Council Provided Information - 8/15/2022CITY 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/SLCFY23CIP
TO:City Council Members
FROM: Ben Luedtke
Budget & Policy Analyst
DATE:August 9, 2022
RE: FY2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: 119-131
CIP BUDGET BOOK: Debt Service Overview Starts on Page 25, General Fund Projects Start on Page 33
NEW INFORMATION
At the July 19 meeting, the Council discussed several proposed CIP projects, took a few straw polls on potential
funding, and requested more information on several policy issues and projects. One policy area discussed was
the new Livable Streets program for traffic calming which is tentatively scheduled for a separate policy
discussion at the August 16 Council meeting. Provided below are summaries and updates of topics.
July 19 Council Straw Polls
The Council took the following straw polls at the July 19 meeting:
A. Add $499,563 from unallocated parks impact fees for #69 Gateway Triangle Park. The discussion
included the value of adding a new park to the downtown and to the new Folsom Trail which ends a
block away. The impact fees would be officially added to CIP in a budget amendment later this year.
The straw poll passed unanimously 6-0 with one Council Member absent
B. Shift $500,000 from #22 Complete Streets to fund $400,000 for #78 Sunnyside Avenue Pedestrian
Safety Improvements AND $100,000 for #26 California Avenue Safety Improvement Study. The
discussion included existing safety concerns, proximity to schools, line of sight issues, resident requests
for traffic calming and pedestrian enhancements at both locations.
The straw poll passed unanimously 6-0 with one Council Member absent
Project Timeline:
Budget Hearings: May 17 & June 7, 2022
1st Briefing: June 7, 2022
Public Hearing: July 12, 2022
2nd Briefing: July 19, 2021
3rd Briefing & Public Hearing: August 9, 2022
4th Briefing & Potential Action: August 16, 2022
Note: The Council approves debt service and
overall CIP funding in the annual budget.
Project specific funding is approved by
September 1.
Page | 2
Council Member Petro-Eschler’s Proposal: $250,000 for Riverside Park Baseball Field Lighting
The proposal would be a Council-added item to the FY2023 CIP Funding Log using $250,000 of parks impact
fees to add four light poles and structures to the northeast baseball field at Riverside Park (the red marker in the
below map). There are currently three baseball fields used by the leagues and a fourth practice field. This would
be the first city-owned baseball field to receive lighting. The project is fully eligible for parks impact fees. If
approved, then the parks impact fees would be transferred to CIP in a budget amendment.
Project #2 Cost Overrun Account
The Council discussed increasing need for the Cost Overrun Account which is believed to be partially caused by
inflation and supply chain issues. Some Council Members expressed interest in the following potential options:
1. One-time Funding Increase for the Cost Overrun Account – The Administration reports the current
available to spend balance is $557,476 which is a combination of remaining appropriations from the last
four fiscal years. The Account is proposed to receive $208,143 in new funding which would increase the
total available balance to $765,619. The Council may wish to note that Budget Amendment #1 includes a
Page | 3
request for over $3 million for street reconstruction projects with costs that exceed the original budget.
Transportation impact fees are proposed to cover those funding gaps.
2. Ongoing Funding Increase for the Cost Overrun Account – The Council could discuss with the
Administration increasing funding over multiple years. For example, setting a higher fixed percentage of
the ongoing General Fund transfer to CIP not covering ongoing commitments like debt payments or
when inflation and other cost increases reach a certain threshold.
3. Revisit Formula for Use of Cost Overrun Account – The Council could ask the Administration for
recommended changes to the Cost Overrun Account formula which is shown in section 11 of Attachment
1 and copied below for reference. The formula remains unchanged since it was created in 2004. One
approach could be maintaining the percentages but updating the dollar amounts.
“Cost overrun funding will be approved based on the following formula:
o 20% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets of $100,000 or less;
o 15% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets between $100,001
and $250,000;
o 10% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets over $250,000 with
a maximum overrun cost of $100,000.”
Recent Spending from the Cost Overrun Account
The Administration provided the below five-year spending summary from the Cost Overrun Account. The
pipeline of CIP projects is expected to use remaining funds from the account ($557,476 current balance +
$208,143 FY2023 CIP). The Administration reports recent changes to prior year CIP projects reduced the
impact fee eligibility and the Cost Overrun Account could be used to cover the difference. The Administration
recommends adding the $152,660 of recaptured funding from completed CIP projects as one-time additional
funding to the account. This would create a new balance of $918,279 which is expected to be fully used by
already funded CIP projects from the last three years. The Cost Overrun Account is intended to be used by
projects ready for construction. CIP projects typically take two or three years to go from appropriation to
construction. Therefore, the full impact of price increases from inflation and supply chain impacts is likely to be
felt in the next year of CIP project construction.
- $186,726 in FY2018
- $90,000 in FY2019
- $158,891 in FY2020
- $60,590 in FY2021
- $161,482 in FY2022
Project #52 Taufer Park Revamp
The Administration stated the 2020 Taufer Park and Richmond Park engagement report provides helpful
baseline information for preferred park improvements and policies but additional outreach to a wider group of
residents is needed to determine specific amenities. The Parks and Public Lands Department would create a
vision plan for the park including designs of specific amenities supported by the community. Public engagement
to create a vision plan is ineligible for parks impact fees. The Council could discuss whether Taufer Park should
be one of the neighborhood parks for improvement with funding from the proposed parks and open space GO
bond.
Project #57 Reopen Dinwoody Park as a Public Park
The Administration researched the current lease agreement, zoning, and related legal matters. The proposed
project would violate terms in the lease and require the City to terminate the lease. The project would remove
existing fencing, add public art and benches. The property is currently zoned D-1 Central Business District.
Rezoning to a public park may have impacts under state law to nearby businesses such as sale and consumption
of alcoholic beverages. The public has access to Dinwoody Park from 10am to 6:30pm seven days a week. The
Administration has neither recommended funding for the project nor termination of the lease.
#86 Sugar House Crosswalk Murals and #92 Harvey Milk BLVD rainbow crosswalk
Council Members asked whether these two constituent requests for public art could go through the City’s
existing Arts Council process. Regarding project #92 Rainbow Crosswalk, the Administration stated, “Typically,
art projects funded by the Arts Council are original works of art created through an artist commission and, once
completed, become part of the City’s public art inventory. The proposed Harvey Milk Rainbow Crosswalks are
Page | 4
more of an infrastructure/placemaking project rather than an art project that is completed by a commissioned
artist and to be included in the City’s art inventory.” The requested project funding of $459,346 is more than
twice the annual 1.5% for Art contribution from CIP to the Arts Council.
Regarding project #86 Sugar House Crosswalk Murals, the Administration stated, “As a matter of practice, the
City/Arts Council has typically used CIP funding for mural projects only when the mural is part of a larger
construction project for a capital improvement. This is because the City has taken a conservative position that
paint alone is not a capitalized asset.” Engineering’s Six Year Pavement Plan identifies reconstruction of
Highlight Drive/1100 East from 900 South to Warnock Avenue in 2023. The Council could fund project #86
Sugar House Crosswalk Murals with the direction that it be part of that upcoming reconstruction project since
the two projects are in the same location and this would allow capitalizing the mural asset(s).
Chapter 2.30 Salt Lake Art Design Board, Salt Lake City Code, identifies the process where the Board is
responsible for ““recommending the nature and type of acquisition and placement of works of art and
ornamentation to be used in and around the construction projects and to implement the decisions of the mayor
with respect thereto.”
Policy Questions:
➢CIP Policy for Art Projects – The Council may wish to request the Administration propose updates to the
CIP guiding policies resolution (Attachment 1) to clarify how art funding and projects should go through
the CIP process.
➢Harvey Milk BLVD Funding to Arts Council – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration
alternative options to add public art along Harvey Milk BLVD such as flexible funding for the Arts
Council to determine the type and location under the existing ordinance process.
Complete Streets is Eligible Use for the 2018 Streets Reconstruction GO Bond Funding
During the July 19 briefing, the Council discussion raised the question to what extent can funding from the 2018
voter-approved Streets Reconstruction Bond be used for complete streets. The bond ballot language copied
below uses language inclusive of complete streets and is not limited to only reconstructing the pavement portion
of a city street.
Ballot Language: “Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue General Obligation Bonds in
principal amount not to exceed $87,000,000 and to mature in no more than 21 years from the date or
dates of issuance; such bonds will be issued in accordance with Utah law solely to pay all or a portion
of the costs to improve various streets and roads throughout the City and related infrastructure
improvements.”
Upcoming Reconstruction Projects and Complete Streets
The Administration stated under current plans, which could change, that three major street and some local
street reconstructions are tentatively planned to use complete streets funding from this cycle of CIP:
- Highlight Drive/1100 East from 900 South to Warnock Avenue
- 2100 South from 700 East to 1700 East (through the Sugar House Business District
- 300 North from 300 West to 1000 West
- Several local residential side streets tentatively planned for reconstruction in Engineering’s Six Year
Pavement Plan that may include complete street changes
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
As part of the annual budget adoption, the Council transferred $45.7 million into the CIP Fund and approved
spending $14 million for debt service payments and critical projects. The Council also recaptured $152,660 of
General Fund dollars from completed CIP projects which is available for any new project.
Since Council Member Valdemoros is unable to attend the July 19th meeting, she provided a list of potential
project funding changes for the Council’s consideration. Other Council Members may also wish to share changes
and proposals for discussion during the briefing. Following these proposals, are updates on several attachments
to this staff report.
Page | 5
Council Member Valdemoros’ Proposals
- Project #52 Taufer Park – Add $100,000 of parks impact fees to the CIP fund for new amenities that
will encourage positive activities, deter negative uses, alleviate some issues in the neighborhood and
reduce the need for police services
- Project #57 Dinwoody Park – Requested funding of $71,198 to expand public access to the park and for
improvements such as benches and public art
o Note there is a lease agreement for Dinwoody Park between the City and an adjacent property.
Legal questions about terms in the lease, property zoning and requirements in City Code and
state law need more analysis to determine to what extent the proposed CIP project could be
compatible.
- Project #69 Gateway Triangle Park – Add $499,563 of park impact fees to the CIP fund for creation of a
new park. This would now be in District 2, not in District 4
- Project #85 Mountain Dell Disc Golf Course – Add $500,000 of park impact fees to the CIP fund for
creation of new usable space adjacent to the current golf course and Interstate 80. Providing additional
amenities would help maximize access and usage of public lands.
Updates to Attachments
Attachment 2 is an updated CIP Funding Log including three projects the Administration identified separately
from the resident advisory board process: $3 million request for Complete Streets (#22), $2 million increase for
parks maintenance (#23) and $500,000 increase for maintenance of vacant city-owned buildings (#24).
Projects with mayoral funding recommendations are listed first, then the remaining projects are listed in order
of the resident advisory board scores. The last page shows total funding by source and highlighted in green is
$152,660 from completed projects which is available for any new projects. Constituent projects are labelled in
italics underneath the project name. The requested funding is listed in blue font at the start of each project
description which can be different than the recommended funding amounts.
Attachment 5 is updated to reflect the Council’s straw polls on adjustments to the proposed $80 million Public
Lands General Obligation (GO) Bond.
Attachment 7 is updated to show cost estimates reported by departments based on recent projects and bids.
Costs from 2019 and 2021 are also listed to show the significant price impacts of inflation and supply chain
issues. Some items in the construction industry have experienced greater price increases than items typically
found in the consumer price index.
Attachment 8 is updated with the remaining appropriations and project status for 66 CIP projects older than
three years. Most of the nearly $4 million across the accounts is still needed as the projects have shown
significant progress to avoid potential funding recapture per the Council’s CIP guiding policy resolution
(Attachment 1 section 13). The Finance Department confirmed $152,660 was available from completed projects
which the Council recaptured for new CIP projects.
Attachment 10 was prepared by Council staff as a comparison of total project requests on the CIP funding log
over the last seven years. The FY2023 CIP cycle has 90 items which is the most in the last seven years. This year
there are 41 constituent proposed projects is a significant increase over the 16 constituent projects averaged over
the prior six years.
Attachments 11 and 12 are new since the June briefings. Attachment 11 shows the top 10 zones citywide for the
Livable Streets Program. Attachment 12 shows the top two zones in each Council District for the program. The
Council approved $2 million of one-time funding in the annual budget to begin implementation of the program.
The Transportation Division has a data-driven strategy to prioritize which zones will receive traffic calming. The
Council could discuss with the Administration whether geographic equity and/or other considerations should
also be considered for the prioritization process. Note there are four constituent traffic calming projects in the
FY2023 CIP Funding Log (Attachment 2) and listed below. Neither the resident advisory board nor the Mayor
recommended funding the four projects this cycle. These projects propose a neighborhood scale approach to
avoid pitting residents on adjacent streets against each other. The Livable Streets Program also uses a
neighborhood scale approach.
- #37 Liberty Wells Traffic Calming requested $420,000
Page | 6
- #48 Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2 requested $400,000
- #79 Yalecrest Traffic Calming requested $240,000
- ##80 East Bench Traffic Calming requested $467,929
Attachment 13 was prepared by Council staff as a comparison of frequently asked questions between the sales
tax bond and the GO bond. Note the Council held a separate briefing on the two bonds at the July 12 meeting.
Attachment 14 is a list of CIP projects by department/division in the City, project name and Council District
location which is sometimes multiple and/or TBD.
Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings
ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE
Each year, the Council appropriates 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.
Overview of the FY2023 CIP Budget
The total FY2023 CIP budget is nearly $45 million which is $9.7 million (27%) more than last year. Most of that
increase is caused by a $10 million year over year increase in the General Fund transfer to CIP which is
equivalent to 9% of ongoing revenues. The City has not reached the 9% level is at least a decade and an audit
from several years ago recommended that level of annual capital investment. The table below details funding
sources for CIP by fiscal year. Other highlights include:
$8.1 Million Unrestricted Funds – $8,137,885 of the ongoing transfer from the General Fund are unrestricted
funds available for any new projects (the most flexible funding available).
$4.9 Million Decrease of Impact Fees Spending – The amount of impact fees in the proposed CIP budget is the
smallest amount since FY2019. There are over $23 million of available to spend impact fees across the four
types: fire, parks, police, and transportation. Most of the available funds are for parks and transportation. See
Additional info section for more.
$3.1 Million Increase for County 1/4¢ Sales Tax for Transportation – This became a new funding source three
years ago and is available to transportation projects per state law. As seen in other sales tax revenue line items,
this one has experienced significant growth.
$10.8 Million Debt and Lease Payments – $10.7 million (36%) of the General Fund transfer to CIP (including
Funding Our Future dollars) is needed to cover debt payments and the Crime Lab lease payment. However, it
should be noted that $4,393,161 of this amount is for a first-year payment on a proposed sales tax revenue bond
for which the Council has not approved the list of projects. This funding could be used for FY2023 projects if the
Council declines to proceed with the bond or approves a smaller bond.
Comparison of CIP Funding Sources by Fiscal Year
Page | 7
Two Differences between 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. Differences between
funding amounts are highlighted pink. This year the funding recommendations from the Community
Development and Capital Improvement Program (CDCIP) resident advisory board and the Mayor are nearly
identical with two differences listed below.
- The Board recommends funding $3.052 million for the 200 South reconstruction transit corridor
project. The Mayor recommends $4,254,885 for the project which is $1,202,885 more than the Board.
The 2018 voter-approved Street Reconstruction Bond is the primary funding sources for the project
which is also receiving funding from several smaller sources. The project webpage is regularly updated
and available here: www.slc.gov/mystreet/2020/03/27/200south/
- The increased funding for the 200 South reconstruction transit corridor (point above) is proposed to be
shifted from the Cemetery Master Plan implementation. The Board recommends $1,202,885 for the
Cemetery Master Plan implementation project and the Mayor recommends no funding. Note that the
proposed sales tax revenue bond includes $11.2 million for City Cemetery road reconstruction.
Use Combined Project Scores from CDCIP Board as Guide if Additional Funding is Available
(See Attachment 4 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 FY2023 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 declined to vote.
$300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs Over Next Decade in Context of FY2023 CIP, $65 Million
Sales Tax Revenue Bond and $80 Million Parks and Public Lands General Obligation (GO) Bond
(See Attachment 5 for a spreadsheet summarizing all projects in FY2023 CIP and the two proposed bonds)
Last year, the Council held briefings about different iterations of a proposed sales tax revenue bond. The Mayor
forwarded the recommendations after an approximately $80 million sales tax revenue bond was paid off in
C I P Fu n d in g So u rc e s A do pt ed
2 0 2 0 -2 1
A do pt e d
2 0 2 1-2 2
Pro po se d
2 0 2 2 -2 3
FY 2 2 t o
FY 2 3
$ C h an ge
FY 2 2 t o
FY 2 3
% C h an ge
Ge ne r a l Fund 1 4 ,5 82 ,2 67$ 1 5 ,1 2 6,884$ 2 5 ,1 5 0 ,43 1$ 1 0 ,0 2 3 ,5 4 7$ 6 6 %
Funding Ou r Futu r e *4 ,880 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,5 80 ,0 0 0$ 5 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 1 ,5 2 0 ,0 0 0$ 4 2 %
Class C 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,0 2 1 ,7 0 6$ 3 ,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ (2 1 ,7 0 6 )$ -1 %
I mp ac t Fe e s**5 ,0 5 8,0 1 1$ 8,2 7 6,1 0 3$ 3 ,3 6 0 ,1 9 3$ (4 ,9 1 5 ,9 1 0 )$ -5 9%
CDBG -$ 3 2 2 ,0 0 0$ 7 2 2 ,0 0 0$ 4 0 0 ,0 0 0$ ONE-TI ME
Re p ur po se Old CI P A c c o u nt s ***1 ,1 4 9 ,6 1 6$ 2 5 2 ,2 7 1$ PENDI NG -ONE-TI ME
Co u nty 1 /4 ¢ Sa le s Tax N/A 4,9 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 8,0 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 3 ,1 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 6 3 %
Sur p lu s Land Fund 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ 2 0 0 ,0 0 0$ -$ (2 0 0 ,0 0 0 )$ ONE-TI ME
Smit h's Nam ing Righ ts Re v e nu e 1 5 6 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ 1 5 4 ,0 0 0$ -$ 0 %
SLC Sp o r t s Co mp le x ESCO 1 5 4 ,7 0 6$ 1 4 8,5 0 5$ 1 4 8,5 0 5$ -$ 0 %
Me mo r ial Ho u s e Re nt Re v e nue 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ 6 8,5 5 4$ -$ 0 %
TOTA L 2 9 ,2 2 6 ,2 62$ 3 6 ,0 2 7 ,1 3 1$ 4 5 ,7 0 3 ,683$ 9 ,6 7 6 ,5 5 2$ 2 7 %
TOTA L w it h o ut ONE-TI ME 2 7 ,87 6 ,6 4 6$ 3 5 ,2 5 2 ,86 0$ 4 4 ,9 81 ,683$ 9 ,7 2 8,82 3$ 2 8%
*I nc lu de s % to CI P "o ff th e t o p " a v a ila b le to any p ro je c t a nd fu nd ing fo r t ra nsit a nd pu b lic righ t o f w ay
infrast ru c tu re . A lso , fu nd ing so u rc e is o ngo ing b u t Co u nc il c o u ld c h ange th e u s e c a t e g o rie s in t h e fu tu re
**Th e re a re fo ur im pa c t fe e ty pe s: fire , pa rks, p o lic e a nd s tre e t s
***I nc lu d e s re c a ptu re d funds fro m mu ltiple fu nd ing so urc e s
No t e : Th e re 's a $2 2 ,89 2 d e b t se rv ic e re sc o p e re d uc t io n no t se p a rat e d o u t in th e t ab le ab o v e fo r FY 2 0 2 1 & FY 2 0 2 2
Page | 8
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 $65 million bond with an estimated $4.4 million annual debt
payment and an $80 million G.O. bond for parks and public lands projects. The G.O. bond would need to first be
placed on the ballot by the Council and then voters would decide whether to approve it. There is no legal
deadline for the Council to approve, modify or decline the sales tax revenue bond. Note that some of the sales tax
revenue bond 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 $65 million maximum proposed.
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. Typically, a Capital Facilities Plan, is
the mechanism to identify, track, prioritize and schedule unfunded capital needs over a long-term horizon.
While the City does long-term planning in each department, a capital facilities plan typically includes a broader
citywide view. The Administration has indicated that there is ongoing work towards this goal. The Council may
wish to ask the Administration for an update on this effort.
$TBD new construction and major redevelopments: Fleet Block, eastside police precinct or smaller
substations, 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, Folsom and McClelland urban trails, historic structures like
Fisher Mansion and Warm Springs, rehabilitation or full rebuild of vehicle bridges including 200 South
and 400 South over the Jordan River, 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
$33.8 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
$20 million above existing funding levels to fully fund the City’s fleet needs
$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 8 – Pending at time of publishing this staff report)
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. 64 projects are listed most of which received General Fund dollars and are over three years old. Several
projects also received Class C funds or impact fees. 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.
POLICY QUESTIONS
1.Balancing $300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs, $80 Million Parks and Public Lands
G.O. Bond, $65 Million Sales Tax Revenue Bond and FY2023 CIP – The Council may wish to
discuss if projects in the proposed bonds and FY2023 CIP align 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 tentatively scheduled to review the bond projects in detail over the summer when also reviewing
individual CIP projects. See Attachment 5 for a summary of projects by title and funding source for both
bonds and FY2023 CIP.
Page | 9
2.Five Projects to Approve in June with Annual Budget or Add to Summer Deliberations –
The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether to approve in June with the annual
budget and debt service payments any of the five projects below or add them to capital investment
deliberations in July and August. The projects could be added to the Council’s deliberations to see the
total capital investments proposed and which projects should be in FY2023 CIP, the General Obligation
bond and/or the sales tax revenue bond. The five projects were not included in the open and competitive
CIP process because they were identified by administrative staff outside separately, so the resident
advisory board did not provide recommendations. The Council could ask if there are any legal or
operational issues to be aware of.
- $3.7 million handheld radios upgrade to next generation
- $3 million complete streets
- $2 million Funding Our Future Public Lands maintenance (further discussion with the
department is needed)
- $2 million restoration of City Hall insurance reimbursement
- $700,000 maintenance of vacant city owned facilities
3.Inflationary Price Increases and the Cost Overrun Account – The Council may wish to ask the
Administration how inflationary price increases have impacted departments utilizing the CIP Cost
Overrun Account, and if additional funding may be needed to avoid project scope reductions. The
Council could also re-evaluate the funding level for the account and/or the formula for maximum
amounts a project may receive (see section 11 of Attachment 1).
4.Updating CIP Policy Guidance Attachment 1 – The Council may wish to discuss with the
Administration if it would be helpful for the Council to provide updated policy guidance such as when to
disqualify an application, the Cost Overrun Account formula, project prioritization which could also
inform the resident advisory board’s deliberations, details to provide for proposed projects, etc. The
Council may also wish to discuss if new guidance could advance the Council policy priorities such as
equity being considered in CIP.
5.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.
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 reports. Council Members could then quickly provide accurate/timely information to interested
constituents.
7.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.
ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION
Definition of a CIP Project
As defined in the Council-adopted 2017 Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution (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.
Surplus Land Fund
Page | 10
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 current
balance is approx. $2.3 million. The FY2023 budget proposes to discontinue the practice of using $200,000
annually to the Community and Neighborhoods Department for property maintenance expenses such as
utilities, security, and minor repairs. This was using one-time funding for an ongoing expense. The change
fulfills the Council’s legislative intent from FY2020. The ongoing General Fund transfer to CIP is proposed to
cover that ongoing expense and is increased to $700,000.
Cost Overrun Account
The Administration reports the current available to spend balance is $557,476 which is a total of CIP
appropriations from the last four fiscal years. 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.
Updated Cost Estimates for Regular CIP Projects (Attachment 7)
Attachment 7 will be updated over the summer to inform the Council’s project-specific deliberations in July and
August. The Administration provided updated cost estimates for CIP projects that regularly come up. The
updated Attachment 7 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 Division 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.
1.5% for New Art and Maintenance of Existing Artworks (See Attachment 9 for the latest report)
Attachment 9 is an annual report required by ordinance about maintenance of City artworks in the past fiscal
year and planned for the next. The report summarizes eight artworks that received maintenance in FY2022 and
21 artworks planned for FY2023. Note that four artworks are identified for deaccession, that is removal from the
City’s public art collection.
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
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 resulting annual funding is allocated to
maintenance. 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.
CIP Debt Load Projections through FY26
(Note an $80 million bond was paid off in FY21 and the Mayor proposed a new $65 million sales tax bond)
The Administration provided the following chart to illustrate the ratio of ongoing commitments to available
funding through FY2026. 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 percentage significantly decreased to approx. 40% after an
$80 million bond was paid off. The chart does not reflect the Mayor’s proposed $65 million sales tax revenue
bond which would add an annual $4.4 million debt payment for 20 years.
Page | 11
The debt load significantly decreased in FY2022 because Series 2014A Taxable Refunding of 2005 bonds
matured (paid off). It was approximately $80 million when the bond was originally issued (before refunding).
This reduces the debt load from 79% to 40% and removes a $5.3 million annual debt payment. 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.
Impact Fee Unallocated “Available to Spend” Balances and Refund Tracking
The Council approved several million dollars in impact fee projects the past few years. The table below is current
as of April 28, 2022 and includes a couple adjustments based on Budget Amendment #7 of FY2022. Available to
spend impact fee balances are bank account balances subtracting encumbrances and expired funds. The Mayor’s
recommended CIP budget proposes using $1,838,193 of parks impact fees and $1,522,000 of transportation
impact fees. The total amount of the four impact fee types is $23,253,078. Impact fees must be encumbered
within six years of the City receiving them.
Type Unallocated Cash
“Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring
Impact Fees
Fire $1,000,885 More than a year away -
Parks $14,031,723 More than a year away -
Police $564,031 More than a year away -
Transportation $7,656,439 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
0%
10%
20%
30%
40%
50%
60%
70%
80%
90%
100%
FY 2020-21 FY 2021-2 2 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26
Allocation of CIP General Fund Transfer Amount, 6 Year
Projection, assuming 2% revenue growth per year, and
continued allocation of 7% of GF revenue to CIP
Debt Service On Bonds Othe r Debt Se rvice Other Commit ments Pay a s You G o Pro jects
Page | 12
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
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.
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 measurable goals to accomplish through the CFP and guide
prioritization of project planning.
Regular CIP Project Cost Estimate (See Attachment 7)
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
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
Page | 13
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. FY2023 CIP Funding Log – Note the spreadsheet from the Administration is not formatted for printing
3. FY2023 CIP Budget Book
4. FY2023 CDCIP Board Project Scores and Votes
5. Summary Spreadsheet of All Projects in Proposed FY2023 CIP, $65 Million Sales Tax Revenue Bond
and $80 Million Parks and Public Lands G.O. Bond
6. Capital Facilities Plan (CFP) Council Requests from January 2019
7. Regular CIP Projects Cost Estimates (July 2021)
8. List of Completed and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years
9. Art Maintenance Report for FY2022 and FY2023
10. Comparison of CIP Project Requests by Year and Type
11. Top 10 Zones Citywide for Livable Streets Program
12. Top 2 Zones in each Council District for Livable Streets Program
13. Comparison Table of Sales Tax and GO Bond Questions
ACRONYMS
CAN – Community and Neighborhood 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
Names of Projects Departments Sales Tax Bond GO Bond General Fund GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX ARPA
Sales Tax Bonds
City Cemetery Road Repairs / Reconstruction Public Lands $11,200,000
Pioneer Park Improvements Public Lands $10,000,000 Eligible
600 North Corridor Transformation Transporation $9,753,000 10% Eligible
Radio Towers IMS $7,500,000
Central Plant Electrical Transformer Upgrade & Emergency
Backup Generators Public Services $6,100,000
Westside Railroad Quiet Zones Public Services $6,100,000
Warm Spring Historic Plunge Structure Stabilization Public Services $6,000,000
Smith's Ballpark Improvements Public Services $3,000,000
Urban Wood Reutilization Equipment and Storage Additions Public Lands $2,000,000
Fisher Mansion Stabilization Public Services $1,800,000
GO Bond (to be considered by voters - would not impact FY 23 property taxes)
Glendale Regional Park Public Lands $27,000,000 100% Eligible Eligible
Jordan River Corridor Improvements Public Lands $9,000,000 Partially Eligible
Allen Park Public Lands $9,000,000 100% Eligible
Seven Neighborhood Parks, 1 per district Public Lands $7,000,000 $3 million Eligible
Fleet Block Park Public Lands $5,000,000 100% Eligible Eligible
Liberty Park Playground Public Lands $2,000,000
Folsom Trail Completion Public Lands $5,000,000 100% Eligible
20% contingency Public Lands $16,000,000
400 South Safety Improvements Transporation $513,313
200 South Reconstruction / Transit Corridor Supplement Transporation $2,700,242 $2,643 $252,000 $1,300,000
Three Creeks West Roadways Public Lands &
Public Utilities $1,359,130
300 North Complete Street Reconstruction Supplement Transporation $500,000 $40,000
Rose Park Neighborhood Center Community Garden Public Lands $160,819 Eligible
Street Improvements 2022/2023 Public Services $3,000,000
Public Lands Asset Management Plan Public Lands $160,160
Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes / Operational
Investments Transporation $990,000 $110,000
Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY23 Public Services $1,192,357
Bridge Replacement (650 North over Jordan River)Public Services $3,700,000
Public Way Concrete 2022/2023 Public Services $436,281
Alleyway Improvements 2022/2023 Engineering $142,919
Urban Farm Development at 2200 West Public Lands $425,040 Eligible
RAC Playground Phase II Public Lands $521,564
700 South (Phase 7, 4600 W to 5000 W)Engineering $850,000 $1,120,000
900 South River Park Soccer Field Public Lands $287,848
Memorial Tree Groves Design and Infrastructure Public Lands $867,962
Streets Steam Bay Expansion Public Services $597,792
Restoration of CCB Reimburse by Insurance Public Services $2,000,000
Hand Held Radios IMS $3,700,000
Complete Streets Transporation $3,700,000
Parks Maintenance Public Lands $2,000,000
Maintenance of Vacant City Owned Facilities Public Services $700,000
Totals $63,453,000 $80,000,000 $13,234,877 $5,035,000 $3,000,000 $3,360,193 $8,700,000 $0
Total Bonds $143,453,000
Total CIP $33,330,070
Total Investment (Bonds & CIP)$176,783,070
CIP New/Maintenance Projects Recommended for Funding
Attachment 5 - FY2023 Capital Investments Summary Sheet (GO Bond, Sales Tax Bond and CIP)
Last Updated June 10, 2022
Names of Projects Departments Sales Tax Bond GO Bond General Fund GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX ARPA
California Avenue Safety Improvement Study Transportation 100,000$
1000 W Fairpark Traffic Circle Transportation 569,534$
900 West Corridor Transportation &
Public Utilities 1,000,000$
2100 South Conceptual Design / Corridor Transformation Transportation 250,000$
Livable Streets Implementation Transportation 2,700,000$ 300,000$
Highland Drive / 1100 E Complete Street & Parley's Trail
Supplement (1700 S-I-80)Transportation 245,000$ 3,255,000$
Public Lands ADA Walkway and Asphalt Replacement Public Lands 873,062$
Jordan River Peace Labyrinth Park Improvements Public Lands 500,000$ Eligible
Playground Replacement Public Lands 1,874,063$
Madsen Park Renewal Public Lands 500,000$
Folsom Trail Landscaping Phase I Public Lands 1,767,908$
Liberty Wells Traffic Calming Transportation 420,000$
Cottonwood Park Pavilions Public Lands 756,094$
400 North Street Improvement Transportation 599,746$
Court Resurfacing Public Lands 1,478,739$
Ballpark Study Implementation - Phase 1 Transportation 450,000$ 50,000$
Local Streets 2023 Reconstruction Supplement Transportation 200,000$
SLC Cemetery Infrastructure Repairs Public Lands 500,000$
1000 W intersection upgrades at 300 N and 400 N Transportation 539,693$
Tree Succession Design for Liberty Park Public Lands 90,160$
Jordan River Tree Planting and Irrigation Public Lands 210,834$
Riverview Native Plant Center Phase 1A Public Lands 412,160$
Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2 Transportation 400,000$
Replacement Traffic Signals (4)Transportation 1,260,000$ 140,000$
Brentwood Circle Storm Water Drainage Public Utilities 160,129$ Partially Eligible
Multi-modal Transportation Safety Improvements Transportation 270,000$ 30,000$
Taufer Park Revamp Public Lands 50,000$
Library Plaza Repair and Improvements Public Lands 205,755$
Replacement Traffic Signal; Asset Condition Report Transportation 415,000$ 35,000$
NW Quadrant trails and Greenway Planning Public Lands 257,600$
Future Transformations: Corridor and Area Studies Transportation 150,000$
Reopen Dinwoody Park as a Public Park Public Lands 71,198$
Folsom Trail- Request on behalf of River District Business Alliance Transportation 500,000$
Bridge Replacement (200 South over Jordan River) Public Services 3,500,000$
Public Lands 5-Year Strategic Plan Public Lands 154,000$
Bridge Rehabilitation (400 South over the Jordan River) Public Services 1,700,000$
Replace Fairpark Tennis Courts with New Sports Court Public Lands 496,109$
Jordan Park and International Peace Gardens Master Plan and CLR Public Lands 251,160$
1200 East Median, Raise Curb, new irrigation, new tree planting Public Lands 500,000$
Neighborhood Identification Equity Project Transportation 245,215$
Urban Wood Reutilization Public Lands 206,080$
Mixed-Use Three-Story Fire Prop Fire 856,690$
Memory Grove Master Plan and Cultural Landscape Report Public Lands 341,320$
Gateway Triangle Property Park Public Lands 499,563$
Multimodal Capital Maintenance Transportation 225,000$ 25,000$
CIP Projects NOT Recommeded for Funding (in order of CDCIP Board Scores)
Attachment 5 - FY2023 Capital Investments Summary Sheet (GO Bond, Sales Tax Bond and CIP)
Last Updated June 10, 2022
Names of Projects Departments Sales Tax Bond GO Bond General Fund GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES ¼¢ SALES TAX ARPA
Rose Park Open Space Concepts Public Lands 154,560$
Back Alley Block Project Public Services 517,500$
Lindsey Gardens Natural Springs Pollinator Garden Public Lands 500,000$
Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2022/2023 Public Services 70,000$
337 S 400 E Pocket Park Improvement Public Lands 54,096$
Rose Park Community Pump Track Public Lands 498,584$
Training Ground Site Improvements Fire 755,991$
Sunnyside Ave Pedestrian Safety Improvements Transportation 514,688$
Yalecrest Traffic Calming Transportation 240,000$
East Bench Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety Transportation 467,929$
Jefferson Park Walking Path Public Lands 496,472$
Project Management Software Renewal Public Services 79,999$
Wingpointe Levee Design Public Services 800,000$
Welcome Signage Transportation 500,000$
Mountain Dell Disc Golf Course Public Lands 500,000$
Sugar House Crosswalk Murals Transportation 50,000$
First Encampment Park Public Lands 363,916$
1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Public Services &
Public Utilities 275,919$
South Belaire Dr Road Reconstruction Public Services 699,650$
Repair Alley #4195 after 9th South rebuild project Public Services 72,450$
Pave Benchmark Circle Public Services 199,307$
Harvey Milk Blvd. Rainbow Crosswalk Transportation 459,346$
Storm Drains 1100 East South of Zenith Ave Public Utilities 92,735$
Notes:
The Public Services Department includes the Facilities Division (city owned buildings) and the Engineering Division (street and alley projects)
The GF FOF column includes funding proposed for parks maintenance and an amount "off the top" available to any capital project
The Impact Fees column includes transportation impact fees and parks impact fees
Attachment 5 - FY2023 Capital Investments Summary Sheet (GO Bond, Sales Tax Bond and CIP)
Last Updated June 10, 2022