Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/10/2025 - Meeting Minutes MINUTES FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BOARD MEETING (CDCIP) Monday,February 10, 2025 5:00pm Board Members Board Members Not Present Jenny Bonk Heidi Steed Dallin Jones Brad Christensen Jake Skog Andrea Schaefer Devon Schechinger Joseph "Jurphy" Murphy Staff Present Bret Montgomery, Rachel Molinari, Ben Luedtke, Mike Atkinson, Sherif Basta, and Mary Beth Thompson — Department of Finance City Staff Will Becker, Kyle Irvin, Jeff Gulden, Mary Sizemore - Transportation Division Constituents' Present Mary Jo Tedesco, Gary Tedesco, Troy Saltiel, Nathan Peters, Jennifer Madrigal, Mathew Morriss, Julian Jurkoic, Laura Kendellen, Diego Pardo and Bethany Pardo. Staff Updates There were no staff updates. Business: Ms. Molinari called the meeting to order at 5.00 PM, beginning with a welcome and introductions. She then reviewed the meeting process and agenda. Ms. Thompson introduced the new Deputy Chief Financial Officer, Ben Luedtke. Ms. Molinari provided an overview of the Board's role and responsibilities, as well as the timeline for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP). She explained that there were 36 constituent applications submitted with a total funding request of $16.5 million and internal applications, previously reviewed and ranked by the Capital Asset Planning (CAP) Committee, consisting of 25 projects totaling $52 million in requested funding. Ms. Molinari explained that scoring would not be conducted through Zoom Grants; instead, a scoring spreadsheet would be provided to all Board members. She said the comment feature in Zoom Grants would still be available and requested that any comments or questions be submitted by 10:00 AM on the day of the meeting to provide staff with enough time to collect responses. She stated that in-person attendance was preferred, though online attendance was allowed and that a quorum consisted of 5 Board members in attendance. (The presentation slides are attached) Constituent Applications 1200 E Traffic Circle Constituent- Mary Jo and Gary Tedesco The applicants provided an overview of their proposal for a traffic circle at the intersection of 1200 East and 300 and 400 South which was described as dangerous and heavily impacted by the University of Utah traffic. Mr. Tedesco asked if the scoring criteria would be shared. Ms. Molinari said that it was public information and could be shared with the applicants. Ms. Schaefer expressed her appreciation for the survey included in the application materials and asked if the design changed based on the responses to the survey. Mr. Tedesco replied that the design remained the same but that he was amendable to alterations. Mr. Jones inquired about the cost estimates provided in the submission materials. Ms. Molinari said that all cost estimates were completed by Salt Lake City's Engineering Division. Central City600 East Byway Safety Improvements Constituent- Troy Saltiel Mr. Saltiel explained that Central City was a historically redlined neighborhood and U.S. Census data showed that a quarter of residents in the area did not have access to a car; many residents relied on walking, biking and public transit. He said the proposal would include better crossings, traffic calming measures and contribute to the priorities in the recently adopted Transportation Master Plan. Ms. Steed inquired about the design phase and future construction date and whether the gap in timing would impact future design of the proposal or impact costs. Mr. Becker said that project costs typically increase, and cost estimates are developed with the Engineering Division with the information available at the time of proposal. Mr. Saltiel stated that the project could be phased overtime. Mr. Jones asked about the proposal's timeline from initial funding received to completed construction. Mr. Becker said that CIP projects typically have a three-year period from approval to completion. Ms. Molinari reiterated the funding process timeline and noted that the Finance Department reviews projects older than three years, per Resolution 29 of 2027, for possible recapture of funding. Mr. Murphy asked which aspects of the project would be the highest priority and why. Mr. Saltiel stated that he would like the project to focus on the conflict areas such as the nearby shopping centers. Ms. Schaefer questioned where this byway proposal would rank on the City's internal list of priorities. Mr. Becker replied that neighborhood byways did not have a dedicated source of programmatic funding and therefore, byway projects were funded one project at a time. Mr. Skog asked about staff concerns regarding the removal of street parking, median reconstruction, and potential challenges. Mr. Becker responded that future studies, including community engagement, still need to be completed. Federal Heights Safety Upgrades Constituent- Nathan Peters Mr. Peters provided an overview of the proposal for traffic calming measures, including speed humps to reduce speeding on the neighborhood streets. Mr. Christensen asked if the proposed upgrades would cut off through traffic to the University of Utah or its hospital. Mr. Peters clarified that it would only control traffic speed. Mr. Murphy questioned where this proposal ranked on the City's Livable Streets zone list. Mr. Irvin replied that Federal Heights was in Zone 81 out of 113. Mr. Murphy then asked what factors determine the City's list. Mr. Irvin stated that the original analysis consisted of injury crashes, traffic speeds, and access to community assets, such as the number of households, the number of vehicles owned per household, and other socioeconomic data. Mr. Gulden added that the City received more traffic calming requests than available funding. Glendale Neighborhood Pedestrian Safety improvement RRFB revision to HAWK signal at the California Ave/Concord St Intersection Constituent- Jennifer Madrigal Ms. Madrigal described the intersection of California Avenue and Concord Street as a heavily trafficked area- an artery connecting east and west. She said that although there were many amenities nearby including two schools, a community center, and a medical center, there were few crosswalks. She explained the need to upgrade from the current Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons (RRFB) to a HAWK system that would be more visible and impactful in stopping traffic for pedestrians. Ms. Schaefer recalled a similar project that was funded last year and asked if funding could be repurposed if the current application were to be approved. Ms. Molinari confirmed that $807,000 was awarded to California Avenue Pedestrian Safety in 2024 and that the project description would have to be rescoped by the City Council for any elements to change. Glendale Traffic Calming Constituent- Mathew Morris Mr. Morris explained that the proposal would expand on the existing City infrastructure to address speeding and introduce traffic calming speed humps, a bike lane, and raised sidewalks. Ms. Bonk asked if the proposal could be phased and about the cost. Mr. Morris responded that the proposal was not designed with a phased approach in mind. Mr. Murphy questioned the Livable Streets zone ranking for this proposal. Mr. Irvin stated it ranked 49 out of 113 zones. Ms. Molinari stated that she would share more information about the Livable Streets program with the Board. Intersection Daylighting with Parking for Bikes & Scooters Constituent- Julian Jurkoic Mr. Jurkoic provided an overview of his proposal and defined daylighting as a mechanism to keep street corners clear and enhance visibility for all. He mentioned that the proposal is highly scalable and could be implemented in more areas over time. Mr. Christensen asked how much each installation would cost. Ms. Sizemore explained that there were two options, a standard installation costing $1,500 or an upgraded version costing $5,000. Mr. Jones questioned how to engage the riders to use the racks. Mr. Jurkoic said that the security of an appropriate place to park could be an incentive. He also mentioned the opportunity to partner with scooter providers to offer a discount or some financial reward for returning the equipment to its correct location Ms. Schaefer asked if a map of proposed rack locations was available. Mr. Jurkoic replied that a map did not yet exist. Milk Block Bike Spa Constituent- Was not in attendance. Ms. Bonk asked if this proposal was the first of its kind in Salt Lake City. Ms. Sizemore confirmed that it would be. Ms. Schaefer inquired about the name "bike spa" and if it was a recognized term among riders. Ms. Sizemore explained that the term "bike spa" was introduced by the applicant and that the facility would provide repair equipment and parking for bicycles. Pedestrian Safety/HAWK at Richmond St. and Zenith Ave Constituent- Laura Kendellen Ms. Kendellen described the intersection of Richmond Street and Zenith Avenue as a heavily trafficked area for pedestrians and bicyclists. She stated that this was a repeat proposal for CIP. Mr. Skog asked about the levels of pedestrian safety improvements used by the City. Mr. Becker said there were different solutions depending on the number of lanes, traffic volume, and accident data and noted that a HAWK system was appropriate for this intersection. Mr. Skog inquired about the traffic accident data collected by the City and how it was used to implement solutions. Mr. Becker confirmed that the City does collect accident data from the Police Department. Ms. Schaefer asked if there were any alternative programs or funding sources for traffic calming solutions available to residents, noting the significant number of similar proposals received this year. Mr. Becker replied that he was unaware of other opportunities and noted that the Transportation Division submitted its own request for programmatic funding through CIP. Mr. Murphy asked what factors went into the ranking and prioritization of other similarly scoped projects. Mr. Becker urged the Board member to repeat his question to the Transportation Division staff when they present the internal City proposals at a future meeting. Poplar Grove 500 S Traffic Calming Constituent- Diego and Bethany Pardo Ms. Pardo proved an overview of the traffic calming proposal, highlighting the lack of infrastructure to support pedestrians. She explained that the City had installed speed detection devices for a short period of time but that they were ineffective at making a difference and suggested that speed humps and visible crosswalks would be a better solution. Mr. Christensen asked if installing stop signs had been considered. Ms. Pardo stated that they worked closely with Mr. Irvin and the Transportation Division staff, and it was determined that speed humps were more effective than stop signs for pedestrian safety. Ms. Schaefer requested to know where this location was on the Livable Streets zone ranking. Mr. Pardo said it was ranked 27 out of 113. Conclusion Mr. Christensen mentioned Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) specific questions within the CIP application and asked if the City planned to remove the question or alter it given the current political climate and recent executive action surrounding the topic. Ms. Molinari stated that she was aware of the current executive action and that she would follow up with the City's Attorney's Office and get back to the Board. Mr. Murphy asked when the scoring sheet would be available. Ms. Molinari said it would be shared with the Board the following week. Ms. Molinari thanked the constituents, Board members, and City staff for participating in the meeting. Overview and Expectations of next Meeting Ms. Molinari reiterated the following items would be shared with the Board: • Scoring sheets • Additional information about the Transportation Division's Livable Streets Program • Correction on requested funding for constituent applications Adjournment There being no further business. Mr. Christensen made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Skog seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 6.48 pm. XJaccV Skog ,2025 20:59 MST) CDCIP Board Chair This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the CDCIP Board meeting held February 10, 2025. Community — Development & Capital k# 0 Improvement Program Advisory Board FY2O25-26 CIP Welcome Meeting D February 10, 2025 Meeting Reminders • Please state your name for the record before asking a question or making a comment. • Mics must be turned on to capture audio for the recording. AGENDA ❑ Welcome Board Chair ❑ Introductions All ❑ CDCIP Board Role & CIP Process Overview CAP Team ❑ Summary Application Review CAP Team ❑ Approve CDCIP Minutes Board ❑ Constituent Applications Applicants/Board ❑ Adjourn HELLO rVIY NAME 15 CDCIP BOARD ROLE 2.33.040: PURPOSE: The purpose of the board is to provide citizens with an ample opportunity to participate, in an advisory role, in the city's planning, assessment and allocation of its community development grants and capital improvement programs. Although board members serve in an advisory role only, their involvement is necessary in obtaining the opinions of persons who live and/or work in various neighborhoods to aid the city in identifying the needs within those areas and the programs and projects to be completed as part of the city's community development and capital improvement programs. (Ord. 67-13, 2013) CDCIP BOARD RESPONSIBILITIES0 ARTICLE II: Purpose and Responsibilities Section 1 CDCIP shall act in an advisory capacity to the Mayor relative to the city's Community Development Block Grant (CDBG), Emergency Solutions Grant (ESG), HOME Investment Partnerships Program (HOME), Housing Opportunities for Persons with HIV/AIDS (HOPWA) allocations from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and other community development grants as needed. The CDCIP Board shall also act in an advisory capacity to the Mayor relative to the City's Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Section 2 The CDCIP board shall serve solely in an advisory role on decisions relating to funding allocations for the city's CDBG, ESG, HOME, HOPWA, Capital Improvement Program, and other community development grants as needed. 01 P PRO '.1.1. 0 e-� SALT LAKE CITY CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) Y E A R L Y T I M E L I N E s•t� MARCH APRIL JUNE JULY AUG OCT NOV DEC FUNDING o• "�/ '� • 1�/� '�i� PROCESS Board reviews and Mayor reviews and Creation of Mayor's City Council approves Applications due at recommends Recommended City Council reviews and allocates funds for projects pro ect-s ecific bud ets the end of the recommends projects projects Budget p g month 111 ... CzoO W �i$"�d`lii C�ts�DD�7B��i ffi Requests due at Constituents work with a City Division montthh the end the on their Constituent Request CITY DIVISIONSDesign and construction work for approved and active projects City Divisions work with Constituents on the Constituent Request CAP COMMITTEE (2nd year) • The internal Capital Asset Planning (CAP) Committee was established in 2023 to evaluate Salt Lake City department CIP proposals and make recommendations to the CDCIP Board • The Committee reviewed, scored, and ranked a total of 25 internal applications • A memo detailing the outcomes will be provided to the Board before reviewing internal applications FY25-26 Constituent Applications . Projects Requested Funding L Fundin A Engineering 7 $2,858,600 Public Lands 11 $7,216,355 Transportation 18 $6,422,609 TOTAL 36 $16,497,564 Council District 7 6 5 IF4 4 3 2 1 0 ■ Engineering ■ Public Lands Transportation 3 4 5 6 7 CW/Multi FY25-26 Internal Applications e of ProjectsRequested Funding Engineering 7 Requested Funding $14,430,600 Public Lands 9 $23,396,117 Public Services 3 $3,595,436 Transportation 6 $10,900,000 TOTAL 25 $52,322,153 Council District 20 15 10 5 ■ Engineering i Public Lands 0 Public Services Transportation 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 CW/Multi MEETING SCHEDULE Date Agenda Wednesday, February 19t" Remaining Constituent Transportation & Engineering Applications Monday, February 24t" Remaining Constituent Engineering & Public Lands Applications Monday, March 3rd Internal Public Lands Applications Monday, March lot" Internal Public Services & Engineering Applications Monday, March 17t" Internal Transportation & Engineering Applications Monday, March 24t" Funding Monday, March 31St Final Funding ZoornGrants & Misc. Info • All applications and supporting documents are in ZoomGrants • Scoring will NOT be done in ZoomGrants — a spreadsheet will be provided • Comment feature in ZoomGrants is optional • All comments/questions be entered by 10am on meeting days • Funding Source information will be shared and discussed in detail prior to funding meetings in March • In-person attendance is preferred but online participation will count towards a quorum 0 5 Board members needed for a quorum Minutes 02. 10.2025 Final Audit Report 2025-02-28 Created: 2025-02-20 By: Rachel Molinari(Rachel.Molinari@slc.gov) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAA90SelpX-1BC-ujOYD5IgFPjANUDZb29h "Minutes 02. 10.2025" History Document created by Rachel Molinari (Rachel.Molinari@slc.gov) 2025-02-20-4:49:04 PM GMT Document emailed to Jake Skog Oakeskog@gmail.com) for signature 2025-02-20-4:49:55 PM GMT Email viewed by Jake Skog Qakeskog@gmail.com) 2025-02-28-3:58:32 AM GMT FS® Signer Jake Skog Qakeskog@gmail.com) entered name at signing as Jacob Skog 2025-02-28-3:59:26 AM GMT 6© Document e-signed by Jacob Skog Qakeskog@gmail.com) Signature Date:2025-02-28-3:59:28 AM GMT-Time Source:server Agreement completed. 2025-02-28-3:59:28 AM GMT y Powered by Adobe Acrobat Sign