Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout02/04/2019 - Meeting Minutes MINUTES FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT & CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS BOARD MEETING (CDCIP) Monday, February 4, 2019 451 South State Street, Room 126 City & County Building Salt Lake City, Utah 5:30 p.m. 1. Board Members Board Members Not Present Loree Hagen Hannah Lockhart Tony Mastracci Andrew Saalfield Pamela Silberman Brooke Young Staff Present Melissa Jensen, HAND Staff Dan Rip, HAND Staff Callye Cleverly, HAND Staff Shyami Hugoe, HAND Staff Ben Luedtke, Council Staff 2. Staff Updates There were no updates by staff 3. Approval of the minutes of the January 28 2019 meetin . Ms. Silberman asked for a motion to approve the minutes. Mr. Saalfield moved to approve the minutes of January 28, 2019 as presented. Ms. Young seconded the motion. Motion carried unanimously. 4. Business A. Welcome Ms. Silberman welcomed the CDCIP Members and opened the meeting on February 4, 2019 at 5:30PM. B. Application Review and Discussion 1) Transportation--Traffic Signal Upgrades: Mr. Jeff Gulden explained that this application included changing wire signals to master arms, improving advanced radar detection, and CDCIP Meeting Minutes February 4,2019 Page 2 helps traffic move smoother. Mr. Gulden stated that this funding is needed to maintain state of good repair for the traffic signal system. Based on maintenance assessments, six traffic signal upgrades are recommended each year. Ms. Silberman how many signals were upgraded with last year is funding. Mr. Gulden replied that he believed they received 1 million in funding last year, but he would have to check with staff. He explained that this request would give them the ability to upgrade 6 signals, and in doing so that would keep them on track for their 40 year time line. 2) Transportation—Transportation Safety Improvements: Mr. Gulden explained that this funding would allow his group to quickly address improvements needed like enhancing cross walks with push buttons. He added that especially with the 3 Creeks project coming up, they could use these funds to install the enhanced crosswalks for more access for nearby residences. Ms. Hagen asked if these improvements would be implemented with or without public input. Mr. Castle stated that in in the complete streets ordinance there is no public engagement piece currently. He added that any road that is reconstructed there is a requirement to add bikes lanes, the process is more holistic, but one piece to achieve is to add public engagement. 3) Transportation—Complete Street Enhancements: Mr. Gulden proposed this application as street designs. He explained that this funding would help compliment roadway projects that have been funded or will be funded and the current use is pop up intersections. Mr. Gulden added that having several different designs to test out is helpful before settling on which on. Mr. Mastracci asked if the pop up intersections are considered successful and will there be a robust in terms of how many there would be. Mr. Gulden stated there is not a sense of how many there would be but that pop up intersections is only a component of the application, not the whole thing. He added that this funding is asked for every year, but this year is slightly different in ways such as planning. 4) Engineering—Bridge Maintenance Program 2019/2020: Mr. Matt Cassel explained this maintenance application. Mr. Cassel stated that UDOT inspects the bridges and provides us with a list of deficiencies and we use this funding to fix the elements that we are able to. He added that in future years they would like to come forward with a bridge program. Mr. Cassel stated it is easier to prioritize and fix to keep functional rather than replace. Mr. Mastracci asked about the 23 bridges listed in the narrative and if this funding would be for all the bridges or just some. Mr. Cassel explained that last year with this filnding they were able to repair one bridge. Ms. Hagen asked what the backlog looked like. Mr. Castle stated there is a report that stats what needs to be fixed and in what priority they need to be fixed, so they know if they are falling behind or staying even. 5) Engineering—Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South and 650 North over the Jordan River): Mr. Cassel explained that this bridge is down to almost ready for replacement, and they should be able to keep it intact without having to fully replace. Ms. Lockhart asked if the maintenance were preformed would it postpone the replacement. Mr. Cassel stated repairs would last quite a long time and would defer a replacement. Ms. Silberman asked about future maintenance rather than having the issue of deferred maintenance. Mr. Cassel explained that UDOT does their inspections every two years, and to keep in mind CDCIP Meeting Minutes February 4,2019 Page 3 streets does not maintain bridges, so they are very behind on maintenance. He added that this should not be a capital project and the budget is not increased. Ms. Jensen stated that currently there is no funding being put toward this. Mr. Castle further explained that they are spending money to maintain bridges, but there is no operational bridge maintenance funding. 6) Engineering—Bridge Replacement(200 South over the Jordan River): Mr. Castle stated that this bridge was below the score of needing to be replaced, so they applied for federal funding and did not get awarded and when UDOT came back out to re-inspect, the score was increased enough that it no longer qualified for federal funds. Ms. Silberman stated that 7 million dollars exceeds the resource of CIP all together. Mr. Castle replied that they next survey could decrease below the threshold to qualify for federal funding again. Ms. Silberman asked about other funding options and what if the bridge has to be closed. Mr. Castle stated that a few options would be as it deteriorates to enforce a load limit and once it is below limits to apply for federal funding again. 7) Engineering—Public Way Concrete Program 2019/2020: Mr. Castle explained that this finding has been applied for in the past but as two separate applications; one for ada ramps and one for deteriorated sidewalks. Ms. Silberman asked how many linear feet does 750K help with and how many linear feet is there within the City. Mr. Castle stated that engineering has those numbers but he does not know them. He added that in the 50/50 program, they usually receive 300 applications and about 100 of them are actually done. 8) Engineering—Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2019/2020: Mr. Castle informed the Board that usually UDOT is technically over all railroad crossings in the state, but this funding would help us provide transition. Ms. Hagen asked if there was a list of crossings that needed this funding. Mr. Castle stated that there is a list. Ms. Jensen explained to the Board that UDOT comes to the table with significant resources, and the City needs a resource to participate. Ms. Silberman asked if there were only three locations. Mr. Castle stated that was correct but with this funding they could improve one location. 9) Engineering—Street Improvements 2019/2020 Overlay: Mr. Castle stated this application was eligible for Class C funds, and it was divided out into reconstruction and overlay, and the overlay is a capital expense. Ms. Hagen asked about striking and if it is in complete street ordinances, and how they are determined. Mr. Castle explained that the design includes traffic patterns and transportation helps with the striking. 10)Engineering— Street Improvements 2019/2020 Reconstruction: Mr. Castle explains that some of this funding part impact fees, and for an idea of reconstruction in 2020 that request equals 7.8 million. He. Stated that part of that funding will be covered with bonds, and other parts Class C and impact fee; 2020 is start of using bond money for streets to gear lip for bigger expenditures in the following years. 11)Engineering—Wingpointe Levee Design: Mr. Castle explained that the levee was CDCIP Meeting Minutes February 4,2019 Page 4 breached near the golf course, and it could belong to public utilities, or the County, but no one wants to own it. He stated that an application has been submitted to FEMA, but they have not heard back yet. Mr. Cassel stated it would cost 125K to start the design and 800 K would be for design and geo tech, and that the actual cost for construction is more than 5 million. Ms. Silberman asked why there are alternative cost estimates from the County. Mr. Cassel explained that other cost estimates were performed to see if there was a better way to fix it,because if it gets fixed it will affect the golf course immensely. Ms. Silberman expressed concern because the future of the golf course has yet to be decided. C. Other Business Ms. Cleverly informed the Board of historical funding about City Department funding and constituent funding. She added that parks has pulled 5 of their applications leaving 15 remaining. S. Ad*ournment There being no further business. The meeting was adjourned at 6:49 PM. r- CD I oa r This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the CDCIP Board meeting held February 4, 2019.