03/11/2024 - Meeting Minutes MINUTES
FROM THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
BOARD MEETING(CDCIP)
Monday, March 11, 2024
5:00pm
1. Board Members Board Members Not Present
Jenny Bonk, Chair
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, Aaron Price, and
Mary Beth Thompson—Department of Finance
Ben Luedtke, Salt Lake City Council Staff
Marti Woolford, Elizabeth Buehler—Information Management Services (IMS)
Department
Tom Millar,Nancy Monteith, Kathryn Sonntag, Troy Anderson, Makaylah Maponga,
Tyler Murdock—Public Lands Department
Taylor Knuth— Salt Lake City Arts Council
Constituents Present
Roxy Christensen— Sugar House Park Authority
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
March 11, 2024, at 5:02 p.m. The staff offered individual introductions. Ms. Bonk then started
the introduction of the CDCIP Board, and each member introduced themselves.
B. Meeting Structure Outline
Ms. Molinari explained the meeting structure and that each applicant would have two minutes to
discuss each project, followed by a Q&A from the Board members. She 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
Capital Asset Planning (CAP) Committee Memo Discussion:
Mr. Atkinson described the creation of the Capital Asset Planning (CAP) Committee and
highlighted the new "One City" approach for capital assets. He elaborated on the process through
which the committee assessed and prioritized internal projects, detailing their scoring
methodology and its inclusion in the CAP Memo. Ms. Schaefer inquired about the critical asset
failure ranking. Mr. Atkinson provided an explanation of the scoring system and its
incorporation into the overall evaluation. He guided the Board through the various sections of the
memo, offering clarifications as needed.
The full memo is attached.
Internal Applications:
PowerPoint slides for all the applications presented in the meeting are attached for
reference.
Arts Council Applications:
Art Barn Failing Infrastructure and Accessibility Improvement Request
Mr. Knuth described the application for the Board.
Ms. Schaefer raised a question regarding the accessibility aspect of the application, specifically
inquiring about any required improvements or potential deficiencies in Americans with
Disabilities Act(ADA) access. Mr. Knuth disclosed that a comprehensive audit of the facility
had been conducted, revealing non-compliance with current ADA standards on the main floor.
He further explained that the scope of the project and available funding would dictate which
components could be addressed, including the feasibility of implementing ADA access measures
for the basement area.
Mr. Murphy inquired if the improvements would be interior or exterior in nature and if they fall
under the historic district overlay. Mr. Knuth responded that the funding would be used to make
interior improvements to the building and would not be limited by historic preservation
requirements.
Mr. Christensen asked about additional factors concerning the project that Mr. Knuth would
consider beyond those accounted for in the scoring matrix. Mr. Knuth articulated the challenge
of adequately incorporating historical significance into the scoring criteria. He emphasized that
the building in question had a long and eventful history, and years of neglect were now
manifesting in its deteriorating condition.
Internal Public Lands Applications:
Mr. Millar outlined the mission of the Public Lands Department and the divisions within the
department. He then described that as the population grew so did the need for parks and other
public lands.
Green Loop Implementation
Mr. Millar described the application for the Board.
Ms. Schechinger asked for clarification regarding the funding request. Mr. Millar explained what
the minimum requirement would be to match a federal grant and that additional funding would
be used to design more of the project. Ms. Montieth added that the whole Green Loop Project
would be approximately 5.5 miles in length and what the projected total cost would be ($250
Million to $350 Million).
Ms. Gregori raised a question regarding the feasibility of breaking down large-scale projects like
this into smaller, manageable phases, and the necessity for ongoing communication to secure
funding at each stage. Mr. Millar explained that taking on a project of such magnitude would
indeed require a multi-year endeavor, involving various funding channels. He emphasized the
importance of maintaining consistent communication with entities such as the City, State, and
Federal Government to ensure proper utilization of investments and to facilitate the acquisition
of additional funding as needed throughout the construction process. Ms. Gregori sought
clarification on whether metrics would be employed to gauge the success of the project at each
phase. Ms. Monteith indicated that specific metrics had not yet been decided upon for this
project. She proposed that incorporating elements such as the addition of green space,
enhancement of urban tree canopies, and mitigation of the urban heat island effect could serve as
indicators to measure project success as it progresses.
Ms. Schaefer shared that she attended the initial unveiling of the Green Loop to the public and
expressed curiosity about the criteria for determining whether the project would progress to
completion or be halted at a certain phase. Ms. Montieth provided context, noting that the
concept of converting sections of downtown into green spaces had been under consideration for
15 to 20 years, aiming to alleviate the significant shortage of park areas in the region. She
elaborated that ongoing studies concerning underground utilities along the 5.5-mile stretch,
alongside continued project design efforts, had persisted in response to the growing enthusiasm
and demand for the initiative.
Mr. Skog inquired about the rationale behind selecting 200 East for the initial phase of the
project. Ms. Montieth said that while 900 South had undergone recent reconstruction, there were
still areas in need of improvement. She noted that ongoing temple reconstruction near Temple
Square made it impractical to commence work in that vicinity. Mr. Skog expressed concerns
about potential halts in construction and 200 East being the only section completed. Ms.
Montieth acknowledged the flexibility afforded by the project's early stages but emphasized the
synergy between 200 East, Library Square, and City Hall, which frequently host events, as one
of the contributing factors to the decision.
Mr. Murphy raised a concern about the potential risk of the project not reaching completion in
the event of changes in the City's elected officials. Ms. Montieth acknowledged the uncertainty
surrounding such matters but highlighted the significant transportation improvements underway
at 900 South. She emphasized the transformative impact that each segment of the project would
have on transportation infrastructure and the addition of green spaces. Ms. Montieth further
explained that the phased approach to public investment in underground utility relocation and
construction, progressing four or five blocks at a time, would serve to incentivize ongoing
implementation and mitigate potential disruptions.
Mr. Murphy raised concerns about some individuals' apprehensions regarding the reduction of
car lanes in the Green Loop area. Ms. Montieth highlighted Salt Lake City's advantage of a grid
system and wide streets, facilitating multiple travel lanes. She noted that certain areas of concern
might not experience the anticipated levels of traffic and that enhancing the area's appeal could
deter unnecessary driving for downtown residents. Mr. Millar emphasized the futility of
attempting to alleviate congestion solely by expanding road infrastructure, stating that no number
of lanes would indefinitely resolve the issue. He emphasized the City's aspiration for more
families to reside downtown and asserted that the provision of additional public and green spaces
would foster this. Mr. Millar further noted that only 20% of trips made by downtown residents
are by car, highlighting that much of the dissent regarding the project stemmed from commuters'
concerns about ingress and egress, rather than recognizing the broader community benefits
offered by the Green Loop.
Transitioning to Re ig onall�LARproPriate Landscapes, Adapting Irri atg ion Systems, and
Reducing Water Use
Mr. Millar described the application for the Board.
Mr. Skog inquired about the irrigation systems slated for installation and whether City personnel
could remotely control them. Ms. Montieth explained that modern systems utilize technology to
gauge heat levels affecting moisture, enabling precise control over water distribution,
distinguishing between trees and turf. She affirmed that these systems would indeed be managed
remotely. Mr. Skog expressed concerns about security risks associated with internet-connected
systems. Ms. Montieth and Mr. Millar said that while the systems were intemet-controlled,
security breaches had not been encountered, and incidents of vandalism of this nature had not
been observed.
Mr. Skog wondered if this project was impact fee eligible. Mr. Millar explained that since the
project was replacing and fixing systems it would not be eligible for that type of funding. Ms.
Molinari stated that funding sources for projects would be discussed during the future funding
meeting.
Memory Grove Park Urgent + Preservation & Maintenance Plan
Mr. Millar described the application for the Board.
Mr. Murphy disclosed his affiliation with the Greater Avenues Community Council. He said that
after consultation with the City Attorney's Office, it was determined that there was no conflict of
interest regarding this project.
Ms. Steed inquired about the availability of funding from other groups for the park, citing its
historical significance and war memorials. Mr. Millar explained that while donations from
external groups were typically modest and insufficient for repairs, the City does actively seek
funding from other sources.
Mr. Skog inquired about the quantity of items listed in the project requiring repairs and whether
they were prioritized. Ms. Sonntag clarified that the list was indeed ranked by importance,
though adjustments might be made based on available funding.
Mr. Christensen queried whether there were historical guidelines dictating the repair methods for
certain elements, such as how sidewalk stones were secured. Mr. Millar elaborated that the
Historic Landmark Commission had preferred methods for such repairs, acknowledging past
errors and emphasizing that the ongoing study aims to properly guide future repairs.
Ms. Schechinger asked about the preservation plan and its alignment with the proactive approach
intended for playgrounds and parks. Ms. Sonntag explained that the preservation plan prioritized
maintenance based on urgency, ensuring timely attention to repairs that may require significant
time for proper completion. Mr. Millar added that this marked the fourth Cultural Landscape
Report conducted for various historical landscapes around the city.
Courts & Playgrounds
Mr. Millar described the application for the Board.
Ms. Schechinger agreed with the rationale behind cataloging and scheduling when it was best to
repair and replace playgrounds. She wondered if an alternative approach of replacing specific
elements across all parks annually, such as slides one year and swings the next would be
appropriate. Mr. Millar confirmed that such an approach had been considered but it was usually
the foundation and supports that connected the structures that wore out quicker and therefore
needed to be replaced all together. Mr. Anderson highlighted that phased replacements often
result in damage to connected equipment, escalating repairs and costs. Mr. Millar explained that
each playground was tracked as an asset as opposed to individual pieces of equipment.
Mr. Murphy inquired whether constituent input or requests were considered during updates or
alterations to courts and playgrounds. Mr. Millar outlined various considerations, including
current utility, constituent demand, and emerging trends, which influence decisions regarding
equipment and court repairs and replacements. He further explained that factors such as usage by
children and whether equipment was shaded by trees or sunshades also contribute to prioritizing
needs and costs.
Mr. Skog asked about the approval status of last year's funding request. Mr. Millar confirmed
that funding was approved for two parks, with General Obligation(GO)Bond funding allocated
for other parks. When asked specifically about two parks, Mr. Millar explained that they, along
with other parks, were not included in the funding list as they were already covered by the bonds.
Ampli&ing Our Jordan River Revitalization:Doubling Bond Investment
Mr. Millar described the application for the Board.
Ms. Bonk inquired about the impact of constituent applications for projects in the same area. Mr.
Millar clarified that only the International Peace Garden application was relevant to this segment
of the Jordan River Trail and that focused primarily on fencing and security rather than planning
and design aspects.
"Elevating Access": The Reginal Athletic Complex's Blueprint for the Future
Mr. Millar described the application for the Board.
Ms. Schechinger asked about the projected revenue generation potential if the Regional Athletic
Complex (RAC)were expanded. Ms. Maponga disclosed that over the past decade, the RAC had
consistently failed to cover its operating expenses. She clarified that while the overall economic
impact benefited the entire community, not just the City, much of the revenue was derived from
sources such as hotel utilization and patronage of local restaurants. Ms. Schechinger followed up
with a question regarding the utilization of the RAC for tournaments. Ms. Maponga explained
that the operating season for the RAC spanned from April to October and was consistently
booked out well in advance each year, often months before the season began.
Mr. Skog inquired about which sports were played on these fields. Ms. Maponga said that many
different tournaments were booked including soccer, rugby, lacrosse, ultimate frisbee, and even a
quidditch tournament.
Ms. Schaefer sought clarification regarding the potential expansion of the RAC and whether the
two planned fields for public use would suffice for the area. Mr. Millar indicated that expanding
to 22 fields would enable the City to host the next tier of tournament competitions. Ms. Maponga
explained that the 30 acres of undeveloped land could accommodate an additional eight fields if
no extra parking or amenities were incorporated. She continued that the additional fields at the
North end would provide residents access to the RAC without traversing the tournament area.
Additionally, she noted that some of the 30 acres could potentially be repurposed into softball
fields.
Mr. Murphy asked about rumors regarding the sale of land around the RAC area and its potential
impact on the project. Mr. Millar clarified that the land in question was privately owned. He
emphasized that any development of that land would not hinder the potential expansion of the
RAC. He then stated that the project could be divided into three phases but indicated that
completing multiple phases simultaneously would result in reduced costs.
Sugar House Park— Two Pavilion Replacements for the Cost of One
Mr. Millar described the application for the Board.
Mr. Skog requested a timeline regarding the replacement of a pavilion. Mr. Millar clarified that
Salt Lake County aimed to undertake such work before the reservation season began. He further
explained that approval of the application would enable the completion of two additional
pavilions before the 2025 season commenced.
Mr. Christensen inquired about the ownership of the assets upon completion of the project. Ms.
Christensen, representing the Sugar House Park Authority, clarified that under the agreement
between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County, all assets were jointly owned. She further
explained that this agreement was valid until 2055. Regarding maintenance responsibilities for
the pavilions, Mrs. Christensen stated that the County was responsible for maintenance and
highlighted that the new pavilion design would entail less maintenance compared to the previous
ones.
Liberty Park Greenhouse Design and Construction Documents
Mr. Millar described the application for the Board and Mr. Murdock gave a brief history of the
Liberty Park Greenhouse.
Ms. Bonk asked about the necessity of approval for the constituent application for the
Greenhouse in order for this part of the project to be funded. Mr. Murdock clarified that the
constituent application would primarily involve feasibility work and a case study with the
University of Utah. He further explained that this application focused on the construction design
process and was secondary to the constituent proposal.
Ms. Schaefer inquired how often applications like this had been approved for the design phase
but did not move onto the construction phase. Mr. Murdock explained that during the 1980's,
design work was completed for the greenhouse, but the project was never completed. He was
unaware of any other projects where applications similar to this did not move onto the
construction portion. Ms. Molinari responded that the CAP team would research this and provide
an answer. Mr. Murdock explained that if the project were completed, there were other interested
parties willing to provide funding to revive a native plant program.
D. Overview and Expectations of next Meeting
Ms. Molinari said that the next meeting would take place on Monday, March 18, 2024, covering
the Fire, Police and Public Services Department internal applications. She stated that the next
meeting would follow the same meeting structure. She further explained that the scoring
spreadsheet originally included on the agenda would be moved to next week due to time
constraints.
E. Approval of the Minutes
There were no minutes to approve.
F. Adiournment
There being no further business. Mr. Christensen made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Skog seconded
the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:06 pm.
Jennj Bong i�pr 1L,2C-1L53'.a CTI
CDCIP Board Chair
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the
CDCIP Board meeting held March 11, 2024.
SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION
Memo
To: Community Development and Capital Improvement Program(CDCIP) Advisory Board
From: Capital Asset Planning(CAP) Committee
Date: March 7, 2024
Re: CAP Committee Recommendations to CDCIP Board
Summary
The Capital Asset Planning Committee(CAP Committee) was established in 2023to evaluate Salt Lake
City department Capital Improvement Program (CIP) proposals and make recommendations to the
Community Development and Capital Improvement Program(CDCIP)Advisory Board.The goal of the
Committee is to reduce the amount of time it takes the Board to review internal applications.
Aligning with the Mayor's goal of One City, CAP Committee members represent major departments
and divisions in Salt Lake City government.The CAP Committee met regularly over the course of
several months to set a scoring criteria matrix and then applied these criteria while reviewing and
scoring applications. The CAP Committee reviewed, scored, and ranked a total of 32 internal
applications.The scoring matrix, criteria definitions, and detailed scoring summary are provided in
the appendices.
Background
The CAP Committee is tasked with reviewing and ranking internal Salt Lake City department/division
CIP applications and then sending recommendations to the CDCIP Board, with the goal of reducing
the amount of time it takes the CDCIP Board to review internal applications. The CDCIP Board is
responsible for reviewing, scoring, and ranking constituent and internal applications, and sending
recommendations to the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor.
The scoring criteria, definitions and weighted scores were builtfrom a framework of Resolution 29 of
2017 (see Appendix A) and Mayor's Goals.The CAP Committee intentionally developed the scoring
criteria to be neutral and quantitative, removing as much bias as possible from the scoring process.
Definitions for each of the scoring criteria can be found in the appendices. Salt Lake City's Capital
Improvement Program is a multi-year planning program of capital expenditures needed to replace or
expand the City's public infrastructure. Capital improvements involve design, community
engagement, construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets, or other physical
structures. Capital assets are important to Salt Lake City and its management approach centers on
having a unified city approach that focuses on sustainability, equity, and meeting the growing needs
and demands on our public asset systems. City Council appropriation of CIP funding for a particular
project does not guarantee that the City will ultimately implement and complete that project.The
City reserves the right to withdraw or reappropriate funding forany project atthe City's sole
discretion.The City has withdrawn or reappropriated funding
from projects in the past, and it is anticipated that circumstances requiring the withdrawal or
reappropriation of funding for projects will arise in the future. In addition, capital projects that aren't
in capital plans/master plan can't be funded.
Upon completing the scoring process for FY25's internal CIP applications,the CAP Committee will
begin developing a 10-year CAP Plan that will be guided by Salt Lake City master plans, as well as
division and department capital plans.
CAP Committee
The CAP Committee began meeting in fa112023 to setthe scoring criteria and weights.Earlierthis year
SLC departments presented their CIP applications to the committee, committee members scored the
applications, and met to discuss the application scores.
The CAP Committee is comprised of directors, deputy directors,and other leaders from the following
Salt Lake City departments or divisions: Finance, Engineering,Transportation, Public Services,
Community&Neighborhoods, Public Lands, Police, Fire, Equity&Inclusion, Community Outreach,
Information Management Services, Public Utilities, Mayor's Office, Redevelopment Agency(RDA),
Economic Development, and Sustainability.
Committee Discussions
The Committee met multiple timesto discuss internal applications and the scores they assigned.They
discussed critical assets and critical failure at great length and found agreeing on scores for these two
criteria to be challenging.There was strong consensus that Critical Failure Category 1 should be
prioritized over all other requests. Further discussions revealed challenges with distinguishing
maintenance requests versus assets, the difference between projects and programs in several
applications,restrictions surroundingthe spending of Impact Fee funds,and scoring overall within the
limited criteria. The CAP Committee will work through and resolve these challenges prior to the
development of the 10-year CAP Plan and next year's scoring.
Scoring
The CAP Committee used the following criteria to score internal applications:
• Existing Asset
• Critical Failure Category 1, 2, or 3
• Legal/Contractual Obligation Category 1 or 2(determined by Attorney's Office)
• Risk:Life,Health&Safety
• Includes Outside Funding
• Project Phase
• Promotes Equity,Resiliency, Sustainability
• Reduce Cost/Increase Investment
• One City Approach
• Workforce Support
Seethe Appendices for the CAP Scoring Criteria and CAP Scoring Criteria Definitions.
The CAP Committee's scores are ranked by average score,in the order of highest to lowest.The scores
have been placed in the following groups: Renewal and Replacement, Program, New Public Asset
(Increase Level of Service), and New Asset that Supports City Operations.
Funding Requests
The funding amount being requested for internal applications is $72,593,600 and the funding
request for constituent applications is $17,796,496 for a total of $90,309,096. The total available
funding for FY25 is $39,300,000, of which an estimated $18,000,000 is Parks Impact Fees and is
restricted to eligible Parks projects.
CAP Committee Funding Recommendation
The CAP Committee has provided a ranked list of projects, and various other ways of looking at the
internal projects to aid the CDCIP Board in making their recommendation. Partial funding information
and guidance has been provided on each project by the internal applicant(s). Programs are intended
to receive funding year after year to elevate and maintain the City's assets at a reasonable and safe
level. Also provided are the desired/needed funding and the historical funding for each of these
programs.
Rank Project Title Score
1 Stabilize the Fire Training Tower Deterioration 72.82
2 400 South Jordan River Bridge Reconstruction 71.44
3 Complete Streets Reconstruction 2025 66.44
4 Public Way Concrete 2025 62.41
5 Complete Streets Overlay 2025 61.74
6 HVAC Control Replacement at PSB 60.76
7 Plaza 349 HVAC Improvements- Phase 1 59.71
8 Traffic Signal Replacement and Upgrades Program 57.76
9 Liberty Park Greenhouse Design and Construction Documents 57.76
10 700 South (Phase 7,4600 West to 5000 West) Additional Funding 57.06
11 Facilities Replacement and Renewal Plan 55.53
12 Safer Crossings Citywide 53.97
13 Sugar House Park-Two Pavilion Replacements for the Cost of One 52.47
14 Transitioning to Regionally-Appropriate Landscapes, Adapting Irrigation 51.91
Systems, and Reducing Water Use
15 Transit Capital Program/Funding Our Future Transit 51.38
16 Art Barn Failing Infrastructure and Accessibility Improvement Request 50.94
17 Neighborhood Byways Program 49.65
18 Amplifying OurJordan River Revitalization: Doubling Bond Investment 49.65
19 Courts & Playgrounds 48.62
20 Police Department Training Center 48.18
21 Livable Streets Program 48.12
22 Memory Grove Park Urgent Repairs+ Preservation &Maintenance Plan 46.85
23 Transportation Corridor Transformations Program 46.44
24 Fire Training Grounds Site Improvements 46.21
25 PSB EV Charging Phase 1 and 2 43.50
26 Urban Trails Program 42.18
27 Green Loop Implementation 41.88
28 Alleyway Improvements 2025 41.29
29 Plaza 349 EV Charging Phase 1 and 2 40.62
30 "Elevating Access":The Regional Athletic Complex's Blueprint for the Future 38.74
31 SLCPSB(Police Occupancy) Remodels 37.41
32 Drop Arm Gate on the Entry to the Rear Parking Lot at PSB 26.85
Appendices:
A. Resolution 29 of 2017
B. CAP Scoring Criteria Definitions
C. CAP Scoring Criteria
D. Ranked list of Internal Applications
E. Ranked List by Department/Division
F. Ranked List by Group
G. Program Amounts—estimated annual need, minimum required and historical annual amounts
H. Partial Funding Details
Appendix A: Resolution 29 of 2017
R 17-1
R 17-13
RESOLUTION NO. _29 OF 2017
(Salt Lake City Council capital and debt management policies.)
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council" or"Council") demonstrated its
commitment to improving the City's Capital Improvement Program in order to better address the
deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of Salt Lake City; and
WHEREAS, the analysis of Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement
Program presented by Citygate Associates in February 1999, recommended that the Council
review and update the capital policies of Salt Lake Corporation ("City") in order to provide
direction to the capital programming and budgeting process and adopt and implement a formal
comprehensive debt policy and management plan; and
WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Program and budgeting practices have
evolved since 1999 and the City Council wishes to update the capital and debt management
policies by updating and restating such policies in their entirety to better reflect current
practices; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to improve transparency of funding opportunities
across funding sources including General Fund dollars, impact fees, Class C(gas tax)funds,
Redevelopment Agency funds, Public Utilities funds, repurposing old Capital Improvement
Program funds and other similar funding sources.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,
Utah:
That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management
policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term
infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City:
Capital Policies
1. Capital Project Definition—The Council intends to define a capital project as follows:
"Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of
buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must
have a useful life of five or more years. A capital improvement is not a recurring
capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine) or a maintenance
expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). In order to be
considered a capital project, a capital improvement must also have a cost of
$50,000 or more unless such capital improvement's significant functionality can
be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project (such as software).
Acquisition of equipment is not considered part of a capital project unless such
acquisition of equipment is an integral part of the cost of the capital project."
2. Annual Capital Budget Based on 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan—The Council requests that
the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the 10-Year
Capital Facilities Plan and be submitted each fiscal year to the City Council for consideration
as part of the Mayor's Recommended Budget no later than the first Tuesday of May.
3. Multiyear Financial Forecasts—The Council requests that the Administration:
a. Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts that correspond to the capital
program period;
b. Prepare an analysis of the City's financial condition, debt service levels within the capital
improvement budget, and capacity to finance future capital projects; and
c. Present this information to the Council in conjunction with the presentation of each one-
year capital budget.
4. Annual General Fund Transfer to CIP Funding Goal —Allocation of General Fund revenues
for capital improvements on an annual basis will be determined as a percentage of General
Fund revenue. The Council has a goal that no less than nine percent (9%) of ongoing General
Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund.
5. Maintenance Standard - The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at
a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance
and replacement costs.
6. Capital Project Prioritization - The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects
that:
a. Preserve and protect the health and safety of the community;
b. Are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and
c. Provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in a preservation of the
community's prior investment, in decreased operating costs or other significant cost
savings, or in improvements to the environmental quality of the City and its
neighborhoods.
7. External Partnerships - All other considerations being equal, the Council intends to give fair
consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies,
establish a public/private partnership, or secure grant funding.
8. Aligning Project Cost Estimates and Funding - The Council intends to follow a guideline of
approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following
the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as more time
passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-estimating project costs by funding capital
projects in a timely manner.
9. Advisory Board Funding Recommendations - The Council intends that all capital projects be
evaluated and prioritized by the Community Development and Capital Improvement
Program Advisory Board. The resulting recommendations shall be provided to the Mayor,
and shall be included along with the Mayor's funding recommendations in conjunction with
the Annual Capital budget transmittal, as noted in Paragraph two above.
10. Prioritize Funding Projects in the 10-Year Plan - The Council does not intend to fund any
project that has not been included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan for at least one (1)
year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified.
11. Cost Overrun Process - The Council requests that any change order to any capital
improvement project follow the criteria established in Resolution No. 65 of 2004 which
reads as follows:
a. "The project is under construction and all other funding options and/or methods
have been considered and it has been determined that additional funding is still
required.
b. Cost overrun funding will be approved based on the following formula:
i. 20% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets of$ioo,000 or less;
ii. 15% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets between $1oo,00l and $250,000;
iii. io% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets over $250,000 with a maximum overrun cost of$1oo,000.
c. The funds are not used to pay additional City Engineering fees.
d. The Administration will submit a written notice to the City Council detailing the
additional funding awarded to projects at the time of administrative approval.
e. If a project does not meet the above mentioned criteria the request for additional
funding will be submitted as part of the next scheduled budget opening.
However, if due to timing constraints the cost overrun cannot be reasonably
considered as part of a regularly scheduled budget opening, the Administration
will prepare the necessary paperwork for review by the City Council at its next
regularly scheduled meeting."
12. Recapture Funds from Completed Capital Projects - The Council requests that the
Administration include in the first budget amendment each year those Capital Improvement
Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains.
It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and
placed in the CIP Cost Overrun Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year, at
which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's
General Fund ongoing allocation.
13. Recapture Funds from Unfinished Capital Projects — Except for situations in which
significant progress is reported to the Council, it is the Council's intent that all account
balances from unfinished projects older than three years be moved out of the specific project
account to the CIP Fund Balance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, account balances for bond
financed projects and outside restricted funds (which could include grants, SAA or other
restricted funds) shall not be moved out of the specific project account.
14. Surplus Land Fund within CIP Fund Balance — Revenues received from the sale of real
property will go to the unappropriated balance of the Capital Projects Fund and the revenue
will be reserved to purchase real property unless extenuating circumstances warrant a
different use. It is important to note that collateralized land cannot be sold.
15. Transparency of Ongoing Costs Created by Capital Projects —Any long-term fiscal impact to
the General Fund from a capital project creating ongoing expenses such as maintenance,
changes in electricity/utility usage, or additional personnel will be included in the CIP
funding log and project funding request. Similarly, capital projects that decrease ongoing
expenses will detail potential savings in the CIP funding log.
16. Balance Budget without Defunding or Delaying Capital Projects —Whenever possible,
capital improvement projects should neither be delayed nor eliminated to balance the
General Fund budget.
17. Identify Sources when Repurposing Old Capital Project Funds —Whenever the
Administration proposes repurposing funds from completed capital projects the source(s)
should be identified including the project name,balance of remaining funds, whether the
project scope was reduced, and whether funding needs related to the original project exist.
18. Identify Capital Project Details — For each capital project, the capital improvement projects
funding log should identify:
a. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board's
funding recommendations,
b. The Administration's funding recommendations,
c. The project name and a brief summary of the project,
d. Percentage of impact fee eligibility and type,
e. The project life expectancy,
f. Whether the project is located in an RDA project area,
g. Total project cost and an indication as to whether a project is one phase of a larger
project,
h. Subtotals where the project contains multiple scope elements that could be funded
separately,
i. Any savings derived from funding multiple projects together,
j. Timing for when a project will come on-line,
k. Whether the project implements a master plan,
1. Whether the project significantly advances the City's renewable energy or
sustainability goals,
in. Ongoing annual operating impact to the General Fund,
n. Any community support for the project -such as community councils or petitions,
o. Communities served,
p. Legal requirements/mandates,
q. Whether public health and safety is affected,
r. Whether the project is included in the io-Year Capital Facilities Plan,
s. Whether the project leverages external funding sources, and
t. Any partner organizations.
Debt Management Policies
1. Prioritize Debt Service for Projects in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan - The Council
intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are
included in the City's 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan or in order to take advantage of
opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. Short-term borrowing might be utilized in
anticipation of future tax collections to finance working capital needs.
2. Evaluate Existing Debt before Issuing a New Debt - The Council requests that the
Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity, and how each proposal meets
the Council's debt policies, prior to proposing any projects for debt financing. This analysis
should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios, the City's ability to
finance future projects of equal or higher priority, and the City's bond ratings.
3. Identify Repayment Source when Proposing New Debt - The Council requests that the
Administration identify the source of funds to cover the anticipated debt service requirement
whenever the Administration recommends borrowing additional funds.
4. Monitoring Debt Impact to the General Fund - The Council requests that the Administration
analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and
coordinate this analysis with the budget development process.
5. Disclosure of Bond Feasibility and Challenges - The Council requests that the
Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond
issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed. Such statement from the City's
financial advisor should also include an indication of requirements or circumstances that the
Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue (such as any net
negative fiscal impacts on the City's operating budget, debt capacity limits, or rating
implications).
6. Avoid Use of Financial Derivative Instruments - The Council intends to avoid using interest
rate derivatives or other financial derivatives when considering debt issuance.
7. Maintain Reasonable Debt Ratios - The Council does not intend to issue debt that would
cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the
municipal bond rating industry.
8. Maintain High Level Bond Ratings —The Council intends to maintain the highest credit
rating feasible and to adhere to fiscally responsible practices when issuing debt.
9. Consistent Annual Debt Payments Preferred—The Council requests that the Administration
structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the financed
project(s) unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or the useful life of the financed
project(s) suggests a different maturity schedule.
io. Sustainable Debt Burden —The Council intends to combine pay-as-you-go strategy with
long-term financing to keep the debt burden sufficiently low to merit continued AAA general
obligation bond ratings and to provide sufficient available debt capacity in case of
emergency.
ii. Lowest Cost Options —The City will seek the least costly financing available when evaluating
debt financing options.
12. Avoid Creating Structural Deficits —The City will minimize the use of one-time revenue to
fund programs/projects that require ongoing costs including debt repayments.
13. Aligning Debt and Project Timelines — Capital improvement projects financed through the
issuance of bonded debt will have a debt service that is not longer than the useful life of the
project.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 3rd day of
October , 2017.
CIT
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
v By:
R CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
By. Salt Lake City
City Recorder App7qed As To Form
By.
Oldroyd
D/aysen"
HB_ATTY-464309-0-CIP_and_Debt_Management—Policies
Appendix B:CAP Scoring Criteria Definitions
Critical Asset Failure: When reviewing this criterion, particular focus should be paid to whether the
request will prevent a failure of a critical asset.These applications will be marked non-discretionary to
highlight importance.
Legal/Contractual Obligations: When reviewing this criterium, considerations include coming into
compliance with ordinances and executive orders,various contractual agreements, or state and federal
mandates. Consideration of whether the issues penalize the City or puts the City in jeopardy. The
urgency of needing to meet these obligations and consequences of not meeting them will be
considered.
Risk: Life,Health,and Safety:When reviewing this criterium, particular focus should be paid to whether
the request will correct various types of code violations, increase safety/reduce crime, or safety
improvements toward eliminating fatalities and severe injuries related to mobility.
Includes Outside Funding:This criterium assesses whether there is external funding support for a
particular initiative, including federal and state grants, coordination with other agencies, public/private
partnerships, or donations. When analyzing outside funding, it should be noted how much of the
fundingwill still need to be provided by the City in addition to any outside support. (Enterprise funding
through the RDA and Public Utilities fundingwill be considered part of External Funding. Non-enterprise
external funding will be weighted higher than internal enterprise funding.)
Project Phase:This is in accordance with Resolution Number 29 of 2017 which states, "The Council
intends to follow a guideline of approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year
immediately following the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as
more time passes.The City can avoid expenses for re-estimating project costs by funding capital projects
in a timely manner."
Promote Equity:Consideration should be given to areas of the city in order to improve the infrastructure
of the city as a whole rather than improving some areas and allowing others to deteriorate. A map
showing the condition of the infrastructure of the city and existing tools could help in performing this
analysis.
Reduce Cost/Increase Investment:The main considerations for efficient investment are whether a
project reduces maintenance expenditures or will be leveraged with another CIP project,thereby
eliminating duplication of work or creating economies of scale. Funding projections should be as
accurate as possible and vetted through the Department of Finance.
Resiliency:This criterium involves analyzing whether a project supports resiliency efforts to better
enable the Cityto prepare for,prevent,orrespond to events that have the potentialto disrupt the City's
operations or the delivery of services.
Sustainability:This criterium involves assessing whether the projectsupports water conservation, green
infrastructure, materials resource reduction or a reduction in carbon emissions, fossil fuel use, and/or
criteria pollutants.
One City Approach: Does the project involve coordination across City Divisions and align with Mayor's
Goals?
Workforce Support:This criterium focuses on whether a project supports the physical, mental, or
economic well-being of City employees, in keeping with the Mayor's goal of supporting"Our City
Family".
Community Application:While the financial limitations of any municipality inhibit the ability to act on
every request-the concerns and desires of our residents are vital to understanding how bestto allocate
our limited resources, therefore, projects that are closely aligned with community requests should be
given proper consideration. (Yes/No)
Appendix CAP Scoring Criteria
Decision Tree with Weighted Scores
Y N Score Reference Question FY25 App
Step 1 Existing Asset Y/N Step 3 C Question#10
Step 2 Critical Failure Category 1 Step 3 q Question#12
Legal/Contractual Obligation Category 1 Step 3 C Question#21
Step 3 Scoring Criteria Scoring Scale (0-5) Weight Score
Critical Failure Category 2 or 3 2 C Question#12
Legal/Contractual Obligation Category 2 1 C Question#21
Risk: Life, Health&Safety 2 C Question#21
Includes Outside Funding 1 C Question#17
Project Phase(further along scores higher) 1 C Question#11
Promote Equity 1.5 C Question #18, 19,20
Resiliency 1.5 C Question#2
Sustainability 1 C Question#22
Reduce Cost/Increase Investment 1.5 C Question#16,21
10 One City Approach 11 q Question#16
11 Workforce Support 11 1Question#2
0
Weighted Score:
• Step 1 Existing Asset is worth 7.5 points.
• Step 2 Critical Failure Category 1 is worth 20 points.
• Step 2 Legal/Contractual Obligation Category 1 is worth 15 points.
• For Step 3, CAP Committee members gave a score ranging from 0-5 forthe eleven criteria lines. Those scores are then multiplied by the weight
assigned to the category in the next column to arrive at the score.
Appendix D: Ranked List of Internal Applications
Rank Project Title Average Requested$ Department Group
1 Stabilize the Fire Training Tower Deterioration 72.82 $858,800 Fire Renewal and Replacement
2 400 South Jordan River Bridge Reconstruction 71.44 $4,000,000 Engineering Renewal and Replacement
3 Complete Streets Reconstruction 2025 66.44 $4,500,000 Engineering Program
4 Public Way Concrete 2025 62.41 $750,000 Engineering Program
5 Complete Streets Overlay 2025 61.74 $3,500,000 Engineering Program
6 HVAC Control Replacement at PSB 60.76 $1,300,000 Facilities Renewal and Replacement
7 Plaza 349 HVAC Improvements- Phase I 59.71 $2,200,000 Facilities Renewal and Replacement
8 Traffic Signal Replacement and Upgrades Program 57.76 $2,700,000 Transportation Program
Liberty Park Greenhouse Design and Construction
9 57.76 $921,700 Public Lands Renewal and Replacement
Documents
700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West)Additional
10 57.06 $4,500,000 Engineering Renewal and Replacement
Funding
11 Facilities Replacement and Renewal Plan 55.53 $2,756,500 Facilities Program
12 Safer Crossings Citywide 53.97 $600,000 Transportation Program
Sugar House Park—Two Pavilion Replacements for the
13 52.47 $960,000 Public Lands Renewal and Replacement
Cost of One
Transitioning to Regionally—Appropriate Landscapes,
14 51.91 $3,250,000 Public Lands Program
Adapting Irrigation Systems, and Reducing Water Use
15 Transit Capital Program/Funding Our Future Transit 51.38 $1,500,000 Transportation Program
Art Barn Failing Infrastructure and Accessibility
16 50.94 $500,000 Arts Council Renewal and Replacement
Improvement Request
17 Neighborhood Byways Program 49.65 $1,600,000 Transportation Program
18 Amplifying Our Jordan River Revitalization: Doubling Bond 49.62 $1,500,000 Public Lands New Public Asset
Investment (Increase LOS)
19 Courts&Playgrounds 48.62 $3,100,000 Public Lands Program
20 Police Department Training Center 48.18 $250,000 Police New Asset that Supports CityOperations
21 Livable Streets Program 48.12 $3,000,000 Transportation Program
Memory Grove Park Urgent Repairs+ Preservation &
22 46.85 $1,910,000 Public Lands Renewal and Replacement
Maintenance Plan
23 Transportation Corridor Transformations Program 46.44 $4,600,000 Transportation New Asset that Supports City
Operations
24 Fire Training Grounds Site Improvements 46.21 $1,410,300 Fire New Asset that Supports City
Operations
25 PSB EV Charging Phase 1 and 2 43.50 $874,400 Facilities New Asset that Supports City
Operations
26 Urban Trails Program 42.18 $1,500,000 Transportation Program
27 Green Loop Implementation 41.88 $10,000,000 Public Lands
New Public Asset
(Increase LOS)
28 Alleyway Improvements 2025 41.29 $500,000 Engineering Program
29 Plaza 349 EV Charging Phase 1 and 2 40.62 $601,900 Facilities New Asset that Supports City
Operations
"Elevating Access":The Regional Athletic Complex's New Public Asset
30 Blueprint for the Future 38.74 $6,250,000 Public Lands (Increase LOS)
31 SLCPSB(Police Occupancy) Remodels 37.41 $650,000 Police Renewal and Replacement
32 Drop Arm Gate on the Entry to the Rear Parking Lot at PSB 26.85 $50,000 Police New Asset that Supports City
Operations
Appendix E: Ranked List of Internal Applications by Department/Division
Department Rank Project Title Average Requested$ Group
Art Barn Failing Infrastructure and Accessibility Improvement
Arts Council 16 50.94 $500,000 Renewal and Replacement
Request
2 400 South Jordan River Bridge Reconstruction 71.44 $4,000,000 Renewal and Replacement
3 Complete Streets Reconstruction 2025 66.44 $4,500,000 Program
4 Public Way Concrete 2025 62.41 $750,000 Program
Engineering
5 Complete Streets Overlay 2025 61.74 $3,500,000 Program
10 700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West)Additional Funding 57.06 $4,500,000 Renewal and Replacement
28 Alleyway Improvements 2025 41.29 $500,000 Program
6 HVAC Control Replacement at PSB 60.76 $1,300,000 Renewal and Replacement
7 Plaza 349 HVAC Improvements- Phase 1 59.71 $2,200,000 Renewal and Replacement
Facilities 11 Facilities Replacement and Renewal Plan 55.53 $2,756,500 Program
25 PSB EV Charging Phase 1 and 2 43.50 $874,400 New Asset that Supports City
Operations
29 Plaza 349 EV Charging Phase 1 and 2 40.62 $601,900 New Asset that Supports City
Operations
1 Stabilize the Fire Training Tower Deterioration 72.82 $858,800 Renewal and Replacement
Fire
24 Fire Training Grounds Site Improvements 46.21 $1,410,300
New Asset that Supports City
Operations
Police 20 Police Department Training Center 48.18 $250,000 New Asset that Supports City
Operations
31 SLCPSB(Police Occupancy) Remodels 37.41 $650,000 Renewal and Replacement
Police
32 Drop Arm Gate on the Entry to the Rear Parking Lot at PSB 26.85 $50,000 New Asset that Supports City
Operations
9 Liberty Park Greenhouse Design and Construction Documents 57.76 $921,700 Renewal and Replacement
13 Sugar House Park—Two Pavilion Replacements for the Cost of One 52.47 $960,000 Renewal and Replacement
Transitioning to Regionally—Appropriate Landscapes, Adapting
14 51.91 $3,250,000 Program
Irrigation Systems, and Reducing Water Use
Amplifying Our Jordan River Revitalization: Doubling Bond New Public Asset
18 Investment 49.62 $1,500,000 (Increase LOS)
Public Lands
19 Courts&Playgrounds 48.62 $3,100,000 Program
Memory Grove Park Urgent Repairs+ Preservation & Maintenance
22 46.85 $1,910,000 Renewal and Replacement
Plan
27 Green Loop Implementation 41.88 $10,000,000 New Public Asset
(Increase LOS)
"Elevating Access":The Regional Athletic Complex's Blueprint forthe 38.74 $6 New Public Asset
30 Future ,250,000 (Increase LOS)
8 Traffic Signal Replacement and Upgrades Program 57.76 $2,700,000 Program
12 Safer Crossings Citywide 53.97 $600,000 Program
15 Transit Capital Program/Funding Our Future Transit 51.38 $1,500,000 Program
Transportation 17 Neighborhood Byways Program 49.65 $1,600,000 Program
21 Livable Streets Program 48.12 $3,000,000 Program
23 Transportation Corridor Transformations Program 46.44 $4,600,000 New Asset that Supports City
Operations
26 Urban Trails Program 42.18 $1,500,000 Program
Appendix F: Ranked List of Internal Applications by Group
Group Rank Project Title Average Requested$ Department
20 Police Department Training Center 48.18 $250,000 Police
24 Fire Training Grounds Site Improvements 46.21 $1,410,300 Fire
New Asset that
Supports City 25 PSB EV Charging Phase 1 and 2 43.50 $874,400 Facilities
Operations
29 Plaza 349 EV Charging Phase 1 and 2 40.62 $601,900 Facilities
32 Drop Arm Gate on the Entry to the Rear Parking Lot at PSB 26.85 $50,000 Police
18 Amplifying OurJordan River Revitalization: Doubling Bond Investment 49.62 $1,500,000 Public Lands
New Public
Asset(Increase 23 Transportation Corridor Transformations Program 46.44 $4,600,000 Transportation
LOS)
27 Green Loop Implementation 41.88 $10,000,000 Public Lands
30 "Elevating Access":The Regional Athletic Complex's Blueprint for the Future 38.74 $6,250,000 Public Lands
3 Complete Streets Reconstruction 2025 66.44 $4,500,000 Engineering
4 Public Way Concrete 2025 62.41 $750,000 Engineering
5 Complete Streets Overlay 2025 61.74 $3,500,000 Engineering
Program 8 Traffic Signal Replacement and Upgrades Program 57.76 $2,700,000 Transportation
11 Facilities Replacement and Renewal Plan 55.53 $2,756,500 Facilities
12 Safer Crossings Citywide 53.97 $600,000 Transportation
Transitioning to Regionally—Appropriate Landscapes, Adapting Irrigation Systems,
14 51.91 $3,250,000 Public Lands
and Reducing Water Use
15 Transit Capital Program/ Funding Our Future Transit 51.38 $1,500,000 Transportation
17 Neighborhood Byways Program 49.65 $1,600,000 Transportation
19 Courts&Playgrounds 48.62 $3,100,000 Public Lands
Program 21 Livable Streets Program 48.12 $3,000,000 Transportation
26 Urban Trails Program 42.18 $1,500,000 Transportation
28 Alleyway Improvements 2025 41.29 $500,000 Engineering
1 Stabilize the Fire Training Tower Deterioration 72.82 $858,800 Fire
2 400 South Jordan River Bridge Reconstruction 71.44 $4,000,000 Engineering
6 HVAC Control Replacement at PSB 60.76 $1,300,000 Facilities
7 Plaza 349 HVAC Improvements- Phase 1 59.71 $2,200,000 Facilities
Renewaland 9 Liberty Park Greenhouse Design and Construction Documents 57.76 $921,700 Public Lands
Replacement
10 700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West) Additional Funding 57.06 $4,500,000 Engineering
13 Sugar House Park—Two Pavilion Replacements for the Cost of One 52.47 $960,000 Public Lands
16 Art Barn Failing Infrastructure and Accessibility Improvement Request 50.94 $500,000 Arts Council
22 Memory Grove Park Urgent Repairs+ Preservation & Maintenance Plan 46.85 $1,910,000 Public Lands
31 SLCPSB(Police Occupancy) Remodels 37.41 $650,000 Police
Appendix G:Program Amounts
Department/Division Project Title Requested$ Minimum$Required Historical Annual Funding
Street Reconstruction
FY24:$7,793,000
FY23:$9,369,130
FY22:$2,046329
$4,500,000-Potential Street Improvements Construction Projects 2025 FY21:$2,546,329
Engineering Complete Streets Reconstruction 2025 $4,500,000 which equates to 20.23 total lane miles. FY20:$4,801,400
$3,500,000-Potential Street Improvements Construction Projects 2025. Street Overlay
We have submitted 13.29 lane miles as candidates for Complete Streets FY24:$1,250,000
Overlay 2025.The 3.5 million asked would cover less than half of those FY22:$175,000
Engineering Complete Streets Overlay 2025 $3,500,000 13.29 lane miles. FY20:$1,000,000
Public Way Concrete
FY24:750,000
FY23:436,281
FY22:$750,000
Engineering Public Way Concrete 2025 $ 750,000 $750,000 FY20:$402,443
Alleyway Improvements
FY24:$250,000
$200,000 would allow us to address two alleys(this request would cover—5 FY23:$142,919
Engineering Alleyway Improvements and Mitigation 2025 $ 500,000 alleys) FY21:$200,000
Courts and Playgrounds
FY24:$1,574,000
Approximately$600,000 for one playground or$950,000 for one court, FY23:$521,564
Public Lands Courts&Playgrounds $3,100,000 depending on the location,size,need,and condition of the asset(s). FY22:$1,113,045
$500,000:design and new irrigation for roughly 2.5 acres.Replacing
Transitioning to Regionally-Appropriate Landscapes, irrigation systems costs an average of$200,000 per acre,when factoring in Waterwise Enhancements
Public Lands Adapting Irrigation Systems,and Reducing Water Use $3,250,000 design,construction,and soft costs. FY20:$419,328
Facilities Asset Replacement
and Renewal
FY24:$2,848,771
FY23:$1,790,149
FY22:$1,570,509
FY21:$2,503,710
Public Services Facilities Replacement and Renewal Plan $2,756,500 $1,366,350 FY20:$1,250,000
Livable Streets
FY24:$1,644,126
FY21:$270,000
Transportation Livable Streets Program $3,000,000 $500,000 FY20:$849,500
Neighborhood Byways
FY24:800,000
FY22:$1,545,000
Transportation Neighborhood Byways Program $1,600,000 $970,000 FY20:$150,000
Transportation Safety
FY24:$1,220,000
FY23:$1,013,313
FY22:$2,178,815
FY21:$2,284,945
Transportation Safer Crossings Citywide $ 600,000 $300,000 FY20:$452,000
Traffic Signal and
Intersection Upgrades
FY24:$400,000
FY23:$81,000
FY22:$1,014,450
FY21:$1,800,000
Transportation Traffic Signal Replacement and Upgrades Program $2,700,000 $800,000 FY20:$700,000
Transit Capital
FY24:$1,100,000
FY23:$1,100,000
FY21:$1,067,000
Transportation Transit Capital Program/Funding Our Future Transit $1,500,000 $500,000 FY20:$1,100,000
Urban Trails
FY24:$1,700,000
FY22:$2,231,750
Transportation Urban Trails Program $1,500,000 $600,000 FY21:$3,192,000
Notes:
Minimum$Required-How much funding is needed to accomplish critical items this fiscal year
The Historical Annual Funding column does not include dollar amounts allocated in Budget Amendments,Recaptures or Administrative Budget Adjustments
Appendix H:Partial Funding
Department/Division Project Title IL Requested$ Partial Funding Details
Yes'
Hardwood Floor Replacement$45,000
Lighting Upgrade-$35,000
Interior Accessibility Ramp $45,000
Lower-Level Artist Studio and Community Workspace Renovation$100,000
Econ Dev/Arts Council Art Barn Failing Infrastructure and Accessibility Improvement Request $ 500,000 Office Suite Renovation$30,000
Yes,although it is not advised.Even if fully funded at this requested funding rate,we will still witness a continued degradation to the city street system as a whole and the city will be forced to
continuously seek bond after bond to improve the road network.Currently 447 Lane Miles have an OCI of less than 40(SLC has approximately 1,850 lane miles total).
Minimum funding needed:$4,500,000-Potential Street Improvements Construction Projects 2025 which equates to 20,23 total lane miles.
Engineering Complete Streets Reconstruction 2025 $ 4,500,000 Recommended annual funding:$46,500,000 this is to achieve a backlog of 15%
Yes,this is a partial funding request.Even if fully funded at this requested funding rate,we will still witness a continued degradation to the city street system as a whole and the city will be forced
to continuously seek bond after bond to improve the road network.86.25 lane miles are eligible as of 2/21/2024.This is based on RAS maintenance recommendations of 40-50 OCI and
additional criteria set by the SLC Engineering Division.
Minimum funding needed:$3,500,000-Potential Street Improvements Construction Projects 2025.We have submitted 13.29 lane miles as candidates for Complete Streets Overlay 2025.The
3.5 million asked would cover less than half of those 13.29 lane miles.
Engineering Complete Streets Overlay 2025 $ 3,500,000 Recommended annual funding:$20,000,000.This would fund roughly 31.56 lane miles of overlays.
We are asking for a portion of the required amount.Construction ready but cannot start until fully funded.The request is as follows:Additional funding is needed to complete the package for
multiple reasons:a water main 1,300 feet long is required to be replaced($650,000)which is unfunded by SLC Public Utilities constrained budget;Styrofoam fill was proposed to mitigate
settlement over the water main as a cost savings method,however that proposal was rejected;Union Pacific changed the City cost of the rail crossing from$400,000 to$1,200,000;and inflation
continues to drive up the cost of construction
Engineering 700 South(Phase 7,4600 West to 5000 West)Additional Funding $ 4,500,000 Minimum funding needed:$4,500,000
Yes,we are asking for a portion of the required amount.Funding could be split among multiple CIP FY cycles,however each year of delaying project construction for additional funding increases
the final price tag.
Engineering 400 South Jordan River Bridge Reconstruction $ 4,000,000 Minimum funding needed:$4,000,000
Yes.A reduction from the requested amount will reduce the length of sidewalk and number of access ramps that can be constructed.This requested amount is sorely needed to improve the
current sidewalk network quality.Currently the city receives approximately 50%more service requests than can be addressed annually when this program is fully funded.Due to reduced funding
in previous years(54%in FY19/20,0%in FY20/21,and 58%in FY22/23)Engineering has a backlog of over 450 sidewalk service requests.
Minimum funding needed:$750,000
Engineering Public Way Concrete 2025 $ 750,000 Recommended annual funding:$750,000 based on current capacity;however,this figure is subject to change as data becomes available
Yes,although it is not advised as partial funding will reduce the number of alleys improved.It's worth highlighting that our current funding model operates more as a pilot program,addressing
requests on a case-by-case basis rather than through an established standard or policy for alleyway mitigation.
Minimum funding needed:$2001,would allow us to address two alleys(this request would cover-5 alleys)
Recommended annual funding:The precise value is currently unavailable as we await the results of an ongoing survey.These pending findings are expected to inform the establishment of a
Engineering Alleyway Improvements and Mitigation 2025 $ 500,000 standard selection procedure,aiding in determining the appropriate funding level.
Yes.The project could be phased through 4 different areas.In order of priority:
Required for all areas:
•Engineering and Design$196,617.00
•Contractor OH&P 17%,Bonding&Insurance 3.5%,Owners Construction Contingency 10%,Escalation 32%,SLC Engineering Fees 0.8%
1.Turn-Out Cleaning Room expansion and PPV-$40,240
2.Security System and lights-$37,669
3.Grounds-excavation,re-grading,curb and gutter,landscaping,storm water,backfill,paving,extrication pads,and technical props-$436,431
4.Fencing-$86,200
Fire Fire Training Grounds Site Improvements $ 1,410,300 Minimum funding needed:Required Amount(varies)+Turn-Out Cleaning Room expansion and PPV$40,240
No.The project cannot be partially funded as each step is contingent on the other.The work is as follows:
1.Div 01-Erect Scaffolding and Prepare Existing Surface$333,040
2.Div 03-Patch and Repair Spalled Concrete$99,445
3.Div 07-Concrete Waterproofing$58,140
4.Div 32-Misc.$25,000
Subtotal$515,625
5.General Conditions$103,125
6.Overhead&Profit$51,563
7.Bonds&Insurance$10,313
8.Contingency$77,344
Total$757,969-adjusted for 2024=$858,800
Fire Stabilize the Fire Training Tower Deterioration $ 858,800 Minimum funding needed:$858,800
Yes,the Structural Assessments and Concept Design(the constituent application's scope)could be completed separately.Funding both the constituent application($124,000)and this internal
application($921,700)would be preferable and would fund concept design and construction document development,which are both critical steps that must occur before an accurate
construction/implementation funding request can be made in FY 26.
Another note:Public Lands is currently exploring emergency improvements to the east bay of the Liberty Park Greenhouse to allow this one part of the greenhouse to be used for operations
Public Lands Liberty Park Greenhouse Design and Construction Documents $ 921,700 while a larger renovation project is underway.
This is likely to be a programmatic,reoccurring application with annual funding requests for replacement of irrigation systems(critical infrastructure)that support the city's living landscape.
The minimum effective amount of funding for this fiscal year's request is$500,000:design and new irrigation for roughly 2.5 acres.Replacing irrigation systems costs an average of$200,000 per
when factoring in design,construction,and soft costs.Fully funding this request would fund new irrigation systems for up to 16 acres(which is less than 2%of the Public Lands
Department's irrigated landscapes).Due to the 25-30 year lifespan of irrigation systems and some landscapes,and in order to replace and/or upgrade systems that irrigate 3-5%of the Public
Lands'landscapes per year,on-going requests would be around the$6 million to$9 million per year range going forward,though that determination has not been made or included in the
department's capital asset plan.
Replacement of irrigation systems significantly reduces the use of water,a critical resource in our climate.Water costs are also the single largest operating cost for the Public Lands Department.
Transitioning to Regionally-Appropriate Landscapes,Adapting Irrigation Systems, The Department suggests that irrigation system upgrades or replacements and turf reduction strategies(for the same site)be funded and occur at the same time.This will allow new landscaping
Public Lands and Reducing Water Use $ 3,250,000 to be appropriately cared for rather than retrofitted to fit an unaccommodating,inefficient irrigation system.
Yes,in the following order.
1.A minimum of$700,000(for design and construction)in 1/4 Cent transportation funding is needed to match the federal grant for State Streets addition of active transportation facilities.
2.An additional$5 million would fund full design(i.e.,create bid documents readyfor construction)for 3-5 blocks of 200 East.Design is typically estimated at 10%of project construction costs.
The combination of State Street match(for design and construction)and 200 East(for design)would bring a partial funding request to$5.7 million.
3.Fully funding this request(including the above and the remaining$4.3 million)in FY 24/25 would provide the Green Loop team more flexibility and leverage when exploring additional funding
sources to bring strategic segments to construction as quickly as possible.Not funding the remaining$4.3 million would push a much larger construction funding request to FY 25/26.
Additional funding requests are likely in FY 25/26 and other future application rounds.If no additional,outside funds are available,a minimum construction strategy might focus this$10 million
Public Lands Green Loop Implementation $10,000,000 funding request(along with state funds awarded or pending)to construct at least one prototype block on 200 East,tentatively in 2026.
Yes.This Memory Grove Park application comprises two possible phases:Phase 1 consists of urgent repairs while Phase 2 is focused on the development of a Preservation&Maintenance Plan.
1.The full request for the Preservation&Maintenance Plan($160,000)should be considered essential.It must work hand-in-hand with any of the urgent repairs(Phase 2)that are funded.
2.Nine(9)urgent repairs have been prioritized by City staff(see project description for the complete list).If needed,the order of priority and/or number of repairs could be adjusted to meet
Public Lands Memory Grove Park Urgent Repairs+Preservation&Maintenance Plan $ 1,910,000 nearly any partial funding amount.It should be noted that performing repairs in separate phases would result in a higher overall cost(particularlydueto"softcosts").
Yes-this is a phased project.We are seeking funding for phase 1.
Phase I-Estimated Cost$2.2 Million(adjusted for inflation),a reduction in funding would allow us to address some of the items below.
•Design Life safety,access controls,and security systems
•Upgrade Life safety,access control,and security systems
•Design HVAC System
•Upgrade Key HVAC Systems
Phase II-Estimated Cost$2 Million(not adjusted for inflation)
•Upgrade piping and terminal units on floors 1-3
Phase III-Estimated Cost$2 Million(not adjusted for inflation)
•Upgrade piping and terminal units on floors 4-6
Phase IV-Estimated Cost$1 Million(not adjusted for inflation)
•Upgrade air handlers
Public Services Plaza 349 HVAC Improvements-Phase 1 $ 2,200,000 •Repair parking structure and canopy
Yes.The project is broken into 3 phases,currently seeking funding for phase 1 and 2,currently 7 electrical vechicles are in this lot and only 4 EV chargers.Chargers to be added in phase 2.In
order of priority:
1.Phase 1—Addition of a utility switch,500kVA Utility Transformer,and 1600A 208V 30 SES-EV-1-$499,043
2.Phase 2-(8)L2 Chargers-$102,836
3.Phase 3-(8)L2 Chargers-$305,715
Public Services Plaza 349 EV Charging Phase 1 and 2 $ 601,900 Minimum funding needed:$499,043+302,836
Yes.The project is broken into 3 phases,currently seeking funding for phase 1 and 2 to capture the needs for the current and incoming PD and Fire EV.In order of priority:
1.Phase 1—Addition of a 3000kVA Utility Transformer,2500A 208V 30 SES-EV-1,Proposed 1200A 208V Panel,and(6)L2 Chargers-$709,633
2.Phase 2-1000A 208V Panel and(8)L2 Chargers-$164,749
3.Phase 3-(6)L2 Chargers-$76,118
Public Services PSB EV Charging Phase 1 and 2 $ 874,400 Minimum funding needed:$709,633
Public Services HVAC Control Replacement at PSB $ 1,300,000 No,all of the controls will need to be addressed at the same time.
We are seeking$250,000 in funding for the second phase of our initiative,aimed at conducting a comprehensive feasibility study for anew training facility.The current facility's inadequacy in
capacity and condition is exacerbated by the anticipated growth in the Northwest region,driven by an inland port and business developments.With projected population growth in the
downtown area and the potential addition of two more professional sports teams,the demand on the Salt Lake City Police Department(SLC PD)and Salt Lake City Fire Department(SLC FD)is
expected to surge.Meeting these increasing demands necessitates additional trained personnel to address the heightened call volume from residents and visitors.Anew training center is central
to our ability to adequately train current and future first responders,making planning for these anticipated increases vital to ensuring the safety and security of our growing community.
The requested funds will be used to conduct the feasibility study,addressing Public Safety,Public Services,and Community Access components.This study is essential for identifying design
requirements and establishing a well-defined project scope,laying the foundation for subsequent project phases.
Police Police Department Training Center $ 250,000 Mini mum funding needed:$75,000(this is our on-call purchasing limit,for scoping,designing,and rendering the project we will require the full amount.)
Police Drop Arm Gate on the Entry to the Rear Parking Lot $ 50,000 No,all of the electrical trenching for the booth,cameras,and lighting will need to be addressed at the same time.
Yes.The project could be phased through 4 different areas.In order of priority:
Priority 1
•ROOM 4621-$186,902.30
Priority 2
•ROOM 3445-$78,942.40
Priority 3
•ROOM 2214-$112,994.30
Priority 4
•4th ROOM 2251-$142,499.50
•4th ROOM 2412-$26,868.40
•4th ROOM 2263-$96,801.90
Police SLC Public Safety Building(Police Occupancy)Remodels $ 650,000 Minimum funding needed:$265,744.70(Priority 1&2)
Yes.The minimum partial funding amount would be approximately$600,000 for one playground or$950,000 for one court,depending on the location,size,need,and condition of the asset(s).If
the CDCIP Board,Mayor,or City Council would like to inquire about one or more specific sites,Public Lands will provide a more accurate(and potentially less expensive)estimate.
However,this application expresses a programmatic,reoccurring need with annual funding requests for the replacement of courts and playgrounds that support the city's ability to provide safe
recreation and active play infrastructure.The expected life cycle of each playground/court is roughly 20-25 years.Based on the number of courts and playgrounds in Salt Lake City's inventory,
two to three playgrounds and two to three courts should be funded for replacement each year(an approximately$4.5 to$5 million recurring request).
The General Fund is the only funding source eligible for these project types,unless an expansion of level of service is desired for any court or playground replacement(in which case that part of
the work would be impact fee eligible).
The following is a list of potential parks where courts and/or playground replacement projects could occur with this year's and subsequent years'funding requests,in descending order of priority
(including condition,opportunity,geographic need,and equity criteria).
1.Popperton Park(playground)
2.Wasatch Hollow Park(playground)
3.Sunnyside Park(courts)
4.10th East Senior Center(courts)
5.Riverside Park(courts and playground)
6.Fairmont Park(courts,possibly playground)
7.Warm Springs Park(courts)
Public Lands Courts&Playgrounds $ 3,100,000 8.Westpointe Park(courts and playground)
The bulk of this request($1,250,000)could be partially funded at any dollar amount in order to increase the impact of GO Bond funding.Any partial funding dedicated to this part of the scope
would go towards expanding improvements funded by the GO Bond,specifically in Bend in the River,Modesto Park,and the International Peace Gardens.Planning,design,and immediate
Public Lands Amplifying Our Jordan River Revitalization:Doubling Bond Investment $ 1,500,000 improvements at the International Peace Gardens could also be funded independently at$350,000.
This project could be funded in three separate phases.However,funding more than one phase at a time(in the following order of priority)would ensure better project outcomes,less overlap or
rework,and lower costs.
1.Planning,Design,and Engagement for the RAC and the Rose Park Lane Open Space:Must be completed prior to construction(see#2,below)and is estimated to cost$1,300,000(likely 100%
impact fee eligible).
2.Construction(also known as Phase 1 Construction):Two multi-use fields,walkways,and the northern parking lot in the RAC are estimated to cost$4,100,000(likely 100%impact fee eligible).If
only partial funding is available,this request could be reduced to fund one field($1,750,000 each)and the parking lot and walkways($600,000)for$2,350,000,orjust the parking lot and
walkways for$600,000 as they are essential to facilitating use of any new fields.
Public Lands "Elevating Access':The Regional Athletic Complex's Blueprint for the Future $ 6,250,000 3.Rose Park Lane Trail Reconstruction and Beautification:This part of the scope could be implemented by itself or along with any other phase for$850,000,and is partially impact fee eligible.
No,not very easily.Salt Lake County(a 50/50 funding partner)can only match what the City funds.Due to the County's funding decision occurring between the time of this writing(February
2024)and the City's CIP funding award(August 2024),partial funding by the City would result in only a 33%match,which is at odds with the City's and County's cooperative funding agreement
Public Lands Sugar House Park—Two Pavilion Replacements for the Cost of One $ 960,000 for Sugar House Park.Delays in Salt Lake City's or Salt Lake County's funding would also increase the risk to and costs of this project and future projects.
Yes,although it is not advised as these critical and deferred assets will increase the risk of a costly critical failure and will be more expense to replace in the future due to inflation.The program
could be addressed at the following funding levels:
1.Critical Components—Priority land 2-$1,366,350
2.Critical Components—Priority 1,2,and 3-$2,756,500
Minimum funding needed:$1,366,350
Recommended annual funding:$9,240,000(IFMA National Standard(,we currently recieve$350K ongoing and variable$1.7M to 2.2M through CIP requests,ideally this can also become
Public Services Facilities Replacement and Renewal Plan $ 2,756,500 ongoing,bringing our total to$2,500,000.
Transportation Transportation Corridor Transformations $ 4,600,000 $560,000
Transportation Livable Streets Program $ 3,000,000 See Transportation specific spreadsheet
Transportation Neighborhood Byways Program $ 1,600,000 See Transportation specific spreadsheet
Transportation Safer Crossings Citywide $ 600,000 See Transportation specific spreadsheet
Transportation Traffic Signal Replacement and Upgrades Program $ 2,100,000 See Transportation specific spreadsheet
Transportation Transit Capital Program/Funding Our Future Transit $ 1,500,000 See Transportation specific spreadsheet
Transportation Urban Trails Program $ 1,500,000 See Transportation specific spreadsheet
4A
�\J
Q Q o�Quo Qc Quo Q ce .z Qco C. �e� P� �ep�a `o��a a�Qray yJQQ�°�rec y°Jtc
1 Livable Streets Program(Zone 10-15) ,000,000 $500,000 1 - Average$500,000 per zone;amount varies with zone size,street
1 characteristics,traffic intensity,etc.
i
2 Safer Crossings Citywide $600,000 $300,0001 limited to minor - At current costs,single crossing(HAWK+bulbouts)may cost in
I
treatments excess of the$600,000 being requested.$300,000 would allow
some RRFBs or other less expensive treatments.
i
3 Traffic Signal Replacement and Upgrades Pr $2,700,000 $800,000 i 2 signals Yes. Full funding would help us to retire aged traffic signals closer
to their normal retirement age of 30 years,decreasing
1 maintenance costs and improving safety.This program has been
Ichronically underfunded for over a decade. Need flexibility for
i
11
4 Neighborhood Byways Program $1,600,000 $970,000
Kensington Neighborhood 6A i $1,600,000 $400,000 $400k as match, Pending state TTIF $1,120,000 If pending state grant is received,$400,000 needed for match. If
Byway(700 E crossing) or$1.6 million to FLM;scored#5 no grant,$1,600,000 will enable this crossing to go forward w/
1 proceed without statewide prior Kensington CIP&federal funds. Otherwise this crossing will
I
TTIF award be held until additional funds are received.
800 East Neighborhood 6B i $570,000 $570,000 match or design Pending state TTIF $1,330,000 If pending state grant is received,$570,000 needed for match for
Byway(400 S to 1300 S) FILM;scored#7 design&construction. If not received,$570,000 would go toward
1 statewide(tied) design and/or other citywide.
800 East Neighborhood 6C 1 $480,000 $480,000 If pending state grant is received,$570,000 needed for match for
Byway/1300 South / design&construction. If not received,$570,000 would go toward
Intersection I design and/or other citywide.
Other citywide/ 6D 1 $150,000 Funds to ensure completion of projects listed above and/or to be
contingency used strategically toward design and construction of other
neighborhood byways in Salt Lake City.
I
5 Transit Capital Program/Funding Our Futur $1,500,000 $500,000 Note:FOF Transit UTA matches with generally This project is highly scalable.Partial funding could be used to
1 funding source for shelters and doubles our construct fewer stops and connections. These investments are
this program. amenities investment budget neutral for maintenance,except when custom furnishings
are used,which will be included at key locations as part of FTN
branding. UTA funds the maintenance of the furnishings at
standard bus stops,but will not fund the maintenance of custom
furnishings.
6 Urban Trails Program $1,500,000 $600,000AL
j
I
Sugar House Greenway 8A $450,000 $300,000 State legislature $16,000,000 S-Line Extension under construction in later part of 2024;without
Extension(to accompany S- I earmark,UTA funding UTA will require an ugly chainlink fence to provide a
Line Extension) I funds physical barricade between pedestrians and the train.
Alphabet Trail(along east 8B 1 $500,000 $300,000 Concrete only;no WFRC federal $11,700,000 Complete Streets Ideal construction timing with 1300 East reconstruction in 2025.
0
side of 1300 East,Alphabet I landscaping or grant($8 million), ordinance
Streets area) 0 lights. SLC Bond
The Other Side Village to 8C $500,000 $500,000 design only Construction preparation:Soil testing,design,and permitting for
Orange Street Transit Hub I trail skirting or on top of retired SLC landfill on SLC-owned land
Citywide/contingency 8D $50,000 Funds to ensure completion of projects listed above and/or to be
1 used strategically toward design and construction of other urban
i
trails in Salt Lake City.
L
# y
W2tnen' Break-Ground for Art Ba
I
y 5Ln
-
- t ,. �
� L y
L_
w
SALT LAKE
CITYARB
-
7
C 0 U N C I L
00,
Failing -basement
• • • • • • • floors/walls due to flooding
Improve Accessibility:
2 areas within the Sustainability improvements:
building challenge or LED lighting; historic
prohibit wheelchair preservation
access. • - : habitable
_ employee/constituent il environment
Ubll* c Lands Internal CIP
CDCIP Board Presentation
March 11 , 2024
C I T
Public Lands
Parks I Trails&Natural Lands I Urban Forestry I Golf
Overview
Public Lands Public Lands'approach this year
CAP
Rank Abbreviated Project Name � •
27 (3) Green Loop New Public Asset (Increase LOS) $10,000,000
14 (7) Landscapes, Irrigation, and Water Program $3,250,000
22 (9) Memory Grove Renewal and Replacement $1,910,000
19 (10) Courts &Playgrounds Program $3,100,000
18 (1) Amplifying Our Jordan River Revitalization New Public Asset (Increase LOS) $1,500,000
30 (4) Regional Athletic Complex (RAC) New Public Asset (Increase LOS) $6,250,000
9 (5) Liberty Park Greenhouse Renewal and Replacement $921,700
13 (7) Sugar House Park Pavilion Replacements Renewal and Replacement $960,000
$27,8913700
Green Loop
Public Lands Leveraging investments for implementation
Ask: $10,000,000
Scope: Funding for design and construction for
first section of Green Loop, likely on 200 East.
•.4. Cy
Phasing/Funding:
• $700,000: minimum for federal grant match
• $5,000,000: minimum for design of 5 blocks
• Fully funding request will include some -
a
funds for construction
: LEGEND
GfPDNt OO _Pp -D G-1-1
Community Benefits: J `" """Po �I asEs
51°FfTG
• Increase green space in rapidly densifying °fF-°=°DFUINGG
4CIIVATFD DDWNTOWN
downtownO NTS cnffHsrAcfs ®°k
• Improve active transportation network
• Reduce urban heat island
• Manage stormwater to improve water quality
' Irv • • • • • • •
i
IWO
r +may ` �1C•• _ •�; �`f :. '` ..� '�jy a / ���
11' '� •. � - d �. \� .. fit•-'C i:1 �. �• •�,� j' � '�'T!� !.
• M
r
I��
planted area
Landscapes, Irrigation, and Water
Public Lands Resilient parks for a hotter, drier future; appropriate landscapes, adapting irrigation systems, and reducing water use
Ask: $3,250,000
-AA SOL
Scope: Reducing water use and needs
• New irrigation systems for up to 16 acres,
<2% of Public Lands' irrigated landscapes
• Replace turf with waterwise plant cover ..
Phasing/Funding:
• $500,000: minimum for design and —
construction of approximately 2.5 acres. -
• Replacing irrigation systems costs an
average of $200,000 per acre.
Community Benefits:
• Reduce water use
• Increase biodiversity -���` '��`�.,r• ' _�� '' ' Y
• Protect trees
MemoryGrove
Public Lands Preserving the Historic Legacy of Memory Grove
,1-1 aN— I IG.11
Ask: $1,910,000
Scope: Urgent repairs aligned with a
Preservation & Maintenance Plan
F i �I
Phasing/Funding: v.
• $350,000 (minimum) - $1,750,000 (ideal)
for urgent repairs.
• $160,000 for a Preservation & yy
Sr T S
Maintenance Plan.
y «
Community Benefits: ''
• Drastically improve user experience and _� l IIIIIIIiII
safety.
• Save historic structures, preserving the
legacy of Memory Grove.
N � � Courts & Playgrounds
Public Lands Replacement of aging and failing playgrounds and courts
Ask: $3,100,000
Scope: Replace two existing playgrounds _
and two existing courts.
Phasing/Funding: '^~
T'
• $600,000: minimum partial funding for
one playground.
• $950,000: minimum partial funding for
one court. r ti ------ -
Community Benefits:
• Increase usability and safety.
• Promote increased activity within the
chosen parks. ,� '��:► -. "` = =
WNW
• Improve existing overall asset condition
citywide. "`
Amplifying Our Jordan River Revitalization
IT
Public Lands Doubling GO Bond Investment between Indiana and California Avenues
M
Ask: $1,500,000
Scope: Double Jordan River GO Bond funding in
the most amenity-rich section of the river. Builds :
Emerald Ribbon Action Plan projects. Planning `'sT 4-
design at Int'l Peace Gardens (IPG).
Phasing/Funding: 'f
• Up to $1,250,000: GO Bond funding can be d M
"matched" at any amount to increase its impact.
• $350,000: Funding IPG independently would v
require adding capital investment to scope.
Community Benefits: iL
Improves safety and activation of an area with
a high concentration of green spaces with once-in-
a-generation amounts of funding.
Regional Athletic Complex (RAC
IT
Public Lands Elevating public access and expanding competition capacity: a blueprint for the future
Ask: $6,250,000 - - :
G --
Scope: -
• Reconstruction & landscaping of Rose Park Lane Trail.
Planning and design for Rose Park Lane Open Space
and the 30 remaining, undeveloped acres at the RAC. - T
p
• Phase One Construction, incl. 2 public multiuse fields.
Phasing/Funding:
• $1,300,000: Planning, engagement, and design
• $4,100,000: Phase One construction '
• $850,000: Rose Park Lane Trail
'1
Community Benefits:
Create publicly accessible amenities for the Westpointe r
community (and the broader public) while increasing the j
RAC's revenue-generating potential. Sets stage for ZAP. ` X
Y
� � � Liberty Park Greenhouse
Public Lands Step 4 of a phased greenhouse facility design and reconstruction strategy
Ask: $921,700
Scope:
• Design & construction documents for the - = -
renovation of the Liberty Park Greenhouse.
• Complements constituent app (Phases 3, 4)
Phasing/Funding:
• Phases 1 & 2: Ongoing (funded)
• Phase 3: Concepts/Case Studies ($124,000) ;,..
• Phase 4: This application ($921,700)
• Phase 5: Construction ($TBD)
Community Benefits:
NOR
• Improves existing asset condition.
• Increases public accessibility and City'
operational capacity to beautify public lands.
Su ar House Park Pavilion Replacementsg
Public Lands Two pavilions for the cost of one
Ask: $960,000 _
Scope:
Replace two 50+ year old pavilions {
• 50/50 cost sharing with SL County (through
Sugar House Park Authority) since the 1950s �—, -
Phasing/Funding:
• Because of funding decision timelines, . h.
partially funding the City's request could . _
jeopardize the County's match and timeline.
-
Community Benefits:
• Alleviates safety and accessibility risks.
• Lowers operational costs, provides shade and
gathering space.
• $1,920,000 project value for half the cost --_
Ubll* c Lands Internal CIP
CDCIP Board Presentation
March 11 , 2024
C I T
Public Lands
Parks I Trails&Natural Lands I Urban Forestry I Golf
Minutes 03. 11 .2024
Final Audit Report 2024-04-14
Created: 2024-04-02
By: Rachel Molinari(rachel.molinari@slcgov.com)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAA7gfDzewNFDINOMgK3yaUB6pE2kHgO3a4
"Minutes 03. 11 .2024" History
Document created by Rachel Molinari (rachel.molinari@slcgov.com)
2024-04-02-3:48:59 PM GMT
Document emailed to Jenny Bonk Qpbonk@gmail.com)for signature
2024-04-02-3:49:45 PM GMT
Email viewed by Jenny Bonk Qpbonk@gmail.com)
2024-04-14-8:53:29 PM GMT
Al Document e-signed by Jenny Bonk Qpbonk@gmail.com)
Signature Date:2024-04-14-8:53:50 PM GMT-Time Source:server
Agreement completed.
2024-04-14-8:53:50 PM GMT
y Powered by
Adobe
Acrobat Sign