Loading...
02/12/2024 - Meeting Minutes MINUTES FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BOARD MEETING(CDCIP) Monday, February 12, 2024 5:00pm 1. Board Members Board Members Not Present Jenny Bonk, Chair Mia Cask Brad Christensen, Vice-Chair Jake Skog Heidi Steed Devon Schechinger Teresa Gregori Andrea Schaefer Joseph Murphy Staff Present Bret Montgomery, Rachel Molinari, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, and Mary Beth Thompson—Department of Finance Ben Luedtke, Salt Lake City Council Staff Marti Woolford and Elizabeth Buehler—Information Management Services (IMS) Department Felicia Baca—Arts Council Jenna Simkins, Lynn Jacobs, Julianne Sabula, Jena Carver—Transportation Department Constituents Present Steve Verno, Doug Flagger, Christina Robb, Bill Davis, Cherish Clark, Skylar Westerdahl, Byron Head, Troy Saltiel, Giridhar Thiagarajan, Viktor Simovski, Turner Bitton, Brian Hutchinson, Mary T. Calhoon 2. Staff Updates There were no staff updates. 3. Business A. Welcome & Introductions Ms. Molinari welcomed the CDCIP Board members and City staff then opened the meeting on February 12, 2024, at 5:19 p.m. The staff offered individual introductions. Ms. Bonk then started the introduction of the CDCIP Board, and each member introduced themselves. Ms. Schaefer asked if the constituents were sent the list of questions that the board members submitted earlier that day. Ms. Molinari responded that staff were given the questions,but it had not been sent out to constituents. Ms. Molinari again stated the importance of Board members attending the meetings in person to meet the need for a quorum. She also explained the importance of getting through all the applications in a timely manner and that each application would have two minutes for presentation followed by questions and answers. B. Meeting Structure Outline Ms. Molinari explained the meeting structure to set expectations for the constituents attending the meeting. She said that the Board would ask any clarifying questions about the applications and if there were no questions, the constituent would have an opportunity to provide a brief overview of their submission. Ms. Molinari informed the participants attending online to please keep their microphones muted until called upon. She also stated that each person must state their name for the public record before answering any questions. C. Questions & Discussion on Proposed CIP Projects Constituent Art Applications: Harvey Milk Blvd LGBTQ+ and Neighborhood Visibility Constituent- Steven Verno, Doug Flagger, Christina Robb Mr. Murphy mentioned that the project was for a long stretch along 900 South and asked if the project were to be partially funded, how the different elements would be ranked and prioritized. He inquired if any items would be eliminated or if the partial funding could be used for smaller segments along 900 South. Mr. Verno responded that the project would be streamlined and possibly scaled back to prioritize the business districts along the Harvey Milk Blvd. corridor around 900 South and 900 East. He added that the proposal was only for the banner arms or poles and not for the banners themselves. Mr. Flagger mentioned that there was a desire to use any extra money for banners. Ms. Schaefer stated that the project was at the south end of the proposed Green Loop and asked if there had been any coordination with the City about the projects. Mr. Verno responded that he had just been informed about the overlap with the Green Loop and that the two proposals complement each other well. Ms. Schafer asked a follow up question about which organization would be responsible for the neighborhood visibility project. Mr. Verno responded that there were five Community Councils that have signed on, but he applied for it as a constituent. Mr. Murphy asked for clarification on the art and design for the banners. Ms. Robb explained that they were working with the Salt Lake City Arts Council to preview all art elements. Ms. Baca responded that the Arts Council does not govern temporary art and that anything the organizations came up with on their own would have to align with the City's sign ordinance. Ms. Schaefer asked about the permanent pieces and the temporary pieces of the project. Ms. Baca responded that the permanent pieces were the only part that could be capitalized and would go through the Request for Proposal (RFP)process. Mr. Verno explained that the proposal was for LBGTQ inspired art, including the history of Harvey Milk and other LGBTQ leaders. He added that the project was also seeking funding to include benches,bike racks, banners, and other stand-alone art projects for the community to enjoy. 200 E 1910 S Public Art Constituent- Bill Davis Mr. Davis said that the project location was a small asphalt island in an intersection that was poorly maintained accumulated blowing trash. Mr. Murphy asked if supplying garbage cans or cutting down the overgrown weeds and bushes would solve the problem. Mr. Davis explained that the area was not routinely cleared by City maintenance and that it would be a suitable place for public art that is representative of the Liberty Wells area. Mr. Skog mentioned that he lives in the area and that the project location is an area where two roads bifurcate and does not have much pedestrian traffic. He agreed with the constituent that it would be a perfect place for a piece of artwork. Jackson Park Art Constituent- Cherish Clark Ms. Clark described the proposal to install interactive artwork in Jackson Park. She explained how it was the only park in the Fairpark neighborhood and that the neighborhood was lacking safe community spaces. She added that there were parks along the Jordan River Trail, but they were located too far West of the area and have also been rendered useless due to the lack of maintenance by the City and unsafe conditions. She said that adding art in Jackson Park would communicate to the neighborhood that this was a fun and safe place to bring children. Ms. Clark explained that the area surrounding Jackson Park was underserved and would benefit from artwork. The board had no questions about the application. Constituent Transportation Applications: Westminster Urban Forestry and Trazc Calming Measures Constituent- Skylar Westerdahl Mr. Westerdahl explained that this proposal had two parts, the first was for a traffic calming measure partly due to increased traffic caused by construction on area roadways. The second part was to do a study and then increase opportunities for urban forestry through the potential addition of a park strip. Ms. Schaefer asked about a quoted statement on how there were increased near-collisions and serious pedestrian safety and whether there was data available to back up the statement. Mr. Westerdahl explained that a traffic study was conducted, and it showed an increase in neighborhood traffic as well as two instances where pedestrians were hit by vehicles, including one incident involving a child. Ms. Schaefer mentioned a letter of support from City staff that suggested the ability to install temporary solutions until construction on 2100 South was complete. She asked if he was open to this until the feasibility study was complete. Mr. Westerdahl agreed that the temporary measures would work until that time. Mr. Murphy inquired about the proposed park strip and installed speed bumps to the neighborhood. He then asked if this were to be partially funded, how the different elements would be prioritized. Mr. Westerdahl said that he would prioritize the park strip because it would help slow traffic while adding the urban forestry aspect. 600 South Safety Improvements Constituent- Byron Head, Troy Saltiel Mr. Saltiel explained the request for the installation of protected bicycle lanes in either direction on 600 South from 200 East to 600 East. He said the project also included an ask for bulb outs to be installed to reduce pedestrian crossing distances. Mr. Murphy asked about the definition of a decorative crosswalk and then asked why the project would end at 600 East as opposed to 700 East and the residential neighborhood. Mr. Saltiel explained that the area proposed in the applications was the most cost-conscious option and noted that it would be more expensive to improve 700 East. Ms. Schaefer asked about the assessment on motor vehicle travel times as stated in the application's supporting materials. Mr. Saltiel explained that the information did not come from a traffic study and noted that traffic significantly decreased once you got East of State Street because of the four lanes and turning lanes. Mr. Head added that it was a one-way street with well-timed lights, so there would be no reason for four lanes in that area. Ms. Schaefer inquired if the applicants had worked with the Transportation Division to determine how the bicycle lanes in their proposal would fit into the division's Master Plans. Mr. Saltiel explained that he spoke with Ms. Simkins and that the Master Plan called for bicycle lanes in both directions and would be a feature the division supported. Ms. Schaefer asked a followed-up question about if there was precedence for a counter-traffic bicycle lane on a one- way street. Mr. Saltiel said that there was no precedence for a bicycle lane going against traffic. Ms. Simkins added that adding a bicycle lane was feasible and the Transportation Division was focused on cyclist safety. 700 East Median Tree Planting Proms Constituent- Giridhar Thiagaraj an Mr. Thiagarajan explained that the design in this proposal would help reduce the heat island effect along 700 East from 1300 South to 2100 South. Ms. Bonk asked if anyone from the Transportation Division knew why the median on 700 East was as low as it was and why it had been paved over. Mr. Jacobs explained that the medians were originally built as full height curbs,but the road had been paved so many times that the median slowly started to disappear. Mr. Skog inquired as to whether 700 East was a City-owned road or if it belonged to the State and if ownership posed a legal challenge for the project's design. Mr. Jacobs replied that the Utah Department of Transportation(UDOT) defers to the local municipalities for landscaping and maintenance needs on State roads within each municipality's boundaries. Mr. Murphy asked if it was feasible to plant trees in the median on 700 East. Mr. Jacobs replied that while a median was not the healthiest place for trees to grow, there had been success with planted trees growing in similar locations. He also stated that advancements in technology and knowledge of planting techniques in medians has improved. Ms. Schechinger asked if staff had evaluated or decided what type of trees would be planted. Mr. Thiagarajan replied that Urban Forestry was involved and would go through an evaluation process to decide what species of tree to plant. Guadalupe Neighborhood Streets Improvement Constituent-Viktor Simovski Mr. Simovski explained that the Guadalupe neighborhood was very close to downtown, and that 500 West encompasses roughly 40% of the neighborhood. He explained that 500 West had been quite neglected, noting no streetlights, which allowed for crime and drug use in the area. Mr. Murphy asked what elements of the project would be prioritized if the project could only receive partial funding. Mr. Simovski replied that partial funding could go towards design but noted that because of the excessive cost to complete the project, it would be difficult to move forward with less than $500,000. He said that the initial phase of the project could be to work with Union Pacific to install jersey barriers or something similar and aesthetically pleasing to segment the railroad property from the street. Pedestrian Safety/HAWK at Richmond St. and Elgin Ave. Pedestrian Safety/HAWK at Richmond St. and Zenith Ave. No constituents were present Mr. Jacobs stated that there were separate requests to have HAWK signals installed on Richmond Street at Elgin Avenue and Zenith Avenue. He explained that Richmond Street was a busy five-lane road and that both HAWK signals were in the City's master plan. Mr. Jacobs said the City did not have the funding to complete these traffic projects hence why there were two constituent requests for the improvements. Ms. Bonk recommended that the Board discuss both HAWK signal applications given the similarity and proximity of the projects. Ms. Schaefer noted the submissions differed in that Elgin Avenue was outside Salt Lake City boundaries and located in Millcreek. Mr. Jacobs explained that it was a complicated situation and there had been discussions with the Attorney's Office specifically about this location. He shared that Salt Lake City had a jurisdictional responsibility for Elgin Avenue,but there was confusion about which city was responsible for maintenance on the roadway. Ms. Schaefer asked if it would be possible for the constituent to coordinate cost sharing with the city of Millcreek for the traffic updates at Richmond Street and Elgin Avenue. Mr. Jacobs said he could not speak to that because he was not aware of Millcreek's processes. Mr. Murphy asked if the City supported this application without clear guidance from the Attorney's Office. Mr. Jacobs replied that he could only speak from the Transportation Division's perspective and the division was supportive of the project. Mr. Murphy then asked whether the City had two HAWK systems within such proximity of each other anywhere else. Mr. Jacobs replied that there were other HAWK systems close to each other, especially downtown, and that the HAWK systems operate independently. Mr. Christensen asked what would happen to the funding if the pedestrian safety project at Elgin Avenue moved forward but was later determined ineligible for CIP because the location is outside Salt Lake City's jurisdiction. Ms. Molinari replied that the Attorney's Office would review the application a second time and that she would communicate the response to the Board. She added that even if the City Council allocated funding to a project, those funds could still be reallocated. Mrs. Schaefer requested the Attorney's Office response be sent in writing to the Board. Ms. Molinari replied that this could be done. Route 209-Accessibility, Bus Shelters. Benches, and Trash Cans No constituents were present Ms. Schaefer stated that she had many questions about the UTA, its responsibility for bus stops and coordinated funding with the City for projects such as Route 209. Ms. Sabula explained that UTA had a program to implement bus stop improvements and Route 209 was a chosen route for the Avenues neighborhood. She explained that in coordination with the UTA, the City had been able to double its funding for these projects. She noted that the Transportation Division was responsible for concrete work and building railings, and the UTA was responsible for building the bus shelters and placing trash cans to match the City's investment. Ms. Sabula explained that improvements were continuing to occur along Route 209. She said the constituent's priority was for the City to increase accessibility and passenger comfort. Ms. Schaefer stated that no letters of support or other documentation from UTA were included in the submission's supporting documents. She then asked if the funding request needed to be considered within a specific funding range to be considered for partnership funding. Ms. Sabula explained that the City had an informal relationship with UTA, and it would require negotiations to double the funding. She then stated that Route 209 was a scalable project, and the Division would benefit from an economies of scale approach to receive a better bid from contractors. She added that she has had conversations with UTA about this project and while they have not written a formal letter of support, they are aware of the constituent's request and would assist with funding if the project were approved to move forward. Ms. Schaefer spoke about the variety of bus stop designs as provided in the submission materials. She sought clarification on the appropriate level of bus stop required in the project location to make an appropriate request for assistance from the UTA. She explained that while the application materials provided an average cost per stop, it lacked specification on the appropriate level of bus stop design for the location. Ms. Sabula clarified that the level of the bus stop was determined based on boarding data for each stop and noted that stops in the Avenues incurred higher costs due to the hilly location, despite having lower boarding rates compared to other stops along Route 209 within Salt Lake City. Mr. Murphy disclosed that he was the Community Council Chair for the Avenues neighborhood, and that Route 209 was an important topic with supporters both for and against this proposal. He asked if the constituent's infrastructure requests could be completed at bus stops located on park strips. Ms. Sabula explained that a stop in front of Smith's Marketplace would be challenging due to street grade and the right-of-way available. She also explained that the UTA was very committed to Route 209 and had a five-year service plan and that previous changes in the route had resulted in significant increases in ridership. Mr. Murphy asked about one of the bus stops being in front of a resident's house and if they had received consent as well as the feasibility of affordable improvements. Ms. Sabula explained that the applicant lived in the house referred to in the application and that they were looking to address wheelchair access at the bus stop, the placement of garbage cans, and other upgrades along the route. Ms. Schechinger inquired about the concern of accessibility and asked for more discussion on the topic. Ms. Sabula explained that federal law requires accessibility for sidewalks,pathways to transit, and transit stops, but incorporating these requirements becomes challenging on a steep road. Ms. Schechinger followed up with a question about space for wheelchairs under bus shelters. Ms. Sabula replied that there would be enough room for a wheelchair and that it was required by law. Sugar House Map and Historic Recognition Project No constituents were present Mr. Jacobs provided an overview of the signs, maps, and possibility of a QR code as requested in the application. He said that the signs and QR codes would lead people around Sugarhouse and allow them to find places more easily. Ms. Shaefer inquired about the applicant's desire for artwork to be incorporated in the design and if the City had a standard template to assure conformity. Mr. Jacobs explained that design for wayfinding still needed to be completed but that it could mimic similar signs in the Downtown area. Ms. Schaefer asked if the Public Lands Department or the Arts Council were included in conversations about the project. Mr. Jacobs explained that, if funded, only the sign located Sugarhouse Park would need feedback from the Parks Department and the Arts Council. Ms. Baca confirmed that the Arts Council had not yet been involved in discussions about this project. Ms. Schechinger asked if including braille had been considered and questioned if it could be incorporated with a QR code. Mr. Jacobs admitted that he did not know the answer, but that accessibility advocates would be involved with the final design if the project were to receive funding. California Avenue Pedestrian Safety Improvements Construction Constituent- Turner Bitton Mr. Bitton explained that the proposal for safety improvements on California Avenue was for the second phase of the project and was specifically for the construction portion of a previously funded CIP project. He stated that there was remaining funding from phase one of the project that was used to procure a design for the reconstruction of an intersection on California Avenue. Mr. Bitton said that the community council settled on a design and was now requesting funding to complete the project. He added that the project could be broken down into multiple phases. Ms. Schaefer asked if a traffic signal was removed from the budget and Ms. Simkins confirmed that it had been. Marmalade-FaiMarkEast-West Connector Study Constituent- Brian Hutchinson Mr. Hutchinson described the project as a study to improve intersections and road crossings in the Marmalade-Fairpark neighborhood. He said the area was considered unsafe for many of the new residents and that there was no safe route for pedestrians or cyclists to cross streets or visit nearby businesses. The Board had no questions for the applicant. 500 East Raised Crosswalk(400 Block) Constituent- Mary-T Calhoon Ms. Calhoon described the proposal to install a raised crosswalk on 500 East between 400 South and 500 South. She stated that First Step House was an addiction treatment and affordable housing provider serving residents with mental illness and disabilities and that it was dangerous for the residents living in the 115 apartments to cross the street to access Smith's Marketplace or the nearby bus stop. Ms. Bonk commented that she recognized the importance of adding improvements to 500 East, adding that she had seen pedestrians trying to cross the street mid-block with groceries. She asked if there were any plans to try to improve either end of the block or if the only investment would be for the raised mid-block crosswalk. Ms. Calhoon answered that discussions with the Transportation Division focused on a raised crosswalk as the solution. Mr. Murphy asked about installing a decorative crosswalk or a HAWK signal as opposed to a raised crosswalk. Ms. Calhoon replied that it was the Transportation Division's suggestion that a raised crosswalk was the best solution. Ms. Carver confirmed that the raised crosswalk was the best solution and that a HAWK signal might be warranted in the future depending on pedestrian volume. D. Overview and Expectations of next Meeting Ms. Molinari said that the next meeting would take place on Monday, February 26, 2024, covering Constituent Engineering and half of the Constituent Public Lands related projects. She stated that the next meeting would follow the same meeting structure. She also mentioned receiving recommendations from the Transportation Advisory Board and the Bicycle Advisory Board and said that the letters would be shared with the Board. E. Approval of the Minutes Ms. Schaefer made a motion to approve the minutes from January 22 and February 5, 2024. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. Upon roll call the minutes were approved. F. Adiournment There being no further business. Mr. Christensen made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Steed seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 6:52 pm. XJenny Bonk(Mar T,202421:40 MST) CDCIP Board Chair This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the CDCIP Board meeting held February 12, 2024. CDCIP Board Minutes 02. 12.2024 Final Audit Report 2024-03-08 Created: 2024-03-05 By: Rachel Molinari(rachel.molinari@slcgov.com) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAXFnO_TiDuxhsCHeuA3pFucEGQ4JamQOC "CDCIP Board Minutes 02. 12.2024" History Document created by Rachel Molinari (rachel.molinari@slcgov.com) 2024-03-05-11:55:45 PM GMT Document emailed to Jenny Bonk Qpbonk@gmail.com)for signature 2024-03-05-11:56:11 PM GMT Email viewed by Jenny Bonk Qpbonk@gmail.com) 2024-03-06-9:52:20 PM GMT Al Document e-signed by Jenny Bonk Qpbonk@gmail.com) Signature Date:2024-03-08-4:40:10 AM GMT-Time Source:server Agreement completed. 2024-03-08-4:40:10 AM GMT y Powered by Adobe Acrobat Sign