site Costs & Acquisition 60 60


Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce.

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 200 60 1,750 2,010

REVENUE (Specify) 116 0 1,400 1,516

NET COST 84 60 350 494

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012


DEPARTMENT Public Works CATEGORY: Bridges TITLE: James Street Bridge

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes X No __ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $200_ ____ Approved $_200__ _____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived?

Engineers Estimate 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X_ _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. If project does not move forward, with increasing deterioration taking place, potential exists for lowering of the load rating for this bridge and eventually even the possibility for closure of the roadway. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred or not funded?

See 4 above

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Bridges TITLE: East Avenue Roadway / Bridge

PROJECT LIFE: 50 Years SCHEDULED START: JULY 2009 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: JULY 2014


DESCRIPTION: Widening of East Avenue from St. John Street to Rowan St. to accommodate 4 lanes of traffic. This project will also add sidewalks to both sides of the roadway below the bridge for improved safety for pedestrians as well as increasing vertical clearance below the bridge.

JUSTIFICATION: The low vertical clearance and narrow width of the roadway below the East Avenue RR Bridge causes significant traffic delays on East avenue as well as increased potential for vehicular and pedestrian collisions. Presently truck traffic can not pass below the bridge causing trucks to take Fort Point St. as a route to south of the bridge. Turning traffic onto Fort Point also causes significant traffic impacts to East Avenue Traffic that need to be eliminated for improved safety in this corridor. The City will pay 100% Cost of Design Effort, 10% of R.O.W. costs. Federal and State will pay remainder of R.O.W. costs and 100% Construction Costs. Projected Costs Totals City Obligation Design Costs $378,000 $378,000 R.O.W. $3,300,000 $330,000 $3,678,000 $708,000


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction

Eqpt./Furnishings


REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 408 300 708

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Bridges TITLE: East Avenue Roadway / Bridge

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes x No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_408_ _ ____ Approved _$_408__ _____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Updated Engineers Estimate

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Will improve traffic flow and safety for both pedestrians and vehicles with this corridor. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred or not funded? Project will not be ready for bidding with State Bridge Projects and City will not be able to take advantage of Federal and State funding for this project. Increased liability for City should project not go forward.


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY : Bridges TITLE: Westmere Avenue Bridge

PROJECT LIFE: 50 Years SCHEDULED START: Current SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2013

RANKING: B-2 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT __ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Final design effort for superstructure replacement of Westmere Avenue Bridge over Farm Creek, construction, contract administration and inspection of construction. Funds requested are to cover the City’s 20% obligations.

JUSTIFICATION: The existing Westmere Avenue Bridge was constructed in 1939 and is in a deteriorated state of repair. This bridge requires a superstructure replacement and repairs made to the abutments. Funding: Federal Local Bridge Program, the Federal government will pay 80% of the cost of the project with the City paying 20%. Projected Costs Total City Share 20% Reimbursement Design (Participating) $200,000 $40,000 $160,000 Construction (Participating) $1,300,000 $260,000 $1,040,000 R.O.W. $0 $0_______ $1,500,000 $300,000 $1,200,000


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL




Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce.

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 275 1,300 1,575

REVENUE (Specify) 160 1040 1200

NET COST 115 260 375

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Public Works CATEGORY: Bridge TITLE: Westmere Avenue Bridge

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes X No ___ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_275 Approved $_275 If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived?

Engineers Estimate 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No __X _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs _____________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. If this project does not move forward, with the increasing deterioration taking place on this bridge, there exists a potential for lowering of the load rating of the bridge and potential for closing of the roadway. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred or not funded? See 4 above

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Bridges TITLE: General Bridge Repairs

PROJECT LIFE: 40- 50 years SCHEDULED START: JULY 2010 SCHEDULED COMPLETION:JULY 2013

RANKING: B-2 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: (Project. #C0315) General bridge repairs to existing bridges including bridge railing repairs, concrete patch repairs, pointing of masonry, approach railing repairs and other miscellaneous repairs as needed

JUSTIFICATION: The State of Connecticut, every two years, inspects all City Bridges. Deficiencies are brought to the attention of the City following these inspections. These deficiencies must be repaired to allow for safe transport of vehicles and pedestrians. Example: West Cedar Street Bridge needs to have pointing work done on old masonry arch section as well as improving of scour countermeasures. Other work would include painting of metal railings such as those located at Klondike Pak.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 65 65 65 195

Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 65 65 65 195

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 65 65 65 195

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Bridges TITLE: General Bridge Repairs

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _X No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_65_ _ ____ Approved _$_65__ _____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Estimate of past expenditures 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _ X_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Improved safety for traveling public and promotes increased useful life of structures. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred or not funded? Potential for increased liability for City since State of Connecticut has identified deficiencies.


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY : Bridges TITLE: Glover Avenue Bridge Rails

PROJECT LIFE: 20 Years SCHEDULED START: July 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Jan 2012


DESCRIPTION: Design and Construction for the removal of inadequate existing bridge railings and installation of new railings meeting current AASHTO/DOT requirements.

JUSTIFICATION: Existing railings are in a state of disrepair and do not meet current codes for safety of pedestrians and vehicles. The state project to correct these conditions has been postponed to an undetermined date.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design



Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce.


REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 120 120

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Public Works CATEGORY: Bridges TITLE: Glover Avenue Bridge Rails

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes X No ____ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_120 ____ Approved $_0____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived?

Engineers Estimate 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Existing railings presents a safety concern for both vehicular and pedestrian traffic using Glover Avenue. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred or not funded?

Potential liability for City of Norwalk


DEPARTMENT: Public Works PROJECT TITLE: Fleet Replacement PROJECT LIFE: Ongoing SCHEDULED START: SCHEDULED COMPLETION:

RANKING: C1-8 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT DESCRIPTION: (See attached Fleet Replacement Plan) • Backhoe • Dump truck/snow plow (3) • Mid-size truck/snow plow (2) • Superslope Master • Street Sweeper • Chipper • Mini Excavator • Pothole Patching Truck

JUSTIFICATION: • 10 year old backhoe needs to be replaced to perform heavy construction work (i.e., pipe repairs, etc.). • On-going rotation/replacement of 30 snow plow trucks. • On-going rotation/replacement of small plow /mason trucks. • Required to maintain Perry Avenue dike. • 10 year old street sweeper at end of useful life. Used for litter/debris removal and stormwater maintenance. • Larger chipper needed to improve efficiency of tree crew. • Required to continue to repair infrastructure with in-house staff • Enhance efficiency and effectiveness of pothole patching operations


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction

Equipment/Furnishings Ongoing 1,486 708 678 518 518 3,908

Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES Ongoing 1,486 708 678 518 518 3,908

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 1,486 708 678 518 518 3,908

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Public Works PROJECT TITLE Fleet Replacement 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes X No ___ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $___________ Approved _$695,000____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Bids and quotations from equipment suppliers. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes _X__ No __ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses __ ____________________ C. Additional Salary Costs __________________ No. of new positions ___________________ D. Additional operating expenses __________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Equipment replacement is needed to maintain City services for snow and ice removal, highway and drainage repairs, and garbage services. See Justification section on Page 1. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. Increased maintenance costs, loss of productivity, dilution of City services, and increased liability associated with an aging fleet.


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Paving PROJECT TITLE: Pavement Management Program

PROJECT LIFE: 20+ Years SCHEDULED START: April 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: November 2011

RANKING: E-1 NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: The Pavement Management program is intended to begin improving the condition of streets and roads throughout the City, as measured by the average Pavement Condition Index (PCI).

JUSTIFICATION: At recent funding levels, the average PCI of streets and roads in the City has begun to stabilize. Analysis shows that an annual investment of $6 million is required to begin increasing, and sustaining, the average PCI across the City. At lower funding levels, the average PCI will decline. Maintaining the current average PCI is not sufficient to correct many streets that are in extremely poor condition. DPW recommends an annual budget of $6M per year, not only to maintain the average PCI, but to improve the condition of some of worst condition streets in Norwalk.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design Ongoing 300 300 300 300 300 1,500


Construction Construction 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250 5,250 26,250


Other/Contingency Ongoing 450 450 450 450 450 2,250

TOTAL EXPENDITURES Ongoing 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 30,000

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST Ongoing 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 6,000 30,000

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Paving PROJECT TITLE: Pavement Management Program Paving Management Program

_______FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13____________________________ Ambler Drive Hillwood Place Poplar Street Vail Street Austin Street Fitch Street Lycett Court Sable St Assisi Way Holmes Street Quaker Road Villaway Road Bishop Street Gibson Court Magnolia Ave Saranac St Beau Street Horton Street Russell Street Walter Avenue Brook Street Girard Street Mohackemo Dr Scribner Ave Brooklawn Avenue Lark Lane School Street West Main Street Cavanaugh Street Grescham Ave Murray Street Sention Ave Catherine Street Live Oak Road Shepherd Street Winterset Drive Cedar Street Hawkins Street Musket Ridge Rd Shamrock La Circle Road Lloyd Road Spar Road Wood Acre Road Clay Street High Street Norport Drive Silwen Lane Ellen Street Madison Street Strawberry Hill Ave Cornwall Court Highwood Ave North Seir Hill Rd Spruce St Freedman Drive Midrocks Drive Suncrest Road Covelee Drive Jersey Lane Nostrum Road Studio Lane Garfield Street Morehouse Lane Technology Plaza Dairy Farm Court Karen Drive Prowitt Street Taylor Ave Garner Street Oakfield Road Thorn Apple Way Dairy Farm Road Kossuth Street Rebel Lane West End Rd Grand Street Pennoyer Street Tindall Avenue Elaine Street Ludlow Manor #1 Richlee Road Woodbury Ave Grumman Court Pheasant Lane Upland Court Elmcrest Terrace Luffberry Avenue Rolling Lane

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X__ No __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request __$5,000,000____ ______ Approved _$5,000,000_____ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? In depth GIS analysis using data derived by consulting engineering and estimates based on historical costs, extent of reconstruction required and continued monitoring of each street’s Pavement Condition Index (PCI).

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes _X__ No __ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses Over time will decrease repair and maintenance cost and extend useful equipment life. C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ___________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________

4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. The City’s streets are constantly under distress. Without constant refurbishment and maintenance of the City’s infrastructure, the overall condition of the City’s streets will decline exponentially. The amount of funding requested is to maintain or improve the current PCI.

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded? Without funding preventative maintenance techniques, future methods of repair will be more expensive and the overall condition (PCI) of the City’s streets will decline. This would expose the City to increased costs, complaints and liability claims.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Paving TITLE: City Hall Parking Facility Rehabilitation

PROJECT LIFE: 20+ years SCHEDULED START: 2010 SCHEDULED COMPLETION:2010

RANKING: E-2 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Project will include repaving the city hall parking lot, miscellaneous curb and sidewalk repairs.

JUSTIFICATION: Project will provide for the maintenance of the 20-year-old current city hall parking lot, and repair curbs and walks.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design In-house



Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 220 220

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 220 220

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Paving TITLE: City Hall Parking Facility Rehabilitation

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes x_ No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $__ 220,000_ ____ Approved _$___ 0_____ If not, why is the project now included? Project was previously identified in the Building management category. 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Estimate of past expenditures 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

The parking lot needs to be maintained.


Existing parking lot will continue to deteriorate, leading to increased repair costs.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Paving TITLE: Norwalk River Valley Trail– Phase 2

PROJECT LIFE: 25 years SCHEDULED START: 2010 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2015

RANKING: E-3 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT __ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Construction costs for piece of trail between Union Park and New Canaan Avenue.

JUSTIFICATION: This portion will enable pedestrians and bicyclists to use the existing trail from Broad Street to the Maritime Aquarium and eventually to Long Island Sound. ConnDOT has proposed to include construction of another phase from Perry Avenue to Grist Mill Road as part of the Merritt Parkway interchange project. The design funds for this section of the trail have been secured through the FTA and funds have been secured from CTDEP to regionally provide a concept plan to extend trail to Danbury.


PRIOR YEAR

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 1,500 1,500 3,000

Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,500 1,500 3,000

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 1,500 1,500 3,000

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Paving TITLE: Norwalk River Valley Trail – Phase 2

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes x_ No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_0_ ____ Approved _$__0_ _____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Estimated from previous construction costs. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

This project provides an alternative form of transportation and additional recreational opportunity for the citizens of Norwalk. This has been part of the Master Plan of Development for Norwalk since the early 1990s.


Less alternative forms of transportation and decreased recreational activities for residents.


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Sidewalk/Curb PROJECT TITLE: Sidewalk and Curbs – Citywide

PROJECT LIFE: 20 Years SCHEDULED START: SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Ongoing

RANKING: F-1 X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION:

Construction of sidewalks where none exist and repair of existing sidewalks.

JUSTIFICATION:

To enable pedestrian mobility and create a healthier and safer lifestyle. The City has 140 miles of sidewalk and 45 miles of footpath. The proposed funding will provide for only the most critical of sidewalk repairs and no footpath work. Initially, work will be done in synch with road paving. In later years, funds will implement plan under development by Planning & Zoning.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction Ongoing 400 400 400 400 400 2,000


Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES Ongoing 400 400 400 400 400 2,000

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST Ongoing 400 400 400 400 400 2,000

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Sidewalk/Curbs PROJECT TITLE: Sidewalks and Curbing – Citywide

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X__ No __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request __$300,000______ ______ Approved _$200,000_______ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? Estimate from ongoing program costs.

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ____ No X_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses _________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ___________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________


Enhance safety for pedestrian transportation and lessen liability for City. Replacement of sidewalk sections is often required on roads scheduled for re-paving, where adjustments to grade are needed or curb reveal has been lost (impacting drainage).


Potential for increased liability to City as sidewalk trips and falls constitute one of the most common claims against the City. Also, in some instances, curbing must be altered (and consequently the sidewalk) to establish an appropriate layout of a roadway, prior to it being re-paved.


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Sidewalk/Curb PROJECT TITLE: Sidewalks and Curbs – City Buildings/Property



DESCRIPTION:

Construction of sidewalks where none exist and repair of existing sidewalks at City facilities. Projects could include sidewalks at Mill Hill.

JUSTIFICATION:

To enable pedestrian mobility and create a healthier and safer lifestyle. The City has 140 miles of sidewalk and 45 miles of footpath. The proposed funding will provide for only the most critical of sidewalk repairs at City facilities.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design




Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 50 50 50 150

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 50 50 50 150

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Sidewalk/Curbs PROJECT TITLE: Sidewalks and Curbing – City Buildings/Property

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _ __ No _x_ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request ______ Approved _______ If not, why is the project now included? The Department has determined the occasional need to repair the sidewalks and curbs associated with City Buildings.




Enhance safety for pedestrian transportation and lessen liability for City.


Potential for an increased liability to the City as sidewalk trips and falls constitute on of the most common claims against the City.


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Sidewalk/Curb PROJECT TITLE: Footpath Replacement


RANKING: F- 2 X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION:

Repair of existing sidewalks.

JUSTIFICATION:

To enable pedestrian mobility and create a healthier and safer lifestyle. The City has 140 miles of sidewalk and 45 miles of footpath. The proposed funding will provide for only the most critical footpath work.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction Ongoing 150 100 100 100 100 550


Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES Ongoing 150 100 100 100 100 550

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST Ongoing 150 100 100 100 100 550

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Sidewalk/Curbs PROJECT TITLE: Footpath Replacement

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _ __ No _x_ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request ______ ______ Approved ___________ If not, why is the project now included? Some footpaths have recently been discovered to need attention.




Enhance safety for pedestrian transportation and lessen liability for City.


Potential for increased liability to City as trips and falls constitute one of the most common claims against the City.


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Sidewalk/Curb PROJECT TITLE: Sidewalk and Curb – Cudlipp Avenue

PROJECT LIFE: 20 Years SCHEDULED START: 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2012


DESCRIPTION:

Construction of sidewalks and curbs on Cudlipp Avenue.

JUSTIFICATION:

To enable pedestrian mobility and create a healthier and safer lifestyle. This street with high pedestrian traffic currently has no sidewalks.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design




Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 75 75 150

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 75 75 150

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Sidewalk/Curbs PROJECT TITLE: Sidewalk and Curb- Cudlipp Avenue

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _ X__ No __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request _$75,000_____ ______ Approved _$0________________ If not, why is the project now included? Neighborhood request




Enhance safety for pedestrian transportation. Project was requested by the Taxing District.


This will continue to be a major inconvenience to pedestrians.


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Stormwater Management PROJECT TITLE: General Drainage


RANKING: G-1 X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: This project entails the replacement, repair and construction of new local drainage as needed.

JUSTIFICATION: Repair or installation of minor to mid-sized drainage systems and culvert cleaning as needed during the year. Drainage improvements are often required on roads scheduled for re-paving and there are several potential drainage improvements throughout the City that have been investigated and estimated.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design




Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES Ongoing 400 400 400 400 450 2,050

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST Ongoing 400 400 400 400 450 2,050

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Stormwater Management PROJECT TITLE: General Drainage

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X__ No ____ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request __$350,000______ ______ Approved _$250,000_______ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? Estimate from ongoing program costs and proposed plans.

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ____ No X_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ___________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________


There are numerous areas of the City that require drainage improvements that are relatively small in nature, that can be rectified quickly and efficiently through this program.


Continued flooding problems and destruction to personal property. Flooding also is a hazard to the traveling public.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Storm Water TITLE: Watercourse Maintenance

PROJECT LIFE: 15 years SCHEDULED START: SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Ongoing

RANKING: G-2 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Removal of sediment, trees and other materials from City watercourses. Potential locations include Metro North Culverts, North Taylor Avenue, Meadow Street discharge (salt marsh), Oak Hills to Gillies Lane, Grumman Avenue at Newtown Avenue, along with other point discharge locations.

JUSTIFICATION: Most City watercourses that are integral parts of the City storm drainage system are severely blocked with debris and sediment that must be removed to help alleviate flooding potential. Much of the sediment is from years of road sanding operations.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 825 250 1500 1000 1000 4575

Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce.

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 825 250 1500 1000 1000 4575

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 825 250 1500 1000 1000 4575

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Storm Water TITLE: Watercourse Maintenance

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes_x_ No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $__825_ ____ Approved _$__825_ _____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Planning estimate 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

To alleviate flooding


Increased flooding

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Storm Water TITLE: Storm Water Best Management Plan

PROJECT LIFE: 15 years SCHEDULED START: SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Ongoing

RANKING: G-3 NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT __ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Continues initiative to improve water quality and management in the streams, rivers and harbors of Norwalk. Funds development of public outreach and education program required by EPA Phase II Storm Water requirements, participate in FEMA CMS program which may entitle residents to reduced flood premiums, map stormwater system, and add/maintain structural BMPs and identify illicit discharges. Replace and maintain existing BMPs.

JUSTIFICATION: The EPA/DEP has identified several requirements that each urbanized area like Norwalk must address. Included within these requirements are storm water sampling, regular maintenance and documentation of storm water systems and public outreach and education. This request will help to assist us in documenting these requirements and continue to pursue additional technologies and enhancements to improve water quality. This will allow the City to increase its participation in the FEMA CRS program which enables homeowners to reduce their flood insurance premiums.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction


Other/Contingency 100 200 200 200 200 200 1,100 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 100 200 200 200 200 200 1,100

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 100 200 200 200 200 200 1,100

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Storm Water PROJECT TITLE: Storm Water Best Management Plan

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes_x__ No __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $____100,000__________ Approved $__0_______ If not, why is the project now included?

4. How was your cost estimate derived? General information from other communities that have implemented Phase II requirements

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No X If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______0__________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______0__________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______0__________ No. of new positions _______0____________ D. Additional operating expenses ______0__________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______0__________


The Clean Water Act and MS-4 permit and federal mandates that require best management practices.

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred or not funded.

The City risks the possibility of State and Federal fines and sanctions.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Storm Water TITLE: Water Street Outlet Maintenance



DESCRIPTION: Dredging and maintenance of existing drainage outlets at several locations on Water Street.

JUSTIFICATION: As part of the City’s easement agreement with various property owner’s on Water Street, the City is responsible for maintain the drainage outfalls and the water channels depths. Located at Norwest Marine and Total Marine. Outfalls at both these locations were installed in 1920-1980’s and require dredging maintenance. This was last done in 2008 and earlier in 1997. Survey performed indicates dredging on required again at these locations.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design



Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce.


REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 250 300 550

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Storm Water TITLE: Water Street Outlet Maintenance

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes____ No _x _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $___ ____ Approved _$__ _ _____ If not, why is the project now included? To address easement requirements. 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Planning estimate 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ____ ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

The City is obligated by easement to maintain the outlet area and dredge as necessary 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred or not funded?

The City could be found in violation of easement obligations.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Storm Water TITLE: Keeler Brook Storm Water Improvements

PROJECT LIFE: 40 years SCHEDULED START: SCHEDULED COMPLETION:

RANKING: G-5 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: (Project. #C0395) The design and construction of improvements recommended for Keeler Brook. Future project to include existing storm sewer improvements in watershed.

JUSTIFICATION: The Keeler Brook drainage study required as part of the Connecticut DEP order for the Keeler Brook watershed has identified several improvements needed for the watercourse. Improvements to the storm water collection system to handle the peak flows associated with the urbanized nature of the area are also necessary to prevent it from entering the sanitary sewer system. The brook often floods local residents and streets including Gilly’s Lane, Ledgebrook Drive, West Cedar Street, Scribner Avenue and Route 1. Models have shown that the recurrence interval of flooding is two years. City has received $3.0 authorization in WRDA and will be required to provide matching funds.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design 320 750 1,070

Site Costs & Acquisition 300 300

Construction 1,000 4,000 2,000 7,000


Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 620 1,000 750 4,000 2,000 8,370

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 620 1,000 750 4,000 2,000 8,370

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Storm Water TITLE: Keeler Brook Storm Water Improvements

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _x_ No ___ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_0_____ Approved $__0______

If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? Scope and price proposal from engineering firm.

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______0__________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______0__________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______0___________ No. of new positions 0_________ D. Additional operating expenses ______0__________ Net effect on Operating Budget _________________


This project would address serious recurring flooding on several roads in the Keeler Brook area and address a DEP order. Additional benefits include better and safer travel on local roads.


Additional flooding in the area could occur before a plan could be developed to help mitigate flooding in the Keeler Brook area. Possible DEP orders and sanctions. Matching funds will be required for federal funds authorized.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Storm Water TITLE: Culvert Rehabilitation


RANKING: G-6 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Structural lining of 700’ of Corrugated Metal pipe carrying a portion of the Indian River.

JUSTIFICATION: The Corrugated Metal pipe is deteriorating and releasing iron oxide bacteria into Indian River. The structural integrity of the pipe is compromised and will eventually collapse. There exists the possibility of a formal DEP order to repair. FY 2011-12 Project is for the structural lining of the 36” Storm Drain on Clinton Avenue which has failed and creates road collapse during intense rainfalls.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design



Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce.


REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 280 400 680

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Storm Water TITLE: Culvert Rehabilitation

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes x_ No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_______680,000 ______ Approved _$_0_______ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Cost estimate. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

Collapse of this pipe could result inn flooding of neighborhood. A strong potential exists for a DEP order to investigate and correct situation.


Continued release of iron oxide bacteria and potential flooding of neighborhood should pipe collapse.

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Storm Water TITLE: Burlington Court/Betts Brook – Area 6



DESCRIPTION: Install new drainage to alleviate flooding in Burlington Court area.

JUSTIFICATION: Correct flooding in Burlington Court Area. See attached drainage study. Funds recommended for FY 2012-13 are needed to assess potential downstream flooding impacts of possible corrective actions taken upstream. Upstream corrective action cannot be determined until such assessment is done.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction 2,500 2,500

Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 150 400 2,500 3,050

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 150 400 2,500 3,050

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Storm Water TITLE: Burlington Court/Betts Brook – Area 6

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes x No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $____3,050 _ ____ Approved _$__0_ _____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

Storm water causes road and property flooding.


Continued deterioration of roadway, increased property damage and dangerous road conditions will continue.


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Storm Water TITLE: Buckingham/ Lockwood - Area 5


RANKING: G-8 _X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT

X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: (Project. #C0421) Implementation of storm water improvements and various best management practices in the Lockwood/Buckingham area to alleviate flooding.

JUSTIFICATION: Significant flooding has been experienced in this area on a frequent recurring basis. See attached drainage study. FY 2014-15 funds will construct Phase II.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL





Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 4,050 3,400 7,450

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 4,050 3,400 7,450

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Storm Water TITLE: Buckingham/Lockwood – Area 5

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _x _ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_4,050,000 ______ Approved $_4,050,000_______ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? Engineer’s estimate

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________________________ No. of new positions __________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________________________ ______________________________


The residents of the area have requested this project.


Further flooding of property and homes.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Traffic TITLE: Traffic Signals at Various Locations


RANKING: H-1 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Replacement of obsolete traffic signals, some in excess of 30 years old, such as France @ Cannon, Gregory @ First, Rowayton @ Cudlipp, Meadow Street @ Fire House, Van Buren @ Bedford, First @ Sycamore, Newtown @ Allen Road, East @ Eversley, Rowayton @ Wilson. Funds are also required to replace existing Opticom Priority Control units. Update controllers and communication on New Canaan Avenue.

JUSTIFICATION: These signals and or equipment are beyond the useful life span and require replacement. This part of a continuing program to replace obsolete signals across the City so to better manage traffic flows. Approximately 10 existing opticom units need to be replaced at various locations need to be replaced. Provide battery back-up at critical intersection. Six(6) Traffic Signal Systems at Wall Street @ Main, Wall Street @ Commerce, Van Zant Street @ Osborne, Van Zant Street @ Fire House, Ward Street @ Freese Court and Fox Run @ Little Brook/Red Coat will be advertised for bid in March 2011. This Signal Project will utilize the entire funding available in the Traffic Signal Capital Accounts.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design




Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 250 250 250 250 250 1,250

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 250 250 250 250 250 1,250

CAPITAL BUDGET

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Traffic TITLE: Traffic Signals at Various Locations

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _x No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $___0____ ______ Approved $_____0__ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? Engineer estimate based on recent pricing

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _____________________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses _____________________________ C. Additional Salary Costs _____________________________ No. of new positions ___________ D. Additional operating expenses _____________________________ _____________________________


The City has several signals that are over 30 years old and require replacement.


The signals can have the potential to fail and cause injury due to age and condition.

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Traffic TITLE: Traffic System Enhancements

PROJECT LIFE: 20 years .

SCHEDULED START: 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2011

RANKING: H-2 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: This project will replace old video detection, traffic cameras, and Opticom, install new road sensors, battery back-up power, and video detection. Install traffic video monitors as needed at critical locations such PD, FD, City Hall, etc. Purchase VMS signs.

JUSTIFICATION: Much of existing traffic cameras and some of our video detection is at or approaching the end of its life cycle and needs to replaced. There are critical intersections in the City (i.e. Washington Circle, Washington St. at Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. Drive, West Avenue at North Main) that should have battery power backup available for power failures. Road sensors can provide highway with the necessary information to plan the proper snow response. Use Variables Message Signs (VMS) to advise of construction project, accidents, special events, etc.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design





REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 200 200 200 600

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Traffic TITLE: Traffic System Enhancements

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_______ ______ Approved $__________ If not, why is the project now included? To address aging equipment

2. How was your cost estimate derived? Engineer estimate based on recent pricing

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _____________________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses _____________________________ C. Additional Salary Costs _____________________________ No. of new positions ____________ D. Additional operating expenses _____________________________ ________________________


The City has several locations with older equipment such as video cameras, opticom detection that should be replaced. In addition, there are several locations, where additional equipment such road temperature sensors, traffic monitors, video detection is needed


Motorist inconvenience.

2011-2012

DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Traffic TITLE: Roton Middle School Crossing


RANKING: H-3 X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT __ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Implementation of traffic safety measures at the Roton Middle School Crosswalk

JUSTIFICATION: This crosswalk has been identified by the parents and a Safe Routes to School Study as a problem area.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 75 75

Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 75 75

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 75 75

CAPITAL BUDGET



DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Traffic TITLE: Roton Middle School Crossing

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes X No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_____ ______ Approved _$_________ If not, why is the project now included? Parents of students have initiated this request. 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Cost estimate from engineering firm 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

The use of this cross walk by the children and residents has necessitated this project. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred or not funded?

Children’s safety.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Traffic TITLE: City Traffic Sign Inventory/Replacement

PROJECT LIFE: SCHEDULED START: 2010 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2011

RANKING: H-4 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT __ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: This project is for the inventory and collection of traffic signs and measure of reflectivity through a video scan. The geo-referenced images collected will be used to create a detailed inventory of street signs, fire hydrants, manholes, catch basins, trees, traffic signals and other infrastructure, and can provide advance information to public safety agencies.

JUSTIFICATION: To comply with proposed sign reflectivity standards and reduce liability, there is a need to have a record of each traffic sign installed and the condition of existing signs This information will also be used to offset the cost of survey work required for other capital projects, reduce need for field visits for all departments, provide critical advance information to emergency responders and assist in creating an accurate inventory of City infrastructure. It will free personnel to accomplish other required tasks and may reduce liability cost to the City. Sign data collected will be used to address FHWA MUTCD sign inventory requirements; assessment must be done by January 1, 2012 and City must be in compliance by January 1, 2015. Funds are being requested in 2013-14 and 2014-15 to replace non-conforming signs.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design



Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce. 250 250 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 250 250 250 750

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 250 250 250 750

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Traffic TITLE: City Traffic Sign Inventory/Replacement

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _x_ No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $____250 _ ____ Approved _$__0_ _____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Estimated from previous experience. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

To reduce the potential liability to City for accidents.


Possible legal exposure costs.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Traffic TITLE: Transportation Master Plan Implementation


RANKING: H-5 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: The City is currently in the process of developing a City-wide Traffic Management Plan. This project is to address suggested improvements identified for funding in the Transportation Master Plan.

JUSTIFICATION: These funds will be used to address suggested improvements in the upcoming City-wide Traffic Management Plan. Funds will also be used as matching funds for possible grant opportunities.

EXPENDITURE SCHEDULE (000’s)

PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 250 250 250 250 1,000

Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 250 250 250 250 1,000

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 250 250 250 250 1,000

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Traffic TITLE: Transportation Master Plan Implementation

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes No x_ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $__0__ _ ____ Approved _$_0__ _____ If not, why is the project now included? Implementation of results from new study 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Estimated from previous experience. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

To address capital needs identified in the Transportation Master Plan.


N/A

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Traffic TITLE: Ward Street Traffic Calming



DESCRIPTION: Prepare design plans for the reconstruction of Ward Street utilizing recognized traffic calming methods

JUSTIFICATION: Ward Street was constructed as a higher speed than applicable to the neighborhood. By designing and installing some effective traffic control measures, average speed on the road can be decreased and provide a safer pedestrian environment for the neighborhood.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL




Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 80 1,800 1,880

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 80 1,800 1,880

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Traffic TITLE: Ward Street Traffic Calming

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _ No _x _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_______0______ Approved _$___0______ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Cost estimate from engineering firm

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________


The residential nature of this neighborhood created the need for this project.


Federal funds often become available for projects that are designed and ready to bid. By having a design ready and available, we may have the opportunity to secure construction funds that are fully reimbursable.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Traffic TITLE: Spring Hill Traffic Calming



DESCRIPTION: Implementation of traffic calming measures in the Spring Hill neighborhood.

JUSTIFICATION: By designing and installing some effective traffic control measures, average speed on the road can be decreased and provide a safer pedestrian environment for the neighborhood.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL




Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 100 1,200 1,300

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 100 1,200 1,300

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Traffic TITLE: Spring Hill Traffic Calming

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes x_ No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $___0__ ______ Approved _$___0______ If not, why is the project now included? 3. How was your cost estimate derived? Cost estimate from engineering firm 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

The residential nature of this neighborhood and the number of children in the neighborhood has necessitated this project. 6. What are the implications if the project is deferred or not funded?

Federal funds often become available for projects that are designed and ready to bid. By having a design ready and available, we may have the opportunity to secure construction funds that are fully reimbursable.


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Trees TITLE: City-wide Tree Planting Program

PROJECT LIFE: 40- 50 years SCHEDULED START: SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Ongoing

RANKING: I-1 X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Replacement of removed trees or planting of trees in areas lacking trees.

JUSTIFICATION: Trees provide social, community, environmental and economic benefit to a community. They increase quality of life for residents of the community. Funds would help the City maintain its status as a Tree City. These funds also helped secure Norwalk 1st place nation-wide as winner of the Home Depot Foundation’s Community Tree Award for Small Communities in 2006. Will also enable to maintain its long standing recognition as a “Tree City” by the Arbor Day Foundation.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction Ongoing 45 45 45 45 45 225

Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce. TOTAL EXPENDITURES Ongoing 45 45 45 45 45 225

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST Ongoing 45 45 45 45 45 225

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Trees TITLE: City–wide Tree Planting Program

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes x No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $__25,000 _ ____ Approved _$__25,000_ _____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived?

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. To improve quality of life

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred or not funded? Decreased quality of life and urban warming

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: SAFETEA-LU Match TITLE: FHWA Matching Funds

PROJECT LIFE: 20 years SCHEDULED START: 2012 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: on-going

RANKING: J-1 NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: FHWA make funds available to cover a majority of the cost for the design and construction of roadway and multi-modal transportation improvement, producing transportation planning studies, etc. to improve the transportation program with the State. This account will be used to fund City portion of these “gap-filler” projects. Previous “gap-filler” projects included the Norwalk Transportation Management Plan and Seaview/Ponus Paving.

JUSTIFICATION: The local regional planning agency (SWRPA) is allotted a portion of these funds to utilize for projects of regional interest. Up to 90% of these project costs are reimbursed by the State and Federal government with the remaining portion to be covered by the municipality. At times, there are projects that are designated for funding but for various reasons are on hold. Since federal funds are required to be obligated within a certain time frame, there are many other projects not funded due to fiscal constraint that can be submitted to fill these slots so that funding isn’t lost to another region. This account will be used to fund City portion of these “gap-filler” projects. Previous ‘gap-filler” projects included the Norwalk Transportation Management Plan and Seaview/Ponus Paving.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design 40


Construction

Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce. 250 250 250 250 250 1,250 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 250 250 250 250 250 1,250

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 250 250 250 250 250 1,250

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: SAFETEA-LU Match TITLE: FHWA Matching Funds

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes x No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_0__ _ ____ Approved _$__0_____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Cost Estimates

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

There is a significant neighborhood desire for this project since Fairfield Avenue serves as a key gateway to South Norwalk. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred or not funded?

A missed opportunity to obtain matching funds of 90% of total project cost.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: SAFETEA-LU Match TITLE: Fairfield Ave./Washington St Match


RANKING: J-2 X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT __ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Through the FHWA, SAFETEA-LU program the City can get roads reconstructed with a 10% match. The Department submitted several roads for consideration. This request is for match funds to reconstruct Fairfield Avenue and Washington Street.

JUSTIFICATION: Through a 10% match, the City can get several roads repaired. This program is highly competitive and having match money is advantageous in securing funds. This project is anticipated to be done in 2 phases. This funding request is for matching funds for design.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction 1,500 600 2,100

Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,540 600 2,140

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 1,540 600 2,140

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: SAFETEA-LU Match TITLE: Fairfield Ave/ Washington St. Match

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes x No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_0__ _ ____ Approved _$__0_____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Cost Estimates

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

There is a significant neighborhood desire for this project since Fairfield Avenue serves as a key gateway to South Norwalk. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred or not funded?

A missed opportunity to obtain matching funds of 90% of total project cost.

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: SAFETEA-LU Match TITLE: Safe Routes to Schools



DESCRIPTION: (Project. #C0441) The City is prepared to submit a project to ConnDOT for construction funding in 2010 under the SAFETEA-LU SRTS program. This item is to supplement any federal funding received.

JUSTIFICATION: The City is eligible for 100% federal funding for the construction of improvements under the SAFETEALU- SRTS program that encourage students in Grade K-8 to walk and bike to school as opposed to other transportation alternatives. Currently, only $1.3M is available state-wide annually for this program thus some City funds may be needed to fully implement a project. The City has targeted several possible projects for future funding including Gregory Blvd/Calf Pasture Beach Road (bikeway and sidewalks), Stuart Avenue/Fillow Street Area (sidewalks), Silvermine School Area (sidewalks) and Highland Avenue (sidewalks and bikeway).


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design




Other/Conti

System Mtce.


REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 200 200 400

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: SAFETEA-LU Match TITLE: Safe Routes to Schools

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes x_ No __

If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $___0 _ Approved _$_ 0_____ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? Cost estimate history

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________

4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. A set amount of funds are dedicated to the region for improvements to encourage walking or biking to K-8. Although projects are 100% federally and state funded, additional funds may be needed to supplement or maintain project scope


A lost opportunity to obtain federal and state funds for most of the total project cost.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: SAFETEA-LU Match TITLE: Route 1 Widening



DESCRIPTION: (Project. #C0442) This request is for the City-share of funds needed for the widening of Route 1 from Belden to East Avenue.

JUSTIFICATION: The City has received an earmark of $3.8M under the SAFETEA-LU program to fund improvements to Route 1. City share is to cover 10% match and any additional non-participating program costs necessary for Phase 1. Total estimated construction cost of entire widening project is estimated at $20M.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL




Eqpt./Furnishings


REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 450 400 850

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: SAFETEA-LU Match TITLE: Route 1 Widening

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes x No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_0____ _ ____ Approved _$_0_____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Estimated from previous experience. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

This project enables the City to utilize a 90% federal/10% state matching grant program for transportation improvements. This location is one of the few two lane sections of Route 1 remaining in CT and experiences significant congestion.


A missed opportunity to obtain matching funding for 90% of the project cost.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: SAFETEA-LU Match TITLE: Strawberry Hill Avenue Green Street Match



DESCRIPTION: This request is for matching funds to reconstruct Strawberry Hill Avenue using context sensitive design. This project will consists of a wide variety of low-impact methodologies including tree planting, a bicycling/walking trail, narrower pedestrian friendly streets, and possibly sidewalk stormwater planters on Strawberry Hill from County Street to Fitch Street.

JUSTIFICATION: Through a 90% federal/state match program, the City has the opportunity to initiate projects to improve certain roads. This program is highly competitive and having the 10 % match money is necessary to secure design and construction funds.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL




Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce. TOTAL EXPENDITURES 200 600 650 1,450

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 200 600 650 1,450

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: SAFETEA-LU TITLE: Strawberry Hill Avenue Green Street Match

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes x No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $__0__ _ ____ Approved $___0_____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

With three schools on this street and the residential nature of the neighborhood, this project is intended to rebuild the existing roadway using a context sensitive design. There has been significant neighborhood interest in this project.


A missed opportunity to obtain matching funding for 90% of the project cost.

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Special Projects TITLE: Document Management System


RANKING: K-1 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Conversion of existing paper files and maps to a digital format to improve productivity, maximize use of existing storage space, and increase retrieval efficiency.

JUSTIFICATION: The Department is running out of storage space for documents the department is required by law to maintain. By converting to a digital management system, hard copies of these files can then be maintained off-site but available for access immediately through electronic means.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction

Eqpt./Furnishings

Other/System Mtce. 150 150 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 150 150

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 150 150

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012


DEPARTMENT: Public Works CATEGORY: Special Projects TITLE: Documents Management System

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _x No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $______0_ ____ Approved _$___0______ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Cost estimate. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ______________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ______________________


A significant amount of time is spent researching records. A great deal of efficiency can be realized through this project and personnel could be better utilized to address the current backlog of existing work.


There is the potential of loss or damage to existing hard copy information and productivity and possible fines from an inability to respond promptly to FOI requests.

PARKING AUTHORITYCAPITAL BUDGET REQUEST

FY 2011-2012

12.2.10

fy 2011-2012 REQUEST AND MULTI YEAR APPROVED

PROJECT TITLE ACCT 2009-10 2010-2011 2011-2012 2012-2013 2013-2014 2014-2015 2015-2016

APPROVED APPROVED REQUEST REQUEST REQUEST REQUEST REQUEST

1. GENERATORS

b. SoNo RR Station 300,000$

a. Maritime Garage 200,000$

2. FACILITY REPAIRS

Haviland Deck C0354 200,000$ 200,000$

SoNo RR Station C0358 178,000$ 952,000$ -$ 150,000$ -$ 200,000$

Yankee Doodle Garage C0355 517,000$ 200,000$ 200,000$

Maritime Garage C0464 110,000$ 100,000$ -$ 100,000$

3. REVENUE CONTROL EQUIPMENT Misc. Facilities C0465 100,000$ - -$ 150,000$ -$ 150,000$

4. SPECIAL PROJECTS (WF) -

5. Parking Study

(originally requested p/z) 50,000$

TOTAL - PARKING AUTHORITY 905,000$ 1,002,000$ 500,000$ 650,000$ 150,000$ 700,000$ 150,000$

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Parking Authority PROJECT TITLE: Emergency Generator/South Norwalk RR PROJECT LIFE: 20 Years SCHEDULED START: 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2011

RANKING: 1a _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Purchase and installation of a new emergency generator at the South Norwalk Train Station to support garage and station functions during power interruptions (450 KW).

JUSTIFICATION: The new and more efficient power generator will supply functionality to the SNRR Garage, HVAC, security system, financial system, emergency call boxes, lobby, bathrooms and elevators. This has become necessary as the number of power failures in South Norwalk have and continue to create service interruptions and the power requirements to maintain limited services and life safety equipment has taxed the current generator. The current generator is over 16 years old and does not have the capacity to handle the ongoing power outages that we have experienced. Additionally, parts are not readily available for repairs. This numerous power outages impacts parkers and the commercial business located in the facility. Recommended in the Coty’s emergency plan that all facilities have adequate back up emergency generators.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction


Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 300 300

REVENUE

NET COST 300 300

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Parking Authority PROJECT TITLE: Facility Repairs - SoNo Railroad Station 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ___X_ __ No _ X__ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $90,000_______00000__ _ Approved $0 _________________ Approved as part of the structural repair request ($952,000). The structural repair approval is the estimate for the engineering services and the actual repair. The $90,000 request was for smaller and lower KWH generator. After further review and experience, a larger generator covering the entire facility is necessary and recommended in the City’s emergency preparedness report that all City facilities have adequate back up emergency generators. 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Based on estimates received. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes __X__ No _ ___ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______N/A_________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______N/A________ C. Additional Salary Costs _______N/A_______ No. of new positions __N/A D. Additional operating expenses Net effect on Operating Budget _ Debt Service._____________________

4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. This has become necessary as the number of power failures in South Norwalk have and continue to create service interruptions, as well as interrupt the monitoring of the life safety systems of the building.

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. Continued power interruptions will impact the serviceability of the garage, as well as the commercial residential within the building.

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Parking Authority PROJECT TITLE: Emergency Generator – Maritime Garage PROJECT LIFE: 20 Years SCHEDULED START: 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2011

RANKING: 1b _X_ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT ___ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Installation of emergency generator at the Maritime Garage to support garage functions during power interruptions. Generator purchase and installation (350 KW).

JUSTIFICATION: There is no emergency generator at the Maritime Garage. The emergency power generator is crucial to the operation of the Maritime Garage during power outages. Many power failures in South Norwalk have and continue to create service interruptions, as well as interrupt the monitoring of the life safety systems of the building. During the power outages at the Maritime Garage is a primary concern. There is no light, elevators HVAC, financial system, emergency call boxes or operational gates. After hours, parkers (sometimes handicapped) are typically locked inside the garage. Residents are also impacted. Recommended in the City’s plan that all facilities have adequate back up emergency generators.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction



REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 200 200

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Parking Authority PROJECT TITLE: Emergency Generator – Maritime Garage 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ___X__ No __ __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $100,000 FY 2012-13_____ Approved ____________________ If not, why is the project now included? The Maritime Garage includes 725 parking spaces, a lobby, customer service center, offices, restaurant, and 10 residential units. It services the Maritime Aquarium attendees which many are families with small children. The original design and construction of the facility did not include an emergency generator despite the size and multiple use of the facility. The utility company (SNEW) has numerous power outages on a regular basis. All electric dependent operations in the facility are shut down until SNEW repairs each problem. This is unsafe and a liability given the many uses and demands of the facility. Each time the power is out, there is no light, no functioning revenue control equipment (people can be locked in) no audible service, and no elevators. 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Based on estimates received. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes __X__ No _ ___ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _______N/A___________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses _______N/A__________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________N/A______ No. of new positions _______ D. Additional operating expenses Net effect on Operating Budget _ debt service_____________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

Number of power failures in South Norwalk have and continue to create service interruptions, as well as interrupt the monitoring of the life safety systems of the building.

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded? Continued power interruptions will impact the serviceability of the garage, as well as the safety of the users of the garage which include parker, office personnel, residential and commercial interests located inside the garage.

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Parking Authority PROJECT TITLE: Facility Repairs – Haviland PROJECT LIFE: 20 Years SCHEDULED START: 2013-2015 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2013-2015

RANKING: 3 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT __X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Anticipated future capital repairs.

JUSTIFICATION Future capital repairs will be necessary to continue to maintain the integrity of the facility.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 1,310 200 200 1,710


Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,310 200 200 1,710

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 1,310 200 200 1,710

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Parking Authority PROJECT TITLE: Facility Repairs – Haviland Deck 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes __x_ __ No _ __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request __$1,310,000 Approved $1,310,000_______________________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Based on estimates received. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes _x___ No _ ___ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ___________n/a_______ B. Decreased Operating Expenses __________n/a_______ C. Additional Salary Costs __________na/_______ No. of new positions __n/a__ D. Additional operating expenses Net effect on Operating Budget _ debt service________________________________


To extend the useful life of the facility and ensure continued public access and availability.

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded.

Potential liability and safety concerns.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Parking Authority PROJECT TITLE: Facility Repairs – SoNo Railroad Station PROJECT LIFE: 20 years SCHEDULED START: 2013-2015 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2013-2015

RANKING: 4 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT __X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Anticipated future capital repairs

JUSTIFICATION: Future capital repairs to continue the useful life and integrity of the South Norwalk Railroad Station.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 1,611 200 200 2,011



REVENUE

NET COST 1,611 200 200 2,011

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Parking Authority PROJECT TITLE: SoNo Railroad Station 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes __X_ __ No _ __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request _____________ Approved _____1,611,000__________________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Engineering consultant cost estimate and facility assessment. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___X_ No _ ___ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue __________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses _________________ C. Additional Salary Costs _________________ No. of new positions ____ D. Additional operating expenses Net effect on Operating Budget _ debt service________________________________

4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Continue to provide commuter parking.

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded . Further deterioration as well as safety and liability issues.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Parking Authority PROJECT TITLE: Facility Repairs -Yankee Doodle Garage PROJECT LIFE: 20 years SCHEDULED START: 2013-2015 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2013-2015

RANKING: 5 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X__ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT DESCRIPTION: Future capital repairs

JUSTIFICATION: Extend the useful life and integrity of the YDG.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 1,726 200 200 1,926



REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 1,726 200 200 1,926

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Parking Authority PROJECT TITLE: Yankee Doodle Garage 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ___X __ No _ __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request _________ Approved _$1,726,000 If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Engineering consultant estimate and facility assessment. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes _X___ No _ ___ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue __________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses _________________ C. Additional Salary Costs _________________ No. of new positions ____ D. Additional operating expenses Net effect on Operating Budget _ debt service ___________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

The facility is a key element and centerpiece of the redevelopment area. Extending the useful life of the facility will ultimately save money and promote use of the facility.

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. Accelerated deterioration of the facility and increase cost of the operating budget for repairs and maintenance as well as potential safety and liability issues for the public.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Parking Authority PROJECT TITLE: Facility Repairs - Maritime Garage PROJECT LIFE: 20 Years SCHEDULED START: 2013-2015 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2013-2015

RANKING: 6 X _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT __X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Future capital repairs

JUSTIFICATION Continued capital improvements are necessary to maintain the integrity of the facility.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

TOTAL

Engineering/Design





REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 110 100 100 310

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Parking Authority PROJECT TITLE: Facility Repairs - Maritime Garage 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes __x_ __ No _ __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $110,000 Approved $110,000_________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Based on estimates received. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes _x___ No _ ___ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ___________n/a_______ B. Decreased Operating Expenses __________n/a_______ C. Additional Salary Costs __________na/_______ No. of new positions __n/a__ D. Additional operating expenses Net effect on Operating Budget _ debt service________________________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

Continued capital repairs are necessary in order to continue to enjoy the facility and to maintain the integrity of the building.


Unmet capital repairs will further deteriorate the building and incur potential liability and safety concerns.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Parking Authority PROJECT TITLE: Revenue Control PROJECT LIFE: SCHEDULED START: 2012-2013 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2012-2015

RANKING: 7 X_ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Future vehicle revenue control needs

JUSTIFICATION: Replacement of obsolete vehicle revenue control equipment


PRIOR YEARS

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction

Equipment/Furnishings 100

150 150 450


REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 100 150 150 450

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT: Parking Authority PROJECT TITLE: 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ___ __ No X If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request ________ Approved ____$100,000___________________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Based on recent similar purchases. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes _X___ No _ ___ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue X B. Decreased Operating Expenses ___________n/a______ C. Additional Salary Costs ________n/a_________ No. of new positions __n/a__ D. Additional operating expenses Net effect on Operating Budget debt service___ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

Replace obsolete revenue control equipment.


Lost revenues.

City of NorwalkWATER POLLUTION CONTROL AUTHORITYFY 2011-12 Capital Budget Summary

CAPITAL BUDGET - GO REQUESTApproved Requested Projected Projected Projected Projected

Project FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2015-16

Pump Station Upgrade/Replacement 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$ 250,000$

Collection System Rehabilitation 650,000$ 500,000$ 500,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$

900,000$ 750,000$ 750,000$ 1,250,000$ 1,000,000$ 1,000,000$

CAPITAL BUDGET - CLEAN WATER FUNDApproved Requested Projected Projected Projected Projected

Project FY 2010-11 FY 2011-12 FY 2012-13 FY 2013-14 FY 2014-15 FY 2014-15

WPCF Upgrade Phase II - Low Level Nitrogen Removal and CSO/Wet Weather Treatment 78,910,000$

-$ 78,910,000$ -$ -$ -$ -$

2010-2011 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Water Pollution Control Authority PROJECT TITLE: Pump Station Upgrade/Replacement PROJECT LIFE: 30 years SCHEDULED START: 2005 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Ongoing

RANKING: 1 – GO Funding _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Pump Station Upgrade/Replacement

JUSTIFICATION: This is an on-going investment to upgrade and replace the WPCA’s 22 pump stations. The WPCA’s Asset Management Plan has identified a program to rehabilitate all pump stations over a 20-year period. These various projects are needed to ensure that sanitary sewage can be conveyed to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) without interruption of service.


PRIOR YEARS

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 1,500 250 250 250 250 300 2,800


Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 1,500 250 250 250 250 300 2,800

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 1,500 250 250 250 250 250 2,800

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Water Pollution Control Authority PROJECT TITLE Pump Station Upgrade/Replacement 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _X_ No __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $1,500,000____ ______ Approved $1,500,000_________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Based on cost estimates contained in the WPCA’s Asset Management Plan. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions _________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

This is an on-going investment to upgrade and replace the WPCA’s 22 pump stations. The WPCA’s Asset Management Plan has identified a program to rehabilitate all pump stations over a 20-year period.


The pump stations are a major asset of the WPCA that require continual investment to ensure that sanitary sewage can be conveyed to the WWTP without interruption of service.

2010-2011 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Water Pollution Control Authority PROJECT TITLE: Collection System Rehabilitation PROJECT LIFE: 50 years SCHEDULED START: 2005 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Ongoing

RANKING: 2 – GO Funding _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Collection System Rehabilitation

JUSTIFICATION: This on-going series of projects are needed to rehabilitate the City’s approximately 170 miles of sanitary sewer that are in many cases over 100 years old. The WPCA’s contract operator has completed closed-circuit television inspection of the sanitary sewer system and has identified $20-million in repairs needed to ensure that sewage can be conveyed to the wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) without interruption of service.


PRIOR YEARS

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 4,000 650 500 500 500 1,000 7,650


Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 4,000 650 500 500 1,000 1,000 7,650

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 4,000 650 500 500 500 1,000 7,650

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Water Pollution Control Authority PROJECT TITLE Collection System Rehabilitation 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _X_ No __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $4,000,000______ _____ Approved $4,000,000________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Based on Asset Management Plan and estimating. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ___________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

This on-going series of projects are needed to rehabilitate the City’s approximately 160 miles of sanitary sewer that is in many cases over 100 years old.


The WPCA’s contract operator has completed closed-circuit television inspection of the sanitary sewer system and has identified $20-million in repairs needed to ensure that sewage can be conveyed to the WWTP without interruption of service.

2010-2011 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Water Pollution Control Authority PROJECT TITLE: Fort Point Pump Station Replacement PROJECT LIFE: 10 years SCHEDULED START: 2012 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2014

RANKING: 3 – GO Funding _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Replacement of Fort Point Pump Station

JUSTIFICATION: Replace 10-MGD Fort Point Pump Station built in 1929 and most recently rehabilitated over 20+ years ago.


PRIOR YEARS

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

TOTAL

Engineering/Design 1,000 1,000





REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 1,000 3,000 4,000

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Water Pollution Control Authority PROJECT TITLE Fort Point Pump Station 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes X_ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request _____ ______ Approved __________ If not, why is the project now included? It is scheduled in out years based on debt service projections/cash flow needs. 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Order of magnitude based on pump station size and recent bids. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses _______________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

The 1929 era pump station is the largest in the city and has not be rehabilitated in 2-+ years. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. Failure of this system will have major water quality impacts as sewage will not be conveyed from southeastern Norwalk to the WWTP.

2010-2011 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Water Pollution Control Authority PROJECT TITLE: Solids Handling System PROJECT LIFE: 30 years SCHEDULED START: 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2016

RANKING: 4 – GO Funding _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Upgrade of solids handling and processing system.

JUSTIFICATION: Solids production is expected to increase due to phase I and II WWTP improvement projects. Upgrade to address long-term solids handling and processing system needs.


PRIOR YEARS

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

TOTAL





Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 200 3,000 2,000 5,200

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 200 3,000 2,000 5,200

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Water Pollution Control Authority PROJECT TITLE Fort Point Pump Station 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _ No X_ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request _____ ______ Approved __________ If not, why is the project now included? It is scheduled in out years based on debt service projections/cash flow needs. 3. How was your cost estimate derived? Order of magnitude based on pump station size and recent bids. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses _______________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ____________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

The 1929 era pump station is the largest in the city and has not be rehabilitated in 2-+ years. 6. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. Failure of this system will have major water quality impacts as sewage will not be conveyed from southeastern Norwalk to the WWTP.


DEPARTMENT: Water Pollution Control Authority PROJECT TITLE: CSO/Wet Weather Treatment System Facility Upgrade – Phase 2


RANKING: 1 – Clean Water Fund _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: CSO / Wet Weather Flow Treatment System

JUSTIFICATION: Required to address long-term wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) water quality issues. Project will increase treatment of storm flows that are currently being discharged into the Norwalk River with minimal treatment. This project has been approved by the CT DEP.


PRIOR YEARS

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

TOTAL

Engineering/Design




Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 390 3,300 3,690

REVENUE (Specify)

Clean Water Funds Grant/Loans TBD TBD TBD

NET COST TBD TBD TBD

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Water Pollution Control Authority PROJECT TITLE CSO/Wet Weather Treatment System Facility Upgrade – Phase 2

1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes X_ No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $390,000_____ _____ Approved $390,000___________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Based on engineer’s estimate. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ___________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. To reduce river water from entering the sanitary system and also provides additional capacity at the plant that associated river water used.

In addition, saves the WPCA money from not having to treat river water. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded.

If the project is not funded, the tide gates will continue to degrade and possibly allow additional river water into the system resulting in additional treatment costs and reduction of available capacity at the plant. In addition, the WPCA is required to reduced the amount of extraneous flow in the collections system as a condition of its operating permit.

2010-2011 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Water Pollution Control Authority PROJECT TITLE: Alternative Disinfection PROJECT LIFE: 30 years SCHEDULED START: 2009 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2012

RANKING: 2 – Clean Water Fund X_ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Alternative Disinfection

JUSTIFICATION: Evaluate and modify the existing disinfection system to improve wastewater treatment plant (WWTP) final effluent. The DEP is will impose stringent discharge permit limits for chlorine in the next 5-year NPDES permit. Permit will require no chlorine residual be discharged from the WWTP to the Norwalk River.


PRIOR YEARS

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

TOTAL





Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 845 7,215 8,060

REVENUE (Specify)

Clean Water Funds Grant/Loans TBD TBD TBD

NET COST TBD TBD TBD

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Water Pollution Control Authority PROJECT TITLE Alternative Disinfection 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _X_ No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $845,000________ _____ Approved $845,000___________ If not, why is the project now included? 3. How was your cost estimate derived? Based on estimating. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ___________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. The project is needed in order to meet more stringent regulations to be imposed by the State DEP.


If the project is not funded, the WPCA may have trouble meeting permit disinfection requirements and negatively impact receiving waters.


DEPARTMENT: Board of Education

PROJECT TITLE

2011-12 REQUEST

2012-13 REQUEST

2013-14 REQUEST

2014-15 REQUEST

BEYOND 2016

1. Narmake E. S. – Construction 404,233 2,057,374 918,482

2. Naramake E. S. – Modular Building 173,000

3. Cranbury E. S. _ Construction 646,551 3,252,269 1,452,606

4. Rowayton E. S. - Construction 759,234 2,462,274 3,009,364 46,589

5. Rowayton E. S. _ Modular Building 173,000

6. Columbus M. S. – Construction 289,212 858,504 1,287,756 17,747

7. Jefferson E. S. – Construction 987,834 2,777,743 3,164,962 1,089,456

8. Asphalt & Concrete – District 517,100 318,940 429,700 526,000 543,360

9. Stage Rigging & Stage Curtains – District 192,604

10. Gym Doors & Equipment – District 265,000 206,981

11. Technology Implementation 875,000 875,000 875,000 875,000

12.

13. TOTAL 4,005,722 10,449,884 10,321,399 5,900,307 1,652,563

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Naramake Elementary School –

Renovations, Alterations and Additions

PROJECT LIFE: 30 Years SCHEDULED START: July 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2011

RANKING: 1 _X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Relocate the Family Resource Center to an alternate facility, which will allow additional space for the psychologist and ELL programs. Construct a single story addition of four classrooms to replace the existing temporary classrooms and to accommodate enrollment growth over the next five years.

JUSTIFICATION: Elementary School Building Assessment Report, dated July 16, 2010 prepared by Partners for Architecture. Enrollment Projections, final report dated May 12, 2010, updated June 8, 2010, prepared by Applied Data Services. Naramake’s current and projected enrollment exceeds useable building space. To accommodate this overcrowding, a temporary single classroom modular building ws installed for the school year 2009/2010 and a portion of the media center ws taken and partitioned to provide one additional temporary classroom for the 2010/2011 school year. The Naramake School building currently does not fully support all of its educational and academic programs and needs.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL


Site Cost & Acquisition

Construction 2,572,400 1,102,458 3,674,858

Equipment/Furnishings 36,749 36,749

Other/Contingency 128,620 55,123 183,743

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 404,233 2,701,020 1,194,330 4,299,583

REVENUE (Specify) (643,646) (275,848) (919,494)

NET COST* 404,233 2,057,374 918,482 3,380,089 CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Naramake E. S. Ren./Alter./Additions 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ____ No _X_ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $________ ___ Approved $___________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? PFA Report and 5 Year Plan. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X__ If yes, please estimate the following: Not for 2011/12 A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions: _____________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ____________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Increased enrollment and equity. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded.

Overcrowding and inefficiencies.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Naramake E. S. Mod. Bldg. PROJECT LIFE: 15 Years SCHEDULED START: July 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2011

RANKING: 2 _X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT ___ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Purchase and installation of a new 2 classroom modular building to accommodate student enrollment. To provide necessary swing space during planned school building expansion project and future district needs.

JUSTIFICATION: Existing building space will not support projected student enrollment for 2011/2012 and beyond. To provide swing space for classrooms and space disrupted by future construction.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL


Site Cost & Acquisition 110,000 110,000



Other/Contingency

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 173,000 173,000

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST* 173,000 173,000 CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Naramake E. S. Mod. Building 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ____ No _X_ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $________ ___ Approved $___________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Vendor and Mark Gorian 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No ___ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions: _____________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ____________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. To accommodate enrollment and provide swing space during construction. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded.


2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Cranbury Elementary School




DESCRIPTION: Relocate the existing pre-K program to Silvermine Elementary School, opening up two classrooms. Relocate 2nd grade classroom adjacent to library to one of the newly vacated pre-K rooms. Expand library into vacated 2nd grade classroom and into courtyard to meet space standards and to create new computer lab. Construct a new one-story addition to include rooms for music, art and new cafeteria and expanded kitchen.

JUSTIFICATION: Elementary School Building Assessment Report, dated July 16, 2010 prepared by Partners for Architecture. Enrollment Projections, final report dated May 12, 2010, updated June 8, 2010, prepared by Applied Data Services. Cranbury’s current and projected enrollment exceeds useable building space. The building currently does not fully support all of its educational and academic programs and uses existing space inefficiently.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction 4,114,400 1,763,315 5,877,715



TOTAL EXPENDITURES 646,551 4,320,120 1,910,257 6,876,928

REVENUE (Specify) (1,067,851) (457,651) (1,525,502)

NET COST* 646,551 3,252,269 1,452,606 5,351,426 CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Cranbury E.S. Ren./Alt./Additions 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ____ No _X_ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $________ ___ Approved $___________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? PFA Report and 5 Year Plan 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X__ If yes, please estimate the following: Not for 2011/12 A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions: _____________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ____________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Increased enrollment and equity. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded.


2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Rowayton Elementary School




DESCRIPTION: Discontinue use of 2nd floor classroom. Expand existing cafeteria into stage area. Relocate strings to music room, to create AT space; Remove the two temporary buildings and construct a new addition with four new classrooms, music room, art room and expand the existing gymnasium and construct addition for new stage to achieve a full size gymnasium that will be able to accommodate the entire school population for events. The art program will vacate the space it currently uses to make room for expanded special education programs.

JUSTIFICATION: Elementary School Building Assessment Report, dated July 16, 2010 prepared by Partners for Architecture. Enrollment Projections, final report dated May 12, 2010, updated June 8, 2010, prepared by Applied Data Services. Rowayton’s current and projected enrollment exceeds useable building space. To accommodate this overcrowding, a temporary 2 classroom modular building was installed in 2007and an additional 2 classroom temporary unit in 2009. The Rowayton School building currently does not fully support all of its educational and academic programs.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction 3,105,996 3,796,136 6,902,132



TOTAL EXPENDITURES 759,234 3,261,294 3,985,945 69,021 8,075,494

REVENUE (Specify) (799,020) (976,581) (22,432) (1,798,033)

NET COST* 759,234 2,462,274 3.009,364 46,589 6,277,461 CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Rowayton E.S. Ren./Alt./Additions 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ____ No _X_ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $________ ___ Approved $___________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? PFA Report and 5 Year Plan 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X__ If yes, please estimate the following: Not for 2011/12 A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions: _____________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ____________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Increased enrollment and equity.



CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Rowayton E. S. – Mod. Bldg. PROJECT LIFE: 15 Years SCHEDULED START: July 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2011

RANKING: 5 _X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT ___ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Purchase and installation of a new 2 classroom modular building to support student enrollment. To provide necessary swing space during planned school building expansion project and for future district needs.

JUSTIFICATION: Existing building space will not support projected student enrollment for 2011/2012 and beyond. To provide swing space for classrooms and space disrupted by future construction.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL


Site Cost & Acquisition 110,000 110,000



Other/Contingency


REVENUE (Specify)


2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Rowayton E.S. – Mod. Building 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ____ No _X If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $________ ___ Approved $___________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Vendor and Mark Gorian 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No ___ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions: _____________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ____________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. To accommodate enrollment and provide swing space during construction. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded.


2011-2012

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Columbus Magnet School

Renovations, Alterations and Additions PROJECT LIFE: 30 Years SCHEDULED START: July 2012 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2016


DESCRIPTION: Construct a two story addition that will include a cafeteria with kitchen to alleviate the use of the gymnasium, two classrooms that will allow the school to add an additional kindergarten section to balance all grade levels within the school, and provide adequate spaces for resource and literacy programs.

JUSTIFICATION: Elementary School Building Assessment Report, dated July 16, 2010, prepared by partners for Architecture. Enrollment Projections final report dated May 12, 2010, updated June 8, 2010, prepared by Applied Data services. In an effort to improve space utilization and provide desperately needed space for the school, additional finished space is required.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction 1,051.680 1,577,520 2,629,200



TOTAL EXPENDITURES 289,212 1,104,264 1,656,396 26,292 3,076,164

REVENUE (Specify) (245,760) (368,640) (8,545) (622,945)

NET COST* 289,212 858,504 1,287,756 17,747 2,453,219 CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Columbus Magnet Reno/Alt./Additions 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ____ No _X_ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $________ ___ Approved $___________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? PFA Report and 5 Year Plan. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X__ If yes, please estimate the following: Not for 2011/12 A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions: _____________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ____________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Space limitations and equity.


Inefficient Use of Space.

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Jefferson Elementary School




DISCRIPTION: , Remove temporary dividers/bookcases and replace with permanent walls to create individual classrooms. Remove the temporary classroom building that contains 8 classrooms and construct an addition to include 9 classrooms, cafeteria, kitchen and a boy’s and girl’s restroom.

JUSTIFICATION: Elementary School Building Assessment Report, dated July 16, 2010, prepared by Partners for Architecture. Enrollment Projections, final report dated May 12, 2010, updated June 8, 2010, prepared by Applied Data Services. Jefferson’s current and projected enrollment exceeds useable building space. To accommodate this overcrowding, a temporary eight classroom modular building was installed in the Summer of 2007. Existing space at Jefferson does not adequately support educational and academic programs. The current space utilization is very inefficient.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction 3,592,123 4,041,139 1,347,046 8,980,308

,Equipment/Furnishings 40,000 49,803 89,803

Other/Contingency 179,606 202,057 67,352 449,015

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 987,834 3,771,729 4,283,196 1,464,201 10,506,960

REVENUE (Specify) (993,986) (1,118,234) (372,745) (2,484,965)

NET COST* 987,834 2,777,743 3,164,962 1,091,456 8,021,995 CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Jefferson Elementary School Reno. 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ____ No _X_ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $________ ___ Approved $___________ If not, why is the project now included? , 2. How was your cost estimate derived? PFA Report and 5 Year Plan 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X__ If yes, please estimate the following: Nor for 2011/2012 A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions: _____________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ____________ , 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Enrollment Increases and Overcrowding Inefficient Use of Space. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded.

Continue Overcrowding.

2011-2012

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Asphalt and Concrete


RANKING: 8 __ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT __X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Asphalt pavement and concrete replacement at 20 school sites to eliminate deterioration of parking lots, drives, curbing and sidewalks.

JUSTIFICATION: To replace broken and deteriorated asphalt and concrete at all school sites. To eliminate pot holes, broken curbing, heavily cracked and failed roadway surfaces. To replace concrete sidewalks and curbing that has deteriorated.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 517,100 318,940 429,700 526,000 543,360 2,335,100


Other/Contingency

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 517,100 318,940 429,700 526,000 543,360 2,335,100

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST* 517,100 318,940 429,700 526,000 543,360 2,335,100 CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Asphalt & Concrete 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ____ No _X_ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $________ ___ Approved $___________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Mark Gorian 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X__ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions: _____________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ____________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Deteriorated Concrete and Asphalt Sidewalks, Drives and parking Lot.


Safety Concerns.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Stage Rigging & Stage Curtain

Replacement PROJECT LIFE:20 Years SCHEDULED START: July 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2012


DESCRIPTION: Replace and upgrade stage rigging and stage curtains at 18 district schools.

JUSTIFICATION: Stage curtains must be fire and flame retardant to meet NFPA 701 compliance. All stage rigging must be code compliant with building codes. Bring stage curtains and rigging systems into compliance and safe operating condition.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design




Other/Contingency 17,510 17,510


REVENUE (Specify)



DEPARTMENT Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Stage Rigging & Curtains – District 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ____ No _X_ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $________ ___ Approved $___________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Mark Gorian 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No ___ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions: _____________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ____________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Safety Concerns Code Compliance.


2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Gym Door & Equipment PROJECT LIFE: 25 Years SCHEDULED START: July 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2012

RANKING: 10 _X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT __X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Replace 13 school gym doors and perform repairs and replacement for gym equipment at 14 schools.

JUSTIFICATION: Replace 13 folding gym partitions that average 46 years old. Doors are problematic and expensive to maintain. Repair and replace gym equipment-basketball rims, backboards and bleachers that are damaged beyond repair and present safety concerns.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction 200,000 188,165 388,165




REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST* 265,000 206,981 471,981 CAPITAL BUDGET

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Gym Door & Equipment – District 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ____ No _X_ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $________ ___ Approved $___________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Mark Gorian 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X__ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions: _____________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ____________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Safety Concerns Code Compliance.


2011-2012

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Technology Implementation

PROJECT LIFE: 6 Years SCHEDULED START: 7/1/2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 6/30/2011

RANKING: 11 __ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT __X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: This Request supports our need to continue the implementation of Technology in the District consistent with the Mayor’s support of this project. We are moving forward in the implementation and network upgrades and hardware acquisition.

JUSTIFICATION: The District is in the last year of a three (3) year plan, approved by the Board of Education, that integrates technology into our instructional program. These purchases are necessary for the implementation of that plan in accordance to the timeline.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction 3,319,000 3,319,000

Equipment/Furnishings 6,277,552 875,000 875,000 875,000 875,000 875,000 10,652,552


TOTAL EXPENDITURES 10,460,552 875,000 875,000 875,000 875.000 875,000 14,835,552

REVENUE (Specify) 1,000,000 1,000.000

861,000 861,000

NET COST* 8,599,552 875,000 875,000 875,000 875,000 875,000 12,974,552 CAPITAL BUDGET

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Norwalk Board of Education PROJECT TITLE: Technology Implementation 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X__ No ___ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $875,000__ ___ Approved $_650,000__________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X__ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions: _____________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ____________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.


2011-2012


DEPARTMENT: Parks & Rec.

PROJECT TITLE

2011-12 REQUEST

2012-13 REQUEST

2013-14 REQUEST

2014-15 REQUEST

BEYOND 2016

1. Vehicles 165,000 40,000 96,000 50,000 85,000

2. School/Park Playgrounds 300,000 290,000 125,000 150,000 150,000

3. Calf Pasture Beach 295,000 600,000 1,600,000 65,000 700,000

4. Cranbury Park 230,000 200,000 200,000 200,000 250,000

5. Fodor Farm 150,000 50,000

6. Basketball /Tennis Courts 135,000 100,000 75,000 75,000 75,000

7. Veteran’s Park 200,000 260,000 900,000 450,000 300,000

8. Backstop & Fencing Improvements 65,000 50,000 50,000 50,000 50,000

9. Tree Planting 25,000 35,000 25,000 25,000 25,000

10. Flax Hill Park Improvement 25,000

11. Open Space Fund 250,000 250,000 250,000 250,000 50,000

12. 50 Washington Street Plaza 100,000 100,000 100,000

13. Oyster Shell Park 60,000 1,500,000 1,500,000

14. Master Plan of Parks 150,000

15. Nathan Hale Athletic Complex 1,200,000 1,500,000

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE: Vehicles PROJECT LIFE: 15-25 years SCHEDULED START: July 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION:

RANKING: 1 __ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT ____ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION:

1. Toro 580 wide area mower $92,000.00 2. Plumbers Van $40,000.00 3. 250 Pick-up $33,000.00

JUSTIFICATION:

1. Currently the Department has 3 large mowers, 2 are over their life expectancy 20+ years old. This is our most efficient mower for all large turf areas.

2. The plumber’s van would replace the existing 23 year old van.

3. The additional pick up would replace a 23 year old pick up.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction

Equipment/Furnishings 165 40 96 50 85 436

Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 165 40 96 50 85 436

REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 165 40 96 50 85 436

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE Vehicles #1 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X__ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_61,000_ Approved $61,000________ __ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Dealers 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes __ No X If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _ _ __ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions _______________________ D. Additional operating expenses _____________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded?

Could not maintain turf fields properly. Safety hazards for Athletic venues if not cut on a regular schedule.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE: School/Park Playgrounds PROJECT LIFE: 15-20 years SCHEDULED START: July 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: June 2012

RANKING: 2 _X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _ __ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Wolfpit Playground $90,000.00 (2011-12) Jefferson School Playground $120,000.00 (2011-12) Ryan Park (including water in park) $90,000.00 (2011-12) Tracey Playground $90,000.00 (2012-13) Cranbury Park Playground $200,000.00 (2012-13) Beach (sounds fun playground) $125,000.00 (2013-14)

JUSTIFICATION: All these playgrounds are at the end of their life expectancy. The existing conditions cannot be repaired. Each site would consist of a rebuild so that we can continue to maintain safe play at all parks and school sites.

EXPENDITURE SCHEDULE (000’s)

PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction

Equipment/Furnishings 170 300 290 125 150 150 1185


REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 170 300 290 125 150 150 1185

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE School/Park Playgrounds 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes __X__ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $ 160,000_________ Approved _$_160,000___ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived?

Manufacturer’s of Equipment. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes __ No X_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _ _ __ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions _______________________ D. Additional operating expenses _____________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. The safety of the community is most important. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded? Portions of the existing playgrounds would be closed or removed leaving san inadequate amount of equipment for the school and park users.

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE: Calf Pasture Beach PROJECT LIFE: 20+ SCHEDULED START: Fall 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION Fall 2012

RANKING: 3 _X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X__ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: 1. Drawings, Engineering Bathhouse Renovation $125,000 (2011-12) 2. Outdoor Enclosed Showers$ 70,000 (2011-12) 3. Side Walk Repair $ 50,000 (2011-12) 4. Small Boat Storage $ 50,000 (2011-12) 5. Bathhouse Renovation $600,000 (2012-13) 6. Repair Clark Pier $100,000 (2013-14) 7. Pave and Curb Main Lot $950,000 (2013-14) 8. Bathhouse Renovation $500,000 (2013-14) 9. Marine Police Design of new facility $ 65,000 (2014-15) 10. Marine Center $700,000 (2015-16)

JUSTIFICATION: • Safety for Park Users • Maintenance to Existing Structures, Systems • Additional Revenue Source


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction 170 600 1,600 65 700 3135


Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 295 600 1,600 65 700 3135

REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 295 600 1,600 65 700 3135

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE Calf Pasture Beach 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X___ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_____0_____ Approved _$__0________ __ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Local estimates. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes _X_ No _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _ X_ __ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ____N/A__________ D. Additional operating expenses _____________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________

4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Facilities have to be driven by potential revenue. Currently the facilities cannot be used by user groups any time of the year. The new facility would be used year round. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded?

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE: Cranbury Park PROJECT LIFE: SCHEDULED START: Summer 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Fall 2012

RANKING: 4 _X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X__ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: * Adventure Playground existing bunkhouse refurbished to accommodate ADA restrooms and year round programmable space $200,000 (2011-12) * Restoration of Trails & Orchards Phase 1 $ 30,000 (2011-12) * Restoration of Trails & Orchards Phase 2 $200,000 (2012-13) * Updated System in Estate Heating & Air $200,000 (2013-14) * Restoration of Trails & Orchards Phase 3 $200,000 (2014-15) * Great Lawn & Orchard design construction $250,000 (2015-16)

JUSTIFICATION:

• Safety and Security for Park Patrons. • ADA Accessibility to all amenities within the Park. • Addition of amenities and refurbishment. • Generate new revenue for Department.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 230 200 200 200 250 1,080



REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 230 200 200 200 250 1,080

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE Cranbury Park 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X___ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_200,000 Approved _$200,000__ __ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No X If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _ X_ __ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions _______________________ D. Additional operating expenses __________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ . 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

Greater utilization of the facility with additional revenue opportunities. Restroom facilities provided for the new Pavilion in the lower area.


2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE: Fodor Farm PROJECT LIFE: SCHEDULED START: Summer 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Spring 2012

RANKING: 5 X_ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X__ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION:

* Main House Rehabilitation (lead remediation) plumbing, heating, electrical $150,000 (2011-12) * Main House Rehabilitation $ 50,000 (2012-13)

JUSTIFICATION:

• Educational opportunities through the Norwalk Public Schools. • Preservation of historic structure.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design




Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 150 50 200

REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 150 50 200

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE : Fodor Farm 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X___ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_90,000_____ Approved __$__90,000__ __ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? Rehabilitation Estimates

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes _X__ No If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _ X__ __ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ___________________ D. Additional operating expenses __Heat/Electricity Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Complete main structure so that it can be utilized for programs and for community usage. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded?

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE: Basketball & Tennis Courts PROJECT LIFE: SCHEDULED START: Summer 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Fall 2012

RANKING: 6 _X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _ X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Basketball and Tennis Court Improvements Renovate Broad River Tennis Courts Re-pavement Repair 1. Wolfpit School Basketball Area $45,000 (2011-12) 2. Fox Run School Basketball/Tennis $80,000 (2011-12) 3. Nathan Hale Tennis posts replaced $10,000 (2011-12)

JUSTIFICATION: The purpose of this project is to repair and resurface basketball and tennis facilities in order to maintain safe and quality play areas.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction ` 135 100 75 75 75 460



REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 135 100 75 75 75 460

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE Basketball & Tennis Courts 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X__ No __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $100,000____ Approved _$50,000_______ __ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes __ No X If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _ _ __ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions _______________________ D. Additional operating expenses _____________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Repair of heavily used courts through the city. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded? Close facilities due to liability.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE: Veteran’s Memorial Park PROJECT LIFE: 15+ SCHEDULED START: Summer 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Fall 2012

RANKING: 7 _X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _ X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION:

• Replace Marina entry pilings for new entry platforms $110,000 (2011-12)

• Replacement and repair of Marina Fingers $ 90,000 (2011-12) • Fisherman’s Pier, Floating Dock $280,000 (2012-13) • Sidewalk, curbing, asphalt parking repave $900,000 (2013-14) • Water Splash Pad $450,000 (2014-15) • Repair Launch Ramp $300,000 (2015-16)

JUSTIFICATION: Veteran’s Park is the hub for boating and soon to become a family attraction for South and East Norwalk. Increased athletic and cultural programs will add structured activities enriching the vitality of one of Norwalk’s most scenic parks.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction

Equipment/Furnishings 200 260 900 450 300 2,110


REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 200 280 900 450 300 2,130

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE Veteran’s Memorial Park 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes __X__ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $ 50,000____ Approved _$_50,000___ __ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes __ No _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _ __ __ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions _______________________ D. Additional operating expenses _____________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. The Pilings have caused the gangway to fail. Safety problem for users. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded?

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE: Backstop & Fencing

Improvements PROJECT LIFE: 15+ SCHEDULED START: Fall 2010 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Fall 2011

RANKING: 8 _X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _ _X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Replace existing perimeter fencing and safety fencing throughout Park system. Highlights

• Jefferson School • Veteran’s Park • Safety fencing ball fields, outfield fencing, dug outs

JUSTIFICATION: Most perimeters fencing in the parks and school grounds deteriorated. Safety purposes.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 65 50 50 50 50 265



REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 65 50 50 50 50 265

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE Backstop & Fencing Improvements 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X___ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $______ Approved $_40,000______ __ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? Current Value 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No X If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _ __ __ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions _______________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Safety and Security for the Park and Schools. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded?

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE: Tree Planting PROJECT LIFE: 20+ SCHEDULED START: Fall 2010 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Spring 2011

RANKING: 9 __ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _ X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: To undertake tree planting on all park property including, Calf Pasture Beach, Mathews Park, Shady Beach, Veteran’s Park, Neighborhood Parks and School Grounds.

JUSTIFICATION: In order to undertake a reasonable program of tree maintenance including replacement, park safety and beautification as an ongoing program.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 25 35 25 25 25 135



REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 25 35 25 25 25 135

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE Tree Planting 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X___ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $__________ Approved $_25,000_______ __ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes __ No _X If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _ _ __ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions _______________________ D. Additional operating expenses _____________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. To continue to replace damaged and decayed trees in the parks system. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded? The safety of the general public is most important.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE: Flax Hill Park Improvement PROJECT LIFE: SCHEDULED START: Fall 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Fall 2011

RANKING: 10 __ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT ____ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION:

* Water/Fountain to Flax Hill Park.

JUSTIFICATION: Currently there is no water available to users of the Park.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 25 25



REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 25 25

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE Flax Hill Park Improvements 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ____ No _X If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $ _________ Approved _$__________ __ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes __ No _X If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _ _ __ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions _______________________ D. Additional operating expenses _____________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. . Currently most inner City Parks do not have water available to its users


2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE: Open Space Fund PROJECT LIFE: Indefinite SCHEDULED START: SCHEDULED COMPLETION:

RANKING: 11 _X NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _ __ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Establishing open space fund for the purpose of acquiring and securing open space.

JUSTIFICATION: On March 14, 2000 the Norwalk Common Council adopted an amendment to the Norwalk Code, creating the Open Space Fund. The purpose of the Open Space Fund shall be to preserve or create Norwalk’s Open Space and to protect its natural resources by providing financial support for initiatives and activities that primarily seek to preserve parcel of open space in perpetuity. The Open Space Fund shall be used to acquire real property, payment of acquisitions by not-for-profit organizations on payments required to designate properties as open space.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 250 250 250 250 50 1,050



REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 250 250 250 250 50 1,050

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE Open Space Fund 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X___ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $ 250,000___ Approved $50,000______ __ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes _X_ No _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _ _ __ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions _______________________ D. Additional operating expenses __Potentially___ Net effect on Operating Budget ___TBD__________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded?

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE: 50 Washington Street Plaza PROJECT LIFE: 20+ years SCHEDULED START: Fall 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Fall 2012


DESCRIPTION: Redefine Park needs. Master Plan Safety improvements immediately, pavers and tripping hazards, lighting. Infrastructure.

JUSTIFICATION: Active and viable. Inner city Space that needs to be programmed.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design





REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 100 100 100 300

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE 50 Washington Street Plaza 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X___ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $ 250,000__ Approved $ 0 _____ __ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes __ No _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _ _ __ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions _______________________ D. Additional operating expenses _____________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Public safety, lighting and tripping hazards highly important in this plaza.


2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE: Oyster Shell Park PROJECT LIFE: 20+ SCHEDULED START: Fall 2012 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Summer

2014

RANKING: 13 _X_ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT ____ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Site preparation, Earthwork, Drainage, Water, Paving, Electrical, Lighting, Landscape Furnishings, and Plantings. Phase II Oyster Shell Park $3,060,000

JUSTIFICATION: The Park is a direct link to the South Norwalk and West Avenue. Within the year there will be built in users that will demand the completion of this waterfront park.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL





Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 60 1,500 1,500 3,060

REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 60 1,500 1,500 3,060

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE Oyster Shell Park 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes ____ No _X If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_______ Approved _$________ __ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes __ No _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _ X_ __ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs _______X_________ No. of new positions _______________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______X_______ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded? The second phase towards completion of Oyster Shell Park.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE: Master Plan of Parks PROJECT LIFE: 10 years SCHEDULED START: N/A SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Fall 2013


DESCRIPTION: A complete update of the Master Plan of Parks and Open Space for the city. The last update was completed in the mid 90’s.

JUSTIFICATION: In order to access needs in the community the Master Plan should be updated at least every ten years. When planning for future property purchase as well as park infrastructure a current plan will create a footprint for future development.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction


Other/Contingency 150 150 TOTAL EXPENDITURES 150 150

REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 150 150

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE Master Plan of Parks 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X___ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_100,000_____ Approved ___0_____ __ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived?

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes _X_ No If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _ X_ __ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ______X__________ C. Additional Salary Costs _____X___________ No. of new positions _______________________ D. Additional operating expenses _____X________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded?

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE: Upper/Lower Nathan Hale Fields PROJECT LIFE: SCHEDULED START: July 2012 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: Spring 2014

RANKING: 15 __ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _ __ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Turf fields for multipurpose fields at Nathan Hale School with sports lighting. Two phases upper/lower field.

JUSTIFICATION: Lack of field space due to growing youth and adult leagues in the community. .


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design





REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 1,200 1,500 2,700

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Recreation & Parks PROJECT TITLE Upper/Lower Nathan Hale Fields 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X___ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_________ Approved $_250,000___ __ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes _X__ No If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _ _ __ B. Decreased Operating Expenses _Save on Maintenance C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions _______________________ D. Additional operating expenses _Electricity_____ Net effect on Operating Budget __Decrease________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project . Existing lack of facilities that can be used throughout (3) full seasons of constant play. No new fields are being planned or developed utilization of existing fields to maximum play is most important. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded?


DEPARTMENT: Norwalk Public Library

PROJECT TITLE

2011-12 REQUEST

2012-13 REQUEST

2013-14 REQUEST

2014-15 REQUEST

BEYOND 2016

1. Emergency Generator Replacement – Main Library

70,000

2. Outdoor Lighting – Main Library 16,000

3. Ceiling Projection/Sound System/Chairs for Auditorium in Main Library

10,000

4.

5..

6. 7.

8.. 9.

10.

11. .

12. 13.

14.

15.

16. 17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Norwalk Public Library PROJECT TITLE: Emergency Generator Replacement –Main

Library PROJECT LIFE: 25 years SCHEDULED START: 9/11 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 10/11

RANKING 1 __ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT X REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: (Project #Unassigned) Replace emergency generator at Main Library

JUSTIFICATION: Current generator is 30 years old and has undergone many repairs and costly maintenance to keep it operational.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction




REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 70,000 70,000

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Norwalk Public Library PROJECT TITLE: Emergency Generator Replacement-Main Library 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes X_ No __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $65,000 Approved $_0________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Contractor’s estimate 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No X If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ______________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______ _________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Current generator is 30 years old and frequently fails to operate. It supplies emergency lighting in case of power failure. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. We experience occasional power outages. Without a properly functioning emergency generator, both people and property are at risk. Emergency lighting will not function, and protection for computer infrastructure is not present.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Norwalk Public Library PROJECT TITLE: Outdoor Lighting-Main Library PROJECT LIFE: 10 years SCHEDULED START: 7/11 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 9/11


DESCRIPTION Add efficient and sufficient flood lighting to front patio entranceway, to Mott Avenue sidewalk alongside of building to parking lot in 2012-13, and ground up-lights along the Belden Avenue side in 2011-12.

JUSTIFICATION: Lighting is needed in the entrance area, and along Mott Avenue, both of which are dark, especially in winter. Safety is the first concern. In addition, the lack of illumination does not effectively signal that the building is a public library, or that it is open. In November, 2010, when trying to replace a floodlight on the Belden Avenue side, we discovered that the fascia board, to which the floodlights are attached, is rotten. We want to disconnect and remove the existing floodlights and supply and install ground up wash lighting in 2011-12.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction


Other/Contingency


REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant

NET COST 16,000 16,000

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Norwalk Public Library PROJECT TITLE: Outdoor Lighting 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes x_ No __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $5000_________ Approved $0___________ If not, why is the project now included? need for improved lighting outdoors for safety and for signaling to public that the building is an open public library, plus removal of floodlights on Belden Ave. due to rot of the fascia board to which they were attached.

2. How was your cost estimate derived? Contractor price quote 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No X If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ______________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______ electricity use_________ Net effect on Operating Budget +$500 year


Need for improved lighting outdoors for safety, and for signaling to public that the building is an open public library

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded? Continued safety concerns, lack of adequate illumination for building

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Norwalk Public Library PROJECT TITLE: Ceiling Projection/Sound

System/Chairs for Auditorium in Main Library PROJECT LIFE: 10 years SCHEDULED START: 7/11 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 9/11


DESCRIPTION: Install a ceiling projector and surround sound in the main library auditorium in 2011-12. Replace the 150 chairs in the auditorium in 2012-13.

JUSTIFICATION: In order to project movies or presentations in the auditorium, we need to set up a rolling cart with a projector on it in the middle of the auditorium, stringing the electrical cord across the room. Our present sound system should be upgraded to take advantage of surround sound capability. Chairs should be both comfortable and stackable.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction


Other/Contingency


REVENUE (Specify)

State Grant NET COST 10,000 15,000 25,000

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Norwalk Public Library PROJECT TITLE - Ceiling Projection/Sound System/Chairs for Auditorium 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _ No _x_ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $____ Approved $___ If not, why is the project now included? We have been showing more films at the library as part of a series of monthly family film programs. The current set up with the projector on the cart is time consuming to set up and awkward with the card in the middle of the audience and the electrical cord strung across the room. The surround sound is an enhancement that was not available when the auditorium was renovated in 1981. 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Consultation with vendors. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No X_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ______________________ D. Additional operating expenses ______ _________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. The auditorium was state-of the-art thirty years ago. In 2011-12, solutions exist for audiovisual projection that yield improved quality and make more efficient use of staff time. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. Library staff will continue to set up our makeshift projection cart and will not be able to take advantage of the improved sound quality of today’s movies and presentations. .


DEPARTMENT: Historical Commission

PROJECT TITLE

2011-2012 REQUEST

2012-13 REQUEST

2013-14 REQUEST

2014-15 REQUEST

BEYOND 2016

1. .Lockwood Mathews Mansion -Porte- cochere restoration, woodwork, pointing, & Conservatory Restoration

19,4,000 25,000 75,000

2 Moisture Remediation – Mill Hill and Mathews Park

17,000 50,000 10,000

3. Cemeteries 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000

4. Historic Resource Inventory List, Phase II 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000

5. Norwalk Museum Archive / Photograph Collection

60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000

6. Smith Street Buildings 15,000 35,000 10,000 10,000

7. Mathews Park Historic Buildings 10,000 10,000 30,000 100,000

8. Norwalk Museum 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Historical Commission PROJECT TITLE: Lockwood Mathews Mansion PROJECT LIFE: 10 – 35 years SCHEDULED START: SCHEDULED COMPLETION:

RANKING: 1 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X__REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Restore and repair the porte-cochere roof. $14,000 (2011-12) Restore, paint and maintain all exterior grills and unpainted wooden exterior doors. $5,000 (2011-12) Re-point granite blocks $25,000 (2012-13) Planning with Historic Preservation Architect to draw up plans to restore the Conservatory and the restoration of the Conservatory. 2013-2014, $75,000 This work includes but is not limited to repairing or replacing historic building fabric, re-pointing of the stonework or making general repairs to conserve the building.. * Includes but is not limited to the above restoration, conservation and repairs.

JUSTIFICATION: Conservation of the porte-cochere, arched entrance by the front door, will require extensive work. The full extent of the work needed will not be apparent until the roof is taken apart and the project evaluated. Water has rotted out 3, possibly 4, of the wooden corner supports for the roof and the metal ties that connect the roof to the stone framework. The porte-cochere roof is endanger of falling. Though not included in the PP as such, the team examined the situation and made recommendations for its restoration. The Commission has consulted with other City Departments on how to best perform this restoration. If the roof is not repaired / restored additional rot will deteriorate it to the extent that it will fall, becoming a major liability concern. General repairs and maintenance of the Mansion will lower the City’s costs over time and preserve this important historic structure. Restoration of the porte-cochere roof, doors, grill work and Conservatory structure will protect the City from future liabilities and greatly enhance this National Landmark building.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

TOTAL



Construction 16,000 25,000 75,000 116,000


Other/Contingency

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 19,000 25,000 75,000 119,000

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 19,000 25,000 75,000 119,000

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Historical Commission PROJECT TITLE: Lockwood Mathews Mansion 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _X__ No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request No request Approved No request made If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? By consulting with the Preservation Plan Team, City Structural Engineer and our handyman who also consulted with the millwork company who has been milling the wood for the Mathews Park and Mill Hill building repairs and scaffolding rental companies. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _X_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses C. Additional Salary Costs _________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses _________________ Net effect on Operating Budget _____________________________________________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Repairs / Restoration to the porte-cochere is an immediate need / emergency project. If the porte-cochere roof is not restored it will fall down and the intricately milled woodwork will be destroyed. Restoration would then cost the City more than four times the restoration / repair cost will. It is expected that this work will require new roofing and perhaps an architect or structural engineer. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. The porte-cochere may fall to the ground in this year opening the City up to potential liability issues. The porte-cochere is a major architectural element of the America’s Treasure, National Landmark, National and State Register Historic Property. It’s loss would significantly harm the Lockwood Mathews Mansion building. The cost of restoration would increase dramatically if the roof falls and possibly lead to major City liability issues..

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Historical Commission PROJECT TITLE: Moisture Remediation – Mill Hill and

Mathews Park PROJECT LIFE: 10 Years SCHEDULED START: 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION:

RANKING: 2 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT DESCRIPTION: The Preservation Plan (PP) and more recent work on the buildings has revealed that there are moisture problems on most of the historic properties. The PP and the Commission recommend installing gutters on the Gardener’s Cottage, Fitch Law Office, the Schoolhouse, Town House, and the Smith St. Barn. The Commission wants to add leaf-guards to reduce maintenance costs. Presently rain falls off the edge of the roof, hits the ground and splashes back onto the siding. In addition, water is seeping into some of the roofs and walls. There are no gutters on these buildings (or they are severely damaged). Where rot has damaged the siding, it needs to be replaced and if necessary structural and interior fabric needs to be repaired. More extensive work is required at the Gardener’s Cottage to preserve the building. The asphalt surrounding the building must be removed, drains installed to take water away from the building and the rotted siding and under layer replaced where necessary. This work will largely be performed by the Commission’s handyman. In 2010-11 volunteers have removed small diameter trees thus increasing the circulation of air. * Includes but is not limited to the above restoration, conservation and repairs.

JUSTIFICATION: Recommendations in the Preservation Plan call for the addition of gutters to help stem the moisture damage to the Mill Hill and Mathews Park Historic buildings Because of the rapid deterioration caused by moisture problems, the buildings are in need of additional restoration, repair and on-going maintenance. If this work is put off and moved into later years the damage will spread and the restoration work will be more extensive and costly. Because of the Commission’s part-time handyman the requested funds will go largely to material costs. Master Plan implementation 2012-13, $50,000


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction 17,000 50,000 10,000 77,000


Other/Contingency

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 17,000 50,000 10,000 77,000

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 17,000 50,000 10,000 77,000

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Historical Commission PROJECT TITLE: Mill Hill Historic Properties 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _X__ No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request ___10,000_______ Approved __10,000________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Manufacturers and contractors were consulted. Recent material costs were reviewed and the estimates were put together. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No X_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget _____________________________________________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. In the last year the Commission has taken action to address these problems. The Fitch Law Office roof was worked on, the chimney flashing sealed. The north side of the Fitch was discovered to have extensive rot on the siding. (The cost for these projects has come out of previous Capital Budget lines. It is expected that these lines will be expended before the work outlined here can be completed.) How or why this rot occurred is not immediately understood. In the last year the Gardener’s Cottage building is exhibiting increasing amounts of rot. It is thought that this is because of the lack of gutters and poor run off. The Town House and Schoolhouse continue to develop rot problems. The most cost effective method of stopping this rot, according to our consultants, is to add gutters and leaders that draw the water away from the buildings. Once the gutters are added it is probable that most of the moisture problems will disappear.


The buildings will rot; mildew will cause health problems for visitors, volunteers and school children who tour the facility yearly. It will destroy original building materials and will cost the City more and additional repairs will be needed.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Historical Commission PROJECT TITLE: Cemetery Restoration PROJECT LIFE: Indefinite SCHEDULED START: SCHEDULED COMPLETION:

RANKING: 3 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Cemetery restoration at all four City owned Commentaries. Including but not limited to continued maintenance based on professional review and assessment by conservators and present physical conditions. Conservation of the grave markers will be done in the four City owned historic cemeteries based on conservation need and efficiency of labor. Trained and supervised volunteers will continue to work on the Cemeteries with the contractors and Commissioners. Some work will include repairs or conservation of walls, railings and the grounds to protect and improve the condition of the cemeteries. * Includes but is not limited to the above restoration, conservation, preservation and repairs.

JUSTIFICATION: The City’s cemeteries are important resources for understanding and interpreting Norwalk’s rich and diverse history and culture. Weather and vandalism often erode and deteriorate the markers. This deterioration is expediential over time. The messages recorded on the markers, the artistry, style, materials used, and their physical location continues to inform us on a vast array of subjects including Norwalk’s material culture, general health, prosperity, and ethnicity, as well as, the value that was placed on the importance of leaving documentation of the achievements and existence of the recipient’s being and family. The City Cemeteries are of increasing interest to residents and visitors alike. Visitors to the cemeteries and researchers bring in tourist dollars that help to support Norwalk’s economy. It is the City’s legal and moral responsibility to care for and maintain four sacred and historic burial grounds. In 2010-11 the Commission conserved over 300 markers. There are over 1,500 graves in our 4 cemeteries, in varying states of condition, and our goal is to continue to restore priority stones professionally and to right toppled stones via trained volunteers who supervise hired crew. The ultimate goal is to make the cemeteries safe and available to the public, as parks.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-2012

2012-2013

2013-2014

2014-2015

2015-2016

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction


Other/Contingency 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 100,000

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Historical Commission PROJECT TITLE: Cemetery Restoration 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _X__ No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request No funding was requested Approved No request made If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? By consulting with consultants and restoration experts. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No X__ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget _____________________________________________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Most of the gravestone markers and walls are over one-hundred years old. Until 2002 there has been little upkeep, care and conservation directed to the four City owned cemeteries. Since then over 500 markers have been cared for and conserved. The cemeteries, walls and grounds have received scheduled volunteer clean-ups and restoration. Lighting was added to Pine Island Cemetery to help deter vandalism. This work needs to continue in order to protect these valuable historical and artistic sites for our community and in respect and acknowledgement of our past and the people who helped us get to where we are today. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. This year the Commission will be working on the cemeteries as funding permits so there are no direct implications. It is however an on-going constant task to restore, preserve and maintain the Cemeteries due to natural deterioration, vandalism, acid rain and unforeseen accidents.

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Historical Commission PROJECT TITLE: Historic Resource Inventory List,

Phase II PROJECT LIFE: infinite SCHEDULED START: 2011 SCHEDULED COMPLETION:

RANKING: 4 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT ____ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION:

In 2010 – 11 the Commission began to up-date the Historic Resource Inventory List (NHRI); starting with the Wall St. / East Avenue area at the head of the Harbor. In 2012-13 the Commission wants to continue to inventory and map in coordination with the City’s GPS system an area of South Norwalk. The boundaries will be determined in conjunction with the State Preservation Commission of Culture & Tourism and will be dependent on this year’s round of available funding. The Historic Resource Inventory is part of a state-wide program to identify historic and culturally significant resources in the state.

JUSTIFICATION: Norwalk was the first in Connecticut to be designated as a "Preserve America" City. It is important that we identify, with the help of professional architectural historians, the historic and cultural resources that make up Norwalk’s environment and heritage. Many historic buildings, whole neighborhoods and landmarks are being demolished without an understanding of their potential value. Only a fraction of Norwalk's historic buildings were part of the 1970s NHRI list. Adding to the list will help homeowners and developers review if a property has been identified as having some significance according to Connecticut guidelines. Designation to the Inventory does not protect a site from demolition and has no legal weight, but would encourage property owners to preserve and incorporate significant historic buildings into development plans.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction


Other/Contingency 20,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 140,000


REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 20,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 140,000

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012


DEPARTMENT Historical Commission PROJECT TITLE: Historic Recourse Inventory List 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _X__ No __ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_0__________________ Approved $__0________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Through discussions with the state preservation office and consultants. The dollar amount determines the number of properties that can be inventoried. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ____ No X__ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ___________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses C. Additional Salary Costs __________________ No. of new positions ________none__________ D. Additional operating expenses __________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ____________________________________________________________


Norwalk continues to undergo redevelopment. With an extremely mobile society many residents and property owners are not aware of the historic and cultural value that may be inherent in their property and its value to our community and State. It is important to the character of our City that we take into consideration and weigh our architectural and cultural resources that may be hidden in our plain sight. If we as a city and state do not actively identify these resources we run the risk of loosing our valuable, historical, cultural and architecturally significant sites that contribute to our character and within which we instill pride in our City. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. We will continue to loose though historically and culturally significant resources and thus an understanding of the heritage of our community without documenting these resources. There will continue to be confusion over why some historic structures are considered important to the built environment and which ones those are. Without documenting these resources while they are here we potentially loose a greater understanding of our neighborhoods and our city forever. Redevelopment’s new theme is “Setting our Sites on Renewed Development.” This list is key to identifying these properties and Norwalk’s history, though in and of itself it does not stop demolitions from taking place. Listing of historic and culturally significant properties may assist property owners in obtaining economic assistance through rehabilitation depending on state and federal tax credits for rehabilitation of affordable housing, historic preservation, increased property values/tax bases, and improvement of neighborhood stability.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Historical Commission PROJECT TITLE: Norwalk Museum Archive /

Photograph Collection / Strategic Plan PROJECT LIFE: infinite SCHEDULED START: on-going SCHEDULED COMPLETION:

RANKING: 5 x_ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Norwalk Museum Strategic Plan Study In 2011 the Museum acquired through donation the Hour Newspaper Photographic Collection of prints and negatives. There are thousands of photographs and negatives in the donation in various states of condition; none of which are archivally housed. The collection needs to be catalogued, scanned, entered into a database, housed in archival materials and stored properly with the museum’s collection of over 10,000 photographs and negatives. The Commission wants to apply for a Federal IMLS grant to fund this work, pay for a more sophisticated database that will also allow for the Museum to offer access to the collections online. The Museum intends to sell copies of the images to raise money for the collections. * Includes but is not limited to the above restoration, conservation and repairs.

JUSTIFICATION: In order to apply for larger grants a strategic plan is necessary. Having a strategic plan in place will assist the Commission in obtaining grant funding. The Commission intends to apply for grants and to work with the Hour Newspapers, local Colleges, Universities and schools to do much of the physical work. The grant and any City funding will go to hiring an archivist with photographic collection experience to set up and run the internships and volunteers that the museum intends to get to do much of the physical operations, and to purchasing a more sophisticated archival / museum database for the collections to link them all together with one search engine and prepare them for the web, and to acquire archival storage materials for the photographs. To have the photographs in the collection without being cataloged would be neglectful and a loss to all. The Commission intends to apply for grants, sometimes with the Hour Newspaper and schools to fund this work.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design 20,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 80,000


Construction


Other/Contingency 40,000 40,000 40,000 40,000 160,000

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 240,000

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 60,000 60,000 60,000 60,000 240,000

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Historical Commission PROJECT TITLE: Norwalk Museum Archive Photographic Collections 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes ___ No _X _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request No request was made Approved No request made If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? By consulting with archivists and assessing the donation. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes _X__ No __ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________yes_________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses C. Additional Salary Costs ________Grant funded_______ No. of new positions ____1______________ D. Additional operating expenses ________None________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________None_____________________________________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. The Hour Photograph Collection is an important asset to the Museum and the City. Because the collection has never been catalogued or well organized and all of the photographs have historic importance, they need to be catalogued, organized, scanned, re-housed in archival materials. A new more sophisticated database will speed up the process, make the photographs accessible and a selection of photographs available online. This collection is historically significant and valuable when organized to the museum and the community. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. Should the Museum receive a matching grant for this work and the matching funds are not available, the Museum and City would loose the opportunity to use a significantly important resource. This program will be designed to make the photograph collections readily accessible.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Historical Commission PROJECT TITLE: Smith Street Buildings PROJECT LIFE: 10 – 25 years SCHEDULED START: SCHEDULED COMPLETION:

RANKING: 6 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: The Old Jail building caught fire on June 19, 2010. The roof, attic and second floor interior were significantly damaged. The ground floor received water damage. The brick and stone walls were basically undamaged. Insurance will cover the roof and interior work. The Commission decided to change the use and allow the Historical Society to occupy the second floor as offices and collection storage. As part of the City’s Master Plan implementation and the re-classification of the building to allow for offices, the Commission will be required to make site plan changes including parking, step and wall repair, railings and new walkways. Improvements to the structure (repairs, painting) and electrical wiring in the Barn. Re-pointing of the Old Jail stonework, per the Preservation Plan. Est. $ 35,000. * Includes but is not limited to the above restoration, conservation and repairs.

JUSTIFICATION: In order for the change of use and City’s Mill Hill Master Plan to be implemented, the Commission will have to alter the parking, add connecting walkways and generally improve the condition of the Smith Street property. General repairs and maintenance of the two buildings will lower the City’s costs over time and preserve the historic structures. Improving the condition of the Barn and Old Jail will enhance the City’s contribution to the Wall St. Development, particularly Wall St. Parcel #3. Because of the fire, the Commission has had to move the Handyman workshop and collection storage to the Smith St. Barn. Some up-graded wiring and other work have been completed to re-gain fire and code compliance. To fully utilize the second floor additional work on the exterior stair, floor and electricity is necessary.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction 14,000 35,000 49,000


Other/Contingency


REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 15,000 35,000 50,000

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Historical Commission PROJECT TITLE: Smith Street Buildings 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X__ No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request No request made___ Approved No request made If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? By discussions with architects, landscapers and contractors. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes _X__ No __ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________?_________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ___no_____________ C. Additional Salary Costs ___no_____________ No. of new positions ____none_____ D. Additional operating expenses ___no_____________ Net effect on Operating Budget __none________________________________________________


This work is needed to implement the City approved Mill Hill Master Plan; to better utilize these two historic properties, and improve the Smith St. neighborhood re-development and City-wide connectivity. Work on the Barn will improve the capability of the Norwalk Museum to store and work on collections that are not temperature or humid sensitive. At present the Norwalk Museum space does not allow for research and collection work for this type of collection material. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. The historic buildings and property on Smith Street will continue to be a blight on the City and Wall St. development. The Mill Hill Master Plan will not move forward, handyman and the Norwalk Museum will not be able to accomplish their goals.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Historical Commission PROJECT TITLE: Mathews Park Historic Buildings PROJECT LIFE: 25 Years SCHEDULED START: on-going SCHEDULED COMPLETION:

RANKING: 7 x_ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT _X_ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: This work includes but is not limited to repairing or replacing additional woodwork, gutters, flashing, re-pointing of stonework and general maintenance of the Lockwood Mathews Mansion, Gate Lodge, Carriage House and Gardener’s Cottage. Restoration of the north porch on the Gate Lodge -design and construction. 2012-13 Roof structural work, design engineering and Belvedere replacement for the Carriage House scheduled for 2014-15. Slate Roof replacement / restoration for the Gate Lodge. 2015-16. * Includes but is not limited to the above restoration, conservation and repairs.

JUSTIFICATION: Based on the restoration and maintenance work outlined in the Preservation Plan and recent work, the Mathews Park buildings continue to need restoration and maintenance work to maintain and preserve them as assets to the City. Mathews Park has an increasing visitor ship and for many is the Gateway to Norwalk. It is a tourist destination and an active community resource. Attendance to the park is in the 100,000s when Stepping Stones, the Lockwood Mathews Mansion, the Center for Contemporary Printmaking, tourism and the Arts Council are considered. In order to restore the buildings to their historic significance, the Gate Lodge north porch and slate roof; and the Carriage House Belvedere must be restored.

Mathews Park, with the Visitor Center, museums and art components creates a first impression of Norwalk that is important to Norwalk’s culture and history. Restoration of these buildings shows the respect Norwalk has for its history and culture.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction 8,000 10,000 30,000 100,000 148,000


Other/Contingency

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 10,000 10,000 30,000 100,000 150,000

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 10,000 30,000 30,000 100,000 150,000

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Historical Commission PROJECT TITLE: Mathews Park Historic Buildings 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _X__ No _ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request No request was made Approved No request made If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Recommendations from the Preservation Plan, past experience, and in consultation with contractors. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No x__ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget _____________________________________________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. This funding allows the Commission to continue to finance the repairs and restoration needed to maintain and improve the Mathews Park Historic Buildings. For example, the restoration of the north porch on the Gate Lodge will allow the Commission to add a handicap accessible ramp making another one of the Commission’s buildings code compliant. It is expected with the restoration of the Belvedere that air-vents necessary for air quality in the Printmaking Center could be hidden and thereby preserve the architectural design of the building. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. The Commission will not be able to keep abreast of general maintenance projects and forestall larger, more expensive, projects at a later date. The general appearance of the buildings will deteriorate. The improvements, the restoration of original elements such as the north porch, belvedere and slate roof will continue to be missing and the buildings will not be restored or contribute fully to the beauty of the park.

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Historical Commission PROJECT TITLE: Norwalk Museum PROJECT LIFE: 15 years SCHEDULED START: 2012 SCHEDULED COMPLETION:

RANKING: 8 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT X__ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Upgrade and add additional museum quality display cases, platforms, displays and equipment to improve the capabilities of the museum. Replace the extremely warn and stained carpeting in the museum space. Purchase archival storage materials – paper, folders, boxes, acid-free tissue to improve museum and archival storage of collections. Funding to conserve, restore, clean, line and reframe collection items (paintings, documents, textiles, books, photographs) that are in need of restoration work.

• Includes but is not limited to the above restoration, conservation and repairs.

JUSTIFICATION: Upgraded museum display equipment and renovation of existing display cases (many of which are patched together or milk crates covered with cloth) will allow the museum to show its collections safely and securely while creating better and more diverse exhibitions. New cases, etc. will provide greater security, allow for less damage through display to the collections. These improvements will allow the Museum to create exhibits that include and use more of the collections and qualify us for loans from museums and other potential lenders. New carpeting will improve the overall appearance of the museum spaces. Restoration and conservation of the collections has been minimal because of lack of funding. The Archival Assessment and Conservation Assessment Program grant reports support the need to establish a restoration / conservation program for the collections.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction


Other/Contingency 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 40,000


REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 13,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 53,000

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012


DEPARTMENT Historical Commission PROJECT TITLE: Norwalk Museum 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes _X_ No __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $13,000______ Approved $__13,000_________ If not, why is the project now included?

2. How was your cost estimate derived? By consulting manufacturers and catalogues.

3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes _X__ No __ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ______yes___________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses possibly C. Additional Salary Costs ________no________ No. of new positions ________none__________ D. Additional operating expenses ________no________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________no significant change_______________________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Increasing visitorship and the resulting interest in the museum, its collections and its ablilty to interpret and identify important aspects of Norwalk’s art, history and culture pushes the need to be more professional in our exhibitions and to display more of the collections to their greatest advantage in a safe and secure manner. A number of paintings, books, documents and artifacts in the collection have been in need of professional cleaning, restoration and conservation for a number of years. The need to care for these objects is important to their preservation and the ability to show and study them. For example, several of our quilts scheduled for the 2011 Norwalk Quilt Trail project exhibit need restoration work and proper foundations in order to display them safely and to their advantage. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded. The museum will look shabby and continue to need to “hide” the damaged collections. The artifacts will continue to degrade and it will reflect badly upon the City.


DEPARTMENT: Information Technology

PROJECT TITLE

2011-12 REQUEST

2012-13 REQUEST

2013-14 REQUEST

2014-15 REQUEST

BEYOND 2016

1. City-Wide Information Technology Projects 669,474 237,543 137,900 140,400 175,700

2. City-wide GIS Technology Projects 80,000 175,000 6,000 13,000 20,000

3.

4. Total: 749,474 412,543 143,900 153,400 195,700

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

11.

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

2011 - 2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJECT TITLE: City-wide IT Projects

PROJECT LIFE: SCHEDULED START: SCHEDULED COMPLETION:

RANKING: ___ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT ____ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: City-wide Information Technology Projects. (Includes capital technology requests for City departments, Public Safety, Libraries, Museum and Public Works).

JUSTIFICATION: Upgrades and enhancements to the City’s information systems are necessary to maintain the quality, integrity, and reliability of the City’s information, network, and website which enable the city staff to efficiently deliver services to the public.


2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

20014-15

20015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design


Construction

Equipment/Furnishings 432,225 669,474 237,543 137,900 140,400 175,700 1,793,242

Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 432,225 669,474 237,543 137,900 140,400 175,700 1,793,242

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 432,225 669,474 237,543 137,900 140,400 175,700 1,793,242 CAPITAL BUDGET

2010-2011

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Information Technology PROJECT TITLE City-wide IT Projects 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $______ ______ Approved ___________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ________________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.


2011 -2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY PROJECT TITLE: GIS

PROJECT LIFE: SCHEDULED START: SCHEDULED COMPLETION:

RANKING: ___ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT ____ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: GIS Technology Projects: - refresh of City—wide server to meet growing demand - refresh digital orthophotography to synchronize with Assessor property revaluation schedule.

JUSTIFICATION: One of the major missions of a municipal government is to provide its residents the services necessary to ensure their health, safety and welfare. A Geographic Information System (GIS) is one of the most effective tools that a municipality has to achieve this mission in an extremely cost-effective manner. The GIS has the ability to analyze, manage, and display information based on geography, allowing the e4efficient deployment of resources and delivery of service. The GIS also has the ability to rapidly present the results of the analysis on maps of varying sizes and scales. Since nearly 85% of all government maintained information has a spatial characteristic, a GIS in municipal operations is invaluable.


2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

20014-15

20015-16

TOTAL Incl Prior Yrs

Engineering/Design


Construction

Equipment/Furnishings 65,500 80,000 175,000 6,000 13,000 20,000 359,500

Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 65,500 80,000 175,000 6,000 13,000 20,000 359,500

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 65,500 80,000 175,000 6,000 13,000 20,000 359,500 CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Information Technology PROJECT TITLE GIS 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _ No _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $______ ______ Approved ___________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue ________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses ________________ C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions ________________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded.


DEPARTMENT: Health Department

PROJECT TITLE

2011-12 REQUEST

2012-13 REQUEST

2013-14 REQUEST

2014-15 REQUEST

BEYOND 2016

Exterior Waterproofing 485,730

Site Repairs 111,113

HVAC replacement – lower level 110,000

12/22/09

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Health PROJECT TITLE: Multi-year Renovation Project PROJECT LIFE: 6 years SCHEDULED START: 2007 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 2013

RANKING: extreme importance NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT ___x__ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Continuation of a multi year phased in renovation of the Health Department building. 2011-2012 Work Includes Exterior Waterproofing - addressing several cracks in concrete block interior walls and exterior brick facade, re-pointing and cleaning brick, resurfacing concrete stairs and retaining wall.

JUSTIFICATION: Since construction in 1967, the exterior façade has not been maintained. There are cracks in the exterior brick and the interior concrete block in the four cantilevered end sections of the building. The concrete stairs leading to the East Avenue entrance are cracked and crumbling. The interior finished basement walls under the stairs are constantly wet and at times show mold. This area is occupied by a tenant and used for offices.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design 43,056 23,000 10,000 76,056


Construction 477,285 462,730 211,113 1,151,128


Other/Contingency TOTAL EXPENDITURES 520,341 485,730 221,113 1,227,184

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 520,491 485,730 221,113 1,227,184

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Health_ PROJECT: Multi-year Renovation 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five-year capital plan? Yes __X__ No __ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $____$10,000_______________ Approved $______________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived?

Salamone Associates developed the cost estimate as part of a building needs assessment. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes _x__ No _ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _______________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses _________ decrease in energy use C. Additional Salary Costs _______________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget ________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. High demand – refer to justification section above 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded?

Delaying the work may result in compromising the structural integrity of the cantilevered sections of the building and the stairs will continue to pose a safety threat to people using them.


DEPARTMENT: Planning & Zoning

PROJECT TITLE

2011-12 REQUEST

2012-13 REQUEST

2013-14 REQUEST

2014-15 REQUEST

BEYOND 2016

1. Waterfront Access 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100

2. Biking Plan 200 200 200 200 200

3. Sidewalk Plan 50 50 50 50 50

4. Public Art 25 25 25 25 25

5.Gateways to Norwalk 50 165 165 165 165

6.Street End Parks 25 25 25 25 25

7.Population Projections 50

8.

9.

10.

11

12.

13.

14.

15.

16.

17.

18.

19.

20.

21.

22.

23.

24.

25.

2011-2012 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Planning & Zoning PROJECT TITLE: Waterfront Public Access PROJECT LIFE: 25yrs SCHEDULED START: 7/11 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 6/12

RANKING: 1 _ NEW CONSTRUCTION/EQUIPMENT ___ REPLACEMENT\REFURBISHMENT

DESCRIPTION: Complete public access to Norwalk Harbor and River by filling in gaps in the existing trail system

JUSTIFICATION: Implement the Plan of Conservation & Development


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design 25 100 100 100 100 100 525


Construction 200 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 1,000 5,200


Other/Contingency

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 225 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 5,725

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 225 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 1,100 5,725

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Planning & Zoning PROJECT TITLE: 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _x__ No __ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $___250_____________________ Approved $___225__________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Plan of Conservation & Development 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No __x_ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget _____________________________________________________

4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. It is a long standing policy of the City to provide public access to the waterfront for our residents and as a tourist attraction

5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded ? The waterfront access that has already been constructed will be underutilized

2011-12 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Planning & Zoning PROJECT TITLE: : Bikeway Plan PROJECT LIFE: 25yrs SCHEDULED START: 7/11 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 6/12


DESCRIPTION: Develop a comprehensive bikeway plan and construct in phases

JUSTIFICATION: Plan of Conservation & Development calls for this as an alternative traffic plan , providing recreational opportunities , as a public health issue and encouraging tourism.


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction 200 200 200 200 200 1,000


Other/Contingency

TOTAL EXPENDITURES 200 200 200 200 200 1,085

REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 85 200 200 200 200 200 1,085

CAPITAL BUDGET

2011-2012

CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT Planning & Zoning PROJECT TITLE: 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes x___ No __ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $___100_____________________ Approved $_____85________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Based on similar studies 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x__ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget _____________________________________________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

Recommended in the Plan of Conservation & Development 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded ? Lack of alternatives to automobile use, lack of recreational opportunities ,diminished public health and reduced tourism amenities

2011-12 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Planning & Zoning PROJECT TITLE: Sidewalk Study PROJECT LIFE: 25yrs SCHEDULED START: 7/11 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 6/12


DESCRIPTION: Comprehensive study of existing sidewalks/footpaths and plan for construction of new sidewalks , extension of existing and filling in gaps.

JUSTIFICATION: Plan of Conservation & Development


PRIOR YEARS

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

TOTAL



Construction 50 50 50 50 50 250


Other/Contingency


REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 15 50 50 50 50 50 265

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Planning & Zoning PROJECT TITLE: 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes x___ No __ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $________50________________ Approved $__15___________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Plan of Conservation & Development 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x__ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget _____________________________________________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

Identified in Plan of Conservation & Development as a need 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded ? No

incentive to walk, public health concerns and safety issues

2011-12 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Planning & Zoning PROJECT TITLE: : Public Art PROJECT LIFE: 25yrs SCHEDULED START: 7/11 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 6/12


DESCRIPTION: Provide public art in key downtown locations as a public amenity and tourist attraction

JUSTIFICATION: Implement the Plan of Conservation & Development


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction 15 25 25 25 25 115


Other/Contingency


REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 25 25 25 25 25 125

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Planning & Zoning PROJECT TITLE: 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _x__ No __ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $_________25_______________ Approved $____0_________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? Cost of providing one or two large sculptures 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No x___ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget _____________________________________________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

Plan of Conservation & Development identifies need 5 What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded ? . Lack of necessary amenities diminishes the urban experience that residents and tourists expect in a vibrant city

2011-12 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Planning & Zoning PROJECT TITLE: : Gateways PROJECT LIFE: 25yrs SCHEDULED START: 7/11 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 4/12


DESCRIPTION: Identify , design and construct “Gateways to Norwalk”. These would create a feeling of entry into the City at different scales depending on the location.

JUSTIFICATION: Plan of Conservation & Development


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL

Engineering/Design 50 15 15 15 15 110

Site Costs & Acquisition 150 150 150 150 600

Construction


Other/Contingency


REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 50 165 165 165 165 710

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Planning & Zoning PROJECT TITLE: 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes __x_ No __ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $___50_____________________ Approved $______0_______ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? The plan begins with 10 intersections and a schematic design at $5,000 ea. 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x__ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget _____________________________________________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. Identified in the Plan of Conservation & Development 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded ? Lack of identifying “Brand” for Norwalk

2011-12 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Planning & Zoning PROJECT TITLE: Street End Parks PROJECT LIFE: 25 SCHEDULED START: 7/11 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 6/12


DESCRIPTION: Improve city street ends at one or two locations with new landscaping, lighting, low wall or fence, interpretive sign and pervious pavement. The project will promote public views to the waterfront and will educate the public on the need to protect water quality and prevent debris from draining into the harbor. Street End locations being considered:

• Hendricks Avenue & Selleck Street under I-95 bridge • Second Street adjacent to Third Taxing District office • First Street • Daskams Lane

JUSTIFICATION: Implement the Plan of Conservation & development


PRIOR YEARS

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

TOTAL

Engineering/Design 5 5 5 5 5 25


Construction 20 20 20 20 20 100


Other/Contingency


REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 25 25 25 25 25 125

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Planning & Zoning PROJECT TITLE: 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _x__ No __ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $____25____________________ Approved $________0_____ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No _x__ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget _____________________________________________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project.

The proposed project will improve water quality and views to the waterfront from street ends. Public education is needed to reduce the amount of debris-laden runoff and pollutants that end up in Norwalk Harbor 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded ?

Water quality of harbor will be impaired and recent dredging improvements will be undermined by continued flow of untreated runoff into the Harbor

2011-12 CITY OF NORWALK DEPARTMENT: Planning & Zoning PROJECT TITLE: Population Projection PROJECT LIFE: 10yrs SCHEDULED START: 7/11 SCHEDULED COMPLETION: 1/12


DESCRIPTION: Analysis of the Census count and 10 year projection.

JUSTIFICATION: Needed to anticipate population based needs for the next 10 years


PRIOR YEARS

2011-12

2012-13

2013-14

2014-15

2015-16

TOTAL



Construction


Other/Contingency


REVENUE (Specify)

NET COST 50 50

CAPITAL BUDGET


DEPARTMENT Planning & Zoning PROJECT TITLE: 1. Was this project included as part of last year’s five year capital plan? Yes _x__ No __ _ If yes, please indicate amount requested and approved. Request $___________50___________ Approved $_0____________ If not, why is the project now included? 2. How was your cost estimate derived? 3. Will this project have an impact on the operating budget of this department or another department? Yes ___ No ___ If yes, please estimate the following: A. Increased Revenue _________________ B. Decreased Operating Expenses C. Additional Salary Costs ________________ No. of new positions __________________ D. Additional operating expenses ________________ Net effect on Operating Budget _____________________________________________________ 4. Comment on the demand/need for this project. .

Without this data there is no way to accurately anticipate the infrastructure needs for Norwalk 5. What are the implications if the project is deferred, or not funded ? . The City will base its planning on data from other sources that do not give detailed analysis of Norwalk specifically.