09/16/2024 - Meeting Materials Here are the Transportation Division internal applications. Please drag and drop them into the right column in priority order, with
#1 being the highest priority.
Number of responses:19
Rank choice n Score Times Ranked
1. Livable Streets Program$3,000,000 117 19
2. Safer Crossings Citywide$600,000 _ 117 19
3. Neighborhood Byways Program$1,600,000 103 19
4. Urban Trails Program$1,500,000 95 19
5 Transit Capital Program/Funding Our Future Transit 89 19
$1,500,000
6 Traffic Signal Replacement and Upgrades Program 85 19
$2,700,000
7 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates for FY26-FY28 84 19
Projects$600,000
8 Green Loop$10,000,000(Public Lands submitted with 84 19
Transportation as a partner)
9. Transportation Corridor Transformations$4,600,000 81 19
Lowest Highest
Here are constituent applications that are transportation-related. Please drag and drop them into the right column in priority
order, with #1 being the highest priority.
Number of responses:19
Rank Choice Distribution = Times Ranked
California Avenue Pedestrian Safety Improvements
1 19
Construction-Concord St/Glendale Dr.$807,000
Guadalupe Neighborhood Streets Improvement
2. $2,517,000 1= 19
3 Marmalade-Fairpark East-West Connector Study -- 126 19
$80,000
4. 600 South Safety Improvements $530,000 -- 119 19
5. 500 East Raised Crosswalk(400 Block)$115,000 -- 116 19
Route 209-Accessibility,Bus Shelters,Benches,and 94
6' 19 Trash Cans $500,000
Pedestrian Safety/HAWK at Richmond St.and Zenith
7 93 19
Ave. $500,000
8 Pedestrian Safety/HAWK at Richmond St.and Elgin 92 19
Ave. $500,000
9. 700 East Median Tree Planting Project$2,400,000 62 19
10. Westminster Urban Forestry and Traffic Calming 54 19
Measures $477,000
Here is the combined list. Please drag and drop them into the right column in priority order, with #1 being the highest priority.
Number of responses:19
Rank Choice Distribution Score Times Ranked
1. Livable Streets Program $3,000,000 279 19
2. Safer Crossings Citywide $600.000 270 19
3. Neighborhood Byways Program $1,600,000 -- 269 19
4. Urban Trails Program $1,500,000 245 19
5 California Avenue Pedestrian Safety Improvements _- 230 19
Construction-Concord St/Glendale Dr.$807,000
6 Transit Capital Program/Funding Our Future Transit 220 19
$1,500,000
7 Conceptual Design and Cost Estimates for FY26-FY28 214 19
Projects $600,000
8 Traffic Signal Replacement and Upgrades Program 209 19
$2,700,000
9 Green Loop$10,000,000(Public Lands submitted with . 205 19
Transportation as a partner)
10. Transportation Corridor Transformations $4,600,000 202 19
11 Guadalupe Neighborhood Streets Improvement _-- 196 19
$2,517,000
COMBINED (continued)
12. 600 South Safety Improvements $530,000 174 19
13. Marmalade-Fairpark East-West Connector Study 174 19
$80,000
14. 500 East Raised Crosswalk(400 Block)$115,000 161 19
15. Route 209-Accessibility,Bus Shelters, Benches,and 137 19
Trash Cans $500,000
16. Pedestrian Safety/HAWK at Richmond St.and Zenith 135 19
Ave. $500,000
17 Pedestrian Safety/HAWK at Richmond St and Elgin 127 19
Ave. $500,000
18. 700 East Median Tree Planting Project$2,400,000 92 19
19 Westminster Urban Forestry and Traffic Calming 71 19
Measures $477,000
Lowest Highest
Participating in this poll:
• 12 members of TAB (out of 13 current members)
• 7 members of BAC (out of 12 current members)
PROPOSAL: Transportation Advisory Board/Bicycle Standing Committee
Potential revisions to meeting schedule and approach May 2024
The Salt Lake City Transportation Division currently manages and staffs two Salt Lake City bodies charged with
providing constituent transportation advice and input to Salt Lake City, including the Mayor and the City Council.
The Transportation Advisory Board takes a multi-modal approach, and was established by City statute in the mid
1990s. The Bicycle Standing Committee, commonly referred to as the Bicycle Advisory Committee,was
established by City statute in 2013,following on the significant groundwork laid by an informal Mayor's Bicycle
Advisory Committee which had been meeting since at least the early 1990s. Both groups have recently been
meeting monthly.
Starting in 2020, an annual joint meeting of these two groups was held, at the suggestion of the groups. Starting in
2023, this was expanded to two joint meetings per year, in January and June.
A recent analysis shows considerable overlap between the topics presented to each board even outside of the
joint meetings, in the past 18 months (October 2022 to April 2024).This is estimated at 65-75%overlap. Please
see summary on pages 3-4. Some topics likely of interest to both boards have not made it onto both boards'
agendas. Both boards often take a month off over the summer.
A second consideration is that while both bodies are staffed by the Transportation Division with attendance by the
SLC Police Department, often topics come up which involve the many agencies involves in stewardship of Salt
Lake City's rights of way—this includes the City's Engineering Division, Streets Division, Public Lands Department,
Public Utilities Department, Compliance Division (parking enforcement), Sanitation Division. While the
committees have an opportunity to develop working relationships with Transportation Division staff,the same is
not true of these several other agencies.
More joint meetings?
While keeping the Transportation Advisory Board and Bicycle Standing Committee as separate entities, it may
make sense to have more joint meetings. This places a responsibility on both bodies to ensure quorum for the
meeting to occur. If either body does not have a quorum,the whole meeting must be cancelled.
In keeping with the amount of overlap,the below schedule suggests a total of 8 joint meetings(73%), 6 separate
meetings(3 for each board), and one month off in the summer. Proposed topics include funding; additional topics
are likely to fill in focused on policies and standards.
Multi-department participation?
Both boards regularly have input regarding topics that fall outside the Transportation Division's purview, such as
maintenance activities performed by our fellow city agencies. The Transportation Division would seek the boards'
collaboration in requesting our colleagues in other agencies to regularly attend either 3 or 4 meetings per year, in
an expanded staffing. The repeating connection would help to build the knowledge and relationships to more
proactively provide input and discuss concerns.
When to meet?
2n1 Monday would avoid all legal holiday conflicts. Suggest switching to 2n1 Monday effective January 2025, and
meeting either the 1 s`Monday or V Monday in 2024.
A poll recently conducted indicates that members of the Bicycle Standing Committee are challenged to meet at
the 4-5:30 time of the TAB meetings. This is a significant impediment to filling the slot of Vice-Chair of the bicycle
committee,who attends both meetings. Results of this poll will be presented for discussion.
Possible schedule-DRAFT for discussion
Month Holiday Key Topics Joint TAB BAC
Considerations
January New Year's Day- 1 st CIP ranking&joint letter of support X
MLK Day-3'd Mon
February Pres Day-3rd Mon Multi department policies, X
discussion, and recommendations
March none TAB:topics TBD BAC:Bike Month, X X
otherpre-season
April none 5+5 review possible projects to add; X
identify gaps&priorities
May Memorial Day-last Mayor's Recommended Budget; 5+5 X
Mon project selection/draft CIP list
June Juneteenth-June 19 Multi department policies, X
discussion, and recommendations
July July 4, Pioneer Day --Summer break-- Off Off Off
August None-School starts TAB: TBD BAC: TBD X X
Tues.,Aug 20,2024
September Labor Day-1st Mon WFRC grants list, review of CIP projects X
funded in recent round, Draft internal
CIP for next round.
October Columbus Day-2nd Internal CIP list for next round -final X
Mon (not SLC holiday)
Halloween-31 st
November Thanksgiving-4 th Multi department policies, X
Thurs discussion, and recommendations
WFRC grants-Letter of support
December Christmas-25t" TAB:elections BAC:elections X X
even years odd years
Other topics to be added. This is just a sample of potential topics aligned across the mix of separate and joint
meetings.
Summary of Transportation Advisory Board and Bicycle Advisory Committee topics(November 2022 to April 2024)
Since November 2022,the board and committee have taken up a total of 32 topics,of which nearly half have been considered by both
bodies. Of the 7 topics taken up by TAB alone,6 are likely of interest to BAC. Of the 12 topics taken up by BAC,5 are of likely interest
to TAB,and 3 would be likely to be taken up by a joint TAB-PNUT board collaboration.
Some of the topics that would likely be of interest to both bodies have not made it onto the other committee's agenda.
Double presentations are challenging to make for staff(impacts resources),consultants(impacts budget),and outside agencies
(may not understand why they are invited for two presentations to SLC boards,often will not accept twice).
Many of the overlapping topics were also on both committee's agenda multiple times. Therefore,overall,the two committees had
a clear majority of their time considering the same topics. At a guestimate,this represents 65-75%overlap.
Both boards have had other"administrative"topics focused on internal process and procedures, ranging from elections to decorum.
This amounts to"overhead"on maintaining each separate board.
TOPICS ON TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AND BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE AGENDAS SINCE NOVEMBER 2022*
Both TAB only BAC only
1 1-15 EIS School District Updates Bike Lanes&Trash Bins
2 Orphan Assets Transportation Legislative Updates Snow Removal in Bike Lanes
3 2100 South Green Loop UTA Updates
4 Transportation Master Plan School Transportation U of U Active Transportation Updates
5 CIP Projects FY24 Sidewalk Widths Driveway Edges
6 Vision Zero Task Force Livable Streets Program Update East-West Study Grant
7 Pedestrian Safety Letter Life on State Bikeways Update Neighborhood Byways
8 1000 West 700 South Project Nominations for UDOT TIF/TTIF
9 5+5 Projects/Project Prioritization (monthly BAC updates) Bikeway Gaps(PNUT?)
10 700 East Shared Use Path Traffic Signals/Timing
11 City Creek Water Treatment Plant Irrigation along Trails/Bike Lanes(PNUT?)
12 5+5 and Pavement Condition Pump Station/Foothill Trails(PNUT?)
13 Collaboration with PNUT Board Future of BAC
14 CIP Projects FY25
15 Project Initiation/Complete Streets Checklist Italics indicate likely interest to other committee.
*Excludes"administrative"topics focused on internal process/procedures.
SLC Transportation Division,compiled April 2024
TAB BAC
2024 June Joint TAB/BAC Meeting-TBD Joint TAB/BAC Meeting-TBD
May Collaboration with PNUT Board; other topics TBD TBD
Apr Sidewalks(Widths and More); School Transportation Future of BAC; Bikeway Gaps
March School Transportation- Panel Discussion & Board Action Collaboration with PNUT Board; Sprinklers& Irrigation
along Trails& Bike Lanes; Public Utilities Pump Station/
Feb CIP FY25 Funding Requests; Project Initiation/Complete City Creek Canyon (follow-up); CIP FY25 Funding
Streets Checklist Requests; Project Initiation/Complete Streets Checklist
Jan Joint TAB/BAC Meeting-CIP FY25 Funding Requests Joint TAB/BAC Meeting-CIP FY25 Funding Requests
2023 Dec Board Process and Rolls;TAB Elections: City Creek Canyor Traffic Signals&Timing; Committee Process& Input;
Orphan Assets Letter; City Creek Canyon Action
Nov 5+5 Program and Pavement Condition; TAB Elections; Orphan Assets; City Creek Canyon Action;Vision Zero
TAB Priorities 2024 Task Force Update
Oct 1-15 Environmental Impact Statement Study Update, City City Creek Water Treatment Plant Upgrade,
Creek Water Treatment Plan Upgrade,Transportation Transportation Master Plan
Sept CIP/Project Prioritization U of U Active Transportation Updates, Bikeways Gaps
Aug CIP/Project Prioritization No Meeting
Jul No Meeting Neighborhood Byways, Project Nominations for UDOT
TIF and TTIF
June Joint TAB/BAC Meeting-700 East Shared Use Path Joint TAB/BAC Meeting-700 East Shared Use Path
(UDOT),Scoring Criteria Used in Developing 5+5 (UDOT), Scoring Criteria Used in Developing 5+5
May Green Loop, 5+5 Projects Driveway Edges Policy/Standards(Engineering-Megan
Leether), East/West Study Grant
Apr 1-15 Environmental Impact Statement Study Update, 1000 West 700 South Project, U of U Update (Ginger
1000 West 700 South Project,Vision Zero Task Force Cannon), BAC Bike Tour Routes Discussion
Update,Transportation Related Legislative Updates
Mar SLC School District Updates, Livable Streets Program Vice-Chair Election, Dicussion on engagment and
Update, Life on State Bikeways overview/wrap up/next feedback loop with broader cycling community
steps,Vision Zero Task Force Meeting Update
Feb Joint BAC/TAB Letter of Support for Transportation CIP Citizen CIP Applications letter with TAB,Snow Removal
Applications, Constituent CIP Applications,Vision Zero in Bike Lanes-Streets Division (Mitch Hansen), BAC
Task Force, UTA Update (Ski Buses),Joint BAC/TAB Mission Statement, Constituent CIP Applications
Pedestrian Safety Letter Discussion
Jan Joint TAB/BAC Meeting- Utah State Code Regarding Joint TAB/BAC Meeting- Utah State Code Regarding
Quorum for Electronic Meetings, CIP Projects Update& Quorum for Electronic Meetings, CIP Projects Update &
Request for Letter of Support,June TAB/BAC Meeting Request for Letter of Support,June TAB/BAC Meeting
2022 Dec 2100 South Project Update, Orphan Assets Letter,TAB Bike Lane Conflicts with Trash & Recycling Bins, 2100
2023 Priorities and Agenda Setting Discussion/Meeting South Project Update
Schedule Approval (ran out of time in Nov)
Nov 1-15 Environmental Impact Statement, Orphan Assets UTA Updates, 1-15 Environmental Impact Statement,
Letter,TAB 2023 Priorities and Agenda Setting 2100 South Project Letter of Support,Transportation
Discussion/Meeting Schedule Approval Master Plan Update
Green =Topics by both committees
Orange=Topics by both committees with unequal attention or significantly different timing
Blue= Internal administration (elections,etc.)
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—easti m at@d a^^'1al Reed, 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
AI.,... Acco+that Ciippnr*c fi*v
23 Transportation Corridor Transformations Program 46.44 $4,600,000 n, 1&New Public Asse (Increasel-OS)
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.
FY2024-25 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL-APPROVED PROJECTS
Capital
Improvement
r VP IP Program' 11::1n1::11 [
ImprovingOur Parks e Streets Buildings Public
CouncilArts
iim EL — Funding
Art Barn Failing Infrastructure and Accessibility Improvements
24 The project will address the Art Barn's failing infrastructure due to flooding and lifespan $500,000
end,as well as ADA requirements,energy efficiency,and more public services.
Harvey Milk Blvd LGBTQ+and Neighborhood Visibility
6( This funding is for 27 banner arms that will be placed along both sides of the street in $30,000
the heart of the four business districts:from 1000 E to 800 E,400 E to 300 E,and West
Temple to 400 W.The banners will be funded privately.
1.5%for Art $200,000
Funding set aside annually to provide public art at City developed projects.
'M1 Mayor'sOffice
:1 14
RF
Historic Markers
73 This is additional,one-time funding for creating and installing metal historic markers $30,000
around the City to highlight underrepresented communities and equity.
• • •
Prniart M
Transit Capital Program/ Funding Our Future Transit
10 This program,a partnership with UTA,aims to install bus stops,mobility hubs,and $750,000
accessible first/last-mile connections on frequent transit routes.
Safer Crossings Citywide
11 Implement pedestrian-focused crossings such as HAWK Beacons, Rectangular Rapid $352,531
Flashing Beacons, raised crosswalks,curb extensions,and other similar safety
improvements.
Neighborhood Byways Program
16 Neighborhood byways are designed to create safe and pleasant routes for walking, $970,000
bicycling,and other forms of active transportation while connecting people to
destinations. Most or all of this funding will be used for the Kensington Byway project.
19 Traffic Signal Replacement and Upgrades Program $900,000
This project will replace two traffic signals in failing condition.
500 East Raised Crosswalk(400 Block)
38 This project will implement a mid-block raised crosswalk on 500 E between 400 S and $115,000
500 S to improve vehicle and pedestrian safety.
California Avenue Pedestrian Safety Improvements Construction
41 This project will implement the recommendations of a previously funded study to make $807,000
pedestrian safety improvements at the intersections of California Avenue and Concord
Street/Glendale Drive.
Urban Trails Maintenance
77 The funds will be used for repaving,repairs,trail shoulder surfacing,and snow and $200,000
debris removal on urban paved trails.
Public •
:1 :11 • •
Log# Project Funding
Liberty Park Greenhouse Restoration
3 This project aims to secure and restore the Liberty Park Greenhouse to its historical $124,000
prominence while enhancing its educational, recreational,and environmental value to
the community.
Liberty Park Greenhouse Design and Construction Documents
5 This project includes a detailed structural assessment of the east greenhouse,followed $921,700
by additional assessments,design,and reconstruction of new greenhouse facilities.
Sugar House Park—Two Pavilion Replacements
12 This allocation matches the County's funding to replace two pavilions and associated $960,000
amenities,such as signage,tables, barbecues,landscaping,water,and accessibility
features.
Transitioning to Regionally-Appropriate Landscapes,Adapting
13 Irrigation Systems, and Reducing Water Use $500,000
This project will improve irrigation efficiency in our public lands and replace some turf
areas with low-water, regionally-appropriate plantings.
Citywide Park Restroom Planning Study/Fairmont Restroom
15 Conceptual Design $100,000
This funding is for a study to update planning guidance for city-wide parks restroom
policy and practice and conceptual design for a new restroom if warranted by the study.
Courts& Playgrounds
17 This funding will be used to replace one playground or partially reconstruct or resurface $1,508,090
at least one court and to plan and design a playground at Curtis Park.
Memory Grove Park Repairs+ Preservation & Maintenance Plan
20 This funding would cover urgent capital repairs at Memory Grove Park and the $1,910,000
development of a Preservation&Maintenance Plan for the Park and Freedom Trail.
Amplifying Our Jordan River Revitalization: Leveraging Bond
Investment
This funding doubles the impact of GO Bond funding planned for the area and will be
22 $1,500,000
used to enhance safety,activation,and recreation amenities in the Jordan River corridor
and its public land spaces. Improvements to the Fife Wetlands and the International
Peace Gardens including security fencing are the top priority areas.
Jordan River Trail Food Forest+ Og Woi Partner Garden
29 The funding will cover soil testing at the sites of the new Wasatch Community Gardens $20,000
food forest farm and Og Woi People's Orchard and Garden.
Green Loop Implementation
33 The Green Loop project aims to improve the quality of life for people living,working, $3,140,000
and traveling downtown by adapting the existing street space to include more trees,
shade,and comfortable options for various transportation choices.
Riverside Park Pathway Loop
44 This project will create a looping recreational pathway through Riverside Park that $530,000
accommodates multiple user types and utilizes the Jordan River Parkway Trail.
Fairmont Park Basketball Court
47 A basketball court will be added to Fairmont Park to accommodate more visitors and $754,000
replace the old,inadequate court. Details will be decided upon with public input and
coordinated with other park projects.
Street Futsal Courts 1:1 Match
51 This allocation is a 50%match for private funding from"Free the Game"and will be used $350,000
to add or convert underutilized concrete courts at several parks in Salt Lake City into
"futsal"or street soccer courts.
Playground Shade
56 This project will install shade cloths over up to five playgrounds, increasing the use of all $500,000
play equipment for the full day in the summer and helping prevent skin cancer.
Pocket Park Community Space-Jake Garn Way
64 This project aims to transform an underused city-owned space into a pocket park, $330,000
preserving existing trees and vegetation.The park could feature a play area,seating,
waste bins,and signage.
Equal Grounds Project(Calisthenics-Fitness Area)
67 This funding will be used to construct a calisthenics/fitness area at Liberty Park, pending $86,200
approval from the Historic Landmark Commission.
5th West Commons Conversation Center(s)
70 This project will install tables and seating on 500 West between 50 North and 500 South $50,000
to promote face-to-face meetings,conversations,and community.
IAIA
Engineering Division
801-535-7961 1 Engineering1nfoQSLC.gov
Log# Project Funding
2 400 South Jordan River Bridge Reconstruction $4,000,000
This project will reconstruct the 400 South vehicle bridge over the Jordan River.
Complete Streets Reconstruction
4 This annual program funds the vital reconstruction of deteriorated City streets, $4,500,000
including street pavement,curb and gutter,sidewalk,drainage improvements,and
appropriate Complete Streets bicycle and pedestrian access improvements.
Complete Streets Overlay
6 This annual program funds the resurfacing of City streets with a 3"or greater depth $3,500,000
asphalt mill,curb and gutter replacement,select sidewalk replacement,drainage
improvements,and Complete Streets enhancements for bicycle and pedestrian access.
Public Way Concrete
7 This annual program addresses deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, $500,000
accessibility ramps,curbs and gutters, retaining walls,etc.in the public way through
saw-cutting,slab jacking,or removal and replacement.
700 South (Phase 7,4600 West to 5000 West)Additional Funding
18 This funding will be used to complete the last half mile of 700 South's 4.6-mile $4,500,000
reconfiguration from a 25-foot-wide deteriorated asphalt road to a 50-foot-wide
concrete street with bicycle lanes,curb and gutter,sidewalk,and storm drainage.
Fayette Avenue Improvements between Washington Street&200 W
48 This funding will cover the design of much-needed infrastructure improvements along $560,000
Fayette Avenue.
Alleyway Improvements and Mitigation
52 This annual program funds the reconstruction or rehabilitation of deteriorated City $500,000
alleyways,including pavement and drainage improvements.
Concrete Replacement
74 This one-time project addresses deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks in the $750,000
public way through saw-cutting,slab jacking,or removal and replacement.
L� Finance
:1 • • • •
IF[#
Project
ng
77 CIP Cost Overrun Account $223,171
Funding set aside annually to cover unforeseen costs of CIP projects.
•1 ••
-3473
. • # Project Funding
Stabilize the Fire Training Tower Deterioration
1 Address urgent repairs at the fire training tower to ensure its structural integrity and the $858,800
safety of those using it for training.
I Facilities
:1 • 1 Pub1icServiceslnfo@SLC.go
# Project
Facilities Replacement and Renewal Plan
8 The project aims to strategically address the backlog of deferred assets,ensuring $2,756,500
efficient resource allocation and long-term facility improvement.
Plaza 349 HVAC Improvements- Phase 1
9 Plaza 349 is critical to the City's operations as it hosts several departments.This funding $2,200,000
covers life safety,security, HVAC design,and critical HVAC asset upgrades.
HVAC Control Replacement at the Public Safety Building
14 This project will upgrade the Public Safety Building HVAC control system to enhance $1,300,000
operational reliability,security,and resilience.
0 Real Estate Services
801-535-7932 1 Real EstatePSLC.go
Project
Vacant and Leased City-owned Property Maintenance
76 This funding will prepare the Fleet Block property for redevelopment and mitigate $500,000
mounting security and safety issues.
Projects Not • - •
:1 • Qen_I.LuedtkePSLC.gov Ail
Pr# Project
21 Fire Training Grounds Site Improvements
23 Livable Streets Traffic Calming Program
Note:The Council approved$2 million for this program from a different fund as part of the FY25 budget.
25 Jordan River Trail Safer Crossing Improvements
26 Police Department Training Center
27 Pedestrian Safety/ HAWK at Richmond St. and Zenith Ave.
28 Transportation Corridor Transformations Program
30 Urban Trails Program
31 Route 209 -Accessibility, Bus Shelters, Benches, and Trash Cans
32 Fairmont Park East Enhancement
34 Main Street Alley Improvements- No-Tell Motel to Utah Pride
35 Faultline Park Playground
36 Guadalupe Neighborhood Streets Improvement
37 Plaza 349 EV Charging Phase 1 and 2
39 Public Safety Building EV Charging Phase 1 and 2
40 Poplar Grove Park Lighting
42 600 South Safety Improvements
43 Victory Park Tennis Courts
45 Curtis Park Reimagined
46 Marmalade-Fairpark East-West Connector Study
49 "Elevating Access":The Regional Athletic Complex's Blueprint for the Future
50 Public Safety Building(Police Occupancy) Remodels
53 International Peace Gardens
54 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk and Repave Street
55 700 East Median Tree Planting Project
57 First Encampment Park
58 Alley Improvement A798
59 Westminster Urban Forestry and Traffic Calming Measures
61 200 E 1910 S Public Art
62 Alleyways between Sherman/Harrison and Harrison/Browning
63 Jackson Park Art
65 800 East Parks and Pathways
66 Fairpark Placemaking Signage
68 Liberty Wells Community Garden
69 Drop Arm Gate on the Entry to the Rear Parking Lot
71 Sugar House Map and Historic Recognition Project
72 East Bench H Rock Preserve
78 City Hall Physical Security Improvements Holding Account Release
For a map of the projects, funding source details, and more,
please visit tinyURL.com/SLCFY25CIP.
Applicants can resubmit the request if their project is not funded or
receives partial funding. If you have questions regarding applications,
please email ClPlnfo@SLCGov.com.
Note: City email addresses currently use the @slcgov.com email domain
but will change to @slc.gov in mid-September.
WHAT SHOULD THE CITY FUND NEXT?
I have a project idea!
How do I let the City know?
-+To submit a constituent project request, please fill
out the application at: tinyURL.com/SLCCIPInfo
Salt Lake City welcomes and values your input for potential capital
improvement projects throughout the City. Constituent project applications
open from September 1 through September 30 and will be available on the
Finance Department's website. After a request is submitted, the assigned
division will review the proposed project, refine the scope and options with
the constituent, and provide cost estimates.
The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program resident
advisory board (CDCIP) reviews all projects in public meetings and makes
funding recommendations to the Mayor and City Council. If a request doesn't
align with current City priorities, they will not recommend funding for your
request. Please keep in mind that the City runs on a July-June Fiscal Year and
that the CIP process takes at least one year to complete.
The constituent project request must:
❑ cost at least $50,000 (estimates are done by the Engineering Division)
❑ have a useful life of 5 or more years
❑ be a Salt Lake City-owned asset
❑ include community outreach or alternative public engagement
0 SALT LAKE
CITY COUNCIL
Questions on Council funding?Contact Ben Luedtke, City Council Staff,
at Benjamin.Luedtke@SLC.gov or 801-535-7622