Agenda of the Utah State Building Board

AGENDA OF THE UTAH STATE BUILDING BOARD

Wednesday, May 6, 2020 Virtual Online Meeting Taylorsville, Utah 9:00 am

(Action) 1. Approval of Minutes of December 4, 2019 ...... Tab 1

(Action) 2. Five Year Notice of Review and Statement of Continuation for Rule R23-7 State Construction Contracts and Drug and Alcohol Testing ...... Tab 2

(Action) 3. Request for Approval to Construct the New Lake Town and Green River UDOT Maintenance Stations ...... Tab 3

(Action) 4. Request for Approval of the University of Utah Public Safety Building ...... Tab 4

(Action) 5. State Facility Energy Efficiency Loan Fund Request for Calvin Rampton Lighting & Controls Upgrade ...... Tab 5

(Action) 6. Request for Approval to Surplus the JJS Property on Monroe Boulevard ...... Tab 6

(Action) 7. Request for Approval for Development of Property on the Salt Lake Community College Meadowbrook Campus ...... Tab 7

(Information) 8. Discussion on possible information and reports the Board would like to have going forward...... Tab 8

Board members and presenters will participate in this virtual meeting through an exclusive invitation. All agencies, institutions and the general public may listen via our conference line posted one hour prior to the meeting at: https://das.utah.gov/building-board/meeting-schedule/

Notice of Special Accommodation During Public Meetings - In compliance with the Americans with Disabilities Act, individuals needing special accommodations (including auxiliary communicative aids and services) during this meeting should notify Cee Cee Niederhauser 801-957-7184 at least three days prior to the meeting. This information and all other Utah State Building Board information is available on our web site at: https://das.utah.gov/building-board/ Utah State Building Board

Gary R. Herbert Governor 4110 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Phone (801) 538-3018 Fax (801) 538-3267

MEMORANDUM

To Utah State Building Board From: Jim Russell Date: May 6, 2020 Subject: Approval of Minutes of December 4, 2019

Attached for your review and approval are the minutes from the December 4, 2019 Building Board Meeting.

JRR: cn Attachment Utah State Building Board

FY 2021 Non-State Funded Capital Development Hearing

December 4, 2019

MINUTES

Members in Attendance: Joseph Burgess, Chair Kevin VanTassell Miranda Jones Cox, Ex-Officio Stan Plewe William French Richard Fairbanks Lisa Barrager Wendell Morse Jeff Reddoor, Director

Guests in Attendance: LTC Vincent Wolfe Utah National Guard Ken Nye University of Utah Robin Burr University of Utah Richard Brown University of Utah Ben Berrett Utah State University David Cowley Utah State University Kailie Fennell Arch Nexus Malin Francis USHE Bob Askerlund Salt Lake Community College Jeffrey West Salt Lake Community College Sid Pawar AJC Architects Matt Boyer DFCM Jim Russell DFCM Lee Fairbourn DFCM Sarah Boll DFCM Lucas Davis DFCM Jake Njord DFCM Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes December 4, 2019 Page 2

Nick Radulovich DFCM Cee Cee Niederhauser DFCM Tani Downing DAS Rich Amon USHE David Woolstenhulme USHE Kimberly Johnson Design West Architects Heather Knighton MHTN Architects Tracy Neale GSBS Architects Frank Young Utah Valley University Scott Cooksey Utah Valley University

On Wednesday, December 4, 2019 the Utah State Building Board held their FY2021 Non-State Funded Capital Development Hearing in Room 250 of the Capitol Building in Salt Lake City, Utah. Chair Joseph Burgess called the meeting to order at 9:00 am. Attendees were reminded of Jeff Reddoor’s Retirement Reception immediately after the Board Meeting in the State Office Building Auditorium.

 APPROVAL OF THE MINUTES OF SEPTEMBER 4, 2019 BOARD MEETING, OCTOBER 2, 2019 CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT HEARING, AND THE OCTOBER 3, 2019 BUSINESS MEETING AND PRIORITIZATION Chair Burgess asked for comments or corrections to the minutes. None were brought forward.

MOTION: Richard Fairbanks moved to approve the Minutes from the September 4, 2019, October 2, 2019 and October 3, 2019 meetings. The motion was seconded by Kevin Van Tassell and passed unanimously.

 APPROVAL OF 2020 BUILDING BOARD MEETING SCHEDULE Chair Burgess asked if board members had any questions concerning the new schedule of 2020. He noted that the Board will meet every other month and the first meetings will be February 12th which is the second Wednesday of the month. He also noted that most of the meetings will be held at the New State Office Building in Taylorsville. Chair Burgess called for a motion to approve the new 2020 schedule.

MOTION: Stan Plewe moved to approve the 2020 Building Board Meeting Schedule. The motion was seconded by Kevin VanTassell and passed unanimously.

Mr. VanTassell requested that DFCM staff send out a calendar placeholder for the 2020 meeting schedule.

 PRESENTATION OF THE FY2021 NON-STATE CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT PROJECTS Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes December 4, 2019 Page 3

Jeff Reddoor explained the first five agenda items presented to the Board today are requests for revenue bonds or funding for operation and maintenance. These requests require recommendation to the Legislature for final approval. The last three projects are funded 100% by the institution or private donors, have no state O&M requests, and require Board approval to move forward.

University of Utah Health Sciences Campus Office Space – Robin Burr and Ken Nye The University of Utah plans to construct a Health Sciences Campus Office Space Building to provide office space for the School of Medicine as well as providing relocated office areas for many employees currently housed within Building 521 which will be scheduled for demolition. The preliminary cost estimate (total project) is $105,100,000 for this 250,000 sf building. The University request permission to issue a $100,000,000 revenue bond for the project. The bond will be repaid from clinical revenues and other non-state revenues of the University Health Sciences. The balance of $5,100,000 will be provided from Health Sciences clinical reserves. This project was presented to their Board of Trustees who challenged the University’s Campus Design and Construction Department to reduce costs while maintaining quality and to look at innovative ways to do both of those things. In addition, they were asked to benchmark their costs against developer buildings in the community and to balance this as well as create a building that would last 50 to 100 years. There were questions concerning the new space standards for offices and the impact of moving offices from other facilities to the new building. No state funds are being requested for O&M on this project.

MOTION: Stan Plewe moved to recommend the University of Utah’s Health Sciences Campus Office Space Building to the Legislature. The motion was seconded by Wendell Morse and passed unanimously.

University of Utah Health Sciences Garage and Roadway Improvements – Robin Burr and Ken Nye Ms. Burr noted that this is another critically important project to their Health Sciences Campus. This project largely addresses traffic problems in the northeast corner of their campus where there is access to patient care at the University Hospital, Huntsman Cancer Hospital and the soon to open Rehabilitation Hospital. This project will consist of a new 1,400 stall, 462,125 GSF parking garage adjacent to the University Hospitals with bridges to each hospital. The garage incorporates a parking facility that was included in the Kathryn F. Kirk Center for Comprehensive Cancer Care and Women’s Cancers that was authorized by the Legislature in 2019. This garage includes four levels underground which preserves the view corridor for Huntsman Hospital and keeps the structure from being an eye sore for the Federal Heights neighborhood; however, this adds additional costs to the project. In order to address the long standing traffic gridlock along the main entry road to these critical health care facilities, the University plans to rebuild North Medical Drive and add a tunnel to the new parking garage. The total cost for the project is $80,000,000. Ms. Burr indicated this is the most costly parking garage they have every proposed. It requires excavation in hard rock to get the four levels underground, the relocation of utilities, mechanical ventilation in the underground levels, and a careful rooftop treatment because of the view corridor. The University request permission to issue a revenue bond in the amount of $80,000,000 for the project. This bond will be repaid from UUHC clinical revenues along with parking revenues and other non-state revenues of the Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes December 4, 2019 Page 4

U of U Health Sciences. There were questions concerning the type of parking – for patients only or is staff also included and was transit improvements considered for the area? There were also questions concerning solar panels on the facility and the possibility of future expansion of the parking garage. No state O&M is being requested for this new facility.

MOTION: Richard Fairbanks moved to recommend the University of Utah’s Health Sciences and Roadway Improvements to the Legislature. The motion was seconded by Wendell Morse and passed unanimously.

University of Utah Rio Tinto Kennecott Building Addition – Robin Burr and Ken Nye Ms. Burr explained this is a building expansion for their College of Engineering which will address the anticipated growth in their Engineering programs. The existing building was constructed in 1952 for the Kennecott Copper Corporation who made two additions to the structure in 1955 and 1967. The University took possession of it in 1990 and has gone through a series of remodels, infrastructure upgrades and a bit of master planning. This Phase 3 expansion is 100% new construction and was included in the Master Plan of 2008 and through successive upgrades, the infrastructure is in place for this expansion. The project will address needs in teaching and research labs, faculty offices, student spaces and building support areas. The master plan includes 15 offices (3,024 NSF to accommodate ten faculty and 25 students), ten labs of various sizes (5,966 NSF total) to house a modern undergraduate shop, undergraduate and graduate design spaces, a mechatronics teaching space, a modern Thermal Fluid Energy Systems teaching facility in support of core program knowledge, and graduate student program lab space (2,029 NSF). The preliminary cost estimate for this 18,089 GSF expansion is $9,685,047. The source of funding is from donations and institutional funds for construction. The schedule for this project is design completion in 2020 and construction in 2021. There were questions about seismic upgrades, the O&M rate, and Capital Improvement Funding. Miranda Jones-Cox asked about the breakdown of donor vs. institutional funding. Ms. Burr agreed to provide this information at a later time. There were also comments about the future growth of the Department of Engineering and the building space. Stan Plewe expressed his support and noted that Utah is number one in the country for cyber space growth. Kevin VanTassell clarified the O&M request. The University is requesting an increase in state funded O&M of $162,100 using the state O&M funding formula: (18,089 GSF x $8.96). For O&M funding purposes, all the space is being treated as the classroom/office category as the labs that will be constructed do not have the elements that result in increased O&M costs.

MOTION: Kevin VanTassell moved to recommend the University of Utah’s Rio Tinto Kennecott Building Addition and request for O&M to the Legislature. The motion was seconded by Lisa Barrager and passed unanimously.

Jeff Reddoor requested the University provide the information concerning the breakdown of donor vs. institutional funds to Cee Cee who will then send out to all the Board members.

Miranda Jones-Cox suggested it would be beneficial for presenters of the non-state requests to Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes December 4, 2019 Page 5

show how these costs are going to impact different groups, such as patients, students (tuition), staff, etc.

Utah State University Blanding Professional Career and Technical Education Lab – David Cowley Mr. Cowley explained USU’s Career and Technical Education Lab Building on the Blanding Campus is intended to accommodate the heavy equipment and trucking program as well as the new welding program. The new building will enable USU Blanding to facilitate these programs where other career and technical programs are housed so that students can continue to study in the classroom as well. The project consists of a metal building structure, organized into 3 main structural bays with additional adjacent outdoor welding stations. In addition, there will be a welding lab, storage, mechanical, electrical and restroom space as well as six outdoor welding stations and outdoor fenced storage. The project cost is $1,600,000 for this 4,035 GSF facility which will be funded with institutional funds. There were questions concerning the source of funding for this new building. Mr. Cowley explained there is a combination of funding from central discretionary funds, the College of Agriculture and Applied Sciences funds, Blanding Campus Funds, and funds provided by the Vice President for Statewide Campuses. Miranda Jones-Cox questioned the completion date for this project. Utah State responded that after approvals from the Legislature, design and construction should take about 12 months. There were questions concerning enrollment in the Technical College at Utah State, Regents approval, and the HVAC work on the project. Utah State University is requesting an increase of $37,162 in state O&M funding for this facility.

MOTION: Kevin VanTassell moved to recommend Utah State University’s Blanding Professional Career and Technical Education Lab and request for O&M to the Legislature. The motion was seconded by Lisa Barrager and passed unanimously.

Salt Lake Community College O&M Funding for the Westpointe Campus Student Support Building – Bob Askerlund and Jeffrey West Mr. West, Vice President of Finance for Salt Lake Community College reported that back in 2009 SLCC created a Campus-Wide Master Plan for their future campus needs which determined there was a need for a campus at Westpointe. SLCC began moving forward with a campus for this area and in July 2011 they began leasing the Westpointe Building which was remodeled for their purposes. This building has housed various academic programs including electronics, non-destructive testing, flight training and general education. In addition, the building provides space for custom training for local businesses like Boeing. SLCC’s presence here is an asset to the various businesses in the area. When the Westpointe Workforce Training and Education Center was built, this leased Westpointe Building was remodeled again to support some of their student support services. In June of this year, the leased building was purchased by the College. This building is primarily an academic building with some student support services in it. SLCC would like to request O&M funding in the amount of $328,929 for this newly acquired building at Westpointe. There were questions about space utilization and projected FTE generation at this site.

Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes December 4, 2019 Page 6

MOTION: Stan Plewe moved to recommend Salt Lake Community College’s O&M Request for the Westpointe Building to the Legislature. The motion was seconded by Kevin VanTassell and passed unanimously.

Chair Burgess reminded the Board that the last three projects were seeking approval from the Building Board rather than a recommendation to the Legislature. There are no requests for O&M on these projects.

University of Utah Dumke Gymnastics Center Renovation and Addition – Robin Burr and Ken Nye Robin Burr reported the University of Utah requests approval to remodel 4,373 sf of space to enhance locker, training and support space at the Dumke Gymnastic Center. The project will raise the roof over the existing training area to expand the second floor by 1,717 sf which will be shelled to preserve opportunities for growth in the future. The project includes a 1,000 sf addition to create a Legacy Hall entry and includes an elevator and stair. The total project budget of $3,379,666 will be funded through donations. No state funds will be used for O&M. This project is consistent with the University’s Master Plan. The University’s Board of Trustees and the Board of Regents have approved this project. A funding letter from the University’s Chief Financial Officer was provided confirming that the University has the funding to cover the cost of the project and that O&M will be paid from Athletics revenues. There were questions concerning the fund raising efforts, and the elevator at the facility.

MOTION: Kevin VanTassell moved to approve University of Utah’s Dumke Gymnastics Renovation and Addition. The motion was seconded by Richard Fairbanks and passed unanimously.

University of Utah Field House Remodel for New Theatre Robin Burr gave a brief history of the Einar Neilsen Fieldhouse which was built in 1939 and was the home of the Ute’s Basketball Team for 30 years until the Huntsman arena was built. For the past 50 years, this building has been functioning in other capacities – the three stories of the South Tower are used by the College of Architecture, and the east end has been turned into a chiller plant, with the center space used for various athletic uses. The University of Utah proposes to remodel 21,861 sf center space of this building to create a theatre with approximately 400 seats. This theatre is needed to meet the academic needs of the Theatre Department while also providing an intermediate sized theatre option for Pioneer Memorial Theatre. The theatre will include a thrust stage and orchestra pit. The project includes new HVAC, upgrades to other building systems, furnishings, seating and theatre equipment. The proposed total budget is $9,394,126 at $340 sf for construction and will be funded through donations and other University funds. No state O&M is being requested. This project was approved by the University’s Board of Trustees and the Board of Regents. A funding letter from the University’s CFO certified the University has the funds to cover the cost of this project. Presently the building is receiving a seismic upgrade through Capital Improvement Funds. Project construction will begin upon approval with a reopening of the building for the 2021 school year. There were comments concerning the cyclone fencing and the possibility of Utah State Building Board Meeting Minutes December 4, 2019 Page 7

providing a remembrance of Jack “The Fox” Gardner, the Ute’s basketball coach who led the Utes to six appearances in the NCAA Tournament and two Final Four appearances. Miranda Jones-Cox questioned the reason for the remodel and the choice of the Fieldhouse.

MOTION: Stan Plewe moved to approve University of Utah’s Field House Remodel for New Theatre Project. The motion was seconded by William French and passed unanimously.

Utah Valley University New Advancement and Alumni Building – Frank Young and Scott Cooksey Mr. Young reported UVU would like to construct a facility on the north side of campus for their Institutional Advancement and Alumni Departments which is currently being housed in several residences adjacent to campus. The proposed new building will be approximately 24,000 GSF with a total building cost of $8,000,000 paid by the University. The residences currently being used will be razed as part of this project. No state O&M is being request for this project. UVU provided a letter from Val Peterson, Vice President for Finance and Administration certifying that the $8,000,000 is available for immediately construction.

MOTION: Lisa Barrager moved to approve Utah Valley University’s New Advancement and Alumni Building. The motion was seconded by Wendell Morse and passed unanimously.

Chair Burgess asked if there were any future agenda items. None came forward.

 ADJOURNMENT The Chair asked for a motion to adjourn.

MOTION: Kevin Van Tassell moved to adjourn the meeting. The motion was seconded by Miranda Jones-Cox and passed unanimously.

The meeting adjourned at 10:20 am.

In conclusion, Jeff Reddoor expressed gratitude for his years with the Building Board and for his employment with the State of Utah. Utah State Building Board

Gary R. Herbert Governor 4110 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Phone (801) 538-3018 Fax (801) 538-3267

MEMORANDUM

To: Utah State Building Board From: Jim Russell Director Date: May 6, 2020 Subject: Five Year Notice of Review and Statement of Continuation for Rule R23-7, State Construction Contracts and Drug and Alcohol Testing Presenter: Mike Kelley, Assistant Attorney General

The Utah Rulemaking Act, Utah Code Ann. Section 63G-3-305 requires each agency to review its rules within five years of each rule's original enactment, and then within five-year intervals. To comply with the review requirement, the agency must submit a "Five-Year Notice of Review and Statement of Continuation" for each of its rules. Otherwise, the rules will expire, become unenforceable, and will be removed from the Utah Administrative Code.

The attached Rule R23-7, State Construction Contracts and Drug and Alcohol Testing, is due for review; and therefore, the "Five Year Notice of Review and Statement of Continuation" must be filed with the Division of Administrative Rules on or before June 30, 2020.

Recommendation: It is recommended that the Board authorize the filing of the "Five Year Notice of Review and Statement of Continuation" for Rule R23-7 at the scheduled Board meeting on May 6, 2020.

Minor revisions have been made to update the Utah Code references.

Background: Rule R23-7, under the authority of the Board, establishes a policy whereby all Contractors and Sub-Contractors with contracts under the Division of Facilities Construction and Management’s procurement authority (including designers) are subject to and must maintain a drug and alcohol testing policy during the period of the state construction contract that applies to the covered individuals hired by the contractor. A copy of Rule R23-7 is attached.

JRR/MK: cn Attachment: Copy of Utah Administrative Code Rule R23-7 R23. Administrative Services, Facilities Construction and Management. R23-7. State Construction Contracts and Drug and Alcohol Testing. R23-7-1. Purpose. The purpose of this rule is to comply with the provisions of Section 63G-6a-1303 of the Utah Procurement Code.

R23-7-2. Authority. This rule is authorized under Subsection 63A-5-103(12)(ea), which directs the Utah State Building Board to make rules necessary for the discharge of the duties of the Division of Facilities Construction and Management as well as Subsection 63G-6a-1303(4) of the Utah Procurement Code.

R23-7-3. Definitions. (1) The following definitions of Section 63G-6a-6041303 shall apply to any term used in this Rule R23-7: (a) "Contractor" means a person who is or may be awarded a state construction contract. (b) "Covered individual" means an individual who: (i) on behalf of a contractor or subcontractor provides services directly related to design or construction under a state construction contract; and (ii) is in a safety sensitive position, including a design position that has responsibilities that directly affect the safety of an improvement to real property that is the subject of a state construction contract. (c) "Drug and alcohol testing policy" means a policy under which a contractor or subcontractor tests a covered individual to establish, maintain, or enforce the prohibition of: (i) the manufacture, distribution, dispensing, possession, or use of drugs or alcohol, except the medically prescribed possession and use of a drug; or (ii) the impairment of judgment or physical abilities due to the use of drugs or alcohol. (d) "Random testing" means that a covered individual is subject to periodic testing for drugs and alcohol: (i) in accordance with a drug and alcohol testing policy; and (ii) on the basis of a random selection process. (e) "State Executive Entity" means a state executive branch: (i) department; (ii) division including the Division of Facilities Construction and Management; (iii) agency; (iv) board; (v) commission; (vi) council; (vii) committee; (viii) institution; or (ix) a state institution of higher education, as defined under Section 53B-3-102. (f) "State construction contract" means a contract for design or construction entered into by the Division. (g)(i) "Subcontractor" means a person under contract with a contractor or another subcontractor to provide services or labor for design or construction. (ii) "Subcontractor" includes a trade contractor or specialty contractor. (iii) "Subcontractor" does not include a supplier who provides only materials, equipment, or supplies to a contractor or subcontractor. (2) In addition: (a) "Board" means the State Building Board established pursuant to Section 63A-5-101. (b) "Director" means the Director of the Division, including, unless otherwise stated, the Director's duly authorized designee. (c) "Division" means the Division of Facilities Construction and Management established pursuant to Section 63A-5-201 as well as entities entering into state construction contracts under delegation authority by the Board or Director.

R23-7-4. Applicability. (1) Except as provided in Rule R23-7-5, on and after July 1, 2010, the Division may not enter into a state construction contract (includes a contract for design or construction) unless the state construction contract requires that the contractor (including designer) demonstrate to the Division that the Contractor: (a) has and will maintain a drug and alcohol testing policy during the period of the state construction contract that applies to the covered individuals hired by the contractor; (b) posts in one or more conspicuous places notice to covered individuals hired by the contractor that the contractor has the drug and alcohol testing policy described in Rule R23-7-4(1)(a); (c) subjects the covered individuals to random testing under the drug and alcohol testing policy described in Subsection R23-7-4(1)(a) if at any time during the period of the state construction contract there are ten or more individuals who are covered individuals hired by the contractor; and (d) requires that as a condition of contracting with the contractor, a subcontractor: (i) has and will maintain a drug and alcohol testing policy during the period of the state construction contract that applies to the covered individuals hired by the subcontractor; (ii) posts in one or more conspicuous places notice to covered individuals hired by the subcontractor that the subcontractor has the drug and alcohol testing policy described in Rule R23-7-4(d)(i); and (iii) subjects the covered individuals hired by the subcontractor to random testing under the drug and alcohol testing policy described in Rule R23-7-4(d)(i) if at any time during the period of the state construction contract there are 10 or more individuals who are covered individuals hired by the subcontractor. (2) A contractor shall demonstrate to the Division under Rule 23-7-4(1) above, by a provision in the contract where the contractor acknowledges this Rule R23-7 and agrees to comply with all aspects of this Rule R23-7 and that the contractor require this compliance by a subcontractor, which includes consultants under contract with the designer. (2)(a) Except as otherwise provided in this Rule R23-7-4(2), if a contractor or subcontractor fails to comply with Rule R23-7-4(1), the contractor or subcontractor may be suspended or debarred in accordance with the Utah Procurement Code, Title 63G, Chapter 6a, Utah Code. (b) On and after July 1, 2010, the Division shall include in a state construction contract a reference to this Rule R23-7. (c)(i) A contractor is not subject to penalties for the failure of a subcontractor to comply with Rule R23-7-4(1). (ii) A subcontractor is not subject to penalties for the failure of a contractor to comply with Rule R23-7-4(1). (3)(a) The requirements and procedures a contractor shall follow to comply with Subsection R23-7-4(1)is that the contractor, by executing the construction contract with the Division, is deemed to certify to the Division that the contractor, and all subcontractors under the contractor that are subject to Rule R23-7-4(1), shall comply with all provisions of this Rule R23-7 as well as Section 63G-6a-1303 of the Utah Procurement Code. (b) A contractor or subcontractor may be suspended or debarred in accordance with the applicable Utah statutes and rules, if the contractor or subcontractor violates a provision of Section 63G-6a-1303 of the Utah Procurement Code or this Rule. The contractor or subcontractor shall be provided reasonable notice and opportunity to cure a violation of 63G-6a-1303 of the Utah Procurement Code or this Rule before suspension or debarment of the contractor or subcontractor in light of the circumstances of the state construction contract or the violation. (4) The failure of a contractor or subcontractor to meet the requirements of Subsection R23-7-4(1): (a) may not be the basis for a protest or other action from a prospective bidder, offeror, or contractor under Part 17, Procurement Appeals Board, or Part 18, Appeals to Court and Court Proceedings; and (b) may not be used by a state executive entity, a prospective bidder, an offeror, a contractor, or a subcontractor as a basis for an action that would suspend, disrupt, or terminate the design or construction under a state construction contract. (5)(a) After the Division enters into a state construction contract in compliance with Section 63G-6a-1303, the state (including the Division) is not required to audit, monitor, or take any other action to ensure compliance with Section 63G-6a-1303. (b) The state is not liable in any action related to Section 63G-6a-1303 and this Rule R23-7, including not being liable in relation to: (i) a contractor or subcontractor having or not having a drug and alcohol testing policy; (ii) failure to test for a drug or alcohol under a contractor's or subcontractor's drug and alcohol testing policy; (iii) the requirements of a contractor's or subcontractor's drug and alcohol testing policy; (iv) a contractor's or subcontractor's implementation of a drug and alcohol testing policy, including procedures for: (A) collection of a sample; (B) testing of a sample; (C) evaluation of a test; or (D) disciplinary or rehabilitative action on the basis of a test result; (v) an individual being under the influence of drugs or alcohol; or (vi) an individual under the influence of drugs or alcohol harming another person or causing property damage.

R23-7-5. Non-applicability. (1) This Rule R23-7 and Section 63G-6a-1303 does not apply if the State Executive Entity (including the Division) determines that the application of this Rule R23-7 or Section 63G-6a-1303 would severely disrupt the operation of a procurement unit to the detriment of the procurement unit or the general public, including: (a) jeopardizing the receipt of federal funds; (b) causing the state construction contract to be a sole source contract; or (c) causing the state construction contract to be an emergency procurement.

R23-7-6. Not Limit Other Lawful Policies. (1) If a contractor or subcontractor meets the requirements of Section 63G-6a-1303 and this Rule R23-7, Section 63G-6a-1303 and this Rule R23-7 may not be construed to restrict the contractor's or subcontractor's ability to impose or implement an otherwise lawful provision as part of a drug and alcohol testing policy.

KEY: drug and alcohol testing, contracts, contractors Date of Enactment or Last Substantive Amendment: December 11, 2015 Notice of Continuation: June 30, 2015 Authorizing, and Implemented or Interpreted Law: 63G-6

Utah State Building Board

Gary R. Herbert Governor 4110 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Phone (801) 538-3018 Fax (801) 538-3267

MEMORANDUM

To: Utah State Building Board From: Jim Russell, DFCM Director Date: May 6, 2020 Subject: Request for Approval to Construct the New Lake Town and Green River UDOT Maintenance Stations Presenter: Ryan Ellsworth, UDOT Maintenance Programs and Contracts Manager

Recommendation Jim Russell requests the Board approve UDOT’s request to construct new maintenance stations in Lake Town and Green River.

Background UDOT would like to demolish their current facilities at Lake Town and Green River and construction new maintenance facilities at these locations which would better serve their needs.

Authority for the Board Approval of Non-State Funded Projects (not requiring legislative approval) Utah Code: 63A -5-101 (3) Legislative approval is not required for a capital development project that consists of the design or construction of a new facility if: (1) the board determines that the requesting state agency has provided adequate assurance that state funds will not be used for the design or construction of the facility; (2) the state agency provides to the board a written document, signed by the head of the state agency: a. stating that funding or a revenue stream is in place, or will be in place before the project is completed, to ensure that increased state funding will not be required to cover the cost of operations and maintenance to the resulting facility for immediate or future capital improvements; and b. detailing the source of the funding that will be used for the cost of operations and maintenance for immediate and future capital improvements to the resulting facility; and (3) the board determines that the use of the state property is: (4) appropriate and consistent with the master plan for the property; and (5) will not create an adverse impact on the state. JRR: cn Attachments DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT ATION CARLOS M. BRACERAS, P. E. Executis'e Dnaeclor

JASON E. DAVIS, P.E. Deprrt)' Drrector of Erigmeerrng aryd Oper'alirms State of Utah TERIANNE S. NEWELL. P.E. Deputy' Director of Planmrig and inveshnerif GARY R. HERBERT

(JOvOl'nOr

SPENCER J. COX Lieurerianl (mrernor

Memorandum

To: Utah State Building Board From: Daniel Page, Utah Department of Transportation Director of Maintenance, Asset and Facility Management Date: April 1, 2020 Subject: UDOT:RequestforApprovaltoConstructNewLaketownandGreenRiverMaintenance Facilities

The Utah Department of Transportation requests approval to demolish existing facilities in Laketown and Green River and construct new facilities on the same sites. The current facilities and site structures no longer effectively serve the maintenance operations in these areas.

The proposed total project budget for this request is $11.36M, which will be funded from UDOT Operations (Maintenance) Funds. This project consists of a 6,500 SF facility in Laketown and an 18,000 SF facility in Green River.

Enclosures;

Building Board Cover Page 2020 Building Board Letter 2020 Prototype Elevations(2 pages) Prototype Floor Plans (2 pages) Pictures of current facilities CBE's(2 pages)

Technology andlnnovation a Telephone (80}) 965-4930 a Facsimile (801) 965-4551 a www.udot utah.gov Calvin Rampton Complex a 4501 South 2700 West a Mailing Address' P.O Box 143600 a Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-3600 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT ATION

CARLOS M. BRACERAS, P.E. Execrrm'e r)rreclor

JASON E. D AVIS, P.E. Depul.l' Direclor of Erigineerrng arid Opertrrions State of Utah TERIANNE S. NEWELL. P.E. Depu5' Direclor of Planmng tmd hn'eslmem G ARY R. HERBERT Gos'ermir

SPENCER J. COX Lieutenam Governor

Mr. Jim Russell, Director Utah State Building Board PO Box 141160 SLC, UT 84114-1160

Dear Mr. Russell:

The Utah Department of Transportation formally requests approval to construct new maintenance facilities in Green River and Laketown, Utah. Current facilities at these sites will be demolished and new facilities that better serve our current and future needs will be constructed.

With advancements in technology and increased highway maintenance demand, new equipment has become substantially larger and our current facilities no longer are able to accommodate storage of this equipment. Because both of these facilities are unable to fit much of the equipment inside the buildings, site managers have no choice but to store the equipment outside.

Outdoor storage is not ideal in many aspects:

-Expensive equipment stored outdoors advances deterioration and lessens eventual resale value. -Liability increases as equipment is more susceptible to theft and vandalism. - Critical response time to deal with roadway dangers such as slick roads is increased. -Outdoor maintenance of equipment is made difficult and often dangerous in inclement weather.

UDOT Laketown Maintenance Station was constructed in 1960 and has far outlived its functionality. It is ranked #S on UDOT's station replacement list and is sorely in need of replacement. Facilities ranking #1-4 will be relocated and land has not been secured at this point. Shop doors in this facility are too narrow for modern equipment now equipped with wing plows and front plows that have increased in size. The current facilities depth is 37'. Our fully dressed tag axle plow trucks measure 40' in length making it impossible to store inside the building. Tandem axle plow trucks when fully dressed have to be positioned diagonally, taking up two bays, to fully fit and close overhead doors.

UDOT Green River Maintenance Station was constructed in 1962. It is ranked #6 on UDOT's station replacement list. This facility is also not deep enough to adequately store current equipment. Even the shorter tandem axle plow trucks when inside run from the front wall all the way to the shop doors which blocks access to all points in the building without pulling trucks outside. This facility also lacks adequate storage bays for the assigned equipment onsite. Additional bays will be needed to accommodate the current fleet.

Both of these projects have significant site deficiencies that will be addressed during the reconstruction. Wash racks, retention ponds, asphalt, sander racks, fencing and other site improvements will be a part ofthe overall construction project.

Technology and Innovation a Telephone (801) 965-4930 a Facsimile (801) 965-4551 a www.udot.utah.gov Calvm Rampton Complex a 4501 South 2700 West a Mailing Address: P.O Box 143600 a Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-3600 DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORT ATION

CARLOS M. BRACERAS, P. E. Execuhs'e Irrecror

JASON E. D AVIS, p.r.. Deput)i Drrector ofEngmeering and Operalioris State of Utah TERIANNE S. NEWELL. P.E. Depu0' Dn'ector of Plannmg and hn'eshnerir GARY R. HERBF.RT Gorernor

SPENCER J. COX Lieulenaril (mvernor

UDOT's maintenance facilities support our overall mission and strategic goals of:

-Zero Crashes, Injuries and Fatalities -Preserve Infrastructure - Optimize Mobility

These facilities are home to the dedicated UDOT maintenance crews who work day and night to keep Utah moving safely down our interstates and highways. Existing facilities no longer meet our current and future needs and because of their advanced age, are becoming more and more costly to maintain.

The proposed total project for these facilities is $11,360,000 which will be funded from UDOT Operations (Maintenance) funds and split over the next four fiscal years. If additional funds become available then UDOT will look to accelerate these projects. No additional state funds are being requested. Along with this, no additional O&M or future Capital Improvement projects are part of this request.

UDOT appreciates the building board's time and consideration of this project and the partnership we have with DFCM.

Sincerely, Digitally signed by Daniel W. DanalelWaPageoPaagie:zo,io.oa.izog:.i<:zg -06'00' Daniel Page, S.E.

Utah Department of Transportation Director of Maintenance, Asset and Facility Management 801-965-4120 [email protected]

Technology and Innovation a Telephone (801) 965-4930 a Facsimile (801) 965-4551 a www udot utali.gov Calvtn Rampton Complex a 4501 South 2700 West a Mailing Address: P.O Box 143600 a Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-3600 !Qj t :;l

,rl

,, .i€ If

5 II I 851

J*p

':!:i" "l :'! !! X '!'

!l @ ' ,. E, I .

J-I fi SO:lOqd uo!Jaia 0 ugol4il

al;5 Vu;Is;xl lo sa;7( leiyay uso)a)el ill ;, .p ::.,' LLI

8ffl :: i

i i pi I 41 l' lffi o

Fl;:

Bffi o ffl!

101 lal lal l[l

imsl8) Iliffi

#"H I Fl '- (ffi, " (3...,, t) (" (7!) 9 =-"i-"-" '-= --- -- S-=- "=i"-"'-"="- ,-="'-- --""-""

J' & " & c, 4H,jl.iJJ'l=,lll'lll'l;,rSAH--'al!l'q4)'@1ll4il:,l.ll:Ipsl'B3':l:lo-':, W,",:: ' 5(f0 i. , }, rug j ric , riai : _, I , I / . g r B i :: i I N j 1 . 1- . : I 4! i ' at" Th I 'y ' I iJa li I ' ,%5g,lgl" :,i.B. eH j !'-'li _,@H%_., ,, I' ma C'l I '- " " ' " " -' "' I -_t ;;

r - gg ': : I 'ae I i ' : _ . , !I_ l- %

i aii , : Oai p ), oi= I ; - lr S' , Ra" ! 1. §. E 1, ll,, -. 'El "' :"' "*e !'!il 'ai i'r,".i'I- - :xi'i,'i4 ((;.) p-ffl i. _%3 Il'a; o § 'a: es ,'I Ii"'ji m-- . - . z ------a - -b-i-e - - - _ _ - - , I I _ . a%":g'i_ '- -1. _.-oai ,%I" ll, . ._, . - i0i " 4ffi b a , ' ;i 'l, : _ 16 : ,I I " " --- - 'i a - - a a -- i --'-I -- ' ---i--- --,,: -s-',-! - ' "

t"4%i';.='i_llaabl @':Ha-,asi"'ja a;l'; 3pII !'/:IIIL"I". ; ; a l'-.----'i' : _sm 1. @ti, , - Z + ' _ l:l J!!I ' "' _

aBig . )i' B = " j "'i" gi, IE_I a

I I n N : . I : @e., , _ ' _=u,;>' u n "Fi j'eil jl i i x " ' N ' l! 1 '-l'%=ie ollvi b t -

,i:"' h k,,,':7_>'>,C! Hvii W' lrimo vrn" a tirllr" "' .._ 1 ...,,.m. . , -@ , , ii, i : S plf\l 5,§ m' off:t ' 4 ! s-=- . . LL_i-i' ,, N r I "L 'i l'- l!-# @p il

" a ""'!, "- ' " ' " - "-afJ

I;arl _,,_S -u-u- %. ''-ll :,, "S\, S N j,, ,. g,. L . . Illa. as 7-i a, _ ' ' a ' > s % X X " ;' = E ie ffl g h gi a a ffiag i §H i B !

:iJ'4 i=ii iiiii=: ! i=i :g. :i =i "'gag :i. i!i N !aa. §. ! ! v- Ig t:i g v a- .,. .... H gi fe' fil t'N I[t) HNi# e ffi tEiNUE !f! El ffi !! i !N ffi !i!t!!!fi t B! H ; ; gg " ; j ; a n ; ; IN ! a!H e jS !I !s a! N !. g. i_68 Np !B. i;gj. -II. - - - -al) IQ 8 :'a ": 'I a'a ffi! i!Hgl:"a!ii:"!;ala:=iaB"'Hza""a;3ill'ai"'g:y;j-igl"agg:':As';"'si':'aa'a:sa'yB0"'UB!N'isi,gg!a!"";aa'ag!esBi."i'!:l'BJoal""aj'i"':aa"::::"'i"'=:"!i,,ll=:aal:!=aa !') H g ahaa' a!H B B ! ' E i 'R'ffla ! __ a ; ? I : R g ! jggl / a'i € li p!iaaggg. xi igiU. ==i 'il'a ' ! ! - !f B' I. : !' fflli. a! BTh 0= ;i :* ,a ! g"B ooha- ig !qaJagH#, BE 5€;Nig=i5 !!i,e:;B=B " ! ,4 ' B i g,: i i :, H, (€ l Green River Aerial View of Existing Site

Green River Operation Photos m. Capital Development Projects

Capital Budget Estimate (CBE)

Project Name: GREEN RIVER MAINTENANCE STATION Agency/Institution: UDOT Project Manager: Mueller

Delivery Method: Cost COStSummar7 $Amount PerSF Notes Facility Cost $ 6,372,852 $354.05 Utility Fee Cost $ 116,719 $6.48 Additional Construction Cost $ $0.00 Site Cost $ $0.00 High Peformance Building $ $0.00 Total Construction Cost $ 6,489,571 $360.53

Soft Costs: Hazardous Materials $ 130,000 Pre-Design/Planning $ 30,000 Design $ 388,342 Property Acquisition $ Furnishings & Equipment $ 20,000 Information Technology: $ 15,000 Lltah Art (1 % of Construction Budget) $ 64,896 Testing & Inspection $ 100,000 Contingency 5.00% $ 324,479 Moving/Occupancy $ Builder's Risk Insurance (0.15% ofConstruction Budget) $ 9,734 Legal Services (0.05% of Construction Budget) $ 3,245 DFCM Management $ 50,500 User Fees $ High Performance Building Standard (HPBS) $ 6,000 Other Costs $ 50,000 Total Soft Costs $ 1,192,195 seis.z:il

TOT AL PROJECT COST $ 7,681,766 $426.761

Previous Funding $ State and Agency

Other Fundtng Sources (Identify in note) $

REQUEST FOR ST ATE FUNDING $ 7,681,766

Project Information GrossSquareFeet 18,000 BaseCostDate 11-Mar-20 NetSquareFeet EstimatedBidDate 1-Feb-21 NeUGrossRatio 0% Est.CompletionDate 30-Sep-21 Last Modified Date 1 1-Mar-20 PrintDate 3/16/2020

DFCM Form Date 8/09/05 Capital Development Projects CBE Details

Project Name: IGREEN RIVER MAINTENANCE STATION Agency/Institution: UDOT Project Manager: Mueller I Description Explanation I Llnits Unit Cost i Cost Escalated Cost

Facility Cost GSF New Facility Cost Details: Maintenance station - includes all site 18,000 imomvement costs S 273 S 4,914,000 S 6,372,852

S S s S S s !) S s S Subtotal New Facllitv Costs 18,000 $ 4,914,000 $ 6,372,882

Remodel Facility Cost Details:

S S S S S S S !) S S S s Subtotal - Remodel Facility Costs $ $

TOT AL FAC}LiTY COST i ts,ooo $ 4,914,000 I $ 6,372,852 1. Lltilitv Cost Details: l' Water Utility Fee S S Sewer Utility Fee S S Electrlcity utility Fee RMP 1 S 40,000 S 40,000 S 51,875 Storm Sewer Llfility Fee S S Natural Gas Gee Dominion I S 30,000 Connection Fees Green Rivet City Fees 1 S 50,000 S so,ooo S 64,844 S S TOT AL LITILITI FEE COST $ 90,000 $ 116,719

Additional Construction Cost Details:

S S s s S S S S S S TOT AL ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ $

Site Cost Details:

Are included in the maintenance facility costs $ S $ S $ S $ S s $ $ $ S $ S $ s $ s $ S TOTALSITECOST $ $

If N/A, change YES to NO To supercede j- HIGH PERFORMANCE BUILDING U2% calculation enter amount in unit cost no $ $

TOT AL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 5,004,000 $ 8,489,571

OTHER PROJECT INFORMATION: Total Ne) Square Feet: Base Cost Date: 3111)2020 Estimated Bid Date: 21112021 Estimated Completion Date: 913€)72021

DFCM Form Date 8/09/OS Capital Development Projects CBE Details

Last Modified Date: 3111/202( I i Inflation Escalation Factor Included: 3.0(Pi Location Factor Included: 27.00'J

Hazardous Materials Cost Details: Pre-Construction Survey S S S S Plan and Monitoring S S I I S S iAbatementlRemoval I S S survey, monitonng, removal l- S 100,000 S 100,000 S 130,000 TOT AL HAZARDOUS MATERIALS I COST $ 100,000 $ 130,000

'Pre-Design/Planning: I Planning Fund Relmbursement S I S Programming S I S Environmental Assessment S S Geotechnical InvestigationlSurveys 1 S 30,000 S 30,000 S TOT AL PRE-DESIGN/PLANNING COST $ 30,000

Design Costs: S 362,118 I S S S S S Total NE Design Fees S 362,118

Additional I Printing Costs 10 S 1,000 S 10,000 High Performance IT N/A, citange YES to NO To supercede Design YES $ 16,224 'i rrss caiculalion enter amount in unit cost Value Management Costs s I s TOT AL DESIGN COST $ 388,342

Property Acquisition: I S S S S TOT AL PROPERTY ACQUISITION COST $

Furnishings & Equipment Costs: Furnishlnqs Detail:

FF&E 1 S 20,000 S 20,000 I S S S S S s S Total Furnishings S 20,000

E ui ment Detail: 1 1,000,(X)O S S S S S S S Total Equipment S

FF&E Design Costs s -i S

DFCM Form Date 8/09/05 Capital Development Projects CBE Details

TOT AL FURNISHINGS & EQUIPMENT COSTS I $ 20,000 I

Information Technology Costs: 1 S 15,000 S 15,000 s S S S TOT AL INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY COST $ 15,000

uTAHART If N/A, change YES to NO To supercede 1% YES $ 64,896 caicuisiion enter amount in unit cost

Testing & Inspection Costs: Building Code Inspection 1 S 50,000 S 50,000 S Material Testing 1 S 50,000 S 50,000 S Special Inspections S S TOTAL TESTING & iNSPECTION COSTS $ 100,000 iMovingfOccupance Costs: S S S S TOT AL MOVING/OCCLIPANCY COSTS $

DFCM Management: $24,500 + 005 x $5 2M = $50,500 S 50,500 s S S TOT AL DFCM MANAGEMENT $ 50,500

User Fees: S s S S TOT AL USER FEES $

High Performance Building Standard (HPBS) Energy Engineenng S Envelope Commissioning 1 S 6,000 S 6,000 Systems Commissioning S 3td Party Review (Optional Qa/QC) S

TOTAL COMMISSIONING COSTS $ s,ooo

Other Costs: Miscellaneous 1 S 50,000 S 50,000 s S S TOT AL OTHER COSTS $ 50,000

Previous Funding: (Only show state appropriated funding & inck de costs covered by that funding in appropnate category ) s S TOTAL PREVIOUS FuNDING $

Other Funding Sources: (List and descrbe each source) S S S s TOTAL OTHER FuNDING SOuRCES $

DFCM Form Date 8/09/05 State of Utah Division of Facilities Construction and Management Architectural / Engineering Fee Calculator

Project Type - Select One

r@ Architectural Project Project Name: l g Engineering Project Company: DFCM Project Manager:

Architectural Professional Fee Calculation Architectural Project Complexity ConstructionBudget: l $6,489,571 Architectural Classification - A % Considerably less than Average Renovation % and Amount of Budget: l O.O%J a I Complexity 1. Farm Structures, 2. Garages, ArCh. PrOjeCt Complexity Classification: d l' VieW All a l VieW All ENG ] 3. Parking Structures, .ffillQQmQ, , 4. Residential Housing, Arch. Professional Fee % and Amount: b.b8% $362,1181 5. Warehouses Plus Renovation Fee % and Amount: I Architectural Professk-nal Fee:

Additional Fees due to Extraordinary Complexity of Scope and/or Consultant(s)

l'.___V_iew/Complet_e____] [.__View/Co_m_plete_ll'

Added Arch Fees due to Complexity of Scope: I Added Arch Fees due to Complexity of Consutant(s): -l 1..- . .. i Added Arch Fees due to Extraordinary Con-plexity:' ,l7_

TOTALArchitectural Professional Fee (APF) $362,118 Capital Development Projects

Capital Budget Estimate (CBE)

Project Name: LAKETOWN MAINTENANCE FACility Agency/Institution: UDOT Project Manager: Mueller

Delivery Method: Cost COStSummaf'7 $Amount PerSF Notes Facility Cost $ 2,107,425 $324.22 Utility Fee Cost $ 58,359 $8.98 Additional Construction Cost $ $0.00 Site Cost $ $0.00 High Performance Building $ $0.00 To-tal Construction Cost $ 2,165,784 $333.20

Soft Costs: Hazardous Materials $ 65,000 Pre-Design/Planning $ 20,000 Design $ 147,960 Property Acquisition $ Furnishings & Equipment $ 1,010,000 Infotmation Technology: $ 13,000 Utah Art (1 % of Construction Budget) $ 2i658 Testing & Inspection $ 42,000 Contingency 5.85% $ 126,698 Moving/Occupancy $ Builder's Risk Insurance (0.15% of Construction Budget) $ 3,249 Legal Services (0.05% of Construction Budget) $ 1,083 DFCM Management $ 26,000 User Fees $ High Peformance Building Standard (HPBS) $ 6,000 Other Costs $ 30,000 Total Soft Costs $ 1,512,648 $232.721

TOT AL PROJECT COST $ 3,678,432 $565.911

Previous Funding $ State and Agency

Other Funding SOurces (Identify in note) $

REQUEST FOR ST ATE FUNDING $ 3,678,432

Project Information GrossSquareFeet 6,500 BaseCostDate 11-Mar-20 NetSquareFeet EstimatedBidDate 1-Feb-21 NeUGrossRatio 0% Est.CompletionDate 30-Sep-21 Last Modified Date 1 1-Mar-20 PrintDate 3/16/2020

DFCM Form Date 8/09/05 Capital Development Projects CBE Details

Project Name: iLAKETOWN MAINTENANCE FACility Agency/Institution: ' uDOT Project Manager: Mueller I I Description Explanation i units Unit Cost i Cost Escalated Cost

Facility Cost GSF New Facillt Cost Details: Maintenance station - includes all site 6,500 S 250 S 1,625,000 § 2,107,425 imorovement costs S s I S s S S S S S S Subtotal - New Facility Costs 6,600 , $ 1,825,000 $ 2,107,426

'Rem__qel Fac S S S S S S S S S S S S Subtotal - Remodel Facility Costs I I s .i is

TOT AL FACILITI COST 6,500 $ 1,625,000 $ 2,107,425

ILltility Cost Details: Water Utility Fee S s Sewer utility Fee S S Electrlcity Utility Fee RMP 1 S 20,000 S 20,000 S zs,g.is Storm Sewer Utility Fee S S Natural Cias Gas Dominion 1 S 15,000 Connection Fees Green River City Fees 1 S 25,000 S 25,000 S 32,422 S S TOT AL UTILITY FEE COST $ 45,000 $ 58,359

Additional Construction Cost Details: S S s S S S S S S s S S TOT AL ADDITIONAL CONSTRUCTION COST $ $

Site Cost Details: $ S Ate included in the maintenance facility costs $ S $ s $ s $ S $ S $ S $ S I I s -i S I I s -l S $ S $ S TOT AL SITE COST $ $

If NIA, change YES to NO To supetcede j- HIGH PERFORMANCE BUILDING '112% calculation enter amount in unit cost no $ $

TOT AL CONSTRUCTION COST $ 1,670,000 $ 2,165,784

OTHER PROJECT INFORMATION: Total Net Square Feet: Base Cost Date: 3/11/2020 Estimated Bid Date: 2/112021

DFCM Form Date !1/09/05 Capital Development Projects CBE Details

Estimated Completion Date: 9/30/202 Last Modified Date: 311112021 Inflation Escalation Factor Included: 3.00'l Location Factor Included: 27.00',

Hazardous Materials Cost Details: I Pre-Construction Survey S S S S Plan and Monitoring l S 'S S Abatement/Removal S S survey, monitonng, removal 1 S 50,000 S so,ooo S 65,000 TOT AL HAZARDOLIS MATERIALS COST $ 50,000 $ 65,000

Pre-Design/Planning: I I Planning Fund Reimbursement S S Programming S I S Environmemal Assessment S S Geotechnical InvestigationlSurveys I l- S 20,000 S 20,000 I S TOT AL I PRE-DESIGN/PLANNING COST $ 20,000

Design Costs: I S 132,546 I S S S S S Total NE Design Fees S 132,546

Additional Printing Costs 10 IS 1,000 S zo,ooo High Performance Design If N/A, change YES to NO To supercede YES $ 5,414 'irr*io calt.ulalion enter amount in unit cost Value Managemem Costs S I S TOT AL DESIGN COST $ 147,960

'Property Acquisition: S S S S TOT AL PROPERTY ACQUISITION COST $

Furnishings & Equipment Costs: i I I 'Furnlshlnqs-D I I iFF&E 1 S 10,000 S zo,ooo S S S S S S S Total Furnishings S so,ooo

E ui ment Detail:

1 S 1,000,000 S i,ooo,ooo S S s S S s Total Equipment S z,ooo,ooo

FF&E Design Costs s

DFCM Form Date 8/09/OS Capital Development Projects CBE Details

I S I TOT AL FURNISHINGS & EQulPrflENT COSTS $ 1 ,(11 0,000

Information Technology Costs: 1 S 13,000 S 13,000 I S I S I I S I II S TOT AL INFORMATION TECHNO-OGY COST I I I $ 13,000

LIT AH ART If N/A, change YES to NO To supetcede 'l % YES $ 21i658 I calculation enter amount in unit cost

Testing & Inspection Costs: Building Code Inspection 1 S 21,000 S 21,000 S 'Material Testing 1 S 21,000 5 21,000 s Special Inspections S S TOTAL TESTING & iNSPECTION COSTS $ 42,000

Moving/Oacupance Costs: S S S I !) TOT AL MOVING/OCCUPANCY COSTS $

DFCM Management: I $24,500 + 005 x $300K = $50,500 1 S 26,000 S 26,000 S S S TOT AL DFCM MANAGEMENT $ 26,000 user Fees: S S S S TOTALUSERFEES $

High Performance Building Standard (HPBS) Energy Engineering S Envelope Commissioning 1 S 6,000 S 6,(X)0 Systems Commissioning S 3td Party Review (Optional Qa/QC) S

TOT AL COMMISSIONING COSTS $ 6,000

Other Costs: I iMiscellaneous i 1 S _io,ooo i S 30,CX)0 S S !l TOT AL OTHER COSTS $ 30,000

Previous Funding: i (Only show state appropriated funding & incli ide costs coveted by that funding in appropnate category ) S I S TOTAL PREVIOUS FuNDING I $ I Other Funding Sources: I (List and descnbe each source) S S s S TOTAL OTHER FuNDING SOURCES $

DFCM Form Date 8/O'l/05 State of Utah Division of Facilities Construction and Management Architectural / Engineering Fee Calculator

Select Project Type then enter information into blue shaded cells. All else is calculated.

Project Type - Select One

Project Name: Company: DFCM Project Manager:

Architectural Professional Fee Calculation Architectural Project Complexity ConstructionBudget: l $2,165,784 Architectural Classification - A % Considerably less than Average Renovation%andAmountofBudget: l O.09tJ I Complexity 1. Farm Structures, 2. Garages, ArCh. PrOjeCt Complexity Classification: 2al VieW All ' l VieW All ENG '] 3. Parking Structures, 4. Residential Housing, aiz% $132,5461 5. Warehouses ::.::e;::::o":Wn:,':::'t7t: II J. Architectural Professiunal Fee: -1 I

Additional Fees due to Extraordinary Complexity of Scope and/or Consultant(s)

[ View/Complete '] [ View/Complete a

Added Arch Fees due to Complexity of Scope: Added Arch Fees due to Complexity of Consutant(s): I Added Arch Fees due to Extraordinaiy Coniplexity: d

TOTAL Architectural Professional Fee (APF) $132,546 Utah State Building Board

Gary R. Herbert Governor 4110 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Phone (801) 538-3018 Fax (801) 538-3267

MEMORANDUM

To: Utah State Building Board From: Jim Russell, DFCM Director Date: May 6, 2020 Subject: Request for Approval of the University of Utah Public Safety Building Presenter: Robin Burr, Chief Facilities Officer, University of Utah

Recommendation Jim Russell requests the Board approve the construction of the University of Utah’s Public Safety Building

Background The University of Utah has determined that constructing a new facility for their Public Safety Department rather than renovating their old facility would best fill the needs of the Department and the University. The project consists of 25,079 SF one story Public Safety building, a 2,178 SF storage building and sally port with secure parking. The proposed budget of $13,779,682 will be funded by institutional reserves and donations. No state funds will be used for this project. The original state allocated O&M will be used for the new building with no additional O&M requested.

This project was approved by the Board of Regents at their meeting in February, 2020.

JRR: cn Attachments UNIVERSITY THEU Cathy Anderson, CPA OF UTAH Chief FinancialOfficer 201 Presidents Circle, Room 201 •Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-9007 • 801-581-5057

April 20, 2020

Mr. Jim Russell, DFCM Director Utah State Building Board 4315 S. 2700 W., 3rd Floor Taylorsville, UT 84129

Subject: Project Approval for University of Utah Public Safety Building

The University of Utah requests approval to design and construct a new Public Safety Building. This fulfills a recommendation made by an independent review team that the University consider a new or renovated facility to house its Public Safety Department. A feasibility study completed in 2019 evaluated options and resulted in the conclusion that constructing a new facility is the most cost effective solution. This will best meet the long term programmatic needs in a facility designed to meet the stringent building code requirements for an "essential building" which is the appropriate classification of a public safetyfacility. This approach will also minimize the disruption to ongoing public safety operations while the project takes place.

The project includes a one-storyPublic Safety building consisting of 25,079 square feet, a 2,178 square foot storage building along with a sally port, and secured parking. Additional information is provided in the attached.

The proposed total project budget is $13,779,682 and will be funded by institutional reservesand donations to the extent they can be raised. No state funds will be used for this project. Increased state funding will not be required for operations & maintenance costs or for future improvements of the new Public Safety Building. These costs will be covered by a transfer of state O&M funds and capital improvement eligibility associated with the existing 7,085 square foot Public Safety Building and the 99,338 square foot Annex Building, a portion of which is assigned to Public Safety. Both of these buildings were constructed in 1948 as military barracks and are in poor condition. Other occupants of the Annex are being relocated to other facilities.

The project was approved by the University's Board of Trustees in their meeting on February11, 2020and by the Board of Regents in their meeting on March 27, 2020. A funding letter is attached along with other information. We respectfully seek your support and the opportunity to present this project to the Building Board for approval in the May 6, 2020 meeting.

Thanks, as always, for your consideration and support.

Sincerely,

CathyC1:ftZL_ Anderson Chief Financial Officer New Public Safety Building

State Building Board May 2020 New Public Safety Building

Background

The University Department of Public Safety currently occupies space in structures built in 1948, which no longer meet their operational or space needs.

In December of 2018, an independent review team identified 30 safety recommendations for implementation by the U • Recommendation #28 focused on our public safety building, and recommended consideration of a new or Recommendation Status: renovated facility safeu.Utah.edu/recommendations/ December 13, 2019 During 2019, a feasibility study was completed which identified: • Programmatic space needs • Available campus sites and buildings • Site and building options • Expansion and renovation of the current building • Renovation of another existing campus building • Construction of a new facility • Project schedule & Budget estimate New Public Safety Building

Recommendation Based on the completed study, the project team determined that the best and most cost-effective solution is to build a new public safety building.

This will allow us to: • Meet long-term programmatic needs • Provide the code-mandated level of seismic safety for an “essential facility” • Minimize disruption to operations • Provide the quickest path to a new facility New Public Safety Building

Program Summary

• New Public Safety Building 25,079 sq. ft. • Ancillary/Storage Building 2,178 sq. ft. • Site & Secure Parking 22,663 sq. ft.

A public safety building is classified as an “Essential Facility” under the Building Code, due to its requirement to remain functional after a natural or man- made disaster. This impacts seismic design, and project cost New Public Safety Building

Proposed Site • 500 South, East of Guardsman Way • good access to campus roadways • Requires relocation of approx. 125

parking stalls and tailgate spots VA

U Kids

Sports Complex

VA New Public Safety Building Design • One-story building • Secure Parking • Storage New Public Safety Building

Design New Public Safety Building Schedule

2019 2020 2021 TASK START FINISH July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May June July Aug Sept Oct Nov Dec

APPROVALS

1 Board of Trustees 02/11/20 2 Board of Regents 03/27/20 3 Building Board 05/06/20

DESIGN/CONSTRUCTION

1 Feasibility Study 07/01/19 12/31/19

2 Programming 01/01/20 03/31/20

3 Schematic Design 04/01/20 05/31/20 Opens 4 Design Development 06/01/20 07/31/20 December 2021 5 Construction Documents 08/01/20 11/30/20

6 Permit/Bid 12/01/20 10/31/21

7 Construction 11/01/21 10/31/21

8 Punchlist & Move-In 11/01/21 11/30/21

9 Open 12/01/21 12/31/21 New Public Safety Building

Total Project Budget: $13,779,682

Budget Category Cost Cost per Sq. Ft.

Construction Public Safety Building $9,279,230 $370 per sq. ft. Storage Building $ 392,040 $180 per sq. ft. Sitework $ 237,962 $ 11 per sq. ft. Sub-total $ 9,909,232 $363.55 per sq. ft.

Soft Costs Fees, Testing & Inspection $2,042,524 Furniture & Equipment $ 1,010,489 Information Technology $ 367,952 Contingency $ 449,485 Sub-total $ 3,870,450 $142 per sq. ft. New Public Safety Building

Project Funding

The Project will be funded through Institutional Reserves

O & M

No new state O & M or capital improvement funds are requested.

The Department of Public Safety currently occupies space in the 1948 Public Safety Building and in the 1948 Annex Building. After occupancy of the new Public Safety Building, both of these structures will be demolished, and corresponding O&M funds can capital improvement eligibility will be transferred to the new building.

Utah State Building Board

Gary R. Herbert Governor 4110 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Phone (801) 538-3018 Fax (801) 538-3267

MEMORANDUM

To: Utah State Building Board From: Jim Russell, DFCM Director Date: May 6, 2020 Subject: DFCM: State Facility Energy Efficiency Fund Loan Request for Calvin Rampton Lighting & Controls Upgrade Presenter: Cat Bartolini, DFCM Project Manager

Recommendation

In accordance with Utah Code section 63A-5-603(6) the attached State Facility Energy Efficiency Fund (SFEEF) loan application is being presented for review and approval. The proposed loan in the amount of $420,000 has been requested by Jim Russell, DFCM Division Director, to fund a lighting and controls upgrade project for the Calvin Rampton Administration Building. The total estimated annual savings of approximately $25,000 and simple payback of 15 years (with incentives) meet the DFCM Building Performance Group’s expectations and guidelines for SFEEF funding. The loan application has been reviewed and approved by Sarah Boll, DFCM High Performance Building Program Director, and we recommend that the loan be approved by the Building Board.

Background

The existing lighting at the Calvin Rampton Administration Building is antiquated and inefficient. In addition, there are currently no occupancy sensors or daylight controls installed in the building causing the majority of the lighting in the building to run 24/7. This project proposes to upgrade all linear fluorescents to high efficiency LED fixtures and install lighting controls throughout the building. These upgrades will not only create a more uniform and modern look throughout the building, but will also save energy, reduce maintenance and generate significant cost savings.

Attachments: State Facility Energy Efficiency Fund Loan Application Spectrum Engineers Memo: Cal Rampton Admin Lighting and Energy Savings Analysis

Cal Rampton Lighting Upgrade & Energy Analysis

Cal Rampton Complex Date: 04/16/2020 4501 S 2700 W West Valley City, UT 84119

DFCM Project Manager: Catherine Bartollini Building Performance Project Manager 801-518-1077 [email protected]

Summary:

This analysis was performed to estimate the energy savings and estimated construction costs for the Cal Rampton Complex. The following estimates were compiled through inspection of on-site existing conditions (1 visit), as-built drawings and current electrical billing rates for this site. Estimated construction costs were derived from manufacturer quotes for similar products to those anticipated to be used in each application. Other assumptions are as follows:

- Only linear fluorescent fixtures were considered for replacement - Lighting fixtures costs and wattages are based on a combination of Troffer Retrofit Kits as well as new fixtures to replace specific instances. - The north side of Level 1 offices, south side of Level 2 offices and the cafeteria building were recently renovated and have been excluded - Controls are assumed to be installed in each fixture to include occupancy and daylight control where required. Corridor and atrium spaces will be controlled via central time-clock relay control with a timed, manual override (new) - Due to a renovation in 2014, all lamps were assumed to be High Efficiency F28T8 lamps and all fixtures shown as 3 lamp (per 4’ section) were counted as 2 lamp fixtures

Disclaimer: All numbers are estimations. Final results will vary due to design decisions and could be inflated due to unforeseen conditions.

Results:

Estimated Watts Saved: 50,729 W

Estimated RMP Rebate (Instant & Renovation Incentives): $31,438

Estimated Monthly Energy Bill Savings: $2,078.47

Estimated Construction Cost: $400,000

Spectrum Engineers Design Fee: $20,000

Total Estimated Cost: $420,000

Estimated Payback Period: 15.6 Years

C. Erik Yamashiro, PE, LC, MIES

Electrical Engineer/Lighting Designer

Mechanical Engineering Electrical Engineering Technology Design Acoustical Engineering Lighting Design Theatre Design Fire Protection Engineering Building Commissioning

800-678-7077 www.spectrum-engineers.com State of Utah State Facility Energy Efficiency Fund Loan Application

A. State Agency:

DFCM

B. Building name & location:

Calvin Rampton Administration Building 4501 South 2700 West Taylorsville, UT 84119

C. Building description (use, seasonal variations, square footage):

-Office/Admin -UDOT, DPS -Approx. 233,453 SF

D. Existing building systems and energy usage:

-Replace existing linear fluorescent fixtures with LEDs (not including UDOT/DPS offices and Learning Center which have already been updated) -Install occupancy sensors and daylight controls throughout building

E. Project Description: Eligible Measure / Estimated Cost of Projected Annual Energy Projected Annual Materials to be installed Measure Savings Cost Savings Construction Costs – Lighting & Controls $400,000 108,000 kWh $24,941.64 Upgrade Engineering Services $20,000

TOTAL $420,000 108,000 kWh $24,941.64

F. Rebates and Incentives: Provider and type of rebate or incentive Estimated Amount of incentive Questar Gas Rocky Mountain Power $31,438 TOTAL $31,438

G. Payback

-15.6 years with incentive

H. Description of energy costs savings measurement and verification:

We will use BuildingOS to track and verify savings once the project is complete

I. Commissioning procedures:

N/A

J. Other benefits to the environment, community, agency, or State of Utah

- More comfortable work environment - Lighting run time reduced (lights will turn off when unoccupied) - Reduced maintenance - More uniform lighting - Lower energy consumption and costs - Updated look

K. Total eligible costs to be financed by this loan: Estimated costs: $ 420,000 Other funds to be used on project: $ Total proposed loan amount: $ 420,000

L. Attachments

- Spectrum Engineers Memo: Cal Rampton Admin Lighting and Energy Savings Analysis State Energy Efficiency Loan Fund Report Purpose of the Energy Efficiency Loan Fund

The State Facility Energy Efficiency Fund (SFEEF) was established in fiscal year 2008 to provide State agencies and institutions with the ability to borrow money to complete energy efficiency improvement projects.

Repayment of the loan is achieved by capturing cost savings from reduced energy use and demand and by capturing utility incentives.

Borrowed funds are paid back into the SFEEF so that it can be lent out again. Loan Fund Status Overview

Total fund value: $2,600,983.90

Amount currently loaned out: $1,270,259

Number of active projects: 8 Project Specific Information

PROJECT Total Loan Amount

Heber Valley RR Lighting Upgrade $25,060

USU Upgrade Ligthing in 7 Buildings $300,000

SLCC Jordan Campus Central Plant CHP installation $519,930

SNOW Humanities/Arts RCx $82,144

Mattheson Courthouse Lighting $265,775

State Mail Ligthing $13,763

Tax Commission Warehouse Lighting $15,840

USU Various Lighting Upgrades $430,000 Increasing Use of the Fund Plan from 2018

Advertise better to DFCM Facilities and ISF Agencies.

Building OS database will increase identification of projects and allow verification of savings.

New Building Performance Group will manage more projects directly (active projects have doubled in past 2 years)

Questions Utah State Building Board

Gary R. Herbert Governor 4110 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Phone (801) 538-3018 Fax (801) 538-3267

MEMORANDUM

To: Utah State Building Board From: Jim Russell, DFCM Director Date: May 6, 2020 Subject: Request for Declaration as Surplus for the JJS Property at 145 N. Monroe Boulevard, Ogden Presenter: Lee Fairbourn, DFCM Real Estate Program Manager

Recommendation Jim Russell requests the Board approve the request from JJS to declare state owned property as surplus. This is a 5 acre parcel with a 16,828 square foot building located at 145 North Monroe Blvd in Ogden Utah. As surplus property, the site will be put up for public bid for a 90 day period. Property would be sold “AS-IS” to the highest bidder of best offer. The Division of Facilities Construction and Management reserves the right to accept or reject any and all offers.

Background The building was built in 1989 for Human Services as a juvenile detention center for the Juvenile Justice Services division of Human Services. In 2015 the Department Human Services received legislative approval for a new juvenile justice facility in Weber County. The new facility was completed in 2019. The new site is located at 701 West 12th Street in Ogden. This new site allowed JJS to consolidate three older facilities including this property at 145 North Monroe Blvd. The other two facilities were in Clearfield, and Roy.

Authority for the Board Declaration of Surplus Property (value over $100,000) Utah Administrative Code: R23-22-7 The Board may declare the property surplus after considering the following: (a) the recommendation and any comments by the Division; (b) the input from state agencies and institutions, including, but not limited to, whether any State agency or institution has a need for the subject property; (c) any input from concerned persons or entities; (d) the appraised value of the property; and (e) whether the property is historically significant.

JRR/LF: cn Attachments Former JJS Detention Facility at 145 N Monroe Blvd., Ogden Subject Property Address: 145 N Monroe Blvd. Ogden Size: 5 acre parcel with 16, 828 square foot building Parcel #: 12-021-0021 Age: Build in 1989 Main Entry Common Area

Office / Storage Common Area Conference Room Classroom

Food Prep / Kitchen Restroom State of Utah

Division of Facilities Construction and Management 4315 South 2700 West, 3rd Floor Taylorsville, Utah 84129

REAL ESTATE PROPERTY FOR SALE 145 North Monroe Blvd. Ogden, Utah 84404

16,828 S.F. Building 5.00 acre lot Parcel No. 12-021-0021 Weber County

Minimum Offering Price: $______or Best Offer, sold “AS IS”.

Proposal #: 20101

For Further Information:

Contact: ______- Monday thru Thursday between 8:00 AM and 5:00 PM Phone: (801) 957-7194 INSTRUCTIONS FOR SUBMITTING OFFERS

Commercial Property in Ogden, Utah

DIVISION OF FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT

The State of Utah, by and through the Division of Facilities Construction and Management, announces the sale of commercial property in Brigham City, Utah. Offers must conform to the following criteria:

1. The Division of Facilities Construction and Management reserves the right to accept or reject any and all offers.

2. All offers will be evaluated based on, but not limited to, the net amount of the offer and financial qualifications of offeror.

3. It is anticipated that final selection and award shall be made to the successful offeror within approximately four weeks.

4. Agency relationships and any requested commissions shall be clearly identified in the offer.

5. The successful offeror shall execute the DFCM approved purchase contract. A copy of the purchase contract is attached.

6. Closing date will be no later than sixty (60) days after award.

7. The property is being sold “As Is”. Seller makes no representations or warranties as to the condition of the property, improvements, zoning, or local building code compliance.

PROPOSAL

PROPOSAL NO: 20101 PROJECT NAME: 145 North Monroe Blvd., Ogden, Utah

Date:

Contact Information:

Name:

Address:

Telephone No.: ( ) -

Offered purchase price:

The Proposer does hereby warrant that (s)he is authorized to execute and deliver the offer described herein and attached hereto and represents that (s)he is fully capable to, and will, comply with the terms and conditions of the offer if such offer shall be selected by the State of Utah, Division of Facilities Construction and Management.

Signed by:

Title:

STATE OF UTAH DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES DIVISION OF FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT

REAL ESTATE CONTRACT OF PURCHASE AND SALE

CONTRACT NUMBER 20101

SELLER:

STATE OF UTAH DIVISION OF FACILITIES CONSTRUCTION AND MANAGEMENT State Office Building, Suite 4110 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114

and

BUYER:

PROPERTY LOCATED AT: 145 North Monroe Blvd. Ogden City, Utah 84404

PURCHASE PRICE: $______

Title company information Seller Information Buyer Information

Utah State Building Board

Gary R. Herbert Governor 4110 State Office Building Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Phone (801) 538-3018 Fax (801) 538-3267

MEMORANDUM

To: Utah State Building Board From: Jim Russell, DFCM Director Date: May 6, 2020 Subject: Request for Approval of Development of Property on the SLCC Meadowbrook Campus Presenter: Jeff West, SLCC Shaleane Gee, Zion’s Bank Mike Glauser, Boyer Company

Recommendation Jim Russell requests the Board approve the request from Salt Lake Community College for Development on the Meadowbrook Campus.

Background Salt Lake Community College classes and training programs at the Meadowbrook Campus have now consolidated with the Westpointe Campus. As a result, SLCC feels it is in their best interest to close the Meadowbrook Campus of all educational services. The college sees great value in retaining this property and would like to partner with the Boyer Company for a land lease arrangement for future development

The development of this property was approved by the Salt Lake Community College Board of Trustees and the Board of Regents on April, 2020.

JRR: cn Attachments

SLCC Meadowbrook Campus

PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIP PROPOSAL (non-traditional arrangement for development)

TIMELINE FOR SLCC MEADOWBROOK PARTNERSHIP SELECTION

8/30/2019 Distribution of the RFI 9/10/2019 Site visit for interested parties @ the Meadowbrook Campus The following vendors attended: . Hogan Construction . Boyer Company . Gardner Company . LDG Holdings . JLL 9/20/2019 RFI responses due The following responses were received: . Hogan Construction . JLL . Gardner Company . Boyer Company . Katrina Dang . Salt Lake County . Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints 11/19/2019 Contracted w/ Scion Group = consulting firm specializing in P3 advising 11/26/2019 Distribution of the RFP 12/16/2019 Stage 1 proposals due (pre-qualification) The following responses were received: . Blue Line Development . Gardner Company . Boyer Company All companies were approved to move forward for presentations

Timeline, continued:

1/21/20 Stage 2 presentations were received 1/27-1/30 Presentations made to SLCC by the three firms Scoring by the evaluation committee resulted in the following ranking results: . Boyer Company . Gardner Company . Blueline Development

2/24/2020 Intention to award given to Boyer Company

3/4/2020 Approval for go-ahead given by SLCC Board of Trustees 3/27/2020 Initial discussion of proposal at State Board of Regents

4/17/2020 Follow-up discussion of proposal at State Board of Regents 5/6/2020 Discussion at State Building Board Break Even Point at 7% % INCREASE RUNNING 5 YEAR MONTHLY GROUND LEASE YEARS ANNUAL RENT 5 YEAR TOTALS APPRAISED VALUE YEARS EVERY 5 YRS TOTALS RENT %

1 - 5 1 - 5 0 $399,000.00 $1,995,000.00 $1,995,000.00 $33,250.00 $5,700,000 7.00%

6 -10 6 -10 10 $438,900.00 $2,194,500.00 $4,189,500.00 $36,575.00

11 - 15 11 - 15 10 $482,790.00 $2,413,950.00 $6,603,450.00 $40,232.50

16 - 20 16 - 20 10 $531,069.00 $2,655,345.00 $9,258,795.00 $44,255.75

21 - 25 21 - 25 10 $584,175.90 $2,920,879.50 $12,179,674.50 $48,681.33

26 - 30 26 - 30 10 $642,593.49 $3,212,967.45 $15,392,641.95 $53,549.46

31 - 35 31 - 35 10 $706,852.84 $3,534,264.20 $18,926,906.15 $58,904.40

36 - 40 36 - 40 10 $777,538.12 $3,887,690.61 $22,814,596.76 $64,794.84

Break even 13 years and 2 months = $5,718,335.00 Lt. Blue = SLCC Red = URETC Yellow = ChildCare Lt. Green = Kitchen (USU) – never built out Purple = USU

Questions?

Unlocking Public Wealth

Prepared for The USHE Board of Regents April 2020

Public Real Assets = Largest wealth segment in the world

Value per asset segment (in trillions)

80 75

60 60 53 Globally, public commercial assets are greater than 40 34 global public debt. 24 20 12 8 5 0 Hedge SWFs Central Insurance Pension High Net Mass Public Funds Bank Co.’s Funds Worth Affluent Commercial Reserves Individuals Assets Note: Market value indicated for all asset segments except for Public Commercial Assets (book value) Source: World Bank; See Dag Detter and Stefan Folster, The Public Wealth of Nations (London: Palgrave MacMillan, 2015), p.53 Cities know what they owe. They don’t know what they own.

Cities are sitting on a wealth of assets that can finance the future. Mapping and Valuing Assets

Digitized inventory of publicly owned real assets Asset tracing

Geo-spatial assessment =

Valuation Indicative valuation of real assets portfolio of portfolio

holdings

Valuation of consolidated holdings Identifying Public Property Salt Lake County, UT

Viable Public

FilteredPrivate Public FilteredPrivat Public e Salt Lake County boundaries.

Total market value of all publicly owned land: $150 billion

Total market value of all publicly owned land viable for development: $10 billion+. How do we unlock this public wealth? Four Steps. 4 3 Drive Community Benefit and 2 Economic Development Maximize Portfolio ▪ Develop roadmap for long- term economic growth 1 ▪ Develop comprehensive Set Up Management Structure(s) strategy and social outcomes business plan for entire ▪ Dedicate revenue yield ▪ Establish professional portfolio and segments and/or land to needed Map and Value Assets management structures/vehicles, ▪ Put each asset to its highest infrastructure and services ▪ Inventory all assets with public owners as shareholders and best public use ▪ Steward policy, legislative, ▪ Perform indicative valuation ▪ Transfer high potential & ▪ Put whole portfolio to its accounting, and public ▪ Segment according to politically feasible assets most productive public use stakeholder concerns with development potential; ▪ Appoint appropriate oversight ▪ Develop mutually beneficial care and transparency political/regulatory feasibility; and steering body stakeholders public-private partnerships and highest and best use policy

Boston Case Study: Why not just sell?

Jail to Hotel Conversion Charles Street Jail Gridley James Fox Bryant Boston, MA Built 1851

Before (2008): After (2017): $60,000,000 Assessed Value $123,094,500 Taxable Value $0 Taxable Value

2008 2017

“The jail was sold in 1991 for $16 million. With renovation and a new addition, the property is now worth over $170 million and contributes over $3 million a year in property taxes alone.” Where are we in Utah? Comprehensive, careful approach. 4 3 Drive Community Benefit and 2 Economic Development Maximize Portfolio ▪ Working with all partners to define desired public benefit 1 ▪ Year-long work (commencing Set Up Management Structure(s) outcomes unique to their April 2020) with the Gardner communities and public mission ▪ Identifying ”demonstration” Policy Institute will document ▪ Common frameworks include Map and Value Assets projects and portfolios to case studies and publish guiding a focus on smart growth best ▪ Working with cities, counties, facilitate vetting of obstacles and principles and a roadmap to practices and the social transportation authorities, develop related policy and best guide this work for asset owners, determinants of health framework school districts, and other asset practices policy makers, and the public ▪ Working to identify new owners statewide, including ▪ Demonstration projects and ▪ In partnership with the Gardner mechanisms for funding and owner consortiums portfolios represent most areas of Institute, we will convene financing projects, partnerships, ▪ Concept and practice endorsed the state and different asset types, regular stakeholder convenings to and/or complementary programs unanimously by Utah League of as well as different community build engagement and drive and community services Cities and Towns in 2019, and concerns and needs (urban, public policy recommendations

ULCT board members are suburban, rural, resort) lending support

Aims Drivers 1. Create public private partnerships to Addressing adverse childhood develop publicly owned real estate assets experiences • Generate new revenue streams for public budgets • Make land available Addressing social determinants of • Connect development and financing to desired Example outcomes at the health zip-code and regional level Framework: Addressing smart regional growth Increasing stability (urban, suburban, rural, resort) 2. Define housing, health and education as for Utah families key drivers of opportunity outcomes Addressing sustainability and through P3s that • Create livable, walkable communities with environmental stewardship involve public real increased opportunity outcomes estate assets. • Integrate community, city and regional planning • Address system level change and root causes Influencing internal and public policy

Creating profitable public private 3. Identify new asset management and partnerships funding/financing mechanisms that link public asset development to these Developing private land with aligned opportunity outcomes outcomes • Capital stacking: financing, impact investing, philanthropy, private real asset partnerships Strengthening community infrastructure SLC RDA Properties

Salt Lake County Center Meadowbrook Fleet Block Site Case Study Salt Lake County, UT Could yield $82M

Multifamily Infill 900 S $10M/acre

Transit Station 1,000 feet away

8.7 acre City-Owned land Half mile from West High School Case Study Average $16M/acre State Capitol Salt Lake County, UT

Opportunity

Opportunity 1,500 feet from transit station

Multifamily Infill Avg $16M/acre Quarter mile from Opportunity 30 acre high school Temple Square 4.6 acre building footprint

Could create $406M … And leave high school building intact West High School Case Study Salt Lake County, UT

Average $16M/acre

Approximately 224 parking spaces

Opportunity Cost -$128k/space County Complex Case Study Salt Lake County, UT New total value: $326M

Remodel/Update building New building value: $52M values: $176M

Yearly tax revenue: $2.4M

New land value: $98M Contact:

Shaleane Gee Senior Vice President, Community + Regional Development Zions Bank (o) 801.844.8668 | (m) 385.212.0447 [email protected]

A Public/Private Partnership THE BOYER COMPANY’S REFUGEE INVOLVEMENT Roger Boyer is the trustee and benefactor of ONErefugee. ONErefugee is a nonprofit foundation that focuses on helping refugees thrive in their new home through career counseling, mentorship, financial aid, and more. ONErefugee’s vision states “We imagine a world where individuals from refugee backgrounds are prosperous, feel at home, and give back to the communities in which they live. We work to champion individuals from refugee backgrounds, helping them, one-on-one, to obtain an education and build successful, meaningful careers.”

ONErefugee currently has 193 students with 148 graduates from 28 countries who speak 43 languages.

Roger Boyer fully funds ONErefugee and its employees, who share an office with the Boyer Company. We love the refugee community and are passionate about helping them in any way that we can.

Concerning the URETC, we are going to be creative in our site planning to do everything we can to keep URETC on site during development. We are also exploring and optimistic about building them a permanent home on site that is incorporated in a housing or retail component. This location as well as the TRAX access seems like the perfect long-term home for them EXAMPLES OF PUBLIC/PRIVATE PARTNERSHIPS

RESEARCH PARK SALT LAKE C IT Y, UT

HILL AIR FORCE BASE LAYTON, UT

VA CAMPUS SALT LAKE C IT Y, UT

BUSINESS DEPOT OGDEN OGDEN, UT MEADOWBROOK SITE PLANNING MEADOWBROOK SITE PLANNING RULE 712 DISCUSSION