Entity Staff Report - 8/26/2021CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476
SLCCOUNCIL.COM
TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:August 24, 2021
RE: FY22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: D-1 to D-6
CIP BUDGET BOOK: Debt Service Overview Section B, General Fund Projects Sections C & D
NEW INFORMATION
Policy Guidance for When to Disqualify an Application (Attachment 12)
The Administration provided a response requesting a discussion about policy guidance for when a CIP
application could be disqualified. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the potential
disqualification examples listed below. Policy guidance for CIP could be further discussed and developed later
such as requesting the Administration propose specific amendments to the guiding CIP resolution (Attachment
1). There is no deadline for updating CIP policies (not subject to the September 1 project budget adopted
deadline).
- Application is less than the $50,000 minimum
- Application is more than $500,000 or another maximum amount the Council could establish
- Proposed project would violate City Code
- Proposed project would violate a City policy or position in an adopted master plan or similar policy
document
- Phasing out street reconstruction CIP applications in favor of the existing worst-first, data-driven
approach that incorporates rotation between Council Districts to improve geographic equity
Interim Update: Construction Mitigation Funding and Guide for Businesses (Attachment 15)
The Administration shared the attached guide for businesses impacted by construction in the public right of way
which is often a street reconstruction or underground utility improvements. The guide provides an overview of
Project Timeline:
Budget Hearings: May 18 & June 1, 2021
1st Briefing: June 1, 2021
2nd Briefing & Public Hearing: July 13, 2021
3rd Briefing: July 20, 2021
4th Briefing & Public Hearing: August 17, 2021
5th Briefing & Potential Action: August 24, 2021
Note: The Council approves debt service and
overall CIP funding in the annual budget. Project
specific funding is approved by September 1.
Page | 2
the construction process, what a business can expect during construction, recommendations actions a business
can take to mitigate impacts, shares key information from the contractor perspective and shares website for
outside organizations and City departments that can provide additional resources.
The Council also asked to what extent construction mitigation funding is included in street reconstruction
project funding requests. Engineering responded that mitigation costs are included in project budgets but not
separated out as a line item. Mitigation for street reconstruction includes the new guide (Attachment 15), driver
signage, community and business outreach, in-person and/or virtual meetings and individualized responses to
impacted businesses. Mitigation costs will begin to be identified as a separate line item in street reconstruction
projects moving forward.
In the FY22 annual budget, the Council approved $100,000 from the General Fund for the Department of
Economic Development to provide small business outreach and support during large capital projects in the
public right of way. The funding is contingent upon the Administration determining by August 31 if the program
is or could be tailored to be eligible for ARPA. If the program is ARPA eligible, then $200,000 would be
available of which the funding source for the initial $100,000 would be swapped for ARPA instead of the
General Fund. The Department reported earlier this month that they gathered information on currently
impacted small businesses (such as along 300 West reconstruction corridor) and are in the process of finalizing
the program.
Legislative Intent: Move $200,000 Ongoing Property Maintenance Expenses Out of One-time
Surplus Land Fund
The Council may wish to request the Administration consider the FY20 legislative intent when developing the
FY23 annual budget. Moving property maintenance expenses into the base budgets for the Facilities Division
(Public Services Department) and/or Real Estate Services (Community and Neighborhoods Department) was
not part of the FY21 or FY22 annual budget because of the financial uncertainty facing the City during the
pandemic. This approach builds upon the Council’s FY19 decision to shift ongoing funding for a CIP-related
FTE away from the one-time Surplus Land Fund and into CAN’s base budget.
The $200,000 funding level has not increased in several years and has lost purchasing power due to inflation.
This ongoing expense is related to the size of vacant City-owned properties. The Council may wish to ask for an
update on the Administration’s efforts to update the inventory of City-owned properties especially as it relates to
vacant properties.
The Administration reports a precise accounting of vacant property maintenance expenses is difficult because it
involves personnel costs for call-backs after hours, overtime, lost productivity time and supplies. The Facilities
Division does bill CAN for some of these costs, but personnel costs cannot be billed in that manner. The largest
expense has been for security services such as break-ins, trespassing and vandalism. The Administration
continues to investigate a contracted approach with an outside property management company to perform basic
maintenance and respond to alarms especially after normal business hours.
Unanimous Straw Poll for Balanced Budget
At the August 17 briefing, the Council held a follow-up discussion on the six projects proposed for funding
adjustments from the July 20 briefing. The Council took a straw poll to tentatively support the balanced budget
for project funding. The Council could change project funding before the final vote scheduled for the formal
meeting on August 24. The balanced budget includes adding additional funding to the 1.5% for Art fund to
maintain the funding level, fully funding four of the six projects identified on July 20, partially funding a fifth
project, and intending to fully fund using American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars for Odyssey House’s request
of structural renovations to the City-owned Annex Building. Additional information on these projects is
summarized below.
1.5% for Art (Funding Log Project #1)
Required by City ordinance and calculated as 1.5% of the General Fund available to spend revenues in the
Mayor's Recommended Budget. Use of the funds is overseen by the Arts Council. The ordinance allows the
Administration to use some of the funding for maintenance of existing artworks and the rest goes to new
artworks as part of CIP projects. The Council indicated via straw poll to increase funding to maintain the 1.5%
for Art level based on the $1 million General Funds added to CIP above the Mayor's Recommended Budget.
Odyssey House Annex Building Renovation (Funding Log Project #3)
This project provides significant renovation of the City-owned Annex Building (623 South 200 East) which is
Page | 3
leased by Odyssey House. Currently, the Annex has a multitude of structural problems that pose life and safety
risks for the residential clients who inhabit the facility. The Council indicated via straw poll to fully fund the
$500,000 request in the next FY2021-22 budget amendment using ARPA funds.
Winner on Wasatch Dee Glen Tennis Court Construction (Funding Log Project #54)
This project would replace four old asphalt tennis courts at Dee Glen (Wasatch Hills Tennis Center/formerly
Coach Mike's Tennis Academy) inside the current tennis bubble. The Council indicated via straw poll to fully
fund the $400,000 reduced cost estimate based on a bid received for the tennis courts reconstruction. The
community has raised over $500,000 to purchase a new tennis bubble that will be installed over the new
concrete courts.
Harrison Ave and 700 East Community Garden (Funding Log Project #57)
This project would establish a community garden on City-owned and managed land with the primary goals to
increase access to fresh, local produce and reduce barriers to urban food production. The Council indicated via
straw poll to fully fund the request.
Wingate Walkway (Funding Log Project #59)
This project would remove and transplant trees, relocate a power pole, fencing, and construction of a multi-use
path that will connect Redwood Meadows Park to the intersection of 500 North and Redwood Road. The
improved access and walkability will serve residents living east of the park. The Council indicated via straw poll
to fully fund the request.
Capitol Hill Traffic Calming (Funding Log Project #68)
The project includes potential locations and several types of traffic calming improvements (speed tables,
crosswalk and bike lane striping, pedestrian bulb-outs and refuge islands, etc.) based on public engagement over
the past year and a half. The Transportation Division is ready to go back to the residents and finalize traffic
improvement locations and types. The project uses a neighborhood-scale approach to traffic calming which is
preferable to street by street because it avoids pitting residents against each other. The Council indicate via straw
poll to fully fund the request.
Sugar House Safe Side Streets (Funding Log Project #72)
Improve the safety and comfort of local, neighborhood streets in Sugar House. The Council agreed to phase the
project into two parts with part one including a study, designs, and some traffic calming improvements. The
second phase funding request would return to the Council in future rounds of CIP.
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
Potential Council Changes to Project Funding
At the July 20 briefing, the Council discussed potential changes to the proposed project-specific funding
including applications not recommended for any funding by the resident advisory board and the Mayor. Council
Members identified specific projects they are interested in fully or partially funding which are listed below. The
Council may wish to discuss which revenue changes to address (General Fund and Class C recaptures and ARPA
eligibilities) before identifying project funding shifts including additional funding to % for Art and Cost Overrun
Account. More on these issues are provided below the list of Council Member identified potential project
funding changes.
-#3 Odyssey House Annex Building Renovation $500,000 Request – Council Member
Valdemoros expressed interest in fully funding this project which is recommended for partial funding of
$300,000 by the resident advisory board and the Mayor. She also supports using American Rescue Plan
Act or ARPA funding for the full request which would free up $300,000 of General Fund dollars for
other projects or uses.
-#54 Wasatch Dee Glen Tennis Court Construction $500,000 Request – Council Member
Dugan expressed interest in fully funding this constituent application. He noted that the tennis courts
provide a service across the City for residents of all ages and socioeconomic levels and that
approximately a third of the 1,000 participants are estimated to come from Council District Six. The
local community has fundraised approximately $600,000 for a bubble to go around the tennis courts
which are owned by the City. Reconstruction of the courts with reinforce concrete is necessary before the
Page | 4
bubble could be installed. If the project was fully funded, then it would be the only year-round tennis
court bubble in the City.
-#57 Harrison Avenue and 700 East Community Garden $103,500 Request – On behalf of
Council Member Mano (attending another obligation at the time), Council Members Wharton,
Valdemoros and Dugan indicated he was interested in fully funding this constituent application. It was
noted that the community gardens in the City have been poplar and every location is thought to have a
waiting list.
-#59 Wingate Walkway $286,750 Request – Council Member Rogers expressed interest in funding
this constituent application. The cost includes removing and replanting mature trees, relocating utility
boxes, installing a new 540-foot-long fence and a new concrete path. Planting new trees instead of
attempting to relocate mature trees is estimated to decrease the cost by $67,500.
-#68 Capital Hill Traffic Calming $595,194 Request – Council Members Rogers and Wharton
expressed interest in fully funding this constituent application. It was submitted in FY21 but did not
proceed in CIP last year because of the abbreviated process. The application includes potential locations
and types of traffic calming improvements based on public engagement over the past year and a half.
The Transportation Division is ready to go back to the residents and finalize traffic improvement
locations and types including East Capitol Hill BLVD. The neighborhood is a gateway into the City from
the Northwest. They mentioned this is a life safety project and that there were fatal accidents in the
project area in recent years. The project uses a neighborhood scale approach to traffic calming which is
preferable than street by street because it avoids pitting residents against each other. They noted the
Administration is preparing to send the Council a proposal for traffic calming across the City as a
program but it’s not ready at this time. Their preference is to fund this life safety project as part of CIP in
FY22 and it can be a model for other neighborhood scale traffic calming efforts in the citywide program.
-#72 Sugar House Safe Side Streets $500,000 Request – Council Member Fowler mentioned the
applicant and assigned transportation engineer had developed a modified proposal to phase the project.
The phases include (1) $50,000 study and (2) $450,000 construction, engineering fees and contingency.
An modified proposal for a smaller project was (1) $35,000 study and (2) $265,000 construction,
engineering fees and contingency. Council Member Fowler stated she would like to fund either the
$50,000 study or the modified smaller project for $300,000.
Potential Increase to % for Art and Cost Overrun Accounts
The Council added $1,001,415 of new General Fund dollars to CIP above what was in the Mayor’s Recommended
Budget (not counting recaptured funding from completed CIP projects). If the Council wants to continue the
recommended funding level to the 1.5% for Art Fund, then $15,021 would need to be allocated from the
$1,001,415. The Council could decide to add this amount entirely to the Art Maintenance Fund (created by the
Council this past Spring) or the New Art Fund. Another option is to split between the two accounts. The new Art
Maintenance Fund has an available to spend balance of $20,266 and the % for Art Fund has $114,841 available.
The Cost Overrun Account would need $24,575 to continue the funding level. During the FY22 annual budget
deliberations Council staff reviewed CIP accounts older than three years per the CIP guiding resolution
(Attachment 1). The Cost Overrun Account has a total available to spend balance of $750,606 after including
$100,000 from FY2016 and $219,780 from FY2019.
American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Eligibility Added to Funding Log
(See Attachment 2 for the Funding Log, Attachment 13 for a map of qualified census tracts, and Attachment 14
for the ARPA Budget Update Infographic)
The CIP Funding Log has been updated to identify projects that are fully or partially eligible for ARPA funding.
This is shown in red text in the Application Title column on the left side of the log. The available funding without
mayoral or advisory board spending recommendations could significantly change to the extent the Council
wants to use ARPA funding for CIP projects. It’s important to note that some of the projects in the Mayor’s
proposed $58 million sales tax bond are also partially or fully eligible for ARPA funding.
At the July 20 briefing, Council Members expressed interest in using ARPA funding for the full $500,000
request from Odyssey House (project #3) which has a $300,000 funding recommendation from the advisory
Board and Mayor. Council Members discussed using the $300,000 from the General Fund for other CIP
projects.
Page | 5
The U.S. Treasury Department provided updated guidance this summer that improving outdoor spaces like
parks can be an eligible use of ARPA funding. This expansion of eligible uses is in addition to broadband, sewer,
and water infrastructure improvements. The investments in outdoor spaces must be in Qualified Census Tracts
as determined by the Federal Government which can viewed here:
https://www.huduser.gov/portal/sadda/sadda_qct.html
The FY22 CIP Projects that are ARPA eligible include:
- #3 Odyssey House 100% eligible for $500,000
- #4 Street Improvements 15% eligible for drainage / curb and gutter up to $450,000 of the total
estimated $3 million cost in FY22 for local street reconstructions
- #13 Three Creeks West Bank Trailway 100% eligible for $484,146
- #14 Three Creeks West Bank New Park 100% eligible for $150,736
- #19 Downtown Green Loop partially eligible all of project may not be in a qualified census tract
- #22 Poplar Grove Sportcourt 100% eligible for $433,333
- #25 Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways 100% eligible for $510,000
- #29 200 South Reconstruction and Transit Complete Streets 15% eligible for drainage / curb and gutter
up to $1.8 million of the total estimated $12 million cost
- #37 900 South Reconstruction and Signal Improvements for drainage / curb and gutter up to $375,000
of the total estimated $2.5 million cost
- #46 Bridge Rehabilitation at 400 South and 650 North over the Jordan River is partially ARPA eligible.
The bridges were damaged in the March 2020 earthquake. The 650 North bridge needs to be replaced at
an estimated cost of $5.6 million. The Administration applied to UDOT for replacement funding.
o Note that the Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act that was recently approved by the Senate
(pending approval by the House and the President’s signature) currently includes $12.5 billion
for “economically significant bridges” nationally, $16 billion for major projects that deliver
substantial economic benefits, and $225 million for bridge replacements and repairs in Utah.
One or both bridges might qualify under the three categories of Federal infrastructure funding.
- #64 9Line Asphalt Pump Track portion of the project is eligible for $615,777 but the Rose Park portion
is outside of a qualifying census tract
The proposed $58 million bond includes two projects that might be eligible for ARPA funding. Both projects
would provide park improvements at multiple locations. Improvements at locations within qualified census
tracts (see map in Attachment 13) would be eligible for ARPA.
- $1.2 million public lands multilingual wayfinding signage partially eligible TBD until more details
available
- $4 million West Side Neighborhood parks partially eligible TBD until more details available
Four Fire Department Applications Additional Info (projects #10, #11, #51 and #52)
Some Council Members requested further details on the four Fire Department applications:
- #10 Training Tower
- #11 Single Family Prop
- #51 Mixed-use Prop and
- #52 Fire Training Ground Improvements
The applications are on the Funding Log in order of the Department’s priorities, that is, the Training Tower is
their top priority, and the Fire Training Ground Improvements is their lowest priority. In addition to Salt Lake
Page | 6
City Fire Department, all the facilities are used by other fire departments in the metropolitan area. Only a
nominal fee is charged for this longstanding practice.
#10 would significantly upgrade the nine-story main fire training facility to keep the training props functional
(near end of life) and improve the safety systems. The tower has been in use since the 1970s and some features
are obsolete including physical equipment and software. 20 years ago, the tower was updated to include
computer operated natural gas fire training props. Finding replacement parts is becoming difficult and the
training tower will no longer be an option for live fire training. The company is pulling working parts from old
facilities around the country and installing here in SLC to keep it operating. The four areas for fire simulation are
a car, apartment, industrial and high-rise. This is a primary training facility and without these upgrades fire
fighters would need to travel elsewhere to conduct some trainings (this is the only facility in Utah that offers
natural gas props training).
#11 is located next to the tower in #10 and the single-family prop is showing significant wear and tear. The
facility provides advanced training specific to this type of building structure to simulate more realistic situations.
The facility is important to provide single-family home trainings given the many neighborhoods in the City have
that type of building.
#51 is three stories tall plus a roof deck. It was not fully built out and there are concerns about the structure not
meeting current engineering standards. This prop would be capable of supporting fire in three different areas
and many areas for search and rescue, ventilation, and other important firefighter training.
#52 is several upgrades to the overall training grounds and former fire station and logistics facility. The former
fire station was remodeled to include two classrooms, training staff offices and a recruit area. The logistics
building is a 20,000 sq. ft. facility. Approximately 45,000 square feet is unused space. The project would build a
mini city for multiple kinds of training including significant areas of pavement so training can include vehicles
(this would provide a more suitable area for vehicle extrication training). A security fence would also be added to
the property possibly including lighting, runoff control, and some landscaping around the perimeter of the
property.
Timeline for Poplar Grove Park New Sport Court
The Administration states that the project is estimated to begin in the first quarter of next year and construction
could be completed in the second quarter of 2023. This timeline is dependent upon Engineering capacity
Allen Park Funding and Projects Additional Info (project #21)
Some Council Members requested further details on how the $450,000 for Allen Park in FY21 CIP relates to the
$420,000 requested in FY22 CIP (project #21) and the $1.3 million in the Mayor’s proposed bond. The
Administration provided the below response about the three different amounts.
“$450K in reallocated Bond Funds (“Allen Park Urgent Property Protection, Planning & Public Access”)
provided in 2020: These funds are being used for critical infrastructure upgrades, securing/stabilizing
some of the houses, and laying the groundwork for an Adaptive Re-use and Activation Plan, as described
in my email yesterday. Two answer two specific questions raised by CM Fowler: (1) we are using these
funds to establish power to facilitate food trucks, art & music events, and are gearing up for a series of
monthly art events running September through December 2021, and (2) water and septic systems
currently on the property are completely unusable, so full utility upgrades are required. We are working
to address these upgrades with this funding source to the extent that funds allow and will target
additional utility upgrades with Community Reinvestment Bond Funds.
$420K in requested FY22 CIP funding (“Preparing for Historic Structure Renovation & Activation at
Allen Park”) potentially approved September 2021: The scope of the Preparing for Historic Structure
Renovation & Activation at Allen Park CIP Project includes development of plan sets, construction
documents and cost estimates for improvements that further the public vision for re-activation of the
space, and in particular the historic structures, as a home for the ongoing creation of artwork, in a form
that is available for the public to enjoy and appreciate. These funds would also facilitate the completion
of the Allen Park Adaptive Reuse & Activation Plan, with additional public & stakeholder engagement.
$1,300,000 in requested Community Reinvestment Bond Funds: These funds will be used in large part
to construct structural, safety and functional improvements for historic structures, with the goal of
utilizing them as separate art studio spaces and a restroom / supplies washroom. It is difficult to say
Page | 7
how many buildings and studio spaces will be made fully functional with these funds until construction
documents are corresponding cost estimates are completed. We anticipate a small portion of the funds
will go toward repair and stabilization of exterior art pieces on the Allen Property, and possibly to
support modest lighting and landscaping upgrades and/or improvements to pathways throughout the
site.”
Sugar House Local Link Study Construction Additional Info (project #32)
Some Council Members requested details from the draft study about how the requested funding would be used
to implement the recommendations.
“Our top priority with the requested funding is to finish building out the Parley’s Trail on Highland
Drive and Sugarmont Drive as shown in the image below. We anticipate that the improvements of
Parley’s Trail and 1300 East will use all of the budget requested this year. We anticipate making this an
annual request until these projects are completed.
Note: this view is looking to the Northwest
Essentially – we are talking about using this funding to help build and enhance the “green line” section
that runs N-S on Highland Drive between Sugarmont Drive and the new Hawk signal near Sprague
Library, and the section on Sugarmont between Highland Drive and the improvements that have been
constructed by Boulder Ventures. We plan on doing much of this work with our Highland Drive
reconstruction – but will still have a small gap between the Zions Bank property and the RDA property
on Sugarmont, we also would like to use this funding to both construct that section and enhance the
Highland Drive project to ensure that the elements we are planning on implementing with the
reconstruction don’t get cut from the project due to budget constraints. Sections of the Parley’s Trail on
private property (orange lines through Sugar House Comments, or Red line through the Shopko block)
would require additional coordination with developers as these properties redevelop.”
#33 Corridor Transformations, #36 Neighborhood Byways and #42 Kensington Byway
Some Council Members asked how these three CIP applications are related and to what extent they overlap in
allowable uses. The Administration provided the below response about the three different applications.
“#33 Corridor Transformations is generally considered to address arterial or collector “through” streets,
compared to neighborhood byways which use smaller residential streets that are often not continuous.
#42 Kensington Byway generally would not be considered as part of this programmatic request.
Page | 8
Corridor Transformations originally requested $856,042 with a budget detail showing $406,200 to
600/700 North ($572,742 including engineering design, construction management, contingency, etc);
$130,000 to 2100 South ($183,300 with fees and contingency); and $100,000 to initiate a corridor
study of South Temple, a priority ranked street from Transportation’s equity and project prioritization
analysis.
#36 Neighborhood Byways is the programmatic request that is analogous to the Kensington
Neighborhood Byway. Yes, these funds could instead be used to fund Kensington, but at the cost of
eliminating or significantly reducing two other neighborhood byways on which the Transportation
Division has already been conducting civic engagement: $277,096 for the 800 East Neighborhood
Byway Phase 1 design (800 South to 2700 S, following out of 2020’s Open Streets neighborhood
interest, enthusiasm, and support); and $597,904 for the Poplar Grove Neighborhood Byway network
(remaining intersections not able to be constructed with recent CDBG grant). The programmatic request
also included $35,000 to initiate community collaboration and project concept design for two new key
neighborhood byways: Sugar House to the U, and Westpointe/Jordan Meadows. Additionally is
proposed $100,000 to develop a neighborhood byway design manual and community collaboration
toolkit which will make development of future neighborhood byways more streamlined and efficient.
#42 Kensington Neighborhood Byway at the $500,000 funding level will serve as match to federal
grants received by the Transportation Division from WFRC through the Transportation Alternatives
Program (with overlapping extents to the CIP request), to provide a total project budget of
approximately $1.5 million which will allow the byway to be constructed from West Temple to the
McClelland Trail.”
Wasatch Tennis Court Reconstruction Impact Fee Eligibility (project #54)
The CIP application identifies this project as eligible for parks impact fee funding. However, upon further
evaluation the Administration determined the project is ineligible for parks impact fee funding because there is
no service level enhancement to account for population growth. The project is only replacing an existing use at
the same service level.
Construction Mitigation Funding in CIP Requests
Some Council Members asked to what extent, if any, do street reconstruction projects and other public-right-of-
way projects include funding for construction mitigation? The Council expressed interest in funding
construction mitigation as a standard part of all street reconstruction projects like the built-in contingency
percentage. The Council also asked for clarification on what specific measures will be used with the $200,000
construction mitigation funding. The Administration provided the following response:
“In short, Engineering includes the cost of business construction mitigation in project budgets but not as
an itemized line. Mitigation comprises a construction guide, signage, outreach, meetings, and
personalized response to affected businesses. Going forward as project budgets are developed, the
estimated cost for mitigation will be pulled out as a line item. The actual cost will depend on the number
of businesses that are affected and the complexity and duration of the project.
Economic Development is evaluating the proposed $200,000 construction mitigation program.”
Updated Cost Estimates for Regular CIP Projects (Attachment 8)
The Administration provided updated cost estimates for CIP projects that regularly come up. The updated
Attachment 8 includes the prior FY2019 (calendar year 2018) cost estimates next to a column showing the 2021
estimates. Some categories have seen significant increases while others have closer to typical inflation rate
increases. The Engineering provided some context that the City doesn’t know to what extent the larger price
increases are temporary (such as related to pandemic caused short-term supply chain disruptions) or longer-
term trends. Overall, prices are estimated to be up 10% to 14% according to Engineering.
Surplus Land Fund
The current available to spend balance of the Surplus Land Fund is $2,287,531. See the Additional Info section
for more on the Fund.
Description for $3.4 Million Bond Investment in Westside Parks
Page | 9
The Administration provided the below description for the $3.4 million investment in Westside Parks that is
part of the Mayor’s proposed $58 million bond (Attachment 4). The Council is tentatively scheduled to hold
separate briefings about that bond proposal later summer and/or fall.
The $3.4 million listed in the bond proposal for Westside Parks will cover robust community engagement,
park design and construction of new improvements to Modesto, Poplar Grove and Jackson Parks. Utilizing
this funding for the Westside Parks is consistent with Strategy W-1 of the Reimagine Nature Public Lands
Master Plan which states “Neighborhood parks are designed and programmed to highlight the unique
natural, historical, cultural and economic identity of the surrounding area and community in which they are
located.” The policies that support this major strategy which will be included in the project scope include
data collection on park use and engagement, engaging the surrounding community in the visioning of public
spaces with particular emphasis on fostering engagement with under-represented groups, and enhancing
community pride and placemaking characteristics within the parks. The overarching purpose of the funding
is to create high-quality experiences within these parks. As defined by the Urban Land Institutei, high-
quality parks are in excellent physical condition, are accessible to all potential users, provide positive
experiences and are relevant to the communities they serve, and are flexible to changing circumstances.
These are all standards that will be sustained in the development of this project. Based on these qualities,
the specific goals for the Westside Parks project are as follows:
Improve west side parks so that they are in excellent physical condition. Evaluate the condition of all
assets to determine replacement or rehabilitation needs.
Improve circulation in the park and access to the park so that it is accessible to all potential users.
Create a circulation network in the park to encourage walking and improve access to park amenities
and the neighborhood.
Collaborate with the community to identify multiple uses and opportunities to a wide variety of
users. This may include new passive recreation areas or new active recreation options.
Include placemaking elements that are relevant to the communities they serve and accurately reflect
the community character. This might include public art, interpretive signage or the development of
special use or gathering areas.
Improve the climate resilience of the landscape by reducing the amount of underutilized turf and
replace it with a regionally appropriate and biodiverse planting composition and potential
accompanying irrigation. Include more shade trees and pollinator gardens.
Funding will specifically go towards hiring of a consultant for comprehensive public engagement and
design, and a contractor for construction of the project. Project scope will be developed with public
input and may need to be phased based on costs and funding capacity.
At the July 13 briefing, the Council reviewed the full Funding Log (Attachment 2) and identified several follow
up questions. Those questions were sent to the Administration and are copied below for reference. Responses
are expected to be available for the August 17 briefing. Some Council Members also identified projects without a
funding recommendation from the advisory board and the Mayor which they are interested in funding. Below
are updates on changes to recapture funding amounts, the Administration’s responses to policy questions from
June and project #75 the 600 North Corridor Transformation. Staff is working with the Administration to
determine how much of project #3 Odyssey House Annex Building Renovations is eligible for American Rescue
Plan Act (ARPA) funding and under new guidance from the U.S. Treasury Department if additional CIP projects
may qualify.
$150,753 Decrease in Class C (gas tax) Funds Recapture
The Administration reports $150,753 is still needed of the $208,981 in Class C (gas tax) funds from completed
projects that the Council recaptured as part of the annual budget. This means the new recaptured balance is
$58,228, and that a correction will need to be made in a budget amendment to move the $150,753 back to the
original projects so pending invoices can be paid. The situation could be an example of a system improvement
opportunity for communication between departments and divisions. The projects in question were completed
from a construction and engineering perspective but some post-construction invoices have not been paid. The
new Enterprise Resource Planning (ERP) system might help in similar situations in the future by improving the
City’s ability to track and coordinate on finances and assets.
$38,334 Increase in General Fund Recapture
Page | 10
The Administration reports $38,334 in additional General Fund dollars can be recaptured for use in FY22 CIP.
Three projects were completed and had remaining funds encumbered but are no longer needed. This funding
will need to be part of a budget amendment to formally be added into FY22 CIP since they were not part of the
annual budget. General Fund dollars are the most flexible CIP funding source and can go to any project.
Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions (Attachment 12)
The Administration’s responses to the Council’s policy questions are available in Attachment 12. The
Administration will be available to discuss with the Council the responses and potential next steps at the July 20
meeting. The Council may wish to identify policy interests for follow up after adoption of the FY22 CIP project
specific funding (September 1 deadline). Some of the issues could benefit from additional time and discussion to
improve existing processes and policies.
Project #75 600 North Corridor Transformation Diagrams, Preferred Concept and Goals
See Attachments 10 and 11
The Transportation Division provided Attachment 10 which has diagrams of six segments along the corridor
showing potential changes to the public right of way based on public engagement to-date. Public engagement
included pop-up events, several meetings, community events before the pandemic, an online survey in the
spring this year and presented to community councils. Attachment 11 is a longer document summarizing the
narrative and goals for the current preferred concept. A final preferred concept is expected to be available later
this summer or fall.
Several funding sources (Federal, State, UTA and City) have been identified but the project is not yet fully
funded. Note that the $58 million bond proposal includes $4 million for this project. The description states the
total project cost is $8.7 million but that may not be enough to fully fund the project given construction inflation
the City experienced in other recent projects. Fully funding the street reconstruction would mean less disruption
to the neighborhood (one construction period instead of two) and some modest mobilization cost savings and
efficiencies from a consolidated design. Also, a final preferred concept based on more public engagement and
updated engineering designs will inform the project’s total estimated cost later this year. Construction is
expected to be done in phases.
In recent years, the Council funded safety improvements to the 600 North and 800 West intersection and a
study of the 600 North Corridor. The total corridor is from 2200 West to Wall Street with three primary
segments within: 2200 West to Redwood Road, Redwood Road to I-15, and then several blocks from I-15 to Wall
Street. The project builds upon the upcoming Frequent Transit bus route on 600 North which is part of
implementing the City’s Transit Master Plan with UTA. For example, the partnership with UTA includes new bus
stops and improvements to existing bus stops along the corridor. UTA is paying for those new and improved bus
stops and long-term maintenance. The City is paying for the concrete pads.
Council Follow Up Questions to Administration
The below questions were sent to the Administration following the July 13 briefing. Responses are expected to be
available for the Council’s August 17 CIP briefing.
What is the available to spend balance of:
o The Art Maintenance Fund?
o The New Art Fund?
o The CIP Cost Overrun Account?
o The Surplus Land Fund?
Could you please help update the attached spreadsheet listing general cost estimates for regular CIP
projects? This was last updated in July 2019 and we know costs for some construction materials have
experienced significant inflation during the pandemic. And feel free to add rows for new projects if
departments think those additions would be helpful.
Is the FY22 list of projects for the Facilities capital asset replacement need to be updated given that the
FY21 funding was recaptured for the emergency Central Plant boiler replacements?
Could you please provide a written description of the $3.4 million for westside parks that’s listed as part
of the $58 million bond proposal? The bond is separate from but related to CIP and this information
Page | 11
would help the Council evaluate the City’s overall investments in parks and public lands and individual
project proposals.
#10 Training Tower, #11 Single Family Prop, #51 Mixed-use Prop and #52 Fire Training Ground
Improvements – Is there a comparison available between these four fire applications to help the Council
understand the similarities, differences, benefits, locations, etc? My recollection from the advisory board
presentation is that:
o The order on the funding log is the Fire Department’s order of priority between the four projects
o #10 would significantly upgrade the nine story main fire training facility
It’s been in use since the 1970s and the tower is almost obsolete
The company is pulling working parts from old facilities around the country and
installing here in SLC to keep it operating
There are four areas for fire simulation and all are nearing end of life
This is a primary training facility and without these upgrades fire fighters would need to
travel elsewhere to conduct some trainings
o #11 is located next to the tower in #10
The facility provides advanced training specific to this type of building structure
There are five different training areas
The facility is important to provide single-family home trainings given the many
neighborhoods in the City with that type of building
o #51 is three stories tall plus a roof deck
It was not fully built out and there are concerns about the structure not meeting current
engineering standards
There are eight training areas
o #52 is several upgrades to the overall training grounds and former fire station and logistics
facility
Approximately 45,000 square feet of unused space
The project would build a mini city for multiple kinds of training
Add significant areas of pavement so training can include vehicles
A security fence would also be added to the property
All of the facilities are used by other fire departments in the area
Only a nominal fee is charged for this longstanding practice
#22 Replace Poplar Grove Tennis with new Sportcourt – Could you please provide a general timeline for
this project?
#33 Corridor Transformations, #36 Neighborhood Byways and #42 Kensington Byway – To what extent
do these three funding requests overlap in allowable uses? Are there elements of #42 that could be
funded by #33 and/or #36?
#32 Local Link Construction – Could you please provide some details from the draft study about how
this funding would be used? For example, is there an implementation and projects section that could be
shared with the Council? We understand this funding request is intended to provide general flexibility
for complete street enhancements to planned reconstructions but additional examples at specific
locations would be helpful context.
#54 Wasatch Tennis Court Reconstruction – What percentage of this project is parks impact fees
eligible?
Council-added Funding to CIP
As part of the FY22 annual budget adoption, the Council added $3,245,759 to the CIP budget. This additional
funding brought CIP from 6.1% in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget up to 7.2% of ongoing General Fund
revenues. The added funding includes three components:
- $1,879,654 or the upcoming 600 North Corridor Transformation Complete Streets project. Two years in
a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA was less than budgeted and the Council placed the
excess funds into the Funding Our Future transit holding account. The full amount from the holding
account was appropriated for this project.
Page | 12
- $1,157,124 in General Fund dollars available for any project and these do not have funding
recommendations from the CDCIP Board or the Mayor. The CDCIP Board did recommend the Council
consider the Board’s combined project scoring as a guide for any additional funding. The scoring is
available in Attachment 5. Of this additional funding, $155,709 was recaptured from previously
completed projects.
- $208,981 in Class C (gas tax) funding which was recaptured from previously completed projects. See
Additional Info section for allowable uses of Class C funds are determined by state law.
Updated Funding Log
Attachment 2 has been updated since the June briefing to reflect Council-added funding, the 600 North corridor
transformation project, reformatting the spreadsheet to include the Council’s funding decisions and several
other improvements.
The following might be helpful in navigating the Funding Log:
- The first column on the far left identifies the ID# for every project to allow easier reference.
- The second column has the short-title for each application. Council staff added a note where an
application overlaps with a project proposed in the Mayor’s $58 million bond proposal
- The third column “Scope of Work” provides a project description and often a cost breakdown with
further details.
- The blue heading columns are the CDCIP and Mayor funding recommendations. This year, the two sets
of funding recommendations are identical exception for application #42 on Page 13 which the CDCIP
Board did not recommend funding but the Mayor recommends full funding.
- The green heading columns furthest to the right are the Council’s funding decisions. Staff copied the
Mayor’s funding recommendations into these columns as a starting place for the Council’s deliberations.
- The top right corner shows the “Available Funding” for each funding source. These amounts reflect
funds that have not been appropriated to an application.
- Note that all text in blue on the Funding Log was added by Council staff.
Policy Questions Update
Per Council Members request at the June briefing, staff sent all the policy questions to the Administration.
Responses were forthcoming at the time of publishing this staff report. The Council also identified an additional
policy question during unresolved issues briefings which has been sent to the Administration and is copied
below:
- To what extent, if any, do street reconstruction projects and other public-right-of-way projects including
funding for construction mitigation? The Council expressed interest in funding construction mitigation
as a standard part of all street reconstruction projects similar to the built in contingency percentage. The
Council also asked for clarification on what specific measures will be used with the $200,000
construction mitigation funding.
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Each year, the Council appropriates the overall funding available for the Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
and approves debt payments as part of the annual budget in June. Over the summer, the Council reviews
individual projects and per state law must approve project specific funding by September 1. CIP is an open and
competitive process where residents, local organizations and City departments submit project applications. The
Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board reviews the
applications in public meetings and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council. The Mayor
provides a second set of funding recommendations to the Council which ultimately decides project specific
funding. Note that for FY 21 the Administration conducted an abbreviated CIP process which did not include
outside applications.
As defined in the Council-adopted 2017 Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies (Attachment 1), a CIP
project must “involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other physical
structures, … have a useful life of five or more years, … have a cost of $50,000 or more, … or significant
functionality can be demonstrated…such as software.” The Council also set a three-year spending deadline as
part of the guiding policies. CIP accounts older than three years are periodically reviewed for recapture from
projects that finished under budget or were not pursued.
Page | 13
Overview of the FY22 CIP Budget
The total FY22 CIP budget is $34.7 million which is $5.5 million (19%) more than last year. Only looking at the
ongoing General Fund transfer to CIP excluding Funding Our Future shows a decrease of $456,798 (3%) less
than last year.
$5.5 Million Overall Increase – This is largely due to a $4.9 million increase from the new funding source
County 1/4¢ sales tax for transportation and streets and a $3.2 million increase in impact fees.
$456,798 Decrease in General Fund Transfer – The proposed ongoing General Fund (excluding Funding
Our Future dollars) transfer is $14.1 million to CIP which is 6.1% of the ongoing FY22 General Fund
budget. If the Council wishes to increase the CIP funding level to 7% an additional $2,775,049 is needed.
The Council would need to identify corresponding cuts in other General Fund expenses or revenue
increases.
$5.7 Million Unrestricted Funds – The sources of CIP funds are detailed further in the chart below.
$5,705,720 of the ongoing transfer from the General Fund are unrestricted funds available for any new
projects (the most flexible funding available).
$10.7 Million Debt Payments and Ongoing Commitments – $10.7 million (58%) of the General Fund
transfer to CIP (including Funding Our Future dollars) is needed to cover debt payments. However, it
should be noted that $3,657,667 of this amount is for a first-year payment on a proposed bond that the
Council has not discussed in detail or approved the list of projects. This funding could be used for FY22
project applications if the Council declines to proceed with the bond or approves a smaller bond. Overall,
debt service is 30% of ongoing CIP funding which is a significant improvement over FY21 when the debt
load was 46%. The drop is because a sales tax revenue bond was paid off in FY21.
Comparison of CIP Funding Sources by Fiscal Year
C I P Fu n di n g So u rc es A do p t ed
2 0 19 -2 0
A do p t ed
2 0 2 0 -2 1
Pro p o sed
2 0 2 1-2 2
FY 2 1 t o FY 2 2
$ C h an ge
FY 2 1 t o FY 2 2
% C h an ge
Ge ne r a l Fund 1 5 ,2 3 9,4 7 9$ 1 4 ,5 82 ,2 6 7$ 1 4 ,1 2 5 ,4 6 9$ (4 5 6 ,7 9 8)$ -3 %
Fund ing Ou r Fu tur e *6 ,1 6 9,3 6 7$ 4 ,880 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,5 80 ,0 0 0$ (1 ,3 0 0 ,0 0 0 )$ -2 7 %
Class C 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 1 %
I m p a c t Fe e **4 ,5 6 7 ,9 1 3$ 5 ,0 5 8,0 1 1$ 8,2 7 6 ,1 0 3$ 3 ,2 1 8,0 9 2$ 6 4 %
CDBG -$ -$ 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ ONE-TI ME
Re p u r p o se Old CI P A c c o unts 3 ,5 7 2 ,9 6 8$ 1 ,1 4 9,6 1 6$ PENDI NG -ONE-TI ME
Co u nt y 1 /4 ¢ Sa le s Tax ***N/A N/A 4 ,9 0 0 ,0 0 0$ NEW NEW
Sur p lu s Land Fu nd 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ -$ 0 %
Sm it h 's Nam ing Right s
Re v e nu e 1 5 9,5 85$ 1 5 6 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ (2 ,0 0 0 )$ -1 %
SLC Sp o r ts Co m ple x ESCO 1 4 8,5 0 5$ 1 5 4 ,7 0 6$ 1 4 8,5 0 5$ (6 ,2 0 1 )$ -4 %
Me m o r ial Ho u s e Re nt Re v e nu e 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ -$ 0 %
TOTA L 3 3 ,1 2 6,3 7 1$ 2 9 ,2 2 6,2 6 2$ 3 4 ,7 7 3 ,4 4 5$ 5 ,5 4 7 ,1 83$ 1 9 %
TOTA L w it h o ut ONE-TI ME 2 9 ,5 3 0 ,5 1 1$ 2 8,0 7 6,6 4 6$ 3 4 ,4 5 1 ,4 4 5$ 6 ,3 7 4 ,7 9 9$ 2 3 %
*I nc lu d e s % t o CI P "o ff t h e to p ," transit a nd pu b lic rig h t o f w a y infrastru c t ure . A ls o , fund ing so u rc e is o ng o ing
b ut Co u nc il c o u ld c h a ng e th e u s e c ate g o rie s in t h e futu re
**Th e re are fo u r im p a c t fe e ty p e s: fire , p arks, p o lic e a nd s tre e t s
No te : FY 2 1 & FY 2 2 inc lude s a $2 2 ,89 2 d e b t se rv ic e re sc o pe re d u c tio n w h ic h is no t se pa ra t e d o u t in th e t a b le
ab o v e
***Ne w re v e nu e so u rc e in FY 2 1 w h ic h t h e Co u nc il dire c t e d b e inc lude d in CI P fo r FY 2 2 a nd th e re a fte r, lim it e d to
tra nsp o rta tio ni and st re e t infra s truc tu re use s
Significant changes to CIP in FY22 and in upcoming years include:
FY22 is the third year with a CIP Budget Book detailing individual projects and debts.
Administration is continuing work on creating a Capital Facilities Plan (10-year comprehensive CIP plan).
Page | 14
Updates to all four sections (fire, parks, police, and streets/transportation) of the Impact Fees Facilities
Plan that was funded by the Council in Budget Amendment #6 of FY19 of which three are pending.
An approximately $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 which removes $5.3 million of annual debt
payments. The Mayor is recommending a new, smaller bond for several capital improvement projects. See
Additional Info section for debt load projections chart and Attachment 4 for a spreadsheet summarizing
the proposed $58 million bond-funded projects.
No constituent applications were considered for funding in FY21 as part of an abbreviated CIP process,
rather they were carried over into FY22 CIP resulting in a higher number competing for limited funds
Three Differences in Advisory Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations
(See Attachment 2 for Funding Log and Attachment 3 for the CIP Budget Book)
Board and Mayoral funding recommendations are detailed at the bottom of each project page in the CIP Budget
Book and on the CIP Funding Log. The CIP Log is Attachment 2 which first shows projects the Mayor is
recommending for funding and then projects which are not recommended for funding. This year the funding
recommendations from the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident
advisory board and the mayor are nearly identical with three differences listed below.
- The Board did not recommend funding for the Kensington Byway on Andrew Ave. from West Temple to
Main Street and Kensington Ave. from Main Street to 800 East (note that the street has different names
on either side of Main Street). The Mayor recommends fully funding the project using $500,000 from
Funding Our Future Streets. Note that several projects scored higher by the Board but are not
recommended for funding or less than full funding.
- Fully funding the 900 South Signal Improvements project (from 900 West to Lincoln Street) with
slightly different sources. The Mayor proposes to use $100,000 from the County 1/4¢ sales tax for
transportation and streets and $233,500 from Funding Our Future Streets while the Board proposes to
use $333,500 from Funding Our Future Streets.
- Mostly funding Transportation Safety Improvements project with slightly different sources. The Mayor
proposes to use $400,000 from the County 1/4¢ sales tax for transportation and streets while the Board
proposes to use $400,000 from Funding Our Future Streets.
Use Combined Project Scores from CDCIP Board as Guide if Additional Funding is Available
(See Attachment 5 for a summary sheet of Board votes and combined scores)
The CDCIP Board scored and voted on each CIP application. The Board recommends that their combined
scoring be used as a guide for how to spend additional CIP funding if it becomes available for FY22 projects. The
combined scores are shown in the right-most column and votes in the adjacent column. Note that board
members may not have voted on a project because they were unavailable at the time (technical difficulties or not
at the public meeting) or they couldn’t decide.
Over $300 Million Unfunded Capital Needs and the Mayor’s New $58 Million Bond Proposal
(See Attachment 4 pages three and four for a spreadsheet summarizing the proposed bond-funded projects)
Last year, the Council discussed the upcoming opportunity of an approximately $80 million sales tax revenue
bond being paid off in 2021. This removed a $5.3 million annual debt payment from CIP which has been paid
using General Fund dollars. Council Members expressed interest in holding further discussions on how best to
prioritize use of this funding opportunity (assuming available revenues) given that the City’s unfunded capital
needs significantly exceed $5.3 million. The Mayor is proposing a new $58 million bond with an estimated $3.6
million annual debt payment. Note that some of the projects would be issued under a tax-exempt bond while
others would need to be a separate taxable (more expensive) bond. Also, the total cost of the bond is greater than
the sum of the individual projects because it includes the cost of issuance and a contingency up to the $58
million maximum proposed. The proposed capital improvement projects include:
$19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total)
- $2.5 Million for Central Plan electrical transformer upgrade
- $3 Million for Warm Springs historic structure stabilization
- $1.7 Million for an urban wood reutilization equipment and storage additions
- $1.5 Million for Fisher Mansion improvements
- $7.5 Million for Fisher Mansion restoration
- $3 million for improvements to the Ballpark
Note that the City has $47.7 million in total deferred facilities needs
Page | 15
$11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total)
- $4 Million for 600 North complete street transformation
- $1 Million for cemetery road repairs
- $6.1 Million for railroad quiet zones on the West Side (trains would stop blowing horns at crossings)
Note that the City is about halfway through the 2018 voter-approved $87 Million Streets Reconstruction Bond.
More ongoing funding for street reconstructions and overlays will be needed after the bond funds are gone.
$26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total)
- $1.2 Million public lands multilingual wayfinding signage
- $440,000 for Jordan River Paddle Share Program at Exchange Club Marina 1700 South
- $1.3 Million for Allen Park activation of historic structures
- $3.4 Million for West Side neighborhood parks
- $5 Million for Foothills trail system phases 2 and 3 trailheads and signage
o Note that the Mayor is also recommending $1.7 million in FY22 CIP for this project
- $5.2 Million for improvements to Pioneer Park
- $10 Million for redevelopment of the Glendale Water Park
o Note that the Mayor is also recommending $3.2 million in FY22 CIP for this project
Over $300 Million in Unfunded Capital Needs over the Next Decade
Below is a short list of the City’s unfunded capital needs from large single-site projects to long-term best
management of capital assets like buildings, streets, and vehicles. This list is not comprehensive, and some costs
may be higher since originally estimated. The total unfunded needs of the below list exceed $300 million and
may be closer to $500 million depending on the specifics of new construction projects in the first bullet point.
Note that these estimates for new assets do not include maintenance costs. If the City had a Capital Facilities
Plan, then it would be a mechanism to identify, track, prioritize and schedule unfunded capital needs over a
long-term horizon.
$TBD new construction and major redevelopments: Fleet Block, Eastside Police Precinct, multiple aging
fire stations, The Leonardo (old library), expansion of the S-Line Streetcar, downtown TRAX loop, quiet
zones and undergrounding rail lines that divide the City’s west and east sides, implementing rest of the
9-Line and McClelland urban trails, historic structures like Fisher Mansion and Warm Springs, etc.
$133 million over ten years (in addition to existing funding level) to increase the overall condition index
of the City's street network from poor to fair
$50.9 million above the FY22 recommended funding level over next 10 years to fully fund the City’s
Fleet needs
$47.7 million over ten years to bring all City facilities out of deferred maintenance
$25 million for capital improvements at the City Cemetery, of which $12.5 million is for road repairs
$20 million for a new bridge at approx. 4900 West from 500 South to 700 South
$6 million for planned upgrades to the Regional Athletic Complex
$3.1 million for downtown irrigation system replacement
$1.3 million for solar panels, parking canopy and security upgrade at Plaza 349
Recapture Funds from Completed Projects and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years
(Attachment 9)
The CIP and Debt Management Resolution (Attachment 1) requests that remaining funds from completed
projects be recaptured and that remaining funds from unfinished projects over three years old also be
recaptured. The table in Attachment 9 is staff’s attempt to follow up on the Council’s policy guidance for CIP
projects. 53 projects are listed most of which received General Fund dollars and are over three years old. Several
projects also received Class C funds, CDBG funds or are old donations. The total funding is just over $4.2
million. Some of this funding could be recaptured by the Council as one-time revenue for General Fund uses,
however, the Class C, CDBG and donations have uses limited by law. The table was sent to the Administration to
identify whether a project is completed and status updates for unfinished projects. A response and potential
funding to recapture by project will be added to one of the Council’s upcoming unresolved issues briefings.
Council Member Rogers’ Proposal
During the Non-Departmental budget briefing on May 25, Council Member Rogers expressed interest in using
some or all the $1,879,654 in the Funding Our Future transit holding account for the 600 North complete street
Page | 16
transformation project. Two years in a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA was less than budgeted
and the Council placed the excess funds into the holding account. Council staff is meeting with Transportation
Division staff to better understand the project scope, phases, cost estimates and existing funding.
The Mayor’s Series 2021A and 2021B bond proposal (Attachment 4) includes $4 million for the 600 North
complete street transformation project. The description states the total project cost is $8.7 million but with
recent construction inflation costs may already be higher. It also mentions a phase 1 is already funded. In recent
years the Council funding safety improvements at the 600 North and 800 West intersection and funding for a
safety study of the 600 North corridor.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.$300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs and $58 Million Bond Proposal – The Council may
wish to discuss if the proposed bond funding by category (listed below) aligns with the Council’s policy
priorities. The Council may also wish to discuss how to balance the City’s $300+ Million unfunded
capital needs including deferred maintenance for existing assets with funding construction of new
assets. The Council is scheduled to review the bond projects in detail over the summer when also
reviewing individual CIP projects.
$19.2 Million for Facilities Projects (34% of bond total)
$11.1 Million for Transportation and Streets Projects (19% of bond total)
$26.54 Million for Parks and Natural Lands Projects (47% of bond total)
2.American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) Funding for CIP – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration to review all CIP applications for FY22 to determine which, if any project, are eligible for
ARPA funding. The U.S. Treasury release eligibility guidance after the advisory board and Mayor
provided project funding recommendations to the Council. A review for ARPA feasibility could be
completed in time for the Council’s July and August project-specific funding deliberations.
3.Policy Guidance for When to Disqualify an Application – The Council may wish to discuss with
the Administration if it would be helpful for the Council to provide policy guidance on disqualifying an
application such as if it violates a stated City position in an adopted master plan or other policy
document, if the primary beneficiary would not be the public, if the City should no longer allow
constituent street reconstruction applications because the City’s chosen strategy is reconstructing the
worst first based on a data-driven process, etc.
4.Resources to Support Constituent Applications – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration the need to address geographic equity issues with additional targeted City resources for
neighborhoods that submit few or no constituent applicants. Some Council Members expressed interest
in being proactive to support constituent applications from neighborhoods with higher poverty rates.
Some constituents and CDCIP Board Members commented at public meetings that they felt like some
projects get more support from departments than others.
5.Move $200,000 Ongoing Property Maintenance Expenses Out of Surplus Land Fund – The
Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how to advance this legislative intent. The Council
may also wish to ask the Administration what challenges exist to provide an accounting of vacant
building maintenance costs and whether a property management contract approach could be more
efficient. See Additional Info section for more on the Surplus Land Fund. In Budget Amendment #1 of
FY20 the Council adopted the following legislative intent:
The Council expresses the intent to fund ongoing property maintenance expenses out of the Public
Services Department and/or Community and Neighborhoods Departments’ (CAN) budget rather than
continuing to use one-time revenues from the Surplus Land Fund. The Council requests the
Administration include this approach based on actual expenses in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget
for FY2021. This approach builds upon the Council’s FY19 decision to shift funding for a CIP-related
FTE away from the Surplus Land Fund and into CAN’s base budget.
6.CIP Project Status Reports – The Council may wish to ask the Administration about mechanisms to
facilitate the up-to-date sharing of information on current CIP projects. In the past, there were a variety
of mechanisms to share information, ranging from topic by topic email requests to consolidated monthly
Page | 17
reports. Council Members could then quickly provide accurate/timely information to interested
constituents.
7.Additional 0.20% County Sales Tax for Transit Option (not currently collected/levied) – The
State Legislature authorized this optional county sales tax for transit capital improvements and services.
The Council may wish to ask the Administration about any discussions with the County or plans
regarding this potential funding source. For example, could partnering with the County help implement
the City’s Transit Master Plan, downtown TRAX loop and/or undergrounding railway lines that divide
the City? Under current state law, the option to enact the additional sales tax expires at the end of FY23.
8.Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update
on the CFP (10-Year Comprehensive CIP Plan). It’s envisioned as a living document that prioritizes
capital needs across City plans and departments within funding constraints. The Council held a briefing
in January 2019 about a draft of the plan. See Attachment 6 for the Council’s potential policy goals,
metrics, and requests.
9.Balancing Funding for Streets and Transportation – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration how to balance funding for streets and transportation in coming years between Class C
funds which goes to street reconstructions and overlays with the new County 1/4¢ sales tax which goes
to transportation. Both of those funding sources are eligible for streets and transportation uses but are
only going to one of the two uses. There may be a need for greater ongoing streets funding when the
voter-approved 2018 Streets Reconstruction Bond funds are all spent.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Surplus Land Fund (See Policy Question #7)
The Surplus Land Fund receives proceeds from the sale of real property (land and buildings). According to City
policy the Surplus Land Fund can be spent on purchasing real property and some funds may be diverted into the
Housing Trust Fund. The funds are one-time because the real property can only be sold once. The FY22 budget
proposes to continue a $200,000 appropriation to the CAN Department for property maintenance expenses
such as utilities, security, and minor repairs. This is using one-time funding for an ongoing expense.
Cost Overrun Account
The Council established this account for projects that experience costs slightly higher than budgeted. A formula
determines how much additional funding may be pulled from the Cost Overrun account depending on the total
Council-approved budget. See section 11 of Attachment 1 for the formula. This process allows the Administration
to add funding to a project without returning to the Council in a budget amendment. A written notification to
the Council on uses is required. The purpose is to allow projects to proceed with construction instead of delaying
projects until the Council can act in a budget amendment which typically takes a few months.
Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking (See Attachment 7)
The Council approved several million dollars in impact fee projects the past few years. Attachment ??? is the
most recent impact fee tracking report from the Administration. The table below is current as of April 20, 2021.
Available to spend impact fee balances are bank account balances subtracting encumbrances and expired funds.
The Mayor’s recommended CIP budget proposes using $6,800,450 of parks impact fees and $491,520 of streets
/ transportation impact fees.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $1,002,114 More than a year away -
Parks $8,435,142 More than a year away -
Police $421,062 June 2021 $30,017
Transportation $5,125,188 More than a year away -
Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract
Impact Fee Eligibility
Impact fees are one-time charges imposed by the City on new development projects to help fund the cost of
providing infrastructure and services to that new development. This is part of the City’s policy that growth
should pay for growth. A project, or portion of a project, must be deemed necessary to ensure the level of service
provided in the new development area matches what is currently offered elsewhere in the city. As a result, it’s
Page | 18
common for a project to only be partially eligible for impact fee funding (the growth-related portion) so other
funding sources must be found to cover the difference. It is important to note that per state law, the City has six
years from the date of collection to spend or encumber under a contract the impact fee revenue. After six years, if
those fees are not spent then the fees are returned to the developer with interest.
CIP Debt Load Projections through FY26
(Note an $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 and the Mayor proposed a new $58 million bond)
The Administration provided the following chart to illustrate the ratio of ongoing commitments to available
funding for projects over the next six fiscal years. Most of these commitments are debt payments on existing
bonds. Other commitments include, ESCO debt payments, the Crime Lab lease, capital replacement funding for
parks and facilities, contributions to the CIP cost overrun account and the 1.5% for art fund. The CIP Budget
Book includes an overview and details on each of the ongoing commitments. 79% of the General Fund transfer
into CIP was needed for these ongoing commitments in FY21.
The projected debt load significantly decreases in FY22 because Series 2014A Taxable Refunding of 2005 bonds
matures (paid off). It was approximately $80 million when the bond was originally issued (before refunding).
This reduces the debt load from 79% to 45% and removes a $5.3 million annual debt payment. The Mayor is
recommending a new sales tax revenue bond totaling $58 million with an estimated annual debt payment of
almost $3.7 million. Note that General Obligation (G.O.) bonds are not paid from CIP because they are funded
through a separate, dedicated voter-approved property tax increase.
0%
10 %
20 %
30 %
40 %
50 %
60 %
70 %
80 %
90 %
100%
FY 2020-21 FY 2021 -22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-2 4 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26
Allocation of C IP General Fund Transfer Amount, 6 Year
Projection, assuming 2% revenue growth per year, and
continued allocation of 7% of GF revenue to CIP
Debt Se r vice On Bonds Othe r Debt Servic e Other Commitments Pay a s You G o Pro jec ts
1.5% for Art Fund (for new art and maintenance of existing artworks)
Salt Lake City Code, Chapter 2.30, established the Percent for Art Fund and designates roles for the Art Design
Board and Arts Council related to artist selection, project review and placement. The Public Art Program also
Page | 19
oversees projects with funding from the Airport and RDA. In April 2021 the Council amended Chapter 2.30 to
make several changes to the ordinance including an increase from 1% to 1.5% of ongoing unrestricted CIP
funding for art minimum. There is no ceiling so the Council could approve funding for art above 1.5%.
The ordinance also sets a range of 10%-20% for how much of the 1.5% is allocated to maintenance annually. This
section of the ordinance also states that before funds are deposited into the separate public art maintenance
fund a report from the Administration will be provided to the Council identifying works of art that require
maintenance and estimated costs. This creates the first ongoing dedicated funding for conservation and
maintenance of the City’s public art collection consisting of over 270 pieces. The collection is expected to
continue growing. Note that in Budget Amendment #2 of FY20 the Council made a one-time appropriation of
$200,000 to establish an art maintenance fund. Of that amount, up to $40,000 was authorized for a study to
determine the annual funding need for art maintenance and identify specific repairs for artworks.
Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) (See Attachment 6)
The CFP is a comprehensive 10-year CIP plan. See Attachment 6 for a summary of the Council’s requests and
guidance during the January 2019 briefing from the Administration and discussion. It’s important to note, the
Council expressed interest in identifying a couple measurable goals to accomplish through the CFP and guide
prioritization of project planning.
Regular CIP Project Cost Estimate (See Attachment 8)
Attachment 8 lists cost estimates for various types of projects based on actual costs from recent years. The
document was developed by Council staff in collaboration with the Administration. The figures may not be up to
date cost estimates but provide a ballpark figure when considering project costs. The three categories of project
cost estimates are parks, streets, and transportation. The document was last updated July 2019. Updated cost
estimates will be provided for the Council’s budget deliberations in July and August.
County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding
The County fourth quarter-cent transportation funding is a new ongoing sales tax funding source dedicated to
transportation and streets. The City has taken a progressive view of transportation beyond a vehicle-focused
perspective and uses a multi-modal, more inclusive approach (walking, biking, public transit, accessibility and
ADA, ride-share, trails, safety, scooters, etc.). The Wasatch Front Regional Council summarized eligible uses for
this funding as “developing new roads or enhancing (e.g. widening) existing roads; funding active
transportation, including bike and pedestrian projects; or funding transit enhancements. It can also be used for
maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities.” (SB136 of 2018 Fourth Quarter Cent Local Option Sales Tax
Summary June 22, 2018). Revenue from the 0.25% sales tax increase is split 0.10% for UTA, 0.10% for cities and
0.05% for Salt Lake County as of July 1, 2019 and afterwards. Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between
this funding source and Class C funds (next section).
Class C Funds (gas tax)
Class C funds are generated by the Utah State Tax on gasoline. The state distributes these funds to local
governments on a center lane mileage basis. The City’s longstanding practice has been to appropriate Class C
funds for the general purpose of street reconstruction and asphalt overlays. The Roadway Selection Committee
selects specific street segment locations (See next section below). Note that there is overlap in eligible uses
between this funding source and the County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding (previous
section). Per state law, Class C funds may be used for:
1. All construction and maintenance on eligible Class B & C roads
2. Enhancement of traffic and pedestrian safety, including, but not limited to: sidewalks, curb and gutter,
safety features, traffic signals, traffic signs, street lighting and construction of bicycle facilities in the
highway right-of-way
3. Investments for interest purposes (interest to be kept in fund)
4. Equipment purchases or equipment leases and rentals
5. Engineering and administration costs
6. Future reimbursement of other funds for large construction projects
7. Rights of way acquisition, fencing and cattle guards
8. Matching federal funds
9. Equipment purchased with B & C funds may be leased from the road department to another
department or agency
10. Construction of road maintenance buildings, storage sheds, and yards. Multiple use facilities may be
constructed by mixing funds on a proportional basis
Page | 20
11. Construction and maintenance of alleys
12. B & C funds can be used to pay the costs of asserting, defending, or litigating
13. Pavement portion of a bridge (non-road portions such as underlying bridge structure are not eligible)
Roadway Selection Committee
The Roadway Selection Committee determines specific projects for street improvement general purpose
appropriations, e.g., reconstruction or overlay. In recent years this Committee guided use of Class C funds and
revenues from the 2018 voter-approved Streets Reconstruction G. O. Bond. The Committee is led by
Engineering and includes representatives of Streets, Transportation, Public Utilities, Public Services, HAND,
Finance, the RDA and Council Staff. Information provided to the committee to consider in their selection
process includes:
Public requests for individual road repair
On-going costs to keep a road safely passable
Existing or planned private development or publicly funded construction activities in a neighborhood
or corridor such as the Sugar House Business District or the 900 South corridor
Safety improvement goals and crash data
Public Utilities’ planned capital projects that would include a variety of underground facilities
replacements, repairs, or upgrades
Private utilities’ existing infrastructure, planned installations or repairs, e.g., fiber, natural gas, power
Neighborhood or transportation master plan considerations
Pavement condition survey data for ideal timing of asphalt overlays to extend useful life of a street
In reviewing the above-mentioned criteria, open deliberations are held between committee members, and roads
are selected for repair by consensus. The number of projects selected is contingent on available funding. Other
City projects and master plans sometimes help in extending funds by combining project funding sources.
CIP Planning Technology Improvements
The Administration reports improvements are ongoing to CIP tracking of projects and applications. The City
currently provides a public interactive construction and permits project information map available here:
http://maps.slcgov.com/mws/projects.htm
ATTACHMENTS
1. Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution 29 of 2017
2. FY 22 CIP Funding Log – Note the spreadsheet from the Administration is not formatted for printing
3. FY22 CIP Budget Book – Note an electronic version was pending at the time of publishing this staff
report for the June 1 Council meeting
4. Summary Project Spreadsheet for Proposed Sales Tax Bonds Series 2021A and 2021B
5. FY22 CDCIP Board Project Scores and Votes
6. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Council Requests from January 2019
7. Impact Fee “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking (April 20, 2021)
8. Regular CIP Projects Cost Estimates (July 3, 2019)
9. List of Completed and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years for Potential Funding Recapture
10. 600 North Corridor Transformation Diagrams Draft
11. 600 North Corridor Transformation Preferred Concept, Narrative and Goals Draft
12. Administration’s Responses to the Council’s Policy Questions
13. Qualified Census Tracts for 2021 from U.S. Housing and Urban Development Department
14. ARPA Budget Update Infographic
ACRONYMS
CAN – Community and Neighborhood Development Department
CDCIP – Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board
CFP – Capital Facilities Plan
CIP – Capital Improvement Program
ESCO – Energy Service Company
FTE – Full-time Employee
FY – Fiscal Year
G.O. Bond – General Obligation bond
HAND – Housing and Neighborhood Development Division
Page | 21
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
RESOLUTION NO . _29_0F 2017
(Salt Lake City Council capital and debt management policies.)
R 17-1
R 17-13
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 of2004 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:
1. 20% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project
budgets of $100,000 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 $1oo,ooo.
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,
1. 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,
m . 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 10-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. A void 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.
10. 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.
11. 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 -~3L.Lr_...d ___ day of
October , 2017.
ATTEST :
HB _A TTY -#64309 -v3-CIP _a nd _ Debt_ Management_Pol icies
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By 4 = ASL
CHAIRPERSON -=-::::::::____
Salt Lake City
App ed As To Form
By: ~~~~~~~.P
aysen Oldroyd
Da e: lt:>/-:z.../ 17
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
1 1.5% for Art
Required by City ordinance and calculated as 1.5% of the General Fund available to spend revenues in the Mayor's
Recommended Budget. Overseen by the Arts Council. Ordinance allows the Administration to use some of the
funding for maintenance of existing artworks and the rest goes to new artworks. The new Art Maintenance Fund
has an available to spend balance of $20,266 and the % for Art Fund has $114,841 available.
$85,586 $34,500 $100,607 $34,500
2 Cost Overrun
Account
Required and governed by the CIP Resolution 29 of 2017. Provides additional funding for projects with expenses
that come in slightly higher than estimated. The available to spend balance of the Cost Overrun Account is
$750,606.
$114,114 $46,000 $114,114 $46,000
3
Odyssey House
Annex Facility
Renovation
100% ARPA
ELIGIBLE
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project
Will be fully funded using ARPA dollars in the next budget amendment
Odyssey House is seeking funding from Salt Lake City to complete a significant renovation of the Annex building
rented by the agency located at 623 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84102. Currently, the Annex has a
multitude of structural problems that pose life and safety risks for the residential clients who inhabit the facility at
this time. The roof is deteriorating, and the gutters are becoming unstable. This damage is causing a multitude of
different leaks within the building, harming interior and exterior walls. To fully replace the roof and gutters, it will
cost about $28,000. The building's foundation, primarily in the rear, is beginning to crumble and needs to be
repaired, treated, and braced, which will ultimately cost about $250,000. The roof and foundation must be
restored to complete all other necessary renovations before other workers can be deployed inside the building.
Following the roof and foundation's replacement and repairs, the interior beams, walls, and overall structural
skeleton need to be reinforced and stabilized due to extensive water damage, costing about $33,000. All exterior
walls need to be cleaned, repaired, and repainted, costing about $41,500. Windows and doors within the facility
have to be wholly replaced. Due to structural and foundational problems, all interior doors and windows cannot
shut or lock because their frames are warped and/rotting. To complete an overhaul of the windows and doors, it
will cost about $19,500. Additionally, the electrical and mechanical systems in the building, such as wiring,
hardware, plumbing, etc., will need to be evaluated and repaired or replaced, which will cost about $35,500.
Lastly, exterior site work, such as sidewalk repairs, drainage slope, ADA access, and miscellaneous fees, such as
permits, additional insurance, and project management, will add $42,500 to the total project cost. In total, the
renovation of the Annex will cost about $450,000. However, Odyssey House is looking to build in a contingency of
$50,000 to prepare for any additional work that may appear after beginning construction resulting in an overall
cost of $500,000.
$300,000
4
Street
Improvements
2021/2022
15% ARPA
ELIGIBLE UP TO
$450,000
Requested $3.5 million from Class C; Engineering Project
Deteriorated city streets will be reconstructed or rehabilitated using funding from this program. This will provide
replacement of street pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements as necessary. Where
appropriate, the program will include appropriate bike way and pedestrian access route improvements as
determined by the Transportation Division per the Complete Streets ordinance.
$2,046,329 $2,046,329
5 Pavement
Conditions Survey
Requested $175,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
Approximately every five years the entire pavement network is surveyed. This condition survey is accomplished by
a third party with state of the art equipment and results in a report summarizing possible options and costs. The
data collected is used by Engineering’s Pavement Management Team to determine the overall street network
condition, provide street rehabilitation and reconstruction recommendations, and prioritize proposed
maintenance activities.
$3,571 $171,429 $3,571 $171,429
6
Public Way
Concrete
2021/2022
Requested $750,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
This project will address displacements in public way concrete through saw-cutting, slab jacking, and removal and
replacement of deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, accessibility ramps, curb and gutter, retaining walls,
etc.
$75,000 $675,000 $75,000 $675,000
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 1
Exhibit A: Fiscal Year 2021-2022 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Project AllocationsDRAFT
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
7
Bridge
Preservation
2021/2022
Requested $300,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
There are 23 bridges in Salt Lake City, most crossing either the Jordan River or the Surplus Canal. UDOT inspects
these bridges every two years and provides the city with a basic condition report. The city is responsible for
performing appropriate maintenance activities based on statements in the UDOT report. City Engineering has
prepared an ongoing bridge maintenance strategy with the objective of extending the functional life of these
structures, and extending the time between major repairs. The requested funds will be used to address needed
repairs and routine maintenance.
$21,429 $278,571 $21,429 $278,571
8
Rail Adjacent
Pavement
Improvements
2021/2022
Requested $70,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
This program addresses uneven pavement adjacent to railway crossings. Engineering designs pavement
improvements and contracts the construction.$70,000 $70,000
9
Capital Asset
Replacement
Program
$19.2 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR SIX FACILITIES
PROJECTS
Requested $5,860,449 from General Fund; Facilities Project
The Facilities Division’s Facility Condition Index database categorizes asset renewal projects based on the criticality
of projects starting with Priority 1, Life Safety. Projects in Priority 2 address Structural Integrity, Property Loss, and
Contractual Obligations. To eliminate the $47,733,403 in total deferred capital renewal, Facilities proposes an
annual investment through CIP of $7,000,000. For FY22 CIP funding, Facilities is requesting funding for Projects of
Priority1 and 2 for $5,860,449. (The amount requested is derived from an initial 2017 facility assessment to which
a 3% annual inflationary rate has been applied. It should be noted that the current construction environment is
very heated; with the 10% contingency and 21% Design/Engineering costs Facilities request is $5,860,449.)
$1,252,230 $1,252,230
10 Training Tower
Fire Prop Upgrade
Requested $318,279 from General Fund; Fire Project
The Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade consist of modernizing the existing natural gas fire props within the
Tower. The scope includes upgrading the fuel control station, PLC5 to the new ControlLogix PLC operating system,
and the bedroom, storage, desk, and car fire props.
Fuel control station: Replace existing assembly whose components are currently obsolete. The upgrade will
replace the existing FCS (fuel control station) to “auto” open style FCS which will have the automatically controlled
main gas safety shut off valve and the latest version of the low- and high-pressure switches.
PLC Upgrade – PLC5 to Logix includes upgrade the existing PLC 5 to new ControlLogix PLC:
*New Allen Bradley PLC ControlLogix, input modules, output modules, analog modules, and Ethernet adapter
modules
* Replacement of control room PC’s with the latest PC hardware available at time of delivery
* Microsoft operating system (currently Windows 10)
* KFT Fire Trainer software
* Ethernet to Data Highway Interface for both systems
* Upgrade Outdoor PLC to New Logics PLC.
Fire prop upgrade: KFT's advanced burner design, AquaMesh, produces increased levels of radiant heat, a more
realistic flame signature, lower levels of unburned gases during fire suppression, and more challenging flames that
cannot be swept off the fire mock-up with hose stream application. Water, used to disperse the propane or
natural gas, is not visible through the fireplace mock-up. AquaMesh fires are capable of withstanding repeated
direct hose line stream attacks, without having any significant amount of water dispelled from the burner
assembly within the fire mock-up.
$318,279 $318,279
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 2
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
11 Single Family/Fire
Behavior Prop
Requested $374,864 from General Fund; Fire Project
Drager Phase V Rambler/Fire-Behavior Prop to include:
One (1) story unit comprised of Five (5) 40’ fire training modules
NFPA 1402 $ OSHA-compliant system
Two (2) high-temperature thermal-insulated burn chamber with emergency exits as required
Burn baffles
High-heat thermal-insulated wall with door(s), standard windows and doors, one (1) sliding door
Hallway
Vents with pull cable
Cleanout cargo doors
Freight to customer site
On-site installation & set up to include:
Full Project management support from Drager staff
Pre-installation site surveys and in-process review of the build site
Drager contracted and project-managed installation to ensure that the fire prop system is installed properly,
safely, and with minimal disruption
Insured and bonded installation and crane service
Train-the Trainer Program
Two-day on-site training for up to ten (10) fire department instructors
Complete documentation package on operation and maintenance
$374,864 $374,864
12
Tracy Aviary
Historic Structure
Renovations
Requested $156,078 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
Two historical elements at Tracy Aviary in Liberty Park are in need of repair and are the subject of this CIP request.
The Bath House (a.k.a.Custodial Storage Building (CSB)) and the East Gate. The CSB needs a new roof. This will
require removing the solar panels, replacing asphalt shingles and re-installing the solar panels. The East Gate was
identified during our 2019 AZA accreditation inspection as an area of concern due to being an insufficient
perimeter barrier. The solution is to re-align the existing fence and add additional fencing to block a gap. Brick
work to repair damaged areas, signage, and landscaping surrounding the space is also included.
$156,078 $156,078
13
Three Creeks West
Bank Trailway
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
100% ARPA
ELIGIBLE
Requested $490,074 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
Reconstruct a half-block of the Jordan River Parkway Trail where it’s eroding into the river at 1300 South and 1000
West.
$484,146 $484,146
14
Three Creeks West
Bank New Park
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
100% ARPA
ELIGIBLE
Requested $150,736 from parks impact fees; Constituent Public Lands Project
This project will create a new multiuse park on 1.4 acres owned by the city at 1050 W 1300 South, along the
Jordan River. Grading and landscaping would need to take place. Park amenities can be determined as the project
moves forward. Pickleball courts have been suggested by the Glendale Community Council.
Note that the Three Creeks Confluence Park on the east side of the Jordan River completed construction and
opened to the public in July 2021.
$150,736 $150,736
15
Sugar House Park
Fabian Lake
Pavilion Remove
and Replace
Requested $183,834 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
Scope of work is to remove and replace existing Fabian Lakeside Pavilion. SHPA hired Arch Nexus to review,
analyze and recommend solutions for the deteriorating pavilions, and completed the attached report in December
of 2015. Arch Nexus factored in escalation costs through 2020.
$183,834 $183,834
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 3
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
16 Liberty Park
Basketball Court
Requested $99,680 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
This project is for resurfacing the existing basketball court in the center of the park and the replacement of two
new basketball hoops.$99,680 $99,680
17
Glendale
Waterpark Master
Plan & Landscape
Rehabilitation &
Active Recreation
Component
$10 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR THIS PROJECT
AND
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
Requested $3.2 million from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
This project is Public Lands' highest priority impact fee request. The goal of this project is to provide a new active
recreation amenity at the former Glendale Water Park. This project will build on the results of a City sponsored
community visioning process, planned for 2021, that will determine the program and character for development.
Funds from this request will be allocated for technical drawings and site improvements. Forty years ago, the
Glendale water park was built using Federal Land and Water Conservation Funds (LWCF). LWCF protects funded
sites in perpetuity, to remain active recreation facilities open to the public. Removal of the obsolete water slides
and pools has triggered a three-year clock in which SLC must replace the amenity with another public outdoor,
active recreation facility. It does not have to be water based, but it cannot solely be open fields of grass or natural
area. In the first phase, $3,200,000 will construct a community directed, active recreation amenity on site within
the three-year time limit. The scope of this project will reflect the communities’ priorities and character, resources
allocated and alignment with LWCF requirements. SLC Council and/or designees will be briefed on phase one
project selection prior to design and construction. Full development of the 17-acre site will likely require several
phases and funding cycles.
$3,200,000 $3,200,000
18
A Place for
Everyone: Emerald
Ribbon Master
Plan
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
AND
$440,000 FOR
JORDAN RIVER
PADDLE SHARE
Requested $420,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
The Jordan River Emerald Ribbon Master Plan is, fundamentally, a placemaking initiative for the Jordan River
corridor, built on creative, diverse and deep community engagement through four Salt Lake City neighborhoods.
Engagement will seek to identify features, improvements, stories, artwork and institutional connections that are
important to individual neighborhoods and communities along the river.
The planning effort will be led by the SLC Public Lands Division with support from an experienced consulting firm,
and extensive involvement of community partner organizations imbedded in the neighborhoods. This approach
will build on the connections made with University Neighborhood Partners to further this collaborative
relationship in the west side communities, and will ensure that creative and diverse engagement tactics produce
public feedback that captures the voices and opinions of groups and community members that have been
traditionally underrepresented.
Placemaking engagement activities will be broken into four distinct but complimentary neighborhood efforts:
Glendale (Hwy 201 to 900 South), Poplar Grove (900 South to North Temple), Fairpark/Jordan Meadows (North
Temple to 700 North), and Rose Park/Westpointe (700 North to I-215). Each engagement effort will draw on
existing Public Land assets along and nearby the river corridor, as well as the direction established by the Blueprint
Jordan River 2.0, the Westside Master Plan, 9Line Master Plan, Northwest Master Plan, North Temple Boulevard
Plan, Rose Park Small Area Plan, Northpointe Small Area Plan, Jordan River Flood Control, Habitat and Green
Infrastructure Plan, the Reimagine Nature SLC Public Lands Master Plan, and other relevant documents. The final
Master Plan will include block-by-block improvement components along with recommended phasing and high-
level cost estimates for implementation that will guide subsequent allocation of CIP and Impact Fee resources,
investments in programming, and strategic partnerships.
$416,667 $416,667
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 4
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
19
Downtown Green
Loop
Implementation:
Design for 200 East
linear Park
PARTIALLY ARPA
ELIGIBLE
Requested $610,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
Several streets along the Downtown Plan's visionary Green Loop Regional Park project are already under
consideration by the Transportation Division for corridor-wide changes, including improvements for active
transportation. This request from the Public Lands Division would fund the collaborative visioning, public
engagement, and conceptual design of the nontransportation elements of the Green Loop. The design of public
green space, park elements, and stormwater rain gardens / bio-swales will be proposed within the 132' public
way, facilitated by a significant reallocation of space from pavement to park.
Based on the Transportation Division's current and pending work on 200 East, it is anticipated that this funding will
go primarily to 200 East, with some lesser attention to other corridors along the loop. The result of this phase of
the project will be public awareness, interest and excitement about this regionally-significant project; a conceptual
and preliminary design; a construction cost estimate suitable for seeking construction funds; and strategies for
short and long term maintenance approaches and costs. Specific tasks associated with this scope of work include:
• Public engagement for conceptual design and design development of the 200 East leg Green Loop corridor
• Conceptual design for the green space component of the 200 East Corridor/ Segment of the Green Loop.
• Analysis of site opportunities and constraints with special attention to underground utilities and infrastructure
that may impact above ground improvements.
• Design development of the 200 East green space development and amenities. To include full construction cost
estimates with short and long term maintenance cost estimates.
$610,000 $610,000
20
Liberty Park
Cultural Landscape
Report and Master
Plan
Requested $475,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
Liberty Park is Salt Lake City’s most iconic – and most popular – park space, with well over one million visitors each
year. The features that draw visitors to Liberty Park – this historic features and mature trees that give Liberty Park
its unique atmosphere – are in a state of accelerating deterioration. The formal tree plantings framing the central
walkway and perimeter of the park are suffering tree loss due to old age and a planting plan to maintain historic
character is desperately needed. The project has three integral components:
1. A Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) is the principal document based on standards established by the National
Park Services. The report documents the history and physical changes of the site, determines periods of historic
significance and develops treatment recommendations for historic features and plantings. The report will build on
previous studies such as the 19XX Historic American Landscape Survey and look to including information on
underrepresented communities for this site. A CLR will include guidance for capital improvements, deferred
maintence projects and maintence.
2. The Liberty Park Master Plan will establish a vision and actionable plan that builds on the CLR recommendations
and provide an orderly framework for consistent planning, development and administration of the park for the
next twenty years. The plan deliverable will include concept level designs and renderings; a prioritized list of
capital improvements with high-level cost estimates; and policy direction for decision makers. The plan will go
though a formal adoption process.
3. This project will also include a study of the Liberty Park Greenhouse adaptive reuse for plant production, visitor
access, sustainability and potential revenue generation. The study will look at significantly expanding capacity for
growth of the City’s rare and native plant propagation program, allowing biodiversity enhancements at more parks
and natural areas citywide.
$354,167 $354,167
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 5
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
21
Historic Structure
Renovation &
Activation at Allen
Park
$1.3 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR THIS PROJECT
Requested $420,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
• Structural and occupancy analysis of the historic structures
• Development of architectural drawings and bid-ready cost estimates for baseline structural, safety and
functional improvements for eleven (11) structures, sufficient to utilize them as twenty-three (23) separate art
studio spaces without plumbing, and the historically-sensitive adaptation of one (1) structure to serve as a
restroom/supplies washroom.
• Development of preliminary architectural plans, renderings and high-level cost analysis for the historic
reconstruction of the George Allen Home to serve as a community education space for art classes and workshops,
and historic reconstruction of the adjoining “Rooster House” duplex to serve as a small café space with outdoor
dining.
• Development of construction documents and cost estimates for demolition of all aging/leaking septic systems
buried on property, and construction of a sewer connection from the adapted restroom structure to the sewer
connection on 1300 East.
• Development of construction documents and cost estimates for replacement of the two broken water meters
that serve the property, water connections to service the adapted restroom structure, fire suppression systems in
the art studios, a fire hydrant on the east side of the property, underground drip irrigation to support trees
throughout the property, and spray irrigation to support select flowerbeds and turf areas, and a replumbed
connection to the decorative fountains.
• Construction documents and cost estimates for repair and stabilization of exterior art pieces on the Allen
Property at risk of collapse or severe deterioration, reconstruction of the lighting along Allen Park Drive,
adaptation of the north and south driveways to include public and ADA accessible parking for Allen Park, resurface
the degraded Allen Park Drive into an ADA-accessible, permeable surface pathway.
• High-level plan drawings and preliminary cost estimates for pedestrian stairway connections to 1400 East and
1500 East.
$420,000 $420,000
22
Replace Poplar
Grove Tennis with
new Sportcourt
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
100% ARPA
ELIGIBLE
Requested $440,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
Poplar Grove Park is currently underutilized and does not have recreation amenities in demand by the community.
This project will remove two failing tennis courts, constructed over forty years ago, and construct either two new
tennis courts or six new pickleball courts in the existing footprint. A brief community survey will be conducted to
determine neighborhood priority. Should pickleball courts be selected, six courts would make the site ideal for
tournament play. There is an existing restroom that was recently updated, and a recently constructed concessions
stand, currently underutilized, that would provide desired support amenities for tournaments. The project
includes:
• Engagement with the community on project preference
• Full demolition of the existing tennis courts and associated pavement
• Development of site design and technical drawings for bidding and construction
• Construction of post-tension court facility
• Installation of associated perimeter fences, gates, nets, and benches
• Replacement of related perimeter sidewalks
• Installation of waterwise use plantings and irrigation in associated landscape areas
$433,333 $433,333
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 6
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
23
SLC Foothills
Trailhead
Development
$5 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
Requested $1,304,682 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
This project is part of a phased development of trailheads within Salt Lake City Foothills. The Foothill Trails Master
Plan adopted by Council in early 2020 identified key trailhead locations and recommended improvements to
better accommodate the growing trail network.
Phase 1, Conceptual Design: This phase was funded during FY19 and is currently underway. The SLC Public Lands
team has been working with Alta Planning Consulting to develop concept designs for five key trailhead locations
including: Emigration Canyon, Popperton Park, Bonneville Boulevard, Morris Mountain (I-Street) and Victory Road.
Concepts are attached.
Following completion of the conceptual design process and cost estimates, SLC Public Lands is now requesting
funding to implement two of the five trailhead improvement projects. Due to substantial costs associated with all
five locations the remaining locations will be included in FY23
Phase II, construction will implement trailhead improvements at both Bonneville Boulevard and Emigration
Canyon.
Implementation of key trailhead improvements is a fundamental component for sustainability, accessibility, and
functionality of the 100+ mile recreational trail system recommended by the SLC Foothills Trail System Plan and
these two locations will provide a good start to implementation of the master plan recommendations.
If the Council approves this funding, then it would be subject to the FY22 annual budget adoption ordinance
contingency on all foothill trails funding.
$1,304,682 $1,304,682
24
SLC Foothills Land
Acquisitions
$5 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
Requested $425,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
The project scope is limited to the acquisition of property rights for six parcels of undeveloped natural open space
in the north and central Foothills Natural Area, totaling approximately 275 acres, which will allow SLC to
consolidate ownership interest in the subject parcels, putting the City in a position to protect the parcels from
future development, and to guide property management for habitat protection, restoration, and recreational
access.
For three parcels, the proposed acquisitions would give SLC 100% property ownership; for two parcels, the
proposed acquisitions would move SLC from a minority ownership interest to a majority property ownership
interest; an in one case, would move SLC from a slight majority interest to a 90% interest. Increasing the fractional
ownership interest in these parcels substantially improves the City's ability to protect and manage them for
foothill protection, habitat restoration and nonmotorized recreational use.
If the Council approves this funding, then it would be subject to the FY22 annual budget adoption ordinance
contingency on all foothill trails funding. The Council could request a closed session briefing from the
Administration about the proposed property purchases.
$425,000 $425,000
25
Jordan Park
Pedestrian
Pathways
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
AND
$1.2 MILLION FOR
PUBLIC LANDS
SIGNAGE
100% ARPA
ELIGIBLE
Requested $510,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
This project will design and construct more than 3000 linear feet of new looped pathways in Jordan Park. New trail
segments will connect to existing sidewalks in order to create new desired pedestrian connections and a looped
network around the multi-use fields. This project builds on a previous request, approved in 2019 for new multi-
use trails in Jordan Park. This funding will be used to develop construction drawings for the pathways and
construction of the new pathways. Site furnishings, wayfinding and orientation signage will also be installed.
$510,000 $510,000
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 7
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
26
RAC Playground
with Shade Sails
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
Requested $450,000 from parks impact fees; Public Lands Project
Cost Estimates
$300,000- Playground materials and construction
$150,000- Design, engineering and contingency
This project will add a new playground at the Regional Athletic Complex. The RAC has been open for 5 years and
currently doesn’t have any amenities for children to use while visiting the complex.
The full scope of this project includes:
• Design for a new playground for ages 5-12
• Development of technical drawings
• Grading and surfacing preparations
• Playground Construction
• Walkway and fencing
Note that since FY17, the Council approved $2,421,518 for six RAC capital improvement projects
$180,032 $180,032
27
700 South
Westside Road
Configuration
Requested $514,450 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
A particular area of concern is the intersection of 700 S and 1000 W. 10th west (a massively wide road) intersects
with 700 S (another, even more massively wide road). I propose that 700 S be reconfigured to include a traffic
circle with a pocket park in the center, and include at least two, perhaps 3 medians along 700 South. I picture
these medians planted with large, native trees and plants. I picture clearly defined traffic lanes for pedestrians,
bicyclists, and cars, including clearly marked, perhaps even raised cross walks. I picture a quality, speed controlling
traffic circle with some low maintenance vegetation, benches, maybe even a simple playground. This vision
benefits the community in more ways than we could count. Improving roads, reducing the heat island effect by
the massive asphalt slabs, beautifying our surroundings, creating community gathering places, mitigating crime,
reducing vehicle speeds, and so much more. I have discussed this concern with neighbors, the poplar grove
community council, and had a brief conversation with Councilman Andrew Johnston about my concerns and our
ideas for reconfiguration, and he suggested I submit a CIP grant, which brings me here today. I hope the city will
consider the benefit that this kind of project will offer to our community.
Cost – provided by SLC Engineering
Traffic Circle Construction
Crosswalk Construction
2-3 Planted Medians
Clearly defined traffic lines.
Useful Life – >10 years
Salt Lake City Owned Asset – Roads and sidewalks are all public Salt Lake City Owned Assets
$223,450 $291,000 $223,450 $291,000
28
Highland High
Crosswalk
Enhancements
Requested $85,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
The scope of work will include upgrading the crossing to include Rapid Rectangular Flashing Beacons (RRFB) as well
as enhancements to shorten the crosswalk and make it safer (bulbouts on the east and west side of the
intersection and a raised median)
$85,000 $85,000
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 8
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
29
200 South Transit
Complete Street
Supplement
15% ARPA
ELIGIBLE UP TO
$1.8 MILLION OF
TOTAL PROJECT
COST
Requested $284,691 from transportation impact fees, $415,800 from Quartercent for transportation and
$2,561,409 from Funding Our Future; Transportation Project
As part of the Funding Our Future program, Salt Lake City will reconstruct 200 South from 400 West to 900 East
beginning in 2022. The current budget allocated to this project is $12,000,000 inclusive of construction and
professional design fees. The Transportation Division is requesting $3,261,900 to supplement the reconstruction
funds that reflects the recommendations from the 200 South Transit Corridor, Complete Street, and Downtown
Transit Hub Study. The preliminary design includes:
• Side-running Business Access and Transit (BAT) priority lanes, which operate as dedicated bus lanes but still
provide access to curbside uses and can be used in mixed traffic conditions.
• In-street bus stop islands will allow buses to stay in the driving lane, which reduces bus travel time and
minimizes conflicts that occur when weaving to curbside bus stops.
• Additional transit access and walkability elements, including mid-block crosswalk upgrades, landscaping,
sidewalk repair, human-scale lighting, traffic signal replacements (3), and bicycle lanes.
The low-end cost estimate for the preliminary design is approximately $15,500,000; the majority of the expense is
going to pavement robust enough handle the amount of bus activity expected on the corridor. Without
supplementary funds the budget shortfall will require removing many of the elements that make this a
transformative multi-modal project. It is expected that the project will need to be implemented in phases,
specifically the East Downtown Transit Hub envisioned in the Salt Lake City Transit Master Plan and WFRC Regional
Transportation Plan. However, there are many elements that are important to build in the initial construction
phase that are structural to the road reconstruction project (e.g. curb extensions that affect flow lines and
drainage inlets); these are the priority elements the supplemental funds will be directed towards.
$37,422 $415,800 $37,422 $415,800
30 900 South 9Line RR
Crossing
Requested $28,000 from transportation impact fees and $172,000 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
The 2018 9-Line Trail Extension Study is the basis for recent 9-Line Trail projects’ design and budgeting
approaches. It recommends two very different design options near Interstate 15 and Union Pacific’s (UPRR) and
the Utah Transit Authority’s (UTA) rails. The more expensive, longer-term option is to grade-separate either just
the trail or both the trail and the roadway. The easier, less expensive, and shorter-term option is an improved at-
grade (or ground-level) crossing of the rails and routing the trail under the interstate. The latter is the focus of this
application. More information about the overall project’s timeline (2021-2023), approach, benefits, and robust
past engagement can be found at www.900SouthSLC.com. This funding request seeks additional monies that
would be used to:
• Fund an increase in the coordination and design budgets for the City’s contracted design and engineering
consultants (including multiple field and coordination meetings with UPRR, UTA, and the Utah Department of
Transportation (UDOT); research; and, more in-depth design), around $10,000
• Fund the UPRR consultant’s (RailPros) design review fees, typically up to $20,000.
• Construct three new railroad panels south of the existing panels, which are necessary to accommodate a 9-Line
Trail crossing capable of serving people walking and bicycling perpendicular to the rail corridor, typically around
$30,000 for all three.
• Construct additional improvements and/or new support infrastructure at the at-grade crossing per recent
experience with standard UPRR and UDOT guidance (e.g., back flashers, blankout signs, signage, pavement
markings, detectable warning surfaces and trail delineation, audible devices, fencing, swing arms, gates), typically
around $120,000.
• Fund UPRR and UTA-required training, traffic control, permitting, and miscellaneous other costs related to
construction, typically around $10,000.
• Engineering Division fees, typically about 10% (estimated at $10,000)
$28,000 $172,000 $28,000 $172,000
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 9
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
31 Trails Maintenance
Requested $200,000 from Quartercent for Transportation; Transportation Project
This funding request from 4th Quarter of a Cent Sales Tax for Transportation is requested to be moved from the
capital list into the annual operating budget for the Public Lands Division. Maintenance is an eligible expense of
the state-authorizing legislation for this fund. These funds will be used to fund city staff, equipment and material
to maintain new and recently constructed trails including portions of the 9-Line, McClelland Trail, and the Jordan
River Trail, and other urban trail segments that potentially come online during the course of the fiscal year. The
maintenance of these trails are necessary to keep them safe for all that use them and also so they can be used
year round.
$200,000 $200,000
32 Local Link
Construction
Requested $50,000 from transportation impact fees and $450,000 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
The Local Link Circulation Study (adoption pending, summer/fall 2021), prepared as an update to the 2013 Sugar
House Circulation Plan, continues the 2013 plan’s focus on improving conditions for walking, bicycling, and transit
in Sugar House.
This funding request is supplemental construction dollars to implement some of the recommendations of the
Local Link circulation study in the Sugar House area. Many Sugar House streets are planned to be reconstructed as
part of the Funding our Future Streets Bond, which included some Complete Streets funding. However, these
budgets had only limited funding for more extensive Complete Streets elements such as would reconfigure curbs
or intersections. This funding will allow the City to build higher-quality, higher-comfort facilities for walking and
biking in this key area, above and beyond what could be constructed with currently allocated funding. These
roadways include Highland Drive, 1100 East and 2100 South; 1300 East will be reconstructed with a federal grant
allocated through the Wasatch Front Regional Council.
These recommendations of the Local Link study include: providing better walking and biking connections between
Sugar House and Millcreek on Highland Drive and 1300 East, construction of bike facilities around Sugar House
Park, intersection enhancements at various locations around Sugar House (modifying turn movements, shortening
crossing distances).
$50,000 $450,000 $50,000 $450,000
33 Corridor
Transformations
Requested $75,604 from transportation impact fees and $780,438 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
This programmatic request will fund the design and construction of significant infrastructure additions to corridors
NOT currently planned for reconstruction -- to include corridor-based complete streets changes to signing, striping
and wayfinding. corridor-long consideration and placement of bus stops with shelters, benches, trash cans, and
other amenities; improved bikeways; reconfigured intersections for improved pedestrian and bicycle safety in the
context of a corridor study; and consideration of business access / on-street parking. Possible corridors include
600/700 North, 2100 South, and corridors on the Downtown Green Loop.
$25,398 $282,200 $25,398 $282,200
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 10
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
34 Area Studies
Requested $14,000 from transportation impact fees and $201,000 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
These funds will be used to study and provide recommendations for streets and circulation in the rapidly-
developing Granary area, including the incorporation of bike, pedestrian and rail transit in the area, as well as an
understanding of how the existing streets should be improved. The cost of this study is estimated at $120,000, and
the City has applied for $111,000 in Transportation and Land Use Connection funding. The study will be
complemented by a study work being conducted by UTA in the area.
These funds will also be used to develop design recommendations for selected streets in the Sugar House area,
following on the more general guidance provided by the Local Link Circulation Study. This study (adoption process
anticipated, summer/fall 2021), prepared as an update to the 2013 Sugar House Circulation Plan, continues the
2013 plan’s focus on improving conditions for walking, bicycling, and transit in Sugar House. The purpose of this
funding would be to allow us to design higher-quality, higher-comfort facilities for walking and biking in this key
area, above and beyond what could be constructed with currently allocated funding. These roadways include
Highland Drive, 1100 East and 2100 South; 1300 East will be reconstructed with a federal grant allocated through
the Wasatch Front Regional Council. These recommendations of the Local Link study include: providing better
walking and biking connections between Sugar House and Millcreek on Highland Drive and 1300 East, construction
of bike facilities around Sugar House Park, intersection enhancements at various locations around Sugar House
(modifying turn movements, shortening crossing distances).
$14,000 $201,000 $0 $201,000
35 400 South Viaduct
Trail
Requested $310,000 from General Fund, $90,000 from transportation impact fees and $500,000 from Quartercent
for transportation; Transportation Project
This project will add a low-profile, concrete barricade along with striping changes to create a multi-use trail on the
south side of the 400 South Viaduct, connecting the Poplar Grove Neighborhood with Downtown Salt Lake City for
those walking or bicycling. Construction includes changes to sidewalks and bike / pedestrian ramps, striping
removal and replacement, and minor construction to relocate medians. The multi-use trail will tie into existing
sidewalks on the east and west, and connect to existing and planned bike lanes.
$310,000 $90,000 $500,000 $310,000 $90,000 $500,000
36 Neighborhood
Byways
Requested $104,500 from transportation impact fees and $940,500 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
These funds will be used for design and construction of four neighborhood byways, as well as to create a
neighborhood byway conceptual design and guidance document to be used as reference material in the
development of future neighborhood byways. This will make future neighborhood byway development more
streamlined and efficient, and is anticipated to cost $100,000.
Two neighborhood byways -- 800 East Phase 1 ($275,000) and Poplar Grove Phase 2 ($600,000) -- will receive
construction dollars, while the additional two byways -- Sugar House to the U and Rose Park West -- will enter
community collaboration leading to conceptual designs ($35,000 per byway).
$104,500 $940,500 $104,500 $940,500
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 11
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
37
900 South Signal
Improvements
15% ARPA
ELIGIBLE UP TO
$375,000 OF
TOTAL PROJECT
COST
Requested $430,000 from General Fund and $70,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project
The 2021-2023 900 South Reconstruction project runs from 900 West to Lincoln Street (945 East). From 700 East
to 200 West, the proposed design includes reducing the roadway width and cross section from four lanes to three,
improving safety and reducing speeds. The reduction in width also provides space for a separated path (the 9-Line
Trail), from 700 West to Lincoln Street (945 East) on the south side of 900 South. The narrowing and other project
elements will largely be achieved by moving the southern curb line to the north. These improvements are fully
funded and are currently in design, and construction will begin in 2021. For more about timeline, benefits, and the
robust past engagement for this project, visit www.900SouthSLC.com.
The new street design requires updated signal design and some additional infrastructure at most intersections
along the corridor. The layout of the proposed improvements has been designed to reduce the number of signal
poles required to be moved to keep project costs as low as possible.
1. West-facing signal mast arms on the south side of the corridor would generally be lengthened, or the entire
pole and mast arm would be relocated farther north.
2. East-facing signal mast arms on the north side may be shortened.
3. All signal heads would be adjusted to line up with the new lane configuration.
4. The new street design and the introduction of the trail on the south side require relocating or adding new or
relocated pedestrian push buttons to coincide with the new curb ramp locations.
5. The existing signal detection on cross streets (for northbound and southbound traffic) would also be upgraded
with radar or camera sensors at the 200 East, 300 East, 400 East, and 500 East intersections, the only four
intersections where such state-of-the-practice detection technology does not currently exist.
$96,500 $70,000 $100,000 $233,500 $96,500 $70,000 $100,000 $233,500
38 Urban Trails
Requested $6,500 from transportation impact fees and $1,038,500 from Quartercent for transportation;
Transportation Project
This programmatic funding application is for a suite of projects that represent collaborations between
Transportation Division and the Trails & Natural Lands Division of Public Lands. These funds will enable conceptual
development, design, and construction of selected urban trails, including:
• design of the Folsom Trail west of 1000 West
• design of the Grit & Gravel Trail (Beck St.) providing a key connection to Davis County
• design of the Parley's Trail in Sugar House following on the Local Link Circulation Plan
• design and initial quick-build implementation of portions of 200 East and/or other streets
included in the Green Loop linear park recommended in the Downtown Master Plan. Quick-build designs will be
linked to the project’s public engagement process and may be temporary, seasonal, or semi-permanent.
• initial conceptual design of potential west side trails such as Stegner Trail along CWA drain
• neighborhood connections to the Jordan River Trail
• rehabilitation of badly deteriorated sections of the Jordan River Trail
$6,500 $1,038,500 $6,500 $1,038,500
39 Multimodal Street
Maintenance
Requested $200,000 from Quartercent for transportation; Transportation Project
This project provides funding to hire contractors for specialized maintenance of infrastructure for which current in-
house staff doesn’t have the equipment or staff to accomplish. Examples include enhanced crosswalks, bike lanes,
bike racks, colored pavement including downtown green bike lanes, bus shelters, enhanced medians: Snow
plowing, striping, signals, signage, delineators, etc.
$200,000 $200,000
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 12
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
40
Transportation
Safety
Improvements
Requested $450,000 from General Fund and $50,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project
Traffic safety projects include the installation of warranted crossing beacons, traffic signals, or other traffic control
devices and minor reconfiguration of an intersection or roadway to address safety issues. Salt Lake City's program
places a strong emphasis on pedestrian and bicyclist safety, particularly in support of access to and from transit.
This funding will further the City’s on-going effort to reduce injuries to pedestrians and bicyclists citywide and to
improve community health and livability by promoting walking and bicycling. This funding will be used for the
installation of safety improvements throughout the city as described in the Pedestrian & Bicycle Master Plan, and
also to address ongoing needs as safety studies are completed.
Crossing improvements such as HAWKs or TOUCANs, flashing warning lights at crosswalks or intersections, refuge
islands, bulb-outs, improved signalized crossings and new or improved pavement markings are examples of the
safety devices that are installed with this funding. Projects are identified by using data to analyze crash history,
roadway configuration and characteristics, and with citizen input. Identified projects to improve traffic safety
involve conditions that pose a higher relative risk of injury to those traveling within SLC and are therefore deemed
a high priority for implementation.
$44,400 $400,000 $44,400 $400,000
41
1700 South
Corridor
Transformation
Requested $326,835 from General Fund and $36,315 transportation impact fees; Transportation Project
Transformation of 1700 South to provide improved neighborhood connections to Glendale Park, 1700 River Park,
support a possible new regional park replacing the defunct water park, and to create an improved east-west
walking and bicycling corridor at the approximate north-south midpoint between the 9-Line Trail and the Parley’s
Trail. Improvements will also include street crossings to connect the parks on the north (1700 South River Park)
and south (Glendale Water Park and Glendale Park) sides of the street. Funds to be used for design, public
engagement, and construction of curb changes to improve ped/bike safety and street tree planting sites, semi-
permanent quick build linear elements, striping changes, and signage.
$317,792 $35,300 $317,792 $35,300
42 Kensington Byway
Ballpark
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
The CDCIP Advisory Board did not recommend funding this project.
The Ballpark Community Council and Liberty Wells Community Council are requesting CIP funds for development
of a neighborhood byway on Kensington Avenue as suggested in the Utah Bicycle & Pedestrian Master Plan
(December 2015).
“Improvements that make a street a neighborhood byway include bicycle and pedestrian crossing improvements
(for example, signals, crosswalks, curb extensions (aka bulb-outs), curb ramps, signage, street markings, and other
traffic calming techniques), wayfinding signage, and connectivity enhancements to existing bicycle and pedestrian
routes.” (source: https://www.slc.gov/transportation/neighborhood-byways/ )
Note the CDCIP Board did not recommend funding this project.
$500,000 $500,000
43 3000 South
Sidewalk and Curb
Requested $449,315 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project
Install curb and gutter and adjacent sidewalk and asphalt tie in on the north side of 3000 South
from Highland Drive to 1500 East and an asphalt overlay over the entire street. Installation will
require the removal of trees and landscaping and adjustment of drive approaches and retaining walls.
44 Logan Ave
Reconstruction
Requested $1,405,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
This project will reconstruct the deteriorated streets affected following the Public Utilities storm drain project. This
will provide replacement of street pavement, curb and gutter, sidewalk, drainage improvements as necessary.
Where appropriate, the program will include appropriate bike way and pedestrian access route improvements as
determined by the Transportation Division per the Complete Streets ordinance.
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 13
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
45
Bridge
Replacement (200
South over Jordan
River)
Requested $3.5 million from General Fund; Engineering Project
This project will include the complete removal and replacement of the existing vehicle bridge for 200 South over
the Jordan River. Design will consider complete streets features, accommodations for the adjacent Jordan River
Trail, and the historic nature of the adjacent Fisher Mansion, and potential art components incorporated into or
around the new bridge.
46
Bridge
Rehabilitation (400
South and 650
North over Jordan
River)
PARTIALLY ARPA
ELIGIBLE
Requested $3 million from General Fund; Engineering Project
The purpose of this project is to rehabilitate the 400 South and 650 North vehicle bridges over the Jordan River. A
bridge inspection performed by UDOT gave these bridges a Health Index score of 48.55 and 46.58, respectively,
out of 100.
Combining the two bridges into one project will result in economies of scale since the rehabilitation work for both
bridges will be similar. The existing asphalt surface will be removed and the underlying deck will be treated for
cracking and delaminated concrete. The deck will receive a waterproofing membrane, a new asphalt overlay, and
deck drains to remove storm water from the deck. The under surface of the bridge will be treated for cracking and
delaminated concrete on the deck, girders, pier caps, and abutments. The steel piles supporting the piers exhibit
heavier than typical corrosion. The piles will be dewatered and treated for corrosion. The existing damaged
parapet wall will be removed and rebuilt which will widen the sidewalk and improve the pedestrian access route.
Additionally, aesthetic enhancements will be incorporated including replacing the chain link fence and railings
mounted on the outside of the sidewalk with decorative railings. A consulting firm with specialized experience will
be used for this project.
47 Wingpointe Levee
Design
Requested $800,000 from General Fund; Engineering Project
The cost estimate includes conceptual design, final design, and geotechnical investigations performed by
Engineering consultants. Current levee conditions will be evaluated, required improvements identified, and
modifications recommended. Typical sections of levee reconstruction determined in order to develop
construction cost estimates and required plans and documents for permitting, then construction. This design
effort will inform future funding construction requests to bring the levee into compliance.
48 Three Creeks West
Bank Roadways
Requested $1,158,422 from General Fund; Constituent Engineering Project
This project calls for reconstructing a little over a block of 1300 South and 1/3 of a block of 1000 West and
installing storm sewers.
49 Delong Salt
Storage
Requested $1,504,427 from General Fund; Facilities Project
This salt storage building would cover 4000 tons of salt during winter months and seasonal remnants of salt the
rest of the year. The salt will be protected from the elements which reduces waste and allows for an overall, more
efficient snow removal process. See attached estimate.
50 Steam Bay
Requested $363,495 from General Fund; Facilities Project
When the new Streets and Fleet facility was built in 2010, one equipment steam bay was installed to clean asphalt
and other heavy equipment. The bay is designed to remove asphalt products, separate oil from water runoff, and
capture the runoff to meet storm water pollution prevention requirements. A single Streets crew could alternate
equipment cleaning and repair, but with the addition of the second crew, all equipment is running simultaneously,
and the steam bay’s capacity has been exceeded to that point of jeopardizing equipment cleaning and the creating
a storm water pollution risk. Additionally, the current pump system is at the end of its expected lifespan. Funds
will go toward a larger, more robust, and better designed system. This additional steam bay will be 22X45 with 4
foot pony walls and tie in to the upgraded pumping system.
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 14
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
51 Mixed-Use Three
Story Prop
Requested $815,895 from General Fund; Fire Project
Drager Phase V Training Gallery (Mixed-use fire prop) to include:
Three (3) story unit with roof top deck/fourth floor comprised of seven (7) 40’ and one (1) 20’ training modules
Three (3) high-temperature thermal-insulated burn chambers with emergency exits (as required)
Two (2) clean out decks for burn chambers
Burn room baffles
Exterior scissor staircase from the ground level to the fourth story/roof with interior access on each floor
Exterior stairs to single container roof
Interior stairs connecting first to second and second to third stories
Fall protection railings around all roofs of containers
Rappelling anchor on top of fourth story/roof
Two bailout windows
Vent/enter/search windows
Eleven (11) exterior doors
Two (2) interior doors
Emergency fire escape stairs
Four (4) training deck containers
On-site installation & set up to include: Full project management support from Drager staff, Pre-installation site
surveys and in-process review of the build site, Drager contracted and project-managed installation to ensures
that the fire prop system is installed properly, safely, and with minimal disruption, Insured and bonded installation
and crane service, Train-the Trainer Program
Two-day on-site training for up to ten (10) fire department instructors Complete documentation package on
operation and maintenance
52 Training Ground
Site Improvements
Requested $694,785 from General Fund; Fire Project
The fire training ground site improvement includes the excavation and construction of paved areas surrounding
fire training props to allow access for firefighters and fire vehicles as they train. Ideally this training ground would
simulate a small cross section of the structures that are in Salt Lake City and the site improvement would resemble
streets and access points like what is in the city. Currently there is approximately 45,000 square feet of
underutilized training ground.
Key components of this project include:
Training ground site design
Site excavation
Drainage and retention system
Site back fill and compaction
Various paved access roads
Reinforced concrete pads for vehicle extrication training
Technical and confined rescue training props
Curb and gutter along Wallace St.
Perimeter landscaping and fencing
53 Sunnyside Park
Sidewalk
Requested $72,740 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
Construct sidewalk on south side of Valdez Dr. from east gate of Dept. of Veterans Affairs to intersecting sidewalk
inside Sunnyside Park. See map. Sidewalk is approximately 365-ft long by 4-ft wide. Federal funding was explored
but we are prohibited from applying those funds to non-federal property. Costs could include wider surface or
other improvements to meet the minimum spending requirement.
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 15
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
54
Winner on
Wasatch Dee Glen
Tennis Court
Construction
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
A critically important construction project replacing four old asphalt tennis courts at Dee Glen (Wasatch Hills
Tennis Center/formerly Coach Mike's Tennis Academy) inside the current bubble. These new courts would be post-
tension concrete courts (long-lasting compared to asphalt) would be preparatory to a new privately funded year-
round tennis air dome by the Coach Mike's Friends of Public Tennis Foundation (a 501 c3 non-profit whose
mission is to assist the main funding source, Salt Lake City, in supporting Liberty Park & Wasatch Hills Tennis
Centers). Note that #s 54, 55 and 56 are in order of the constituent's preferences.
$400,000
55
Lighting Upgrade
at Liberty Park
Tennis Center
Requested $202,100 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
LED Energy Efficient Lighting Upgrade of 120 outdated metal halide light fixtures at Liberty Park Tennis Center.
Note that #s 54, 55 and 56 are in order of the constituent's preferences.
56
Liberty Park &
Wasatch Hills
Tennis Court
Resurfacing
Requested $300,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
26 Tennis Courts resurfacing at Liberty park tennis center and wasatch hills tennis center. Note that #s 54, 55 and
56 are in order of the constituent's preferences.
57
Harrison Ave and
700 E Community
Garden
Requested $103,500 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
This community garden would be developed through the Green City Growers Program, a partnership between
Wasatch Community Gardens (WCG) and Salt Lake City’s Parks and Public Lands Division to establish community
gardens on Cityowned and managed land with the primary goals to increase access to fresh, local produce and
reduce barriers to urban food production.
The scope of work to develop a new community garden includes working with community members for 12 to 18
months to develop the interest, support, and design of the project. WCG will work to build the community
support. Our organization will work with stakeholders to create a coalition of gardeners, garden leaders,
volunteers and donors to raise any remaining funds to complete the garden design process, provide the materials
for planting boxes (including ADA accessible raised beds), soil, amendments, and irrigation. WCG will enlist and
provide oversight of volunteer in-kind labor, and oversee services that are contracted out.
The cost estimate of $103,500 is based upon three recent community garden starts in this program; the 9-Line
Community Garden, the Gateway Community Garden, and the Richmond Park Community Garden. The scope of
work includes; soil testing for contaminants to help guide the bed design, landscape design, site demolition and
preparation, water main hook up, fencing, ADA beds and pathways, garden beds, a drip irrigation system, soil,
amendments, and mulch for pathways, tools and supplies, a shade and gathering structure, and signage, benches,
and common area plantings.
$103,500
58
1300 South
Camping Resisitant
Landscaping
Requested $100,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
The Ballpark Community Council is requesting CIP funds for landscaping improvements for the park strips on 1300
South and the areas immediately surrounding Horizonte. Rather than the lawns and grass that currently exist on
these park strips, we’re asking the City to invest in re-planting these areas with new low- to no-water options such
as combinations of trees with xeriscaping and/or rockscapes. These new park strip designs would have the dual
effect of assisting the City with its goal of reducing nonagricultural use of water and would also serve as a loiter
and camping-resistant landscapes.
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 16
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
59 Wingate Walkway
Requested $286,750 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
• This budget includes removal and transplanting of trees as requested by constituents. This is quite expensive at
estimated $5000 per tree, and would include using a crane, as well as contracted extra care for 2 years by a
landscaping company to get the trees reestablished. This is not something that can be done in-house. Tree
removal is much less expensive, at $500 per tree. This would mean the removal of 15 mature trees for this project,
but at a construction cost savings of $67,500.
• This budget assumes that the power pole at the eastern end of the corridor, and the power drop to the traffic
signal, will not be relocated. If those do need to be relocated, an additional approximate $30,000 would be added
to the project construction costs, along with associated design and engineering fees. There may also be ROW
acquisition costs to site the pole and its guy-wires.
• This budget does not include 36 parking headers that would need to be purchased by Wingate Condo
Association and placed on Wingate property at an estimated cost of $2,500-3,000 (for all 36). The parking headers
would be needed to protect the fence from regularly being hit and damaged by Wingate residents parking. It is
suggested that this be placed into legal agreement as part of the easement, and that the Condo Association be
responsible for any damage to the fence caused by not having the parking headers in place.
• A less expensive fence could be installed to save costs. This budget is for wrought iron fencing at $48 per linear
foot. Chain link would be half or less of that cost.
• This project has been budgeted as a 10' multi-use path, similar to the photos the constituents included. This also
recongizes the recommended use as both bicycle and pedestrian facility, as referenced in the City's Pedestrian &
Bicycle Master Plan. To save costs, the path could be constructed as a sidewalk, at 6' wide instead of 10'. The
thickness may be able to be reduced to sidewalk standard at 4" thick. However, further discussion should be had
with SLC Police Department about their preferred approach to emergency access.
$286,750
60 1200 East Median
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Public Lands Project
The curbing and irrigation systems for these medians has fallen into serious disrepair. This project seeks to install
new curbing around each island to prevent cars from driving across the turf and will allow the soil to be raised to
match the grade of the top of the root ball of the existing trees, replace the irrigations system and a significant
amount of trees supplementing the urban forest that remains. The tree planting portion of the project is in
support of the “Trillion Tree Campaign” in an effort to aid in enhancing Salt Lake City’s air quality. The cost
estimate is $500,000 to include design, engineering fees, contingency and construction.
61
Parleys Historic
Nature Park
Structure
Preservation
Requested $765,325 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
The proposed CIP project will fund the following work in Parleys Historic Nature Park (PHNP):
1. identify key historic structures and artifacts, assess preservation needs, and create detailed
rehabilitation/protection recommendations for each;
2. develop fully-engineered designs and construction cost estimates for historic structural rehabilitation;
3. if feasible, develop and secure a conservation easement to protect irreplaceable historic and natural features,
per the recommendations of the 2011 PHNP Management Plan.
4. if feasible within project budget, develop a detailed signage & interpretive materials plan to improve public
awareness/appreciation of historic features & structures, and construct/install the recommended interpretive
signage.
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 17
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
62
Enhancement of
the Cemetery for
Visitor Research
and Knowledge
$1.2 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR PUBLIC LANDS
SIGNAGE
Requested $790,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
Cemetery listed on National Register of Historic Places- $30,000
Website Enhancement, Cemetery GIS data and input- $250,000
Arboretum Accreditation and new planted tree protection- $65,000
Plat Markers- $100,000
Interpretive/Wayfinding Signage Design and 10 Sign placements-$75,000
Two years inflation adjustment - $52,000
Engineering Consultant fees - $208,000
Contingency - $10,000
Note that #s 62 and 63 are part of the Cemetery Master Plan implementation
63
Cemetery
Roadway
Improvements,
Phase 1
$1 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
Requested $3,838,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
Phase 1a of a 6 phase road repair project identified in the Cemetery Master Plan. With 7.9 miles of roads and an
estimated $12.5 million dollars in repairs. Roadway Repair Priority Cemetery roadways were prioritized for repair
based on the following characteristics: Roads more frequently used for public and maintenance vehicular
circulation. Roads that also serve as main routes as outlined on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Plan.
Roads in poor condition were prioritized over those in fair or average condition (See Appendix E for detailed
Roadway Condition Analysis). Road width was given some consideration. Total roadway length within a priority
category was considered in an effort to separate roadways into projects that would be of a more manageable size.
Note that #s 62 and 63 are part of the Cemetery Master Plan implementation
-Costs include: full replacement including demo, reconstruction with asphalt, concrete edge/curb and gutter and
storm drainage improvements, 15% estimate contingency and 40% design/engineering fees. Other soft costs such
as project and construction contingencies, City project management, and permits and fees are not included and
should be added to budget requests as appropriate.
Cost Breakout - Full Repair of All Roads (Priority Street Name Length Width Total SF Repair Cost)
1a Main (N) 1,188 22 26,136 Full $701276
1a Main (N) 167 21 3,507 Full $94,099
1a Main (middle) 1,242 19 23,598 Full $ 633,176
1a Main (sexton) 367 17 6,239 Full $ 167,403
1a 240 N 1,090 16 17,440 Full $ 467,947
1a 330 N(Lindsey) 36 27 972 Full $ 26,080
1a 330 N 1,433 25 35,825 Full $ 961,250
1a Hillside 998 25 24,950 Full $ 669,453
Priority 1a Total 1.3 miles 139,000 sf $ 3,838,000
64
9Line and Rose
Park Asphalt Pump
Tracks
$3.4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
FOR WESTSIDE
PARKS
9Line $615,777
PORTION IS ARPA
ELIGIBLE
Requested $1,393,600 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
The proposed project incorporates the design and construction of two asphalt bike pump tracks, one at the
existing 9Line Bike Park located at 700 West 900 South and the second near the Day Riverside Library at 871 North
Cornell Avenue.
The proposed pump track at the 9Line Bike Park will reconstruct the small existing pump track at the 9Line Bike
Park. While the 9Line Bike Park will still retain its large signature dirt jumps under the freeway this amenity will
improve the pump track and provide a more accessible riding amenity for users of the bike park. Since the
construction of the 9Line Bike Park in 2016 it has become increasingly popular for families of all ages. This
improvement will provide a safe more durable riding surface for park users. The proposed pump track adjacent to
the Day Riverside Library will construct a new asphalt pump track adjacent to the Rosepark Community Garden. In
2020 SLC Public Utilities began a large storm water improvement project at this location. This project required the
removal of a small dirt pump track that was constructed by local users groups. Construction of the asphalt pump
track will replace this asset with a new community amenity for the Rosepark neighborhood.
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 18
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
65
Richmond Park
Playground and
Park
improvements
Requested $690,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
This project will replace the existing playground and pavilion at Richmond Park. Both assets are more than twenty
years old. Redevelopment of these features is an opportunity to build on the recent success of the new
community garden. The project will evaluate the location of the new playground and pavilion so that it can
respond to the community garden to create synergies between the three uses and increase visibility into and out
of the site. The full scope of this project includes:
• Design for a new playground and pavilion
• Engagement with the community on project character and site development
• Development of technical drawings for bidding and negotiation
• Demolition of existing playground and pavilion
• Construction of a playground and pavilion
• Construction of new sidewalk connections
• Planting of new trees and waterwise plantings
• Installation of new site furnishings and park signage
66
Library Square
Feasibility, Civic
Engagement and
Design
Development
Requested $225,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
The 2002 Council adopted plan for block 37, Library Square, is to create an asset to the community, that is safe,
well used and attracts new development to the area. Library Square is an underutilized public space with wall and
paving system (uneven surfaces, paver movement and concrete settling), failures that are posing a safety hazard.
This project will fund a feasibility study to identify solutions for the failing paving and wall systems; facilitate
outreach to identify new amenities for positive activation; and develop comprehensive design solutions with
phasing strategies for implementation.
Summary of work:
1. Feasibility study: Library Square has multiple paving and wall system failures due to settling of the parking
structure. A compressive study is needed to determine appropriate solutions to ameliorate safety hazards. Existing
conditions analysis and feasibility studies will determine a critical path to correct site failures and propose
appropriate solutions.
2. Civic engagement: The Public spaces at Library Square are underutilized outside of the four major events that
occur during the summer. Salt Lake City’s rapidly growing and densifying population needs places to be outside. A
civic engagement study would identify desired community elements to be incorporated on the Square that would
increase positive activity throughout the day and week.
3. Design development and implementation strategy: The feasibility study will inform design solutions for the wall
and paving failures on the site. Civic engagement will inform new everyday uses to implement as well as design
moves to incorporate to make the site more functional and desirable for large events, this would include shade,
access and circulation improvements. The design will identify a phasing strategy with estimates of probable costs
and implementation strategies for a multi-year improvement plan.
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 19
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
67
Donner & Rotary
Glen Park
Community Park
Irrigation &
Landscape Design
and Construction
Requested $650,000 from General Fund; Public Lands Project
2018 was the driest year on record for the state of Utah. Public Lands experienced budgetary restrictions on water
use, resulting in significant impacts to our properties. Protecting the trees and living landscape requires carefully
designed and managed landscapes and irrigation systems. Decreasing our water needs is a critical element of
climate adaption and a top priority for Public Lands. Significant water use reduction can be achieved by installing a
water efficient irrigation system and reducing passive use areas of manicured turf by installing regionally
appropriate water wise plant material. Areas of high use such as sport-fields can be isolated on an irrigation zone
while trees, shrubs and low water grasses can be on separate zones. Designed appropriately, these landscapes
require less than half the water to maintain conventional landscapes. In addition to creating a more climate
resilient landscape, Public Lands will work with the community to identify desired new amenities such as fitness
equipment, benches and interpretive signage. Planning and design will also focus on improving the parks
circulation network in order to offer a diversity of loops and difficulty ratings for park users. This project includes:
1) Community engagement to create a vision for Donner and Rotary Park;
2) Design development, best practices, and construction documents for Phase I of site implementation; and
3) Construction of new improvements for a portion of the site (approximately 25% or 3 acres) Two future funding
requests will ask for funding for the rest of the site. Design standards and best practices developed in this project
will be used as a tool for future site redevelopment.
68 Capitol Hill Traffic
Calming
Requested $595,194 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
Mitigate commuter cut-through traffic, chronic speeding and industrial traffic: a) the installation of vertical speed-
reduction elements, (b) striping crosswalks, stop lines and bike lanes, (c) curb extensions, pedestrian refuge
islands, partial barriers and 'road diet' measures. This project is at the neighborhood scale and includes East
Capitol Hill BLVD.
$536,966 $58,228
69
Harvard Heights
Residential
Concrete Street
Reconstruction
Requested $1,311,920 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
This project will rehabilitate the existing severely deteriorating street, including concrete pavement replacement,
drive approaches, curb and gutter and sidewalk repairs along Harvard Avenue. This street was initially constructed
in the mid-1920's and has not been replaced in the 90+ years since. Rather, temporary fixes have been employed
continuously by paving over the deteriorating concrete using asphalt. The key flaw with this approach--and the
main issue at play here--is that the asphalt doesn't adhere to the concrete surface below, resulting in severe, year-
round potholing. This is both a serious eye-sore and a real safety concern to residents.
Concurrent with the reconstruction of the street, this project will also install several speed humps, speed tables,
and/or any other traffic measures deemed appropriate by the Transportation Division to reduce traffic speed.
There is an understanding of the need to work with city on a final approved design
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 20
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
70 Liberty Wells
Traffic Calming
Requested $400,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
The “Liberty Wells Traffic Calming” project seeks to slow motor vehicles, improve safety near the school and near
homes, encourage more transportation choices, and implement recommendations from several Salt Lake City
master plans. These goals are based on feedback from residents of the sections of 600 East, and Kensington,
Bryan, and Milton Avenues, surrounding Hawthorne Elementary School. The project area was determined by the
project team and the applicants in order to avoid pushing negative traffic conditions “down the road” and to
benefit students, parents, and teachers at Hawthorne as much as the neighbors on adjacent streets.
The project will also enhance the existing 600 East Neighborhood Byway and extend the partially funded,
proposed Kensington Avenue Neighborhood Byway east of 600 East. The intersection of the two neighborhood
byways is a unique and cost-effective opportunity. (Neighborhood byways are traffic-calmed, bicycling and
walking-oriented streets with low traffic volumes and speeds.) To date, neighbors have offered their support for
physical street design elements that would accomplish these goals, including traffic circles, median islands,
signage, improved lighting, bulb-outs, and speed cushions. The exact elements to be constructed, however, will
depend on further community engagement, including discussions with neighbors, Hawthorne Elementary School
administrators and school community council, as well as the Salt Lake City School District.
The project scope will include the following elements:
1. Community engagement of neighbors that live and/or own property on and near the project’s streets
(Kensington, Bryan, and Milton Avenues, and 600 East) in order to determine the most popular, feasible, and
effective traffic calming interventions.
2. Design and construction of the recommended interventions.
71 Stratford Bike
Crossing
Requested $200,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
This proposal has not gone through a public process or a formal review and approval process by the city. There is
an understanding of the need to work with the city on an approved final design. I'm requesting a modification to
the current 4 way stop at the intersection of 1700 E. and Stratford Ave. This would include removing the current
stop signs on both the east and west sections of road coming from Stratford Ave., and putting in place some form
of traffic reduction system that only allows bikes to go straight through east/west on Stratford. Then placing
something like what's on the crossing at 1300 E and Stratford, where bikers can press a button and the straight
through N/S traffic on 1700 E would yield to bikers as they cross.
72 Sugar House Safe
Side Streets
Requested $500,000 from General Fund; Constituent Transportation Project
This project is intended to improve the safety and comfort of local, neighborhood streets in Sugar House. It is
made up of two basic parts:
1. A study of (1) existing conditions, constraints, and opportunities; (2) the effectiveness of existing traffic calming
measures on Hollywood Avenue (1990s) and McClelland Street (2010s); and, (3) infrastructure and programmatic
recommendations, including the most effective, cost-efficient, and community-supported methods of improving
neighborhood street livability. This study may also include a series of tests of the recommendations.
2. Design and construction, or implementation, of the above recommendations on the project area’s six local
streets: Hollywood Avenue, Ramona Avenue, Garfield Avenue, Lincoln Street, 1000 East, and McClelland Street.
Initial ideas from the community include curb modifications, striping, stop signs, street narrowing, raised
crosswalks, increased and enforced truck restrictions, and gateway monuments. The project area was determined
by the project team and the applicants in order to avoid pushing negative traffic conditions “down the road”, so to
speak.
$153,221
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 21
-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$
#Application Title Scope of Work General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
General
Funds
Class C
(gas tax)
Impact
Fees
1/4 ¢
Transportation
FOF
Streets
FOF
Transit
AVAILABLE FUNDING
Mayoral Funding Recommendations COUNCIL Funding Decisions
73 Sunnyside 9Line
Trail Missing Piece
Requested $350,000 from General Fund; Transportation Project
Just before the construction of the Sunnyside Trail between approximately 1400 East and Foothill Drive in 2016-
2017 (part of the soon-to-be-completed 9-Line Trail), the City determined that it was unable to acquire the
property necessary to complete the trail in front of the 1805-1851 East Sunnyside Avenue property owned by the
Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.
There is now a roughly 600’ (or one-block) long missing piece of the trail where only a narrow, four-foot wide
sidewalk exists. CIP funding would construct a new section of the 10-12' concrete trail and fill this gap, connecting
to and replicating the look, feel, and impact of the existing segments of the trail to the east (University of Utah
property) and the west (City property).
The City estimates that $350,000 (in 2022 dollars) will be needed to reassess site conditions and constraints,
complete the design (currently at 40%), fund Engineering Division oversight, partially fund property acquisition or
easement, and construct this critical, missing piece of a citywide asset.
Included in the trail construction costs are additional adjustments to slopes, irrigation, fencing, trees and
landscaping, driveways, wet utility inlets and cleanouts, the central walkway leading to the front door of the
chapel, power pole guy wires, and signs that are necessary to ensure appropriate drainage, ADA compliance, and
trail user comfort.
74
Multimodal
Intersections &
Signals
Requested $945,000 from General Fund and $105,000 from transportation impact fees; Transportation Project
• Upgrade five aging traffic signals
• Combine with safety and operational improvements for all modes
• Possible transit-focused signal improvements on key Frequent Transit Network corridors
This project will remove the existing traffic signal equipment that has reached the end of its useful life, including
steel poles, span wire, signal heads, and traffic signal loops and will upgrade the intersections with mast arm poles,
new signal heads, pedestrian signal heads with countdown timers, improved detection, and left turn phasing, as
needed.
Fluctuations in construction pricing are particularly relevant to this project, with steel tariffs, labor costs, and
overall construction costs all affecting price.
75
600 North Corridor
Transformation
$4 MILLION IN
MAYOR'S
PROPOSED BOND
During the FY22 annual budget, the Council approved adding $1,879,654 into CIP for the upcoming 600 North
Corridor Transformation Complete Streets project. Two years in a row the frequent bus routes contract with UTA
was less than budgeted and the Council placed the excess funds into the Funding Our Future transit holding
account. The full amount from the holding account was appropriated for this project.
The Mayor’s Series 2021A and 2021B bond proposal (Attachment 4) includes $4 million for the 600 North
complete street transformation project. The description states the total project cost is $8.7 million but with recent
construction inflation costs may already be higher. It also mentions a phase 1 is already funded. In recent years the
Council funding safety improvements at the 600 North and 800 West intersection and funding for a safety study of
the 600 North corridor.
$1,879,654
$5,705,720 $2,046,329 $7,305,970 $4,900,000 $2,300,000 $0 $6,901,178 $2,104,557 $7,291,970 $4,900,000 $2,300,000 $1,879,654
Note: text in blue and red is information added by Council staff
Totals by Funding Source:
Last Updated August 17, 2021 Page 22