Loading...
02/16/2022 - Minutes MINUTES FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BOARD MEETING (CDCIP) Monday, February 16, 2022 S:30pm 1. Board Members Board Members Not Present Brooke Young, Chair Alicia Ryans Rich Nazzaro Heidi Steed, Co-Chair Jake Skog Elke Opsahl Loree Hagen Alyson Genovese Jenny Bonk Jason Motley Staff Present Kalli Ruiz, CAN Staff Rachel Molinari, CAN Staff Tammy Hunsaker, CAN Staff Ben Luedtke, Council Staff Matthew Cassel, Engineering Mark Stephens, Engineering Chris Norlem, Engineering Jim Cleland, Facilities Lorna Vogt, Public Services JP Goates, Public Services Jorge Chamorro, Public Services Dustin Petersen, Public Services Michael Fox, SLC Fire Constituents Present Melissa Koerner David Maxfield Breanna Brannan DB Troester Walt Booker Jamie McCullough Graham Mather 2. Staff Updates There were no staff updates. 3. Approval of the Minutes There were no minutes to approve. 4. Business A. Welcome & Introductions Ms. Young welcomed the CDCIP members, City staff, and constituents and opened the meeting on February 16, 2022, at 5:32 pm. Individual introductions were offered by the hosts and attendees. B. Questions & Discussions on Proposed CIP Projects Fire Applications: Training Ground Site Improvements Ms. Bonk asked if the CIP funding was the only source for this project or if other sources had been utilized first, and this is in addition to those asks. She stated that it is hard to prioritize the applications while not knowing what else has been asked for by other applicants and from other budget sources. Ms. Ruiz said that the constituent applications would typically not have other sources of funding. She added that in some cases the community has sought out private sponsorship or donations, but not often. Ms. Ruiz explained that the internal divisions have their own budgets to pay for specific projects and that the CIP asks are not included in those annual budgets. She noted that CIP funding is specifically for city infrastructure. Ms. Bonk asked if internal divisions are required to submit an annual budget and if that information is available to the public. Ms. Ruiz stated that the general budgets are always available to the public. She noted that the details of the CIP specific funding would most likely be included in the budget details of each application. Ms. Ruiz also clarified that the internal applications have been prioritized by each division and that the priority level is noted on the spreadsheet provided to the CDCIP Board. Ms. Young said that she appreciated that the application included an option to fund the project above or below the original requested amount where possible. Mixed-Use Three-Story Fire Prop Ms. Young inquired about the status of the prior year training props that the Board recommended for funding. Mr. Fox stated that those projects were currently in the City's procurement process and are waiting to go out to bid. Ms. Ruiz added that the two current Fire applications were those not funded last year Facilities Applications: Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY23 Ms. Young said she liked having the asset renewal list that breaks down the ask in a much more cohesive way. She asked for clarification concerning some of the items on the list and if those were also included in other department's requests, noting the library specifically. Mr. Chamorro stated that this application is part of Facilities' 10-year plan. He added that while the divisions have their own operating budgets, Facilities has a responsibility to take care of assets and equipment that are in the city owned buildings. Mr. Chamorro explained that Facilities has its own annual budget for maintenance and operations, but that asset renewal is not included in this source of funding and therefore must ask for it out of CIP. He stated that Facilities is behind on its asset renewal lifecycle and is trying to catch up on the ongoing funding. Ms. Hagen asked about maintenance for other facilities that are not covered by the renewal request and if that is a separate budget in lieu of maintenance. Mr. Chamorro said the Facilities division has a responsibility to maintain existing structures but also must replace them when it is not maintainable anymore. He said those asks are recognized in the general budget that the City Council approves. He reiterated that there is no ongoing source of funding for asset replacement and therefore the ask must be included in this CIP asset renewal plan. Mr. Nazzaro asked for an explanation on the priority levels assigned in the list provided in the application. Mr. Chamorro gave an example of a deteriorating roof as a priority level 1, meaning most urgent, whereas interior cosmetic updates would be at a lower priority level. Streets Steam Bay Expansion Mr. Motley inquired about the imminent risk of the oil separator collapsing. Mr. Chamorro explained that the current steam bay was not built for the number of vehicles that are being cleaned. He said he was not able to provide a specific metric for when it could collapse, but that if it did there would be massive amounts of contamination. Mr. Skag asked if this project would add an additional steam bay or expanded on the existing steam bay. Mr. Chamorro stated that they are requesting funding to expand the existing structure. Constituent Engineering Applications: 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Ms. Young wanted clarification concerning the street current curb and gutter and asked if the water flood damage was a result of the absence of one or the either. Ms. Brannan stated the street does not have curb or sidewalk and that the puddles build up because there is a lack of appropriate drainage on the street. Ms. Bonk asked how many residents live on the stretch of road that is being considered in the application. Ms. Brannon said there are approximately seven homes there. Back Alley Block Project Mr. Motley asked for clarification between the different asks for Alleyway Improvements. He noted the requested dollar amounts and how they differed. Mr. Norlem stated that the internal Alleyway Improvements request from Engineering is a programmatic ask requested by the Mayor and will become a recurring CIP ask. He said this specific application was a separate request on the behalf of a constituent. Mr. Cassel added that Engineering is identifying alleyways through the program and exploring the costs to rejuvenate the alleyways in Salt Lake City. He explained that the division is currently working with the administration to come up with a way to prioritize these projects. Ms. Bonk referenced the map that was included in the application, and how it showed if an alleyway was publicly or privately owned. She asked if the City had any accountability to maintain these alleys. Mr. Cassel replied that map was developed to help the division establish what was public versus private, and that the City should not be spending public funds on private alleys. Mr. Nazzaro noted this application's budget narrative described the minimum funding would be around $100,000 and wanted to know what the rest of the money, up to $500,000 would be used for. Mr. Norlem stated that the Engineering estimate of$100,000 included the full construction costs of the project. Mr. Skog wanted to ask the constituent about what they feel constitutes rejuvenation of an alleyway. Mr. Cassel provided a general response explaining that constituents typically want lighting to be included in these projects whereas Engineering's main goal is to make sure the alley is functional for driving which means repairing the potholes and drainage issues and that this could be the reason the requested amount was larger. Ms. Ruiz said that if Board members have specific questions for constituents who are not present, that the CIP team could forward the questions and allow the constituent to provide a response before final funding recommendations are decided. Ms. Bonk asked to see pictures of alleyways that have been completed by Engineering in the past to see what the final result looks like. She explained that she has been driving around the various areas of the city looking at the project addresses to assess the area and what the applications are requesting. Ms. Bonk also asked if a constituent requests an alley to be rejuvenated, would it then jump the line for the larger project that Engineering is working on. Mr. Cassell said that most of these alley requests come from a group of neighbors banding together and asking for change. He explained that the program and the prioritization methodology is still being developed. Ms. Vogt added that the alleyway program began as a pilot project with the goal to engage the community around the alley. Pave Benchmark Circle Mr. Booker expressed gratitude towards Ms. Molinari and Mr. Norlem for assisting with his application. He explained that Benchmark Circle has not been paved in many years and is "failing" according to the overall condition index (OCI) street score, a metric used by the City to determine needs for repair. Ms. Young said that she appreciated the maps and letters provided with the application. Ms. Bonk asked if there was a hiking trail access nearby as she noticed many cars parked on the street. Mr. Booker said there is no direct trail access and that the cars are all from the people living there. Ms. Bonk inquired if Benchmark Circle was on the City's list to repair soon. Mr. Cassel said that Engineering had to make the difficult decision to remove cul-de-sacs from the repair list because the number of residents living in these areas made it less of a priority. He explained that with limited bond funding, they decided to identify other streets to repair first. He acknowledged that Engineering has a 2027 plan to include repairing short segments and cul-de-sacs, but that Benchmark Circle would not make it until 2027 and is in need of repair sooner. Mr. Cassel thanked Mr. Booker for his patience with the division. South Belaire Dr Road Reconstruction Mr. Mather explained that this street received a score of between 5-7 out of 100 on the OCI in 2018, and therefore it was in desperate need of repair. He said that he believed the street was on the City's list to repair in the next 6 years, but that the street would be too far gone by then and needs repair sooner. He thanked Ms. Molinari for her help throughout the application process. Ms. Young thanked Mr. Mather for attending the meeting and expressed appreciation for the petitions and pictures provided with the application materials. Storm Drains 1100 East, South of Zenith Ave Mr. Maxfield explained that Zenith Ave. is burdened with stormwater flooding from the Jordan Canal approximately three times per year during the summer months due to the lack of storm drainage on the street. Mr. Maxfield asked when final approval of CIP projects would take place. Ms. Ruiz explained the timeline, stating that the CDCIP Board makes their funding recommendations in April and those recommendations are forwarded to the Mayor's office to be added to the Mayor's Recommended Budget and then to the City Council for final approval. She added that the City Council has until September 1st to approve individual funding for each application. Brentwood Circle and Parley's Way Storm Water Drainage Ms. Koerner clarified that the application is only seeking to have updates made to Parley's Way, above Brentwood Circle, to divert storm water. She explained that enlarging the storm water drainage capacity was no longer included in the ask because that element was forwarded to Public Utilities to be included in their budget process. Ms. Koerner and Mr. McCullough both stated that they cannot afford to keep dealing with the water damage in their basements caused by the flooding on their street. They asked the Board for their consideration on this application on behalf of their entire neighborhood. Ms. Young thanked the applicant for the pictures and budget explanation provided in the submission. Harvey Milk Blvd. Rainbow Crosswalk Mr. Nazzaro inquired about the existing crosswalk markings at this location and if these improvements would increase pedestrian safety. Mr. Norlem said that the typical crosswalk markings exist and that this would be solely an aesthetic change. Repair Alley #4195 after 9th South rebuild project Ms. Bonk asked if this alley was deteriorated because of increased construction vehicle traffic. She noted that when she drove through the alley that she could not imagine a construction vehicle accessing the alley because the road was in such poor condition. Mr. Cassel said that he suspected that the applicant was referring to increased public traffic that was diverted through the alley because of the 900 South project and that construction trucks should not be using the alley. Three Creeks West-Roadways Ms. Bonk questioned the ranking of this project at 9th on the list when a playground was so close to the sewage problem in the area. Ms. Ruiz explained that constituent projects cannot be ranked in any order and that a number was assigned for identification and tracking purposes only. She asked that the Board disregard these numbers as part of their determination concerning constituent submissions. Ms. Bonk voiced concern about the sewage located near the playground and stated that it should be a high priority concern for the Health Department. Mr. Norlem explained that private property owners pay for their own connection to a to a public sewer system but added that there is not a public sewer system down this specific street. He noted that a sewer system would have to be installed and inspected by Public Utilities before the residents could connect to it. Ms. Hagen asked about if it the residents were currently utilizing a septic system. Mr. Norlem confirmed that was indeed the case. Mr. Troester explained that there are currently 10 septic systems in the area. He also said that Public Utilities reported that the E. coli contamination levels were unhealthy and that he was told by Public Utilities that it is the resident's responsibility to pay to put the main sewer line in. Mr. Troester argued that it should be the City's responsibility given how close the street is to the river and how old the houses are in the neighborhood. He mentioned that the road has not been paved in over 30 years and scored low on the OCI to the point of failure. Mr. Troester stated that he has worked closely with Public Utilities to explore options for funding the sewer line and does not want to elevate the issue further to a public health threat but urged the Board to consider recommending the application. Internal Engineering Applications: Street Improvements 2022/2023 Ms. Young questioned the priority list provided in the application materials. She asked if the projects listed needed additional funding for construction that is currently taking place or if it was for future construction. Mr. Cassel responded that all projects listed were for future projects and the funding needs to be in place for the project to start. Ms. Hagen asked if the intent of the 900 south construction project was to slow traffic or if that was a consequence of the construction elements. Mr. Cassel explained that the intent was not to slow traffic but that it was a result of the multiple projects in the area. Ms. Hagen inquired about the speed bump on 1000 East, and if it was planned. Mr. Cassel said that the speed bump at that location was a result of making sure the street would drain properly. Public Way Concrete 2022/2023 Mr. Nazzaro asked how the City determines prioritization for sidewalks. Mr. Cassel said the in the past the Engineering division based priority off constituents concerns and complaints and that while that method is still a driver, the division recently completed an inventory of trip hazards and deteriorated sidewalks to determine where the improvements are needed. Alleyway Improvements 2022/2023 Ms. Young questioned if the money for this project would help to determine which alleyways would be improved or if it would go towards construction costs. Mr. Cassel gave the example of two alleyways the division is planning to improve and stated that the cost for each would be approximately $50-$100K depending on what methods were used. He explained that they are currently in the process of identifying alleyways that need improvements a year in advance, and that should help determine the ongoing CIP ask. Bridge Replacement (650 North over the Jordan River) Ms. Young wanted clarification on the amount of this application. She questioned if the $2M was already on hold for the project and ask if they needed an additional $3.7M. Mr. Cassell said that the City Council previously approved $2.8M for the bridge at 650 North and 400 South. He noted that after the 2020 earthquake, the bridge had further damage and that it now requires replacement. Mr. Stephens explained that Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) inspects all bridges every two years to determine the need of repair. He said that it is estimated that in the next two years the 650 North Bridge will have to be downsized to carry lighter loads. He explained further that the impact on the bridge would include no longer allowing school busses to pass. Mr. Stephens expressed the urgency of the application. Mr. Cassel added that the permitting process to replace the bridge takes a significant amount of time which is why the ask is coming to the CDCIP Board now to provide enough timing. Project Management Software Renewal Mr. Motley asked if this was the only software the division considered or if there was a competitive research process. Mr. Cassel said that they looked at 4-5 different program before deciding this software best suited the Engineering division's needs. He said that it is a construction-based program that project managers use it to assist with the design phase of projects. Mr. Skog questioned if the software would only be used to assist with CIP projects. Mr. Cassel said that it is used division wide for all construction projects. Ms. Young asked how the division had paid for the software in the past. Mr. Cassel stated that it was previously funded for three years in an annual budget ask, not CIP. Bridge Preservation 2022/2023 Ms. Young asked if they anticipated further struggle to secure a contractor if this application received more funding. Mr. Cassel explained that in the current market, securing a contractor is a difficult task. He said these funds would be used for various minor repairs to bridges to prolong the life of the structures until the full construction could be completed. Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2022/2023 Ms. Young inquired about the funds being used solely for maintenance due to the requested amount. She stated that it seemed too low to include any construction costs. Mr. Cassel replied that UDOT is responsible for the crossings while Salt Lake City is responsible for the 5-l0ft of asphalt approaching the crossings. He estimated that each crossing repair would be roughly $50k each. 700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West) Ms. Bonk asked if CIP funds were used for the previous phases of this project. Mr. Cassel stated that he has worked for SLC for four years and that this project began before him. He said that there was various other funding secured in the past to build out the road piece by piece and that this ask is for the last step of the project. Ms. Young questioned if this was an additional funding gap to the divisions already secured $1.5M. Mr. Cassel said that the project was eligible for Impact Fee funding, and that this ask is to cover the $85k shortfall. Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South over the Jordan River) There were no questions on this application. Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River) There were no questions on this application. Wingpointe Levee Design Ms. Young commented on the number of times this request has been presented to the CDCIP Board. Mr. Cassel stated that the Airport is currently deciding how to use this area and once a decision has been made, Salt Lake City's responsibility for the levee will cease. C. Overview & Expectations of next meeting Ms. Ruiz thanked the constituents for their time and willingness to attend the Board meeting. She stated that Board can forward additional questions for constituents to the CIP Team who will gather responses before the funding recommendation meetings begin. She also thanked the staff for taking the time to attend the meeting and answer questions. Ms. Ruiz said the next meeting will take place on the February 28, 2022 and will cover the constituent Transportation managed projects. She noted that the CIP team was available to answer any process or program questions Board members may have. In conclusion, she said that the Board would receive their next homework assignment within the coming week to provide ample time to look over the applications. 5. Adjournment There being no further business. Ms. Young made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Skog seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:03 pm. X&00ke YDl I ooke Young(Mar 3,2 2 16:21 MST) CDCIP Board Chair This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the CDCIP Board meeting held February 16, 2022. CDCIP Minutes 02. 16.2022 Final Audit Report 2022-03-03 Created: 2022-03-01 By: Rachel Molinari(rachel.molinari@slcgov.com) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAE3QgQCDOdUbP6Yyd-heMwGDO1rWGO6LT "CDCIP Minutes 02. 16.2022" History Document created by Rachel Molinari (rachel.molinari@slcgov.com) 2022-03-01 -2:13:29 AM GMT Document emailed to Brooke Young (broyou@gmail.com)for signature 2022-03-01 -2:14:05 AM GMT ,t Email viewed by Brooke Young (broyou@gmail.com) 2022-03-03-11:20:52 PM GMT Document e-signed by Brooke Young (broyou@gmail.com) Signature Date:2022-03-03-11:21:17 PM GMT-Time Source:server O Agreement completed. 2022-03-03-11:21:17 PM GMT ilk Adobe Sign .•r