The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About02/23/2026 - Meeting Minutes Community Development&Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board Meeting Minutes 23 February 2026 w MINUTES FROM THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT& CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CDCIP) ADVISORY BOARD MEETING 23 February 2026 Board Members Present Dallin Jones, Co-Chair Cooper Fankhauser Jenny Bonk Joseph Murphy Sean Weeks Board Members Not Present Brad Christensen, Chair Staff Present Finance Department: Rachel Molinari-Capital Improvement Program Manager Bret Montgomery- Financial Analyst IV Ben Luedtke- Deputy Chief Financial Officer Public Lands Department Kat Andra -Senior Planning Strategist Mayor's Office Blake Thomas-Senior Advisor of Real Estate and Capital Projects A. Welcome/Roll Call Rachel Molinari called the meeting to order at 5:00 p.m. Roll call was conducted. Participants were reminded to state their name before speaking for the public record. B. Questions and Discussion on Proposed CIP Projects Community Development&Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board Meeting Minutes 23 February 2026 Kat Andra provided an overview of department priorities including: • Responding to critical infrastructure needs and legal obligations • Advancing transformational public space projects • Securing long-term sustainability through asset reinvestment • Expanding safety, accessibility, and inclusivity in public lands Discussion emphasized increased park usage, environmental stewardship responsibilities, aging infrastructure needs, and long-term asset maintenance. The presentation slides are attached. 9-Line (Transforming 9.5 Blocks from Gra-y to Green) Blake Thomas presented the proposal to complete streetscape and landscaping improvements along approximately 9.5 blocks of 900 South, generally between 650 West and 500 East, excluding previously improved segments. The project would install irrigation, expand tree canopy, implement water-wise landscaping, and provide amenities such as seating. They explained the improvements were intended to increase shade, enhance pedestrian comfort, reduce urban heat impacts, and improve corridor aesthetics. The proposal represents a scalable phase of a broader corridor vision. Board members asked questions regarding: • Criteria used to prioritize specific blocks • Coordination between Public Lands and the Transportation Division • Differences between department ranking and citywide CAP ranking • Impacts to adjacent businesses during construction • Alternative funding options if CIP fundingwas not awarded Blake Thomas stated that Public Lands would coordinate implementation with the City Engineer. If not funded, the City would continue pursuing grants and other funding sources. Civic Center Construction Documents Blake Thomas presented a proposal to advance design and construction documents for improvements to Washington Square, Library Square, and the 200 East corridor between 400 South and 500 South, that will be known as the Civic Center. Advancing construction documents would position the project for future construction funding and external grant opportunities. Community Development&Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board Meeting Minutes 23 February 2026 Board members asked questions regarding: • Inclusion of full engineering and design costs • Future funding strategy for construction • Accommodation of major events, including the Utah Arts Festival • Use of Park Impact Fees • Coordination with the Utah Department of Transportation • Estimated long-term construction costs Blake Thomas confirmed construction would require additional funding sources and future CIP consideration. Sugar House Park 50150 Match Kat Andra presented a proposal to replace a failing culinary water line at Sugar House Park. Under an existing agreement, Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County share capital improvement costs for the park on a 50/50 basis. They explained the project would replace aging infrastructure serving restrooms, drinking fountains, and event facilities. Kat Andra reported risk of catastrophic failure that could result in park closures and regulatory noncompliance. Jordan Park Sewer and Stormwater Infrastructure Improvements Kat Andra presented a proposal to abandon a failing sewer and stormwater connection due to recurring sewage backups and emergency maintenance responses that have occurred under the current configuration. The new connection would shorten the line, improve system efficiency, and require associated parking lot reconstruction and surface restoration. Board members asked about prioritization relative to other critical projects and overall infrastructure scope. Washington Park Septic Expansion Kat Andra presented a proposal to expand the septic system at Washington Park to address capacity limitations associated with event use. They explained the system was nearing the end of its useful life and required significant annual maintenance. Expansion would increase capacity, improve compliance, and support continued large-scale event operations. Community Development&Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board Meeting Minutes 23 February 2026 Board members asked about potential cost-sharing with the adjacent golf course. Kat Andra clarified that the golf course operated as an enterprise fund and could not fund park infrastructure. Irrigation UPgrades and Supportive Waterwise Landscaping Program Kat Andra presented a sustainable asset reinvestment project to replace aging irrigation systems at multiple park locations. The project would install modern irrigation systems with remote management capability, provide dedicated irrigation for trees during drought restrictions, reduce long-term water and maintenance costs, and lower ongoing labor demands. Sites were selected based on infrastructure age and maintenance burden. Parks Legal Compliance with 2010 ADA Standards forAccessible Design Kat Andra presented an annual asset replacement project to bring park infrastructure into compliance with ADA Standards. Improvements include accessible parking and site arrival points, park entryways and pedestrian routes, playground surfacing upgrades, and restroom accessibility improvements Kat Andra explained that a prior citywide study identified architectural barriers, many resulting from infrastructure degradation and evolving accessibility standards. Board members asked for examples of architectural barriers and clarification on ADA compliance requirements. Kat Andra provided examples including cracked sidewalks, aging surfaces, and updated maintenance standards. Safe, Open, and Clean Park Restroom Program (Replacement) Kat Andra presented a project to replace or improve aging restrooms at Herman Franks Park and Riverside Park. They explained the Herman Franks Park restroom was in failing condition and would require full replacement whereas the Riverside Park restroom may be upgraded to allow conditioned,year-round use. Board members asked about cost differences between replacement and upgrades. Kat Andra stated that conditioned facilities required HVAC and expanded infrastructure to allow for winter operation. Lighting Replacement to Improve Safety and Access Kat Andra presented an asset replacement project for aging lighting infrastructure across Memory Grove, Canyon Road, and City Creek Park. They explained that the lighting features Community Development&Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board Meeting Minutes 23 February 2026 have exceeded their useful life. The project would repair historic masonry pedestals and replace electrical systems with energy-efficient fixtures. Benefits include reduced maintenance and energy costs, improved lighting functionality, enhanced safety and perceived security, and alignment with sustainability goals. Event Infrastructure for Vibrant, Safe City Parks Kat Andra presented a proposal to install infrastructure such as electrical access, walkways, pads, and lighting to better support community events. They stated the initial focus would be 17 South River Park, with potential expansion to additional parks. The project would reduce event setup costs, minimize generator use and emissions, improve ADA accessibility during events, and distribute event impacts more evenly citywide New Park Lighting to improve Safety and Access Kat Andra presented a proposal to install new LED lighting at selected parks to extend playable hours and improve safety. Board members asked about cost differences between internal and constituent lighting proposals at Glendale Park. Kat Andra clarified that the internal proposal covered fewer courts than the constituent request. Safe, Open and Clean Park Restroom Program (New Restroom-) Kat Andra presented a proposal to install a new ADA-compliant restroom at 11 th Avenue Park because the area currently relied on a portable restroom and increased pickleball court usage has demonstrated a need for permanent facilities. Board members asked whether a public database existed for identifying restroom availability. Kat Andra stated that a restroom study included a level-of-service and gap analysis to improve predictability and public information. C. Staff Updates Rachel Molinari provided updates regarding: • The optional Recorder's Office survey • The Capital Asset Planning(CAP) Committee Memo-Attached o Ben Luedtke provided additional explanation regarding weighted criteria related the City Council approved policies for CIP in response to a question about differences in ranking from Departments versus the Committee. Community Development&Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board Meeting Minutes 23 February 2026 D. Adjournment Motion to adjourn: Jenny Bonk. Second: Dallin Jones Vote: Unanimous There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned at approximately 6:37 p.m. Y!2� X Brad Christensen (Mar 26, 2026 13:16:09 MDT) CDCIP Advisory Board Chair This document, along with the digital recording, constitutes the official minutes of the CDCIP Advisory Board meeting held February 23, 2026. Public Lands INTERNAL CIP REQUESTS February 23, 2026 CDCIP Board Meeting • .r Increased Usage and Community Demand Health and Well-being Environmental Stewardship Y;= Community Resilience •.r _ «,off <.., Community Benefit and Equity 17i 1- HIM i. r r f t d I f•.f 11TSr , ' JA i el r ? _NI Tri U M P U I W Y �VAKF v i N K f84 • bl * c Lands , CIP Pr9iorities • Respond to critical infrastructure needs and legal obligations • Pursue transformational projects to build the next generation of public spaces and infrastructure • Secure the future of our infrastructure through sustainable asset reinvestment • Expand on the sustainability, safety, and inclusivity of our public spaces with new assets �VAKF PUBLIC N K MP• • M • 9-Line (Transforming9.5 Blocks from Gray to Green) REQUEST: $2,000,000 _ Description: Greening fora portion of nine and a half blocks along the 9-Line as the final phase of transforming 900 South. This project will complete the street transformation with irrigation, trees, landscaping, and other amenities to turn the side of the street into a , ,,,F � functional public greenway. Project Phase: Design-Build =� Partial Funding: Yes, this project can be scaled block-by-block, corresponding to irrigation meter install. Project Benefits: „�AKFI • Improves environmental quality and resilience by increasing greening, reducing water use, N• +�< improving air quality, and growing urban tree canopy. p g q Y g g pY • Fulfills cross-departmental citywide goals for greening, connectivity, and community LAND gathering in direct collaboration among Transportation, Public Lands, and the Mayor's Office • • IS • Civic Center Construction Documents REQUEST: $2,200,000 Description: Construction document design for the heart of Library Square at the broader Civic Center. Design will both create a cohesive public space and replace or eliminate existing failed assets, while adding trees and green space. Design will create the central "room" of the Civic Center, bringing spaces , r . and people together. T; Project Phase: Design. Partial Funding: No, this is the minimum funding —� for an already-phased project. Y • Project Benefits: • N Fulfills citywide and Mayoral goals for greening, connectivity, and community gathering. a�AKF� '�' • Addresses failure of critical assets in one of the Cit 's most central visible s Y - aces.p PUBLIC •LANDS Increases user comfort and event capacity, while mitigating climate challenges. • Direct collaboration among Transportation, Public Lands, and the Mayor's Office. • rSugar House Park 50/50 Match REQUEST: $1,000,000 Description: Fulfill cost share requirements with Salt Lake County for replacement of the failed culinary waterline. Project Phase: Design-Build aye' Partial Funding: Cannot be partially funded Yr Project Benefits: Dept. • Prevent catastrophic failure of the waterline which could lead to emergency park • closures, unsafe conditions, and loss of essential water service • Replace the waterline which is near failure and must comply with Public Utilities v�AKFi standards and the federal Clean Water Act. 18�� PUBLIC LANDS • Jordan Park Sewer and Stormwater Infrastructure Improvements REQUEST: $300,000 Description: Connect Jordan Park's northern parking lot into the Stormwater and sewer systems to resolve regular flooding issues. i Project Phase: Construction Partial Funding: Must be fully funded Dept. Project Benefits: • Reduce significant health and environmental impacts caused by unsanitary sewer- related exposure in the park v�pKF, • Provides safe access into the park and significantly reduce maintenance burdens by adding critical draining infrastructure °•� Compliance with Public Utilities standards and the federal Clean Water Act f Washington Park Septic Expansion REQUEST: $950,000 '3 Description: Upgrade the existing aged and undersized septic system to meet existing and future demand at the most reserved park/pavilion in the Public Lands system. Project Phase: Construction Partial Funding: Must be fully funded v z f Project Benefits: Dept. • Reduce maintenance costs associated with frequent pumping and emergency maintenance situations, saving up to $80,000 annually Ensures adherence to wastewater management regulations and mitigates v�AKFi potential health hazards associated with sewer backups and overflows N,�` • Provides safe and sanitary conditions for park users, preserving enjoyment of — property and continued availability of event space Irrigation Upgrades and Supportive Waterwise Landscaping Program REQUEST: $1,200,000 Description: Replacement of aged and damaged irrigation systems and strategically replacing water-intensive turf with climate adapted plantings at six target locations. Project Phase: Design-Build Partial Funding: Minimum $600,000 required for scaled back implementation Project Benefits: Dept. • Bring Salt Lake City into compliance with Public Utilities metering requirements and align with City, State, and Federal conservation goals and policies • Protect tree canopy and plant health which improves environmental quality and v�pKF, community benefits • Reduce water costs by up to $5,000 per month and significant labor and materials '°" costs required to maintain the existing infrastructure Parks' Legal Compliance with 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design REQUEST: $811,000 Description: Bring park infrastructure into legal compliance with ADA standards. Recommended improvements at seven parks include site arrival points, pedestrian access routes, playgrounds and accessible surfaces, and (new this year) access to restrooms. Project Phase: Design-Build Dept. Partial Funding: Project can be scaled based on available funding PNUT Project Benefits: • Address violations of federal ADA Standards and deficiencies identified in the Mayor's Office's Council-adopted ADA Self Evaluation and Transition Plan ��AKFr • Reduce accessibility barriers, reduce risk of injury, and ensures compliance with safety standards 84 0 Open up parks and existing and future amenities to more users Safe,, Open and Clean Park Restroom Program (Replacement) REQUEST: $1,136,000 Description: Annual request for existing restroom improvements. Priority locations: Replacement of failing restroom at Herman Franks Park and upgrade existing restroom at Riverside Park. Project Phase: Design-Build Partial Funding: Each restroom replacement can be funded for $570,000 Project Benefits: • Bring park restrooms into compliance with ADA Accessibility Standards and public health codes • Improve the safety, inclusivity, and equity of our parks by providing necessary services that are currently limited or unavailable at two of our most-reserved baseball facilities •1B4� Implement improved designs determined in the Citywide Restroom Study that will result in Q =, PUBLIC N < • better longevity, less maintenance, and improved safety conditions for staff Lighting Replacement to Improve Safety and Access REQUEST: $564,000 Description: Replace existing lighting features that are nearing or have reached end of life. Replacements of up to 99 lights at Memory Grove Park, City Creek Park, and Canyon Road. Project Phase: Construction Partial Funding: Minimum $150,000 required for scaled implementation Project Benefits: _pt • Reduce staff and material costs currently required to maintain existing light fixtures and D . • implement more sustainable, energy efficient infrastructure, saving up to $40,000 • annually • Improved/functioning lighting discourages crime in public spaces and extends usable AKFC hours of the park which expands accessibility �• � Align with City owls for improving energy usage and crime reduction, and upholds ,,., , g y g p g gy g p PUBLIC Historic Landmark status for Memory Grove Park Event Infrastructure for Vibrant, Safe City Pa rks REQUEST: $580,000 Description: Add infrastructure such as power, concrete walkways and pads, and lighting to allow several public parks to serve as active, vibrant hubs for community gatherings and events. Priority locations at 1700 South River Park, Poplar Grove Park, and Westpointe Park. Project Phase: Design-build Partial Funding: Minimum $300,000 required for scaled back implementation Dept. Project Benefits: Rankinj 0 11 Reduce event setup costs, minimize environmental impact, and increase accessibility for organizers and participants �`AKF� • Alleviate maintenance burdens on parks that receive an access of events by spreading N•�'�•� impacts, opportunities, and access to events throughout the City PUBLIC 0 Reduce hazards and emissions from temporary set ups and reduce environmental impacts New Park Lightingto Improve Safetyand Access REQUEST: $460,000 Description: Add lighting to five parks to improve safety and extend play hours for sports fields and courts. Priority locations are 1700 South River Park, Three Creeks Park, Herman Franks Park, Jordan Park, and Glendale Park. Project Phase: Design-Build Partial Funding: Minimum $460,000 required for scaled implementation Dept. • Project Benefits: ' 40 • Improves visibility and safety of parks after dark, reducing crime and extending park utility during typical park hours "�AKF` • Supports safety for staff during early morning and evening maintenance patrols 0 LED lighting increases energy efficiency, supporting sustainability goals a =, PUBLIC LANDS N < • 1B4'1 01 Safe, Open and Clean Park Restroom Program (New Restroom) REQUEST: $568,000 Description: Fund installation of one new ADA compliant restroom at 11 th Avenue Park. Project Phase: Design-build Partial Funding: Must be fully funded Project Benefits: • Improve Public Lands restroom system to meet basic needs and support public Dept. health and comfort • • Improve access to ADA compliant infrastructure 12 • New design will improve safety and maintenance while also potentially expanding more year-round availability a�AKF� • Improves benefits of funded playground, ADA, and other improvements at 11 th N'�'� Ave Park 1B4'1 PUBLIC LANDS Thank You ', February 23, 2026 CDCIP Board Meeting SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Memo To: Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) Advisory Board From: Capital Asset Planning (CAP) Committee Date: February 12, 2026 Re: FY2026-27 Internal CIP Projects Summary The Capital Asset Planning Committee (CAP Committee) was established to 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. This year, the CAP Committee reviewed, scored, ranked, and recommended a total of 33 internal submissions. The scoring rubric, criteria definitions, and a detailed scoring summary are provided in the appendices. Background 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 built from a framework of Resolution 29 of 2017 (see Appendix A) and Mayor's Goals. Resolution 29 of 2017 is the Council adopted CIP guiding policy. 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 because the public relies on them for essential services. The City's management approach centers a unified citywide strategy focused on sustainability 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 for any project at the 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 must conform to the City's current general plan per State law. CAP Committee Voting Members The CAP Committee is comprised of directors, deputy directors, and other leaders from the following Salt Lake City departments and divisions: Finance, Mayor's Office, Community and Neighborhoods, Public Services, Public Lands, Fire, Information Management Services, Public Utilities, Police, Community Reinvestment Agency, Economic Development, and Sustainability. Scoring The CAP Committee used the following criteria to score internal applications: • Existing Asset (determined by Finance's Capital Asset Planning Team with data provided by Dept/Div) • Critical Asset Failure • Legal/Contractual Obligation (determined by Attorney's Office) • Risk: Life, Health & Safety • Reduce Cost/Increase Efficiency • Balanced Budgeting • Resiliency • Project Phase • Workforce Support • Sustainability • Includes Outside Funding (determined by Finance's Capital Asset Planning Team with data provided by Dept/Div) • One City Approach See the Appendices for the Committee Scoring Rubric and Criteria Definitions. The CAP Committee's scores are ranked by average score, in the order of highest to lowest. Funding Requests The funding amount being requested for internal projects is $38,933,500 and the funding request for constituent applications is $20,640,000 for a total of$59,573,500. In comparison, internal application requests for FY2025-26 were $52,322,153 and the funding request for constituent applications was $16,693,564 for a total of$69,015,717. The change reflects an increased number of constituent application requests and fewer internal project requests. CAP Committee Funding Recommendation The CAP Committee has provided a ranked list of projects to aid the CDCIP Board in making their recommendations. All scores are out of a possible 100 points. Rank Project Title Score Requested Funding 1 Public Way Concrete Replacement&Rehabilitation 2027 73.25 $750,000 2 Street Reconstruction 2027 71.79 $8,327,500 3 Jordan Park Sewer and Stormwater Infrastructure Improvements 70.38 $300,000 4 Traffic Signal Capital Maintenance 69.46 $750,000 5 Facilities Replacement and Renewal 69.38 $2,910,000 6 Street's Legal Compliance with 2010 ADA Standards for Accessibility 69.25 $750,000 7 Traffic Signal Replacements&Upgrades 2027 68 $2,500,000 8 Street Overlay 2027 65.25 $3,300,000 9 Sugar House Park 50/50 Match 64.25 $1,000,000 10 Civic Center Construction Documents(from 200 East to the Western Library Square Crescent Wall) 62.63 $2,200,000 11 GREENbike Federal Grant Match 2027; Bike Rack Replacements 61.71 $65,000 12 Plaza 349 Balconies and Masonry Repairs and Improvements 60.75 $750,000 13 Irrigation Upgrades and Supportive Waterwise Landscaping Program 60.21 $1,200,000 14 Safe,Open and Clean Park Restroom Program(Replacement) 59.29 $1,136,000 15 Urban Trails 56.67 $450,000 16 Old Library Renewal Support 55.5 $652,000 17 Washington Park Septic Expansion 54.75 $950,000 18 Demolition of Colfax and Odyssey House 54.42 $80,000 19 Lighting Replacement to Improve Safety and Access 54.25 $564,000 20 Access Control Transition to S2 52.17 $300,000 21 Vision Zero Corridors&Safety Improvements Citywide 2027 51.42 $2,300,000 22 Parks'Legal Compliance with 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design Program 49.83 $811,000 23 Fire Alarm Additions 46.79 $1,000,000 24 Justice Courts Interim Improvements 46.79 $450,000 25 Fire Training Grounds Site Improvements 46.63 $1,000,000 26 EV Charging PSB Phase III 46.42 $80,000 27 Transit Capital Program 2027 43.79 $500,000 28 Missing Sidewalks 43.25 $125,000 29 Safe,Open and Clean Park Restroom Program(New Restroom) 39.75 $568,000 30 9-Line Greening:Transforming 9.5 Blocks of 900 South from Gray to Green 38.88 $2,000,000 31 New Park Lighting to Improve Safety and Access 38.29 $460,000 MBikeway Gaps 2027 37.92 $125,000 Event Infrastructure for Vibrant,Safe City Parks Program 34.96 $580,000 Appendices: A. Resolution 29 of 2017 B. CAP Committee Criteria Definitions C. CAP Committee Scoring Rubric D. Ranked List of Internal Projects Appendix A 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 $100,001 and $250,000; iii. 10% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets over $250,000 with a maximum overrun cost of$100,000. 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. Ate,CIT G SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL v By: �OippOR Sf� CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: By. Salt Lake City City Recorder App7qed As To Form By. �ayseh Oldroyd Da In/2-�1 rJ HB_ATTY464309-0-CIP_and_Debt_Management—Policies Appendix B CAP Committee Criteria Definitions Critical Asset Failure: When reviewing this criterium, particular focus should be paid to whether the request will prevent a failure of a critical asset. A higher score should be awarded based on the severity of the Critical Asset Failure and the ability of the project to remedy this situation. Applications scored with a 4 or 5 will be marked as non-discretionary to highlight importance. A request qualifies as Critical Asset Failure when it is needed to prevent loss of function or unacceptable risk in an essential City asset within the next 24 months (or sooner),AND the failure would meet at least one of the criteria below: • Life safety/catastrophic risk: credible risk of serious injury,fatality, major property damage, or emergency closure. • Service interruption to essential service: an outage or closure affecting an essential public service for>24 hours or requiring emergency repair/response. • Loss of asset availability: closure/restricted use of a critical facility/corridor/utility component for>7 days (planned or unplanned) due to condition. • Financial threshold: expected avoided cost (emergency repair+collateral damage+downtime costs) exceeds planned repair cost by>_ 25%, or anticipated failure results in >_$250,000 in direct costs. 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. Reduce Cost/Increase Efficiency: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. Balanced Budgeting: When reviewing this criterium, a higher score will be awarded to projects related to Departments which have received a lesser share of the funding in recent years and/or have a lower current overall CIP balance respective to their own needs and the needs of other General Fund Departments. Resiliency:This criterium involves analyzing whether a project supports resiliency efforts to better enable the City to prepare for, prevent, or respond to events that have the potential to disrupt the City's operations or the delivery of services. Proiect 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 Revised on 12/16/2025 Appendix B more time passes.The City can avoid expenses for re-estimating project costs by funding capital projects in a timely and consistent manner." 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". SustainabilitV:This criterium involves assessing whether the project supports water/energy conservation, green infrastructure, materials resource reduction or a reduction in carbon emissions, fossil fuel use, and/or criteria pollutants. 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 funding will still need to be provided by the City in addition to any outside support. (Enterprise funding through the CRA and Public Utilities funding will be considered part of External Funding. Non-enterprise external funding will be weighted higher than internal enterprise funding.) One CitV Approach: Does the project involve coordination across City Departments and align with Mayor's Goals? Revised on 12/16/2025 Appendix C:CAP Committee Scoring Rubric Internal Project Reference Column H/M/L Score 1 Existing Asset Low/Medium/High N&0 Scoring Scale Scoring Criteria Internal Project Reference Column Weight (0-5) Max Score 2 Critical Asset Failure P&Q 3 0.00 0.00 3 Legal/Contractual Obligation R&S 2 0.00 0.00 4 Risk:Life,Health&Safety T,U,V,&W 2 0.00 0.00 5 Reduce Cost/Increase Efficiency X,Y,&Z 2 0.00 0.00 6 Balanced Budgeting Finance Provided Documentation 1 0.00 0.00 7 Resiliency AB 1.5 0.00 0.00 8 Project Phase(further along scores higher) AC&AD 1.5 0.00 0.00 9 Workforce Support AE 1 0.00 0.00 10 Sustainability AF 1 0.00 0.00 11 Includes Outside Funding AG 1 0.00 0.00 12 One City Approach AH 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 CAP Committee Members-Subjective Finance/CAP Team-Objective Legal Weighted Score: #1 Existing Asset is divided into 3 levels: Zero to Low:below 30%,0 Points Medium:31%-75%,7.5 Points High:over 75%,15 Points #2-12 CAP Committee members,Finance(CAP Team),and Legal gave a score ranging from 0-5 for the eleven criteria lines. Those scores are then multiplied by the weight assigned to the category in the preceding column to arrive at the score. Appendix D Application Dept/Div CAP Committee Score CAP Committee ID Project Name Existing/New Dept/Div Name Ranking (Out of 100) Ranking Requested Funding FY27-CAP-19 Public Way Concrete Replacement&Rehabilitation 2027 Existing PS/Streets 1 73.25 1 $ 750,000 FY27-CAP-1 Street Reconstruction 2027 Existing CAN/ENG/TANS 1 71.79 2 $ 8,327,500 FY27-CAP-22 Jordan Park Sewer and Stormwater Infrastructure Improvements Existing Public Lands 2 70.38 3 $ 300,000 FY27-CAP-20 Traffic Signal Capital Maintenance Existing PS/Streets 2 69.46 4 $ 750,000 FY27-CAP-10 Facilities Replacement and Renewal Existing PS/Facilities 1 69.38 5 $ 2,910,000 FY27-CAP-21 Street's Legal Compliance with 2010 ADA Standards for Accessibility Existing PS/Streets 3 1 69.25 6 $ 750,000 FY27-CAP-2 Traffic Signal Replacements&Upgrades 2027 Existing CAN/ENG/TANS 4 68 7 $ 2,500,000 FY27-CAP-3 Street Overlay 2027 Existing CAN/ENG/TANS 3 65.25 8 $ 3,300,000 FY27-CAP-23 Sugar House Park 50150 Match Existing;Improvement/Expansion Public Lands 1 64.25 9 $ 1,000,000 FY27-CAP-24 Civic Center Construction Documents(from 200 East to the Western Library Square Crescent Wall) Existing,Improvement/Expansion Public Lands 6 62.63 10 $ 2,200,000 FY27-CAP-4 GREENbike Federal Grant Match 2027;Bike Rack Replacements Existing;Improvement/Expansion CAN/ENG/TANS 5 61.71 11 $ 65,000 FY27-CAP-11 Plaza 349 Balconies and Masonry Repairs and Improvements Improvement/Expansion;Existing PS/Facilities 2 60.75 12 $ 750,000 FY27-CAP-25 Irrigation Upgrades and Supportive Waterwise Landscaping Program Existing,Improvement/Expansion Public Lands 3 60.21 13 $ 1,200,000 FY27-CAP-26 Safe,Open and Clean Park Restroom Program(Replacement) Existing,Improvement/Expansion Public Lands 8 59.29 14 $ 1,136,000 FY27-CAP-5 Urban Trails Existing;New CAN/ENG/TANS 6 56.67 15 $ 450,000 FY27-CAP-12 Old Library Renewal Support Improvement/Expansion PS/Facilities 3 55.5 16 $ 652,000 FY27-CAP-27 Washington Park Septic Expansion Improvement/Expansion Public Lands 4 54.75 17 $ 950,000 FY27-CAP-13 Demolition of Colfax and Odyssey House Existing PS/Facilities 4 54.42 18 $ 80,000 FY27-CAP-28 Lighting Replacement to Improve Safety And Access Existing,Improvement/Expansion Public Lands 9 54.25 19 $ 564,000 FY27-CAP-14 Access Control Transition to S2 Existing;Improvement/Expansion PS/Facilities 5 52.17 20 $ 300,000 FY27-CAP-6 Vision Zero Corridors&Safety Improvements Citywide 2027 Improvement/Expansion CAN/ENG/TANS 2 51.42 21 $ 2,300,000 FY27-CAP-29 Parks'Legal Compliance with 2010 ADA Standards for Accessible Design Program Improvement/Expansion Public Lands 7 49.83 22 $ 811,000 FY27-CAP-15 Fire At=Additions New;Improvement/Expansion;Existing PS/Facilities 6 46.79 23 $ 1,000,000 FY27-CAP-16 Justice Courts Interim Improvements New;Improvement/Expansion;Existing PS/Facilities 7 46.79 24 $ 450,000 FY27-CAP-17 Fire Training Grounds Site Improvements New;Improvement/Expansion PS/Facilities 8 46.63 25 $ 1,000,000 FY27-CAP-18 EV Charging PSB Phase III New PS/Facilities 9 46.42 26 $ 80,000 FY27-CAP-7 Transit Capital Program 2027 Existing;New CAN/ENG/TANS 9 43.79 27 $ 500,000 FY27-CAP-8 Missing Sidewalks Existing;New CAN/ENG/TANS 7 43.25 28 $ 125,000 FY27-CAP-30 Safe,Open and Clean Park Restroom Program(New Restroom) New Public Lands 12 39.75 29 $ 568,000 FY27-CAP-31 9-Line Greening:Transforming 9.5 Blocks of 900 South from Gray to Green Existing,Improvement/Expansion Public Lands 5 38.88 30 $ 2,000,000 FY27-CAP-32 New Park Lighting to Improve Safety and Access New Public Lands 10 38.29 31 $ 460,000 FY27-CAP-9 Bikeway Gaps 2027 Existing;New CAN/ENG/TANS 8 37.92 32 $ 125,000 FY27-CAP-33 Event Infrastructure for Vibrant,Safe City Parks Program New,Improvement/Expansion Public Lands 11 34.96 33 $ 580,000 Total $ 38,933,500 Notes: Existing/New clarification:When multiple categories are listed,it indicates that elements of New,Improvement/Expansion,and Existing are included in project scope. Dept/Div Name Acronyms PS:Public Services Department CAN:Community and Neighborhoods Department ENG:Engineering Division TRNS:Transportation Division Meeting Minutes 02.23.2026 Final Audit Report 2026-03-26 Created: 2026-03-18 By: Rachel Molinari(Rachel.Molinari@slc.gov) Status: Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAZmaMRSyw7mnMJcNWUMMUbcLz-aW4F1NF "Meeting Minutes 02.23.2026" History Document created by Rachel Molinari (Rachel.Molinari@slc.gov) 2026-03-18-4:19:43 PM GMT Document emailed to brad.r.christensen@gmail.com for signature 2026-03-18-4:20:22 PM GMT Email viewed by brad.r.christensen@gmail.com 2026-03-18-4:40:05 PM GMT Email viewed by brad.r.christensen@gmail.com 2026-03-26-7:15:37 PM GMT Signer brad.r.christensen@gmail.com entered name at signing as Brad Christensen 2026-03-26-7:16:07 PM GMT Document e-signed by Brad Christensen (brad.r.christensen@gmail.com) Signature Date:2026-03-26-7:16:09 PM GMT-Time Source:server Agreement completed. 2026-03-26-7:16:09 PM GMT Powered by ., Adobe Acrobat Sign