Loading...
03/18/2024 - Meeting Minutes MINUTES FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BOARD MEETING (CDCIP) Monday, March 18, 2024 S: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—Information Management Services (IMS)Department Michael Fox—Fire Department Jeff Katter,JP Goates, Riley Bird, Cameron Scott—Public Services Lance VanDongen—Police Department Constituents Present No Constituents were present. 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 18, 2024, at 5:06 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. Scoring Matrix Discussion Capital Asset Planning (CAP) Committee Scoring Matrix Discussion: Ms. Molinari presented and described the spreadsheet outlining the Capital Asset Planning (CAP) Scoring Matrix. Ms. Bonk raised concerns regarding the time required to complete the spreadsheet and suggested prepopulating more scores to streamline the Board Members' scoring process. Ms. Molinari stated that aggregating the average score from the CAP Committee was possible if the Board approved. Mr. Murphy suggested consolidating all scoring into one file, prompting Ms. Bonk to advocate for condensing the scoring into fewer tabs. Mr. Price proposed combining the scoring into a single spreadsheet with a summary tab encompassing all projects. Additionally, Mr. Murphy inquired about the composition of the CAP Committee,to which Ms. Molinari directed him to the description provided in the CAP Memo for their reference. The full matrix is attached. D. Questions &Discussion on Proposed CIP Projects PowerPoint slides for all the applications presented in the meeting are attached for reference. Internal Fire Applications: Fire Training Grounds Site Improvements Mr. Fox described the application for the Board. Ms. Schaefer asked about the training grounds and how unique they were to the state. Mr. Fox replied that the seven-story tower equipped with diverse training areas was unique within Utah and other cities visit the site to train. Mr. Skog then raised the question of whether other cities were charged for the use of the tower. Mr. Fox confirmed there was a fee for other cities'recruits to train at the location. He emphasized the collaborative spirit among the different municipalities, and it was in Salt Lake City's best interest that all cities' recruits were trained to the same standards. Ms. Gregori raised the question about training standards changing over time. Mr. Fox explained that the National Fire Protection Agency set the standard for firefighters, and they do occasionally change. He noted that in Salt Lake City, they not only adhere to but also exceed these standards in their training protocols. Ms. Schaefer sought clarification on whether meeting the necessary training standards was still feasible without the approval of the application. Mr. Fox confirmed that meeting the standards remained achievable,but the requested upgrades would enhance the process and allow more realistic training scenarios. Mr. Skog inquired if recommending this application for funding would allow more recruits to be trained. Mr. Fox said that it would and due to the needs of the City, they were looking to add a third recruit school. Stabilize the Fire Training Tower Deterioration Mr. Bird and Mr. Fox described the application for the Board. Ms. Bonk inquired if actual fires were set at the building for training scenarios. Mr. Fox explained that they do have a burn control room and a computer-operated system that would allow controlled gas fires. Mr. Murphy asked about the photos included in the application materials showing external deterioration of the building and whether there was interior deterioration as well. Mr. Fox said there was but not to the same extent as the exterior. Ms. Steed wondered if the training activities, including the simulation of various fires and the use of equipment, were accelerating the ongoing deterioration of the facility. Mr. Fox acknowledged that the utilization of different fires in the controlled burn room did lead to additional wear on the concrete. He elaborated on the diverse range of training scenarios practiced within the facility, emphasizing its multi-use nature and the necessity of accommodating various training needs. Mr. Skog asked if other agencies and municipalities should be contributing to the restoration of the tower. Mr. Fox stated that the Fire Department did not own the facility and so he did not know if the City could recoup some of the costs from additional users. Internal Police Applications: SW Public Safety Building(Police Occupancy)Remodels Mr. VanDongen described the application for the Board. Mr. Christensen inquired if the requested funding was to fix normal wear and tear on the building or was it solely for expansion. Mr. VanDongen stated that it was for expansion as needs for the City have changed. He then explained that there were six components to the project making it highly scalable. Drop Arm Gate to the Rear Parking Lot at PSB Mr. VanDongen described the application for the Board. Mr. Skog asked about the measures being taken regarding residents who were parking improperly at the facility. Mr. VanDongen noted that vehicles parked on the street received tickets. He mentioned a different approach for the Public Safety Parking Lot, where towing was avoided, and instead, they initiated dialogue with residential building owners. Despite these efforts, Mr. VanDongen acknowledged that the outcomes of these discussions fell short of expectations. Ms. Schaefer mentioned that she often visited the building and had noticed the decline in available parking. She asked if the parking gate would have an attendant or if it would use a validation system. Mr. VanDongen clarified that the system would entail visitors approaching the gate intercom and stating their purpose, with no charge for parking. Mr. VanDongen disclosed that the wiring for the gate was inadvertently damaged during the construction of the neighboring residential building. Mr. Murphy queried the possibility of holding the residential owners accountable for the wiring damage. Mr. Goates clarified that the City was unaware of the damage until after the completion of the units. He stated that it was difficult to ascertain whether the damage was caused by the builders or the City, making it challenging to assign responsibility. Police Department Training Center Mr. VanDongen described the application for the Board. Ms. Bonk asked if there would be public engagement with the feasibility study. Mr. VanDongen stated that there would be as part of the final project would include the acquisition of public property. Mr. Skog inquired about the growing population and what determined the need to hire more police officers. Mr. Vandongen explained that there was a model that was used to determine the number of police officers recommended per number of residents. He then stated that the upcoming 2034 Olympics would also require the hiring and training of additional officers. Mr. Christensen asked for clarification on whether the new Training Center would be at the current location or a new site. Mr. VanDongen explained that the current location was not suitable for the Police Department's needs or for expansion. Ms. Schaefer raised concerns about the expanding population and the need for additional officers funded by increasing tax revenue. Mr. VanDongen clarified that while there was a budget increase, the current facility fell short in meeting the augmented training requirements. He further explained that the Department hired 50 to 70 officers annually, each requiring extensive training before assuming public service duties. In a subsequent inquiry, Ms. Schaefer addressed the substantial growth in Utah and asked whether alternative funding sources beyond the Capital Improvement Program(CIP) would be necessary to address the Department's needs. Mr. VanDongen responded that the CIP application would cover the costs of a feasibility study aimed at determining future requirements. Mr. Skog asked if a preferred site had been identified for the future Training Center. Mr. VanDongen stated that part of the feasibility study would be to identify a suitable location. Internal Public Service Applications: PSB EV Charging Phase I & 2 Mr. Katter described the application for the Board. Ms. Gregori raised a question regarding the potential expansion of electric vehicles within the City's fleet and sought clarification on measures to prevent similar challenges in the future. Mr. Katter said that the requested funding would facilitate the establishment of required infrastructure in the event of a transition to a 100% electric fleet and that individual chargers would be installed later. Ms. Schaefer inquired on what measures were in place to ensure all vehicles remained adequately charged. Mr. VanDongen highlighted the challenge faced by drivers, who strategically relocate vehicles once charged to allow others access to the chargers. He noted the practice of individuals charging vehicles at their residences to ease the burden of charging at the public facilities. Ms. Schechinger asked about the potential integration of solar panels as the electric vehicle fleet expanded. Mr. Katter acknowledged the consideration of solar panels but noted the significant electricity demand of these vehicles,particularly during daytime operation when solar panels would be most effective. Plaza 349 HVAC Improvements—Phase 1 Mr. Scott described the application for the Board. Ms. Bonk inquired about what would happen to the IMS servers if the HVAC system were to go down. Mr. Scott stated that the servers had a separate HVAC system, and that the proposal was for the one that served City employees. Mr. Skog asked about the age of the building and if it would make sense to build something new. Mr. Scott replied that there was a current study identifying the age of assets and their remaining useful life. Mr. Christensen pondered whether the building's HVAC system warranted redesign due to its recurring issues. Mr. Scott noted that the building has consistently been too hot throughout his tenure with the City. Plaza 349 EV Charging Phase 1 & 2 Mr. Katter described the application for the Board. Mr. Murphy asked if City employees currently took work vehicles home to charge. Mr. Katter replied that most of the vehicles remained at the building overnight and that during the day, employees used other chargers at various locations throughout the city to keep the vehicles charged. He explained that a study had been conducted to ensure the proper chargers would be installed at Plaza 349. HVAC Control Replacement at PSB Mr. Katter described the application for the Board. Mr. Christensen raised the question of replacing the HVAC Control and what would mitigate future replacement needs. Mr. Katter emphasized that while aging components inevitably required replacement, the Department was transitioning to a new company that would provide ongoing support and updates for the devices, reducing the frequency of replacements. Ms. Steed inquired why this system was different from the ones used in other facilities. Mr. Katter clarified that historically, they had favored employing two separate vendors and the vendor responsible for the current system, which was also utilized by the Airport, exhibited poor responsiveness. He explained that technicians took months to address and resolve issues, prompting the need to switch. Mr. Murphy asked if there was a risk of individuals hacking into the current system. Mr. Katter said that the new system would be cloud-based, providing enhanced control, security, and performance capabilities. Facilities Replacement&Renewal Plan Mr. Katter described the application for the Board. Ms. Bonk questioned what method or system the City used to track and decide what facilities were in most need of repair. Mr. Katter said a program called Cartegraph Asset Management was used to help track assets and the work that was performed on them. Ms. Schaefer sought clarification on whether the Facilities Replacement and Renewal Plan was an annual request and asked for information regarding past funding history. Mr. Katter confirmed that it was an ongoing request with consistent funding allocated to support necessary maintenance and improvements. Mr. Murphy asked about factors determining if a project was managed by Public Services or Public Lands. Mr. Katter explained that Public Services typically worked on the buildings or facilities themselves and that Public Lands worked on the grounds around the buildings. Mr. Skog inquired about Cartegraph and its utilization. Mr. Katter explained that the Department recently completed an inventory of all City-owned building assets and the Cartegraph software helped track the assets along with their respective buildings. Mr. Skog queried whether the software facilitated forecasting future needs. Mr. Katter said that algorithms were used to help predict future funding requirements. E. Overview and Expectations of next Meeting Ms. Molinari said that the next meeting would take place on Monday, March 25, 2024, covering the Internal Engineering & Transportation related projects. She stated that the next meeting would follow the same meeting structure. F. Approval of the Minutes Mr. Murphy made a motion to approve the minutes from February 26, 2024. Ms. Schaefer seconded the motion. Upon roll call the minutes were approved. G. Adiournment There being no further business. Mr. Murphy made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Skog seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:11 pm. XJenny Bonk(Sep 4,202418:55 MDT) CDCIP Board Chair This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the CDCIP Board meeting held March 18, 2024. Decision Tree with Weighted Scores INTERNAL APPLICATION Y N Score Reference Question FY25 App Step Existing AssetY/N Step3 0 Question#10 City Determined Score 0 COUP Board Determined Score Step 2 Critical Failure Category 1 Step 3 0 Question#12 0 Total Score Legal/Contractual Obligation Category 1 Step 3 0 Question#21 Step Scoring Criteria Scoring Scale(0-5) Weight Max Score 1 Critical Failure Category 2 or 3 2 0 Question#12 2 Legal/Contractual Obligation Category2 1 0 Question#21 3 Risk:Life,Health&Safety 2 0 Question#21 4 Includes Outside Funding 1 0 Question#17 5 Project Phase(further along scores higher) 1 0 Question#11 6 Promote Equity 1.5 0 Question#18,19,20 71 Resiliency 1.5 0 Question#2 8 Sustainability 1 0 Question#22 9 Reduce Cost/Increase Investment 1.5 0 Question#16,21 10 One City Approach 1 0 Question#16 11 Workforce Support 1 0 Question#2 0 Decision Tree with Weighted Scores CONSTITUENT APPLICATION Reference Question FY25 Y N Score App Step Existing AssetY/N Step 0 Question#14 City Determined Score 0 CDCIP Board Determined Score Step 2 Critical Failure Category 1 Step 3 0 Question#16 0 Total Score Legal/Contractual Obligation Category 1 Step 3 0 Question#31 Step Scoring Criteria Scoring Scale(0-5) Weight Max Score 1 Critical Failure Category 2 or 3 2 0 Question#16 2 Legal/Contractual Obligation Category 2 1 0 Question#31 3 Risk:Life,Health&Safety 2 0 Question#20,31,35 4 Includes Outside Funding 1 0 Question#23 5 Project Phase(further along scores higher) 1 0 Question#15 6 Promote Equity 1.5 0 Question#26,27,28,29 7 Resiliency 1.5 0 Question#1 8 Sustainability 1 0 Question#32 9 Reduce Cost/Increase Investment 1.5 0 Question#22,31 10 Community Benefit 1 0 Question#29,30 11 Community Support 1 0 Question#25 0 till Ao 40 NMI` W ,e CIP SUBMISSIONS v � PUBLIC • 7847 Q Q�,RFse � G - m T FIRE DEPARTMENT SUBMISSIONS r9 _ _ ■ Rank 24 of 32 Fire Training Grounds Site Improvements _.� 1600 South Industrial Rd. Salt Lake City, UT 84104 s Use: The SLC FD runs multiple training academies a year, training both SLC and other fire agencies personnel. We also use the traininggrounds for ongoing training - of our current workforce, other departments, and community classes (CERT, Camp Athena, Camp Promethius). For many people this is their first introduction to SLC -- FD. �ooao o�oaooaa o� oe Issue: The fire training ground site has 45,000 square feet of underutilized/non- - - —a usable space. It is also difficult to secure, leadingto break-ins and theft. This funding = would be the third phase of revitalizingthe training grounds, providing more usable i space, security, and improvements to our protective equipment cleaning room. '6mw n Condition of Project: The grounds are in deteriorated and in some cases unusable shape. :' Impact of Deferral: Increase cost to be able to access the full potential of a E r 'A 1 approximately one third of the training ground. '�`� ' -�► Project Cost: $ 1,410,249 � ••4:.� � Partial Funding/Phased: Eligible to be phased, requested full funding. ��. ML _ Salt lake City Fire Department-Training[enter Rank 1 of 32 Stabilize the Fire Trainin Tower Deterioration 1600 South Industrial Rd. Salt Lake City, UT 84104 Core Sampe Spall Q Crack —� bp.s Rebar — ar. -190^c,&,d concrete. '50 e.pDwd rebar. r 195^spageGonttete. Issue: The fire trainin tower requires immediate attention due to g ``°J03jF significant deterioration, including spal led concrete, rebar corrosion, WEST a x.',` E:✓ HOWIN CENTERDAMAGE and cracks, necessitatin essential re airs and waterproofing l -j• ``' TRAINING CENTER g p I Rd measures to ensure structural integrity and safety for training purposes. i Condition of Project: Poor, actively deteriorating. . ; Impact of Deferral: Increased deterioration, increased repair costs, law `z possible injuries due to spalling concrete, and the tower becoming �., unusable due to safety concerns. Project Cost: 858,778.88 ° y== Partial Funding/Phased: Not eligible i .. ��, 4 • Rank 25 of 32 PSB EV Charging Phase f 1 2 Saills ly Pugfo & _ a:ldaa - W-F ,- 475 S 300 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 ilk INr �TExisting Utility Switch ®Pre-Existing L2 Chargers Private Access Gate Issue: The Mayor's commitment t o sustainable transportation F_1 Proposed Utility Transformer Phase t L2 Chargers — Public Access requires us to meet the evolving needs of our expanding EV fleet. We ® Proposed SES m Phase 2 L2 Chargers ——Proposed Conduit Routing 0 ProposedLo.Panel 'F — 'hase3L2 h ers g u Conduit Stub Up Locationseek to upgrade the charging infrastructure at the Salt Lake City Public Safety Building. This involves instal ling 20 new Level 2 charger �' '� " — r• ports, upgrading 10 existing ones, and installing a new utility transformer to efficiently serve a fleet of 50 emergency vehicles. Condition of Project: Not enough chargers to meet current demand. ;011,1. Impact of Deferral: Increased costs and inabilityto chargethe fleet. oo Project Cost: $874,382.00 -------------_.— Partial Funding/Phased: Eligibleto be phased, requested funding ' ��12�. • � U for 2 of 3 phases. �`=WE _ p�f Rn . Rank 31 of 32 - - - Public Safety Building (Police Occupancy) Remodels 475 S 300 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Issue: Renovate 6 spaces includes: 2251 , 2412, 2214, and 2263 on the second floor, room 3445 on the third floor, and room 4621 on the fourth floor. Tasks includeflooring removal and installation, millwork adjustments, and cabinetry finishing, all executed - - with precision. The extensive remodel aims to facilitate both immediate function and future growth. Condition of Project: Not enough space for current rand future occupancy. A0 - - Impact of Deferral: Increased costs, lack of space. Project Cost: $650,000 Partial Funding/Phased: Eligibleto be phased. P Library Station 400 South Rank 32 of 32 NCH Drop Arm Gate to the , People's Way m « W MAd W Rear ParkingLot at PSB - 475 S 300 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Issue: Persistent occupancy by apartment tenants despite ongoing efforts to address the issue. Installing a cost-effective drop arm offers an efficient solution to regulate access, effectively managing entry and exit to mitigate the current occupancy challenges. Moreover, the trenching required to power the arm presents an opportunity to address the restoration of cameras and lights whose lines were cut during construction. _ -�--- Condition of Project: Cameras and lighting have no power and parking - - lot frequently occupied by guests and tenants from nearby apartments, resulting in limited parking availability for PSB users. A _ -. o Impact of Deferral: Prolonged unauthorized parking issues and prevention of the restoration of essential lighting and camera surveillance disrupted during apartment construction. a o Project Cost: $50,000.00 '; ,�_ Partial Funding/Phased: Not eligible to be phased. ^ � 0 0 -93 APARTMENTS w Rank 20 of 32 -1 Police Department Training Center _ 635 W 700 S, Salt I a ke Cite I IT RA 1 nA ' • • Use: The police training facility is crucial for various exercises like tactical drills, firearms training, and professional development, ensuring officers are well-prepared for their duties. Without adequate facilities, recruiting w ! and hiring qualified officers could halt. Issue: In response to the FCA findings, the second phase of will consist of conducting a crucial feasibility study for a new training facility to address the anticipated surge in demand on SLCPD due to projected population growth and development, emphasizing the necessity of adequately training ' • • first responders to ensure community safety. Condition of Project: Poor - amenities not suitable for need, location does J not allow for growth. Impact of Deferral: Increased deterioration and relocation costs Project Cost: $250,000 Partial Funding/Phased: Eligible; This is the second phase \s �, tic. Y-'.•I 11,0000 amh_ s� —fit jl•• • ,•-r�l �' ►-��r: '® �,I E •et.•�e'� .. PUBLIC SERVICES SUBMISSIONS Rank 7 of 32 © �Vvnd eo Plaza 349 HVAC 0DM ogflOM2 Improvements = Phase05 a 349 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Issue: A 2019 study pinpointed areas for improvement and Facilities has identified key assets like the HVAC system, plumbing, and parking tqj,z1:. structure. Seeking funding for the initial phase, which encompasses potential plumbing improvements, HVAC design, and key HVAC assets. - _: „ Condition of Project: Poor - Average Estimated OCI of HVAC ` 3 Components is 15.37 Impact of Deferral: Increased repair costs, increased remediation a _ Project Cost: $2,200,000 QJAIN C O Partial Funding/Phased: Eligibleto be phased a . Rank 29 of 32 P*1A6M00A2 SES-EV-1 08V 30 Plaza 349 EV Charging 500kVA Utility-- T Transformer �� Phase 1 and 2 �P Plaza 349 j Building Parking Garage 349 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 ':arassati. .. 1 Issue: Installing 20 new Level 2 charger ports and upgrading 4 Public access :Phase 2 Dual Port L2 Charger . Proposed SES existing ports within t h e garage, currently accommodating 3 8 fleet Existing Utility Transformer Phase 3 Dual Port L2 Charger --Proposed Conduit Routing ' Proposed Utility Transformer --Proposed Utility Extension V Proposed UtilitySwitch vehicles. Initial funding supports the first two phases, including a new utility switching cabinet and transformer strategically positioned to enhance EV charging efficiency. This aligns with our commitment to - sustainable transportation and positions our city as a leader in '1- accommodating EV fleet growth. Condition of Project: Not enough chargers to meet current demand. � - Impact of Deferral: Increased costs and inability to charge the fleet. UA 0 r Project Cost: $601 ,879.00 . . Partial Funding/Phased: Eligibleto be phased, requested funding for 2 of 3 phases. T� 'J Rank 6 of 32 EmUmaud End HVAC Control (0 HN ToiF HYaC Replacement at PSB C�OCn��Ct'OO �� 475 S 0 E, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 0 O a0 6 � Issue: At the Public Safety Building, outdated Microsoft servers and an obsolete Siemens Apogee system pose risks to operational efficiency and public safety. We propose a holistic upgrade strategy, transitioning to Utah Yamas Controls. This includes upgrading the City's EBO platform, advanced automation servers, modernizing building systems, replacing temperature sensors, and deploying new communication wiring. These .� •- �_T upgrades aim to enhance reliability, security, and resilience, safeguarding personnel and the community. Increased energy efficiency. Condition of Project: Serious and failed r Impact of Deferral: Increased costs, prolong vulnerabilities in operational efficiency and public safety. Project Cost: $1 ,300,000 �� ��,� .,+ Partial Funding/Phased: Not eligible Rank 11 of 32 s Facilities Re lacement � � & Renewal Plan Citywide, Salt Lake City, U .y CITY HALL FOUNTAINS Issue: Strategically manage the backlog of deferred assets by - categorizing and prioritizing them based on criticality. This involves ' a dividing the backlog into three equal parts annually and proactively addressing 50% of incoming deferred assets to prevent accumulation, ensuring efficient resource allocation and sustained facility enhancement. � SEXTON HOUSE Condition of Project: Deferred assets indicate imminent failure; making planned replacements cheaperthan emergency repairs. + Impact of Deferral: Increased replacement cost, increased risk of asset failures, inefficient resource allocation, and hindered facility enhancement efforts over time. Project Cost: $2,756,500 Partial Funding/Phased: Eligible LIBRARY SQUARE BOILER ROOM w ik a .e 11 f Thank you! a`AK��; PUBLIC 202A Facilities "• •` SERVICES Old CDCIP Board Meeting Minutes 3. 18.24 Final Audit Report 2024-09-05 Created: 2024-09-03 By: Rachel Molinari(Rachel.Molinari@slc.gov) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAVw_Vw48h5rrlSbWjHtTWbyTQuL088hhN "Old CDCIP Board Meeting Minutes 3. 18.24" History Document created by Rachel Molinari (Rachel.Molinari@slc.gov) 2024-09-03-6:02:04 PM GMT Document emailed to Jenny Bonk Qpbonk@gmail.com)for signature 2024-09-03-6:04:06 PM GMT Email viewed by Jenny Bonk Qpbonk@gmail.com) 2024-09-05-0:55:23 AM GMT Al Document e-signed by Jenny Bonk Qpbonk@gmail.com) Signature Date:2024-09-05-0:55:44 AM GMT-Time Source:server Agreement completed. 2024-09-05-0:55:44 AM GMT y Powered by Adobe Acrobat Sign