03/25/2024 - Meeting Minutes MINUTES
FROM THE
COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS
BOARD MEETING (CDCIP)
Monday, March 25, 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
Mark Stephens, Chris Norlem—Engineering Division
JP Goates—Public Services
Jon Larsen, Becka Roolf—Transportation Division
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
Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP)Board Scoring
Matrix Discussion:
Ms. Molinari presented and explained the new CDCIP Board Scoring Matrix spreadsheet. Ms.
Gregori and Ms. Bonk expressed appreciation for the redesigned layout, finding it more user-
friendly. Ms. Bonk suggested allowing more time for completing the scoring in the future. Ms.
Molinari acknowledged the budget timeline constraints and requested that the spreadsheets be
completed and returned by March 28, 2024.
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 Engineering Applications:
Complete Streets Reconstruction 2025
Mr. Stephens described the application for the Board.
Mr. Christensen inquired about how the safety of the roads was determined and if slower traffic
helped with safety. Mr. Stephens stated that traffic calming measures, and slower speeds are
indeed safer,but he referred to the 0 to 100 scoring for roads and any with a score of 40 or lower
were more difficult to repair and less safe. He then explained how lack of funding for repairs
would lead to increased road degradation and more streets that would need full replacement in
the future.
Mr. Skog inquired about the streets listed on the application requiring full road reconstruction
and whether this encompassed new curbs and gutters. Mr. Stephens clarified that for cost-
efficiency, sidewalks and gutters in good condition would not be replaced, but any that showed
signs of deterioration and hindered proper drainage would be addressed alongside the roadway
reconstruction process.
In a subsequent query, Mr. Skog sought insights into the typical lifespan of a street and whether
hired contractors offered warrantees for their work. Mr. Stephens indicated that asphalt streets
generally lasted 30 to 40 years, with concrete enduring even longer if adequately maintained. He
further noted a three-year warranty period following the completion of the contractor's work.
Ms. Bonk inquired about the roads slated for replacement and the reasons behind the backlog.
Mr. Stephens stated that insufficient funding had resulted in deferred maintenance, accelerating
the deterioration of roadways. He highlighted the pivotal role of the General Obligation(GO)
Bond approved by voters in 2018 yet emphasized the ongoing necessity for investment.
Ms. Bonk asked whether a plan existed to address the backlog of essential street repairs. Mr.
Stephens disclosed the Engineering Division's exploration of alternative funding avenues,
including potential additional Federal investment. Mr. Goates outlined the City's utilization of
advanced technology enabling the identification of rapidly deteriorating streets and determining
optimal maintenance strategies for extending roadway longevity.
Mr. Christensen raised a question regarding the cost of replacing roadways and if wider streets
cost more. Mr. Stephens stated that there was usually a price per square foot or per square yard.
Mr. Skog asked if last year's application for roadway reconstruction was funded. Ms. Molinari
stated that a total of$4.5 Million was requested and approved.
Complete Streets Overlay 2025
Mr. Stephens described the application for the Board.
Mr. Christensen sought information on the extended lifespan of a roadway after an overlay. Mr.
Stephens clarified that the duration would vary based on the condition of the road's base,but
typically, it would add five to ten years to its lifespan.
Mr. Christensen then inquired about different types of roadway repairs and maintenance. Mr.
Stephens proceeded to describe the many maintenance practices employed across the City's
streets.
Ms. Steed raised concerns regarding the extensive snow and moisture experienced last year and
its repercussions on the streets. Mr. Stephens acknowledged that snow and moisture accelerated
the degradation of roadways. He stated that Engineering utilizes models to forecast which streets
would require the most attention and maintenance.
700 South (Phase 7, 4600 West to 5000 West)Additional Funding
Ms. Steed asked about the different phases of the project and when the last phase was funded and
completed. Mr. Stephens said that phase six of seven was completed in 2021 and that the current
funding request was to complete phase seven.
Mr. Murphy inquired about the comparative costs of asphalt and concrete. Mr. Stephens
responded that for a complete reconstruction, asphalt typically costs around $150 per square
yard,while concrete came at a slightly higher price point but boasted a longer lifespan.
Mr. Murphy sought clarification on whether the funding request pertained to the roadway alone
or encompassed water mains and other infrastructure. Mr. Stephens affirmed that the request was
primarily aimed at widening the roadway and addressing additional infrastructure needs.
Ms. Steed brought up the issue of multiple requests from constituents for a specific area of the
city. Mr. Norlem elaborated, stating that the area in question served as a crucial connection for
several miles of roadway. He highlighted numerous complaints concerning railroad tracks and
crossings that caused delays in travel, including delays of emergency vehicles.
400 South Jordan River Bridge Reconstruction
Mr. Stephens described the application for the Board.
Ms. Schechinger inquired about the distinction between repairing and replacing a bridge. Mr.
Stephens described the detrimental effects of water seepage into concrete and outlined the
available repair options. He explained that it eventually reached a threshold where the extent of
damage made it more practical to replace the entire bridge structure.
Mr. Christensen asked whether bridge repair and replacement adhered to a similar approach as
the Complete Streets application, where considerations like sidewalks and drainage were
integrated into planning and construction. Mr. Stephens elaborated on the design process for
bridges, mentioning the inclusion of sidewalks or bike lanes during construction. He also
discussed collaboration with other City Departments to synchronize projects, ensuring
economies of scale and comprehensive infrastructure development upon project completion.
Public Way Concrete 2025
Mr. Norlem described the application for the Board.
Ms. Steed raised the question about the number of sidewalks needing repair and upgrades, and
how many could be addressed with the requested funding. Mr.Norlem disclosed a backlog of
approximately 450 sidewalks requiring various forms of attention. He explained that depending
on the nature of repairs needed, they could feasibly address approximately 150 to 200 sidewalks
per year.
Mr. Skog inquired about the process of identifying sidewalks in need of repair, asking whether
there was a database tracking their condition or if repairs were conducted reactively. Mr. Norlem
clarified that the approach leaned more towards being reactionary, with sidewalks typically
identified through inspections or as part of concurrent projects in the same vicinity.
Ms. Gregori asked about the prioritization process for sidewalk repairs. Mr. Norlem highlighted
the map displayed in the presentation(attached), explaining that they strive to address one cluster
of repairs at a time to optimize cost-effectiveness and maximize the utilization of approved
funding. He further noted that they abstain from working on areas undergoing other types of
construction, as those sidewalks were typically addressed as part of the broader project. Mr.
Stephens supplemented by mentioning the Division's efforts to distribute work across various
districts to ensure equitable treatment.
Mr. Murphy inquired about similar constituent applications and whether their denial would
prioritize the repair or replacement of sidewalks within the city. Mr. Stephens clarified that such
requests were routinely queued with others unless the sidewalk presented a significant hazard.
He further elaborated that the backlog, exacerbated by the 2020 windstorm's impact on city
walkways set the City's repair schedule back by two years.
Alley Improvements 2025
Mr. Stephens described the application for the Board.
Mr. Murphy raised a question regarding three constituent applications concerning alleyways and
their position in the City's assessment. Mr. Stephens clarified that while the City had not
established a formal ranking system for alleyways, they had been evaluated and assigned scores.
Mr. Murphy then sought information on the potential number of alleyways that would undergo
improvement if the requested funding were approved. Mr. Stephens clarified that the City doesn't
undertake surface or subsurface draining installations for alleyways, estimating that the funding
would likely facilitate repaving for approximately six or seven different alleyways.
Mr. Christensen inquired about residential construction and whether developers were responsible
for any alleyway improvements connected to their projects. Mr. Stephens stated that he was not
aware of any existing requirements for developers to make improvements.
Internal Transportation Applications:
Tra rc Signal Replacement and Upgrades Program
Mr. Larsen described the application for the Board.
Mr. Murphy sought clarification on the cost disparity between a full traffic signal replacement,
priced at approximately $400K, and a HAWK signal, which was quoted at $500K in the
constituent applications. Ms. Roolf explained that the discrepancy stemmed from the bids the
City received for these projects. She elaborated that a HAWK signal often entails additional curb
reconstruction, thereby contributing to the higher overall cost.
Safer Crossings Citywide
Mr. Larsen described the application for the Board.
Mr. Skog inquired about the raised islands constructed in numerous crossings and queried who
was tasked with snow removal and general maintenance at those locations. Mr. Larsen clarified
that such duties fell under the jurisdiction of the Streets Division. He further noted ongoing
discussions to ensure adequate funding for those responsibilities.
Transit Capital Program/Funding Our Future Transit
Mr. Larsen described the application for the Board.
Mr. Murphy asked what Funding our Future (FOF) was. Ms. Molinari explained that it was a
funding source and would be explained in more detail next week with the other available funding
sources.
Mr. Murphy raised a question about the constituent application concerning bus stop
improvements along Route 209, its placement on the City's priority list and the implications if
the application were not approved. Mr. Larsen indicated that Route 209 held a prominent
position on the City's priority list. He explained that if that application were not approved,part of
Transit Capital Program funding would likely be allocated to Route 209.
Mr. Christensen sought information regarding the match requirements necessary to secure
Federal funding. Mr. Larsen clarified that the match requirement was only 7%. Ms. Roolf
interjected, noting that the requested amount in the application exceeded the minimum required
for the Federal match. She emphasized that this surplus would enable additional improvements in
the future.
Mr. Murphy inquired about the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) and their ability to alter bus stops
at their discretion. Mr. Larsen responded by highlighting that installing Americans with
Disabilities Act(ADA) compliant cement pads would enhance the permanence of specific stops.
He noted the strong working relationship between the City and UTA.
Mr. Skog asked whether many of the existing bus stops were established before certain ADA
requirements were implemented, thus explaining their current lack of ADA compliance. Mr.
Larsen affirmed this observation, acknowledging that many bus stops were established prior to
the implementation of ADA standards.
Neighborhood Byways Program
Mr. Larsen and Ms. Roolf described the application for the Board.
Mr. Skog raised a question about 700 East being designated as a Utah Department of
Transportation(UDOT)right of way and inquired about the potential build-out at that location.
Mr. Larsen said that they have been collaborating with UDOT on a design, which was nearing
completion. Additionally, he mentioned a separate State-funded project along 700 East,
emphasizing that both projects would be integrated. Mr. Skog asked if a HAWK signal was part
of the design. Mr. Larsen confirmed that it was.
Livable Streets Proms
Mr. Larsen described the application for the Board.
Mr. Murphy inquired about the number of zones mentioned in the presentation(attached),
expressing concern that completing five zones per year would take over 20 years. Mr. Larsen
clarified that the size and requirements of each zone varied. He elaborated that some zones had
already undergone partial work,potentially reducing the scope of future projects. Furthermore,
Mr. Larsen expressed a desire for increased funding to address more zones annually. Ms. Roolf
added that the transportation network for the City was complex and explained the Transportation
Division's role in future planning.
Mr. Skog asked if traffic calming measures also contributed to extending the lifespan of a
roadway. Mr. Larsen responded that while such measures might deter heavier vehicles from
using those streets, their impact on the overall lifespan of the road would likely be minimal.
Following up, Mr. Skog inquired about how the most suitable traffic calming measures for each
zone were determined. Mr. Larsen explained that there were approximately 15 different calming
measures available, each with its own set of advantages, disadvantages, and associated costs. He
continued by stating that a comprehensive study had been conducted for each zone to identify the
most effective measures, while also considering input from the local neighborhoods.
Transportation Corridor Transformations Proms
Mr. Larsen described the application for the Board.
Mr. Skog inquired about certain areas controlled by UDOT and their integration into the broader
plan. Ms. Roolf discussed the collaborative efforts with UDOT, emphasizing the coordination to
develop their controlled areas alongside the City's initiatives.
Urban Trails Program
Mr. Larsen described the application for the Board.
Mr. Skog asked about the completed trails and their maintenance, specifically regarding snow
removal. Mr. Larsen clarified that the responsibility for snow removal and maintenance fell
under the purview of the Public Lands Department.
E. Overview and Expectations of next Meeting
Ms. Molinari said that the next meeting would take place on Monday, April 1, 2024, covering the
funding phase of the application process. Mr. Atkinson emphasized the importance of returning
the scoring matrix by March 28, 2024, to facilitate preparations for the funding phase. Ms. Bonk
requested two or three scenarios where funding could be allocated based on the scoring from the
Board. Mr. Atkinson agreed to the scenarios outlining funding allocations based on the Board's
scoring, ensuring they would be ready for discussion at the upcoming meeting.
F. Approval of the Minutes
Ms. Gregori made a motion to approve the minutes from March 4, 2024. Mr. Christensen
seconded the motion. Upon roll call the minutes were approved.
G. Adiournment
There being no further business. Mr. Skog made a motion to adjourn. Ms. Gregori seconded the
motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:09 pm.
x
znny Bonk(Sep MDT)
CDCIP Board Chair
This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the
CDCIP Board meeting held March 25, 2024.
iw\
N
�y A!,•� 3,,.. 3� v t' � `mac�?t_ '�:""�
CIP SUBMISSIONS PUBLIC
ENGINEERING DIVISION 1 2024-2025 SERVICES
Pavement Background
OCI (Overall Condition Index) serves as a decision-guiding factor, rating road conditions on a scale
from 0 (failed) to 100 (best).
Theoretical Deterioration Curve
�00
Treatment Type New OCI*
Ideal Roadway Preventive
Patch & Crack Seal +10 Maintenance
$, Conditions
e = � Slurry Seal +10 O
x p
o
„ �,- . Chip Seal +20
Preservation
0
($$)
2" Inlay Fixed 98
o Life Performance Curve x"` 3° Overlay Fixed 98
U y Y Rehabilitation
Surface
0) Fixed 100
> Reconstruction
Older Roads Deteriorate FASTER
• • Fixed 100 Reconstruction
($$$$)
20 40
Years in Service
*New OCI post-treatment type
Complete Streets Reconstruction 2025
Rank 3 of
Description: This annual program funds the vital reconstruction of
deteriorated City streets, including street pavement, curb and gutter, :
sidewalk, drainage improvements as necessary, and appropriate
complete streets bicycle and pedestrian access improvements.
Potential Street Improvements Construction Projects 2025
Impact of Deferral: Poses immediate risks, also compounds long-term
challenges, affecting safety, property values, community well-being, • 1300 East(2100 South to southern city border)
environmental sustainability, and higher project costs due to • 600/700 North (800 West to Redwood Road)
degradation and inflation. • Garnette Circle (Garnette Street to Cul-de-Sac End)
• Nebula Way(Silver Star Drive to Terminus End)
500 000 • Emily Circle (800 North to Terminus End)
Funding Request: $4,
• Goodwin Circle (Garnette Street to Cul-de-Sac End)
Partial Funding: Eligible ible but not advised • Irving Street(800 North to Cul-de-Sac End)
• Van Ness Place (400 East to Terminus End)
Recommended Annual: $46,500,000 this is to achieve a backlog of 15% • Princeton Avenue (1100 East to Douglas Street)
• Park Street (Browning Avenue to Sherman Avenue) n
Eligible Streets: 13 • Redondo Avenue (600 East to 700 East)
• 600 South (900 West to 800 West)
• 100 South (University Avenue to 1495 East)
W 3301 E 3300 S ti 4 �:1'1� E 33D04
Complete Streets Overlay 2025
Rank 5 of
Description: This annual program funds the overlay of City streets that Potential Street Overlay Construction Projects2025
have not yet fallen to the level of deterioration where full reconstruction is
• 2" Avenue(T Street to U Street)
required. This Engineering Division overlay program includes a 3" or • 5`"Avenue(U Street to Virginia Street)
greater depth asphalt mill and overlay(thicker than Streets Division • 16th Avenue(Hilltop Road to17`hAvenue)
„ • Alta Street(Federal Heights Drive to Fairfax Road)
maintenance overlays of 2 or less), curb and gutter replacement and . Hilldon Avenue(Military Way to Circle Way)
sidewalk replacement in select locations, drainage improvements as • South Temple Street(University Street to South Temple traffic circle)
necessary, and appropriate Complete Streets bicycle and pedestrian • 500 South(600 East to 700 East)
• 1000 East(100 South to 200 South)
access improvements. • Belmont Avenue(900 East to 1000 East)
• Beverly Street(2700 South to Stratford Avenue)
Impact of Deferral: Poses immediate risks, also compounds long-term Connor Street(900 South to Sunnyside Avenue)
C • Komas Drive(Arapeen Drive to Blackhawk Way)
challenges, affecting safety, property values, community well-being, . Princeton Avenue(McClelland Street to 1100 East)
environmental sustainability, and higher project costs due to degradation • 2060 East(2100 South to south terminus)
w;rr . Wilmington Avenue(1900 East to 2000 East) •
and inflation.
• 800 South(300 West to 200 West) r'%r1g nv
• Brava Street(Amiga Drive to North terminus)
Funding Request: $3,500,000 • Jefferson Street(Jefferson Circle to 1700 South)
• Navajo Street(El Harris Avenue to Andrew Avenue) w a'
• 1730 South(4370 West to 4250 West) '
Partial Funding: Eligible but not advised w2100 • Westwood Avenue(West Temple Street to Cul-de-sac end) ;
• 1200 West(Dupont Avenue to 1008 N Dupont Avenue)
•
Recommended Annual Funding: Recommended annual funding: Catherine Street(1000 North to Goodwin Avenue)LivingstonAvenue(StarCrestDrivetoOmniDrive) ®W,
$20,000,000. This would fund roughly31 .56 lane miles of overlays. . North Temple Street(300 West to 200 West)
• Wiley Post Way(Charles Lindbergh Drive to Wright Brothers Drive)
Eligible Streets: 29 • Venture Way(West Temple Street to Hammerhead end)
• Gustin Road(California Avenue to Ninigret Drive)
• Awl Circle(Ninigret Drive to Cul-de-sac end)
700 • - 7,, 4600 West to 5000 West
Additional Funding
Rank of 32
°K ,
Description: The project is desperately needed to complete the last half mile of
700 South's 4.6-mile reconfiguration from 25 ft. wide deteriorated asphalt road to a 'z „
50 ft. wide concrete street with bicycle lanes, curb and gutter, sidewalk, and storm
drainage from Redwood Rd to 5600 West. Where 700 South meets the Union MM
Pacific rail at 4800 West is the City's worst street/rail intersection, as the crossing
restricts emergency services, causing re-routing delays, and brings a plethora of
constituent service requests each year. Additional funding is needed to complete _ r.-ram_------ --=—}-......
the package for multiple reasons: a water main 1,300 feet long is required to be _ ME
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 k
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. "
Impact of Deferral: Higher future project costs due to further degradation, Before
continued risk to human life, increased vehicle trips/traffic, threats to property of
financial interest, and a diminished quality of life. _ �, -_ ` ' - �
u _ _
Funding Request: $4,500,000
Partial Funding: We are asking for a portion of the required amount. Construction
ready but cannot start until fully funded.
After
400 South Jordan River Bridge
Reconstruction
Rank 2 of 32
f.., AA
Description: This project will reconstruct the 400 South vehicle
bridge over the Jordan River. This bridge has deteriorated to a .,
rating below 60 on the Bridge Health Index (BHI) as determined
by UDOT bridge inspection. Engineering had planned a t __ �� ; ,:.
rehabilitation project for the existing bridge structure in previous iku _ o
years, however continued degradation, accelerated by the 2020
earthquake, has made reconstruction necessary. A consulting
firm with specialized experience will be used for this project.
Impact of Deferral: Higher future project costs due to further �' r
degradation, continued risk to human life, increased vehicle
trips/traffic, threats to property of financial interest, and a
diminished quality of life, exacerbating existing challenges and "
potentially introducing new ones. '
e-
Funding Request: $4,000,000
Partial Funding: 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. --
Public Way Concrete 2025
Rank of 32
Description: This annual program addresses deteriorated or defective 0 =_
concrete sidewalks, accessibility ramps, curb and gutter, retaining walls, OQ
etc. in the public way through saw-cutting, slab jacking, or removal and O� ~e
replacement. Funding for this vital program in the last 5 years has averaged C6
63%. Providing a fully accessible public right-of-way is an unfunded federal
mandate through the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990. Not only is it o
the City's legal responsibility to ensure the public way is accessible to all, I O O
y p
but it is also a moral obligation. N w a, O�0 Ye O O
O 3 O
Impact of Deferral: Higher future project costs due to further O w No<� , O
degradation, continued risk to human life, increased vehicle trips/traffic, �" 0 O s�
threats to property of financial interest, diminished quality of life, and _ aft O
continued environmental impacts, compounding the consequences and
the adverse effects on both the ecosystem and communities. w 6s - _ Gg 0 V E soo s
prolonging Y
0 l s s
FundingRequest: $750,00o w��� ffi ego� � s ������A"p
q �' os �,Qo 0
�09 � O
Recommended Annual: $750,000 based on current capacity; however, iAve o oos W ES s�
this figure is subject to change as data becomes available. 0- �OOwr � � O§CD
D
y a0 Yi 1'Cos O_ L00� S Q
Partial Funding: Reducing the requested amount will limit sidewalk and _ O OCD "a0 m
201 2100 S ou th Fwy O
access ramp construction, crucial for improving network quality. With the � south O ��0 O
city already facing a backlog of over 450 sidewalk service requests due to o k�� O
reduced funding in previous years, a minimum of$750,000 is needed to N 8g
address this pressing issue --- v O
• II W W
O _
w't3fi05 y � 11'11 04 F 3300S
k
Description: This annual program, kicked off in 2021 by Mayor
Mendenhall and Councilmember Mano
i
(https://youtu.be/yfo_p6l b9ec), funds reconstruction or i
rehabilitation of deteriorated City alleyways, including pavement s
and drainage improvements, as necessary. This program mirrors "
the Complete Streets programs, except that deteriorated alley
reconstruction must be completely funded by the General Fund
as the State's Class C (gas tax) funds are not allowed to be used x y
on alleys.
Funding Request: $500,000
Partial Funding: Will reduce the number of alleys we can `s
respond to. It's worth highlighting that our current funding
model operates more as a pilot program, addressing requests
on a case-by-case basis rather than through an established
standard or policy for alleyway mitigation.
4
S.
s� :f/r .# fir. it r
'fqh in�� �:•
RiFill A.
�r � f �• '� fir,:
\ fit. -. .f�'r•`, .,L_ :*$ r. :. r.., ! N {.fits. �tf• (.
vi
AA
p
ea Qc W: v
IZ
Thank you! Q VAKF PUBLIC
2024 Engineering Division " ` SERVICES
re<,
SALT LAKE CITY
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION
FY25 CIP Applications
Gy
SLC Transportation
A
- J,
Network:
ry
BUTTON
➢ Safety FOR
➢ Accessibility
Equity/ r
v �*
➢ Sustainability -
➢ Good Governance /
Master Plans ♦�
AP
�' I
CAP Rank: #8 / 57.76
Traffic Signal Replacement & ' Poles rusting out.
• Failing detection — unsafe behaviors.
Upgrades Program • Increased maintenance.
$21700,000 • Upgrades per ADA and multi-modal uses.
. 5
Y .�-�__ � � [llT.l 5�.� __ ._J, .. • 1.
.J � _.• �r � mow. -
So much has changed between these two photos -- but NOT the technology and
pole design of some of our oldest traffic signals. It's about time for an upgrade.
CAP Rank: #12 / 53.97
wm
M- 77 W7T 7
r �
I yI
Safer Crossings • Pedestrian focus.
Citywide • Shorten crossing distances.
• Crisis response.
$600,000
CAP Rank: #15 / 51 .38
a_.. is
125471
log 65
r-w
Transit Capital • Continue making bus stops accessible per ADA.
Program • Leverage UTA investments via partnership.
• Match for $4 millioi in federal grants for Mobility Hubs.
$1 ,500,000 (FoF) - Walking / biking connections to transit.
� .1,,.``'•;f�, `x`'S` �', a.. '� �R•, •r• � ..
r r.
G
•
'Qa
^IY
'—' >,:► - �_'=�+-sue,.— '�,;i i
Y. —
CAP Rank: #21 / 48.12 • Prioritized zones based on crash data, speed data,
demographic, community assets (schools, parks).
Livable Streets • Slower traffic in neighborhoods.
Program • Common constituent request; equitable
implementation.
$3,000,000 • Zones 10-15 of 113.
Fj
Airym
r I .:. �
y It..; w
q
�. Ml 11
!R 1' IN■1■111■
■1
- ILA: •1■ _ Ill All
---�i� IN 1111�1' Ila
-: m
A N ICI I, Hil!#II ■ �_ _
will
==OM_�
Gull 1111 nuril -11 �1�T_�Ii1�L�� � 11
s r fill u� all ri-u ca� P!l= �•1
. ��1111 16nu.. ► �
H i31111IUMMll
CAP Rank: #23 / 46.44
Corridor Transformations
600 S
r..
500 S / 600 S Grand Boulevards,
Omni gateway to Sa It Lake City.
• 9-Line Streetscape.
�! Partnership with Engineering &
Streets Divisions — seal coats,
. 1 repaving.
900 S `Ty,(.een" Loop
s
w�
CAP Rank: #26 / 42.18 E Sugarmont Dr
L
� a
EXISTING RAIL O EXISTING STATION N
RAIL EXTENSION O NEW STATIONSimpson Ave
v,
• • • • • •
F +_
Urban Trails • Sugar House Greenway Extension
Program • "Alphabet Trail"— Parley's Trail connection to 2700 S.
• Additional funds as needed for 400 South Viaduct
$11500,000 Trail, 9-Line Trail segments, others from master plans.
CAP Rank: #27 / 41 .88 Ult Lake City ►
_ �ren Lq?p : f
P,
i
I 1
� r
ppC
`i
■ifillr "F
r'
BU
_ [
r� -
PR4PQSEO IMPROVEMENTS 1
Green Loop • Partnership application with Public Lands.
Implementation • Strategic segments of total project.
• Matching funds for state, federal grants.
$10,0001000
This is in Public Lands' requests, officially.
Salt Lake C ity's
Transportation Future
• Slower traffic, more forgiving f
infrastructure.
• Air quality improvements, for
q Y p _ >. ..�. . ...
improved health & business - ►'.;'`', r K
retention (tax base).
• Happier, healthier people with F+
active transportation. - L
�fiwwti��f.VMtlJ�13a
• Thriving economy from 1 `
transportation investment.
I
Thank you for
considering our applications!
SALT LAKE CITY
TRANSPORTATION DIVISION -
Old CDCIP Meeting Minutes 3.25.24
Final Audit Report 2024-09-05
Created: 2024-09-03
By: Rachel Molinari(Rachel.Molinari@slc.gov)
Status: Signed
Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAC31elpZQHvCrkBKOKsap62Jf2cuGXygh
"Old CDCIP Meeting Minutes 3.25.24" History
Document created by Rachel Molinari (Rachel.Molinari@slc.gov)
2024-09-03-6:05:19 PM GMT
Document emailed to Jenny Bonk Qpbonk@gmail.com)for signature
2024-09-03-6:06:02 PM GMT
Email viewed by Jenny Bonk Qpbonk@gmail.com)
2024-09-05-0:53:54 AM GMT
Al Document e-signed by Jenny Bonk Qpbonk@gmail.com)
Signature Date:2024-09-05-0:54:40 AM GMT-Time Source:server
Agreement completed.
2024-09-05-0:54:40 AM GMT
y Powered by
Adobe
Acrobat Sign