Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/19/2025 - Meeting Minutes MINUTES FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BOARD MEETING(CDCIP) Wednesday, February 19, 2025 S:00pm 1. Board Members Board Members Not Present Brad Christensen Jenny Bonk Jake Skog Heidi Steed Devon Schechinger Dallin Jones Andrea Schaefer Joseph Murphy Staff Present Bret Montgomery, Rachel Molinari, Mike Atkinson, Sherif Basta, and Ben Luedtke— Department of Finance Jeff Gulden, Kyle Cook, Becka Roolf, Kyle Irvin, Jenna Simkins, Bill Baranowski, and Lynn Jacobs—Transportation Division Mark Stephens and Chris Norlem—Engineering Division Constituents' Present Matthew Preston, Kim Paturzo, Robin Carbaugh, Julian Jurkoic, Troy Saltiel, Polly Dacus, Kristina Robb, Tyler Peterson, Jeff Bair, Margaret Coppin, Esther Hunter, Breanna Brannan,Nicholas Wilkinson, Lynn Webster, John Woeste, Tom Merrill, Peter Corroon, Alexis Holden, and Demian Hanks 2. Staff Updates There were no staff updates. 3. Business Ms. Molinari welcomed the CDCIP Board members and City staff then opened the meeting on February 19, 2025, at 5:02 p.m. She explained that each applicant would have two minutes to discuss their application, followed by a Q&A from the Board members. She added that there would also be City staff available to help answer some of the questions. Ms. Molinari informed the participants attending online to please keep their microphones muted until they were called upon. She also said that each person must state their name for the public record before answering any questions. The staff offered individual introductions. Mr. Skog then started the introduction of the CDCIP Board, and each member introduced themselves. Constituent Transportation Applications: Safe Routes to Beacon Heights, Hillside, and Cosgriff Constituent- Matthew Preston • Mr. Preston expressed his gratitude for the support from the city staff in assisting with the application to reduce traffic speed on the east side of Sugar House, near Parley's Canyon and Foothill Drive. He explained that over the past few years, traffic in the area has significantly increased, and with three schools nearby, students frequently cross the streets. He specified that the proposal was requesting the installation of raised crosswalks, speed humps, and redesigned intersections and stated the project was scalable, depending on the funding available. • Ms. Steed inquired if the project were partially funded, what areas of the project would be prioritized. o Mr. Preston stated that the area near 2100 South has heavy traffic and a corner so that would be the most important. • Mr. Skog asked to have each applicant state the Livable Streets Zone number applied to their area and why traffic calming measures should be prioritized at those locations. o Mr. Preston stated that the application was 74 out of 113 zones and asked to have city staff help explain how they prioritize projects. o Mr. Gulden noted that it was challenging for the City to determine why some areas should be prioritized over others. However, he continued by saying this process provided applicants the opportunity to explain the specific issues in their area and highlight its importance, independent of the Livable Streets program. o Mr. Preston emphasized that while data provides valuable insights, it's the community that can truly explain what's happening in their neighborhoods. Safe Side Streets North Extension Constituent- Kim Paturzo • Ms. Paturzo described the area for the proposed project, highlighting the lack of traffic calming measures such as speed bumps or a traffic circle. She emphasized strong community support for the initiative and requested that the area be made safer, similar to other parts of Sugar House that had implemented such measures. • Mr. Jones inquired about the project's designated zone. o Mr. Cook clarified that it falls within Zone 64, out of a total of 113 zones. • Mr. Murphy asked how projects from previous years factor into prioritizing applications for this year. o Mr. Cook replied that consistency of traffic calming measures in certain areas is important and that Ms. Paturzo's application asked for more measures in the area because drivers tend to speed up once they get out of the areas with calming measures. o Mr. Murphy followed up, questioning whether drivers avoid constructed calming areas and speed up outside of them. o Ms. Roolf provided an overview of the Livable Streets Program, noting that the city is divided into 113 zones, and explained how the Transportation Division prioritizes projects based on this structure. o Ms. Molinari stated that the Advisory Board had seen the Livable Streets report. • Mr. Murphy raised a question about the difference between speed humps and speed cushions. o Ms. Paturzo clarified that her application specifically requested speed cushions, as their design includes divots that allow emergency vehicles to pass more easily while still slowing regular traffic. • Mr. Christensen asked about economies of scale while considering these projects. o Mr. Cook explained that many of the projects are grouped together during the bidding process to secure better pricing. o Mr. Christensen followed up with a question regarding the selection of specific traffic calming measures for each area. o Mr. Cook explained the factors involved in choosing the most appropriate measures for different locations. Sunnyside Avenue and Amanda Ave Safe Crossing Constituent- Robin Carbaugh • Ms. Carbaugh presented the location of the proposed project, noting how both residents and students from various schools in the area frequently use the surrounding grounds. She also highlighted that additional funding from Rowland Hall could be used to supplement some of the funds requested for the project. • Ms. Schaefer asked for clarification on the funds available to help offset the project's costs. o Ms. Carbaugh described how the funding became available, and the total amount would be $100,000. • Mr. Murphy inquired about having a traditional crosswalk as opposed to. a HAWK signal. o Ms. Simkins responded that HAWK signals are significantly more expensive than standard crosswalks with flashing yellow lights. • Ms. Schechinger asked how the proposed project aligns with Salt Lake City's sustainability goals. o Ms. Carbaugh explained that many students rely on the city bus line for transportation to school, and she believes the project would encourage even more students and residents to utilize public transit. Sweet Streets Bike Network Gap Filling Constituent- Julian Jurkoic • Mr. Jurkoic outlined how the proposed project would enhance bicycle safety in multiple areas, encourage more residents to cycle, and make improvements to older bike safety initiatives. • Mr. Murphy asked if the City's Bicycle Advisory Committee had offered any recommendations or support for the application. • Any letters of support would be shared with the Board once received. Mr. Murphy inquired about a map included in the application, asking whether the project was focused on a specific location or if it were more citywide. o Mr. Saltiel clarified that the project was citywide, and while a map prioritizing specific areas wasn't included, the city was actively working on developing one. Wasatch Dr& 2100 South Project Constituent- Polly Dacus • Ms. Dacus provided an overview of the specific requests outlined in the application, including the area covered by the project. She noted that the proposed project was in close proximity to another application, which could allow for potential collaboration. • Mr. Murphy asked for clarification on whether the application was asking for the installation of a roundabout. o Ms. Dacus explained that the original application did call for a roundabout; however, the Transportation Division determined that the land's slope made construction unfeasible. As a result, the application was revised to request speed humps instead. o Mr. Murphy then asked about the cost of a radar sign. o Mr. Baranowski responded that each radar sign typically costs between $10,000 and $20,000 per direction. East High Youth Sa ety Project Constituent- Kristina Robb • Ms. Robb outlined the area covered by the application and highlighted the numerous community partners involved in creating the CIP request. She discussed the ongoing issue of student-on-student violence, noting that neighbors often face intimidation or harassment when reporting these incidents. • Ms. Schechinger asked for clarification on how the project would address concerns such as gang violence. o Ms. Robb explained that the project would focus on altering environmental aspects of the road to make it more difficult for vehicles to be used in the harassment of students. • Ms. Robb described how the project evolved through the whole application process and that it now asked for a professional consultant to review the data and make further recommendations. o Mr. Murphy inquired about the nature of the consultation and questioned whether an external consultant was necessary, given that the neighborhood and City are already familiar with the area's challenges. o Mr. Jacobs responded that there are multiple stakeholders involved, each with different perspectives on the issues. He suggested that an outside consultant would be better positioned to assess all the data and create a cohesive, well- rounded plan. • Ms. Schaefer, who lives in the area, expressed surprise at the extent of the problems and asked whether increased police presence might help. o Ms. Robb explained that much of the violence occurs during school hours, though not all the perpetrators are teenagers. She noted that while police have been called numerous times, they often cannot intervene unless they witness a crime in progress. • Mr. Murphy and Mr. Jones both asked about the possibility of using cameras in the area to help address the situation. o Ms. Robb confirmed that one camera had been recently installed, which has served as a deterrent to some extent. However, she pointed out that unless someone is actively monitoring the cameras, they don't prevent more serious crimes from occurring. Marmalade Gateway Roundabout Constituent- Tyler Peterson • Mr. Peterson explained that a roundabout was originally planned for the area,but due to a lack of funding, it was never constructed. He highlighted that this street was the only East/West route without any traffic calming measures, leading to increased traffic as drivers use it to cut through the neighborhood. He suggested that the project could be implemented in phases, and even a small portion of the requested funding would have a significant impact. • Mr. Murphy inquired about the design of the roundabout and how the original submission would limit the speed of traffic. o Mr. Peterson responded that two designs were included in the application, with the second design being the most effective option for slowing down traffic. Slow Down Liberty Wells South Constituent- Jeff Bair • Mr. Bair discussed the ongoing issue of speeding traffic in the Liberty Wells neighborhoods, highlighting the years they had been advocating for traffic safety improvements and specifying the types of calming measures they were seeking. He noted that while their initial application requested calming measures for the entire neighborhood, it had to be scaled back due to the high cost of the original proposal. • Ms. Schechinger asked why they believed their previous applications had been rejected. o Mr. Bair clarified that this was their first submission of a CIP application, and they were not aware of the option until recently. East Central Community Council Proposal for Pedestrian Safety Measures Solar Powered Pedestrian Activated Flashers Constituent- Esther Hunter • Ms. Hunter described the area covered by the application and shared a personal incident that motivated her to focus on improving pedestrian safety. She highlighted the progress made over the past 25 years in making certain areas safer for cyclists and pedestrians. She emphasized that the neighborhood has the highest density per square block, with many rental properties housing University of Utah students. • Mr. Jones asked for clarification on how this project differed from one that was presented the previous week. o Ms. Hunter gave a brief explanation of the difference. Constituent Engineering Applications: 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk and Repave Street Constituent- Breanna Brannan • Ms. Brannan mentioned that this was the fourth time they had submitted the application, provided an overview of the project and explained the rationale behind requesting funding. • There were no questions from the Board. 1700 East Asphalt and Fence Constituent-No constituents were present • The applicant was not present, and the Board had no additional questions. Nevada Street Reconstruction Constituent-Nicholas Wilkinson • Mr. Wilkinson explained that there are four schools in the area,but only four of the ten crosswalks have painted crossings. He suggested that the application could be divided into two parts: road reconstruction and sidewalk and crossing safety improvements. He also praised the City staff for their support in preparing the application and mentioned that local residents had contributed private funds to install additional street lighting for children walking to school. • Ms. Schaefer asked if there was a similar prioritization process for the requested street repairs, as there was for the Livable Streets program. o Mr. Stephens outlined the Overall Condition Index(OCI) scoring used to rank city streets and determine the necessary work. He noted that they value CIP applications, as they assist in prioritizing streets. o Ms. Schaefer followed up, asking if every street surface was included in the overall master plan. o Mr. Stephens confirmed that the City would be reassessing the streets this year and updating the master plan. He added that the report plays a key role in CIP applications and helps guide resource allocation. • Ms. Schaefer asked for clarification on what funding sources could be applied to this project. • Mr. Murphy requested additional information about the City's responsibilities versus homeowners' responsibilities for driveway repairs. o Mr. Stephens explained the differences and outlined the available programs to help cover the costs. o Mr. Jones asked further clarifying questions regarding the driveway repair component of the application. Repave Alley Constituent- Lynn Webster • Mr. Webster discussed the alleyway and the neighborhood's request for it to be repaved. • Mr. Murphy asked about the funding options for alleyway improvements. o Mr. Stephens explained that alleyway improvements are not eligible for Class C funding and must instead be funded through General Fund resources. • Mr. Murphy then asked if the alleyway pilot program had been initiated and funded a few years ago. o Mr. Stephens confirmed it had been started, and that funding had been requested annually. He provided an overview of the pilot program, the total number of alleyway miles within Salt Lake City, and the challenges involved in repaving and maintaining them. He also discussed private alleyways where residents or businesses were responsible for the expense of maintaining them. Texas Street Replacement Constituent- John Woeste • Mr. Woeste described the area covered by the application, noting its proximity to the Nevada Street project, and explained their request for replacement due to an OCI score of 18 out of 100. • Mr. Jones inquired about the potential economies of scale if this project and the Nevada Street application were combined. o Mr. Stephens explained that when all projects, including internal applications, are put out for bid, they are often grouped together to maximize economies of scale. Main &Broadway Shade Constituent- Tom Merrill, Peter Corroon • Mr. Merrill described the area covered by the application, explaining how the sidewalk contributes to creating a heat island. He emphasized the goal of the project to enhance the area's aesthetic appeal, make it more community-friendly, and create a more enjoyable environment overall. • Mr. Jones asked for clarification about which part of the street was included in the application, as he lives on that street, and this might affect his ability to vote on the matter. • Ms. Schaefer asked whether the Clift Building would still proceed with its investment in the area, regardless of whether this application was approved. o Mr. Corroon, associated with the Clift Building, confirmed that they would continue with their investment in the building and would still provide outdoor seating. However, he noted that without the approval of this application, the seating would offer limited improvements to the area. Neighborhood Alley Way Repavement (#4915)/Repave Alley #4195 Constituent-Alexis Holden& Demian Hanks • Ms. Holden explained that the alleyway was severely damaged by heavy trucks during the reconstruction of 900 South. The trucks caused significant damage, resulting in large potholes that now render the alleyway unusable. The application was submitted because the damage exceeds what would be considered normal wear and tear. • Mr. Murphy asked about the condition score for this alleyway. o Mr. Stephens replied that it scored two out of ten. • Mr. Hanks noted that this was the second application for this project in three years and expressed his appreciation that funding was available for alleyway improvements. • Mr. Murphy inquired about the drainage situation for alleyways. o Mr. Stephens clarified that each alleyway was unique and gave examples of past drainage solutions. o Mr. Norlem discussed the type of drainage that would likely be implemented for this particular alleyway. A. Overview and Expectations of next Meeting Ms. Molinari announced that the next meeting would be held on Monday, February 24, 2025, focusing on Constituent Public Lands-related projects. The meeting would follow the same structure as the previous one. She also mentioned that a CIP map had been created and would be shared with the Board members. Additionally, she noted that the score sheets were still being updated and requested patience as the Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion(DEI) question was being reviewed. B. Approval of the Minutes Ms. Steed made a motion to approve the minutes of February 3, 2025, and February 10, 2025. Mr. Christensen seconded the motion. Upon roll call the minutes were approved. C. Adiournment There being no further business. Mr. Christensen made a motion to adjourn. Mr. Murphy seconded the motion. The meeting was adjourned at 7:15 pm. XJak kog(Mar 4,202510:28 MST) CDCIP Board Chair This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the CDCIP Board meeting held February 19, 2025. CDCIP Board Minutes Final Audit Report 2025-03-04 Created: 2025-03-04 By: Rachel Molinari(Rachel.Molinari@slc.gov) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAYxtROpgODAhkMkjDLohVMgm8p2GpJapx "CDCIP Board Minutes" History Document created by Rachel Molinari (Rachel.Molinari@slc.gov) 2025-03-04-4:31:04 PM GMT Document emailed to Jake Skog Oakeskog@gmail.com) for signature 2025-03-04-4:31:33 PM GMT Email viewed by Jake Skog Qakeskog@gmail.com) 2025-03-04-5:27:46 PM GMT Al Document e-signed by Jake Skog Oakeskog@gmail.com) Signature Date:2025-03-04-5:28:21 PM GMT-Time Source:server Agreement completed. 2025-03-04-5:28:21 PM GMT y Powered by Adobe Acrobat Sign