COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
←
→
Page content transcription
If your browser does not render page correctly, please read the page content below
COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY
tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget
Project Timeline:
TO: City Council Members
Budget Hearings: May 18 & June 1, 2021
1st Briefing: June 1, 2021
FROM: Ben Luedtke
2nd Briefing & Public Hearing: July 13, 2021
Budget & Policy Analyst
3rd Briefing: July 20, 2021
4th Briefing & Public Hearing: August 17, 2021
DATE: June 1, 2021
Potential Action: August 24, 2021
RE: FY22 Capital Improvement Program (CIP)
Note: The Council approves debt service and
overall CIP funding in the annual budget. Project
BUDGET BOOK PAGES: D-1 to D-6
specific funding is approved by September 1.
CIP BUDGET BOOK: Debt Service Overview Section B, General Fund Projects Sections C & D
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.
CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY
451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM
P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651
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
Adopted Adopted Proposed FY 21 to FY 22 FY 21 to FY 22
CIP Funding Sources
2019-20 2020-21 2021-22 $ Change % Change
General Fund $ 1 5,239,47 9 $ 1 4,582,267 $ 1 4,1 25,469 $ (456,7 98) -3%
Funding Our Future* $ 6,1 69,367 $ 4,880,000 $ 3,580,000 $ (1 ,300,000) -27 %
Class C $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,021 ,7 06 $ 21 ,7 06 1%
Impact Fee** $ 4,567 ,91 3 $ 5,058,01 1 $ 8,27 6,1 03 $ 3,21 8,092 64%
CDBG $ - $ - $ 322,000 $ 322,000 ONE-TIME
Repurpose Old CIP A ccounts $ 3,57 2,968 $ 1 ,1 49,61 6 PENDING - ONE-TIME
County 1 /4¢ Sales Tax *** N/A N/A $ 4,900,000 NEW NEW
Surplus Land Fund $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - 0%
Smith's Naming Rights
$ 1 59,585 $ 1 56,000 $ 1 54,000 $ (2,000) -1 %
Rev enue
SLC Sports Complex ESCO $ 1 48,505 $ 1 54,7 06 $ 1 48,505 $ (6,201 ) -4%
Memorial House Rent Rev enue $ 68,554 $ 68,554 $ 68,554 $ - 0%
TOTA L $ 33,1 26,37 1 $ 29,226,262 $ 34,7 7 3,445 $ 5,547 ,1 83 1 9%
TOTAL w ithout ONE-TIME $ 29,530,51 1 $ 28,07 6,646 $ 34,451 ,445 $ 6,37 4,7 99 23%
*Includes % to CIP "off the top," transit and public right of w ay infrastructure. Also, funding source is ongoing
but Council could change the use categories in the future
**There are four impact fee types: fire, parks, police and streets
***New revenue source in FY 21 w hich the Council directed be included in CIP for FY 22 and thereafter, limited to
transportationi and street infrastructure uses
above
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 | 2
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 | 3$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 | 4transformation 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 | 5reports. 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.
Unallocated Cash Amount of Expiring
Type Next Refund Trigger Date
“Available to Spend” 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 | 6common 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.
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
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
FY 2020‐21 FY 2021‐22 FY 2022‐23 FY 2023‐24 FY 2024‐25 FY 2025‐26
Debt Service On Bonds Other Debt Service Other Commitments Pay as You Go Projects
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 | 7oversees 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 | 811. 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
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
RDA – Redevelopment Agency
Page | 9R 17-1
R 17-13
RESOLUTION NO . _29_0F 2017
(Salt Lake City Council capital and debt management policies.)
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council" or "Council") demonstrated its
commitment to improving the City's Capital Improvement Program in order to better address the
deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of Salt Lake City; and
WHEREAS, the analysis of Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement
Program presented by Citygate Associates in February 1999, recommended that the Council
review and update the capital policies of Salt Lake Corporation ("City") in order to provide
direction to the capital programming and budgeting process and adopt and implement a formal
comprehensive debt policy and management plan; and
WHEREAS, the City's Capital Improvement Program and budgeting practices have
evolved since 1999 and the City Council wishes to update the capital and debt management
policies by updating and restating such policies in their entirety to better reflect current
practices; and
WHEREAS, the City Council desires to improve transparency of funding opportunities
across funding sources including General Fund dollars, impact fees, Class C (gas tax) funds,
Redevelopment Agency funds, Public Utilities funds, repurposing old Capital Improvement
Program funds and other similar funding sources.
NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,
Utah:
That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management
policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term
infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City:
Capital Policies
1. Capital Project Definition- The Council intends to define a capital project as follows:
"Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of
buildings, parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must
have a useful life of five or more years. A capital improvement is not a recurring
capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine) or a maintenance
expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). In order to be
considered a capital project, a capital improvement must also have a cost of
$50,000 or more unless such capital improvement's significant functionality can
be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project (such as software).
Acquisition of equipment is not considered part of a capital project unless such
acquisition of equipment is an integral part of the cost of the capital project."
2. Annual Capital Budget Based on 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan- The Council requests thatthe 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 ofopportunities to restructure or refund current debt. Short-term borrowing might be utilized in
anticipation of future tax collections to finance working capital needs.
2. Evaluate Existing Debt before Issuing a New Debt- The Council requests that the
Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity, and how each proposal meets
the Council's debt policies, prior to proposing any projects for debt financing. This analysis
should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios, the City' s ability to
finance future projects of equal or higher priority, and the City's bond ratings.
3. Identify Repayment Source when Proposing New Debt- The Council requests that the
Administration identify the source of funds to cover the anticipated debt service requirement
whenever the Administration recommends borrowing additional funds.
4. Monitoring Debt Impact to the General Fund- The Council requests that the Administration
analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and
coordinate this analysis with the budget development process.
5. Disclosure of Bond Feasibility and Challenges - The Council requests that the
Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond
issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed. Such statement from the City's
financial advisor should also include an indication of requirements or circumstances that the
Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue (such as any net
negative fiscal impacts on the City' s operating budget, debt capacity limits, or rating
implications).
6. Avoid Use of Financial Derivative Instruments - The Council intends to avoid using interest
rate derivatives or other financial derivatives when considering debt issuance.
7. Maintain Reasonable Debt Ratios- The Council does not intend to issue debt that would
cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the
municipal bond rating industry.
8. Maintain High Level Bond Ratings- The Council intends to maintain the highest credit
rating feasible and to adhere to fiscally responsible practices when issuing debt.
9. Consistent Annual Debt Payments Preferred - The Council requests that the Administration
structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the financed
project(s) unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or the useful life of the financed
project(s) suggests a different maturity schedule.
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.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By 4 = ASL
CHAIRPERSON -=-::::::::____
ATTEST:
Salt Lake City
App ed As To Form
By: ~~~~~~~.P
aysen Oldroyd
Da e: lt:>/-:z.../ 17
HB _A TTY -#64309 -v3-CIP_and_ Debt_ Management_Pol iciesRecommended
Recommended FY21/22
CDCIP Board Recommended Funds ## $ 4,425,720 $ 2,046,329 $ 7,291,970 $ 4,900,000 $ 2,300,000 $ 1,280,000 $ -
Requested Funding CDCIP Recommended Funding
Bon
d
Constituent Requested General Requested Requested Requested FOF Requested FOF Resc Recommended FOF
Department Category Application Title Scope of Work Requested Class C Requested Other FOF Recommended General Funds Recommended Class C Recommended Impact Fees Recommended Qcent Tax Recommended FOF Streets Recommended Other FOF
Y/N Funds Impact Fees Qcent Tax Street Transit ope Transit
Fund
s
Art New $66,386 $34,500 $19,200
Cost Overrun New $88,514 $46,000 $25,600
Founded in 1971, Odyssey House has become the leading substance use disorder treatment
provider in the Intermountain West. Through integrated programming, Odyssey House serves
adults, adolescents, and families. Currently, the agency operates twenty-seven different programs
and facilities, including residential treatment, day treatment, intensive outpatient, general
outpatient, community-based counseling, medical services, and sober transitional housing.
Odyssey House administers care at any level of need. Odyssey House's mission is empowering
people to heal and build better lives.
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
CARES / Engineering New Y Odyssey House Annex Facility Renovation multitude of different leaks within the building, harming interior and exterior walls. To fully $500,000 $300,000
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
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
Engineering Renewal N Street Improvements 2021/2022 improvements as necessary. Where appropriate, the program will include appropriate bike way $3,500,000 $2,046,329
and pedestrian access route improvements as determined by the Transportation Division per the
Complete Streets ordinance.
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
Engineering New N Pavement Conditions Survey $175,000 $3,571 $171,429
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.
This project will address displacements in public way concrete through saw-cutting, slab jacking,
and removal and
Engineering Renewal N Public Way Concrete 2021/2022 $750,000 $75,000 $675,000
replacement of deteriorated or defective concrete sidewalks, accessibility ramps, curb and gutter,
retaining walls, etc.
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
Engineering Renewal N Bridge Preservation 2021/2022 the UDOT report. City Engineering has prepared an ongoing bridge maintenance strategy with the $300,000 $21,429 $278,571
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.
This program addresses uneven pavement adjacent to railway crossings. Engineering designs
Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements
Engineering Renewal N pavement improvements and $70,000 $70,000
2021/2022
contracts the construction.
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
Facilities Renewal N Capital Asset Replacement Program renewal, Facilities proposes an annual investment through CIP of $7,000,000. For FY22 CIP $5,860,449 $1,252,230
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.)
Page 1Recommended
Bon
d
Constituent Requested General Requested Requested Requested FOF Requested FOF Resc Recommended FOF
Department Category Application Title Scope of Work Requested Class C Requested Other FOF Recommended General Funds Recommended Class C Recommended Impact Fees Recommended Qcent Tax Recommended FOF Streets Recommended Other FOF
Y/N Funds Impact Fees Qcent Tax Street Transit ope Transit
Fund
s
The Fire Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade consist of modernizing the existing natural gas fire
props within the Fire Training Tower. The scope includes upgrading the fuel control station, PLC5
(need to define PLC5) to the new ControlLogix PLC operating system, and the bedroom, storage,
desk, and car fire props.
Fuel control station:
Replace existing fuel control station 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
Fire New N Training Tower Fire Prop Upgrade * New Allen Bradley input modules $318,279 $6,223 $312,056
* New Allen Bradley output modules
* New Allen Bradley analog modules
* New Allen Bradley 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.
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
Standard doors
One (1) sliding door
Hallway
Vents with pull cable
Fire New N Single Family/Fire Behavior Prop Cleanout cargo doors $374,864 $374,864
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 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
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
Parks & Public Lands New Y Tracy Aviary Historic Structure Renovations $156,078 $51,700 $104,378
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.
Reconstruct a half-block of the Jordan River Parkway Trail where it’s eroding into the river at 1300
Parks & Public Lands New Y Three Creeks West Bank Trailway $490,074 $484,146
South and 1000 West.
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
Parks & Public Lands Phased Y Three Creeks West Bank New Park $150,736 $150,736
determined as the project moves forward. Pickleball courts have been suggested by the Glendale
Community Council.
Scope of work is to remove and replace existing Fabian Lakeside Pavilion. SHPA hired Arch Nexus
to review, analyze and
Sugar House Park Fabian Lake Pavilion Remove
Parks & Public Lands New Y recommend solutions for the deteriorating pavilions, and completed the attached report in $183,834 $183,834
and Replace
December of 2015.
Arch Nexus factored in escalation costs through 2020.
This project is for resurfacing the existing basketball court in the center of the park and the
Parks & Public Lands New Y Liberty Park Basketball Court $99,680 $99,680
replacement of two new basketball hoops.
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
Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & Landscape slides and pools has triggered a three-year clock in which SLC must replace the amenity with
Parks & Public Lands Phased N $3,200,000 $3,200,000
Rehabilitation & Active Recreation Component 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.
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. The final deliverable will include block-by-block maps and
renderings, preliminary designs and cost estimates for the implementation of improvements and
modifications that will, once completed, transform the Jordan River Parkway into SLC's Emerald
Ribbon - the most desirable green space asset in Salt Lake City.
Building on the success of the community engagement approach used for Reimagine Nature (the
SLC Public Lands Master Plan), the Public Lands Division will employ multi-faceted, multi-lingual
engagement targeting a clear vision for each block of the Jordan River Parkway through SLC.
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 further map out recommendations for implementation of specific and
Parks & Public Lands New N A Place for Everyone: Emerald Ribbon Master Plan measurable projects and activities that will produce tangible improvements to the appearance, $420,000 $416,667
unique character, safety, accessibility and frequency of use of each discreet segment. As a whole,
the Emerald Ribbon Master Plan will be the springboard for a contiguous corridor that reflects and
celebrates the diversity of the neighborhoods it connects.
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 where engagement will occur. This approach will build on the connections made
with University Neighborhood Partners to further this collaborative relationship in the west side
communities for this placemaking effort and future implementation projects, 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 but
which are critical to effective placemaking. Placemaking is most effective when the community
brings their intimate knowledge of the place to the vision, based on comfort and image; uses and
activities; access and linkages; and sociability.
Page 2You can also read
