Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/13/2023 - Meeting Minutes MINUTES FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BOARD MEETING(CDCIP) Monday, February 13, 2023 S:30pm 1. Board Members Board Members Not Present Heidi Steed, Chair Elke Opsahl Jenny Bonk, Vice-Chair Jake Skog Brooke Young Jason Motley Brad Christensen Staff Present Kalli Ruiz, Rachel Molinari- CIP Team Aaron Price, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, and Mary Beth Thompson—Department of Finance Ben Luedtke- Salt Lake City Council Staff JP Goates, Jorge Chamorro- Department of Public Services James Aguilar, Tyler Harvey, Julie Crookston- Streets Division Mark Stephens, Chris Norlem, Josh Willie, David Jones- Engineering Division Cameron Scott, Jim Cleland-Facilities Division Dillon Hase- Housing Stability Division Michael Fox- SLC Fire Department 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. Steed welcomed the CDCIP Board members and City staff and opened the meeting on February 13, 2023. B. Adjust CDBG and HOME Funding Recommendations Mr. Hase explained that he needed the Board to adjust their recommended amounts for the Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) and the Home Investment Partnership (HOME) grants because the initial total funding presented to the Board was inaccurate. He said there was an additional $10,000 available for HOME and $150,000 less in CDBG. After discussion, Mr. Christensen made a motion to increase the recommended funding amount for the Volunteers of America(VOA) tenant based rental assistance by $10,000 in HOME funds. Ms. Bonk seconded the motion. All board members were in favor and the motion passed. After discussion about CDBG, Ms. Steed made a motion to reduce the total funding for the top two applicants, (ASSIST, Inc's Emergency Home Repair, Accessibility, and Community Design project, and Salt Lake City Housing Stability's Neighborhood Business Improvement Program (NBIP)),by $75,000 each, a total reduction of$150,000. Ms. Young seconded the motion. All board members were in favor and the motion passed. C. Questions & Discussion on Proposed CIP Projects Internal Engineering Applications: Complete Streets Reconstruction 202312024 Mr. Christensen asked about the difference between this application and the application for `Complete Streets Overlay'. Mr. Stephens explained that the Complete Streets Reconstruction program has been in place for decades and allows the Engineering division to fix roads that the Streets division is not able to fix with its maintenance funding. He said that once a road gets to a certain level on the Overall Condition Index(OCI), maintenance is no longer an option, and the road needs to be reconstructed. Mr. Stephens told the Board that this is the first year the Engineering division and the Transportation division have combined a CIP request for `Complete Streets' and this partnership will continue in the future. He stated that Engineering's request is on a programmatic level as a planning tool and that Transportation's requests will work to fill in the gap funding for specific complete streets projects currently in the pipeline. Ms. Young asked if the constituents have been informed of the OCI and priority level of their requests for road reconstruction. Ms. Ruiz answered that City staff has informed the constituents where applicable. Mr. Christensen asked if staff could provide an estimate of how much funding would go towards bicycle lanes, sidewalks, and crosswalks. Mr. Stephens said the City has a Complete Streets Ordinance that takes sidewalks, walkability, and multimodal bicycle paths into account for each street design as well as considering the masterplans for each area. Mr. Goates added that a project's funding may come from various sources, but ultimately goes towards the same project that Transportation and Engineering will collaborate on. Ms. Bonk asked if the City's masterplans go into the ranking for complete streets or if it only considers the OCI and road health for the priority given. Mr. Goates said that there is a collaborative approach based on the OCI, masterplans and the Public Utilities needs on a particular roadway to move the projects forward. Mr. Skog asked if this funding would go towards the planning, design, and community input for reconstructing streets or if it was for an already generated list of streets that need to be reconstructed. Mr. Goates explained that when these types of reconstruction projects are presented, there is typically a consideration of all complete streets elements that might not have been previously included on the road before. Complete Streets Overlay 202312024 Ms. Bonk inquired if the Street's Division request for a Mill and Overlay Pilot Program receives funding if that would affect the requested funding for the Complete Streets Overlay submission. Mr. Stephens said it would not affect the budget for this application because the asks differ for construction versus maintenance needs. Public Way Concrete 2023/2024 Mr. Stephens said this request handles multiple concrete issues including sidewalks, driveways, prints, and areas within the public way that have been damaged by pounding water or tree roots. He was excited to share that beginning with last year's funded request this program will include elements of public art by local artists to aid in place making for the City. Mr. Skog asked if there was a condition index for concrete. Mr. Stephens said the City has a growing list that identifies tripping hazards as first priorities. He explained that they use Cartograph to track all City assets (sidewalks) that need to be replaced. 700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West Additional Funding) Mr. Motley inquired about the details of the increased City fees for Union Pacific (UP)railroad crossings. Mr. Stephens stated there are multiple safety components considered when looking at UP crossings, including safety and quiet zone. He said that these costs are related to the work required for additional utility items under the railroad to replace aging infrastructure, as well as a waterline replacement. Alleyway Improvements 202312024 Mr. Motley wanted to know more about the application's statement of"improved alleyway conditions encourage active transportation improving air quality". He asked if this request was to steer alleyways from car usage or to repair the asphalt. Mr. Stephens replied that this was to repair the asphalt. Mr. Motley inquired about the connection to air quality. Mr. Stephens said the pilot program took into consideration the Reclaimed Asphalt Pavement(RAP)which reduces emission by using sustainable or recycled materials and a cool sealant that reduces the pavement service temperature by 18-20 degrees Fahrenheit. Ms. Young asked how many alleyways were feasible in a request of this size. Mr. Stephens explained that the cost to fix an alleyway is approximately $50-$60 per square yard as opposed to a roadway reconstruction of$150 per square yard. Mr. Christensen wanted to know how Engineering prioritized alleyway asphalt improvements. Mr. Stephens said the alleyways are prioritized in a similar way to streets and continues to be successful program. Mr. Skog inquired if the project's funding would assist in determining if an alleyway was City owned or if it would fund the repairs themselves. Mr. Stephens said all funds would be used for the repair of the publicly owned alleyways. Ms. Steed asked if there was a mechanism that would require privately owned alleyways to be repaired by individuals. Mr. Stephens said repairs cannot be enforced because the property is privately owned. Mr. Skog asked if there were any constituent requests relating to alley improvements this year and if so, had there been collaboration between the applicant and staff. Ms. Ruiz stated that there was one request for an alleyway improvement and confirmed there was collaboration between the two groups. Mr. Skog questioned how much involvement goes into notifying residents if work is scheduled to repair a nearby alleyway. Mr. Stephens said these projects follow the required public engagement process of notifying residents and provides information concerning if any access would be cutoff and for how long. Internal Facilities Applications (Facilities, Fire, Streets): Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY24 Ms. Bonk inquired about how much funding was awarded to this request last year. Ms. Ruiz said it received a total of nearly $1.2 million($1,192,357 for transparency). Ms. Young noted that the application is requesting $900,000 as a top one priority for Smith's Ballpark but questioned the level of commitment SLC had to the building in light of the recently announced departure of the baseball organization. Mr. Goates said the building needed critical infrastructure improvements in the next two years while the City continues to operate the ballpark. He added that capital needs will change and discussions with the Bees will occur as the season starts. Phase I:Plaza 349 Life Safety, Security, and HVAC Upgrades Ms. Young asked how many phases the department envisioned to complete this project. Mr. Scott said there would be four phases and each phase would require roughly $2 million. Ms. Young then asked if there were any plans to phase the building out of service in the future. Mr. Scott replied that Plaza 349 would not be phased out. Mr. Christensen asked if there were any other funding sources for that building repair in the future. Mr. Goates said that Plaza 349 houses five City divisions and the responsibility for updates falls solely on the City. He added that there might be some energy efficiency grants or rebates available but no other sources available. Mr. Christensen asked for clarification on the term"Life Safety" as it relates to this project. Mr. Scott said that under the right circumstances there was a potential for loss of life if these upgrades were not completed. He added that the City was moving to a new access control system for security and needs to improve access to the building. Mr. Scott also let the Board know that the building does not meet current code requirements and this funding would address those issues. Fire Station 91 Apparatus Bay Extension Ms. Young asked where the nearest optimal operating fire house was located. Mr. Fox said the closest stations are located at 300 N and 300 W, 900 South 1023 East, and 1 lth Avenue. He explained that the trucks cannot reach the downtown area in the 7-minute window goal and that they would leave a coverage gap in their designated areas if they were responding into Station I's calls. Ms. Young noted that the project summary mentioned having ordered a smaller fire engine and asked if that does get delivered if it would move to a different location. Mr. Scott said that fire stations typically have multiple sized apparatus' depending on need. Mr. Fox stated that although the Fire Department has placed a short truck on order with a manufacturer, that the special order could be cancelled if they knew this project would receive funding because the typical build time for this equipment is three years. Mr. Skog asked for clarification if this was a Facilities or a Fire Department request. Ms. Ruiz stated that it was indeed a Fire request, and that staff would update the documents going forward to avoid confusion. Mr. Fox added that since Facilities owns the buildings that there is collaboration on all CIP requests. He added that because of the increased call volume and the growth in the downtown area, the Fire Department has had to move resources around to ensure they are able to respond to emergency calls quickly. Mr. Fox said when Station 1 was built, it was not built to accommodate the modern fire apparatus' and they are currently using an older truck in that station because the newer ones do not fit. Mr. Skog inquired if the upgrades would require a rebuild of the fire station or just a retrofit to accommodate the larger truck and if the station would remain in operation during the process. Mr. Fox stated that they only need to extend the bays by twelve feet for the trucks to fit and that he believes the station would stay in operation during construction. Mr. Christensen asked if the construction would affect the sidewalk at all. Mr. Fox said the work would take place on the backside of the building and would not affect the sidewalk. Mill and Overlay Maintenance Pilot Program Ms. Bonk wanted to know if the Streets Division could buy one of the machines now and the other at a later time. Ms. Crookston replied that both pieces of equipment were needed at the same time to complete the jobs. She added that renting equipment is expensive and it would be more economical to own. She explained that the machine could be used for other maintenance efforts performed by the division. Mr. Christensen asked if the work these machines perform is maintenance related and helped to prevent the roads from getting to a level of reconstruction. Ms. Crookston said that was correct and clarified that the Streets Division is responsible for road maintenance while the Engineering Division is responsible for road reconstruction. She noted that there is a middle section of roads that no division was addressing that this pilot program would focus its efforts to prevent further degradation which would save the City money. Ms. Young asked if the fleet maintenance fund could support the maintenance costs related to these machines. Ms. Crookston confirmed that the fund would cover the costs. Ms. Crookston said this pilot program had the potential to save the City money in the long run by preventing roads from falling into a state of disrepair where they need reconstruction. She said they are starting small, and if successful, would expand the program to additional roads in the future. Mr. Skog asked what success would look like for this program. Ms. Crookston replied that success is the Division being able to continuously meet and maintain its current operations in addition to the new program. D. Overview&Expectations of next meeting Ms. Ruiz reminded the Board that there would be no meeting on February 20, 2023, due to the holiday and that the next meeting would take place on Monday, February 27, 2013 covering the internal Transportation projects. 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. Ms. Ruiz reiterated the need for four Board members to attend meetings in person for the purpose of a quorum. 5. Adiournment There being no further business. Mr. Skog made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Young seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 6:41pm. Xi e i d i Steed(Mar 3,2023 10:52 MST) CDCIP Board Chair This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the CDCIP Board meeting held February 13, 2023. Minutes 02. 13.2023 Final Audit Report 2023-03-03 Created: 2023-02-28 By: Rachel Molinari(rachel.molinari@slcgov.com) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAloA1YtrmfDg8l2rkAUKCXTicrPOOPSgi "Minutes 02. 13.2023" History Document created by Rachel Molinari (rachel.molinari@slcgov.com) 2023-02-28-4:54:50 PM GMT Document emailed to heidisteed@gmail.com for signature 2023-02-28-4:55:11 PM GMT Email viewed by heidisteed@gmail.com 2023-02-28-5:00:03 PM GMT Email viewed by heidisteed@gmail.com 2023-03-03-5:18:56 PM GMT zt Signer heidisteed@gmail.com entered name at signing as Heidi Steed 2023-03-03-5:52:32 PM GMT 6© Document e-signed by Heidi Steed (heidisteed@gmail.com) Signature Date:2023-03-03-5:52:34 PM GMT-Time Source:server Agreement completed. 2023-03-03-5:52:34 PM GMT Powered by 'F Adobe �' Acrobat Sign