The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About03/17/2025 - Meeting Minutes MINUTES FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BOARD MEETING (CDCIP) Monday, March 17, 2025 5:00pm 1. Board Members Board Members Not Present Brad Christensen Jake Skog Jenny Bonk Heidi Steed Devon Schechinger Dallin Jones Andrea Schaefer Joseph Murphy Staff Present Bret Montgomery, Rachel Molinari, Mike Atkinson, Sherif Basta, Owen Reeder, and Ben Luedtke—Department of Finance Elizabeth Buehler—Information Management Services Mark Stephens, Chris Norlem—Engineering Division Jon Larsen—Transportation Division 2. Business Ms. Molinari welcomed the CDCIP Board members and City staff then opened the meeting on March 17, 2025, at 5:02 p.m. She explained that each application would have two minutes to be presented, followed by a Q&A from the Board members. 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. Internal Transportation—Engineering Applications: Street Overlays 2026 • Mr. Stephens described the application for the Board. • Mr. Murphy inquired about the priority ranking of Texas Street and Nevada Street. Mr. Stephens responded that if these streets were part of a constituent request, they would be treated as separate individual projects and would not be included in the current project application. He also noted that there were several other streets in more deteriorated conditions. Street Reconstruction 2026 • Mr. Stephens described the application for the Board. • Mr. Christensen noted that only about 10% of the total funding needed for this and the previous application had been requested, asking if there were other funding sources available to cover the remainder. In response, Mr. Stephens outlined several potential funding sources that could help cover the full costs. Mr. Larsen added that a transportation utility fee might be the most viable option for supporting projects like these in the future. • Mr. Murphy brought up the Public Way Concrete application from the previous week, pointing out that it also included similar work. Mr. Stephens clarified that the Public Way Concrete application focused on smaller, spot repair projects, while Street Reconstruction projects benefit from economies of scale, making it more cost-effective to include this type of work during the reconstruction process. Internal Transportation Applications: GREENbike Federal Grant Match 2026;Bike Rack Replacements 2026 • Mr. Larsen described the application for the Board. • Mr. Christensen asked what the outcome would be if only $60,000 were awarded instead of the requested $100,000 and inquired about the purpose of a bike corral. Mr. Larsen explained that the project would simply be scaled back to accommodate the reduced funding. He also clarified that a bike corral was different from the GREENbike stations. Livable Streets Program 2026 • Mr. Larsen described the application for the Board. • Mr. Jones asked how many traffic calming measures are typically included in a zone. Mr. Larsen explained that the number varies significantly depending on the size of the zone, ranging from five or six in smaller zones to dozens in larger ones. • Mr. Jones then asked how they determine which zones to focus on. Mr. Larsen noted that factors such as crash data and community engagement were considered to address the areas of greatest concern. • Mr. Murphy pointed out that the constituent applications were based on 2019 data and asked if there were plans to update the plan. Mr. Larsen replied that while the plan could be refreshed in the future, the data typically doesn't change much unless a zone experiences significant changes. Missing Sidewalk&Bikeway Network Gaps 2026 • Mr. Larsen described the application for the Board. • Mr. Christensen mentioned that there was a constituent application that was very similar. Mr. Larsen explained that the elements in those applications would help improve the areas they addressed, and the funding for this program would be used to tackle concerns in other areas. Mr. Christensen then asked if the goal was to make this an annual program. Mr. Larsen confirmed that was indeed the intention. Traffic Signal Replacements & Upgrades 2026 • Mr. Larsen described the application for the Board. • Ms. Schechinger asked whether pending tariffs would increase the costs for this project. Mr. Larsen explained that while COVID had a greater impact on the cost of traffic signals than almost any other project, it would be difficult to predict the specific effect of pending tariffs. He noted that contractors for this type of work were in high demand, therefore bundling a larger package would likely provide a lower cost estimate for the City. Mr. Stephens concurred with Mr. Larsen, agreeing that including more traffic lights in a bid would result in more favorable cost estimates. • Mr. Jones asked whether parts from existing traffic signals were reused when upgrading the lights. Mr. Larsen clarified that they are reused, and that this assessment was conducted during the design phase of each project. Mr. Stephens added that sometimes existing infrastructure cannot be reused because it was not up to date on current ADA standards. Transit Capital Program 2026/Funding Our Future Transit • Mr. Larsen described the application for the Board. • Mr. Jones asked about the bus stop improvements on 200 South. Mr. Larsen explained that 200 South had become a key bus corridor, so significant upgrades were planned for the bus stops. He added that many of these stops would be larger than others, designed to accommodate two buses at once. Vision Zero Corridors &Safety Improvements Citywide 2026 • Mr. Larsen described the application for the Board. • Mr. Christensen asked if this initiative was similar to the Livable Streets Program but focused on specific roads rather than entire zones. Mr. Larsen clarified that while there were similarities, the Livable Streets Program primarily targets neighborhood streets, where traffic tends to be slower, and there were fewer fatalities. 3. Staff Updates • In the previous meeting, the CDCIP Board requested an update on State Bill 195 once the State Legislature had concluded. Mr. Larsen and Mr. Luedtke provided an overview of the bill's provisions. Mr. Christensen asked whether the bill should be considered when determining project funding. Mr. Larsen clarified that most applications would not be affected by the bill, but for those that are, adjustments would be made to ensure compliance with the new law. Mr. Jones inquired whether the bill only applied to state- owned roads and why the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)needed to be involved in the approval process for City-owned streets. Mr. Larsen expressed that he does not fully understand the rationale behind that aspect of the bill. • Mr. Luedtke presented the CDCIP Board Funding Award Considerations document, explaining that it serves as a helpful reference for the Board as they evaluate funding recommendations. • Ms. Molinari asked the Board members to complete their scoring sheets by the morning of Thursday, March 20,2025 to allow time for review and compilation. This would ensure a ranking sheet would be ready before the next meeting. Ms. Bonk asked if the funding source document would also be sent out prior to the next meeting. Mr. Atkinson confirmed that it would be. Ms. Bonk provided feedback on changes she would like to see made to the scoring sheet. • Ms. Molinari asked if the Board members would prefer to hold a potential longer session meeting on March 24, 2025, to avoid holding an additional meeting on March 31, 2025. The Board agreed to a longer session if needed. The CDCIP Board Funding Award Considerations handout and PowerPoint slides for all the applications presented in the meeting are attached for reference. 4. Approval of the Minutes Mr. Christensen made a motion to approve the minutes of March 3, 2025. Mr. Jones seconded the motion. Upon rollcall, the motion passed unanimously. 5. Adiournment There being no further business, Mr. Skog noted that all agenda items had been addressed and declared the meeting adjourned at 6:17 PM. XJak k (Mar 25,202511:31 MDT) CDCIP Board Chair This document along with the digital recording constitutes the official minutes of the CDCIP Board meeting held March 17, 2025. Complete Streets Overlay 2026 Description: Annual program to repave City streets that are not deteriorated enough to need full reconstruction. Focus on local streets. a 2026 Candidates(Reconstruction and Overlay) ■ Prevents need for full reconstruction. 1100 West(Hayes Avenue to American Avenuc) san Lake Main Street(North Temple to 300 North) ■ This amount will fund approximately 5.5 lane miles. Ci4 Int'l 300 South(West Temple to State Street) A lane mile is 12' w i d e, a mile long. 400 South(1000 East to 1300 East) 400 East(South Temple to 400 South) •1 ■ 3" removal of old asphalt, then 3" paving with new asphalt. _ - 1100 East(zoo South to 800 south) • to Elm Avenue(900 East to McClelland Street) ■ Sidewalk, bike lanes, bus stops, curb, gutter, drainage - as Navajo Street(300 South to 600 South) needed. v 600 South(Cheyenne Street to Jordan River) = soo s ` Starcrest Drive(1100 North to 400 North) S _Esunn 'da Av 400 North(Doralma Street to Starerest Drive) Doralma Street(400 North to South terminus) oo S \ Funding Request: $3,500,000 a""`"'' L Street(I2th Avenue toSthAvenue) W E Street(7th Avenue to South Temple) E 1700 S Chalton Circle(900 East to Cul-de-Sac End) Girard Avenue(East Capitol Street to terminus) E 2100me Partial Funding: Possible but not advised 3 Chancellor Place(Chancellor Way to Cul-de-Sac End) E 2700 ST"ft�-ft Recommended Annual Funding: Recommended annual funding: $20,000,000. This would fund roughly 31 .56 lane miles of overlays. Complete Streets Reconstruction 2026 Description: This annual program funds the vital reconstruction of deteriorated City streets, including: : W,DDOM • Street pavement, • Curb, gutter, drainage improvements as necessary, - `p Sidewalk, 2026 Candidates(Reconstruction and Overlay) • 1100 West(Hayes Avenue to American Avenue) • Appropriate "complete streets" improvements - bicycle, Main Street(North Temple to 300 North) t�edestrian, and transit access. 300 South(West Temple to State Street) t 400 South(1000 East to 1300 East) R,I, 400 East(South Temple to 400 South) °'"'''" This year' s funding request also includes the every-three-years 1100 East(200 South to 800 South)ElmAvenue(900EasttoMcClellandStreet) assessment of street condition; this data serves as a primary wll Navajo Street(300 South to600South) selection tool for the program. 600 South(Cheyenne Street to Jordan River) Starcrest Drive(1100 North to 400 North) E,30D 5 W` 400 North(Doralma Street to Starcrest Drive) Funding Request: $4,750,000 E„DOS Doralma Street(400 North to South terminus) L Street(I2th Avenue to 5th Avenue) ^ E Street(7th Avenue to South Temple) t, Chalton Circle(900 East to Cul-de-Sac End) E"°°5 Pa rt i a l Funding: Possible b u t not advised Girard Avenue(East Capitol Street to terminus) Chancellor Place(Chancellor Way to Cul-de-Sac End) N ® W3700S E DOS Recommended Annual: $60,000,000 this is to achieve a F 71 backlog of 15%. W 3100 B i -- n 4 w nAs -E 33N8 It'll E33DOS GREENbike Federal Grant Match; Bike Rack Replacements Description: This funding will be used to replace old, rusting, or missing capital infrastructure. r 7 ■ Matches $860,000 in awarded federal grants for \ GREENbike. - - • Replace falling-apart bike share stations and bikes. ■ Almost half the stations in Salt Lake can no longer be repaired due to lack of replacement arts. p p p �`, ��i►� ■ Replace dozens of missing / rusting city-owned bike racks on the public way. Funding Request: $100,000 Partial Funding: Possible but not recommended x V: C . Recommended Annual Funding: $100,000, most of which is match for outside grants. �� Livable Streets Program 2026 Description: Construction of 3 livable streets zones, focused t on slower traffic in neighborhoods / on local streets. • Prioritized zones with equitable implementation based on: �. • crash data ospeed data - • demographics • community assets-schools, parks • Common constituent request. ■ Zones 10-12 of 113. Funding Request: $2,000,000 Partial Funding: Possible Recommended Annual Funding: Depends on target year for completion. ��■ At the current rate of 3-4 zones per year, the program will -u° •!�� =�:�=f� �� take around 25-30 years to address all areas of the city. ri � �;�l� .:�. �ecw -- Missing Sidewalk & Bikeway Network 2026 Description: Add missing sidewalks and fill bikeway network gaps focused on separated, family-friendly _ bikeways and trails. - ■ One of five key moves in Connect SLC, the 2024 citywide transportation plan. ■ Link recent projects together into a network. •e KI05 _i5 ■ Create bikeways using paint, bollards, and separation -.-�.__ provided by parked vehicles. . ■ Strategic sections of sidewalk and/or trails. Funding Request: $1 ,500,000 I Partial Funding: Possible Recommended Annual Funding: TBD, this is a new, network-focused approach recommended by the 2024 Citywide Transportation Plan. Traffic Signal Replacements & Upgrades Description: Replace 6 signals and make as many as 9 a critical upgrades to detection / communication. • Poles rusting out: potential fall hazards. r' ■ Failing detection: redlight running or other dangerous4 ?} YT Tk behavior. '"4{ _ ■ Increased maintenance: wire patches, staff time. Yr rt ' • Legal compliance: ADA, city plans. Funding Request: $4,000,000 `' ` .r Replace k` Partial Funding: Possible but not recommended. Re P • 2700 South Highland Dr; Replace Detection Recommended Annual: $5,000,00046,000,000 to bring 600 East 500 South • 200 West & 100 South signals to industry standard over 10 years. 900 West 800 South • 600 East & 300 South • 1300 East 900 South 300 East & 300 South Signals have seen some of the highest inflation in the Arapeen Way Sunnyside Ave 500 West & 200 South construction industry. • 500 East 600 South 0 400 East South Temple Transit Capital Program 2026 Description: Leverages outside funds from UTA for bus shelters, benches, trash cans, mobility hubs and accessible 4rIOSPOL5 91 ►-i first/last mile connections to transit. t,2nrcCermer Fort Douglas Hciuh 5u_rm f,- Caner Ir • Makes all transit stops accessible, safe, and comfortable Um,erOt;Un, for people of all ages and abilities. UrJWrPl�4r,r a-� ■ Required by federal law, especially when streets are + i repaved. Funding Request: $1 ,000,000 - "* Partial Funding: Yes, this program is scalable. Recommended Annual Funding: $1 -1 .5 million. As many bus stops have now been upgraded, this year's is a smaller -- request. Higher levels of funding may be needed in future years. Vision Zero Corridors & Safety Improvements Description: Traffic fatalities / serious injuries are preventable, not just inevitable from travel in a city. This project will construct proven safety measures to help turn fatal crashes into bumps or fender benders. • People walking / biking were 45% of SLC's 66 traffic fatalities 11 2021-24. - • Recommendations in a regional Comprehensive Safety Action Plan (CSAP) led by Wasatch Front Regional Council. ■ Redwood Road, 900 West, & 800 South are primary corridors. — • Strategic safety improvements at other locations citywide. • No other city asset is killing people at this rate. _ = ~ Funding Request: $2,300,000 (l�q 220A� TOM 00 3N COMPREHENSIVE SAFETY ACTION PLAN Partial Funding: Possible but not advised �111 It Ar cc Thank you! ¢`AKF� FY26 I Transportation, Streets, & Engineering • 1841 CDCIP Board Funding Award Considerations The intent of this one-sheet is to provide a high-level overview of considerations that staff noted from CDCIP Board deliberations over the years. This is not a comprehensive list but a reference to help board members consider how to balance the many competing needs. New Assets vs Capital Maintenance — Protecting past investments by funding capital maintenance helps prolong the useful life of an asset. Funding new assets invests in the City's future and serves a growing population. Types of Assets — Board members have sometimes expressed an interest to spread CIP funding between asset classes to avoid one class significantly falling behind over the years. Generally, assets are classified by the City office responsible for it including Engineering and Transportation which often coordinate on projects (e.g., sidewalks, streets, traffic calming, and bridges), Facilities (e.g., buildings), and Public Lands (e.g., parks, trails, and natural areas). Varying Geographic Needs — Board members have sometimes expressed an interest to spread CIP funding around the City to ensure multiple Council Districts and neighborhoods benefit from annual capital investments. The degree and type of need varies between areas of the City. Some applications have a specific location while some annual program applications are listed as citywide because the program addresses assets in multiple neighborhoods which varies each year based on program prioritization criteria (e.g., data-driven, coordination with other construction plans). Ongoing Annual Programs vs One-time Projects — Annual program applications are typically from departments and reflect ongoing funding needed to keep up with the lifecycle of capital assets such as replacing deteriorated assets. One-time project applications are typically single investments that do not need annual funding or propose a specific project location that would otherwise be addressed in the regular course of an annual program. Full Funding vs Partial Funding — Partially funding a project can sometimes allow part of the request to proceed spreading limited funding to more applications. However, when a project is split into multiple phases the costs often increase for later phases resulting in a greater total cost than if full funding was awarded in a single CIP cycle. Partial funding sometimes sits dormant waiting for full funding in later CIP cycles (e.g., partially funding a bridge reconstruction). Larger vs Smaller Projects — Projects that are not "shovel ready" often go through planning, public engagement, and design phases before construction. The time to progress through these phases can be the same for a large project as a smaller project. A single large, high-dollar project might be completed faster and more efficiently than several smaller dollar projects. Different Funding Sources — Staff will identify application eligibility for each funding source which are listed below from the least to most restrictive with a brief description for reference. Generally, awarding the most restrictive funding first helps preserve flexibility. General Fund Dollars: The most flexible funding which can be spent on any application. Funding Our Future Local Sales Tax: Eligibility is limited to five critical need categories which are affordable housing, public transit, streets, public safety, and parks maintenance. Class C Funds: From the State gas tax and a portion is provided to cities for transportation. County 4t" Quarter Cent Sales Tax: Limited to transportation uses per state law. Impact Fees: A payment from a developer for increased demand on City facilities caused by population and employment growth. There are four types that may appear in CIP (typically not each year) which are fire, parks, police, and transportation. Minutes 03. 17.2025 Final Audit Report 2025-03-25 Created: 2025-03-25 By: Rachel Molinari(Rachel.Molinari@slc.gov) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAUGT-8SJgWyVnrW5Fx97gY5jpRd2QBgmq "Minutes 03. 17.2025" History Document created by Rachel Molinari (Rachel.Molinari@slc.gov) 2025-03-25-5:29:57 PM GMT Document emailed to Jake Skog Oakeskog@gmail.com) for signature 2025-03-25-5:30:20 PM GMT Email viewed by Jake Skog Qakeskog@gmail.com) 2025-03-25-5:30:25 PM GMT Al Document e-signed by Jake Skog Oakeskog@gmail.com) Signature Date:2025-03-25-5:31:06 PM GMT-Time Source:server Agreement completed. 2025-03-25-5:31:06 PM GMT y Powered by Adobe Acrobat Sign