Loading...
03/21/2022 - Minutes MINUTES FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BOARD MEETING (CDCIP) Monday, March 21, 2022 5:30pm 1. Board Members Board Members Not Present Brooke Young, Chair Heidi Steed, Co-Chair Jake Skog Loree Hagen Jenny Bonk Jason Motley Elke Opsahl Rich Nazzaro Alyson Genovese Staff Present Kalli Ruiz, CAN Staff Rachel Molinari, CAN Staff Tammy Hunsaker, CAN Staff Ben Luedtke, Council Staff Kristen Riker, Parks and Public Lands Kat Maus, Parks and Public Lands Tyler Murdock, Parks and Public Lands JP Goates, Public Services 2. Approval of the Minutes Ms. Bonk made a motion to approve the minutes from the March 7, 2022 meeting. Mr. Skog seconded the motion. The minutes were approved. 3. Business A. Welcome & Introductions Ms. Young welcomed the CDCIP members and City staff and opened the meeting on March 21, 2022, at 5:32 pm. Individual introductions were offered by the Board and staff. B. Questions & Discussions on Proposed CIP Projects Mr. Murdock explained the internal Parks and Public Lands proposals fall into four categories: Design, Design/Construction, Planning, and Asset Renewal/Asset Replacement. He said these categories impact the funding requests because design and planning projects are not eligible for impact fees and construction funding not guaranteed for these projects. Mr. Murdock stated that the Parks impact fees will not expire until 2025 leaving time for the Department to request them in future years. He added that many of the current year proposals are for design phase projects with a plan to reapply for construction funding in the future and the department believes this will assist with the cost estimations and high inflation that occur when the categories are bundled as one. He added that this better aligns with Resolution 29 of 2017 as it relates to capital improvements. Ms. Hagen asked if the Board should use the department priority ranking or the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forestry &Trails (PNUT) Advisory Board's priority list when making funding recommendations. Mr. Murdock stated that the Department's advisory board ranked all projects, including constituent proposals. He said the Board should use the PNUT Board's priority ranking list for review. Internal Parks and Public Lands Applications: Urban Farm Development at 2200 West and Cannon Greens: Ms. Hagen inquired about the Department vision for the urban farm. Ms. Maus said that one plot of land on the site is currently leased to the International Rescue Committee (IRC) and that the Department continues use of that site. She added that the Sustainability Department has received a lot of inquiries and interest from the public about utilizing the open plots of land for farming and that this site is a prime candidate to accommodate those requests in the future. Ms. Maus stated that the Department would put out a request for proposal (RFP) or a request for qualification (RFQ)to interested parties to cultivate the land as an urban farm. Ms. Young asked if the Cannon Greens site was located on 1300 South near Riley Elementary School. Ms. Maus confirmed this location. Jordan River Tree Planting and Irrigation: Ms. Bonk asked to hear more details about the irrigation aspect of this proposal. Mr. Murdock explained that there are very few active irrigation systems along the Jordan River which has made it challenging to get tree canopies planted along the river. He said that no overhead irrigation systems are being considered because they are too wasteful, and they are instead considering a drip irrigation system. Ms. Young questioned the locations on the river that were being considered for irrigation systems. Mr. Murdock stated that funding would not allow for the entirety of the river, but that the proposal included funding for engagement and research for what areas do not have adequate tree covering along the nine miles of the Jordan River Trail. Ms. Genovese asked the Department to speak to its ability to take on seven planning projects in one year with few projects slated for construction and inquired why the renewal projects had been given lower priority. Mr. Murdock explained that the ranking takes into account Resolution 29, various Master Plans, and the Mayor's goals. As a result, the asset renewal projects tend to rank lower. He stated that the asset replacement needs exceed the General Fund availability. Mr. Murdock added that there is a backlog of existing projects and that a new planner has been hired to assist with the workload. Tree Succession Design for Liberty Park: Ms. Genovese inquired if this proposal was related to the windstorm in 2020 that resulted in a loss of trees in Liberty Park. Ms. Maus said that the storm uncovered the need for a succession plan to phase out the aging trees and integrate a new planting design. She explained that succession design would include the details needed for new trees and construction as well as drawings for the aging canopy. Ms. Genovese asked if it would make more sense to have the master plan completed before the succession plan. Ms. Maus and Mr. Murdock confirmed that the Liberty Park Master Plan and Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) was funded last year and should be completed in time to begin the succession design if this proposal were to be funded this year. Ms. Hagen asked for clarification of'tree succession' and if that meant getting rid of trees or the maintenance of trees. Ms. Maus stated that the trees would be assessed on site and a plan would be developed for replacing the trees at the end of their useful life over the next few decades. NW Quadrant Trails and Greenway Planning: Ms. Young questioned if adding green space to the highly industrialized Northwest Quadrant (NWQ) was indicative of residential development or for the purpose of creating character. Ms. Maus explained that with the amount of people currently working in the NWQ, increasing access to greenspace and trail networks would increase workplace quality. Mr. Murdock clarified that these trails more recreational in nature and are very popular among cyclists seeking access to the wetlands and the Great Salt Lake. Ms. Young asked if the NWQ was not claimed for greenspace if it would be used in ways that decrease greenspace. Ms. Maus stated that the land was owned by Salt Lake City and therefore the City would have greater control of the development. She explained that a large portion of this proposal would include landowner relations and engagement with stakeholders to identify options for the open space. Ms. Maus warned that non-City-owned areas were at risk of development. Mr. Skog asked where the proposed areas for trails were in relation to the Inland Port. Ms. Maus stated that the trail network extended into the area near it. Rose Park Open Space Concepts: Mr. Murdock explained that this area is one of the largest remaining open spaces along the Jordan River and that the Department is exploring ways to expand public access and highlight the area for the Westside community. Ms. Hagen asked if the area would no longer be utilized as a driving range. Mr. Murdock stated that there have been discussions about adding a golf course to utilize the area fully and more efficiently. Mr. Skog asked if there was a set plan for how the open space would be developed. Mr. Murdock said that the Department did not currently have specifics, but that the future outcome would be developed with more community engagement. Urban Wood Reutilization: Ms. Bonk inquired as to whether a wood reutilization capability existed elsewhere in the City. Ms. Maus said that this would be a new facility to reuse wood that the City currently has access to but lacks the means to use. She added that this would provide the ability to create woodchips for all City playgrounds. Mr. Murdock stated that most of the urban debris being collected from urban forests is being taken to dumps and is unable to be reused. Ms. Genovese asked if the reused wood would only be available for City use or if there would be an option for residents to utilize it. Mr. Murdock stated that was still to be determined but that the amount of material could be shared if it exceeds the use of the Department. Ms. Genovese questioned if a location for the new facility had been chosen. Ms. Maus said the Department is still exploring sites and looking at the feasibility of land in its inventory for further determination. Ms. Hagen recalled a previous request for a similar project on a Facilities owned building. She also asked why public engagement would be a tool used for the facility. Ms. Maus stated that public engagement is used whenever the Department seeks to change the use of a facility or to provide information and solicit feedback from the public. She clarified that most of the engagement for this project would be informing the residents in the nearby areas about the plans for the facility. Ms. Riker confirmed that there was a past CIP request for this project but that it was never funded. She explained that the equipment needed is expensive and the current proposal is for planning to better estimate design costs in the future. Ms. Riker noted that the facility on the past request was no longer available and that this project would need to take place in phases. Mr. Skog asked what type of machinery would be necessary for the facility and if the City considered this site as a potential revenue stream. Ms. Riker stated that nothing would be sold at the facility and the intention was to utilize the wood on City properties and share any excess with the public as opposed to a revenue stream use. Riverview Native Plant Center Phase 1: Ms. Bonk asked where native plants were currently grown. Mr. Murdock stated that for the past three years the Department has worked to increase the propagation process for native plants and that the Liberty Park Greenhouse was the main facility used in the process. He stated that the City has reached its capacity for greenhouse growing and that this project would be modeled after similar programs in New York City. Ms. Hagen asked if the planning process had already completed and how the project would impact water usage. Ms. Maus stated that because this is a planning and design project, the concepts have only been conceptual and that construction documents would be needed for the more specific elements of the plant center. She added that the project would need to be split into segments because of its size. Ms. Maus said the Public Lands Master Plan which is nearing adoption has shown a public desire to increase native plants, biodiversity, and climate resiliency, within the City and increasing the capacity and ability to supplement native plants is significant to fulfilling the goals of the Master Plan. Library Plaza Repair and Improvements: Ms. Genovese asked if a previous project was funded last year. Ms. Maus clarified that there was a previous request to replace the pavers at Library Square that were posing safety concerns, but that this proposal was specifically for the retaining wall, wedge wall, and fountain replacement. Ms. Genovese asked for clarification if this was solely for the purpose of repair as opposed to a redesign. Ms. Riker stated that was correct. Mr. Luedtke added that there was an older proposal that was funded for 200 East between Library Square and Washington Square Park to at uniting the two blocks and potentially redesigning or closing 200 East. Ms. Young inquired if any trees were going to be added to create shade. Ms. Riker said that trees could not be added because the Square sits atop the parking garage which does not allow for such planting, but that the requested repairs were urgent. Folsom Trail Landscaping Phase I: Ms. Hagen asked if the two constituent proposals the Board discussed at the last meeting were at all related to this proposal. Mr. Murdock stated that the Gateway Triangle Park was not related but that the proposal for the Folsom Trail on behalf of the River District Business Alliance is essentially the same project. He added that this project would fund phase one of landscaping the central corridor, adding irrigation and park like amenities to the area. Mr. Murdock said the constituent submitted a separate proposal to show community support for the project and because they did believe the PNUT Advisory Board would rank the internal application high enough on its list of priorities. Ms. Hagen inquired if the $1.7 million was the total cost of the project. Mr. Murdock stated that was correct. Cemetery Master Plan Project Implementation: Ms. Bonk requested background on the previous application for cemetery repairs. Ms. Young said that the Board usually receives one or two proposals each year for cemetery related projects because there are significant improvements needed. Mr. Murdock stated that the constituent request was specifically for roadway repairs He added that the cemetery needs millions of dollars' worth of repair and that the General Fund is no longer a viable option for funding. Ms. Steed asked the Department to provide more information about its alternative sources of funding. Ms. Riker stated that a member of the PNUT Advisory Board created a group called `Friends of the Cemetery' with a goal to fundraise for improvements. She noted that their application for federal funding was denied by the State because it was determined that Cities must pay to repair its own properties. Ms. Riker explained that that these repairs are critical and in the 2018 Master Plan the calculated amount for repairs was $27 million. She noted that amount was expected to be even greater now and concluded that CIP would likely not cover the magnitude of costs, but the retaining walls were a safety concern when it rained. Memorial Tree Groves Design and Infrastructure: Ms. Young asked if this project would have specific areas set aside for residents to donate or buy trees as opposed to a City-wide area. Mr. Murdock explained that they receive request from people to donate memorial trees and cannot accept the offerings for various reasons. He added that this project would look to allocate two or three specific locations in existing parks that could have irrigation elements added so that people could donate memorial trees in the future. RAC Playground Phase II: Ms. Steed requested clarification on if this proposal was not funded last year. Ms. Maus stated that the last year 's application for design and construction was partially funded. She explained that the funding did not cover the full implementation and therefore the Phase II request was submitted for construction funding. Ms. Young asked if not recommending the construction funding would impact the availability for grant funding to the project. Ms. Maus said there was no timeline on when the grant funding would be available, and it has not been allocated. She added that the request includes the amount submitted for grant funding so the Department would have to resubmit if the project was not funded this year. Cottonwood Park Pavilions: Ms. Young inquired on the timing of the pavilions tear down. Ms. Riker stated that she believed the structures were removed in 2017 or 2018. Mr. Skog asked about the lifespan of a pavilion. Mr. Murdock said a typical lifespan is 20-30 years. Ms. Riker added that the materials used, and the construction method determine how long the structure would last. Public Lands 5-Year Strategic Plan: Ms. Bonk asked why the Department was seeking accreditation. Mr. Murdock stated a strategic plan is required as part of the Public Lands Master Plan and that Resolution 29 calls for a similar plan as well. Ms. Riker added that the Commission for Accreditation of Park and Recreation Agencies (CAPRA) is a valuable measurement of an agency's overall quality of operation, management, and service to the community. Achieving CAPRA accreditation is the best way to demonstrate that the agency and staff provide the community with the highest level of service. Jordan Park and International Peace Gardens Master Plan and CLR: Ms. Young questioned how the Master Plan would align with the work being completed at the Raging Waters site. Ms. Maus said the Raging Waters site would have its own Master Plan. She added that the Department will begin work on the Emerald Ribbon Master Plan, that was funded last year to create an overall vision for the entire Jordan River Parkway in connection with adjacent parks in the City for a contiguous well-functioning space along the Jordan River that assures that uses are not being duplicated. Asset Management Plan: Ms. Hagen questioned a picture at Jackson Park attached to this proposal. Mr. Murdock stated that it was an old pergola and that its poor condition points to the need for an asset management plan. Ms. Riker added that this plan would help the Board in determining project priority, and help staff identify future CIP projects. Memory Grove Master Plan and Cultural Landscape Report: Mr. Motley questioned if the need to hire outside consultants for these reports was due to a lack of in-house expertise or staff time. Mr. Murdock said the Department does not have the in-house expertise needed to complete these specialized reports. Ms. Hagen asked what would be done at the park specifically and what was driving the need for the changes. Mr. Murdock explained that all parks are constantly evolving and that a Master Plan would act as a guide and reduce the need for repeat community engagement on each individual aspect by providing a big picture of what changes and improvements are needed. Ms. Maus added that Memorial Grove is a large park and therefore requires its own Master Plan as specified in the Public Lands Master Plan. She stated that many repairs were needed to meet the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA)regulations. Mr. Murdock added that repairs to the East Walkway near the Capitol were needed in addition to vegetation management, and dog use on the Freedom Trail. Playground Replacement: Ms. Young stated that she appreciated that Pugsley Park was included in the proposal because it needs repair. Ms. Riker explained that there were currently 56 playgrounds in the City's system, each lasting approximately 20-30 years, so the Department has planned to replace two per year to knowing that replacing them all at once is not feasible. Mr. Skog asked if the entire park would be classified as an asset or if the playground equipment within the park would be considered the asset. Ms. Riker said that generally they look at the assets within the park separately because they do not fail at the same time. Public Lands ADA Walkway and Asphalt Replacement: There were no questions or comments related to this proposal. Court Resurfacing: Ms. Young inquired as to if this proposal would consider changing the use of the courts or if it was only seeking funding to resurface the existing courts. Mr. Murdock stated the Department would evaluate the existing use before considering replacement and ensure the existing use is meeting the needs of the community it serves. C. Overview& Expectations of next meeting Ms. Young thanked the Parks and Public Lands staff for its thoughtful applications. Ms. Ruiz stated that the CIP staff recommended canceling the meeting on March 28, 2022 to provide additional time for Board members to complete the scoring recommendations in ZoomGrants. She said this would provide staff the ability to compile the spreadsheet data needed for the funding recommendation meetings. Ms. Ruiz proposed meeting on April 4, 2022 to start the funding recommendation process and gave the deadline of March 28th at 11:59pm to complete the ZoomGrants scoring. Ms. Ruiz stated that if the Board needed any additional information or materials on any of the proposals that they reach out to staff She explained that any CDCIP meetings would continue in the hybrid format. Ms. Bonk asked when the funding amounts would be available and shared with the Board. Ms. Ruiz stated that staff is waiting on the final numbers from the Finance Department and would share the information once it was made available. 4. Adjournment There being no further business. Ms. Steed made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Skog seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:05pm. Xgtxke rag Brooke Young(Apr 12, 2208:38 MDT) CDCIP Board Chair This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the CDCIP Board meeting held March 21, 2022. CDCIP Minutes 03.21 .2022 Final Audit Report 2022-04-12 Created: 2022-04-07 By: Rachel Molinari(rachel.molinari@slcgov.com) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAA158kvj-GeVQJHSWLH2GD-K9FYAybHpH9 "CDCIP Minutes 03.21 .2022" History Document created by Rachel Molinari (rachel.molinari@slcgov.com) 2022-04-07-6:29:59 PM GMT Document emailed to Brooke Young (broyou@gmail.com)for signature 2022-04-07-6:30:26 PM GMT ,t Email viewed by Brooke Young (broyou@gmail.com) 2022-04-12-2:38:38 PM GMT Document e-signed by Brooke Young (broyou@gmail.com) Signature Date:2022-04-12-2:38:53 PM GMT-Time Source:server O Agreement completed. 2022-04-12-2:38:53 PM GMT Powered by I F Adobe Acrobat Sign