Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2/27/2023 - Meeting Minutes MINUTES FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BOARD MEETING(CDCIP) Monday, February 27, 2023 5:30pm 1. Board Members Board Members Not Present Heidi Steed, Chair Jenny Bonk, Vice-Chair Jake Skog Brooke Young Jason Motley Brad Christensen Elke Opsahl 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 Jon Larsen, Becka Roolf, Bryan Meenen, Susan Lundmark, William Becker, Dan Bergenthal - Transportation Division Staff 2. Staff Updates There were no staff updates. 3. Approval of the Minutes Mr. Skog made a motion to approve the minutes from the April 4, 2022, Final Funding meeting. Ms. Bonk seconded the motion. Mr. Christensen abstained from the vote because the meeting occurred before his appointment to the Board. Upon roll call the minutes were approved. Ms. Young made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 6, 2023 meeting. Mr. Skog seconded the motion. Upon roll call the minutes were approved. Ms. Opsahl made a motion to approve the minutes from the February 9, 2023, and February 13, 2023 meetings. Mr. Skog seconded the motion. Upon roll call the minutes were approved. 4. Business A. Welcome & Introductions Ms. Steed welcomed the CDCIP Board members and City staff and opened the meeting at 5:32pm. B. Questions & Discussion on Proposed CIP Projects Internal Transportation Applications: Complete Streets Program: 2100 South, Virginia St., and Ci"ide Mr. Skog asked why the cost and plans of replacing sidewalks and adding traffic calming elements were not included in Engineering's plan for reconstructing the roadway, and about the funding gap for sidewalks if these elements are required. Mr. Larsen explained that historically the Transportation and Engineering Divisions have worked independently and shared a slide to highlight the new planned interdepartmental funding clarification for fiscal years 2024 and 2025. Ms. Bonk commented that she was pleased to see many of this year's applications included pedestrian friendly elements with a focus on safety. Ms. Bonk questioned the methodology used when deciding which projects to submit for funding requests. Mr. Larsen said that it goes back to the historic structure between the Engineering and Transportation divisions. He added that Engineering has been tasked with projects that improve pavement quality and Transportation's work is focused on following the City's Master Plans. Mr. Larsen said the Overall Condition Index(OCI)will continue to be a part of the decision- making process for street reconstruction. He noted that the Transit Master Plan and Bicycle and Pedestrian Master Plans serve as the division's guiding documents for project priority, adding the division also has an internal scoring process that considers a variety of factors including equity. Mr. Skog asked why two streets, nowhere near each other, (2100 South and Virginia Street) are a combined project in one application. Mr. Larsen explained that Transportation has to request funding years in advance before a detailed budget is put together and therefore combining two related projects in separate locations allows for more flexibility during development. He added that the Division is still working to strike a balance on programmatic requests versus specific project requests. Livable Streets Implementation Ms. Young asked where she could find the transparent data driven street priorities information online and for a better explanation of what this project was about. Mr. Larsen said this project was a reintroduction of a traffic calming program that was introduced in the 1990s. He explained that the earlier program was implemented street by street and that the new will be neighborhood by neighborhood helping to minimize the frustrations among neighbors. Mr. Larsen said a consultant was hired to help develop a zone-based process that resulted in just over 110 citywide zones and the plan is to start at the top and work downward while working closely with each community. Ms. Roolf added that the Livable Streets Report was included in the documentation in ZoomGrants and can he found online here: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/wp- content/uploads/sites/11/2022/05/SLC_Livable_Streets_Final_Report_compressed short.pdf Mr. Skog inquired if there was an example location where this program has resulted in the desired outcome. Mr. Larsen explained that since the program was only funded a year ago that it would take time to collect all the data. He said examples of this type of work includes speed bumps, raised crosswalks, lanes to force traffic to slow down, as well as traffic circles. He noted the division is currently developing a website that includes all traffic calming projects citywide. Ms. Steed suggested making the equitable priority process available on the website so that it is accessible to everyone. Mr. Larsen thanked her for the feedback and said that the website should be updated within the next 6-12 months, and they will look to include language to educate those visiting the site. Urban Trails: The Other Side Village & 9-Line Trail Ms. Young inquired as to if the future phases of this project would be requesting similar funding amounts. Ms. Roolf stated that Transportation is conducting a feasibility study west of Redwood Road and the 9-Line Trail to look for new destinations to expand connectivity within the area including Wallace Stegner Academy Charter School and The Other Side Village. She explained that a new transit hub is scheduled to open in the Spring of 2023 and that the masterplans discuss several trails in the area but do not include plans on how to connect them. Ms. Roolf ended by saying that future phase costs are unknown but would estimate a total of$5 million for the suite of the project. Ms. Young asked if the next phases were to include different urban trails or continue to fund The Other Side Village and the 9-Line Trail. Ms. Roolf explained that the maps included in the application materials showed the extension of the 9-Line Trail, the Surplus Canal Trail from 2100 South to Indiana Avenue, and trails that would connect to the airport in the future. She said `Urban Trails' is a programmatic ask each year from Transportation which includes trails citywide. Mr. Skog expressed the difficulty of scoring an application that includes multiple projects. He said that funding a project that benefits a charter school's sidewalk connection to a tiny home village did not sit well with him. Mr. Skog asked if the charter school or other outside parties would help fund the sidewalk and connectivity project. Ms. Roolf explained that the goal of this project is not to connect The Other Side Village to the charter school, but to provide these locations with a broader network of trails and sidewalks. Mr. Larsen added that outside funding is unlikely and that the Division has received a lot of community feedback about the poor condition of Indiana Avenue. Parents of students have been warned about the dangers of walking and biking the route to the school. Ms. Rolf said that Indiana Avenue is an anomaly because it does not follow the Complete Streets policy and include a sidewalk. Mr. Skog thanked staff for their explanations. Mr. Christensen expressed concern over the location of the Wallace Stegner Academy charter school being unsuitable and as a result taxpayers funding a project that directly benefits an institution that is not within Utah's public school system. He stated that nevertheless he would like to see Redwood Road and Indiana Avenue more accessible and pedestrian friendly. Mr. Skog agreed with Mr. Christensen's comments adding that future uses of the school building are unknown and that he would score the application higher if a public school that was receiving the benefit. Ms. Bonk reiterated that regardless of the charter school, Indiana Avenue should have sidewalks but they were never installed. Mr. Skog asked why the property owner(the LDS Church) objected to widening its section of sidewalk on the 9-Line Trail. Ms. Roolf explained that at the time of the request, the Church was unwilling to widen the segment called the Sunnyside Trail. She stated that upon further discussion with the Church, there is now a willingness to widen the sidewalk and that the budget has been requested for the required easement. Safer Crossings: Main St., Glendale Park, and Ci wide Mr. Skog referred to his earlier comment regarding the challenge to score an application that includes multiple projects located in different areas of the city. Ms. Roolf explained that the `Safer Crossings' request was a programmatic approach to address pedestrian projects citywide as opposed to a project-by-project approach. She recognized the challenge created by answering one set of questions for projects including multiple locations. Ms. Young explained that the Board had also asked the Streets Division about specific locations included in its programmatic requests for funding. Mr. Skog asked if the 1700 South and Glendale aspect of the project fit into the Regional Park Plan or if the City would have to rebuild the crossing in the future if this were to receive funding. Ms. Lundmark explained that the Transportation Division has been working closely with the Public Lands Department on the Glendale Regional Park Plan and has conducted community engagement. She added that the fully completed Plan included the crossing as described in this submission as well as a crossing that exists at the Jordan River Trail, and if possible, adding a third crossing between the two. Ms. Lundmark said the Phase I plans for the park include a playground that lines up with the crossing and therefore it has been prioritized. Mr. Motley asked if the stretch of Main Street that funds are requested for in this application was the most dangerous area for pedestrian bicycle fatalities. Ms. Roolf answered that it was not, but the location was chosen based on community engagement, a completed study of Main Street, and discussions with UTA. She said the project would help Main Street function better and the crossings would help to minimize crossing width by adding an island refuge and rapid flashing beacons to help with crossing. Neighborhood Byways Ms. Young asked if staff could provide an example of a completed byway so that the Board could get a better understand these projects. Ms. Roolf said there were byways in parts the of the Poplar Grove neighborhood that serve as good examples. She explained that neighborhood byways make quiet streets better for pedestrian activities like walking and biking and improve crossings at major intersections. Mr. Christensen asked if neighborhood byways included diverting traffic and mentioned that other cities refer to these projects as bike boulevards. Ms. Roolf said the reason for calling this project `Neighborhood Byways' as opposed to Bike Boulevards was the pedestrian focus of these projects. She also said the designs were based on traffic volume thresholds of the streets. Ms. Steed referenced the application's grant match funding and asked how often the grant was made available. Ms. Roolf clarified that Transportation has already received the State grant funding for this project and that they have requested funding to match the already awarded dollar amount. Ms. Steed then asked if there were other funding sources that could be used for this project if it did not receive CIP funds to which Ms. Roolf said no funding was available at this time. Mr. Christensen asked if the neighborhood byway example in Poplar Grove was related to Emery Street. Mr. Becker said that was correct and added that Transportation has installed various crossing improvements at Indiana Avenue and 400 South. Mr. Christensen inquired about the difference between `Livable Streets' and `Neighborhood Byways'. Mr. Becker stated that elements of Livable Streets can be incorporated into neighborhood byway projects and noted that traffic speeds and volume determined if a project fits into the neighborhood byway category. He explained that neighborhood byways were identified in the Bicycle Master Plan to include bike routes for neighborhoods and improvements to busy intersections. Mr. Becker clarified that the main difference between the two was that byways focused on connecting community destinations whereas Livable Streets was intended for traffic calming. Mr. Skog asked for clarification on the Quality Transportation Improvement Program(QTIP) equity scores referred to in question 28 of the application. Ms. Roolf said these equity scores were based on census block demographic data available for those areas and that the OTIP was Transportations internal mechanism for ranking such data in coordination with project prioritization. Mr. Skog questioned if the goal of this application was to secure funding for one byway on the Eastside of SLC and one on the Westside. He said that the Eastside already had a byway for 600 East and expressed concern over the possibility of another part of the city having a higher QTIP equity score that could benefit from a byway. Mr. Skog noted that he was unable to open the KMZ file included in the submission materials and asked staff to provide a JPEG. He said the Westside of the city is struggling and needed more capital improvements than the Eastside. Ms. Roolf explained that the purpose of neighborhood byways is to provide a network connecting key destinations within the city to each other rather than adding improvements to a single neighborhood. Mr. Becker stated that the funding being requested would go toward matching the State grant, a small portion would go toward completing the design phase of the Sugarhouse to the University byway, but most of the funding would go toward the construction of the Westpointe and Jordan Meadows neighborhood byway. Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes/Operational Investments Ms. Steed said her neighborhood was excited to see the partial project completion for new bus stops but asked if the City anticipated finishing the infrastructure projects faster than the Utah Transit Authority(UTA) could complete its part. Ms. Roolf replied that there have been supply chain issues causing timing delays on finishing the bus shelters and that there is currently a back log of similar transportation projects around the country stemming from high demand after abundant federal funding was approved for such projects. Sunnyside and AMpeen Signal& Safety Improvements Mr. Skog inquired about the legal obstacles this project anticipated based on the answer to an application question. Ms. Roolf said the right of way property is owned by the University of Utah and therefore an easement would be necessary before any work can begin. Ms. Steed asked if this project was requesting funding for the feasibility study of the signal and safety improvements or the construction of the project. Ms. Roolf stated the funding would be for the construction of the project. Ms. Steed said she saw the community engagement and support from Research Park included in the supporting documents for this application but asked if the new signal would change traffic patterns. Ms. Roolf explained that a flex lane would be installed to allow for different traffic patterns throughout the day and that not much community engagement is needed for these types of projects. Mr. Skog asked if this project planned for any reconstruction of the pavement under the traffic signal based on the increase wear and tear a result of the new flex lane. Ms. Roolf said the signal would remain in place if any pavement work was to be done. Mr. Meenen added that the project called for some pavement replacement, including replacing ADA ramps. He said this improvement will provide better access to research park and will not have such negative impacts on the nearby residents. 75-Year-Old Traffic Signal Replacement Mr. Skog asked what the main concern was for the traffic signals. Mr. Meenen said the visible rust on the poles were the main concern that warrants replacement. He said that Salt Lake City owns 245 intersections within the city and UTA owns 180 and that most of the issues that occur are related to the infrastructure of the steel or underground. Mr. Meenen noted that the oldest traffic signal in SLC is 88 years old. Multimodal Capital Maintenance Mr. Skog mentioned concern about the focus of the City's intention seeming to invest in forms of transportation other than cars and asked how long it plans to contract out for maintenance services as opposed to training staff and keeping the work in-house. Ms. Roolf described the City's efforts to identify"orphan assets"but noted that the City does not currently have the right equipment, staff capacity, or training to complete this type of maintenance. She explained that as long as SLC continues to implement and use cutting edge technology there will always be a need for staff to be trained or new equipment to be used and therefore will always be a need to fill in gap funding surrounding maintenance projects. C. Overview & Expectations of next meeting Ms. Steed thanked Transportation staff for their time and willingness to answer the Board's questions. Ms. Ruiz said that the next meeting would take place on Monday, March 6, 2013, covering the internal Public Lands 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. 5. Adiournment There being no further business. Mr. Christensen made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Bonk seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 6:54pm. X1`glx/s eg f Heidi Steed(Mar 8,2023 22:13 MST) CDCIP Board Chair This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the CDCIP Board meeting held February 27, 2023. Minutes 02.27.2023 Final Audit Report 2023-03-09 Created: 2023-03-07 By: Rachel Molinari(rachel.molinari@slcgov.com) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAAc7lsbG7yngm6aJuiJ2GKWkedtKmePvt "Minutes 02.27.2023" History Document created by Rachel Molinari (rachel.molinari@slcgov.com) 2023-03-07-4:43:10 PM GMT Document emailed to heidisteed@gmail.com for signature 2023-03-07-4:45:04 PM GMT Email viewed by heidisteed@gmail.com 2023-03-09-5:13:07 AM GMT Signer heidisteed@gmail.com entered name at signing as Heidi Steed 2023-03-09-5:13:31 AM GMT 6o Document e-signed by Heidi Steed (heidisteed@gmail.com) Signature Date:2023-03-09-5:13:33 AM GMT-Time Source:server Agreement completed. 2023-03-09-5:13:33 AM GMT Powered by 'F Adobe �' Acrobat Sign