The URL can be used to link to this page

048 of 2020 - Adopting the Salt Lake City Cemetery Master Plan1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. 48 of 2020 (Adopting the Salt Lake City Cemetery Master Plan) An ordinance adopting the Salt Lake City Cemetery Master Plan. WHEREAS, the City Council regards its legislative duty to adopt policies and ordinances to address the present and future needs of Salt Lake City and to guide growth and development within Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council held public hearings on October 6, 2020 and October 20, 2020 on an application submitted by Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall adopt a new Salt Lake City Cemetery Master Plan; and WHEREAS, after the hearings before the City Council, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Adopting the Salt Lake City Cemetery Master Plan. That the City Cemetery Master Plan attached hereto. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this 20th day of October, 2020. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER 2 Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. 48 of 2020. Published: ________________________. Salt Lake City Cemetery Master Plan APPROVED AS TO FORM Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Boyd Ferguson, Senior City Attorney November 18, 2020 SLC M A S T E R P L A N JULY 7, 2017 Salt Lake City Cemetery Master Plan Prepared For: Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Photo Courtesy: Salt Lake City Cemetery i Acknowledgments MAYOR Jackie Biskupski PUBLIC SERVICES DEPARTMENT Lisa Shaffer, Public Services Director PARKS AND PUBLIC LANDS Kristin Riker, Public Services Deputy Director, Director of Public Lands INTERNAL STAKEHOLDER GROUP Kristin Riker, Parks and Public Lands Lee Bollwinkel, Parks and Public Lands Greg Davis, Public Services Bryce Lindeman, Public Services Tony Gliot, Parks and Public Lands - Urban Forestry Lewis Kogan, Parks and Public Lands - Open Space CITY MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT TEAM Nancy Monteith, Parks & Public Lands Mark Smith, Cemetery Sexton Dawn Wagner, Salt Lake City Engineering Katia Pace, Salt Lake City Planning Robyn Stanczyk, Salt Lake City Civic Engagement MASTER PLANNING TEAM Prime Planning Consultant: G. Brown Design, Inc. 610 East South Temple, Suite #50 Salt Lake City, Utah 84102 P. 801-575-6066 F. 801-575-6166 www.gbrowndesign.com Mathew K. Winward, Managing Principal Andrew Noorlander, Associate Thank you to all citizens who participated and provided comment and input Consultant Team Members: Intrepid (Civic Engagement) - Courtney Bovee Zions Public Finance - Susan Becker Zions Public Finance - Benj Becker CRSA Architects - Dave Triplett ESI Engineering - Brian Campbell Historic Landscape Architect - Susan Crook Cost Engineers - Anthony Anzer ACKNOWLEDGMENTS ii Cemeteries - America’s First Public Parks 1-1 Project Background 1-4 Purpose and Need of the Master Plan 1-4 Project Context 1-5 Precedent Study of Cemetery Uses 1-11 Master Plan Vision 2-1 Master Plan Goals 2-1 Historic Resources 3-2 Trees and Vegetation 3-4 Deferred Maintenance Needs 3-7 Screen Headstone and Soils Storage Area 3-26 Sustainability 3-28 Emergency Preparedness 3-29 Pedestrian and Bicycle Enhancements 4-2 Sexton Area and Maintenance Facilities Redevelopment 4-11 Cemetery History Awareness 4-22 Partnerships 4-23 Freestanding Columbarium Walls 4-24 Regulations 4-30 Ongoing Operations and Maintenance Funding 5-1 Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvements Funding 5-5 Time Frames and Estimated Costs 6-1 TABLE OF CONTENTS iiiTABLE OF CONTENTS iv ES.1 Overall Cemetery Improvements and Enhancements Plan 1.1 Our First Public Parks: The Forgotten History of Cemeteries 1.2 Cemetery Gravesites 1.3 Salt Lake City Cemetery Map of Active Burial Areas 1.4 SLC Cemetery Context Map 1.5 Salt Lake City Cemetery Timeline 1.6 Average revenue per grave 1.7 Comparison of Documented Activities/Uses at other Cemeteries 2.1 Three Main Themes from Community Input 2.2 Master Planning Purposes and Associated Goals 3.1 Roadway Improvements Plan 3.2 Storm Drainage Improvements Plan 3.3 Restricted Access Road Section - 2 Removable Bollards 3.4 Restricted Access Road Section - 3 Removable Bollards 3.5 Individual Wall Recommendations 3.6 Wall and Fence Location Map 3.7 Example of Screened Enclosure with Side Entry 3.8 Example of Covered Landscape Bins at Utah Veterans Cemetery & Memorial Park 3.9 Soil and Headstone Storage Locations Map 4.1 East-West Pedestrian Corridor Enhancement Concept (280 North Street) 4.2 Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Plan 4.3 Plan View of Benches and Plantings at Edges of Roadways 4.4 Section View of Benches and Plantings at Edges of Roadways 4.5 Area Available for Redevelopment around the Sexton Building 4.6 Sexton Area with Consolidated Maintenance 4.7 Sexton Area with Maintenance Relocated 4.8 Maintenance Relocated to Lindsey Gardens 4.9 Freestanding Columbarium Wall Example 4.10 Benefits of Columbarium Walls 4.11 Proposed Freestanding Columbarium Wall Locations Near the Sexton Building 4.12 Proposed Freestanding Columbarium Wall Locations Near the center of the Cemetery 5.1 Expenses vs. Revenues - Including Potential Revenue Sources 5.2 Potential Revenue Generation for Salt Lake City from a Cemetery District 5.3 Estimated Annual Revenues from Monthly Household Recreation Fee (incl. Cemetery) C.1 Existing Conditions Analysis Map D.1 Circulation and Access Analysis D.2 Roadway Conditions Analysis D.3 Roadway Width Analysis E.1 SLC Manicured Parks Comparison E.2 Community Resources Analysis Map TABLE OF CONTENTS v This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS vi The Salt Lake City Cemetery had its first burial in 1848 and officially opened in 1849. It was one of a number of cemeteries developed during the rural cemetery movement (also known as the garden cemetery movement). The rural or garden cemetery movement began in 1831 with the development of Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge Massachusetts with a focus on burial grounds that use landscaping in a park-like setting. Rural cemeteries, from their beginning, were intended as civic institutions designed for public use. These cemeteries were “the first public parks in America” (Clark, 2015). Many factors led to a shift from the role cemeteries played as public parks, resulting in reduced visitation and interest in cemeteries. More recently, communities have been forced to rethink their approach to cemetery operations and management as these early cemeteries experience dwindling capacity, limited expansion opportunity, and funding challenges. As a result, many communities have started to recognize the value cemeteries provide as unique open spaces, and in a return to early cemetery history, have started offering events, tours, and passive recreation opportunities, in addition to burials. The Salt Lake City Cemetery is facing the same challenges experienced by other cemeteries from the rural cemetery era. It too, is exploring ideas and opportunities to capitalize on the Cemetery as a valuable community open space. Background The Salt Lake City Cemetery is located in the Avenues Neighborhood and is the largest municipal Cemetery in the nation, spanning 120.9 acres. With its first burial taking place in 1848, and officially opening in 1849, the Cemetery is figuratively an encyclopedia of Utah history beginning with the earliest pioneers who settled the Salt Lake Valley. Salt Lake City completed Phase 1 of the Cemetery Master Plan in 2009 which included information gathering and documentation. This final phase of the Master Plan builds on the information previously gathered to identify priorities and develop recommendations for the preservation, management, and development of the Cemetery for the next 20 years and beyond. Purpose and Need The three main purposes of this Master Plan are: Guide the preservation & management of Cemetery Expand access to and enhance appropriate uses of the Cemetery as a multi-use facility Address future financial sustainability of the Cemetery The Cemetery confronts considerable challenges as it faces the future. While the expansive Cemetery has 130,000 burial sites, it is approaching full capacity and has little room for expansion. As of January 31, 2017, the Cemetery has only 900 burial sites left for sale and a contractual obligation to provide burials for 24,000 pre-sold burial sites. The Cemetery currently performs an average of 400 burials a year, and at this rate will be performing burials for more than 60 years. The Cemetery also has a contractual obligation to provide ongoing or perpetual care. This means the City is required to continually maintain all lots in the Cemetery forever. Thus, the cost for maintenance and upkeep will continue even after the Cemetery has reached capacity. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY vii Precedent Study of Cemetery Uses In an effort to identify opportunities and ideas that may help address challenges facing the Salt Lake City Cemetery, a comparison of various activities and uses at other cemeteries were documented (see Figure 1.7 in Chapter 1). Though all of the activities listed in the comparison may not be desired or determined appropriate for the Salt Lake City Cemetery, this comparison identifies a broad range of activities that take place at cemeteries across the country and could be implemented at the Salt Lake City Cemetery, if desired. Some of these activities include: Wildlife watching Walking and jogging Biking Star gazing Guided and self-guided tours Cultural and historic interpretation Photography Genealogical research Events or classes Arboretum Analysis and Existing Conditions The Master Plan builds on the information previously documented and conducts a thorough analysis for the following aspects of the Cemetery: Facilities and Operations Analysis (site furnishings and lighting, drainage, fencing, gates, maintenance buildings, walls, funding, new interment offerings, etc.) Cemetery Roadway Analysis (circulation, access, condition, and drainage) Architecture and Buildings (Sexton Building, maintenance compound, and restroom facilities) Community Resources (historic features, planting, open space, wildlife, etc.) Funding and Financial Analysis Facilities and Resources Analysis - The analysis identified a number of valuable Cemetery resources including an abundance of historic elements and features, and over 3,000 trees. The analysis also determined that the Cemetery is the largest open space in the City’s open space network, is used by residents for walking, jogging, and biking, and is home to a variety of wildlife. The analysis identified a number of deferred maintenance needs including approximately $12.5 million of roadway repairs, $1.6 million of necessary irrigation upgrades, $1.5 million of wall and fence repairs, and the need to replace the maintenance facilities. Detailed summaries of analysis are provided in the Appendix. Funding Analysis - The Cemetery’s current expenses are nearly double that of revenues. All revenue produced by the Cemetery (through the sale of graves, opening and closing of graves, and stone monitoring) is placed in the City general fund rather than being earmarked for Cemetery specific use. The Cemetery is allocated an operating budget from the City general fund, which EXECUTIVE SUMMARY viii covers ongoing operations and maintenance, but is insufficient to cover larger improvement costs such as the repair of roadways and walls. The Cemetery does not have a dedicated perpetual care fund established to generate funding for ongoing maintenance, which is similar to most other municipal cemeteries in the state. Expenses are expected to increase over time and the revenue gap will continue to grow if steps are not taken to establish financial strategies to increase revenue and funding for perpetual care. Planning Process and Civic Engagement Phase II master planning efforts began in March of 2016 and include three main planning phases: Research and Analysis - review/update Phase 1 information, analysis of additional data Planning Options and Recommendations - development of the planning vision, project goals, and recommendations and options for consideration Master Plan Document Development - development of final recommendations, the master plan implementation plan, and compilation into the Salt Lake City Cemetery Master Plan Document The planning process included a series of three public open houses, presentations to the Avenues Community Council, meetings with stakeholder groups, and frequent meetings with the City’s internal stakeholder group. The information from all of the Open Houses was also shared on Open City Hall (the City’s online community input platform) and project updates and announcements were provided through the City’s various social media platforms throughout the project. Vision and Goals As part of the planning process, the planning team used the information gathered during the analysis and assessment phase, input from the community, and worked with City staff and stakeholder groups to develop the Master Plan Vision and identify planning goals. Goals were developed to address the three main purposes of the Master Plan. The Master Planning Goals were then prioritized based on input received from two public open houses and Open City Hall. The 5 highest priority goals are as follows: Preserve and enhance the natural resources in the Cemetery (i.e. trees and vegetation, wildlife, wildlife habitat, and views). Create a comprehensive strategy to repair Cemetery infrastructure including roads and maintenance facilities. Incorporate sustainable maintenance practices, especially those that have the potential to reduce ongoing maintenance costs. Enhance and develop opportunities to explore the Cemetery through walking, jogging and cycling. Develop opportunities to continue to provide burial and internment offerings. All the goals were then organized based on their relevance to the three planning purposes and were used as a framework for the development of planning concepts and recommendations. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ix Preservation and Management The Salt Lake City Cemetery plays an important role in the City’s open space network and offers multiple opportunities for enjoyment and passive recreation. It is also an important cultural and historic resource to the community. The first planning purpose as stated previously is to develop strategies and recommendations that will guide preservation and management of the Cemetery site. To accomplish this planning purpose and the associated goals, recommendations have been developed for the following: Historic and Natural Resources Historic resources - including nomination of the Cemetery for National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) and development of a Preservation Management Plan (PMP) Trees and vegetation Infrastructure Deferred maintenance needs - including roads, walls, irrigation, maintenance facilities, etc. Headstone and soils storage screening Sustainability Emergency preparedness Expansion and Enhancement The Cemetery is used as a public open space and attracts users to enjoy the solitude, wildlife, mature trees, and other cultural, historic, and natural resources. The expansion and enhancement recommendations focus on accomplishing the second master planning purpose of expanding access and enhancing appropriate uses. To accomplish this planning purpose and the associated goals, recommendations have been developed for the following: Public Access Pedestrian and bicycle improvements Develop a pedestrian corridor with benches and interpretive signage along 280 North Street Wayfinding signage with maps and directional signage or markers Interpretive signage Benches and planting at edges of roadways Pedestrian and bicycle access points in the Cemetery from surrounding roadways Develop active transportation routes through the Cemetery with wayfinding and directional signage and benches Two options for redevelopment of the area around Sexton and Maintenance Buildings to include a public columbarium plaza and consolidated or relocated maintenance facilities Community Stewardship Increasing awareness through enhancements and improvements to the Cemetery website Steps to foster a Friends of the Cemetery Group and identification of potential partnerships EXECUTIVE SUMMARY x Cemetery Services Addition of free standing columbarium niche walls (10 total walls that can be implemented over time) Necessary updates to Chapter 15.24 of City Municipal Code to eliminate conflicts with Master Plan recommendations. Funding Options Addressing the future financial sustainability of the Cemetery is one of the three purposes of the Master Plan. Financial sustainability is important to preserving Cemetery history and maintaining the Cemetery as an important part of the City’s open space network. To address the Cemetery’s funding challenges the Master Plan provides recommendations and options for funding of ongoing operations and maintenance and deferred maintenance and capital improvements projects. Ongoing Operations and Maintenance Funding Recommendations for Additional Revenue Addition of Columbarium Niches - estimated net revenue (based on sale of 50–75 niches per year), $25,000–$35,000 from sales and fees and $15,000–$22,500 of perpetual care revenue Raising opening and closing fees - projected to generate an additional $170,000 of annual revenue Raising stone monitoring fees - projected to generate an additional $30,000–$40,000 of annual revenue Three options for the establishment of a Perpetual Care Fund Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvements Funding Options Create a Cemetery District Monthly Park Fee General Obligation Bonds Implementation Plan The implementation plan identifies important projects and tasks necessary to carry out the recommendations of the Master Plan. The plan outlines the proposed time frame and estimated cost for proposed projects or tasks and serves as a tool to assist the City and Cemetery. Conclusion The Salt Lake City Cemetery is a vital component of the City’s open space network. It is a treasured cultural resource and provides great value to the community in terms of urban open space, solitude, wildlife habitat, and mature trees. Implementing the recommendations of this Master Plan will result in considerable progress toward preserving and enhancing the Cemetery for public use and as an active Cemetery. While it is almost certain that the Cemetery will continue to face challenges, the Master Plan will guide the management of the Cemetery for the next 20 years and beyond to preserve this beloved open space – this encyclopedia of Utah history. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiFigure ES.1 - Overall Cemetery Improvements and Enhancements PlanRoads with restricted public vehicular accessand pedestrian amenities and enhancementsRoads with restricted public vehicular accessImprovements& Enhancements PlanExisting contours (2' contour interval)access pointSLC Cemetery boundaryProposed East-West Pedestrian Corridor(along 280 North)Approximate bench locationsRoads with enhancements within existingright-of-way,Approximate wayfinding signage locationsExisting open gateExisting closed gateApproximate interpretive signage locationsPossible site for maintenance facilityrelocationRedevelopment of the area around theSexton buildingScreen headstone and soils storage areaApproximate locations for freestandingcolumbarium wallsAdd a roof structure over the existingstorage bins near SLC Fire Station #4Significant viewsSLC Parks & Open SpaceOther cemeteryCemetery roadwaysSee Chapters 3-5 of the Master Plan for moreinformation and detailed recommendationsRemovable bollards to restrict public vehicularaccess - All other roadways to remain openM StreetN StreetU Street4th Avenue4th Avenue11th AvenueMt. CalvaryCatholicCemetery11th Ave ParkPoppertonParkMain St.Park St.330 NGrand Ave.Cypress Ave.Olive St.Elm St.355 N325 N1100 E1200 EHillside445 NOquirrh Ave.Main St.Center St.240 N280 N310 NCentral Ave.445 NThird AveFirst Ave250 NUintah Ave.Wasatch Ave.460 N980 E1040 E1000 E405 NlsidsideHillsllsideedeLindseyGardensTzedick CemeteryGrand Ave.240 N280 N310 NEXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiiThis page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out.EXECUTIVE SUMMARY xiii This page intentionally left blank. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY CHAPTER 1 1-1 Cemeteries - America’s First Public Parks The Salt Lake City Cemetery had its first burial in 1848 and officially opened in 1849. It was one of a number of cemeteries developed during the rural cemetery movement (also known as the garden cemetery movement). The rural cemetery or garden cemetery is a style of burial ground that uses landscaping in a park-like setting. The rural cemetery movement began in 1831 with the development of Mount Auburn Cemetery in Cambridge Massachusetts. Within 5 years, seven other communities followed suit by dedicating “rolling, scenic tracts of land on the outskirts of town to honor the deceased” (Williams, 2014). By 1860, numerous rural cemeteries had been developed across the country, including the Salt Lake City Cemetery. Rural cemeteries, from their inception, were intended as civic institutions designed for public use. These cemeteries were “the first public parks in America. They enticed city-dwellers into an idyllic country experience with rolling green hills, shady trees, and stone benches” (Clark, 2015). Increased regulations by cities and cemeteries, the advancement of the automobile, and city- dweller’s migration to suburbia are just some of the factors that led to a shift from the role cemeteries played as public parks. These changes resulted in reduced visitation and interest in cemeteries (see Figure 1.1). As these early cemeteries started reaching capacity and facing funding challenges, communities began recognizing the value cemeteries provide as unique open spaces. In a return to early cemetery history, cemeteries have started offering events, tours, and passive recreation opportunities, in addition to burials. The Salt Lake City Cemetery is facing many of the same challenges seen by other cemeteries from the rural cemetery era and is exploring ideas and opportunities to capitalize on the Cemetery as a valuable community open space. Mt Auburn Cemetery Source: bostonatomy.com Salt Lake City Cemetery Source: HALS No. UT-2 CHAPTER 1 1-2Figure 1.1 - Our First Public Parks: The Forgotten History of CemeteriesSource: ourlocalhistory.wordpress.comCinema in the Cemetery Source: laurelhill.comCemetery Private PropertySource: anda.jor.br CHAPTER 1 1-3This page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out. 1-4CHAPTER 1 Project Background The Salt Lake City Cemetery, located in the historic Avenues Neighborhood, is the largest municipal Cemetery in the nation, spanning 120.9 acres with nearly 3,000 trees. With its first burial taking place in 1848, and officially opening in 1849, the Cemetery is a repository of history beginning with the earliest pioneers who settled the Salt Lake Valley. Salt Lake City completed Phase 1 of the Cemetery Master Plan in 2009, which included information gathering and documentation. This final phase of the master plan builds on information previously gathered while soliciting community and stakeholder input to identify priorities for the preservation, management, and development of the Cemetery for the next 20 years and beyond. Purpose and Need of the Master Plan The three main purposes of this Master Plan are to: Guide the preservation and management of the Cemetery Expand access to and enhance appropriate uses of the Cemetery as a multi-use facility Address future financial sustainability of the Cemetery The Cemetery confronts considerable challenges as it faces the future. While the expansive Cemetery has 130,000 burial sites, it is approaching full capacity and has little room for expansion As of January 31, 2017, the Cemetery has only 900 burial sites left for sale and a contractual obligation to provide burials for 24,000 pre-sold burial sites (see Figure 1.2). The Cemetery currently performs an average of 400 burials a year, and at this rate will be performing burials for more than 60 years. Burial contracts state that “the City Cemetery shall be continually maintained by the City.” With revenue from the sale of burial sites dwindling, space for expansion nearly non-existent (see Figure 1.3, Salt Lake City Cemetery Map of Active Burial Areas) and a growing list of deferred maintenance projects, the Master Plan seeks to: Identify solutions to address future financial sustainability Increase use by City residents Make it accessible to a greater number of residents Continue to operate and maintain the Cemetery in a respectful manner for the families of those interred within Burial sites used Burial sites sold but not used Burial sites available for sale 105,100 24,000 900 Figure 1.2 - Cemetery Gravesites Total Burial sites: 130,000 CHAPTER 1 1-5 Project Context Physical and Land Use Context The 120.9 acre Cemetery is located adjacent to the Avenues Historic District, approximately two miles from Downtown Salt Lake City and is bordered by 4th and 11th Avenues and N & U Streets (see Figures 1.3 and 1.4). The 300 feet of elevation change from north to south offers excellent views to the valley below. Nearly eight miles of road provide access to the Cemetery’s 130,000 burial sites. The Cemetery is surrounded by residential properties, City park and open space and a handful of commercial properties. In addition, it shares borders with the Mt. Calvary Catholic Cemetery, Congregation Sharey Tzedick Cemetery, Congregation Montefiore Cemetery, and Congregation B’nai Israel Cemetery. Utah State Capital Avenues Historic District Downtown SLC 1 Mile SLC Cemetery North Figure 1.4 - SLC Cemetery Context Map Figure 1.3 - Salt Lake City Cemetery Map of Active Burial Areas Maintenance Yard Lindsey Gardens Mt. Calvary Catholic Cemetery City View Memoriam 11th Ave nue M StreetN StreetU StreetT Street4th Avenue 7th Avenue No graves (too steep) Sexton building Maintenance buildings 4th Avenue Active Burial / Preservation Areas Cemetery Boundary Congregation Montefiore Cemetery Congregation B'nai Isreal Cemetery Congregation Sharey Tzedick Cemetery CHAPTER 1 1-6First burialMary B. Wallace201620001848Salt Lake City is incorporated1851SLC ordinance requiring burial in cemeteries18561900Perpetual care beginsCorner stones placed to mark plats1863Main entrance gate built1915Final SLC Cemetery Master Planning beginsWalls built by Works Progress Administration1942Sexton’s House built1906Sexton’s House renovated19192009Phase I SLC Cemetery Master Planning (Information Gathering)Cemetery1945Sexton’s Building no longer used as residence2002Mary Wallace HeadstoneSource: enjoyutah.orgSource: Cemetery Planning TeamSandstone WPA Walls Source: HALS No. UT-22016 SLC Cemetery LandscapeSource: Cemetery Planning Team2016 Sexton BuildingSource: Cemetery Planning TeamCemetery LandscapeSource: HALS No. UT-2Figure 1.5 - Salt Lake City Cemetery Timeline CHAPTER 1 1-7This page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out. 1-8CHAPTER 1 Historic Context The year after pioneers arrived in the Salt Lake Valley in 1847, George B. Wallace carried the small body of his baby daughter, Mary M. Wallace, to her final resting place in the foothills above the new settlement. Other pioneer families followed Wallace’s example and soon the site became an unofficial burial ground for the growing community. In February of 1849, Brigham Young appointed a committee consisting of George Wallace, Daniel H. Wells, and Joseph Heywood to recommend a suitable place for a permanent City Cemetery. The committee recommended what is now the Salt Lake City Cemetery, and an initial 20 acres was surveyed (Boone, 2011). Upon Salt Lake City’s incorporation in 1851 the Cemetery was designated as the City’s official burial ground and “George Wallace was appointed the first Sexton and was responsible for planning, improving the cemetery grounds, recording information about each burial, and overseeing other cemetery operations” (Boone, 2011). Important Historic Features & Events (see Figure 1.5, Salt Lake City Cemetery Timeline, on previous page): 1848 - Mary M. Wallace, first burial 1856 - Ordinance requiring burial in the City Cemetery 1900 - Perpetual Care begins 1906 - Sexton’s House is built 1915 - Main Entrance Gate is built Approximately 1919 - Sextons House is renovated/remodeled 1942 - Sandstone walls built by the Works Progress Administration (WPA) Over the years, the Cemetery has grown from relatively few burials and 20 acres to 130,000 burial sites and 120 acres. The Cemetery is the final resting place to many historically and culturally significant members of the state and community, including: Numerous Utah Governors & SLC Mayors Herbert Manning Wells (1st Utah Governor) Truman Angel (SLC Temple & Tabernacle Architect) Orin Porter Rockwell (bodyguard to Joseph Smith) 11 of 15 deceased LDS Church Presidents Numerous other LDS Apostles & Leaders Uinta Fremont & Zuni Pueblo American Indians Mary M. Wallace Headstone Source: enjoyutah.org CHAPTER 1 1-9 Sarah Melissa Granger Kimball (1890’s women’s rights advocate) Lester F. Wire (inventor of the traffic signal) Hirum Bebee aka Harry Longabaugh (the Sundance Kid) Frank E. Moss (US Senator) Larry H. Miller (business leader, philanthropist, owner of NBA Utah Jazz) The Salt Lake City Cemetery has great historical value. It is a repository of numerous historic resources and figuratively serves as an encyclopedia of Salt Lake City and Utah history. Cultural Context The Cemetery provides great value to the community in terms of urban open space, solitude, wildlife habitat, mature trees, as well as cultural, religious and historic importance. The Cemetery is directly associated with the founding and growth of both Salt Lake City and the Mormon Church and was “long known as the ‘LDS’ Cemetery because of its origin as the first burial ground for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, as well as for the large number of Mormon ecclesiastical leaders laid to rest in it” (HALS, 2007). Its layout follows the grid arrangement of the Plat of Zion design of early Mormon villages, with a nod to the rural cemetery movement in its expansive lawns, diverse arboretum and de facto status as an urban wildlife preserve. Historic gravestones by prominent stone carvers, a variety of stone walls and curbing, section markers, ornamental fencing and gates, historic concrete, and even the 1930s-40s galvanized, pop-in sprinkler system are among the many small-scale features that reveal the history of materials and workmanship used during its development, improvement and expansion since the first burial on the site in 1848. Headstone of Gordon B Hinckley 15th President of the LDS Church Source: deseretnews.com Source: Utah State Historical Society Sandstone WPA Walls Source: HALS No. UT-2 1-10CHAPTER 1 $980 $1,200 $1,800 $- $200 $400 $600 $800 $1,000 $1,200 $1,400 $1,600 $1,800 $2,000 SLC Cemetery Municipal Cemeteries Private Cemeteries Figure 1.6 - Average revenue per grave (sale of graves, and other fees) Financial Context The Cemetery’s current expenses are nearly double that of revenues. All revenue produced by the Cemetery (through the sale of graves, opening and closing of graves, and stone monitoring) is placed in the City general fund rather than being earmarked for Cemetery specific use. The Cemetery is allocated an operating budget from the City general fund, which covers ongoing operations and maintenance, but is insufficient to cover larger improvement costs such as the repair of roadways and walls. While private cemeteries are required to establish a perpetual care fund, municipal cemeteries are not. The term “perpetual care” for cemeteries is typically defined as money set aside from the sale of each plot or niche that is held in a managed fund for the ongoing maintenance of a cemetery. Ideally, interest earned from this fund would provide for the ongoing maintenance and upkeep of the Cemetery into perpetuity. Similar to most other municipal cemeteries in the state, the Salt Lake City Cemetery does not have a dedicated perpetual care fund. With only 900 burial rights left to sell, all revenue generated from the sale of burial rights will likely taper off by 2025. Future revenues will primarily be from the opening and closings of graves. Additionally, the Cemetery’s revenue per grave (revenue from the sale of burial rights and opening and closing of the grave) is low compared to the average of other Utah cemeteries (see Figure 1.6). Each of these factors play a part in the Cemetery’s current financial condition. CHAPTER 1 1-11 Precedent Study of Cemetery Uses In an effort to identify opportunities and ideas that may help address challenges facing the Salt Lake City Cemetery, multiple cemeteries across the country were studied based on their similarity in age, overall acreage, and number of burial sites. A comparison of various activities and uses at other cemeteries was documented as shown in Figure 1.7. Though all of the activities listed may not be desired or determined appropriate by Cemetery managers and the public, it is important to gain an understanding of the broad range of activities that do take place at cemeteries across the country. Many of the activities documented could possibly be implemented at the Salt Lake City Cemetery with minimal impact to current operations, if desired. Bike Tour at Laurel Hill Cemetery Source: laurelhill.com Cinema in the Cemetery at Laurel Hill Cemetery Source: laurelhill.com Birdwatching at Mt. Auburn Cemetery Source: wbur.org 1-12CHAPTER 1 Cemeteries SLC Cemetery SLC, UT Mt. Auburn Boston, MA Laurel Hill Philadelphia, PA Green-Wood Brooklyn, NY Oakland Atlanta, GA Evergreen Portland, ME Forest Lawn Buffalo, NY Oakwood Raleigh, NC Established 1847 1831 1836 1838 1850 1855 1858 1867 Size (Acres)150 175 78 478 48 140 269 190 Burial Plots 130,000 93,000 33,000 560,000 70,000 70,000 160,000 22,000 Site Amenities Gift Shop Chapel/Reception Center Greenhouse Interactive Kiosks Visitor Center Natural Arboretum Birding Wildlife Corridor Native Plantings Passive Recreation Dedicated Pedestrian Trails Jogging Biking Lunar/Stargaizing Events/Activities Wedding Ceremonies Business Meetings Various Clubs Horticulture Workshops Memory Walk Friends of Cemetery Books Published Art Strolls/Art Fairs Wine Tasting Beekeeping Historical Collections Genealogical Research Car Shows Concerts 5K Races Yoga Trolley Rides Cinema/Movies Lecture Series Musical/Plays/Pageants Tours Guided Self-guided Professional Photography Landscape Photography Wedding Photography Filming Documentaries Figure 1.7 - Comparison of Documented Activities/Uses at other Cemeteries 120 CHAPTER 2 2-1 Master Plan Vision As part of the planning process, the planning team used information gathered during the analysis and assessment phase, input from the community, and worked with City staff and stakeholder groups to develop the Master Plan Vision and identify master planning goals. Community input helped to identify qualities and characteristics considered important and provided information related to the reasons and frequency of visits to the Cemetery. Three main themes emerged from the input received (see Figure 2.1). For detailed information related to the civic engagement process see Appendix J. All of this information served as the basis for development of the Cemetery Master Plan Vision. Master Plan Vision Statement: Preserve and enhance the Salt Lake City Cemetery as an active Cemetery and public open space that invites the public to enjoy the Cemetery’s historic, recreational, and natural resources. Master Plan Goals In conjunction with the development of the vision, goals were developed to address the three main purposes of the Master Plan (as outlined in Chapter 1 - Introduction). The goals were developed by the planning team with input from City staff and the stakeholder groups. The Master Planning Goals were presented at two public open houses (one held at Salt Lake City Main Library and one held at the Sweet Library in the Avenues) and posted on the Open City Hall. Community participants were asked to participate in a goal prioritization exercise. The responses were then tabulated to determine the goals identified as the highest priority (see Appendix J for the tabulated results). The prioritization exercise provides a framework for the development of planning concepts and recommendations and can serve as a guide to the City as they make difficult decisions how to best use their limited resources for the Cemetery. Once the prioritization exercise was completed, the Master Planning Goals were organized based on their relevance to the three planning purposes (see Figure 2.2 - Master Planning Purposes and Associated Goals). Improve and preserve the natural environment Preserve historic features and character Preserve solitude, ambiance, and dignity of Cemetery Figure 2.1 - Three Main Themes from Community Input 2-2CHAPTER 2 Master Plan Purpose #2: Expand access to and enhance appropriate uses of the Cemetery as a multi-use facility Master Plan GoalsPublic Access Enhance and develop opportunities to explore the Cemetery through walking, jogging and cycling Create a welcoming and attractive space that can accommodate visitors by enhancing the area surrounding the Sexton Building Increase opportunity for public use by providing new services and amenities Make information about activities and resources more available to the public through digital and print media Community Stewardship Expand the feeling of community ownership and stewardship Work with community partners to identify opportunities and programs to highlight the rich history of the Cemetery Cemetery Services Develop opportunities to continue to provide burial and internment offerings Master Plan Purpose #3:MP GoalsFinancial strategies Decrease dependence on the City’s general fund by developing strategies to increase revenue-generating potential from other sources Master Plan Purpose #1: Guide the preservation and management of the Cemetery Master Plan GoalsHistoric and Natural Resources Preserve and enhance the natural resources in the Cemetery Manage the Cemetery with a reverent and respectful atmosphere for the loved ones of those buried there Preserve the historic features, resources, and character Develop an arboretum, continue to plant trees, and create interpretive information Infrastructure Create a comprehensive strategy to repair infrastructure, including roads and maintenance facilities Incorporate sustainable maintenance practices, especially those that have the potential to reduce ongoing maintenance costs Bold indicates high priority goals. Figure 2.2 - Master Planning Purposes and Associated Goals CHAPTER 2 2-3 This page intentionally left blank. 3-1CHAPTER 3 The Salt Lake City Cemetery plays an important role in the City’s open space network and offers multiple opportunities for enjoyment and passive recreation. It is also an important cultural and historic resource to the community. One of the main purposes of this Master Plan is to develop strategies and provide recommendations that will guide preservation and management of the Cemetery site. To accomplish this master planning purpose and the associated goals, recommendations have been developed for the following: Historic and Natural Resources: Historic Resources Trees and Vegetation Infrastructure: Deferred Maintenance Needs Screen Headstone and Soils Storage Area Sustainability Emergency Preparedness Master Plan Purpose #1: Guide the preservation and management of the Cemetery Master Plan GoalsHistoric and Natural Resources Preserve and enhance the natural resources in the Cemetery Manage the Cemetery with a reverent and respectful atmosphere for the loved ones of those buried there Preserve the historic features, resources and character Develop an arboretum, continue to plant trees, and create interpretive information Infrastructure Create a comprehensive strategy to repair infrastructure, including roads and maintenance facilities Incorporate sustainable maintenance practices, especially those that have the potential to reduce ongoing maintenance costs Bold indicates high priority goals. CHAPTER 3 3-2 Historic Resources The Salt Lake City Cemetery is a highly significant historic resource that has the potential to produce revenue through enhanced visitor services and partnership with a non-profit friends group. The Cemetery’s significance and integrity make it eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Objections to National Register listing typically result from a misconception that locally imposed restrictions on historic properties result from National Register listing. In reality, the National Register of Historic Places is a recognition program that does not restrict the use, alteration, or demotion of historic properties. Listing could bring the following benefits to the Salt Lake City Cemetery: Serve as a catalyst for community interest and support Give credibility to the City’s efforts to preserve it Raise awareness of the opportunities and challenges of preservation Leverage resources for preservation planning and implementation Be used as a marketing tool to educate citizens and engage them in funding, respectful use, and interpretation and preservation projects Prompt the founding of a non-profit friends group There is likely enough information available from the studies and reports that have been done on the Cemetery within the last decade to prepare a nomination to the National Register. However, the historic resources in the Cemetery still need to be fully inventoried and assessed as a first step toward the preparation of Preservation Management Plan (PMP). These resources should be stabilized and maintained until treatment plans are in place. Methods used for their stabilization and maintenance should be reversible so as not to compromise their significance and integrity. Any time there are undertakings for improvements in the Cemetery, appropriate qualified professionals, such as landscape historians, archaeologists, or historical architects, should be hired to document the existing condition of historic resources and to make recommendation to avoid or mitigate adverse effects that would compromise their integrity. The following planning and management recommendations should be implemented as part of the master planning process, with the intended outcome being the completion of a comprehensive Preservation Management Plan. Qualified professionals will need to perform the services outlined in the recommendations. Even if City staff is qualified, the time needed to complete them will likely dictate that consultants be hired. RECOMMENDATIONS: Protect or stabilize damaged gravestones with reversible methods until treatment plans for their restoration or repair are ready. Consult with gravestone restoration experts on appropriate methods. Nominate the Cemetery to the National Register of Historic places. Prepare a comprehensive Preservation Management Plan using the amended Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS) or the Cultural Landscape Report (CLR) and the 3-3CHAPTER 3 Historic Structures Reports (HSRs). The Plan should include the following components: Inventories and assessments of the historic buildings, structures and landscape features. Complete the inventory and assessment of large-scale and small-scale historic landscape features, including hand carved gravestones and monuments. The method for doing this could be to amend the initial HALS or to complete a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR). This task could be completed individually and later included as part of the PMP. Complete the inventory and assessment of historic buildings and structures. This could be done by preparing Historic Structures Reports (HSR) for each building and structure. This task could be completed individually and later included as part of the PMP. Period Plans. These will help guide decisions on how treatments are determined and carried out. Prepare Period Plans showing significant growth and changes in the Cemetery over time. These could be amendments to the initial HALS or be part of a CLR. This task could be completed individually and later included as part of the PMP. Treatments for specific types of historic landscape features using guidance in Preservation Brief 36: Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. Policies and procedures for handling broken gravestones and loose fragments of markers, (i.e. where to store them and for how long; how to notify plot owners of needed repairs; how to fund repairs when no owner can be found). Treatments for historic buildings and structures using the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. A Maintenance Plan for all historic resources with a detailed calendar of annual and preventive maintenance, and a timeline for the implementation of preservation treatments, showing budget line items and unit costs. Bibliography of resources for managing historic cemeteries, including consultants and government agencies such as the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT). Conduct historic documentation and investigation as a part of every Cemetery project. The goal should be to maintain the historic integrity of the Cemetery. If a change is to be made, there should first be documentation of the historic condition. COST CONSIDERATIONS: Estimated costs are provided assuming consultants are hired to perform the work. Estimated Cost - Nomination to National Register of Historic Place: $10,000–$30,000. Low end costs assume information needed is available and would just need to be gathered and assembled. Estimated Cost - Preservation Management Plan: $125,000 CHAPTER 3 3-4 Trees and Vegetation The mature trees and plantings at the Cemetery are an important part of the character and beauty of the Cemetery site. Roughly 3,000 total trees of forty-two different species provide interest to the landscape, shade to visitors, and habitat to wildlife. The Cemetery forest is made up of roughly 64% evergreen and 36% deciduous trees. Evergreen trees play an important part in the character and feel of the Cemetery and provide habitat and shelter to birds and other wildlife that have become a valued community resource. Maintaining a similar ratio of evergreen to deciduous trees is recommended. The majority of the trees are planted along edges of the roadways creating beautiful allees with a calming and peaceful feel. Some trees are sprinkled throughout burial sections but Cemetery operations and maintenance challenges limit planting in these areas. The Cemetery forest should be carefully managed to preserve this important part of the City’s urban forest, maintain the beauty and character of the Cemetery, and continue providing habitat for wildlife. COST CONSIDERATIONS: Tree and planting recommendations can likely be implemented over time with minimal impacts to current budgets. Establishment of Arboretum: The cost to establish an Arboretum at the Cemetery will vary widely depending on the number of plants mapped and labeled and whether this work is contracted out our self performed by the City. It is likely that the City, volunteers, or other partners could perform much of the necessary work. However, if the work is contracted out, an initial budget estimate of $10,000 ($5,000 for mapping noteworthy trees and $5,000 for plant name plates and labeling) will go a long way toward establishment. This assumes purchase and labeling of approximately 250 plant name plates ($20 each for purchase and installation). Cost for mapping noteworthy trees is based on 50 hours of research and mapping time at a private consulting rate of $100 an hour. RECOMMENDATIONS: Tree and planting matters should continue to be addressed as a joint effort between the Cemetery and Urban Forestry divisions. Develop the Cemetery as an arboretum Manage tree planting to maximize its potential as an arboretum by increasing the plant diversity over time as new trees are planted and aging trees are replaced. This should be done through continued cooperation with Urban Forestry. Conduct a detailed tree investigation to identify “Significant Trees” (significance may be due to species, age, size, historical significance, rarity, or other noteworthy characteristics). Using information from the tree investigation, develop a “Trees of the Cemetery” map and tour. Salt Lake City Cemetery Trees Source: Cemetery Planning Team 3-5CHAPTER 3 Consider identifying and labeling significant tree species/varieties Both mapping and plant labeling could be done by volunteers or in partnership with local universities. Maintain the current evergreen to deciduous tree ratio (64% evergreen to 36% deciduous) to maintain wildlife habitat and shelter and preserve the character and feel of the Cemetery. Manage Cemetery Tree Plantings to allow for dead and dying trees in place (as long as safety can be maintained) to provide additional wildlife habitat. Allow dead and dying trees to remain in place (as long as safety can be maintained) to provide additional wildlife habitat. Dead and dying trees should be pruned to remove unsafe limbs and branches while leaving those parts of the tree that are structurally sound and pose no public safety hazards. As trees are removed or replaced the following recommendations should be considered: When trees are removed, work with Urban Forestry to replace and diversify the Cemetery Forest. Maintain a similar level of Cemetery tree canopy as currently exists (in terms of quantity, density, and age distribution of plantings). As a minimum, maintain the current quantity of trees at the Cemetery. Replace trees on a minimum 1:1 ratio (trees don’t have to be replaced in the same location but if a tree is removed, a new tree should be planted). Where possible, keep tree allees and plan transition and replacement planting to minimize impact of removal of large mature trees along the roadways. Maintain the natural vegetation corridors Source: Cemetery Planning Team Salt Lake City Cemetery Natural Vegetative Corridor Source: Cemetery Planning Team CHAPTER 3 3-6 (important for wildlife) and enhance with understory plantings that will be beneficial to wildlife (such as fruiting plants for birds, blooming plants for bees, hummingbirds, and butterflies, and food sources for deer such as oaks, or shrubs that are important deer browse). Careful consideration should be given to avoid blocking prominent views. Tree planting should typically be concentrated in the areas along roadways (where space allows between roadway edge and grave sites). Trees located within burial sections are difficult to maintain and pose challenges to Cemetery operations and maintenance. As a general rule, as necessitated due to operational conflicts or age, trees located in burial sections will be removed and will not be replaced within burial sections. However, under careful consideration, some tree plantings could and should be located within burial sections. Tree and plant species and varieties should be approved by the Urban Forester and the Cemetery Sexton. Trees That Should Not Be Planted: Russian Olive (Existing mature trees can remain but new succors or saplings should be immediately removed.) Tree of Heaven (Existing mature trees can remain but new succors or saplings should be immediately removed.) All Varieties of Ash (due to Emerald Ash Bore, no new Ash varieties should be planted. Existing ash trees can remain and new volunteer saplings in appropriate areas can remain) Norway Maple Siberian Elm Trees That Should Only Be Planted in Special Circumstances: Cottonwood varieties Trees That Should be Eradicated: (Existing mature trees can remain but new saplings or succors should be immediately removed) Tree of Heaven Russian Olive Siberian Elm 3-7CHAPTER 3 Deferred Maintenance Needs Ongoing maintenance and upkeep for Cemetery infrastructure (roads, walls, maintenance buildings, irrigation systems) poses a challenge for nearly every aging cemetery. The Salt Lake City Cemetery is certainly no exception and is facing a long list of deferred maintenance needs. The Master Plan goal to “Create a comprehensive strategy to repair Cemetery infrastructure including roads and maintenance facilities” was scored as the second highest priority among the seventeen master plan goals. This section of the Master Plan identifies the Cemetery’s deferred maintenance needs and provides recommendations to address them. List of Cemetery’s deferred maintenance needs Repair roadways and storm drainage Repair walls and fences Replace antiquated phone system Update eastern half of Cemetery irrigation system Repair or replace gates Replace outdated and aging Maintenance Facilities Sexton Building interior repair/restoration Repair plat, block and lot markers within the Cemetery burial areas Roadway and Storm Drainage Improvements Maintenance and repair of the Cemetery roadways is one the largest challenges currently facing the Cemetery. With 7.9 miles of roads and an estimated $12.5 million dollars in repairs, it is unlikely that the roadways can be repaired as a single project. Two strategies were identified to address these challenges: 1. Develop roadway and drainage repair plans to identify and prioritize repairs into smaller projects 2. Restrict vehicle access on low priority roadways to minimize the intensity of the use, extend the life of the roadways, reduce the necessity of needed repairs, and reduce maintenance Storm drainage analysis related to the Cemetery roadways was also addressed with the roadway analysis (see Appendix D) and should be addressed with the repair and replacement of Cemetery roadways. Roadway Repair Priority Cemetery roadways were prioritized for repair based on the following characteristics: Roads more frequently used for public and maintenance vehicular circulation were prioritized over secondary or tertiary roads. Roads that also serve as main routes as outlined on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Plan were given higher priority. CHAPTER 3 3-8 Roads in poor condition were prioritized over those in fair or average condition (see Appendix D for detailed Cemetery Roadway Condition Analysis). Road width was given some consideration but only to the extent that wider roads tend to be primary circulation routes with narrow roads generally being tertiary circulation routes. Total roadway length within a priority category was considered in an effort to separate roadways into projects that would be of a more manageable size from a funding standpoint. Roads are prioritized as follows: (See Roadway Improvements Plan, Figure 3.1) Priority Length (miles) Square Feet Estimated Cost 1a 1.3 139,000 $ 2,400,000 1b 1.3 132,000 $ 2,200,000 2a 1.2 109,000 $ 1,800,000 2b 1.1 119,000 $ 2,000,000 3 1.9 170,000 $ 2,900,000 4 1.1 71,000 $ 1,200,000 Totals 7.9 740,000 $ 12,500,000 COST CONSIDERATIONS See Appendix B for more detailed information on the estimated costs. Estimated cost includes demolition, new asphalt and base course, curb and gutter (or 18” concrete edge), and storm drainage improvements as illustrated in the Storm Drainage Improvements Plan. Storm Drainage Storm drainage conditions related to the Cemetery roadways was assessed in conjunction with roadways (see ESI Engineering Streets Inventory in Appendix D) and should be addressed with the repair and replacement of Cemetery roadways. The Storm Drainage Improvements Plan (see Figure 3.2) illustrates recommended drainage improvements. 11th Avenue Storm Drainage - One of the greatest storm drainage problems at the Cemetery is related to storm water along 11th Avenue. In addition to storm drainage ponding against the WPA sandstone walls, much of the storm water from 11th Avenue drains into the Cemetery at the Center Street entrance and flows down Center Street to 4th Avenue (roughly 230 feet of vertical drop and 2,350 linear feet of distance). Because of the steep slopes, storm events can result in large amounts of water traveling at high velocity through the Cemetery site. Correcting the drainage issues along 11th Avenue is essential to the preservation of the WPA sandstone walls and will minimize or eliminate the drainage challenges the Cemetery deals with as a result of the poor drainage along 11th Avenue. Since the Cemetery property ends at the WPA walls, other City departments (Public Utilities and Transportation) will need to address this problem. CHAPTER 3 3-9Figure 3.1 - Roadway Improvements PlanRoadwayImprovements PlanPriority 1a road repairs (1.3 miles)Priority 1b road repairs (1.3 miles)Priority 3 road repairs (1.9 miles)Priority 4 road repairs (1.1 miles)Priority 2a road repairs (1.2 miles)Priority 2b road repairs (1.1 miles)Existing open gateExisting closed gateSLC Cemetery boundaryRoads with restricted public vehicular accessand pedestrian amenities and enhancementsRoads with restricted public vehicular accessRemovable bollards to restrict public vehicularaccess - All other roadways to remain openRoads with enhancements within existingright-of-way,LindseyGardensM StreetN StreetU Street4th Avenue4th Avenue11th AvenueMt. CalvaryCatholicCemeteryPoppertonParkMain St.Park St.Center St.330 NGrand Ave.Cypress Ave.Olive St.Elm St.355 N325 N1100 E1200 EHillside445 NOquirrh Ave.Main St.240 N280 N310 NCentral Ave.445 NThird AveFirst Ave250 NUintah Ave.Wasatch Ave.460 N980 E1040 E1000 E405 N CHAPTER 3 3-10This page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out. CHAPTER 3 3-11Figure 3.2 - Storm Drainage Improvements PlanStorm DrainageImprovements PlanStorm drain lines1234General NotesInformation shown is for master planning only.Detailed design information will be needed foreach project.New curb and gutter along 11th. This wasnot part of the master plan budget as thisproject would be part of slc roadwayimprovements budget.New storm drain and manholes in 11th. Thiswas not part of the master plan budget asthis project would be part of slc roadwayimprovements budget.Existing storm drain and manholes.New storm drain, manholes, and catchbasins. These improvements were includedin the master plan prices for the roadwayreconstructions.MSDCatch basinStorm drain manhole and lineNew curb and gutter along 11th Ave.1111111122223333333333333333344444444444MSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDMSDLindseyGardensM StreetN StreetU Street4th Avenue4th Avenue11th AvenueMt. CalvaryCatholicCemeteryParkPoppertonParkMain St.Park St.Center St.330 NGrand Ave.Cypress Ave.Olive St.Elm St.355 N325 N1100 E1200 EHillside445 NOquirrh Ave.Main St.240 N280 N310 NCentral Ave.445 NThird AveFirst Ave250 NUintah Ave.Wasatch Ave.460 N980 E1040 E1000 E405 N CHAPTER 3 3-12This page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out. 3-13CHAPTER 3 Source: Cemetery Planning Team ROADWAY RECOMMENDATIONS: Roadways should be reconstructed with 3” asphalt over 8” compacted base course. If curb and gutter exists on roadways, new curb and gutter should be constructed as part of roadway work. If existing roadways do not have curb and gutter then roadway should be constructed with 18” wide flush concrete edge. Roadways will need to be re-constructed to the existing width to avoid disturbance to graves. Irrigation renovations east of Center Street will require installation of piping in roadways. Coordinate projects as possible to minimize cutting of new roads for irrigation installation. Tree planting should be coordinated with roadway improvement projects to avoid damage to newly planted trees. DRAINAGE RECOMMENDATIONS: Construct recommended storm drainage improvements as part of roadway repairs and replacement (see Storm Drainage Improvements Plan, Figure 3.2). Add curb and gutter along 11th Avenue and slope grade away from WPA walls to keep storm water from collecting at the base of the wall. Improve 11th Avenue Storm Drainage system to eliminate ponding and reduce or eliminate storm water that enters the Cemetery site. Responsibility for this project lies with other City departments and not the Cemetery, as the Cemetery property ends at the WPA walls (it is mentioned here because it significantly impacts Cemetery resources and infrastructure). Green infrastructure solutions should be considered and incorporated where possible for future drainage projects. CHAPTER 3 3-14 Restricting Public Vehicular Access As indicated on the Roadway Improvements Plan (Figure 3.1, shown previously), a number of roads have been identified as having restricted access. All but one of the priority 4 roads are identified as having restricted public vehicular access while a third of the length of the priority 3 roads are identified as having restricted access. Some of these roadways have also been identified to be enhanced by adding pedestrian amenities such as benches and ornamental plantings. These are roads that offer great views or have sections that correlate with the Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Plan. Restricting vehicular access is being proposed as an effort to minimize wear and tear, extend the useful life of the roadways, and minimize maintenance costs (reduce need for snow plowing and repairs), while still maintaining the road network for pedestrians, cyclists, and maintenance personnel. This can be accomplished by installing removable bollards at each access point of the identified roadways. Removable bollards will restrict vehicular access while still providing pedestrian and bicycle access. It will also give Cemetery personnel flexibility to use the roadways as needed for ongoing operations and maintenance, such as opening and closing of graves. In addition, the access could be opened for high traffic events such as Memorial Day or high profile memorial services. Bollards should be installed according to the following general guidelines: Restricted access roads are between 12’–18’ wide Bollards should be installed at each intersection on restricted access roads Bollards should be offset a minimum 10 feet from edge of the intersecting road Bollards should be spaced a maximum of 6 feet on center Roads less than 15’ wide shall have two bollards offset 3’ on either side of the road center line (see Figure 3.3) Roads 15’–18’ wide shall have three bollards with one centered in the road and two offset 6 feet to each side (see Figure 3.4) Source: reliance-foundry.com 3-15CHAPTER 3 Figure 3.3 - Restricted Access Road Section - 2 Removable Bollards COST CONSIDERATIONS: Estimated cost to install removable bollards at 36 locations - $163,000. See Appendix B for more detailed information on the estimated costs. An estimated $44,000 could be saved if the City is able to self-perform bollard installation ($20,000 by eliminating need for Design and Engineering Fees and $24,000 savings of contractor general conditions, profit and overhead, and bonding costs). RECOMMENDATIONS: Install removable bollards according to the above stated guidelines in the locations indicated on the Road Improvement Plan. It is recommended that all bollards be installed as a single project to minimize further deterioration of roadways rather than phasing installation over multiple years. Bollard used as basis of design for estimated costs is Urban Accessories model “Memphis Rem/Lock”. Bollards should be ornamental and reflective of the character of the Cemetery. Figure 3.4 - Restricted Access Road Section - 3 Removable Bollards CHAPTER 3 3-16 Walls and Fences The Cemetery has many free-standing and retaining walls across the site. While some are simple concrete walls serving the functional needs of retaining soil and burial areas, others are stone and cobble and have decorative and historic value. The sandstone walls built by the WPA are the most notable. Portions of the WPA walls have fallen into disrepair and need to be repaired and restored. The City has undertaken repair projects recently on the sandstone WPA wall along 11th Avenue and the cobblestone wall along 405 North Street but repair of these historic walls has proven to be more extensive and costly than initially thought. Repairs on the WPA wall along 11th Avenue included repairs to the north side of the wall and the cap as well as crucial structural repairs on the south side of the wall. This project also included treatment with a water repellent sealer. It is likely an additional $1,000,000 will be needed to finish the repair on the WPA walls alone. In addition, there are many more walls that need maintenance and repair work done. COST CONSIDERATIONS Total wall/fence repair estimated cost - $1,500,000. See Figure 3.5 for estimated cost per wall/ fence. See Appendix B for detailed estimates for the individual walls/fences. Note on Estimated Costs: Estimated costs are an educated guess based on current analysis but could vary significantly due to the wide variability of wall conditions and repair needs as well as construction methods of the historic walls (especially stone walls). Due to the limited number of similar projects, there is not widespread cost data to rely on. It is also unlikely that the full extent of wall repair needs can be fully understood until repair work begins and masons are able to look at the interior of the walls and evaluate their structural integrity. GENERAL WALL RECOMMENDATIONS: Each wall should be evaluated for its historic character and value and repaired accordingly. Stone walls should be repaired to visually match existing walls. Consider creating a pre-qualified pool of Historic Masons to do stone wall masonry work and ongoing repairs and maintenance. Due to the specialized expertise required for repair of the historic stone walls, consider working directly with Historic Masons and other appropriate contractors to begin wall repair work rather than contracting with design consultants to conduct detailed analysis and documents for bidding purposes. Contracting additional design studies or inventories will add cost, delay the process of repairs, and only provides a snapshot of wall conditions (as they will continue to deteriorate). It is recommended that shorter sections of walls be completely repaired rather than making basic repairs along the entire length of walls. Fully repaired wall sections will last much longer whereas basic repairs will only serve as a band-aid and will require additional repair work within one to two years. See Figure 3.5 for individual wall recommendations. Cobble Wall along 445 North Source: Cemetery Planning Team CHAPTER 3 3-17Figure 3.5 - Individual Wall Recommendations (listed in order of priority)Priority Wall/Fence Location Recommendations Estimated Cost1 WPA Walls (along 11th Ave)Wall is currently being repaired, including the application of appropriately specified, non-film-forming, penetrating and highly breathable water repellent to all exposed wall surfaces. Water repellent treatment should be reapplied every 5-7 years. Work with appropriate city departments to add curb and gutter and other drainage improvements along 11th Ave (cost not included). $1,000,000 2Cobble Wall (405/415 North Hillside Avenue to 980 East)Repair section of wall from 930 East to Hillside Avenue. Repair / replace intermittent missing stones.Work directly with a historic mason to evaluate, determine, and as approved, perform specific repairs. $61,000 3 N Street Ornamental FenceReplace concrete columns and refinish and repair ornamental iron as outlined in MJSA Historic Landscape Elements Report $107,000 4Cobble Wall (north and east side of 355 North to Hillside)Replace cap along shorter section of wall east of Hillside Ave.Repair / replace intermittent missing stones.Work directly with a historic mason to evaluate, determine, and as approved, perform specific repairs. $43,000 5Cobble Wall (south side of 330 North)Repair / replace intermittent missing stones.Perform a detailed assessment of wall condition (by a historic mason)Work directly with a historic mason to evaluate, determine, and as approved, perform specific repairs. $10,000 6Cobble Wall (445 North Center St. to 1100 East and 980 East toward Hillside)Replace wall caps (initial estimate is that 50% of wall cap length needs repair).Repair / replace intermittent missing stones.Work directly with a historic mason to evaluate, determine, and as approved, perform specific repairs. $109,000 7Concrete Wall (330 North and Central Avenue)Wall only requires minor repairsConcrete stair case is crumbling, is a safety risk and should be replaced $12,000 8 Stone Wall along North PlatWall only requires minor repairs (however, it is exposed to moisture due to location along 11th Ave)Perform a detailed assessment of wall condition (by a historic mason)Work directly with a historic mason to evaluate, determine, and as approved, perform specific repairs. $18,000 9Concrete Wall (1100 East/325 North)Replace wall as it has a number of major cracks (however, it is not an immediate structural concern).Adjacent trees may have to be removed to replace the wall $13,000 10Ornamental Iron Fence (west of Cypress Ave on 4th Ave)Repair / replace bent or broken sections to match existing ornamental iron fence $15,000 11Cobble Wall (west side of Central Avenue)Wall is in good condition and needs only minor repairsWork directly with a historic mason to evaluate, determine, and as approved, perform specific repairs. $55,00012Concrete wall (north side of 330 North)Wall is in good condition, but does not match adjacent wall sectionsReplace section of concrete wall with Cobble wall to match the adjacent sections$30,00013Walls at Maintenance Building/Facilities (6 individual walls)Repair walls if they become a health/safety concern - otherwise wait and address walls at time of Sexton/Maintenance Area redevelopment$22,000 (Total for all 6 walls)14 Concrete Wall (1060 E/325 N)Wall is in good condition. Minor repairs needed. $5,00015Concrete Walls (entry to Cypress Ave at 4th Avenue)No repairs needed at this time N/ASee Figure 3.6 - Wall and Fence Location Map CHAPTER 3 3-18This page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out. CHAPTER 3 3-19Figure 3.6 - Wall and Fence Location MapReinforced ConcreteSLC Cemetery BoundaryStacked Masonry (within burial sections)Sand Stone (WPA Walls)River Rock with MortarOrnamental Fences1Wall Priority Identifier7th Avenue312219814661145731331015LindseyGardensM StreetN StreetU Street4th Avenue4th Avenue11th AvenueMt. CalvaryCatholicCemeteryPoppertonParkMain St.Park St.Center St.330 NGrand Ave.Cypress Ave.Olive St.Elm St.355 N325 N1100 E1200 EHillside445 NOquirrh Ave.Main St.240 N280 N310 NCentral Ave.445 NThird AveFirst Ave250 NUintah Ave.Wasatch Ave.460 N980 E1040 E1000 E405 N CHAPTER 3 3-20This page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out. 3-21CHAPTER 3 Replace Phone System The phone system for the Sexton Building and Maintenance Facilities is outdated and in need of an upgrade. The Cemetery received an estimated cost to upgrade the phone system but has not received funding to complete this work. COST CONSIDERATIONS Estimated Cost - $15,000. Costs were estimated based on bids received by the Cemetery last year with appropriate escalation added. RECOMMENDATIONS: Replace phone system for Sexton and Maintenance Buildings Irrigation The Cemetery irrigation system is essential to maintaining the beautiful and respectful atmosphere expected by the public and required by the Cemetery’s perpetual care contracts. The west portion of the Cemetery was upgraded in 2013 with new polyethylene piping, valves, heads and control wiring. New control wiring was also installed to the east portion of the Cemetery at that time to enable the entire Cemetery to be centrally controlled. The east section of the Cemetery was last upgraded in the 1980’s. This portion of the system is constructed with PVC piping and given the heavy use and ongoing disturbance activities of the Cemetery, has an expected useful life of 20–25 years. In general, as irrigation systems age beyond 25 years they tend to experience more frequent breakdowns, components become obsolete, and finding replacement parts may be more difficult. Currently, there are no major issues with the irrigation system other than normal repairs and maintenance. However, this portion of the Cemetery is essentially running on borrowed time and should be considered a high priority for upgrade. Irrigation heads do not require replacement as these have been upgraded and replaced as part of ongoing maintenance and operations. COST CONSIDERATIONS Estimated Cost - $1,600,000. Costs were based on comparisons of other similar projects as well as irrigation upgrade work completed at the Cemetery in 2013. RECOMMENDATIONS: Coordinate upgrades with roadway repairs to avoid cutting into newly reconstructed roads. Upgrade east section of Cemetery irrigation system by replacing irrigation mainlines, control wiring, and control valves. Irrigation zones including lateral piping and irrigation heads are not recommended for replacement. Cemetery staff believes the piping is in relatively good condition and the difficulty of running new piping through burial areas is likely to be very challenging. Consider using polyethylene piping due to its longer life and consistency in matching the west side irrigation system. CHAPTER 3 3-22 Entry Gates Each of the vehicular access points are gated but vary in type and condition. Many are in poor condition and disrepair. The Main Entry Gate, located on the corner of 4th Avenue and N Street, provides significant historic character and value to the Cemetery and should be maintained and preserved. Ten additional gates control access to the Cemetery, the majority of which are open and actively used. Four of the gates are normally kept closed to discourage through traffic. Restoring/repairing entry gates will enhance the overall the aesthetics of the cemetery. COST CONSIDERATIONS Estimated Cost - $100,000 for replacement of eight gates ($12,500 per gate). Estimated costs include demolition of gates and posts, new powder coated metal gates and posts, estimate contingency, and design/engineering fees. The costs to convert three gates to pedestrian and bicycle access points are included as part of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements. RECOMMENDATIONS: Gate Location Recommendations Historic Entry Gate (Corner of 4th Avenue & N Street) Gate is an important historic feature of the Cemetery. Currently in good condition. Preserve and Maintain. N Street/240 North Replace with new posts and metal gate arms, painted with color to complement the character of the Cemetery. N Street/250 North Replace with new posts and metal gate arms, painted with color to complement the character of the Cemetery. N Street/Grand Avenue Replace with new posts and metal gate arms, painted with color to complement the character of the Cemetery. N Street/280 North Eliminate gate and convert into a Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Point by installing removable bollards. N Street/7th Avenue (near Lindsey Gardens) Replace with new posts and metal gate arms, painted with color to complement the character of the Cemetery. 11th Ave/920 East (WPA Wall)Replace with new posts and metal gate arms, painted with color to complement the character of the Cemetery. 11 Avenue/Center Street Eliminate gate and convert into a Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Point by installing removable bollards. 11 Avenue/405 N (WPA Wall)Remove chain. Replace with new posts and metal gate arms, painted with color to complement the character of the Cemetery. 4th Avenue/Cypress Eliminate gate and convert into a Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Point by installing removable bollards. 4th Avenue/Center Street Replace with new posts and metal gate arms, painted with color to complement the character of the Cemetery. Closed Gate at 11th Ave Source: Cemetery Planning Team 3-23CHAPTER 3 Maintenance Buildings The maintenance buildings are outdated, do not meet current codes, are sprawling, and detract from the character of the area surrounding the historic Sexton Building. While upgrading or replacing the maintenance buildings and facilities is a deferred maintenance project, it is addressed in detail as part of the expansion options for the Sexton Building area because it is so integrally connected to the development possibilities for the Sexton area. Please see the detailed discussion, recommendations, and concept plans for the maintenance facilities in Chapter 4. COST CONSIDERATIONS Estimated Cost - costs are integral to development of the area around the Sexton Building. See estimated costs for the Sexton Building area and Maintenance Facilities in Chapter 4. RECOMMENDATIONS: Design should be of architectural character to complement the Sexton Building Consolidate Maintenance Facility to better use space or relocate off-site to Lindsey Gardens (see Concept Design Option A and Option B in Chapter 4). If relocated to Lindsey Gardens area, maintenance facilities should be developed for shared- use with Parks. Source: Cemetery Planning Team Source: martingardnerarch.com CHAPTER 3 3-24 Fueling Station The fueling station should be considered for relocation as part of the Sexton/maintenance area redevelopment. If it is determined that relocation is not feasible, the plaza space and columbarium walls can be developed around the existing fueling station as long as appropriate screening is incorporated into the design. COST CONSIDERATIONS Estimated Cost - $30,000 to remove existing tanks $150,000 for new fueling station with two new above ground tanks RECOMMENDATIONS: If maintenance facilities are relocated to Lindsey Gardens, relocate the fuel station to the new maintenance facilities for Cemetery/Parks Department use only (rather than a citywide use) Consider installing above ground storage tanks at new facility Sexton Building Interior Repair and Renovation The interior of the Sexton Building has had varying levels of maintenance and upkeep over the years. The most recently completed project included stripping, fixing, and painting walls and ceilings in the Sexton’s main office and two other offices. The remaining areas within the historic structure are in need of similar repair. These include: Main Floor - 3 rooms, kitchen, halls, and bathroom Upper Floor - 3 conference rooms, two storage rooms, restroom, hallway, and staircase Other previously completed projects include replacing windows and upgrading a portion of the building with more efficient fixtures. All maintenance and upkeep projects of the Sexton Building should be planned and performed with careful consideration of its historic value and character. COST CONSIDERATIONS: The small size of the recommended projects, the building’s historic value, as well as high variability in market conditions at the time of bidding make estimating costs for these types of improvements very difficult. As a guideline, general maintenance and upkeep for a building of this type is estimated at $3–$5 per square foot per year. Assuming $5 per square foot (for approximately 4,000 square feet), would result in $20,000 per year of estimated maintenances and upkeep costs. In addition, recent project costs (of stripping, fixing and painting walls and ceilings of the Sexton’s office) indicate that to repair the remaining areas within the Sexton building will cost an estimated $100,000. Estimated Cost: $100,000 Source: convault.com 3-25CHAPTER 3 RECOMMENDATIONS: Repair walls and ceilings throughout the remainder of the building (remove paper, repair plaster and fix holes, paint). Consider allocating $20,000 per year for the next 5 years for these repairs. Perform a detailed review by a qualified professional of the remaining fixtures in the Sexton building and upgrade with high efficiency and historically compatible fixtures as appropriate. Determine the building’s current insulation (especially in cold attic spaces) and upgrade as necessary to improve energy efficiency if this can be done with minimal impact to the historic character of the building. All maintenance and upkeep projects of the Sexton Building should be planned and performed with careful consideration of its historic value and character. Repair/Replace Plat, Block, and Lot markers The Cemetery is divided into plats, blocks, and lots to assist Cemetery personnel and visitors in locating specific graves. Currently concrete markers are placed throughout the Cemetery to identify the different plats, blocks, and lots. Existing markers are deteriorating and are in need of replacement. Identifying and assessing the overall need to replace or install plat, block, and lot markers is recommended but will be a large project on its own and is beyond the scope of this Master Plan. As such, there is not adequate information to provide estimated costs at this time. RECOMMENDATIONS: Identify and assess the overall need to replace or install plat, block, and lot markers throughout the Cemetery Identify the historical value of plat, block, and lot markers and, as appropriate, replace with markers that are historically compatible Prioritize repairs and installations and perform work as funding is available Security System There are not any security systems currently in place at any of the Cemetery facilities. Given the importance of the Cemetery’s records, the historic value of the Sexton Building, and the value of equipment and supplies housed within the maintenance facilities, a security system should be considered. COST CONSIDERATIONS: Estimated Cost: $30,000–$50,000 RECOMMENDATIONS: Security system could include alarms and notification for intrusion and fire. Specific needs of the facilities will need to be reviewed to identify the appropriate specifications and requirements. SLC Cemetery Block Marker Source: Cemetery Planning Team SLC Cemetery Lot Marker Source: Cemetery Planning Team CHAPTER 3 3-26 Screen Headstone and Soils Storage Area The headstone and soils storage area located in the middle of the Cemetery near 980 East and 415 North (see Soil and Headstone Storage Locations Map, Figure 3.9) is unattractive. Screening this use would improve the aesthetics of the area and would help preserve the respectful atmosphere of the Cemetery. This can be accomplished by constructing covered concrete landscape bins (similar to what is shown in Figure 3.8) and an enclosed area for trash, and other storage. Covering the soils storage area benefits Cemetery operations and maintenance personnel as it keeps soil piles dry and easier to work with. COST CONSIDERATIONS: Estimated Cost: $260,000 - See Appendix B for more detailed information on estimated costs. RECOMMENDATIONS Develop four covered landscape bins (approximate size 12’ wide x 25’ deep), covered by a roof structure to keep soil dry and workable Roof structure should be designed to be tall enough to accommodate heavy equipment but minimize exposure to precipitation Bins should be constructed with reinforced concrete floor to accommodate heavy equipment Include gates with screening panels at each bin to screen bins when not actively in use Consider developing at least one bin as a garbage enclosure with walk-in entry from the side (see example image Figure 3.7) The covered landscape bins and garbage enclosure should be aesthetically appealing, unobtrusive, and fit with the character of the Cemetery Figure 3.8 - Example of Covered Landscape Bins at Utah Veterans Cemetery & Memorial Park Source: Cemetery Planning Team Figure 3.7 - Example of screened enclosure with side entry Source: springerconstructionllc.com 3-27CHAPTER 3 Lindsey Gardens Center St.330 N Olive St.Hillside445 N Oquirrh Ave.Main St.445 N Uintah Ave. W asatch Ave. 460 N 980 E1040 E1000 E445 N 940 E980 E355 N 405 N Wasatch Ave. Fire Station #4 Screen headstone and soils storage area with concrete landscape bins and roof structure for spoils and storage Add a roof structure over the existing storage bins near SLC Fire Station #4 SLC Cemetery boundary Figure 3.9 - Soil and Headstone Storage Locations Map Roof Structure Over Existing Storage Bins Near Fire Station Covering the concrete storage bins near the fire station (see Soil and Headstone Storage Locations Map, Figure 3.9) will protect stored materials from weather, keeping them dry and workable. This can be accomplished by constructing a roof structure over the existing bins similar to what is shown in Figure 3.8. COST CONSIDERATIONS Estimated Cost: $160,000 - See Appendix B for more detailed information on estimated costs. RECOMMENDATIONS: Estimated size needed is 80’ wide x 30’ deep. Roof structure should be designed to be tall enough to accommodate heavy equipment but minimize exposure to precipitation CHAPTER 3 3-28 Emergency Preparedness As a part of Salt Lake City’s open space network, the Cemetery has potential to play an important role in helping the City address and respond to emergency situations. In the event of an emergency, the Cemetery’s assets become valuable resources to the City and can be used at the discretion of the Public Services Director (under direction of the Mayor or his/her emergency interim successor). These assets include equipment, machinery, fuel, personnel, and open space. Possible emergency situations related to the Cemetery include an active shooter scenario (related to gang member burials), landslide, urban interface fire, earthquake, and flooding. However, while flooding at the Cemetery has happened in the past, implementation of flood control improvements significantly reduces the likelihood of future flooding. Sustainability Comments received through the civic engagement process as well as the community’s input on the Master Plan goals highlight the importance of sustainability as it relates to the Cemetery. The top ranked Master Plan goal is to “preserve and enhance the natural resources in the Cemetery” and the third ranked Master Plan goal is to “incorporate sustainable maintenance practices.” The Cemetery follows the City’s sustainability policies and is actively working to incorporate sustainable practices into their facilities and ongoing operations. The Cemetery has taken a number of steps to increase sustainability including: Replacing gasoline powered equipment to battery powered models Transitioning maintenance vehicles and equipment to fuel efficient models Installation of irrigation central control water management system to more efficiently manage irrigation water usage Replacement of light fixtures throughout the Cemetery with high efficient LED lights Upgrades to light fixtures in the Sexton Building Replacement of 250 trees damaged by a large wind storm RECOMMENDATIONS: Continue to incorporate City sustainability policies and review facilities and operations on a regular basis to identify areas where adjustment or improvements can be made Maintain the Cemetery’s urban forest as outlined in the tree and planting recommendations as outlined in this Master Plan Continue to review policies and procedures and implement practices that impact sustainability Upgrade and replace equipment to efficient models as technology improves 3-29CHAPTER 3 The City Emergency Response Team is in the process of meeting with each City department to develop a “Continuity of Operations Plan.” As part of Salt Lake City’s Parks and Public Lands Department, the Cemetery should be involved in the creation of this plan. RECOMMENDATIONS: Coordinate with Parks and Public Lands Department as they work with the City Emergency Response Team to create a “Continuity of Operations Plan” Development around the Sexton Building should consider the role the City fueling station has for emergency response Impact to Cemetery’s emergency response assets should be reviewed and evaluated as updates or changes to the Cemetery site, facilities, or operations are considered CHAPTER 4 4-1 The Cemetery is used as a public open space and attracts users to enjoy the solitude, wildlife, mature trees, and other cultural, historic, and natural resources the Cemetery has to offer. The recommendations of this chapter focus on accomplishing the second master planning purpose of expanding access and enhancing appropriate uses. To accomplish this purpose and the associated goals, recommendations have been developed for the following: Public Access: Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements East-West Pedestrian Corridor Wayfinding Signage with maps and directional signage or markers Interpretive Signage Benches and plantings at edges of roadways Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Points in the Cemetery from surrounding roadways Active Transportation Routes Redevelopment of the Sexton area and maintenance facilities Community Stewardship: Cemetery Awareness Partnerships Cemetery Services: Addition of free standing columbarium walls Regulations Master Plan Purpose #2: Expand access to and enhance appropriate uses of the Cemetery as a multi-use facility Master Plan GoalsPublic Access Enhance and develop opportunities to explore the Cemetery through walking, jogging and cycling Create a welcoming and attractive space that can accommodate visitors by enhancing the area surrounding the Sexton Building Increase opportunity for public use by providing new services and amenities Make information about activities and resources more available to the public through digital and print media Community Stewardship Expand the feeling of community ownership and stewardship Work with community partners to identify opportunities and programs to highlight the rich history of the Cemetery Cemetery Services Develop opportunities to continue to provide burial and internment offerings Bold indicates high priority goals. 4-2CHAPTER 4 Pedestrian and Bicycle Enhancements One of the high priority goals as identified in Chapter 2 is to to explore the Cemetery through walking, jogging, and cycling.” The Cemetery is already used by nearby residents and visitors as a place for walking, jogging and bicycling and is surrounded by existing and proposed routes on Salt Lake City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. The Cemetery’s location in the Avenues, its network of roads, mature trees, and beautiful landscape create an opportunity for the Cemetery to provide connections to many bicycle and pedestrian routes and offer City residents a safe and beautiful location to walk, jog, or bike. In an effort to create greater connectivity between pedestrian and bicycle routes, enhance pedestrian and bicycle opportunities throughout the Cemetery, and encourage broader use of the Cemetery by residents, a Cemetery Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Plan has been developed (see Figure 4.2). The plan includes the following elements: East-West Pedestrian Corridor with benches and interpretive signage Wayfinding Signage with Map and directional signage or markers Benches and plantings at edges of roadways Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Points into the Cemetery from surrounding roadways Designated Active Transportation Routes through the Cemetery East-West Pedestrian Corridor 280 North Street is a narrow road (approximately 12’ wide) that has potential to be developed into a relaxing, enjoyable, and educational pedestrian corridor. This roadway passes by a number of historically important grave sites, has good views, originates just a short distance from the Sexton Building, and has restrooms and a drinking fountain along the route. COST CONSIDERATIONS: Estimated Cost - $180,000. See Appendix B for more detailed information on estimated costs. RECOMMENDATIONS: Restrict vehicle access along entire length (except where route crosses intersecting roadways) Eliminate N Street/280 North gate and convert into a Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Point by installing removable bollards Add benches at numerous locations (See Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Plan for locations) Add interpretive signage along the corridor (Prior to the installation of interpretive signage, an interpretive plan should be prepared. See detailed discussion about Interpretive signage in the sections that follow). Add additional tree planting where possible and appropriate CHAPTER 4 4-3 Wayfinding Signage Wayfinding signage is proposed at each of the major access points and nodes along pedestrian and bicycle routes. Signage should be simple and unobtrusive, list Cemetery hours, and convey information about routes that pass through the Cemetery. The main signage should be located at the major pedestrian and bicycle entrances and nodes and should contain a Cemetery map showing routes with locations of amenities such as restrooms, drinking fountains, and benches. Other directional signage can be added as deemed appropriate. COST CONSIDERATIONS: Estimated Cost - $5,000 per sign - please note the costs for wayfinding signage has been included as part of the estimated costs for the Active Transportation Routes Project. RECOMMENDATIONS: Add wayfinding signs with maps at locations shown on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Plan. Wayfinding signage should be designed to complement the context and character of the Cemetery and City’s signage standards and guidelines. Source: SLC Parks and Public Lands Signage Standards Figure 4.1 - East-West Pedestrian Corridor Enhancement Concept (280 North Street) nts such as benches, interpretive signage, and additional tree plantings compliment the character of the Cemetery and provide opportunities for pedestrians to relax, enjoy the views, and learn about Cemetery History. CHAPTER 4 4-4Figure 4.2 - Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements PlanRoads with restricted public vehicular accessand pedestrian amenities and enhancementsRoads with restricted public vehicular accessImprovements PlanSLC Existing Pedestrian and BicyclePath/Route (see SLC Pedestrian andBicycle Master Plan)SLC Proposed Pedestrian and BicyclePath/Route (see SLC Pedestrian and BicycleMaster Plan)Existing contours (2' contour interval)Potential connections to SLC Pedestrian andBicycle Master Plan routes outside Cemeterypropertyaccess pointSLC Cemetery boundaryProposed East-West Pedestrian Corridor(along 280 North)Removable bollards to restrict public vehicularaccess - All other roadways to remain openApproximate bench locations. Exactplacement of benches to be reviewedto maximize views and accommodateexisting grades.Roads with enhancements within existingright-of-way,Wayfinding signage locationExisting open gateExisting closed gateApproximate interpretive signage locationsLindseyGardensM StreetN StreetU Street4th Avenue4th Avenue11th AvenueMt. CalvaryCatholicCemeteryPoppertonParkMain St.Possible connection toexisting trail systemProposed routeintersection. Addbenches andother amenitiesRestroomPedestrian and bicycleaccess pointPark St.Center St.330 NGrand Ave.Cypress Ave.Olive St.Elm St.355 N325 N1100 E1200 EHillside445 NOquirrh Ave.Main St.240 N280 N310 NCentral Ave.445 NFuture neighborhoodbyways proposed as partof SLC Pedestrian andBicycle Master PlanFuture neighborhood byways proposedas part of SLC Pedestrian and BicycleMaster PlanPossible connectionsto future neighborhoodbywaysPossible connectionsto future neighborhoodbywayRestroomThird AveFirst Ave250 NUintah Ave.Wasatch Ave.460 N980 E1040 E1000 E405 NExisting bike lanealong 11th Avenue10%6%11%12%3.8%6.5%8%3.5%8.6%4.3%11.1%13.4%3.3%9.7%4.8%14%11.8%6.6%10.9%2.8%13%4%12.3%6.4%8.0%10%12.4%7.6%8.5%13%12%8%Pedestrian and bicycleaccess pointPedestrian and bicycleaccess point CHAPTER 4 4-5This page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out. 4-6CHAPTER 4 Interpretive Signage The addition of interpretive signage throughout the Cemetery will increase awareness of the historic importance of the Cemetery, create an educational opportunity for visitors to enjoy, diversify the available uses of the Cemetery, and provide another reason to visit. Interpretive signage should be complementary in overall style and design to the wayfinding signage. While the selection and development of locations and content for interpretive signage is beyond the scope of this Master Plan, some items or important events that may be worthy of inclusion as part of an interpretive signage plan have been listed below: Historic Sexton Building 1915 Entry Gate Development & Design Competition WPA Walls along 11th Avenue Wildlife of the Cemetery Trees/Vegetation of the Cemetery Cemetery Establishment and Mary Wallace Burial Influence of LDS Church in City history and the Cemetery Other interesting pieces of Cemetery history Development of a comprehensive interpretive signage plan with locations, design, and content may be an appropriate project to generate interest from local historians and could serve as the starting point for a “Friends of the Cemetery” group. In addition to interpretive signage, there are a number of other possible methods of interpretation. Methods for interpreting the themes are limited only by the imagination and funding capabilities and might include: Re-enactments Guided walks/tours Self-guided brochures in printed form or as apps Virtual tours online or in visitor center Exhibits and displays COST CONSIDERATIONS Estimated Cost: $5,000 per interpretive sign - Costs for interpretive signage are based on a 30”x 40” color sign, installed with metal posts in concrete footings. Please note the cost for 10 interpretive signs has been included as part of the East-West Pedestrian Corridor Project. Costs for developing an interpretive signage plan (including design and content of the signs themselves) can vary greatly and could be a project spearheaded or completed by a “Friends of the Cemetery” group. RECOMMENDATIONS: Develop a comprehensive interpretive signage plan for the Cemetery to highlight the significant historic, cultural or natural resource amenities through out the Cemetery Install interpretive signage in the pedestrian corridor (along 280 North) and in other locations as appropriate CHAPTER 4 4-7 Benches and Plantings at Edges of Roadways The Cemetery Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Plan indicates possible locations for the addition of benches throughout the Cemetery. Benches provide an enhancement to the Cemetery that can benefit those visiting for memorial purposes and recreational users alike, and provide an opportunity for visitors to stop and enjoy the peaceful atmosphere of the Cemetery. Each bench location can also be enhanced by small areas of ornamental plantings adjacent to the benches. COST CONSIDERATIONS Estimated Cost - $3,850 per bench location. See Appendix B for a detailed breakdown of estimated costs. Donation or memorial purchase could be an option rather than City funding. Estimated cost has been listed as a cost per bench location since benches may be added as part of other improvement projects, a few at a time, or individually (if donated). RECOMMENDATIONS: Offer options for bench donation or purchase of memoriam placards for benches A single bench type, color, and style should be used throughout the Cemetery (basis of design is Victory Stanley CR10 classic series with center arm rest) Recommended locations are shown on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Plan (see Figure 4.2) Benches should not extend beyond the tree line (as shown in Figures 4.3 and 4.4) Bench locations should be reviewed to maximize views and accommodate existing grades Install benches over compacted base course or crushed gravel rather than a concrete pad to minimize the addition of impervious surfaces in the green space Optional ornamental planting may be added in appropriate locations as shown in Figure 4.3 Careful consideration should be given to the health and root structure of existing trees prior to adding benches or plants within dripline of trees to avoid cutting major roots Lighting Many differing opinions were expressed by the public regarding the site lighting at the Cemetery. Many expressed a desire to preserve the night sky while others felt the addition of lighting would help with security and be beneficial along the active transportation routes. However, since the Cemetery closes at dusk and there are such varying views on the matter, additional lighting is not recommended at this time. 4-8CHAPTER 4 Figure 4.3 - Plan View of Benches and Plantings at Edges of Roadways Figure 4.4 - Section View of Benches and Plantings at Edges of Roadways CHAPTER 4 4-9 Active Transportation Routes Proposed active transportation routes create connections through the Cemetery for use by cyclists and offer amenities for pedestrians. Proposed routes were studied to take advantage of amenities such as excellent views, tree allees, restroom facilities, and to minimize the impact of steep grades. Routes have been planned in a stair-stepped manner to spread the considerable elevation gain across a greater distance, easing the burden of steep hill climbing or rapid descent. Active transportation routes should be designated by directional signs or markers similar to the image to the right. COST CONSIDERATIONS: Estimated Cost - $185,000 - See Appendix B for more detailed information on the estimated costs. Source: americantrails.org Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Points All the gates to the Cemetery are closed at dusk except the gate near the Sexton Building and fuel station. The closure of all the gates is intended to limit vehicular access but also restricts access and use by pedestrians and cyclists. The Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Plan proposes creating Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Points from roadways surrounding the Cemetery (see locations on the Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements Plan, Figure 4.2, shown previously). This can be accomplished by installing removable bollards at three of the gates that typically remain closed. An approach similar to the restricted access roads should be taken by installing an appropriate number of removable bollards in each location. COST CONSIDERATIONS: Estimated Cost - $17,400 ($5,800 each access point) Please note the costs for these have been included as part of the estimated costs for the Active Transportation Routes Project and the East-West Pedestrian Corridor Project. RECOMMENDATIONS: N Street/280 North Gate - Eliminate gate and convert into a Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Point by installing removable bollards. 11 Avenue/Center Street Gate - Eliminate gate and convert into a Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Point by installing removable bollards. 4th Avenue/Cypress Gate - Eliminate gate and convert into a Pedestrian and Bicycle Access Point by installing removable bollards. Follow guidelines for placement and installation of bollards as outlined in the “Restricting Public Vehicular Access” section (see page 3-14) 4-10CHAPTER 4 RECOMMENDATIONS: Create pedestrian/bicycle friendly access points at locations shown on the plan. Work with City Transportation Department to have Cemetery’s active transportation routes incorporated as part of Salt Lake City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan Provide wayfinding signs at active transportation route entry points and central nodes as shown on plan Add directional markers to designate active transportation routes. Design, materials, and size of directional markers should be unobtrusive and reflective of the character of the Cemetery Add benches along the active transportation routes as shown on the plan CHAPTER 4 4-11 Sexton Area and Maintenance Facilities Redevelopment The Sexton Area and Maintenance facilities have been the topic of many discussions and significant study throughout the planning process. The historic Sexton Building and Entry Gate showcase the character of the Cemetery and create a welcoming gateway. However, the location of the utilitarian maintenance buildings located only a few feet from the back door of the Sexton Building detract from the character of these historic gems. The area around the Sexton Building is the only space within the Cemetery available for new development (see Figure 4.5). Doing so will require relocation or redevelopment of the maintenance facilities, which is a considerable undertaking requiring a significant financial commitment. Redevelopment of this area should include columbarium niche walls that can offer additional revenue potential. Figure 4.5 - Area Available for Redevelopment around the Sexton Building 4-12CHAPTER 4 Some important considerations for the Sexton Area and Maintenance Facility redevelopment include: The Maintenance facilities are outdated and in need of replacement. While the Cemetery has managed to keep the buildings functional they are long overdue for replacement. The Maintenance Facilities detract from the historic character of the Sexton Building. Redevelopment and/or relocation of the Maintenance Facilities offer opportunity to enhance the area around the Sexton Building and develop additional interment opportunities. Replacement of Maintenance Facilities will provide an opportunity to consolidate the buildings and make space for other improvements as well as design the new building(s) in a manner that complements the historic character of the Sexton Building. Development of a shared-use space including columbarium walls and public gathering space will create a welcoming atmosphere for Cemetery visitors and offer additional revenue potential. Relocation of the maintenance facilities off-site eliminates the visual eyesore and creates space available for other improvements around the Sexton Building. Relocation of the maintenance facilities off-site to Lindsey Gardens provides an opportunity for shared use between the Cemetery and Parks Department. Development of the maintenance facilities at Lindsey Gardens offers benefits to the Park through the addition of parking, a pavilion, and restrooms. There are two Sexton Area/Maintenance Facility redevelopment options for consideration: Option A: Sexton Area Redevelopment with Consolidated Maintenance Facilities Option B: Sexton Area Redevelopment with Maintenance Facilities Relocated to Lindsey Gardens CHAPTER 4 4-13 OPTION A - SEXTON AREA REDEVELOPMENT WITH CONSOLIDATED MAINTENANCE FACILITIES This concept (see Figure 4.6) consolidates the Maintenance Facilities into a single building and locates it away from the Sexton Building. The consolidated Maintenance Building offers more building square footage in a smaller footprint on the site. This creates an opportunity to develop a public space with a pavilion and columbarium niche walls. However, because the Maintenance Facilities are still located on the site, development opportunities are more limited and constrained. COST CONSIDERATIONS: Estimated Construction Cost (Including Demo & Redevelopment) = $7,500,000 (See Appendix B for detailed information on cost estimates) Estimated Potential Gross Revenue from 1000 new columbarium niches = $1,075,000 (sale & fees), $300,000 for perpetual care (over 10–15 year period) RECOMMENDATIONS: Perform a detailed Programming and Needs Assessment for Maintenance Facilities Consolidate Maintenance Facilities into single building Maintenance Facilities should be designed to have architectural character to complement the Sexton Building Maintenance facility should be developed as a two story building set into hill with vehicle bays on lower level access from south and office and break rooms space accessed from north side at street level Develop columbarium plaza to accommodate other public gatherings Design should include 1000 columbarium niches Fueling station can be maintained in place but should be carefully screened from plaza space Relocate Irrigation Control Center to new maintenance facility or consider adding an irrigation control room to back of existing restroom Include other programming elements as shown on the Option A Concept Plan (Figure 4.6) CHAPTER 4 4-14Figure 4.6 - Sexton Area with Consolidated MaintenanceConcept Includes:Formal gathering space and memorialization opportunity east of theSexton BuildingColumbarium niches: 1000 (200 single sided wall niches, 800 double sided wall niches)25’ x 25’ pavilion22 total parking spaces10,000 s.f. consolidated maintenance facilityBenefits - Sexton Area Site Improvements:Creates opportunity for a variety of uses including shared use by publicPavilion can be used for public gatherings or memorial servicesCreates a shared use plaza and includes columbarium walls1000 columbarium niches can provide additional revenueConsolidating maintenance into a single building will improve the aesthetics and can be designed to compliment the historic character of the Sexton BuildingBenefits - Maintenance Facilities Improvements:Consolidated maintenance facilities capitalize on grade change with lower level bay access on the south side and upper level office accesson the north sideSeparate maintenance access offers security to Cemetery equipment and vehiclesCity fuel station can remain with appropriate screening4th AvenueN Street CHAPTER 4 4-15This page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out. 4-16CHAPTER 4 OPTION B - SEXTON AREA REDEVELOPMENT WITH MAINTENANCE FACILITIES RELOCATED TO LINDSEY GARDENS This concept (see Figures 4.7 and 4.8) relocates the Maintenance Facilities to nearby Lindsey Gardens and maximizes the opportunity for development in the area around the Sexton Building. Maintenance Facilities would be located in the area of the old tennis courts at Lindsey Gardens and would be developed in a manner that would offer park users additional benefits and amenities (such as additional parking, restroom access, a pavilion, and Parks Maintenance and Storage space within the new Maintenance Facility. The relocation of the Maintenance Facilities creates the greatest flexibility for the development of the space but will also come at a higher cost. However, there would also be more space for construction of columbarium walls and greater revenue generating potential. COST CONSIDERATIONS: Estimated Construction Cost (Including Demo & Redevelopment): $11,000,000 Sexton Area Estimated Cost: $ 2,800,000 Maintenance at Lindsey Gardens Estimated Cost: $ 8,200,000 Total Option B Estimated Cost: $11,000,000 (See Appendix B for detailed information on cost estimates) Estimated Potential Gross Revenue from 1600 new columbarium Niches = $1,720,000 (sale & fees), $480,000 for perpetual care (over 15–20 year period) RECOMMENDATIONS Sexton Area Recommendations (see concept plan, Figure 4.7) Develop columbarium plaza to accommodate other public gatherings Design should include approximately 1600 columbarium niches Fueling station should be relocated to new maintenance facility location. If this is determined to not be feasible, careful screening from plaza space must be incorporated into design Relocate Irrigation Control Center to an irrigation control room attached to back of existing restroom Pavilion should complement the architectural character of Sexton Building Include other programming elements as shown on the Option B Concept Plan (Figure 4.7) CHAPTER 4 4-17 Maintenance Building at Lindsey Gardens Recommendations (see concept plan, Figure 4.8) Perform a detailed Programming and Needs Assessment for Maintenance Facilities (include possibility of sharing facility with Parks) Relocate Maintenance Facility to Lindsey Gardens Maintenance facility should be developed as a two story building set into hill and 1 story vehicle bays (with option to add some second story use over vehicle bays for SLC Parks) Maintenance facility should be developed with exterior access restrooms for use by park users Fueling station should be relocated to new location and utilize above ground storage tanks. (Fueling station would be for Cemetery and Parks use only) Maintenance Parking/Yard should be fenced for security purposes Area should be developed with separate public parking to the west Small pavilion may be included for shared use by park users and maintenance staff CHAPTER 4 4-18Figure 4.7 - Sexton Area with Maintenance RelocatedConcept Includes:Formal gathering space and memorialization opportunity east of the Sexton buildingColumbarium niches: 1600 (250 single sided wall niches, 1350 double sided wall niches)35’ x 35’ pavilionShared use gathering space28 total parking spacesOpportunity for other types of memorialization (benches, memorial walls, plaques, etc.)Maintenance facilities are relocated off siteBenefits:Greater flexibility of developmentOffers shared use opportunitiesPavilion can be used for public gatherings or memorial servicesAmple parking for Cemetery visitors 1600 columbarium niches can provide additional revenueOffers more space for memorialization options (benches, memorial wallsand plaques, etc.)Relocating maintenance facilities off-site eliminates utilitarian, unsightly buildings and maintenance equipment that detracts from the historic character of the Sexton Building and main entrance gate4th AvenueN Street CHAPTER 4 4-19This page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out. CHAPTER 4 4-20Concept Includes:35’ x 35’ public pavilionDedicated public parkingNew concrete walkway from 7th Avenue to Lindsey Gardens baseball fields10,000 sf shared Maintenance Facility between Parks and the CemeteryOptional second story adds 1800 to 2400 sfSeparate maintenance only parkingNew fueling station with two above ground storage tanksMaintenance facilities relocated to tennis court area at Lindsey GardensBenefits:Shared maintenance facilities for Parks and the Cemetery provide better access and operating efficiency as well as a higher level of service to the communityNew public pavilionAdditional parking for Lindsey Gardens and the CemeteryMaintenance facility can be designed with exterior accessible restrooms for park useNew concrete walkway from 7th Avenue improves access into parkFenced maintenance area and dedicated maintenance parking offers security to equipment and vehiclesOff-site maintenance facilities would allow relocation prior to demolition of exiting facilities - no staging or temporary measures to accommodate ongoing maintenance operations during demolition and constructionSource: martingardenarch.comSource: martingardenarch.comUtah VA Cemetery Maintenance BuildingSource: G Brown Design7th AvenueFigure 4.8 - Maintenance Relocated to Lindsey Gardens CHAPTER 4 4-21This page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out. 4-22CHAPTER 4 Cemetery History Awareness Increasing awareness of the Cemetery’s rich history offers an opportunity to generate greater understanding and support for the Cemetery. An attractive and user-friendly website will be imperative to increase awareness, share historic and other information, and offer opportunities for community involvement and partnerships. The existing Cemetery website should be enhanced with high quality photos and easy to navigate links that showcase the Cemetery as a valuable community open space. The website should include links for detailed information and history, tours and maps, and available activities, programs, and uses. Efforts to enhance the Cemetery website should be coordinated with development of interpretive signage and other interpretive strategies (as discussed in the Pedestrian and Bicycle Enhancements in Chapter 4) as these tasks may provide content that could be helpful in the website enhancement and will be mutually supportive of one another. RECOMMENDATIONS: Enhance the Cemetery website with more high quality images and to be more user friendly Cemetery website should be enhanced with additional information about Cemetery history, activities and uses, and self-guided tour maps Coordinate website enhancement with the development of Interpretive Signage and strategies Friends of the Cemetery Group could assist in development of the website with approval and input from the City and Cemetery. COST CONSIDERATION: Estimated Cost: $5,000–$10,000 Salt Lake City Cemetery webpage Source: slcgov.com/cemetery Source: forest-lawn.com CHAPTER 4 4-23 Partnerships Non-Profit Partners Non-profit partners could play a valuable role with the Salt Lake City Cemetery. Partners can take an active role in fundraising, programming and organizing volunteers. The development of a Friends of the Cemetery Group could help the City accomplish goals identified in this Master Plan. Non-profit partners can add to the City’s efforts by garnering grass roots support, developing programming and activities, and spear-heading donation or fund-raising efforts. While the Friends Group must be independent from the City, the City should be supportive of its efforts and provide guidance as necessary. The City’s initial role would be to identify and encourage individuals who can act as a catalyst to start a Friends of the Cemetery Group. Once established, the group can start building a following of interested citizens, businesses, or other groups and begin to accept donations. The eventual goal should be to establish the Friends of the Cemetery as an official non-profit organization by applying for recognition of exemption by the IRS and registering with the state. RECOMMENDATIONS: Encourage the development of a Friends Group by identifying potential partners and inviting selected community members to serve on a friends group steering committee. Establishment of a Friends Group could be done in conjunction with or in response to nomination for the National Register of Historic Places. Identify programs and partnerships that can be promoted and managed by the Friends Group. Potential Partnerships Salt Lake City may be able to increase its capacity for managing and interpreting the resources in the Cemetery by partnering with internal committees and outside entities. Potential partners include: Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission Historic Sites Division of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Jenny Lund, Director Utah State Historic Preservation Office Linda Hilton, author of the Famous and Infamous tour guide Preservation Utah, Kirk Huffaker, Executive Director University of Utah Historic Preservation Certificate Program offered through the College of Architecture + Planning Utah Division of Wildlife Resources The Great Salt Lake Chapter of Audubon Society Salt Lake City Community Events Department Salt Lake City Transportation 4-24CHAPTER 4 Freestanding Columbarium Walls Installation of freestanding columbarium niche walls, similar to the one shown in Figure 4.9, offers multiple benefits to the Cemetery (see Figure 4.10). Walls can be constructed fairly cost effectively, providing additional interment and revenue generating opportunities for the Cemetery. Figures 4.11 and 4.12 indicate locations where individual walls can be constructed . COST CONSIDERATIONS Estimated 50–75 columbarium niche wall interments per year initially, and growing over time. Cost Considerations for a single columbarium wall: Proposed Fees – Niche Burial Right $850, Niche Opening/Closing fee $225, Niche Perpetual Care Fee $300 Estimated Cost of Construction per wall: $48,000 Estimated Gross Revenue per wall (includes burial right, opening/closing fees, etc.): $1,075 x 80 niches = $86,000 Estimated Net Revenue per wall: $86,000 – $48,000 = $38,000 Estimated Perpetual Care Revenue per wall (based on $300/niche): $300 x 80 = $24,000 Cost Considerations for 10 columbarium walls: Total Estimated Cost of Construction (for all 10 Walls) = $480,000 Total Estimated Gross Revenue (for all 10 walls) = $860,000 Total Estimated Net Revenue (for all 10 walls) = $380,000 Total Estimated Perpetual Care Revenue (for all 10 walls) = $240,000 Figure 4.9 - Freestanding Columbarium Wall Example Source: Cemetery Planning Team CHAPTER 4 4-25 RECOMMENDATIONS: Construct walls in approximate locations shown in Figures 4.11 and 4.12. Construct two walls in the area identified near the Sexton Building to begin with, and construct additional walls as the market will support. Walls should be double sided, 5 niches high x 8 niches wide, total of 80 niches. Wall design should be uniform, consistent, and reflective of the character of the Cemetery Salt Lake City Municipal Code 15.24.120 Prices for Gravesites will need to be amended to include a section for Columbarium Niches. Salt Lake City Municipal Code 15.24.290 Fees For City Sexton/Maintenance Supervisor’s Services, will need to be amended to add opening and closing of columbarium niches to the list of services that fees shall be collected and add these services to the Salt Lake City Cemetery Fee Schedule. Salt Lake City Municipal Code 15.24.310 Burial Above Ground Prohibited, will need to need to be amended to allow for above ground burials on condition that they are constructed, maintained, and operated by the Cemetery. Cemetery Fees Schedule will need to be updated to include Columbarium Niche Fees. CHAPTER 4 4-26What is a Columbarium?Columbarium walls provide permanent and secure memorialization space for cremated remainsWhy build them here?Offers an additional interment optionFits well with the character of the CemeterySmaller environmental impact, uses less spaceOffers opportunity for additional revenue with minimal site or other development related expensesWalls can be constructed individually or a few at a time depending on fundingAllows the Cemetery to test the market before developing a columbarium courtyard with a large number of nichesIncrease in cremations nationally 2005-2015of interments in Utah are cremations VSNiches BurialsYield per 2 burial plotsFreestanding Columbarium Wall ExamplePhoto Credit: Mark SmithColumbarium NicheSource: eickhofcolumbaria.comFreestanding Columbarium Wall ExampleSource: Cemetery Planning Team CHAPTER 4 4-27This page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out. 4-28CHAPTER 4 Main Street Sexton Building Columbarium Niche Walls 4th Ave.N Street240 NPark StreetMain Street250 N North Figure 4.11 - Proposed Freestanding Columbarium Wall Locations Near the Sexton Building CHAPTER 4 4-29 Figure 4.12 - Proposed Freestanding Columbarium Wall Locations Near the center of the Cemetery 980 ECenter St.4 0 5 N Columbarium Niche Walls Christmas Box Angel Monument980 E940 E330 N North 4-30CHAPTER 4 Regulations There are a variety of laws, rules, and regulations that govern the Salt Lake City Cemetery. This section will provide a brief review of these and make recommendations as applicable. Federal Laws and Acts - “There are two important federal acts that have influence on historic properties and Native American Graves. These are the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, as amended in 2000, and the Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of November 16, 1990” (PHMC, 2016). The National Historic Preservation Act gives some protection to cemeteries that are eligible or listed on the National Register of Historic Places. However, this protection only applies when federal funding, permits, or licensing is involved. The Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act can help determine whether a cemetery property can be shown as part of a Native American grave site. This may be of relevance to the Salt Lake City Cemetery as it has been reported that some Native American remains were interred in the Cemetery in 2008 (see Appendix H - Historic Preservation Considerations). The federal government also oversees development of National Cemeteries and often provides grant funding for establishment or expansion of State Veterans Cemeteries. Otherwise, cemeteries are typically governed by state and local jurisdictions. State Law (governing cemetery operations) — Title 8 of the Utah Code governs donations for care, recording of plats and conveyances, endowment care (perpetual care), the rights and title to cemetery lots, and policies and records. Salt Lake City’s policies and procedures for the Cemetery must comply with Title 8 of Utah State Code. Based on the planning review of the State Code, there are no apparent elements of City’s Code, Rules, & Regulations that are not in compliance with Title 8. Utah Department of Health — The Health Department has jurisdiction for the issuance for death certificates, permits for exhumation, and requirements for burial of someone died from infectious disease. The Cemetery complies with all Health Department regulations. Salt Lake City Municipal Code — Chapter 15.24 of Salt Lake City Municipal Code outlines the City’s regulations, policies, and procedures related to the City Cemeteries. The code is broken out into three main sections. Article 1. General Regulations — Article 1 sets regulations for policies such as cemetery administration and enforcement, speed limit on cemetery roadways, vehicle use, planting restrictions, grave ornamentation and artificial flowers, prohibiting dogs, and damaging or removing cemetery property. CHAPTER 4 4-31 Article 2. Lots & Gravesites — Article 2 sets regulations for sale of gravesites/burial rights, installment contracts, certificates for burial rights, procedures for reclaiming unused lots, City’s purchase of unused lots, continuing care of lots, headstone, monument, & marker limitations, and policies for payment of damage. Article 3. Interment and Disinterment — Article 3 requires burials to be located in cemeteries unless otherwise authorized by the Mayor. It also regulates burials, fees for cemetery services, record keeping requirements, and disinterment policies. Article 3 also prohibits burial of a body in any structure above ground. This section will need to be amended if the City is to develop Columbarium Niche Walls for interment of cremated remains. RECOMMENDATIONS: Amend Salt Lake City Municipal Code 15.24.120 Prices for Gravesites to include a section for Columbarium Niches. Amend Salt Lake City Municipal Code 15.24.290 Fees For City Sexton/Maintenance Supervisor’s Services to add opening and closing of columbarium niches to the list of services that fees shall be collected and add these services to the Salt Lake City Cemetery Fee Schedule. Amend Salt Lake City Municipal Code 15.24.310 Burial Above Ground Prohibited, to allow for above ground burials on condition that they are constructed, maintained, and operated by the Cemetery 5-1CHAPTER 5 The Cemetery faces considerable funding challenges resulting from aging facilities and infrastructure, the dwindling number of grave sites available for sale, and limited expansion opportunity. In addition, the Cemetery has a contractual obligation to provide “perpetual care” of the Cemetery site. Currently, the Cemetery does not have an established perpetual care fund (which is not atypical for municipal cemeteries). The Cemetery’s current expenses are nearly double revenues and that gap is only likely to widen over time if measures are not taken to address these challenges. Addressing the future financial sustainability of the Cemetery is one of the three main purposes of the Master Plan. Financial sustainability is important to preserving Cemetery history and maintaining the Cemetery as an important part of the City’s open space network. To accomplish the master planning purpose and goals, this chapter provides recommendations for funding of ongoing operations and maintenance and deferred maintenance and capital improvements projects. Ongoing Operations and Maintenance Funding: Recommendations for Additional Revenue Options to establish a Perpetual Care Fund Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvements Funding Options: Create a Cemetery District Monthly Park Fee General Obligation Bonds Ongoing Operations and Maintenance Funding Options for Additional Revenue The Cemetery has annual ongoing operations and maintenance expenses of approximately $1.4 million. These funds are necessary to provide ongoing burial services and maintain the Cemetery in a respectful and dignified manner. Current revenues are not sufficient to offset these costs. In an effort to decrease dependance on the City’s general fund, numerous potential Master Plan Purpose #3:MP GoalsFinancial strategies Decrease dependence on the City’s general fund by developing strategies to increase revenue-generating potential from other sources CHAPTER 5 5-2 revenue sources were identified and evaluated. Four sources have been identified as viable options based on the following criteria: Provides ongoing and predictable revenue Supported by the market Generates adequate revenue to be impactful Compatible with solitude, ambiance, and dignity of Cemetery Cemetery facilities are able to support the source or activity Recommendations for these additional revenue sources are outlined below. Addition of Columbarium Niches Market appears to be supportive of roughly 50–75 niches sold per year and increasing over time. Projected net revenue from each niche is initially estimated at $25,000 to $35,000 a year from sales and fees (this includes open/closing fees, monitoring, etc.) and $15,000 to $22,500 of perpetual care revenue, with revenues increasing as niche interments increase. Increase Opening and Closing Fees Raise opening and closing fees by $400 Estimated annual net revenue from raising opening and closing fees is approximately $170,000 per year in net income. The market is currently supportive of these higher rates. Increase Stone-Monitoring Fees Doubling this one-time fee is supported by the market. This would result in an additional $30,000 to $40,000 per year in net income Potential Revenue Sources Evaluated Recommended Columbarium Niche Walls Reception Center / Weddings / Events Photography Filming Movies/Documentaries Establish Perpetual Care Fund Genealogy Groups Guided Tours Foundations and Donations Raise Opening and Closing Fees Raise Stone Monitoring Fees Concerts Car Shows 5k Races 5-3CHAPTER 5 COST CONSIDERATIONS: Addition and Sale of Columbarium Niches - $25,000 to $35,000 annual net revenue from sales & fees; $15,000 to $22,500 annual perpetual care revenue Raise opening and closing fees - $170,000 annual net revenue Raising Stone Monitoring Fees - $30,000 to $40,000 annual net revenue. RECOMMENDATIONS Develop and construct two free standing columbarium walls (160 niches) as a starting point (as discussed previously in this document) and build additional columbarium niche walls as the market supports. Raise opening and closing fees by $400 resulting in following rates: Resident: Non-Resident Regular Adult $1,077 $1,583 Double Deep $1,212 $1,821 Cremation $739 $996 Infant $805 $1,110 Raise stone monitoring fees to the following rates: $138 for flat markers $270 for upright markers Establishing a Perpetual Care Fund The Cemetery does not currently have an established perpetual care fund. Net losses for 2017 are anticipated to be $700,000. Net losses are projected to grow to $1,000,000 annually by 2023. Establishment of a Perpetual Care Fund should be considered to help address these funding challenges. Options for establishing a perpetual care fund are outlined below. Option 1 - Establish Perpetual Care Fund with One Time, Bulk Payment Impacts A one-time, $20.0 million bulk payment (establishing a fund in perpetuity) would cover operating expenses up to $1.0 million per year (assuming funds were placed in an interest bearing account at 5.0% (historical fund rates for professionally managed perpetual care funds have ranged from 4.0 to 7.0 percent) Any increases in expenses, beyond typical inflation, or loss of revenues, would require a reassessment of the bulk amount and/or the required interest rate CHAPTER 5 5-4 Option 2 - Establish Perpetual Care Fund Over 10 Year Period (Smaller Annual Bulk Payments) Impacts Establishing periodic payments to a fund over a ten-year period would require roughly $24.0 million in near equal payments (four payments of $5.0 million every other year, and $4.0 million in the final year). To last in perpetuity, the fund would need interest at 5.0 percent (historical fund rates for professionally managed perpetual care funds have ranged from 4.0 to 7.0 percent). The eventual, $24.0 million contribution and financial stability also assumes that some efforts have been made to increase revenues (i.e., columbarium niches), and that any increases in expenses, beyond typical inflation, or loss of revenues, would require a reassessment of the periodic payment amounts and/or the required interest rate Option 3 - Stem Losses - Increase Revenues and Establish Perpetual Care Fund with Smaller Bulk Payment - Remainder Continues to be funded from General Fund Impacts Offset some losses by increasing revenue sources that generate profit (as indicated below in the “Options for Additional Revenue heading”) A one-time payment of $5.0 million, at an interest rate of 5.0 percent (again, within the mid- range of professionally managed perpetual care funds), would allow for yearly distributions, in perpetuity, at near $250,000 Coupled with potential, new, or realigned revenue sources, net loss could be significantly reduced initially to near $100,000 per year (with the general fund anticipated to cover losses) Revenue would need to be increased annually, commensurate with increases in expenses, in order to sustain this model without additional draws from the fund account COST CONSIDERATIONS: Estimated Cost: Option 1 - $20,000,000 Estimated Cost Option 2 - $24,000,000 Estimated Cost Option 3 - $5,000,000 RECOMMENDATIONS Identify which option is feasible and makes sense for the City and begin the process to establish a Perpetual Care Fund Figure 5.1 illustrates the impact that implementation of additional revenues could have on closing the gap between revenue and expenses. 5-5CHAPTER 5 Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvements Funding Funding for deferred maintenance and other capital improvements projects is necessary to maintain Cemetery infrastructure such as roads, walls, irrigation systems, and development of other improvements such as columbarium niche walls. Funding for these types of projects is greater than can be funded from ongoing maintenance and operations budgets. Funding options for Cemetery capital improvement projects were identified and evaluated to determine viability based on the following criteria: Provides steady or reliable source of funding Provides a new source of funding Adequate to fund large capital improvement projects Does not contain restrictions or requirements that will be difficult for the City or Cemetery to meet The funding sources that were identified as viable options for consideration are discussed in detail below. For a detailed review of all of the potential funding options reviewed see Appendix G. Figure 5.1 - Expenses vs. Revenues - Including Potential Revenue Sources $0 $200,000 Current/Potential Revenues Current Expenses $400,000 $600,000 $800,000 $1,000,000 $1,200,000 $1,400,000 Increase Stone Monitoring Fees Increase Opening/Closing Fees Perpetual Care - Option 3 Existing Revenues Sale of Columbarium Niches Potential Funding Sources Evaluated Opportunities for Consideration Cemetery District Monthly Park (Cemetery) Fee Local Sales Tax Zoo, Arts and Parks Tax (ZAP) General Obligation Bonds Lease Revenue Bond Foundations and Donations Joint Funding Partnerships Grants and Other Funding Sources Special Assessment Areas CHAPTER 5 5-6 Cemetery District (“Local District”) Utah law allows for the creation of special districts based on Utah Code §17B. The generic term for all entities that fall under Title 17B of the Utah Code is “local district.” Local districts can only be created by cities or counties. The process is initiated either by the cities or counties themselves by resolution, or by petition from a group of citizens. Local districts may be created for a variety of purposes including cemetery operations and facilities. Local districts are under the jurisdiction of a local governing board, which must have at least three members. A local district determines, at its creation, whether board members will be appointed, elected, or a hybrid with some members appointed and others elected. If some sort of cemetery district were to be created, the total taxable value of the district would be used to determine the tax rate necessary to raise the desired amount of annual operating revenues necessary to support Cemetery operations. If Salt Lake City were to enact a tax rate of 0.000038 (the lowest of 45 Comparable Cemetery Maintenance Districts (CMD’s) reviewed), it would result in annual revenue of $829,708 for the Cemetery district (See Figure 5.2 below). This option is feasible and would result in costs being spread throughout the population, with the potential of a moderate amount of annual revenue. It is important to note that creation of a local district is a significant effort, and can result in the loss of direct governance. Monthly Park Fee Several communities in Utah charge monthly fees for parks and recreation maintenance. Since the Cemetery is part of the parks and recreation “system” in the City, it may be possible to charge a fee and use some of the revenues to fund Cemetery operations. Herriman is an example of a city that charges a monthly park fee. If Salt Lake City were to charge a monthly fee, it would provide a steady stream of revenue that would grow each year based on the number of residential units in the City. With the growth projected for Salt Lake City, this could be a growing source of revenue. The City will need to do an analysis to justify that the fee charged is reflective of its needs to cover costs of City parks and open space maintenance. This funding option appears to be realistic for addressing deferred maintenance and capital improvement projects. It represents a potential new revenue source that escalates with household growth (see Figure 5.3), and could provide a steady stream of income for operating costs and planned projects. Figure 5.2 - Potential Revenue Generation for Salt Lake City from a Cemetery District Description Amount Salt Lake City Taxable Value $21,834,422,772 Lowest Tax Rate of Comparative CMD’s 0.000038 Annual Revenues $829,708.07 5-7CHAPTER 5 General Obligation Bonds General obligation (G.O.) bonds are a common resource for funding major capital facilities, such as a recreation center or sports park, that benefits the entire community. On occasion, several communities will join together to join their resources (i.e., tax base) to build a joint facility that serves several communities. It would be extremely difficult to gather community support for the use of a G.O. bond solely to build cemetery facilities. However, the cemetery facilities could be part of a much larger bond, such as a parks and recreation bond, or public works bond, and could therefore be supportable. It is our experience that if the recreation improvements being considered for funding through the G.O. bond have broad appeal to the public and proponents are willing to assist in the promotional efforts, G.O. bonds for recreation projects can meet with public approval. However, due to the fact that some constituents may not view them as essential-purpose facilities for a local government or may view the government as competing with the private sector, obtaining positive voter approval may be a challenge. General obligation bonds can be issued for any governmental purpose as detailed in Utah Code §11-14-1. The proceeds from bonds issued on or after May 14, 2013 may not be used for operation and maintenance expenses for more than one year after the date any of the proceeds are first used for those expenses. Therefore, G.O. bonds would not be a viable source of operating and maintenance expenses for Salt Lake City. G.O. bonds could be used for capital improvements. Advantages of General Obligation Bonds: Lowest cost form of borrowing ‘New’ source of revenues identified Disadvantages of General Obligation Bonds: Timing issues; limited date to hold required G.O. election Year Population Households $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 2018 205,523 82,872 $1,988,928 $2,983,392 $3,977,856 $4,972,320 2019 208,042 83,888 $2,013,312 $3,019,968 $4,026,624 $5,033,280 2020 210,592 84,916 $2,037,984 $3,056,976 $4,075,968 $5,094,960 2021 212,255 85,587 $2,054,088 $3,081,132 $4,108,176 $5,135,220 2022 213,931 86,262 $2,070,288 $3,105,432 $4,140,576 $5,175,720 2023 215,620 86,943 $2,086,632 $3,129,948 $4,173,264 $5,216,580 2024 217,322 87,630 $2,103,120 $3,154,680 $4,206,240 $5,257,800 2025 219,039 88,322 $2,119,728 $3,179,592 $4,239,456 $5,299,320 2026 220,768 89,019 $2,136,456 $3,204,684 $4,272,912 $5,341,140 2027 222,511 89,722 $2,153,328 $3,229,992 $4,306,656 $5,383,320 Figure 5.3 - Estimated Annual Revenues from Monthly Household Recreation Fee (including Cemetery) CHAPTER 5 5-8 Risk of a “no” vote while still incurring costs of holding a bond election Possibility of election failure due to lack of perceived benefit to majority of voters Must levy property tax on all property even if some properties receive limited or no benefit from the proposed improvements Can only bond for physical facilities, not ongoing or additional operation and maintenance expense This option is feasible but would likely need to be coupled with overall Park bonds in order to increase public acceptability. Other Options The following funding sources were not determined to be viable options based on their unpredictability of providing steady and reliable funding. However, these sources may provide opportunities for supplemental funding and should be considered as options for occasional or one time funding. Foundations, Donations, and Private Fundraisers Creating a foundation could provide an additional method of generating new revenues for the City – especially for preservation and development of Cemetery facilities. Likely donations would be obtained from families with deceased ancestors buried in the Cemetery, or from groups or associations that promote historical preservation. Advantages: Those most involved and interested contribute to the associated costs Creates a sense of pride and ownership in cemetery facilities Partners with the private sector to increase business contributions Disadvantages: Not a steady or consistent revenue source Cannot bond against these revenues May take time to build up substantial membership and revenues Administrative costs of running the Foundation unless done by volunteers While not addressed as a specific strategy for individual recreation facilities, it is not uncommon for public monies to be leveraged with private fundraising often in concert with a foundation. Private funds will most likely be attracted to high-profile facilities and generally require aggressive promotion and management on behalf of City administration A review of other Cemeteries found that have fundraising “funds” from $5,000 annually to several million. Those at the upper end have been collecting for decades, and are typically considered to 5-9CHAPTER 5 be immaculately gardened and maintained. They often have mausoleums with areas that provide reception or meeting hall space. The lower end of the fund range is often gathered from an annual mailer, or through donation boxes spread throughout the cemetery. Often, the funds are raised for a very specific purpose - i.e., a memorial bridge, a new flag pole, planting of desirable trees, fences, etc. The more visible and unique the project, the more likely people are to donate (i.e., a memorial bridge would be easier than a fence, all else being equal) Fundraising groups indicate that it takes a solid five years to really get any momentum, but that it should be started right away. Fundraising for private cemeteries, or those with a specific purpose (Veterans), is significantly more feasible than government-owned cemeteries. Fundraising groups note that the public believes that they already pay for city-owned cemeteries through their taxes, and that they are just poorly managed. Grants And Other Funding Sources The following sources may serve as a supplement to, though not a replacement for, the previous funding sources. The availability of these funds may change annually depending on budget allocations. Further, most of the grant sources identified focus on parks, trails and recreation. There are not many grants available specifically for cemeteries but given the Cemetery’s role in the City parks and open space network, grants may be available for Pedestrian and Bicycle Improvements, Parks & Open Space, Cultural Landscape Projects, Historical Projects (i.e. WPA wall repair), Find-A-Grave projects, gravestone restoration, etc. Cemetery eligibility would be dependent on the extent to which the City could demonstrate the Cemetery’s importance to the City’s parks, open space, and trails system. Some specific grants that may provide funding opportunity could include: Land and Water Conservation Fund - The LWCF state assistance program provides matching grants to help states and local communities protect parks and recreation resources. Utah Waypoint Grant - The Waypoint program makes grant monies available with a 50/50 match to communities to build outdoor recreation infrastructure which would become an enhancement in the area. Recreational Trails Program (RTP) and Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) - has helped with non-motorized and motorized trail development and maintenance, trail educational programs, and trail-related environmental protection projects. RECOMMENDATIONS City needs to carefully study and review the funding options and determine which options is most feasible and appropriate for funding of deferred maintenance and capital improvement projects. CHAPTER 5 5-10 This page intentionally left blank. 6-1CHAPTER 6 Time Frames and Estimated Costs Implementation Time Frames The Implementation Plan identifies important projects and tasks necessary to carry out the recommendations of the Master Plan and is organized by the proposed implementation time frame. Years 1-2 Years 2-5 Years 5-10 Ongoing The recommended implementation time frames outlined for each project or task are intended only as a guide for City staff to plan and prioritize the efforts necessary to carry out the recommendations of the Master Plan. City budgets, changing maintenance needs, and necessary construction sequencing are just a few of the factors that will influence the actual implementation time frames. It is likely that the estimated time frames will require ongoing evaluation and adjustment moving forward. Estimated Costs The Implementation Plan also identifies the estimated costs for each project or task (See Appendix B for detailed cost information for specific projects). Unless stated otherwise, estimated costs include: Estimated Construction Cost with a 15% Estimate Contingency (necessary because estimating is being completed at the earliest part of the design process) 15% for Design/Engineering Costs The City will need to make adjustments to estimated costs based on changes or updates to the stated assumptions, any new information that may impact the project scope, and cost escalation based on the time passed since costs were estimated. As project budgets are established, the City should add costs for the following: Add necessary escalation based on time passed since estimates were provided (assume 5% per year compounded) Add additional soft costs such as City Engineering/Project Management, permitting and approvals, construction contingencies, and costs for other necessary studies such as geotechnical investigations, survey, programming, or needs assessments. Please note as stated above, estimated costs include cost for Design/Engineering Fees. CHAPTER 6 6-2 * Project Estimated Cost Years 1–2 P National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) Nomination $10,000–$30,000 E Work with Partners to Develop Friends of the Cemetery Group $0–$5,000 E Enhance the Cemetery website $5,000–$10,000 DM E Restrict Public Vehicular Access on Designated Roads (Removable Bollards)$163,000 F Raise Grave Opening and Closing Fees Internal task F Raise Stone Monitoring Fees Internal task E Amend Salt Lake City Municipal Code section 15.24 and the Cemetery Fee Schedule to include information related to above ground columbarium niches and allow above ground burial (see Free Standing Columbarium Walls section in Chapter 4) Internal task E Construct Two Free-Standing Columbarium Walls $95,000 DM Priority 1a Roads $2.4 Million DM Priority 1b Roads $2.2 Million F Establish Perpetual Care Fund $5–$24 Million 6-3CHAPTER 6 * Project Estimated Cost Years 2–5 F Identify funding options for Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvement Projects Internal task E Develop East-West Pedestrian Corridor $180,000 E Develop Active Transportation Routes $185,000 DM Replace Antiquated Phone System $15,000 DM Repair Walls and Fencing $1.5 Million DM Update Irrigation east of Center Street $1.6 Million DM Sexton Building Interior - Wall and Ceiling Repair $100,000 P Develop Preservation Management Plan $125,000 DM Security Systems for Sexton Area and Maintenance Facilities $30,000–$50,000 P Screen Headstone and Soils Storage Area Near Middle of Cemetery $260,000 E Construct Additional Free-Standing Columbarium Walls (8 additional walls)$395,000 P Establish Formal Arboretum $5k for map / $5k for name plates DM Priority 2a Roads $1.8 Million DM Priority 2b Roads $2 Million CHAPTER 6 6-4 * Project Estimated Cost Years 5–10 E Install interpretive signage $5,000 per sign DM Priority 3 Roads $2.9 Million DM Priority 4 Roads $1.2 Million DM Repair/Replace Entry Gates $12,500 per gate DM E Redevelop Sexton Building Area and Maintenance Facilities $7.5–$11 Million P Roof Structure Over Existing Storage Bins Near Fire Station $160,000 Ongoing E Additional Benches with Plantings at Roadway Edges $3,850 per bench E Develop Themed Tours Internal task P Trees & Planting Recommendations Implement within existing Maintenance Budgets SLC M A S T E R P L A N JULY 7, 2017 Appendices Appendix A - Sources SLC M A S T E R P L A N JULY 7, 2017 APPENDIX A A-1 Cemetery - Home. (n.d.). Retrieved January 26, 2017, from http://www.slcgov.com/cemetery Clark, A. (2015, March 2). Designing for the Dead: The Perfect City Cemetery. Retrieved January 25, 2017, from https://nextcity.org/features/view/how-to-live-in-the-city-of-the-dead CPRA Studio, LLC. (2009, February). Salt Lake City Cemetery - Master Planning [Phase 1 - Information Gathering and Documentation]. Salt Lake City. David F. Boone, “‘And Should We Die’: Pioneer Burial Grounds in Salt Lake City,” in Salt Lake City: The Place Which God Prepared, ed. Scott C. Esplin and Kenneth L. Alford (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, 2011), 155–178) PHMC. (2016, August 26). PHMC Federal Laws and Acts Protecting Burial Sites. Retrieved April 28, 2017, from http://www.phmc.state.pa.us/portal/communities/cemetery-preservation/laws/ federal-laws.htm Susan Crook & Associates + Robin Carbaugh, (2007). HALS UT-2, Salt Lake City Cemetery Williams, T. (2014, June 16). In the Garden Cemetery: The Revival of America’s First Urban Parks. Retrieved January 25, 2017, from https://www.americanforests.org/magazine/article/ in-the-garden-cemetery-the-revival-of-americas-first-urban-parks/ Photo Sources: Allred, J. D. (2008, January 30). [Gordon B. Hinckley Headstone]. Retrieved May 31, 2016, from http://www.deseretnews.com/article/695248518/Salt-Lake-Cemetery-will-serve-as-final- resting-place-for-11-LDS-prophets.html Bike Tour at Laurel Hill [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved May 31, 2016, from http://laurelhill. twopaperdolls.com/gallery Cemetery Private Property. (2011, October 26). Retrieved April 28, 2017, from http://www.anda. jor.br/26/10/2011/edicao-cabecas-de-animais-sao-encontradas-em-cemiterios Cinema in the Cemetery [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved May 31, 2016, from http://laurelhill. twopaperdolls.com/gallery Convault Above Ground Fuel Storage [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2017, from http:// www.unitedconcrete.com/convault/head_convault.htm Dumpster Enclosure [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2017, from http:// springerconstructionllc.net/p-gm-trash-enclosure.php Example of Website. https://www.forest-lawn.com/ Retrieved April 28, 2017 A-2APPENDIX A Gellerman, B. (n.d.). Bird watchers gather at Mount Auburn Cemetery [Digital image]. Retrieved June 14, 2016, from http://www.wbur.org/news/2014/05/13/mount-auburn-cemetery-birds Greve Cemetery in Hoffman Estates [Digital image]. (2010, July 3). Retrieved April 28, 2017, from https://ourlocalhistory.wordpress.com/2010/03/07/greve-cemetery-in-hoffman-estates/ Macdonald, S. (2010, June 17). Standardized Concrete Trail Marker in Denver’s City Park [Digital image]. Retrieved June 1, 2017, from http://www.americantrails.org/photoGalleries/cool/39- trail-mile-markers.html Mary M Wallace Headstone - P., M. (2011, July 20). Salt Lake City Cemetery: The History. Retrieved May 31, 2016, from http://www.enjoyutah.org/2011/07/salt-lake-city-cemetery- history.html Mt Auburn Cemetery. Retrieved January 25, 2017, from http://www.bostonatomy.com/ en/2015/07/mount-auburn-cemetery-cambridge/ Reliance Foundry. (n.d.). Removable Bollard Park [Digital image]. Retrieved March 22, 2017, from http://www.reliance-foundry.com/bollard/removable-bollards-offer-ultimate-access-control#gref Salt Lake City Cemetery - Historic American Landscapes Survey. (2000) Salt Lake City Cemetery, 200 N Street, Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, UT. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, https://www.loc.gov/item/ut0699/. Shipler Commercial Photographers Collection. Utah State Historical Society. Retrieved December 2016 from: http://history.utah.gov/FindAids/C00275/ Thomas Park Maintenance Facility [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved April 28, 2017, from http:// www.martingardnerarch.com/portfolio-eastern-iowa-architectural-design/ Vase Style Urns [Digital image]. (n.d.). Retrieved June 1, 2017, from https://eickhofcolumbaria. com/urns Appendix B - Cost Estimates SLC M A S T E R P L A N JULY 7 2017 B-1APPENDIX B 1a Main (N) 1,188 22 26,136 Full 443,114$ 1a Main (N) 167 21 3,507 Full 59,458$ 1a Main (middle) 1,242 19 23,598 Full 400,084$ 1a Main (sexton) 367 17 6,239 Full 105,777$ 1a 240 N 1,090 16 17,440 Full 295,681$ 1a 330 N(Lindsey) 36 27 972 Full 16,479$ 1a 330 N 1,433 25 35,825 Full 607,383$ 1a Hillside 998 25 24,950 Full 423,006$ miles sf 1b Wasatch (West) 865 21 18,165 Full 307,972$ 1b Wasatch (East) 412 14 5,768 Full 97,792$ 1b 920 E 166 25 4,150 Full 70,360$ 1b Center St 2,357 25 58,925 Full 999,024$ 1b Central Ave 1,732 12 20,784 Full 352,375$ 1b 405 N 609 21 12,789 Full 216,827$ 1b 940 E 737 15 11,055 Full 187,428$ miles sf 2a 445 N 1,743 21 36,603 Full 620,573$ 2a 310 N 1,695 17 28,815 Full 488,534$ 2a Grand 2,033 16 32,528 Full 551,485$ 2a 240 N 875 12 10,500 Full 178,019$ miles sf 2b 355 E 258 12 3,096 Full 52,490$ 2b Cypress 1,959 21 41,139 Full 697,477$ 2b 1100 E 1,654 21 34,734 Full 588,886$ 2b 1150 E 484 21 10,164 Full 172,322$ 2b 405 N (to gate) 234 23 5,382 Full 91,247$ 2b 325 N (330 N) 415 23 9,545 Full 161,828$ 2b Elm 719 20 14,380 Full 243,801$ miles sf Road Priority Cost Breakout Full Repair of All Roads Continued on next page APPENDIX B B-2 3 Oquirrh 373 25 9,325 Full 158,098$ 3 405 N (West) 300 21 6,300 Full 106,811$ 3 Park 916 16 14,656 Full 248,480$ 3 280 N 1,977 12 23,724 Full 402,221$ 3 First 935 13 12,155 Full 206,078$ 3 Third 323 15 4,845 Full 82,143$ 3 980 E (bike rt) 362 12 4,344 Full 73,649$ 3 Olive 823 16 13,168 Full 223,252$ 3 405 N (East) 733 22 16,126 Full 273,403$ 3 425 N 460 16 7,360 Full 124,783$ 3 380 N (Elm) 361 20 7,220 Full 122,409$ 3 1200 E 405 22 8,910 Full 151,062$ 3 325 N (330N) 346 23 7,958 Full 134,921$ 3 355 N 1,101 21 23,121 Full 391,997$ 3 North Plat 640 16 10,240 Full 173,611$ Priority 3 Total 1.9 miles 170,000 sf 2,873,000$ 4 11th Frontage 600 11 6,600 Full 111,898$ 4 N Street (11th) 177 21 3,717 Full 63,019$ 4 Uintah 438 16 7,008 Full 118,815$ 4 480 N 410 15 6,150 Full 104,268$ 4 980 E 284 10 2,840 Full 48,150$ 4 1000 E 815 12 9,780 Full 165,812$ 4 1040 E 815 12 9,780 Full 165,812$ 4 405 N 303 14 4,242 Full 71,920$ 4 250 N 684 16 10,944 Full 185,546$ 4 Third Ave 791 12 9,492 Full 160,929$ Priority 4 Total 1.1 miles 71,000 sf 1,197,000$ TOTAL ROAD REPAIR COST 7.9 miles 12,501,000$ Notes: * Other soft costs such as project and construction contingencies, City project management, and permits and fees are not included and should be added to budget requests as appropriate * Costs include: full replacement including demo, reconstruction with asphalt, concrete edge/curb and gutter and storm drainage improvements * Costs reflect estimated construction cost with a 15% estimate contingency and 15% design/engineering fees Continued from previous page B-3APPENDIX B Priority Location Type Height Length Total SF Price Cost 1 11th Ave (WPA) Sandstone (WPA) 2.5 7646 19,115 52.28 999,415.83$ 2 405N 415 N/Hillside Cobble 5.0 450 2,250 26.81 60,328.13$ 3 N Street Decorative Fence 3.0 910 117.00 106,470.00$ 4 355 N/Hillside Cobble 4.5 349 1,571 26.81 42,109.03$ 5 330 N (south side) Cobble 4.5 67 302 26.81 8,083.97$ 6 445 N Cobble 4.0 1010 4,040 26.81 108,322.50$ 7 330 N/Central Ave Concrete Wall 5.0 217 1,085 9.89 10,725.68$ 8 11th Ave (N. Plat) Cobble 2.5 266 665 26.81 17,830.31$ 9 1100 E/325 N Concrete Wall 2.5 200 500 24.71 12,356.77$ 10 4th Ave/Cypress Decorative Fence 3.0 125 117.00 14,625.00$ 11 Central Ave (W. side) Cobble 5.0 400 2,000 26.81 53,625.00$ 12 330 N (north side) Concrete Wall 6.0 20 120 250.00 30,000.00$ 13 Sexton Bldg Concrete Wall 2.5 75 188 19.77 3,707.03$ 13 Maintenance Concrete Wall 3.6 58 209 19.77 4,128.15$ 13 Maint Parking Concrete Wall 3.6 65 234 19.77 4,626.38$ 13 Maint Parking Cobble 2.0 11 22 19.77 434.96$ 13 Maint Parking Concrete Wall 3.0 49 147 19.77 2,906.31$ 13 Maint Parking Concrete Wall 2.0 113 226 19.77 4,468.21$ 14 1060 E (Cypress) Concrete Wall 3.0 300 900 3.95 3,558.75$ 15 Cypress/4th Ave Concrete Wall 3.0 100.00 300 0.00 Not Needed TOTAL WALL REPAIR COSTS 1,487,722.00$ Costs per Wall Type Concrete Wall Cost 3,908 76,477.28$ Cobble Wall Cost 10,849 290,733.90$ Sandstone (WPA) Cost 19,115 999,415.83$ Decorative Fence 1035 121,095.00$ Total 1,487,722.00$ Notes: Salt Lake City Cemetery Master Plan Wall Repair Costs * Costs reflect estimated construction cost with a 15% estimate contingency and 15% design/engineering fees * Other soft costs such as project and construction contingencies, City/Engineering project management, and permits and fees are not included and should be added to budget requests as appropriate APPENDIX B B-4 Estimate of Probable Construction Cost - (not for bidding purposes) Project:SLC Cemetery Master Plan Status: Master Planning Budget Costs Date: Prepared by: GBD Item/Remarks Quantity Unit Unit Cost Rounded Totals Site Improvements Clearing and Earthwork 1 LS 250.00$ $250 Victor Stanley CR-10 Classic Series Bench with Center Arm Rest (materials and shipping) 1 EA 1,700.00$ $1,700 Bench Installation 1 EA 250.00$ $250 Concrete Pad (5' x 10') 50 SF 6.50$ $325 Concrete Mow Curb 20 LF 20.00$ $400 Plant Bed (soil, plants, & mulch) 50 SF 5.35$ $300 Irrigation 50 SF 2.50$ $125 $3,350 $500 Costs are 2017 costs, for inflation add 5% per year compounded $0 $3,850 April 14, 2017 SUBTOTAL Estimate Contingency 15% Escalation (0% - Current Costs) TOTAL (Construction) Bench Pad - Crushed stone base (Basis of Design: Urban Accessories - Memphis REM/LOCK) B-5APPENDIX B APPENDIX B B-6 B-7APPENDIX B APPENDIX B B-8 *Face foot unit measurement is from top of footing to top of wall x wall length B-9APPENDIX B *Face foot unit measurement is from top of footing to top of wall x wall length APPENDIX B B-10 SLC M A S T E R P L A N JULY 7, 2017 Appendix C Existing Conditions: Cemetery Analysis and Assessment Site Analysis Facilities and Operations Analysis Cemetery Walls and Fences Analysis Report by ESI Engineering APPENDIX C C-1 Site Analysis The Salt Lake City Cemetery comprises 120.9 acres of City open space. Burial areas are manicured lawn with a diversity of evergreen and deciduous trees. The site is characterized by undulating slopes, many of which are maintained by retaining walls and terraces. An estimated 7.9 miles of roads provide access for pedestrians, cyclists, and vehicles. Information in the following analysis sections was obtained through site visits and observations, and a review of GIS data, historical data, and previous master planning studies. Phase I Master Planning - Information Gathering & Documentation Services Summary Salt Lake City began the master plan process in 2009 with phase 1. The primary intent of phase 1 was to: Identify possible areas in which the Cemetery could be expanded to help extend its lifespan Identify possible inventory types and ways in which the Cemetery could be developed to become more profitable and cover more of its administrative, operations, and maintenance costs and expenses Document the general condition of the roads and drainage infrastructure in need of renovation or repair Much of the phase 1 document is still applicable to this phase of the Master Plan as it includes an “assessment of existing Cemetery inventory and sections, possible expansion opportunities for them, an assessment of site infrastructure elements and conditions, and a limited, preliminary financial review” (CRPA Phase 1 Master Plan, 2009). This final phase of the Master Plan builds on the information previously documented by conducting a more thorough analysis and providing recommendations for the following aspects of the Cemetery: Facilities and Operations (site furnishings and lighting, drainage, fencing, gates, maintenance buildings, walls, funding, new interment offerings, etc.) Roads (circulation, access and condition) - See Appendix D for detailed road analysis Community Resources (historic features, planting, open space, wildlife, etc.) - See Appendix E for detailed community resources analysis Architecture and Buildings (Sexton Building, Maintenance Compound, Restroom facilities) - See Appendix F for architectural analysis report C-2APPENDIX C Source: Salt Lake City Cemetery Source: Cemetery Planning TeamSource: Cemetery Planning Team Facilities and Operations Analysis A detailed analysis of the facilities, operations, and built features of the Cemetery was performed. See the Figure C.1 - Existing Conditions Analysis Map at the end of this appendix. Walls, Fencing, and Entrance Gates Walls, fencing, and entrance gates in portions of the Cemetery have important historic value, but have fallen into disrepair.The Cemetery has many free-standing and retaining walls across the site. While some are simple concrete, others are stone and cobble and have decorative and historic value. Many of the stone walls in particular are in need of repair. A detailed wall analysis is included in at the end of this appendix. Fencing around the perimeter of the Cemetery is incongruous and non-continuous, with many portions (especially along 4th Avenue) devoid of fence altogether. Each of the vehicular access points are gated, though they vary in type and condition, with many in poor condition and disrepair. The Main Entry Gate, located on the corner of 4th Avenue and N Street, provides significant historic character and value to the Cemetery. It is the product of a 1914 design competition won by Fredrick Hust and remains largely unchanged since it’s construction APPENDIX C C-3 in 1915. Ten additional gates control access to the Cemetery, the majority of which are open and actively used. Four of the gates are normally kept closed to discourage through traffic. These gates are opened for public access on certain holidays (Memorial and Veterans Day) and to accommodate funeral processions. Restoring/repairing walls, fencing and entrance gates may enhance the overall the aesthetics of the Cemetery. Irrigation In 1900, water was piped from City Creek as the beginning of an irrigation system. It was upgraded to a galvanized pop-in sprinkler system in the 1930’s–40’s, and beginning in the 1980’s, the east portion of the Cemetery was renovated with an automatic irrigation system. The west portion of the Cemetery’s irrigation system (west of Center Street) was completely replaced with new mainline, valves, laterals, heads and wire in 2013, with wires run to the east section to enable the entire Cemetery to be centrally controlled. The system has a life expectancy of 20-25 years. The older east portion, while still functional, is in need of upgrades. The current system is fed by multiple culinary points of connection with mainline sizes ranging from 2” to 6”. The irrigation control center is housed within and existing maintenance building adjacent to the Sexton Building and may complicate maintenance facility relocation. Site Furnishings and Lighting The Cemetery has very few existing site furnishings such as benches, trash receptacles, tables, etc. The few that do exist are located in the area of the Sexton Building. There are two white stone benches located just outside the east entry of the Sexton Building. These were donated by Salt Lake Monument. A picnic table is also located seasonally at the back of the Sexton Building for staff use. The benches that do exist among the burial sections are burial or memorial markers and are not placed in a manner to facilitate public use. The addition of site furnishings such as benches would be of benefit to patrons visiting burial sites as well as those that utilize the Cemetery for its open space. Security lighting exists at and around the Sexton Building/Cemetery Offices, Maintenance Compound, and restroom facilities. In addition, some street lighting is scattered throughout the cemetery. Street lights are a wooden power pole with a simple cobra head style light fixture attached and appear to be mostly located at roadway intersections. Lighting the Cemetery is a complex issue. Comments from Public Open Houses & Stakeholder meetings indicate a desire to preserve the dark sky over the Cemetery and avoid increasing light pollution, while other comments express the need to provide additional lighting for security. Source: Cemetery Planning Team Source: Cemetery Planning Team C-4APPENDIX C Maintenance Compound Located adjacent to the Sexton Building, the maintenance compound consists of multiple buildings. These facilities are essential to the operation of the Cemetery, housing the irrigation control center, equipment, tools and office space. As such, any redevelopment plan will need to provide equal or better facilities to meet operational needs. While they play a critical role in overall Cemetery operations, the maintenance buildings detract from the historic character of the area surrounding the Sexton Building. (See Appendix F - Architectural Analysis for more information about the Sexton Building and maintenance facilities) Fueling Station A City fueling station is located along the north edge of the maintenance facilities. It dispenses both gasoline and diesel fuel and is available 24 hours a day 7 days a week for use by City fleet vehicles. While the fueling station is most heavily used by Cemetery maintenance equipment, it is also frequently used by City police and fire vehicles, and other City vehicles. The fueling station was upgraded with new dispensing equipment by the City in 2016 but no work was done to the underground tanks at that time. Two 6,000 gallon composite steel underground storage tanks with fiberglass piping were put into operation on July 11,1991. One tank is for diesel and the other is for unleaded gasoline. If maintenance facilities are relocated, the fuel station would likely need to be relocated as well. Consideration should be given to both the cost and potential environmental implications of moving the fuel tanks. Parking Parking is permitted on all Cemetery roads, however many roads are too narrow to allow for parked cars and sufficient space for other vehicles to pass. There are a total of 26 stalls near the Sexton Building and maintenance facilities. Four stalls are designated as customer parking with the remainder used by either staff or maintenance vehicles. In its current configuration, parking is insufficient for Cemetery staff, equipment, and customer use. Landscape Bins: Materials & Soil Storage The Cemetery’s primary materials and soil storage area is located in the Northwest corner of the Cemetery, directly south of Salt Lake City Fire Station #4. This area is used by maintenance personnel to store heavy equipment as well as extra soil that comes from the opening and closing of graves. Soil stockpiles are hauled off every 6 months, with some of it being used by other City departments. Gravel, road base, wood chips, rocks, and green waste are also stored here. The area’s current configuration and size is adequate in meeting the Cemetery’s needs. Headstone and Soils Storage Area Near the center portion of the Cemetery is a staging area for materials and the temporary storage of headstones while graves are being dug. While the area is not located on a major road and is somewhat screened by topography and vegetation, it is unsightly. Consideration should be given to either relocating the spoils area elsewhere or building an enclosure to screen views. Proximity to City Parks & Open Spaces Multiple City owned parks and open spaces are directly adjacent, or within close proximity, to the Cemetery. Each has been evaluated for opportunities to create connections to the Cemetery, APPENDIX C C-5 as well as for their potential to share relocated maintenance facilities that could benefit both the Cemetery and the park or open space. Lindsey Gardens Park is a neighborhood park located immediately west of the upper portion of the Cemetery and primarily serves the surrounding Avenues neighborhood. This park contains ball fields, a playground, bowery, ADA-accessible restroom, passive open space, an off-leash dog area, and tennis courts. The tennis courts, located in the southeast corner of the park and directly adjacent to the Cemetery, are closed due to their poor condition. Improvements in this area of Lindsey Gardens could have considerable benefits to both the park and the Cemetery. Additional nearby parks include 11th Avenue Park and Popperton Park which serve residents of the adjacent Avenues neighborhood. While both parks are close to the Cemetery, 11th Avenue creates a barrier restricting access, and they lack available space for potential expansion or relocation of maintenance facilities. Because of their proximity to the Cemetery and existing pedestrian and bicycle trails, designating routes through the Cemetery has potential to connect multiple existing and proposed trails. To the north and east of the Cemetery lie multiple parcels of city-owned open space. The majority of this open space is undeveloped and is characterized by steep slopes and utility corridors making them unsuitable for potential expansion or relocation of maintenance facilities. The “Bobsled Trail” is a trail that passes through Perry’s Hollow open space and eventually connects to the Bonneville Shoreline Trail. City-owned open space near the northeast corner of the Cemetery provides an opportunity to create a connection between the Bobsled and other trails. Summary of Findings Fencing, gates, and walls in portions of the Cemetery have important historic value, but have fallen into disrepair. The east half of the Cemetery’s irrigation system was installed in the 1980’s and is in need of upgrade and renovation. The irrigation control center is located within an existing maintenance building adjacent to the Sexton Building and may complicate maintenance facility relocation. The addition of site furnishings such as benches would be of benefit to patrons visiting burial sites as well as those that utilize the Cemetery for its open space. Lighting is a complex issue as many desire to preserve the dark sky over the Cemetery. Cemetery maintenance facilities and the City fuel station detract from the historic character of the Sexton Building and create an unattractive entrance to the Cemetery. Parking near the Sexton Building/maintenance facilities is insufficient for Cemetery staff, customer use and maintenance equipment. The materials and soil storage area near the fire station currently meets the Cemetery’s needs. The headstone and soil storage area near the center of the Cemetery is unsightly and should be considered for screening from adjacent burial areas. Opportunities to expand Cemetery uses within the Cemetery property are limited by the lack of available space. Adjacent City-owned open spaces have limited opportunity for Cemetery expansion or maintenance relocation due to steep slopes and utility easements and competing uses. Lindsey Gardens Park could benefit from shared-use maintenance facilities. APPENDIX C C-6Figure C.1 - Existing Conditions Analysis MapOpen gateClosed gateHigh voltage utility lineOverhead utility lineCrude oil pipelineMaterials/storage areasKey maintenance roadPrimary access & key maintenance roadsPrimary access roadExisting ConditionsAnalysis MapSLC Cemetery boundarySLC Parks & Open SpaceLindseyGardensM StreetN StreetU Street4th Avenue7th Avenue11th AvenueMt. CalvaryCatholicCemeteryMaintenance & soil storagearea of Mt. Calvary Cemetery11thAveParkHistoric WPA Entrance Gate isprimary access point on 11th AveCity-ownedopen spacePoppertonParkMainCenterPublic restroomPerry'sHollowNaturalAreaThis gate is closed to limit throughtraffic from 11th Ave to 4th Ave -It is open on Memorial DayMaterials storage area haslimited spaceSoil & headstone storageis unsightly & should beconsidered for relocationDilapidated tennis courtsat Lindsey GardensHistoric Sexton BuildingPublic restroomMain Gate(exit only)Historic EntranceGate (enter only)Staff and patronparking is limitedMaterials Storage AreaSexton BuildingTennis Courts at Lindsey GardensSoil & Headstone StorageMaintenance BuildingsCity Fuel StationMaintenance facilitiesare aging & inadequateto meet currentoperation needsCity fuel station APPENDIX C C-7This page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out. C-8APPENDIX C Cemetery Walls and Fences Analysis APPENDIX C C-9 C-10APPENDIX C APPENDIX C C-11 This page intentionally left blank. SLC M A S T E R P L A N Appendix D - Cemetery Roadway Analysis Circulation and Access Roadway Conditions Summary of Findings Roadway Analysis Maps Road Inventory by ESI Engineering JULY 7 2017 APPENDIX D D-1 Circulation & Access The Cemetery has 11 gated entries and good access from all adjoining streets. Primary access points include the Main Entry Gate at the corner of 4th Avenue and N Street, 4th Avenue and Center Street, 11th Avenue and 920 East, and 7th Avenue and N Street near Lindsey Gardens. Of the 11 gated entries, four are typically closed (except for holidays and special events) to discourage pass-through traffic. The Cemetery has 7.9 miles of roadways, adding up to an estimated surface area of more than 17 acres. These roads allow good access to all Cemetery sections but vary greatly in width. Roads are generally laid out in an east-west and north-south grid-like fashion similar to other streets in the City. Roadways were analyzed to determine primary access and circulation routes crucial to Cemetery operations and public access. This was done to prioritize roadways for needed repairs and identify roadways that could be considered for limited access or closure. East-west roadways are typically less steep than north-south roadways. Slope on east-west roadways is approximately 3% to 7% with short isolated sections as steep as 10%-13% and as flat as 1.5%. The slope on north-south roadways is typically 10%-13% with the steepest section of roughly 18% located at the northeast entry to 11th avenue. A few isolated and shorter sections of the north-south roadways have slopes of 7-8%. All Cemetery streets are marked and named with street signs. Roads were initially dirt or gravel, but paving began in the 1940’s (CRPA Phase 1 Master Plan, 2009). Present day roadways are paved asphalt of varying conditions. Roadway Conditions Many of the roadways are in poor condition due to ongoing wear as well as repeated cutting and patching for irrigation system repairs and improvements. The condition of all Cemetery roadways was reviewed and assessed. Roadways were ranked on a 5 scale rating system of excellent, good, average, fair, and poor condition. All Cemetery roads ranked at or below average and need considerable maintenance. Summary of Findings Roughly 7 miles are in poor or fair condition and less than one mile is in average condition. No roadways are in excellent or good condition. Roadways most frequently used by the public and maintenance personnel are generally in the worst condition. These primary routes should be the highest priority for repair. Replacing or repairing all the Cemetery roadways as a single project may be difficult with cost estimates being as high as $12.5 million. Closing or restricting some roadways to public vehicle access may reduce the need of immediate repair and could provide opportunity for other enhancements such as benches, plantings, and interpretive signage. See the following road analysis maps: Figure D.1 - Circulation and Access Analysis Figure D.2 - Roadway Conditions Analysis Figure D.3 - Roadway Width Analysis APPENDIX D D-2Figure D.1 - Circulation and Access AnalysisM StreetN Street4th Avenue7th Avenue4th AvenueHistoric Sexton Building11th AvenueMain Gate - Exit onlyHistoric EntranceGate - Enter onlyMt. CalvaryCatholic CemeteryMainCenterConsider Limited Access(16' wide, poor condition)Consider Reduced Width(25' wide, fair condition)Consider Limited Access (18' wide,poor condition and poses potentialsafety issues)Consider Limited Access (12' wide, poor condition)Consider Limited Access(16' wide, fair condition) -Road continued east buthas been closed &converted to burial ground)Consider Limited Access(12' wide, fair condition)Consider Reduced Width (25' wide, poor condition- maintain min. 20' width for primary road)Consider Reduced Width (22' wide, poor condition)22' width of "deadend" road shouldbe maintained toprovide accessKey road to retain foraccess around veteransportion of the cemeteryConsider Reduced Width (22' wide, fair condition)Consider Limited Access (14' wide, fair condition)Consider Limited Access (12' wide, poor condition)Consider Limited Access(10' wide, poor condition)Key maintenance roads could becomelimited access if soil & headstonestorage area is relocatedConsider Limited Access(11' wide, poor condition)These secondary roads provide access duringMemorial Day & Veterans Day - the closedgate is opened for such holidaysRoads previously closed & convertedto burial areaOpen gateCirculation andAccess AnalysisClosed gateSecondary access roadKey maintenance roadPrimary access & keymaintenance roadsPrimary access roadSLC Cemetery BoundaryRoads to consider for limited access(maintenance vehicle & pedestrian only)Tertiary access roadRoads to consider for reduced width(identified primary access roads shouldmaintain min. 20' width - others may bereduced to 12' wide) APPENDIX D D-3This page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out. APPENDIX D D-4Figure D.2 - Roadway Condition AnalysisLindseyGardensM StreetN StreetU Street4th Avenue7th Avenue4th Avenue11th AvenueMt. CalvaryCatholic CemeteryMainCenterSLC Cemetery BoundaryAverage Condition Roads -Drivable, no significant potholes, cracking evidentFair Condition Roads -Drivable, with significant potholes & cracking, close to failurePoor Condition Roads -Asphalt failure, becoming undrivableRoadway Conditions Analysis8%39%53%Average Condition - 3/4 MileFair Condition - 3 MilesPoor Condition - 4 Miles11%38%51% APPENDIX D D-5This page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out. APPENDIX D D-6Figure D.3 - Roadway Width Analysis APPENDIX D D-7This page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out. D-8APPENDIX D Salt Lake City Cemetery G Brown Design/ESI Engineering - Sept. 2016 Streets Inventory (15-208) Street Name Length In Feet (Est.) Asphalt width (Ave.) Visual Condition Photo Recommended Improvements First Avenue (205 North) 830 13 feet FAIR condition. Some visible cracking and a patch down the middle. Curb only along South edge. No curb along North edge. Recommend 2” mill and overlay project in the future. Third Avenue (220 North) 1,170 12 feet FAIR condition. Some visible cracking and a patch through portions. Curb varies. No Gutter. Far East end appears to be less used and grass is growing in the roadway Recommend 2” mill and overlay project in the future. 240 North 2,110 16 feet FAIR -POOR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through most of the roadway. Large potholes and failed asphalt in areas. Curb varies. No Gutter. Some Curb sections missing. Drainage issues at intersections with Main, Center and Cypress. Recommend reconstruction of 240 North. Construction project should include new asphalt, road base and modified curbs for drainage. Address drainage collection at intersections. 250 North 730 16 feet FAIR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through most of the roadway. No Curb along most of the roadway. No Gutter. Some Curb sections missing. Recommend slurry and 2” overlay. This is one road that could possibly close based on maintenance need. Notice that portions have already been reclaimed and are being used for burial areas. ESI Engineering - Road Inventory APPENDIX D D-9 Grand Ave. (270 North) 2,060 16 feet FAIR -POOR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through most of the roadway. Some areas of asphalt failure with potholes. Curb both sides. No Gutter. Some Curb sections missing. Drainage issues at intersections with Main, Center, Cypress and 1100 E. Main entrance and thru way of the cemetery. Recommend reconstruction of Grand. Construction project should include new asphalt, road base and modified curbs for drainage. Address drainage collection at intersections. 280 North/ 275 North 2,100 11 feet FAIR -POOR condition. Visible cracking and patches through most of the roadway. Some areas of asphalt failure with potholes and grass. Majority has no curb. Drainage issues at intersections with Park, Main, Center, Cypress and 1100 E. Gated Entrance into cemetery. Main thru way. Recommend reconstruction of roadway. Curb and gutter along south edge. Address drainage collection at intersections. 310 North 1,690 17 feet FAIR -POOR condition. Visible cracking and patches through most of the roadway. Some areas of asphalt failure with potholes. Majority has no curb. Curb from Cypress East. Drainage issues at intersections with Park, Main, Center, Cypress and 1100 E. Recommend reconstruction of roadway. Curb and gutter along south edge. Slope roadway to the south. Address drainage collection at intersections. 330 North 3,165 23 feet FAIR -POOR condition. Visible cracking and patches through most of the roadway. Some areas of asphalt failure with potholes. Curb and Gutter along sections. Some curb missing and needing repair. Very steep sections. Drainage issues at intersections with Park, Main, Center, Cypress, 1000 E., Olive, 1040 E., 1060 E., and 1100 E. Main access into cemetery from Lindsey Gardens. Main thru way. Recommend reconstruction of roadway. Could be done in sections. Curb and gutter along south edge. Slope roadway to the south. Address drainage collection at intersections. D-10APPENDIX D 355 North 1,110 21 feet FAIR condition. Visible cracking. Curb along the roadway. Some curb missing. Drainage issues at intersections with 1060 E., 1100E., and 1150 E. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Some areas may need to be reconstructed. Address drainage collection at intersections. Cedar Ave./ Elm Ave./ 380 North 1,110 21 feet FAIR condition. Visible cracking through most of the roadway. Some areas of asphalt failure with potholes. Curb and Gutter both sides. Gutters need to be cleaned. Drainage issues at intersections with Cypress, 1100 E. 1150 E. and 1200 E. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Some areas may need to be reconstructed. Address drainage collection at intersections. 405 North 1,320 20 feet FAIR condition. Visible cracking through most of the roadway. Some areas of asphalt failure with potholes. No Curb from Olive to 1100 E. Curb and gutter South Side only from 1100 E to 1125 E. Curb and gutter from both sides from 1125 E. to 11th Ave Entrance. Curb repairs needed. Drainage issues at intersections with Olive, 1040 E. Cypress, 1100 E. and 1150 E. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Some areas may need to be reconstructed. Address drainage collection at intersections. 425 North 470 16 feet FAIR condition. Visible cracking through most of the roadway. Large asphalt patch. No Curb for majority. Curb along lot Y2. Large drain box on south side. Drainage issues at intersection with 1100E. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Some areas may need to be reconstructed. Curb along south side to collect water. Address drainage collection at intersections. APPENDIX D D-11 405 North Near Plat 3 & 4 290 22 feet FAIR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through most of the roadway. Curb and gutter along the south side. Curb only along north side. Drainage handled with waterway at intersections of Main and Hillside. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Addition of curb and gutter along north side. 425 North/ Quirrh Avenue 375 23 feet FAIR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through all of the roadway. Curb and gutter along both sides. Drainage handled with waterway at intersections of Main and Hillside. Waterway on Hillside broken and in need or replacement. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Replace existing waterway on Hillside Street. 445 North 1730 20 feet FAIR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through most of the roadway. Curb along both sides. Drainage handled with waterway at intersection of Main. Drainage issues at intersections with Hillside, 980 E., and Center Street. Other intersections have waterways. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Some curb sections need to be repaired. Some curb sections could be opened along the South side to allow storm water to flow over the grass areas. Uintah Avenue/ 465 North/ 460 North 920 15 feet FAIR -POOR condition. Visible cracking and patches through most of the roadway. Some areas of asphalt failure with potholes. No curb on either side. Drainage is handled on cross streets with waterways. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Slope and drain roadway to the south for drainage. No curb needed. Waterways need to be reconstructed on Hillside and Center Streets. This is one road that could possibly close based on maintenance need. D-12APPENDIX D Wasatch Avenue 1400 18 feet FAIR - POOR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through most of the roadway. Potholes and failing asphalt in areas. Curb and gutter along both sides. Drainage handled with waterway at intersection with Hillside. Drainage issues at intersection with Center Street. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Some areas may need to be reconstructed. Remove and replace defective curb and gutter. Area between Hillside and Center Street could be good option for reclaiming as burial areas. Frontage Road along 11th Avenue 775 10 feet FAIR - POOR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through most of the roadway. Potholes and failing asphalt along most of the road. Curb and gutter along both sides with failures in the drainage. Drainage handled with waterway at intersection with 920 East. Recommend roadway reconstruction with new curb and gutter and redesign of drainage. 415 North/ 405 North/ 385 North 605 20 feet FAIR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through most of the roadway. No Curb on either side. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Some areas may need to be reconstructed. Park Street/ 670 East 905 15 feet FAIR - POOR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through most of the roadway. Potholes and asphalt failure evident. Curb and Gutter both sides for drainage. Drainage issues at 240 N.,250 N., 270 N.,and 280 N. Recommend roadway to be reconstructed. New road base and asphalt. Repair curb and gutter as needed. Drainage needs to be addressed at the intersections. APPENDIX D D-13 Main Street 2,545 20 feet FAIR - POOR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through most of the roadway. Potholes and asphalt failure evident. Main North-South connector. Curb and Gutter both sides for drainage. Drainage issues at far South end, 240 N.,250 N., 270 N., and 280 N. Recommend roadway to be reconstructed. New road base and asphalt. Repair curb and gutter as needed. Drainage needs to be addressed at the intersections and the far south end. Design should consider storm drain system possible in this road. Hillside Street 990 25 feet FAIR - POOR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through most of the roadway. Potholes and asphalt failure evident. Curb and Gutter both sides for drainage. Drainage issues at 240 N.,250 N., 270 N.,and 280 N. Recommend roadway to be reconstructed. New road base and asphalt. Repair curb and gutter as needed. Replace waterways at intersections for proper drainage at intersections. 940 East 720 15 feet FAIR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through most of the roadway. No curb and gutter on either side or the roadway. Drainage issue at 330 North intersection. Collection needed. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Some areas may need to be reconstructed. Allow roadway to drain into grass and collect at 330 N. Central Avenue/ 980 East 1,720 12 feet FAIR - POOR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through most of the roadway. Potholes and asphalt failure evident. Curb and Gutter both sides for drainage up to 330 N. No curb from 330 N. to North end. Drainage issues at 205 N. 220 N., 240 N.,250 N., 270 N.,280 N., and 310 N. Recommend roadway to be reconstructed. This seems to be a main access for maintenance. New road base and asphalt. Repair curb and gutter as needed. Replace waterways at intersections for proper drainage at intersections. D-14APPENDIX D 980 East 670 12 feet FAIR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through most of the roadway. No curb and gutter on either side or the roadway. Drainage issue at 445 N. and 480 N. intersections. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Some areas may need to be reconstructed. Allow roadway to drain into grass. This is one road that could possibly close depending on maintenance access needs. Center Street/ 990 East 2,340 25 feet FAIR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through most of the roadway. Curb and Gutter both sides for drainage. Typical drainage issues at all intersections. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Repair curb and gutter as needed. Construct waterways or storm drain system at intersections for proper drainage. Main thru street from 4th Ave to 11th Ave. One true connector roadway that connects the cemetery north to south. 1000 East 820 10 feet FAIR - POOR condition. Visible cracking and a patch through most of the roadway. Potholes and asphalt failure evident. No curb and gutter on either side or the roadway. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Some areas may need to be reconstructed. Allow roadway to drain into grass. This is one road that could possibly close depending on maintenance access needs. Olive Street/ 1020 East 820 16 feet FAIR condition. Visible cracking and some asphalt failing. Not too bad overall. Curb and Gutter on both sides for drainage. Drainage issues at the intersections of 405 North and 445 North. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Some areas may need to be reconstructed. Replace missing curb sections as needed. Address drainage issues at 405 North and 445 North with waterways or boxes with piping. APPENDIX D D-15 1040 East 820 10 feet FAIR - POOR condition. Visible cracking, potholes and asphalt failure evident. No curb and gutter on either side or the roadway. Drainage issues at 405 North. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Some areas may need to be reconstructed. Allow roadway to drain into grass. Waterways at 405 North. This is one road that could possibly close depending on maintenance access needs. Cyprus Avenue/ 1060 East 1,990 21 feet FAIR condition. Visible cracking, potholes and asphalt failure is evident. Curb and Gutter along both sides for drainage. Typical drainage issues at all intersections. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Repair curb and gutter on sections as needed. Construct waterways or storm drain system at intersections for proper drainage. 1100 East 1,870 22 feet FAIR - AVERAGE condition. Visible cracking, potholes and asphalt failure evident in some areas. No curb and gutter on either side or the roadway until 280 North. Curb and gutter present from 280 E to the North. Drainage issues at all intersections. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Repair curb and gutter on sections as needed. Construct waterways or storm drain system at intersections for proper drainage. 1150 East 470 22 feet FAIR - AVERAGE condition. Visible cracking and minor asphalt failure evident in some areas. Curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway. Drainage issues at all intersections. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Some areas may need to be reconstructed. Construct waterways or storm drain system at intersections for proper drainage. 1200 East 360 22 feet FAIR - AVERAGE condition. Visible cracking and minor asphalt failure evident in some areas. Curb and gutter on both sides of the roadway. Drainage issues at all intersections. Recommend 2” mill and overlay. Some areas may need to be reconstructed. Construct waterways or storm drain system at intersections for proper drainage. SLC M A S T E R P L A N Appendix E - Community Resource Analysis Cemetery as an Open Space Historic Resources Trees and Landscape Sidewalks and Pedestrian Pathways Security and Vandalism Overall Opportunities and Challenges Community Resource Analysis Map JULY 7 2017 APPENDIX E E-1 Cemetery as an Open Space The Cemetery represents 14% of Salt Lake City’s manicured parks and open spaces. At 121 acres, it is the City’s largest manicured open space, with the next closest being Liberty Park at 100 acres. While the Cemetery doesn’t provide the same level of active recreation found at other parks, it is a vital part of Salt Lake City’s overall parks and open space network as an urban forest, wildlife habitat, and open space for passive recreation. Historic Resources The Cemetery’s historic resources are an important community asset and warranted their own detailed report. See Appendix H - Historic Preservation Considerations. Trees and Landscape There are forty-two species of deciduous and evergreen trees within the Cemetery ranging in size and age. Analysis of GIS data provided by the City’s urban forestry department shows that nearly two-thirds of the trees are evergreen. On-site observations indicate that the majority of trees are mature, which is a central physical feature that adds to the Cemetery’s unique character and feel. In addition to the large quantity and diversity of trees, the Cemetery also contains other important landscape features such as dense vegetative corridors and 300 feet of grade change that offers great views of the valley. Landscape areas around the Sexton Building contain a variety of trees, shrubs, ground covers and turf grass plantings whereas burial areas are primarily planted with turf grass and trees. (CRPA Phase 1 Master Plan, 2009) Sidewalks and Pedestrian Pathways Sidewalks exist primarily near the Sexton Building and serve pedestrians. Walkways are not present in any other areas of the Cemetery, where asphalt roads are used as pedestrian circulation routes. The network of roads presents and opportunity to create connections between existing and proposed pedestrian and bicycle trails. The site’s steep slopes and generally poor road conditions create challenges for pedestrians or cyclists. Delineating specific paths and Source: Cemetery Planning Team Vegetative Corridor Source: Cemetery Planning Team 14% 11% 75% Total SLC Manicured Parks (including Cemetery): 878 acres SLC Cemetery (121 Acres) Liberty Park (100 Acres) All other SLC manicured parks and open space (657 Acres) Figure E.1 - SLC Manicured Parks Comparison E-2APPENDIX E re-surfacing roads or adding sidewalks could provide a meaningful enhancement for those who use the Cemetery for passive recreation. Security and Vandalism Safety and security is always an important consideration in cemeteries due to the deserved respect of the site, the risk of aging monuments and cemetery markers, dangers of cemetery equipment and cemetery operations (including open graves), and the general draw of mischief seeking youngsters. In addition, large open areas may be an attraction for other criminal activity such as drug use and drug dealing. General complaints from neighboring residents include alleged drug use and drug dealing, loitering and general mischief, and problems with off-leash dogs. While the Cemetery is officially closed at dusk, site access is not entirely secured. The site perimeter is not completely fenced and the gate near the city fuel station remains open during the night (to allow police/fire access to the fuel station). Most of the walls and fences do not significantly restrict pedestrian access. Currently there are no security systems in the Cemetery. Hazards may exist from large or aging trees, aging monuments and markers, as well as ongoing Cemetery operations such as mowing, trimming, and open graves. The following security and safety measure currently in place include: 24 hour access to the fueling station for City law enforcement encourages increased presence at the Cemetery. The entry gate near the City fuel station remains open to allow law enforcement to drive through the Cemetery for surveillance. All other gates are closed and locked to restrict vehicular access. Equipment and maintenance facilities are locked up at night and security lighting is in place surrounding the Sexton Building and Maintenance Compound. Open graves are marked around their entire perimeter with caution tape. The Cemetery follows all OSHA standards and conducts biannual training on safety protocol and equipment usage. Summary of Findings Open Space, Trees, and Landscape: The Cemetery makes up 14% of Salt Lake City’s total manicured parks and open space Cemetery trees and plants are an important part of the City’s urban forest, provide wildlife habitat, and contribute to the Cemetery’s character and feel. Sidewalks and Pedestrian Paths: Sidewalks exist primarily at the Sexton Building while the Cemetery road network provides pedestrian and bicycle circulation throughout the rest of the Cemetery. The Cemetery road network presents an opportunity to create connections between existing and proposed trails. The 300 ft. elevation change provides great views but presents challenges to users who jog or cycle through the Cemetery. Security and Vandalism: The entry gate near the fuel station is open 24/7 to allow law enforcement access for Cemetery surveillance. All other gates are closed and locked at dusk to restrict vehicular access. APPENDIX E E-3 Overall Opportunities and Challenges Opportunities: Beautiful, peaceful space Excellent views Proximity to pedestrian and bicycle trails Mature & diverse urban forest Abundant wildlife Adjacent to Lindsey Gardens & 11th Ave Park Historic Sexton Building Rich in history Perpetual care ensures maintained open space Well established roadway network Destination for genealogy Challenges: Aging infrastructure (roads, retaining walls, buildings, etc.) Funding of long-term maintenance Revenue from sale of burial rights is dwindling Steep grades & slopes Very little room for expansion Minimal formal parking Trees can pose problems and damage graves APPENDIX E E-4Analysis MapSignificant historic/cultural monumentHistoric WPA wallsSignificant viewsOpen gate - Opportunity to createconnections to Bike & Pedestrian trailsClosed gate - opportunity to allow bike &pedestrian access while restricting vehiclesSLC Cemetery boundarySLC Parks & Open SpaceOther cemeterySignificant trees (based on size & species)Important vegetative corridors - shouldbe preserved as an important naturalresource & wildlife habitatExisting bike laneExisting natural surface trailExisting multi-use trailProposed protected bike (SLC Bike/Ped Master Plan)Proposed bike lane (SLC Bike/Ped Master Plan)Pro. neighborhood byway (SLC Bike/Ped Master Plan)Proposed shared road (SLC Bike/Ped Master Plan)Potential connection between trailsExisting contours (10' contour interval)LindseyGardensViews of city skylineCongregation ShareyTzedick CemeteryChristmas Box AngelMary Wallace graveM StreetN StreetU Street4th Avenue4th AvenueSexton Building is a critical part ofthe historical character & fabric ofthe Cemetery11th AvenueHistoric Main Entrance GateMt. CalvaryCatholicCemetery11thAveParkHistoric WPA entrancegate is primary accesspoint on 11th AvePoppertonParkMainCenterDilapidated tennis courtsat Lindsey GardensCity-owned open spaceExisting vegetative corridors& steep slopes here areimportant natural resources& wildlife habitatCongregation Montefiore CemeteryCongregation B'Nai Israel CemeteryHistoric WPA wallsCity-owned open spacepresents an opportunityto create a connectbetween trailsExisting bike lane along Terrace HillsDr. connects to Bonneville Shorelinetrail (3/4 mile from Cemetery)Existing Bobsled Trail throughPerry's Hollow connects toBonneville Shoreline trail(3/4 mile from cemetery)Perry's Hollow Natural AreaExisting multi-use trail alongPopperton Park connects toBonneville Shoreline trail(1/2 mile from cemetery)City-owned open spaceViews of undulatingslopesCommunity gardensFigure E.2 - Community Resources Analysis Map CHAPTER E E-5This page intentionally left blank, backside of fold-out. SLC M A S T E R P L A N Appendix F - Architectural Analysis by CRSA JULY 7 2017 APPENDIX F F-1 SLC Cemetery Master Plan – Architectural Investigation Performed by CRSA Architecture I Architectural Inventory A. Site 1. Significant Cemetery buildings are consolidated in the south-west corner of the Cemetery property, adjacent to the main entrance gate. 2. There are three primary building types or uses: a. Sexton’s House b. Service and maintenance sheds and buildings (4 total) c. Public restrooms 3. The district in which these facilities are located comprises approximately two acres, and includes extensive paving, pedestrian walks, lawn, mature trees, and plantings. There are no grave plots inside this area. The area is completely bounded by either interior cemetery roadways, or public streets. 4. The Sexton’s home is the public face of this district, facing the main gate, 4 th Avenue, and N Street. The service and maintenance facilities are mostly oriented internally, with direct access off N Street. 5. The Cemetery’s maintenance facilities are located immediately north of the Sexton Building and are comprised of four buildings and a lean-to-shed totaling approximately 8,900 square feet. The service and maintenance area includes a fueling station for City vehicles. Cemetery maintenance staff has indicated that the facilities are insufficient to meet their needs. B. Building Descriptions 1. Sexton’s House: The Sexton’s House is designed in the Tudor Revival style, consistent with the Arts and Crafts movement of the early 20th Century. No drawings or other records are available by which to date construction. The drawings available from the Salt Lake City Engineer, dated 1919, do not appear to have any relationship to the existing building, other than in the architectural style. Based on the style and features of the existing building, it is estimated to have been constructed between 1915 and 1930. It is unlikely that the City would have undertaken a building of this quality and character during the Depression years, and it is clearly pre-World War II. The most likely possibility is that the F-2APPENDIX F original, 1919 design was deemed inadequate, and a very similar, but larger home was constructed in its stead. I may be possible to obtain more a more exact date by careful analysis of the existing boiler, as it possibly has dated markings. Footprint of the Sexton’s House is approximately 1780 square feet at ground level, plus 550 square feet of brick patio. The second floor provides approximately 1600 square feet, while the basement includes 800 square feet of interior area. The Sexton’s House has not been used as a residence for over a decade, and now Houses administrative spaces, the Sexton’s office, the records vault, and previous residential rooms now used for meetings, storage, and a variety of other uses. The ground floor includes two levels of general office, the records vault, the Sexton’s office, a kitchen, two restrooms, closets, and several ancillary spaces. The second floor comprises two large and one small bedrooms, a bathroom, and attic and mechanical spaces. The bedrooms are now used as meeting and auxiliary spaces. The basement is unfinished, with exposed concrete walls and floor. Spaces in the basement are used primarily for storage and mechanical equipment. The hot water boiler (no longer in service) appears to be original. Exterior bearing walls are brick at the ground level. The second story is of half- timber and stucco, selectively projecting beyond the first floor walls, and supported on profiled timbers and brackets. The roof is quite steep, with a variety of gables and clips. The ground level includes exterior patios in brick to match the building. Doors are profiled into pointed arch openings. Windows include a variety of traditional treatments, including leaded glass and multi-light windows, bay windows, and other styles typical of the period. Ground floor windows appear original, while 2nd floor windows appear to have been selectively replaced with aluminum sliders (in former bedrooms). Interior partitions are wood frame with painted plaster on wood lath. Exterior finishes are in very good condition and appear to have been well maintained. There are no obvious structural failures. Stucco is intact, and exterior wood is painted. The roof has been re-shingled with modern composition shingles and appears in good repair. The exterior brickwork is highly decorative and appears to be in original condition. Interior of the Sexton’s House is in near-original condition. Built-in casework and cabinets, typical of the period and style, are intact and in good repair. Interior doors and hardware are original. Interior walls do not appear to have been removed from their original positions, and there are no obvious additions of APPENDIX F F-3 new, modern partitions. Where electrical upgrades have been installed, they are mostly surface-mounted. Light fixtures are a mix of modern and original, with few original fixtures being extant. The restrooms are in their original configurations, some with modern replacement plumbing fixtures. One exception is the 2nd floor bathroom, which has been completely refitted, but appears to occupy the original space. Mechanical and electrical equipment have been upgraded and appear to be in good condition. High-efficiency, residential-type furnaces and air conditioning have been installed, along with all-new metal ductwork. The systems appear to function adequately, given the mostly un-insulated character of the building. Observations in exposed attic spaces suggest the roof is uninsulated. Brick exterior walls are multi-wythe masonry with interior plaster finish, and are certainly uninsulated. The original windows are single-pane, and no storm windows are evident. The building likely benefits from a high thermal mass, but overall is likely inefficient in its energy use. 2. Shed #1: Storage shed #1 is the southerly of two metal buildings, located immediately north of the Sexton’s House. This is a 3-bay metal building, approximately 1920 square feet in area. It is insulated and heated, and is used to store a variety of rolling equipment, furniture, and miscellaneous gear. The north-west corner is partitioned with chain link, presumably as a parts cage. This shed is absolutely utilitarian in nature and contributes no significant architectural value. Date of this building is indeterminate. Its age certainly exceeds 25 years, but is probably less than 50 years. 3. Shed #2 is immediately north of Shed #1, and is likewise a 3-bay, pre-engineered metal building totaling approximately 2220 square feet. This building is insulated and heated, and is partitioned to accommodate a restroom, an open, full-length work bay, and three dedicated shops for specific trades. This shed is absolutely utilitarian in nature and contributes no significant architectural value. Date of this building is indeterminate. Its age certainly exceeds 25 years, but is probably less than 50 years. 4. Crew Building: The crew building is a brick masonry structure with wood-framed roof, located immediately north and east of Shed #2. This building serves as the management center for grounds crew and houses a crew break room, restroom, and supervisor offices. The walk-out basement (open to the south) provides storage space. Age of this building is unknown, likely exceeding 50 years. 5. Garage: The garage is a CMU building with metal roof structure, constructed circa 1966. Building area is 2400 square feet. There are four parking bays with F-4APPENDIX F sectional overhead doors. The easternmost bay is walled-off, while the westernmost bay is partitioned with chain link. The center two bays are open one to the other. This building is heated, but uninsulated. Clerestory windows across the north wall provide abundant natural light. In addition to providing protected parking for trucks and other vehicles, this building is used for storage of a wide variety of tools and equipment. 6. Public restrooms: The Cemetery has two public restroom buildings. The first is located at 275 North and Center Street in the midst of burial sections. This restroom is closed at 4:30 p.m. each day and all day Sundays. The second restroom, constructed in 2016 is located immediately west of the Sexton’s House. This restroom is open 24/7 to serve City staff working after hours, such as police and fire. Design is sympathetic to materials and features of the Sexton’s House, while meeting all currents standards and codes. C. Historic Considerations 1. Sexton’s House: This building is a significant historic asset and should be considered as having a very high value as such. The fact that both interior and exterior historic fabric has been preserved and maintained, with so little imposition, makes this an unusual example. It is also unique in its relationship to the cemetery, with all of the history and records of the cemetery residing in its vault. The association of such a building with the inherent history of the cemetery makes this a very special and unique asset. While the Sexton’s House does not appear to have received listing on the National Register of Historic Places, it certainly qualifies for listing, and is located immediately adjacent to the Avenues Historic District. (The District wraps around the west and south sides of the cemetery.) Any work involving the Sexton’s House should be planned and carried out with due consideration for its character as a valuable historic asset. 2. Sheds: The existing sheds are likely not eligible for listing on the National Register, nor do they constitute a historically valuable asset. Their location adjacent to the Avenues Historic District may suggest certain approvals for work involving the sheds, but these should not present any real obstacles to their modification or demolition, if such are deemed necessary. 3. Crew building: The crew building is likely of an age that makes it eligible for listing on the National Register. However, it is not architecturally significant, and APPENDIX F F-5 modifications or demolition should be available options, if such are deemed necessary. 5. Garage: The garage is old enough, as of 2016, to qualify for listing on the National Register, and it is located adjacent to the Avenues Historic District. It does not constitute a valuable historic asset. Modification or demolition should be available options, if such are deemed necessary. II Observations and comments A. Site: The district around the Sexton’s House is the only area of the cemetery that does not already contain grave plots. As such, it presents the most viable opportunity to develop additional public uses and facilities. Any such development must carefully consider its impact on the historic and aesthetic values of the building and landscaping. Of further concern is the impact any development might have on the existing maintenance facilities. They are essential to cemetery operations, and must be replaced in kind, or better, if they are displaced by alternate uses. B. Sexton’s House: The Sexton’s House is very nearly an architectural time capsule. This adds value as an historic asset, but it makes adaptive re-use problematic. The building is sized and proportioned as a single-family residence, plus a small administrative area for management of the cemetery. Though no longer in use as a residence, the sizes of the rooms, variations in floor level, lack of modern restrooms, narrow doors and hallways, and similar conditions make use of the building by large groups problematic. A change in use would mandate substantial upgrades to meet current Building Code requirements, with unavoidable impacts to the building’s historic fabric. As currently arranged, there is only one ADA accessible entrance, on the lowest level of the admin office, without opportunity for ready development of ramps or lifts into the balance of the building. It has been suggested that the interior could be gutted and reconfigured for alternate uses, including for public gathering. To do so would require major alterations that would destroy the interior historic fabric and impact the exterior appearance (in order to create near-grade entries), as well as requiring major structural modifications to create gathering spaces, to provide accessibility, and to meet current Code requirements. (A change in use to a more intense use, such as a reception hall, would mandate compliance with current Code.) The reality is that conversion of the building for an assembly (reception or meeting) use will unavoidably destroy the features that make it so unique, and historically important. In truth, the viability of the Sexton’s House to continue in its current role will come into question if even one client or employee complains that this public office does not meet accessibility requirements. C. Maintenance sheds, crew building, and garage: These facilities are essential to the operation of the cemetery. As such, any redevelopment plan must provide for equal or F-6APPENDIX F better facilities to meet operational needs. Development of new public uses in the immediate vicinity will likely displace all or part of these facilities, and a new location must be identified for their replacement. It is not known if the cemetery includes any undeveloped space sufficient to meet this need. One potential option is to develop a multi-story, consolidated facility with a much smaller footprint, using the existing grades to allow vehicle access on at least two levels. The challenge is that such a building will be somewhat costly. III Preliminary recommendations A. The district around the Sexton’s House is the most viable area for development of new public uses. Doing so will likely necessitate development of public parking, gardens, patios, possibly an overhead pavilion, and similar facilities. Unless one is willing to destroy the existing lawns and mature trees, doing so must, of necessity, displace the existing maintenance and storage buildings. The most desirable outcome would relocate the sheds, crew facilities, and garage to a more remote location, thereby allowing their current site to become an extension of the landscaped grounds, accommodate placement of new gathering facilities, and provision of parking appropriate to the new use. The Sexton’s House could remain as a lovely and historic object in the landscape, though it would not accommodate large groups. Alternative sites for the service and maintenance facilities might include the disused tennis courts at Lindsey Gardens, in combination, perhaps, with the bulk materials yard at the north-west corner of the cemetery. The tennis court area has remained in disrepair for some time, and potentially provides a useful area equal to or greater in size than the existing service and maintenance facilities. This, of course, would necessitate a potentially difficult approval process. In any case, effective redevelopment of public facilities will very likely require construction of new service and maintenance facilities. B. The Sexton’s House is a valuable historic asset, deserving of preservation, but is unlikely to see viable re-use as a reception center or public facility. Still, small groups willing to accept the non-conforming conditions may find it useful. It can also remain in its current use, absent complaints or litigation. There is little potential for the Sexton’s House to become the centerpiece of a new public use area, except as art in the landscape. Attachments: Existing Basement Plan - Level 00 Existing Floor Plan - Level -01 Existing Floor Plan - Level -02 Existing Roof Plan - Level Roof APPENDIX F F-7 F-8APPENDIX F APPENDIX F F-9 F-10APPENDIX F SLC M A S T E R P L A N Appendix G - Funding Analysis by Zions Public Finance Preliminary Financial Analysis Summary Preliminary Financial Options Funding Options for Capital Improvements/Deferred Maintenance JULY 7 2017 G-1APPENDIX G Preliminary Financial Analysis Summary Performed by: Zions Public Finance Perpetual care is a volatile issue for cemeteries. Several religious-owned cemeteries throughout the United States have been successful in managing perpetual care funds in low-risk investments. The funds are initially received through sale of a plot or niche, with a portion going to ongoing costs, and the remainder going into a managed fund. Yields are near four and five percent, and the assets are managed such so that annual maintenance and operational costs are to be covered. Most entities prefer one fund, while a few places utilize two funds – one for maintenance of the unused portions of the cemetery, and the other for upkeep of fully utilized areas. However, most prefer the single fund setup. One-time costs at several comparable cemeteries (with a focus on upright headstones) for perpetual care is noted from near $800 to upwards of $1,700 for single graves, and up to $2700 for double graves. Overall, Salt Lake Cemetery prices appear to be somewhat low in comparison to other, notable cemeteries that have urban settings and a combination of upright and flat stones. Perpetual care prices at some cemeteries have increased 20 percent in the past three to five years in order to make up for budgetary shortcomings. Historically, these prices have risen closer to inflation Some cemeteries additionally charge “annual costs” that range from $80 to $250 per grave per year. This is an additional cost, separate from perpetual care, that includes cleaning and maintaining the headstone (cutting back grass, sweeping debris, washing headstones). Some cemeteries see “annual costs” revenues increasing in the past few years, with totals sometimes near 10 to 20 percent of total revenue. Also noted at Salt Lake as “stone monitoring” Perpetual care funds are commonly being turned over to national firms and cooperative funds that specialize in low-risk funds for cemeteries. Cemeteries are able to indicate their risk tolerance levels and choose a “desired return” scenario based on their needed access to cash flow Numerous cemeteries rely upon dividends and returns from perpetual care funds, as well as support from historical societies and various charities. Some perpetual funds in nearly built-out cemeteries (similar to Salt Lake) are reducing principle as dividends are insufficient to cover operating expenses (this is more common as cemeteries age and limited new funds are being invested, maintenance costs are increasing, and the fund is not producing enough to maintain) For alternative revenue sources (outside of typical opening and closing of graves, perpetual care, etc.) several cemeteries are focusing more on double deep scenarios (at prices generally higher than Salt Lake) and cremation niches. The niches are becoming more popular in cold-weather climates. Revenues for niches are upwards of $1,100 to $3,000, which includes recording, a plaque, endowment care, the property holding the urn, etc. The “profit” margin on niches is significantly higher than traditional graves. Labor costs are minimalized, as are equipment needs. Maintenance costs are also substantially lower, as compared to a grave APPENDIX G G-2 Limited revenue sources at select cemeteries from guided tours for genealogy groups Reception centers work only at cemeteries where the reception area is not generally considered a significant part (or centrally located) of the cemetery. Some west coast cemeteries have reception areas that are on neighboring properties that capitalize on the quiet settings and manicured overall grounds. Reception halls at or directly near cemeteries for groups up to 100 to 150 people have rental rates in excess of $1,200 to $4,000 per evening. Usage rates are near one to two nights per week (seasonally adjusted for certain cemeteries), or roughly 75 per year. Reception areas have been utilized for Veterans groups, historical societies, fundraising groups, and workshops. Additional revenue is generated from equipment rental, catering services, parking (valet), etc. More traditional reception centers (not located near cemeteries) see usage rates closer to 100 to 150 nights per year. Other key points Appears that a gap in revenues could be partially bridged with increased fees that are more in-line with other cemeteries Additional revenue possible from focusing on double deep graves and niches. Profit margins are strongest on niches, and perpetual care needs are reduced Could have additional focus on promoting “annual care” services and their benefits Reception centers are numerous in Salt Lake, with several noting that demand is not substantial enough to suggest expansion or additional construction. Most are utilized primarily for weddings, which is not a target market for a cemetery reception center. Rates are widely dependent upon services provided. Standard, reception-only centers are near $2,000 to $3,500 per evening. Some busier periods result in higher prices. G-3APPENDIX G Salt Lake City Cemetery Master Plan Preliminary Financial Options Prepared by: Zions Public Finance Options for Additional Revenue Addition of Columbarium Niches - Market appears to be supportive of roughly 50 niches sold per year until grave sites are sold out, then an increase to 75 per year. Likely profit from each niche is initially estimated at near $45,000 a year (this includes open/closing fees, monitoring, etc.) Increase of Opening and Closing Fees - Increasing the cost for opening/closing of graves by $400 would add nearly $170,000 per year in net income. The market is currently supportive of these higher rates Consider incentives for double-deep options -(raising prices overall, but a discounted rate for double-deep, as opposed to two, single-burials) Double the expense of stone-monitoring fees - (one-time fee), which is supported by the market. This would result in an additional $30,000 to $40,000 per year in net income Other revenue sources evaluated - Reception Center – would not likely be profitable. The available supply suggests that it would not be financially feasible, considering costs of construction and achievable rental rates Historical Society Tours – Revenue would be nominal, if any, according to these groups Photography – Limited, if any revenue, as interviewed photographers suggested that other, free-sites exist around the city and are more desirable Options for Perpetual Care Option 1 - Continue Current Operations – As Is Option (Fund from General Fund) – N ot Recommended Impacts Net anticipated in 2017 at near $700,000 Net projected to grow to $1.0 million by 2023 Revenue decreases as graves are sold out in the next several years Most revenue will be from opening/closing of graves APPENDIX G G-4 Option 2 - Establish Perptual Care Fund with One Time, Bulk Payment Impacts A one-time, $20.0 million bulk payment (establishing a fund in perpetuity) would cover operating expenses up to $1.0 million per year (assuming funds were placed in an interest bearing account at 5.0% (historical fund rates (for professionally managed perpetual care funds) have ranged from 4.0 to 7.0 percent) Any increases in expenses, beyond typical inflation, or loss of revenues, would require a reassessment of the bulk amount and/or the required interest rate Option 3 - Establish Perptual Care Fund Over Ten Year Period with Smaller Annual Bulk Payments Impacts Establishing periodic payments to a fund over a ten-year period would require roughly $24.0 million in near equal payments (four payments of $5.0 million every other year, and $4.0 million in the final year). To last in perpetuity, the fund would need interest at 5.0 percent (historical fund rates for professionally managed perpetual care funds have ranged from 4.0 to 7.0 percent). The eventual, $24.0 million contribution and financial stability also assumes that some efforts have been made to increase revenues (i.e., columbarium niches), and that any increases in expenses, beyond typical inflation, or loss of revenues, would require a reassessment of the periodic payment amounts and/or the required interest rate Option 4 - Stem Losses – Increase Revenues & Establish Perpetual Care Fund with Smaller Bulk Payment – Remainder Continues to be funded from General Fund Impacts Offset some losses by increasing revenue sources that generate profit (as indicated above in the “Options for Additional Revenue heading”) A one-time payment of $5.0 million, at an interest rate of 5.0 percent (again, within the mid- range of professionally managed perpetual care funds), would allow for yearly distributions, in perpetuity, at near $250,000 Coupled with potential, new or realigned revenue sources, net could be significantly reduced initially to near $100,000 per year (with the general fund anticipated to cover losses) Revenue would need to be increased annually, commensurate with increases in expenses, in order to sustain this model without additional draws from the fund account G-5APPENDIX G Options to Address Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvements Special Assessments Not a feasible consideration given historical practices and political influences Bonds Feasible, and should be coupled with overall Park bonds in order to increase public acceptability Donations and Non-Profit Fundraising Cemeteries have fundraising "funds" from $5,000 annually to several million. Those at the upper end have been collecting for decades, and are typically considered to be immaculately gardened and maintained. They often have mausoleums with areas that provide reception or meeting hall space. The lower end of the fund range is often gathered from an annual mailer, or through donation boxes spread throughout the cemetery. Often, the funds are raised for a very specific purpose - i.e., a memorial bridge, a new flag pole, planting of desirable trees, fences, etc. The more visible and unique the project, the more likely people are to donate (i.e., a memorial bridge would be easier than a fence, all else equal) Fundraising groups indicate that it takes a solid five years to really get any momentum, but that it should be started right away. Fundraising for private cemeteries, or those with a specific purpose (Veterans), is significantly more feasible than government-owned cemeteries. Fundraising groups note that the public believes that they already pay for city-owned cemeteries through their taxes, and that they are just poorly managed. Grant Programs – There are not many grants available specifically for cemeteries but grants may be available for Bike or Pedestrian Improvements, Parks & Open Space, Cultural Landscape Projects, Historical Projects (i.e. WPA wall repair), Find-A-Grave projects, gravestone restoration, etc.. APPENDIX G G-6 1 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | April 2017 Salt Lake City | Funding Options for Capital Improvements/Deferred Maintenance Funding Options for Capital Improvements/Deferred Maintenance Overview of Primary Funding Sources Multiple funding sources are available for funding capital improvements, as well as operating and maintenance costs, at the Salt Lake City Cemetery. The primary options include the formation of a cemetery district, creation of a perpetual care fund (PCF), increased fees and the issuance of debt (bonds). The following sections discuss some of the advantages and disadvantages of each revenue source, along with the appropriateness of each source to various capital or operating needs. Potential funding sources are discussed in more detail in this report and are organized as follows: Local District Perpetual Care Fund Monthly Park (including Cemetery) Fees Sales Tax Recreation, Arts and Parks Tax (RAP) General Obligation Bonds Lease Revenue Bond Foundations and Donations Joint Funding Partnerships Grants and Other Funding Sources Special Assessment Areas Cemetery District (“Local District”) Utah law allows for the creation of special districts based on Utah Code §17B. The generic term for all entities that fall under Title 17B of the Utah Code is “local district.” The only type of district in Utah that is not a “local district” is a “special service district.” Title 17D Chapter 1 of the Utah Code deals with the creation and administration of special service districts and is known as the “Special Service District Act.” Local districts and special service districts can only be created by cities or counties. The process is initiated either by the cities or counties themselves by resolution, or by petition from a group of citizens. In order to be created, local districts require a petition signed by 33 percent of the private property owners within the proposed district whose property values total at least 25 percent of the value of all private real property within the proposed district or 33 percent of the voters within the proposed district who voted in the last general election for Governor. Special service districts require a citizen petition to be signed by property owners within the proposed district whose property values total at least 10 percent of the taxable value of all taxable property within the proposed special service district or at least ten percent of the registered voters within the proposed special service district. Local districts may be created for a variety of purposes including cemetery operations and facilities. A special service district created under Title 17D is a hybrid entity in that it is an independent governmental entity, except when it comes to the levy of taxes or assessments, the issuance of debt, or the holding of an election. These actions must be approved by the G-7APPENDIX G 2 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | April 2017 Salt Lake City | Funding Options for Capital Improvements/Deferred Maintenance governmental entity that created the special service district. In reality, special service districts are still ultimately under the control of their creating entities. Governance options between the two types of districts differ somewhat. While both are under the jurisdiction of a local governing board, which must have at least three members, special service districts are governed by the cities or counties that create them. A local district determines, at its creation, whether board members will be appointed, elected, or a hybrid with some members appointed and others elected. The major difference between the two types of districts is in their ability to tax. Local districts may levy property taxes but special service districts can only do so if the governing body that created the district votes to do so and the tax is approved by a majority of voters. All districts are subject to limitations on property taxes imposed to pay for operations and maintenance. Limits are also placed on local districts and special districts for bonded indebtedness. Utah Code §11-14-310(3)(b) limits general obligation bonds to a percentage of the fair market value of all taxable property within the district. The limit for a local district is .05 and 0.12 for a special service district (unless specified in the Code for a specific type of special service district). Liability insurance is required for all districts with budgets in excess of $50,000. All districts must comply with most of the Utah Procurement Code as found in Section 63G-6-104 and must adopt and implement formal purchasing policies and procedures. If some sort of cemetery district were to be created, the total taxable value of the district would be used to determine the tax rate necessary to raise the desired amount of annual operating revenues necessary to support cemetery operations. The advantages and disadvantages of a cemetery district are summarized as follows: Advantages: Spread costs over a larger population Taxing ability that does not show up on the books of the City Disadvantages: Loss of direct governance and control of cemetery facilities As a means of comparison, the following shows the property tax rates of other cemeteries in Utah, as well as the resulting annual property tax per $100,000 of taxable value. Table 1: Comparable Cemetery Districts, Tax Rates and Annual Property Tax Revenues District CMD Tax Rate Per $100,000 of Taxable Value Crescent CMD 0.000038 $3.80 Liberty CMD 0.000038 $3.80 Hoytsville CMD 0.000061 $6.10 Eden CMD 0.000066 $6.60 Garden City-Pickleville CMD 0.000069 $6.90 Wanship CMD 0.000073 $7.30 Ben Lomond CMD 0.000074 $7.40 APPENDIX G G-8 3 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | April 2017 Salt Lake City | Funding Options for Capital Improvements/Deferred Maintenance District CMD Tax Rate Per $100,000 of Taxable Value Plain City CMD 0.000075 $7.50 West Weber-Taylor CMD 0.000075 $7.50 Paradise CMD 0.000091 $9.10 Millville-Nibley CMD 0.000101 $10.10 Tropic CMD 0.000118 $11.80 Henrieville CMD 0.000121 $12.10 Warren-West Warren CMD 0.000123 $12.30 Avon CMD 0.000137 $13.70 Hatch Town CMD 0.000138 $13.80 Laketown CMD 0.000142 $14.20 Panguitch CMD 0.000149 $14.90 Garland CMD 0.000151 $15.10 Willard Precinct CMD 0.000155 $15.50 Antimony CMD 0.000161 $16.10 Antimony CMD 0.000161 $16.10 East Garland CMD 0.00017 $17.00 Corinne CMD 0.000181 $18.10 South Summit CMD 0.000189 $18.90 Hyde Park CMD 0.000193 $19.30 Newton CMD 0.000197 $19.70 Escalante CMD 0.000207 $20.70 Penrose CMD 0.000213 $21.30 Penrose CMD 0.000213 $21.30 Grand County CMD 0.000224 $22.40 Plymouth CMD 0.000227 $22.70 Richmnd CMD 0.000269 $26.90 Monticello CMD 0.000283 $28.30 Cannonville CMD 0.000308 $30.80 Randolph CMD 0.000329 $32.90 Portage Precinct CMD 0.000335 $33.50 Woodruff CMD 0.000335 $33.50 Lakeport Cemetery & Park Service Area 0.000336 $33.60 Blanding CMD 0.000337 $33.70 Fielding CMD 0.000345 $34.50 Delta, Sutherland, Oasis CMD 0.000389 $38.90 Hinckley-Deseret CMD 0.0004 $40.00 Cornish CMD 0.00042 $42.00 Riverside CMD 0.000647 $64.70 If Salt Lake City were to enact even the lowest rate shown in the comparative cities above, it would result in the following annual revenues for the cemetery district. Table 2: Potential Revenue Generation for Salt Lake City Description Amount Salt Lake City Taxable Value $21,834,422,772 Lowest Tax Rate of Comparative CMD’s 0.000038 Annual Revenues $829,708.07 G-9APPENDIX G 4 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | April 2017 Salt Lake City | Funding Options for Capital Improvements/Deferred Maintenance Perpetual Care Fund Similar to other cemeteries, the Salt Lake Cemetery has historically charged for a perpetual care fund. This one-time expense is intended for annual maintenance and care of the grounds. Some cemeteries will set this revenue source aside in a conservative investment vehicle, and use it when other revenue options begin to dry up. For Salt Lake, these funds have been put into the General Fund. Consequently, there is not a care fund established at present that can provide for future costs. The limited number of remaining graves suggest that revenue from this option would nonetheless be nominal if a separate fund was to be established going forward. Perpetual care could be separately appointed for columbarium niches and double-depth grave options. Monthly Parks and Recreation Fees Several communities in Utah charge monthly fees for parks and recreation maintenance. If the cemetery were to be viewed as part of the parks and recreation “system” in the City, it may be possible to charge a fee and use some of the revenues to fund cemetery operations. Herriman is an example of a city that charges a monthly park fee. These fees are generally added to the City’s water bill and the recreation portion of the fee is the first amount to be credited when payments are made. For example, if the monthly water bill totaled $40, plus $5 for a recreation fee, the total bill would be $45. If the property owner paid only $40, rather than the full $45, the parks fee would be credited first, leaving the property owner with a deficit of $5 on the water bill. If Salt Lake City were to charge a monthly fee, it would provide a steady stream of revenue that would grow each year based on the number of residential units in the City. With the growth projected for Salt Lake City, this could be a growing source of revenue. Table 3: Estimated Annual Revenues from Monthly Household Recreation Fee (including Cemetery) Year Population Households $2.00 $3.00 $4.00 $5.00 2018 205,523 82,872 $1,988,928 $2,983,392 $3,977,856 $4,972,320 2019 208,042 83,888 $2,013,312 $3,019,968 $4,026,624 $5,033,280 2020 210,592 84,916 $2,037,984 $3,056,976 $4,075,968 $5,094,960 2021 212,255 85,587 $2,054,088 $3,081,132 $4,108,176 $5,135,220 2022 213,931 86,262 $2,070,288 $3,105,432 $4,140,576 $5,175,720 2023 215,620 86,943 $2,086,632 $3,129,948 $4,173,264 $5,216,580 2024 217,322 87,630 $2,103,120 $3,154,680 $4,206,240 $5,257,800 2025 219,039 88,322 $2,119,728 $3,179,592 $4,239,456 $5,299,320 2026 220,768 89,019 $2,136,456 $3,204,684 $4,272,912 $5,341,140 2027 222,511 89,722 $2,153,328 $3,229,992 $4,306,656 $5,383,320 The City will need to do an analysis to justify that the fee charged is reflective of its needs to cover costs of City parks, trails and recreation maintenance. Local Sales Tax APPENDIX G G-10 5 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | April 2017 Salt Lake City | Funding Options for Capital Improvements/Deferred Maintenance Based on Utah Code §59-12-203, any city, county or town may levy a local option sales tax of one percent on the purchase price of the same transactions for which the statewide sales tax rate of 4.70 percent is charged. The local sales and use tax was established in 1959. Historically, the rate charged associated with the local option portion of the tax changed over the years: July 1, 1959 – June 30, 1975 ½ of one percent July 1, 1975 – June 30, 1983 ¾ of one percent July 1, 1983 – June 30, 1986 7/8 of one percent July 1, 1986 – December 31, 1989 29/32 of one percent January 1, 1990 – present one percent Currently, all counties, cities and towns in Utah have adopted ordinances to impose the maximum one percent option of the local sales and use tax. Counties may charge an additional 0.25 percent local option tax to be used for county purposes. Because Salt Lake City has already enacted the full one percent local option sales tax, it does not have the ability to raise these taxes further. Therefore, the use of sales tax funds for the City cemetery would merely represent a “shift” in tax revenues to pay for one facility over another. Additional sales-related taxes have been authorized by the Legislature for transportation use, as well as a “botanical, cultural, zoo tax,” also known as the “recreation, arts and parks tax” or the ZAP and RAP taxes. Perhaps a portion of this fund could be used if the funds were used to create a botanical or cultural attraction at the cemetery. Other sales-related taxes such as the tourism taxes (such as lodging, restaurant sales, resort communities and motor vehicle rentals) have not been considered eligible for the City cemetery or parks system. Revenue bonds payable from sales tax revenues are governed pursuant to Utah State Code Section 11-14-307. Without the need for a vote, cities and counties may issue bonds payable solely from excise/sales taxes levied by the city, county or those levied by the State of Utah and rebated to the city or county such as gasoline taxes or sales taxes. The advantages and disadvantages of using sales tax revenue bonds are as follows: Advantages: Fairly steady revenue stream (although more volatile than property tax revenues based on economic cycles) Available history of sales tax revenues on which to base projections Sales tax bonds can be issued and do not require voter approval Disadvantages: Cannot raise sales tax percentage of revenues above limit allowed by Utah Legislature Does not provide a new revenue stream unless tax rate is increased or sales increase Used for capital costs and not operating expenses G-11APPENDIX G 6 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | April 2017 Salt Lake City | Funding Options for Capital Improvements/Deferred Maintenance Parks, Arts, Recreation and Culture Tax1 Many communities have initiated Zoo, Arts, and Parks (ZAP) or Recreation, Arts, and Parks (RAP) taxes which have been very effective in raising funds to complete parks, recreation, trails and open space projects. This tax must be put on the election ballot for voter approval and amounts to 1/10th of 1 percent of the point of sale revenue. Salt Lake County has already approved and enacted this tax to the full amount allowed under Utah Code §59-12-1401 so no new funds are available to the County from this source. However, the City could petition the County for funds for various capital projects. General Obligation Bonds General obligation bonds are a common resource for funding major capital facilities, such as a recreation center or sports park, that benefits the entire community. On occasion, several communities will join together to join their resources (i.e., tax base) to build a joint facility that serves several communities. It would be extremely difficult to gather community support for the use of a G.O. bond solely to build cemetery facilities. However, the cemetery facilities could be part of a much larger bond, such as a parks and recreation bond, or public works bond, and could therefore be supportable. General obligation bonds, commonly referred to as “G.O. bonds,” are generally the least costly form of financing for capital facilities. They attract the lowest interest rates in the market because they are secured by the “full faith and credit” - the unlimited pledge of the taxing ability of the community and therefore have the least credit risk to investors. Under the Utah State Constitution, any bonded indebtedness secured by property tax levies must be approved by a majority of voters in a bond election called for that purpose. It is our experience that if the recreation improvements being considered for funding through the G.O. bond have broad appeal to the public and proponents are willing to assist in the promotional efforts, G.O. bonds for recreation projects can meet with public approval. However, due to the fact that some constituents may not view them as essential-purpose facilities for a local government or may view the government as competing with the private sector, obtaining positive voter approval may be a challenge. General Obligation bonds (“GO”) are subject to simple majority voter approval by the constituents of the issuing entity. General obligation elections can be held once each year, in November, following certain notification procedures that must be adhered to in accordance with State Statutes in order to call the election (pursuant to Utah State Code 11-14-2 through 12). Following a successful election, it is not necessary to issue bonds immediately, but all bonds authorized must be issued within ten years. Once given the approval to proceed with the issuance of the bonds, it would take approximately 90 days to complete the bond issuance. General obligation bonds can be issued for any governmental purpose as detailed in Utah Code §11-14-1. The proceeds from bonds issued on or after May 14, 2013 may not be used for operation and maintenance expenses for more than one year after the date any of the proceeds 1 Sometimes referred to as the botanical, cultural and zoo tax APPENDIX G G-12 7 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | April 2017 Salt Lake City | Funding Options for Capital Improvements/Deferred Maintenance are first used for those expenses. Therefore, GO bonds would not be a viable source of operating and maintenance expenses for Salt Lake City. GO bonds could be used for capital improvements. The amount of general obligation debt is subject to the following statutory limitations: Counties are limited to two percent (2%) of the total taxable value of the County; School Districts are limited to four percent (4%) of the total taxable value in the District; Cities of the 1st and 2nd class are limited to a total of eight percent (8%) of the total taxable value, four (4%) for general purposes and four (4%) for water, sewer and lights; and Cities of other classes or towns are limited to a total of twelve percent (12%) of total taxable value, four percent (4%) for general purposes and eight percent (8%) for water, sewer and lights. Notwithstanding the limits noted above, most local governments in Utah have significantly less debt than their statutory limitations. Pursuant to state law, general obligation bonds must mature in not more than forty years from their date of issuance. Typically, however, most GO bonds mature in 15- 20 years. Advantages of G.O. Bonds: Lowest cost form of borrowing ‘New’ source of revenues identified Disadvantages of G.O. Bonds: Timing issues; limited date to hold required G.O. election Risk of a “no” vote while still incurring costs of holding a bond election Possibility of election failure due to lack of perceived benefit to majority of voters Must levy property tax on all property even if some properties receive limited or no benefit from the proposed improvements Can only bond for physical facilities, not ongoing or additional operation and maintenance expense Lease Revenue Bonds One financing mechanism which, until the advent of sales tax revenue bonds, was frequently used to finance capital facilities is a Lease Revenue Bond issued by the Local Building Authority of the City. This type of bond would be secured by the facility itself, not unlike real property serving as the security for a home mortgage. Lease revenue bonds are repaid by an annual appropriation of the lease payment by the City Council. Generally, this financing method works best when used for an essential public facility such as city halls, police stations and fire stations. Interest rates on a lease revenue bond would likely be 15 to 30 basis points higher than on sales tax revenue bonds depending on the market’s assessment of the “essentiality” of the facility. Advantages of Lease-Revenue Bonds: No general vote required No specific revenue pledge required G-13APPENDIX G 8 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | April 2017 Salt Lake City | Funding Options for Capital Improvements/Deferred Maintenance Disadvantages of Lease Revenue Bonds: Higher financing costs than some other alternatives No “new” revenue source identified As this type of bond financing does not generate any new revenue source, the City Council will still need to identify revenue sources sufficient to make the lease payments to cover the debt service. Therefore, this source is not recommended for the cemetery. Foundations and Donations Creating a foundation could provide an additional method of generating new revenues for the City – especially for preservation and development of cemetery facilities. Likely donations would be obtained from families with deceased ancestors buried in the cemetery, or from groups or associations that promote historical preservation. Advantages: Those most involved and interested contribute to the associated costs Creates a sense of pride and ownership in cemetery facilities Partners with the private sector to increase business contributions Disadvantages: Not a steady or consistent revenue source Cannot bond against these revenues May take time to build up significant membership and revenues Administrative costs of running the Foundation unless done by volunteers Joint Funding Partnerships Joint funding opportunities may also occur between municipalities and among agencies or departments within a municipality. Cooperative relationships between cities and counties are not uncommon, nor are partnerships between cities and school districts. In order to make these kinds of opportunities happen, there must be on-going and constant communication between residents, governments, business interests and others. Advantages: Spreads the costs, thereby resulting in a lower burden on Salt Lake City Additional revenues may provide opportunities to provide additional facilities or services using the open space Disadvantages: Does not provide a steady and reliable source of revenues Cannot bond against these revenues Grants and Other Funding Sources The following sources may serve as a supplement to, though not a replacement for, the previous funding sources. The availability of these funds may change annually depending on budget allocations. Further, most of the grant sources identified focus on parks, trails and recreation. APPENDIX G G-14 9 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | April 2017 Salt Lake City | Funding Options for Capital Improvements/Deferred Maintenance Cemetery eligibility would be dependent on the extent to which it is viewed as part of the City’s parks and trails system. Land and Water Conservation Fund The LWCF state assistance program provides matching grants to help states and local communities protect parks and recreation resources. Running the gamut from wilderness to trails and neighborhood playgrounds, LWCF funding has benefited nearly every county in America, supporting over 41,000 projects. This 50:50 matching program is the primary federal investment tool to ensure that families have easy access to parks and open space, hiking and riding trails, and neighborhood recreation facilities. Allocation amounts have decreased over time and LCWF reports a backlog of needs for these funds. This program is administered locally by Utah State Parks and Recreation. Utah Waypoint Grant The Utah Office of Outdoor Recreation initiated the Utah Waypoint Grant program in 2015. The Waypoint program makes grant monies available with a 50/50 match to communities to build outdoor recreation infrastructure which would become an enhancement in the area. To qualify, Waypoint projects must offer an economic opportunity for the community and should have the potential to attract or retain residents and increase visitation to the region. Various types of outdoor recreation infrastructure would be eligible for the Waypoint grant including trails, trail infrastructure, and trail facilities, restroom facilities near popular recreational climbing areas, ramps and launch sites that would improve water access along rivers, whitewater parks, yurts, infrastructure for wildlife viewing areas and more. The areas for the project should be open and accessible to the public. This grant is to be used for the construction of the recreational infrastructure and cannot be used for the planning of the project. Ideally, the plans should be complete before applying for the grant. Recreational Trails Program (RTP) and Transportation Alternatives Program (TAP) The federally-funded Recreational Trails Program (RTP) has helped with non-motorized and motorized trail development and maintenance, trail educational programs, and trail-related environmental protection projects. The Fixing America’s Surface Transportation (FAST) Act reauthorized the RTP for Federal fiscal years 2016 through 2020 as a set-aside of funds from the Transportation Alternatives (TA) Set-Aside under Surface Transportation Block Grant Program (STBG). The national total is divided among States based on each State’s proportionate share of FY2009 Transportation Enhancements funding. Unless a Governor opts out, an amount equal to the State’s FY 2009 RTP apportionment is to be set aside from the State’s TAP funds for the RTP. The 2017 set-aside for Utah is $1,561,852. Utah State Parks and Recreation administers this program locally. Private and Public Partnerships The Parks and Recreation Department or a group of communities acting cooperatively, and a private developer or other government or quasi-government agency may often cooperate on a G-15APPENDIX G 10 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | April 2017 Salt Lake City | Funding Options for Capital Improvements/Deferred Maintenance facility that services the public, yet is also attractive to an entrepreneur or another partner. Private Fundraising While not addressed as a specific strategy for individual recreation facilities, it is not uncommon for public monies to be leveraged with private donations often in concert with a foundation (see Foundations and Donations above). Private funds will most likely be attracted to high-profile facilities and generally require aggressive promotion and management on behalf of city administration. Service Organization Partners Many service organizations and corporations have funds available for park and recreation facilities. Local Rotary Clubs, Kiwanis Clubs, and other service organizations often combine resources to develop park and recreation facilities. Other for-profit organizations such as Home Depot and Lowes are often willing to partner with local communities in the development of playground and other park and recreation equipment and facilities. Again, the key is a motivated individual or group who can garner the support and funding desired and the ability of the cemetery to be viewed as part of the City’s parks and recreation system. Another potential partnership with service organizations is through an Adopt-A-Trail program where various organizations assist with maintenance of City open space and thereby reduce operating costs. Special Assessment Areas Special Assessment Areas (“SAAs”), formerly known as Special Improvement Districts or “SID”s, are a financing mechanism that allows governmental entities to designate a specific area for the purpose of financing the costs of improvements, operation and maintenance, or economic promotion activities that benefit property within the area. Entities can then levy a special assessment, on parity with a tax lien, to pay for those improvements or ongoing maintenance. The special assessment can be pledged to retire bonds, known as Special Assessment Bonds, if issued to finance construction of a project. Utah Code §11-42 deals with the requirements of special assessment areas. The underlying rationale of an SAA is that only those property owners who benefit from the public improvements and ongoing maintenance of the properties will be assessed for the associated costs as opposed to other financing structures in which all City residents pay either through property taxes or increased service fees. If the boundaries of the SAA were coterminous with that of the City, the SAA would provide no advantage in terms of funding to the City. Therefore, this method is not recommended as a potential source of funding. While not subject to a bond election as is required for the issuance of General Obligation bonds, SAAs may not be created if 40 percent or more of those liable for the assessment payment2 protest its creation. Despite this legal threshold, most local government governing bodies tend to find it difficult to create an SAA if 10-20 percent of property owners oppose the SAA. Once created, an SAA’s ability to levy an assessment has similar collection priority / legal standing as a property tax assessment. However, since it is not a property tax, any financing secured by that levy would likely be done at higher interest rates than general obligation, sales tax revenue or 2 Based on the method of assessment selected, i.e. acreage, front footage, per lot, etc. APPENDIX G G-16 11 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | April 2017 Salt Lake City | Funding Options for Capital Improvements/Deferred Maintenance utility revenue bonds. Interest rates will depend on a number of factors including the ratio of the market value to the assessment bond amount, the diversity of property ownership and the perceived willingness and ability of property owners to make the assessment payments as they come due. Even with the best of special assessment credit structure, if bonds are issued they are likely to be non-rated and therefore would be issued at rates quite a bit higher than similar General Obligation Bonds that would likely be rated. All improvements financed via an SAA must be owned by the City and the repayment period cannot exceed twenty (20) years. Whenever SAAs are created, entities have to select a method of assessment (i.e. per lot, per unit (ERU), per acre, by front-footage, etc.) which is reasonable, fair and equitable to all property owners within the SAA. State law does not allow property owned by local government entities such as cities or school districts to be assessed. Advantages of Special Assessment Areas: Bonds are tax-exempt although the interest cost is not as low as a GO or revenue bond No requirement to hold a bond election but the City must hold a meeting for property owners to be assessed before the SAA can be created Only benefited property owners pay for the improvements or ongoing maintenance Limited risk to the City as there is no general tax or revenue pledge Flexibility since property owners may pre-pay their assessment prior to bond issuance or annually thereafter as the bond documents dictate – if bonds are issued Disadvantages of Special Assessment Areas: Forty percent of the assessed liability, be it one property owner or many could defeat the effort to create the SAA if they do not want to pay the assessment Some increased administrative burden for the City although State law permits an additional amount to be included in each assessment to either pay the City’s increased administrative costs or permit the City to hire an outside SAA administrator The City cannot assess certain government-owned property within the SAA No real funding benefit to the City since the boundary would be the same as the City. Summary of Potential Funding Sources Funding Source Availability Strengths Weaknesses Comments Monthly Fees City must enact New revenue source; would grow annually with household growth Additional fee on residential property owners Could provide a steady revenue stream for operating costs Local Sales Tax Provides annual revenue stream, or if used for a bond the debt is repaid Flexible; no voter approval required Not a new funding source; rather diverts existing funds. Legislature If a sales tax bond is issued, revenues should be used for capital costs; G-17APPENDIX G 12 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | April 2017 Salt Lake City | Funding Options for Capital Improvements/Deferred Maintenance Funding Source Availability Strengths Weaknesses Comments through sales tax revenues. City cannot raise existing sales tax beyond the level state legislature allows. would need to approve hike in local option sales tax rate in order to increase rate revenues can be used for any City purpose without a bond. Recreation Zoo Arts and Parks (ZAP) Tax Already enacted in Salt Lake County No new fees or taxes required Not a new revenue stream Would need to apply to Salt Lake County for a portion of these funds; would compete with other projects. General Obligation (GO) Bond Would need voter approval Lowest interest rate on debt Requires voter approval. Can be placed on ballot by City Council (referendum) or through citizen- initiated ballot measure. Revenues need to be used for capital costs Lease Revenue Bond City must appropriate funds annually Flexible; no voter approval required Not a new funding source; City must make annual appropriations Generally used for “essential” facilities Local Recreation District City could create a special service district for parks and recreation Constant and predictable tax revenues Could reduce local control due to District governance Many cities have adopted cemetery maintenance districts Foundations and Donations Very competitive and annual allocations change New revenue stream Competitiveness in obtaining this resource Joint Funding Partnerships Spreads costs over more parties but difficult to find partnerships Additional resources available May lose some control of facilities or governance APPENDIX G G-18 13 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | April 2017 Salt Lake City | Funding Options for Capital Improvements/Deferred Maintenance Funding Source Availability Strengths Weaknesses Comments Grants and Other Funding Sources Very competitive and annual allocations change New revenue stream Competitiveness in obtaining this resource Special Assessment Area (SAA) Can create for any size area Assessments on property; can foreclose Extremely difficult to obtain approval from all affected properties High protests likely from high number of property owners; no advantage to creating district if it is coterminous with City boundaries Recommendations for Funding Options The outlined options present various funding vehicles for both short-term and long-term investment needs of the Salt Lake Cemetery. Some of the options are less feasible than others, due to historical trends and political realities, as previously explained. The following recommendations are made for potentially viable funding options: Short Term – Continued Maintenance and Operations Perpetual care fund – establishing a perpetual care fund from remaining sales of graves and new sales of columbarium niches could provide for some moderate income to help offset continuing expenses. A one-time or multi-year donation to a perpetual care fund would result in a greater offset, and more potential income from interest revenue Increase of existing fees – As previously outlined, increasing fees for opening and closing of graves, stone monitoring, and perpetual care would help alleviate costs associated with everyday operations Long Term – Deferred Maintenance and Capital Improvement Projects Monthly Park Fee – this option appears to be realistic for addressing deferred maintenance and capital improvement projects. It represents a potential new revenue source that escalates with household growth, and could provide a steady stream of income for operating costs and planned projects Recreation, Arts and Parks Tax (RAP) – this potential revenue source could be feasible, although it will face competition from other projects. It is not a new revenue vehicle, and would require the city to apply for funding through the county. While a feasible option, it is less likely to be realized than the monthly park fee option Local District – this option is feasible and would result in costs being spread throughout the population, with the potential of a moderate amount of annual revenue. Creation of a local district is a significant effort, and can result in the loss of direct governance SLC M A S T E R P L A N Appendix H - Historic Reports Historic Preservation Considerations by Susan Crook, Carbaugh Associates, and Carol Edison Significant Sandstone Gravestones in the Salt Lake City Cemetery by Carol Edison JULY 7 2017 APPENDIX H H-1 H-2APPENDIX H Historic Preservation Considerations Page 2 Historic gravestones by prominent stonecarvers, a variety of stone walls and curbing, section markers, ornamental fencing and gates, historic concrete, and even the 1930s 40s galvanized, pop in sprinkler system are among the many small scale features that reveal the history of materials and workmanship used during its development, improvement and expansion since the first burial on the site in 1848. Association with Historic Events: The cemetery is associated with the founding and growth of Salt Lake City and the Mormon Church. Given the age and organic expansion in response to the need for more burial plots, the grounds themselves have the potential to yield new information as an archaeological site under Criterion D. Value of Listing After explaining the restrictions for listing cemeteries on the NRHP, the bulletin points out that threats to historic cemeteries have pushed them to the forefront of preservation and explains the value of having them listed. National Register listing is an important step in preserving cemeteries because such recognition often sparks community interest in the importance of these sites in conveying the story of its past. Listing also gives credibility to State and local efforts to preserve these resources for their continuing contribution to the community's identity. 1 National Register listing can help raise awareness of the importance of historic properties and leverage resources for their preservation. The National Register of Historic Places is a recognition program that does not put restrictions on the use of historic properties.As noted on the NRHP website,the Federal perspective (the National Register of Historic Places is part of the National Park Service), a property owner can do whatever they want with their property as long as there are no Federal monies attached to the State statutes and local preservation ordinances and guidelines regulate the protection and use of historic properties if there is no Federal money involved. On October 23, 2012, Salt Lake City adopted a Community Preservation Plan that includes guidance on historic landscapes. Salt Lake commitment to historic landscape preservation was clearly demonstrated in early 2006 when it retained consultant services to perform a preliminary Historic American Landscape Survey (HALS) 2 for its city cemetery. Along with the technical elements of the HALS study, the consultants designed a HALS community engagement process involving two Salt Lake area high school American Literature teachers and 137 of their students. Including the teachers and their students provided a notable experiential landscape preservation learning opportunity that both taught and revealed important connections between American literature, historic landscape research, and the deep cultural meaning of this cemetery. By 1 Potter, Elisabeth Walton and Beth M. Boland. National Register Bulletin: Guidelines for Evaluation and Registering Cemeteries and Burial Places. U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service, 1992. Introduction, ¶4. Viewed online 6/22/16: https://www.nps.gov/nr/publications/bulletins/nrb41/nrb41_4.htm 2 Susan Crook & Associates + Robin Carbaugh. HALS UT 2, Salt Lake City Cemetery, 2007. APPENDIX H H-3 Historic Preservation Considerations Page 3 linking sacred place, people, urban land form and literature in this way, the team was able to then curate an articulation of broader community understanding and values for the Salt Lake City Cemetery. The key goals of the Salt Lake City Cemetery HALS study were to: 1.Inventory Salt Lake City Corporation records and documents pertaining to the cemetery. 2.Define research questions for a comprehensive HALS that will provide baseline documentation for a strategic management and use plan. 3.Raise awareness of the significance of the cemetery as a historic landscape and its use as a public park and de facto wildlife refuge. 4.Initiate the nomination of the cemetery to the National Register of Historic Places. 5.Encourage the formation of a non profit Salt Lake City Cemetery Conservancy to partner with Salt Lake City Corporation for the management. The final 2007 Salt Lake City Cemetery HALS is housed in the Library of Congress where a report summary states its significance: Salt Lake City Cemetery is the oldest and largest municipal cemetery in Utah. Ferguson avers that it is the largest city cemetery in the entire U.S. (Ferguson, p. 4). Many famous community, civic and religious leaders, as well as infamous rapscallions are buried there (Linda Hilton pamphlet). The Salt Lake City Cemetery was long known as the cemetery because of its origin as the first burial ground for members of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints (informally called the LDS or Mormon church), as well as for the large number of Mormon ecclesiastical leaders laid to rest in it. Cemetery records show that the burials also represent a sample of diverse ethnic and cultural population. Early 20th century photos from the Shipler Collection show extensive understory plantings of shrubs and elaborate flowerbeds. As was common practice in other Salt Lake City parks, the cemetery once had its own greenhouse for the production of bedding plants. Today the vegetation consists primarily of a mixed forest of evergreen and deciduous trees and expansive lawns. The cemetery houses a diverse population of birds and wildlife including raptors, songbirds, deer, squirrels, chipmunks, and occasional mountain The benefits of National Register listing as a marketing and continuing education tool to engage citizens in its maintenance funding, respectful use, and preservation would far outweigh any perceived downsides. National Register listing could prompt the founding of a non profit friends group to partner with the City for programming, interpretation and fundraising. Evaluating Integrity To qualify for National Register listing, properties must retain historic integrity. The Criteria for Evaluation recognize seven factors which define historic integrity: 1. location 2. design 3. setting 4. materials 5. workmanship H-4APPENDIX H Historic Preservation Considerations Page 4 6. feeling 7. association The seven measures of integrity should be applied to the entire cemetery as an historic landscape, and to the features, large scale and small scale, that contribute to its character to answer these questions: To what degree does the burial place and its overall setting convey the most important period(s) of use? To what degree have the original design and materials of construction, decoration, and landscaping been retained? Has the property's potential to yield significant information in American culture been compromised by ground disturbance or previous investigation? Inventory and Assessment of Historic Features The Lodge, WPA wall, and 1915 cemetery entrance gate are among the most prominent historic features in the Salt Lake City Cemetery. While CRSA conducted an informal evaluation of the House and the maintenance buildings for this master plan project, a comprehensive inventory and assessment of historic buildings and landscape features has not yet been conducted. The Site Assessment in the 2009 CPRA study did include some functional elements of the cemetery site. It inventoried the location, type, age, general dimensions and condition of site walls and made recommendations for repair or removal. A limited study of storm drainage features documented a variety of curbs, gutters, culverts, and drain inlets and outlets in various states of disrepair. The total length, area, and varying conditions of interior roads were noted for the purpose of assessing the feasibility of closing more roads to make room for additional burials. None of the site features inventoried were evaluated for historical significance and integrity. HALS UT 2 included the following recommendations for further documentation of historic resources in the cemetery: Views and vistas should be mapped to guide the planting of replacement trees for screening and framing views. Small scale features should be identified and documented using field photos, sketches and scaled drawings as part of further research. Such features include individual trees and plantings, sandstone curbing, drain grates, site concrete and asphalt, stone steps, irrigation system, ghost paths and carriage roads, distinctive masonry types, fencing types, street signs, street lights, section markers, gate styles and materials, gravestones and monuments, the house and associated contributing structures and outbuildings. This baseline information will inform decisions about maintenance and improvements that may affect the historic character of the cemetery. Gravestone Documentation and Restoration Folklorist Carol Edison identified, photographed, and mapped a sampling of historic gravestones by individual stonecarvers in the older sections of the cemetery. A full inventory of hand carved APPENDIX H H-5 Historic Preservation Considerations Page 5 gravestones and monuments should be conducted to assess their condition and historical integrity, and to document the quality and diversity of the stonecarvers and their work. This inventory could also leverage funding for a gravestone restoration workshop conducted by the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT) to instruct maintenance staff and monument companies on best practices in historic gravestone restoration and preservation. Such a workshop could be open to plot owners for educational purposes, at a fee to help defray costs, with the caveat that they should hire professional stoneworkers to make repairs on family gravestones. Treatment of Historic Landscape Features Careful planning prior to treatment can help prevent irrevocable damage to a historical cultural landscape. The National Park Service publication,Preservation Brief #36: Protecting Cultural Landscapes, explains that after completing historical research, inventory and documentation of existing conditions, and site analysis and evaluation of integrity and significance, the next steps are development of the following: 1. A cultural landscape preservation approach and treatment plan. 2. A cultural landscape management plan and management philosophy. 3. A strategy for ongoing maintenance. 4. Preparation of a record of treatment and future research recommendations. Brief 36 defines a treatment as a physical intervention carried out to achieve a historic preservation goal, and notes that a treatment cannot be considered in a vacuum. Variables that influence the selection of a treatment for a landscape include, but are not limited to, the extent of historic documentation, existing physical conditions, historic value, proposed use, long and short term objectives, operational and code requirements (e.g. accessibility, fire, security) and anticipated capital improvement, staffing and maintenance costs. The introduction to the states that resources determined to be for listing are considered the same as those actually listed: The Secretary of the Interior is responsible for establishing professional standards and providing advice on the preservation of cultural resources listed in or eligible for listing in the National Register of Historic Places. The Secretary of the Interior's Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties are common sense historic preservation principles in non technical language. They promote historic preservation best practices that will help to protect our irreplaceable cultural resources. The Standards are a series of concepts about maintaining, repairing, and replacing historic materials, as well as designing new additions or making alterations. The Guidelines offer general design and technical recommendations to assist in applying the Standards to a specific property. Together, they provide a framework and guidance for decision making about work or changes to a historic property. The Standards offer four distinct approaches to the treatment of historic preservation, rehabilitation, restoration, and reconstruction with Guidelines for each. H-6APPENDIX H Historic Preservation Considerations Page 6 The process for maintaining historic landscape features until treatment plans are in place and implemented is as follows: Inventory and assess the integrity of historic features before modifying or demolishing them. Maintain in place features that are to be preserved until treatment options are determined. Prepare a phased preservation management plan. Preservation Planning and Projects A comprehensive preservation management plan includes an inventory and assessment of the integrity of historic buildings and features, treatment plans following the Secretary of the Standards, priorities and schedules for implementing the treatments, and a calendar of annual and preventive maintenance with budget line items. Preservation Brief 36 cautions that both management and routine maintenance should be considered in deciding on treatments for historic landscapes. Management and Maintenance. Management strategies are long term and comprehensive. They can be one of the means for implementing a landscape preservation plan. Maintenance tasks can be day to day, seasonal, or cyclical, as determined by management strategies. Although routine horticultural activities, such as mowing and weeding, or general grounds maintenance, such as re laying pavement or curbs, may appear routine, such activities can cumulatively alter the character of a landscape. In contrast, well conceived management and maintenance activities can sustain character and integrity over an extended period. Planning for interpretation of historic landscapes presents opportunities for product and program development that can lead to understanding and support of treatments and management plans. Interpretation. Interpretation can help in understanding and the landscape. The tools and techniques of interpretation can include guided walks, self guided brochures, computer aided tours, exhibits, and wayside stations. Interpretive goals should complement treatment selection, reflecting the significance and historic character. A cultural landscape may possess varying levels of integrity or even differing periods of significance, both of which can result in a multi faceted approach to interpretation. In some cases, interpretation and a sound interpretive strategy can inform decisions about how to treat a landscape. Interpretive facilities, products and programs can produce revenue to sustain historic landscapes when included in comprehensive management planning. Facilities and Programs for Revenue George B. Wallace chose the site of the Salt Lake City Cemetery as the burial ground for his infant daughter Mary Wallace who died September 27, 1848. Wallace served as record keeper for subsequent burials until his appointment as sexton in 1851 when Salt Lake City was incorporated and the burial APPENDIX H H-7 Historic Preservation Considerations Page 7 ground was designated the official city cemetery. 3 Thirty other men have served as sexton since Wallace retired in 1863. 4 The sexton and his staff are responsible for cemetery operations, visitor services, record keeping, and for maintenance of the infrastructure and landscape. Individual lot owners are responsible for the upkeep of the gravestones on their plots. However, many older gravestones fall under the care of the sexton when no living relatives survive or lay claim to them. Income from the sale of plots, the opening and closing of graves, payment of perpetual maintenance funds, and appropriations from the Salt Lake City budget are insufficient to cover operating costs, resulting in a backlog of deferred maintenance. Municipal cemeteries have historically been managed by parks departments, and have been perennially under funded. This is the case with the Salt Lake City Cemetery, which has also had perpetual maintenance fees placed in the general budget rather than being earmarked for cemetery maintenance. The only visitor facilities for mourners, sightseers, and other users of the Salt Lake City Cemetery are the office and two restrooms. The cemetery is financially disadvantaged compared to commercial cemeteries that have on site rental chapels and pavilions, and associated mortuaries and crematories with value added products and services producing revenue that can be used for cemetery operations and maintenance. Historic cemeteries that are at or near capacity face increasing maintenance costs and falling revenues. This plight has come to the attention of activists, recreationists and cemetery managers who see the value of cemeteries as green spaces for active recreation and quiet reflection and as event venues. cemeteries have opened their grounds to host activities including weddings, campouts, picnics, concerts, and even small carnivals. Funds raised by these events help the cemeteries to maintain the grounds and make needed 5 Buffalo, New Forest Lawn Cemetery has a variety of ways to bring in revenue besides traditional funeral, mortuary and grievance services. Tours, programs, events, donations, and memberships in the Forest Lawn Heritage Foundation provide cash flow. The Forest Lawn home page (Figure 1) welcomes people and invites them to get involved as members, donors, volunteers, or by taking a tour on the Forest Lawn trolley. The cemetery cashes in on its fame as a major tourist destination. Forest Famous Residents page features photos, names, accomplishments and links to more information about those interred there as seen in the sample of the first entries in Figure 2. 3 Boone, David F.Should We Die': Pioneer Burial Grounds in Salt Lake in Salt Lake City: The Place Which God Prepared, ed. Scott C. Esplin and Kenneth L. Alford (Provo, UT: Religious Studies Center, Brigham Young University; Salt Lake City: Deseret Book, Salt Lake City, 2011), 4 Susan Crook & Associates + Robin Carbaugh. HALS UT 2, Salt Lake City Cemetery, 2007, p. 4. 5 Greene, Meg. Rest in Peace: A History of American Cemeteries. Twenty First Century Books, 2008, p. 88. H-8APPENDIX H Historic Preservation Considerations Page 8 Figure 1. Forest Lawn Cemetery home page Figure 2. Forest Lawn Famous Residents entries Like all places in the the history of Utah dates back to its first people. And while the vast majority of burials within the Salt Lake City Cemetery are of individuals who arrived during the 19th, 20th or 21st Century, a uniqueness of this cemetery is that it is also the final resting place for people and artifacts of the ancient Great Salt Lake, Uinta Fremont and Zuni Pueblo American Indians. The circumstances leading to the interring of these remains was long in coming, but none the less provides a clear cultural connection to the areas earliest inhabitants. During the late 20th century, recovered bones and artifacts of native people from around the state were being held, but not curated, by the University of Utah Museum of Natural History. While the museum had information from the Bureau of Reclamation and Utah State Parks accurately identifying the remains as being those of Utah ancestors, the museum continued to retain the collection without returning them to the found sites, and without curation. APPENDIX H H-9 Historic Preservation Considerations Page 9 Then in 2008, the state museum decided that rather than continue to keep the ancestral remains and their artifacts, it would instead offer respect and peace to these early Utah people by providing a formal burial site within the Salt Lake City Cemetery. After choosing the Salt Lake City Cemetery as a respectful final resting place, a mass burial grave on the upper hillside of the cemetery was selected. Today this mass burial site is marked by a small headstone and serves to commemorate the distinctive ancestral and cultural legacy of people from this region. Along with some of its first peoples, among the over 124,000 burials in the Salt Lake City Cemetery are other notable individuals, including leading ladies. Amelia Folsom Young and Sarah Melissa Granger Kimball are two such remarkable Utah women. Both women joined the Mormon movement known today as the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints in its foundational period. As history demonstrates, each woman played a significant role in shaping Utah history, and in the case of Ms. Granger Kimball, an important role in the national suffragette movement. Historical reports share that Ms. Folsom Young, the 25th wife of Brigham Young a founding movement, migration and settlement leader of the Latter Day Saints, and also the first Territorial Governor of Utah was his most favored wife. Amelia was a cultured woman whom Brigham relied on when hosting outside leaders in the new territory. Because she was his favorite, Amelia is reported to have held sway in influencing his decision making and was a public figure renowned in early settlement society. Sarah Melissa Granger Kimball is a woman leader whose work extended beyond the boundaries of the Utah territory. Ms. Granger Kimball (December 1818 December 1, 1898) is known as a 19th century leader in the national suffragette movement, who was also a good friend of suffragette leader Susan B. Anthony. As a vocal advocate of rights, Sarah declared, "Education and agitation are our best weapons of warfare." In addition to her strong rights advocacy, Sarah was also a school teacher and a founding member of what is LDS Church Relief Society. She is buried in the Salt Lake City Cemetery near the cemetery roadway intersection of Grand Avenue and Main Street. The Salt Lake City Cemetery is also the final resting place of eleven Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Presidents also known as prophets, and many other LDS Church ecclesiastical leaders. Two very important LDS Presidents buried in the cemetery are LDS Church Wilford Woodruff and Joseph F. Smith, nephew of Mormon Church founder, Joseph Smith. Mr. Woodruff was ordained a Mormon Church President on April 7, 1889 and his importance to American and Utah history is tied to his September 24, 1890 manifesto declaring that all Mormons end the practice of polygamy. His grave is located above Grand Avenue in the Salt Lake Cemetery and features an elaborate headstone dedicated to himself and his wives. Mr. Joseph F. Smith became an LDS Church President in 1901 and served until his death in 1918. In addition to his church leadership, Mr. J.F. Smith also served as a member of the Constitutional Convention for the State of Utah. As the first LDS Church President of the 20th Century, Joseph F. Smith was deeply committed to both the history of church sites and to the cause of broadly sharing information about the Mormon Church. Because sharing a message about Mormonism beyond Utah and United States borders was very important to him, Mr. J.F. Smith set his eye on a more global outreach message and subsequently became the first LDS Church President to tour Europe. H-10APPENDIX H Historic Preservation Considerations Page 10 Despite the fact that one of his predecessors, LDS President Woodruff, had declared an end to polygamy, Mr. Smith in fact became of marrying age during a time when plural marriage was still widely practiced among Mormons. As such, he followed this tradition and entered into polygamous marriage with five Utah women. Along with numerous LDS settlers and leaders, there are also many other well known and contributing Americans buried in the Salt Lake City Cemetery. Some of these prominent people include: Lester F. Wire, famous inventor of the traffic signal Hirum Bebee, aka Harry Longabaugh, who claimed to be the wild west outlaw Sundance Kid US Senator Frank E. Moss, whose name honors the U.S. Courthouse in downtown Salt Lake City Twelve Salt Lake City Mayors Larry H. Miller, prominent community business leader and philanthropist who was the owner of the National Basketball Utah Jazz The Salt Lake City Cemetery is the resting place of many prominent Utahns. The lives of these famous people and the fact of their burial here is, in effect, a bequest to the cemetery. Their stories can be told and retold by reenactors on paid tours and at fundraising events at the cemetery and other venues. Conclusion The Salt Lake City Cemetery is a highly significant historic resource that has the potential to produce revenue through enhanced visitor services and partnership with a non profit friends group. The significance and integrity make it eligible for the National Register of Historic Places. Objections to National Register listing typically result from a mis perception that locally imposed restrictions on historic properties result from National Register listing. In reality, the National Register of Historic Places is a recognition program that does not restrict the use, alteration or demotion of historic properties. Listing could bring the following benefits to the Salt Lake City Cemetery: Serve as a catalyst for community interest and support Give credibility to the efforts to preserve it Raise awareness of the opportunities and challenges of preservation Leverage resources for preservation planning and implementation Be used as a marketing tool to educate citizens and engage them in funding, respectful use, and interpretation and preservation projects Prompt the founding of a non profit friends group Recommendations A friends group could partner with the City to help fund and implement the recommendations summarized below. The first recommendation would be to invite selected community members to serve on a friends group steering committee with key City staff. Preservation Management Planning There is enough information available from the studies and reports that have been done on the cemetery within the last decade to prepare a nomination to the National Register. However, the APPENDIX H H-11 Historic Preservation Considerations Page 11 historic resources in the cemetery still need to be fully inventoried and assessed as a first step toward the preparation of Preservation Management Plan. These resources should be stabilized and maintained until treatment plans are in place. Methods used for their stabilization and maintenance should be reversible so as not to compromise their significance and integrity. Any time there are undertakings for improvements in the cemetery, appropriate qualified professionals, such as landscape historians, archaeologists, or historical architects, should be hired to document the existing condition of historic resources and to make recommendation to avoid or mitigate adverse effects that would compromise their integrity. The following planning and management recommendations should be implemented as part of the current master planning process, with the intended outcome being the completion of a comprehensive Preservation Management Plan. Qualified professionals will need to perform the services outlined in the recommendations. Even if City staff are qualified, the time needed to complete them will likely dictate that consultants be hired. 1. Nominate the cemetery to the National Register of Historic places. 2. Complete the inventory and assessment of large scale and small scale historic landscape features, including hand carved gravestones and monuments. The method for doing this could be to amend the initial HALS or to complete a Cultural Landscape Report (CLR). 3. Protect or stabilize damaged gravestones with reversible methods until treatment plans for their restoration or repair are ready. Consult with gravestone restoration experts on appropriate methods. 4. Prepare Period Plans showing significant growth and changes in the cemetery over time. These could be amendments to the initial HALS or be part of a CLR. 5. Complete the inventory and assessment of historic buildings and structures. This could be done by preparing Historic Structures Reports (HSR) for each building and structure. 6. Prepare a comprehensive Preservation Management Plan using the amended HALS or the CLR and the HSRs. The Plan should Include the following components: a. Inventories and assessments of the historic buildings, structures and landscape features. b. Period Plans. These will help guide decisions on how treatments are determined and carried out. c. Treatments for specific types of historic landscape features using guidance in Preservation Brief 36: Guidelines for the Treatment of Cultural Landscapes. d. Policies and procedures for handling broken gravestones and loose fragments of markers, i.e. where to store them and for how long; how to notify plot owners of needed repairs; how to fund repairs when no owner can be found. e. Treatments for historic buildings and structures using the Secretary of the Standards for the Treatment of Historic Properties. f. A Maintenance Plan for all historic resources with a detailed calendar of annual and preventive maintenance, and a timeline for the implementation of preservation treatments, showing budget line items and unit costs. g. Bibliography of resources for managing historic cemeteries, including consultants and government agencies such as the National Center for Preservation Technology and Training (NCPTT). H-12APPENDIX H Historic Preservation Considerations Page 12 Interpretive Program Planning An Interpretive Plan should be prepared in conjunction with the Preservation Management Plan. A friends group could play a key role in the development, funding and implementation of interpretive materials and programs. A full time program director position could be funded by sustaining memberships and major donor contributions to a friends group. The cemetery lends itself to a number of themes for interpretation: 1. Famous and infamous people buried in the cemetery a. Mormon Church leaders b. Civic leaders c. Prominent politicians d. Outlaws e. Veterans f. Indigenous people 2. Prominent stonecarvers and their work 3. Gravestones as art 4. Sextons and their families who lived on site 5. Wildlife 6. Arboretum Methods for interpreting the themes are limited only by the imagination and the funding capabilities of the interpreters. There are many examples in use by other cemeteries and historic sites, such as: Reenactors dressed as prominent residents Guided walks Trolley tours Self guided brochures in printed form or as apps Virtual tours online or in a visitor center Visitor center exhibits and displays Partnerships Salt Lake City could increase its capacity for managing and interpreting the historic resources in the cemetery by partnering with internal committees and outside entities such as: Salt Lake City Historic Landmark Commission Historic Sites Division of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints, Jenny Lund, Director Utah State Historic Preservation Office Linda Hilton, author of the Famous and Infamous tour guide Preservation Utah, Kirk Huffaker, Executive Director University of Utah Historic Preservation Certificate Program offered through the College of Architecture + Planning APPENDIX H H-13 Historic Preservation Considerations Page i Significant Sandstone Gravestones in the Salt Lake City Cemetery By Carol Edison The oldest sections of the SLC Cemetery (B F) contain a significant number of markers handmade by local gravestone carvers during the 19 th century. The majority of the markers were crafted by four immigrant craftsmen from England Samuel Lane Jones, Charles Lambert, William Warner Player and William Ward. 1 Some work by several other identifiable stonecutters Stephen Hales, Benjamin T. Mitchell, James Standing and the Watson Brothers also remains. During the first few decades of settlement before the railroad was established in 1869, stonecutters quarried and carved sandstone from nearby canyons. Red Butte Canyon, east of Fort Doulas, offered both a deep red variety and a tan or sandstone while Killyan Canyon, a branch of nearby Emigration Canyon, provided a medium shade of red sandstone. Although a number of previously documented markers have disappeared, there are a surprising number that remain and are still readable. Conversely, markers carved after the advent of the railroad and made from marble imported from Vermont are in worse condition than the sandstone ones. Most are unreadable. 2 Coming from disparate places to settle the region,first generation gravestone carvers arrived with skills learned in the Eastern US or in other countries. They carved markers that reflected those origins as well as the conventions of the time. Stone was quarried into vertical slabs with a significant portion reserved for underground placement to provide stability. The top edges exhibit a range of shapes, some with a silhouette appropriately reminiscent of a bedstead. The earliest markers begin with the words memory often include family relationships such as or and often list a death date followed by an exact age that includes years, months and days. Carvers enhanced the text by varying the type face, embellishing particular letters or words and by adding design elements that sometimes became signatures of their work. Some used the newer conventions that included the words to the Memory and featured a symbol in the section above the name. As expected, these symbols were primarily traditional images, often with Biblical origins. Flowers, representing the Resurrection were most common with the occasional use of symbols of mourning like the weeping willow. And, as was the convention of the time, carvers were known to sign their work along the bottom edge, especially on larger more elaborate markers. 1 Edison, Carol. Custom Made Gravestones in Early Salt Lake City: The Work of Four English Stonecarvers in UHQ, Vol 56, No 4, Fall 88, pgs 310 330 2 According to geologist Judy Ballentyne, marble is made of calcium carbonate which can be damaged by acid. Air pollution can contain both carbolic acid (carbon dioxide plus precipitation) and sulfuric acid. Significant Sandstone Gravestones In the Salt Lake City Cemetery H-14APPENDIX H Historic Preservation Considerations Page ii Among the earliest markers were those carved by William Ward who had apprenticed in England at an early age to learn architecture, sculpture, drawing, painting, a technique called subtractive sculpture and the then emerging style of English Gothic Revival. Arriving in Great Salt Lake City in 1850 at the age of 23, he was appointed foreman over the many stonecutters who worked on the Temple Block and he also became the assistant to architect Truman O. Angell. Angell designed a number of early buildings including the Salt Lake Temple and the Beehive House for which Ward carved the original couchant lion over the door. 3 Ward also sculpted the beehive adorned stone placard that was contribution to the Washington Monument in Washington DC. In the fall of1854, Ward ran an advertisement in the Deseret News offering his services at suggesting that customers consider examples of his work in the cemetery or at his house or workshop. Many of gravestones are quite large, either in height or thickness and they exhibit variety in the shape of the top edge. While many are rounded, others point or soar upward illustrating his understanding of the English Gothic Revival style. Their relative thickness allowed for his use of the subtractive sculpture technique in which he carved away a significant amount of stone leaving thicker borders that sometimes became funeral drapery to reveal the inscriptions. Some markers included symbolic images like clasped hands (reunion after death) or a hand from above picking a rosebud (a life in the and he often included graphic design elements or embellished lettering that also help identify his work . There was not a typical Ward marker and it appears that each piece was totally unique. A majority of work bears the date 1853 suggesting that his newspaper advertisement in October 1854 generated a number of private commissions. He also carved at least two gravestones that might have been part of his responsibility as foreman of the temple stonecutting workshop a marker for a young community hero, Rodney Badger, who died trying to rescue a family from drowning 4 and one for Thomas Tanner, foreman of the Public Works Blacksmith Shop adjacent his stonecutting workshop. In 1856, Ward left Great Salt Lake City for the Midwest where he worked for several decades as a draftsman and architect. He returned in the late 1880s and taught mechanical and architectural drawing at the University of Deseret. Existing Examples of William Gravestones: See FIGURES 1 6 A good share of the existing pioneer era gravestones in the Salt Lake Cemetery are the work of Charles Lambert. Like Ward he apprenticed in England at a young age to learn the family business stonecutting, building, quarrying, slate riving (splitting) and railroad construction. In 1843, at the age of 27, he immigrated to Nauvoo where he worked on the Nauvoo Temple one of only a few carvers 3 signed lion was replaced in 2001 by a replica carved by Salt Lake memorialist John Huettlinger. 4 The Rodney Badger marker deteriorated and was replaced with a granite marker designed to look like the original. APPENDIX H H-15 Historic Preservation Considerations Page iii credited with the specialized skills needed to carve the capitol faces, capstones and baptismal font. After leaving Nauvoo, he spent two years in Council Bluffs, Iowa and St. Joseph, Missouri arriving in Great Salt Lake in 1849 where he set up a stonecutting shop producing hearths, mantels, steps and grinding and printing stones. From the late 1850s to late 1860s he also carved gravestones. Though work was not generally signed, it is quite recognizable. It ranged from small, quite simple markers with only basic information to large, elaborately carved pieces with the inclusion of family relationships, place of birth and intricately carved symbols. His distinctive way of carving Memory a unique curvilinear design element, the lettering and the convention of providing the death date followed by the exact age of the deceased in years, months and days, all help define his work. Much of what we know about the daily work of a pioneer stonecutter comes from the journals Lambert kept. His workshop was a busy place where his sons, C.J. and Richard, also worked as did other stonecutters, W.W. Player and S.L. Jones, who occasionally collaborated on commissions. The monument marking the grave of Governor James Duane Doty in the Fort Douglas Cemetery was a commission shared by Lambert and Player.journals also indicate that many gravestones were paid for, at least in part, with flour, bacon, molasses, tallow, adobes and farm animals. Though he continued working with stone until his death in 1892, he carve gravestones during the last two decades of his life. His focus turned to the construction of a system of bridges, canals and levees along the Jordon River. Those contributions may not be as visible today but some of his beautiful gravestones still grace the grounds of the Salt Lake City Cemetery memorializing a number of the earliest residents. Existing Examples of Charles Gravestones: See FIGURES 7 12 An accomplished English stonecarver, William Warner Player immigrated to the U.S. at 49, a relatively old age. Like Lambert, he worked on the Nauvoo Temple but his position was one of Upon arrival he not only corrected some already completed work but took on the task of supervising all of the stonework on the Temple. He cut and set all but two of the capitals (the first and last were done by Charles Lambert and Harvey Stanley), set trumpet stones on the capitals, placed a star atop the southeast capital and along with Lambert was one of a dozen men specifically appointed to cut stone for the baptismal font. arrival in Utah was delayed for over a dozen years and it is presumed that he lived in the Council Bluffs, Iowa area during that time. For whatever reason, he did not reach Great Salt Lake City until 1862 at the age of 69. He soon began working in stone, sharing at least one commission with Lambert and carving a large number of gravestones. By the time he died in 1873, just shy of his 80 th birthday, Player had produced an impressive number of gravestones presumably the largest number of any nineteenth century carver. H-16APPENDIX H Historic Preservation Considerations Page iv gravestones are typically smaller that either or both in height and thickness. A large number of them feature his signature at the bottom but even when the marker has settled and the signature has been buried,work can be recognized at a glance. Perhaps the most identifiable characteristic is the curvilinear swirl often used on the words or His way of alternating between several styles of script, a somewhat unpredictable use of upper and lower lettering, and distinctive abbreviations using elevated letters and unusually placed commas also identify his carving. Though some of markers feature visual symbols and epitaphs, most succeed because of the precision, balance and elegance of the script. Existing Examples of William Warner Gravestones: See FIGURES 13 18 Samuel Lane Jones Sr. was only 19 years old when he arrived in Great Salt Lake City with his family. Having apprenticed as a stonecarver for 7 years in England, he soon found work with the stonecutters on Temple Square under William Ward and also with the local stonecarving firm of Watson Brothers. 5 By the age of 32 he had established his own stonecutting business. For the most part,gravestones were on the tall side and designed with the same components and conventions found on the work of his fellow Brits. Like Player, part of his hallmark was a distinctive way of handling abbreviations and punctuation. He often elevated or following numerals and also added and elevated a final consonant to already abbreviated months, underlining the elevated letter and adding a comma beneath. He often included a symbol one of death and mourning like a wreath, urn or weeping willow or one suggesting the resurrection such as flowers. Jones received an important commission from the US government to produce the large sandstone monument located in the middle of the Fort Douglas Cemetery honoring those who died in the Bear River Massacre. In 1869 he moved to Kaysville and though he continued to carve markers, he switched from using local sandstone to using the imported marble made available by the completion of the railroad. Existing Examples of S.L.Gravestones: See FIGURES 19 26 Born in England, Stephen Hales Jr. immigrated to Canada as a child where his family converted to Mormonism. He arrived in Nauvoo at age 24 becoming involved in cutting stone for the temple including the specialized stone for the baptismal font. He later worked on the Salt Lake Temple as a and is credited with completing the clasped hands on both the east and west facades. Hales is listed in the 1860 census as a Salt Lake stonecutter, the 1870 as a stone mason (Morgan) and farmer (Bountiful) 5 Kaysville Layton Historical Society and Heritage Museum Newsletter, Vol 5, No 1, June 1989. APPENDIX H H-17 Historic Preservation Considerations Page v and in 1880, again in Salt Lake, as a stonecutter. Several gravestones with his signature still exist including one in the Salt Lake City Cemetery. Existing Example of Stephen Gravestone: See FIGURE 27 Englishman James Standing (1815 1886) arrived in Utah in 1849 after spending time in Nauvoo where he cut stone for the Temple. Though he is listed in the 1850, 1860 and 1870 censuses as a stone cutter, little is known about his working career. At least one sandstone marker in the Salt Lake Cemetery has his signature although there are several other gravestones that are very likely his fine work. James was listed in the 1880 census, a few years before his death, as living in Box Elder County and working there as a stone mason. [Note: His son, Joseph Standing, was the missionary who was lynched in Georgia. The Watson Brothers built a monument honoring Joseph that was financed by the MIA Mutual Improvement Association.] Existing Example of James Gravestones: See FIGURE 28 Born in Pennsylvania and raised in Ohio, B.T. Mitchell (1816 1880) worked on the Nauvoo Temple at age 25, alongside Charles Lambert, carving the first capitol and stone for the baptismal font. Arriving in Utah in 1848, he oversaw the Public Works stonecutters first at the Temple Block and later at the granite quarry at the mouth of Big Cottonwood Canyon. Over his career he cut stone for a variety of uses millstones, the Salt Lake Temple, several ZCMI buildings, the railroad and City Hall. A few gravemarkers in northern Utah cemeteries bear his signature. Existing Example of B.T.Gravestones: See FIGURE 29 The Watson Brothers, James (1833 1889) and Joseph M. (1840 1895), were born and raised in England. Joseph arrived in Great Salt Lake City in 1857, older brother James came in 1863. They dressed stone for many of Salt early mansions and were involved in major construction projects such as the Hooper Eldredge Block, ZCMI, 6 Camp Douglas, Templeton Building, City County Building and the granite pedestal for the Brigham Young statue. In the earlier years the company was known as a Monumental Marble Works. They produced mantels, grates and some gravestones including the monument memorializing Joseph Standing, the missionary who lost his life in Georgia in the 1870s and was considered a martyr for Mormonism. They worked in sandstone, marble and mostly granite. Existing Examples of Watson Gravestones: See FIGURES 30 32 6 Historic Buildings on Capitol Hill, Utah Heritage Foundation 1981, p 21 H-18APPENDIX H Historic Preservation Considerations Page vi A handful of markers include a distinctive treatment of the word SACRED. The carver of this body of work has not yet been identified but the work is significant. A solitary marker features the All Seeing Eye, a Masonic Mormon symbol of omnipresence that is found on very few existing markers. See FIGURES 33 34 APPENDIX H H-19 Photos of Salt Lake Cemetery Gravestones Carol Edison, photographer 1851 Gravestone for Mary Adeline NOBLE. Location: C_6_12_4E. Signed by William Ward. 1851 Gravestone for James Madison MORRIS. Location B_13_2_2E. Funerary drapery provides excellent example of Attributed to William Ward. Gravestone for Mariah Antinett, 1850 (and not visible Georgiana King, 1853); wives of Claudius V. SPENCER. Location: E_8_3_4W. English Gothic style with clasped hands signifying reunion after death. Attributed to William Ward. Gravestone for John, 1845 and Ellen, 1853; children of Robert & Agnes PATTERSON. Location D_2_16_3W/4W. Attributed to William Ward. H-20APPENDIX H 1855 Gravestone for Thomas TANNER. Location: A_11_9_1W. Crafted in the style of nineteenth century British occupational gravestones. Signed by William Ward. Currently in possession of Church of Jesus Christ of Latter day Saints.1993 Replica of Tanner gravestone by Hans Huettlinger. Not signed and no indication on gravestone that it is a replica. 1864 Gravestone for Nathan W. THOMSON. Location: B_5_9_3WE2. Features distinctive graphic design. Signed C.L. (Charles Lambert) 1850 Gravestone for Catherine QUAYLE. Location: C_3_6_4W Features Isle of Man insignia. Attributed to Charles Lambert. APPENDIX H H-21 1855 Gravestone for Ann and Mary DOMVILLE. Location: A_14_1_3W. Attributed to Charles Lambert. 1868 Gravestones for John R. QUAYLE. Location: C_3_6_1E. Features epitaph. Attributed to the workshop of Charles Lambert. 1861 Gravestone for Josephine BROCKBANK. Location: E_12_10_2W. Attributed to the workshop of Charles Lambert. Row of gravestones for the children of Isaac and C.A. Brockbank, including one for Josephine (second from left). Attributed to the workshop of Charles Lambert. H-22APPENDIX H 1862 Gravestone for Richard RISER. Location: E_11_4_1E. Signed by W.W. Player.1861 Gravestone for Joseph Hyram RISER.Location: E_11_4_5W. Attributed to W.W. Player. Two gravestones arefor the children of George C. and Christiana RISER, relatives of wife. 1855 Gravestone for Nathan John DAVIS.Location: A_2_7_1W. Attributed to W.W. Player. 1867 Gravestone for Martha HASLEM. Location: D_10_2S2R_2W. Attributed to W.W. Player. APPENDIX H H-23 . 1867 Gravestone for Dr. William R. RUTTERFORD, MD. Location: B_8_6_5W. Features epitaph. Attributed to W. W. Player. 1868 Gravestone for Amanda P.PARTRIDGE. Location: E_8_7_3W. Attributed to W.W. Player. 1865 Gravestone for Sarah Verrinder CAPENER. Location: F_11_7_2W. Features rose symbolizing love. Signed by S.L. Jones. 1864 Gravestone for John Joseph NEEDHAM. Location: F_6_1_2W . Features weeping willow symbolizing mourning and mememto mori monument, a reminder of death. Attributed to S.L. Jones. H-24APPENDIX H 1865 Gravestone for Sarah F. and John W. JR TANNER. Location: C_1_4_2W.Funerary urn symbolizing the death of the body and a rose symbolizing love. Unique double marker with epitaph. Attributed to S.L. Jones. Figure 21. Figure 22. Figure 23 Figure 24 APPENDIX H H-25 1863 Gravestone for George V. THOMPSON. Location: D_8_16NROD_1W. Weeping willow symbolizes mourning. 1864 Gravestone for Bishop John Mills WOOLEY. Wreath symbolizes the victory of resurrection. Location: C_5_8_3E. Both attributed to S.L. Jones. 1855 Gravestone for Joseph ROBINSON. Location: D_5_2_2WN2. Signed by Stephen Hales. 1874 Gravestone for John MCDONALD and his children Sarah, 1870, Alexander, 1873 and Flora, 1873. Location: E 2_5_2E; 3E, 4E, 5E. Signed by James Standing. H-26APPENDIX H 1855 Gravestone for Judge Leonidas SHAVER. Location: B_3_5_1W. Signed by Benjamin T. Mitchell. . 1881 Gravestone for Maria J. DESAULES. Location: B_9_13_2W. Features clasped hands symbolizing reunion after death. Signed by Watson Brothers. . 1864 imported marble Gravestone for Anna M. THOMPSON. Location: E_5_2_4W. Features lily symbolizing resurrection. Signed by J.M. Watson, husband of the deceased. . 1879 imported marble Gravestone for Joseph STANDING. Location: F_5_6_5W. Commemorates missionary killed while serving. Paid for by LDS MIA. Produced by Watson Brothers. APPENDIX H H-27 1856 Gravestone for Louisa SNYDER. Location: F_13_2_2W. One of many markers with distinctive treatment of 1873 Gravestone for Mary Givens HARRIS. Features the All Seeing Eye of God. Location: C_5_8_3E. Both carvers unidentified. SLC M A S T E R P L A N Appendix I - Sexton And Maintenance Areas Analysis Sexton Building Area Analysis Maintenance Compound - Available Space Option: Consolidated Maintenance Compound - Available Space Option: Relocate to Other Site Maintenance Compound - Potential Relocation Sites JULY 7 2017 I-1APPENDIX I Sexton Building Area Analysis Area for potential enhancements: 15,400 SF The Sexton Building and surrounding area are integral to the Cemetery’s historic character The proximity of maintenance facilities to the Sexton Building detracts from the Cemetery’s historic character Maintenance facilities are outdated and do not meet the Cemetery’s current needs Care should be taken to preserve existing mature trees APPENDIX I I-2 Maintenance Compound - Available Space Option: Consolidated Area for potential enhancements: 28,300 SF Maintenance facilities are consolidated and upgraded near the Sexton Building (using the same square footage as the combined footprints of existing facilities). Consolidated facilities could use space more efficiently by using natural grade change to allow for access on two levels. Consolidated facilities could be developed to complement the architectural character of the Sexton Building. The new area for potential improvements separates the Sexton Building from conflicting maintenance uses. The new area for potential improvements provides space to highlight the natural resources and historic assets of the Cemetery and accommodate visitors. I-3APPENDIX I Maintenance Compound - Available Space Option: Relocate to Other Site Area for potential enhancements: 47,300 SF Maintenance facilities are relocated away from the Sexton Building. New off-site facilities have potential to provide benefit to other City parks or open spaces. The new area for potential improvements allows for maximum use of the space. The new area for potential improvements provides an even greater space to highlight the natural resources and historic assets of the Cemetery and accommodate visitors. APPENDIX I I-4 Maintenance Compound - Potential Relocation Sites Within Cemetery property Very limited space - primarily near the Sexton Building City-owned open space across 11th Ave. Utility easements and steep slopes may limit improvement opportunities 11th Avenue becomes a barrier for access into the Cemetery Popperton Park Distance from the Cemetery is a drawback Topsoil spoils area Limited available space Potential for small building Lindsey Gardens Proximity to Cemetery is good Improvements could benefit Lindsey Gardens The under-utilized tennis court area has space sufficient to house maintenance facilities (that could be shared between the Park & Cemetery), as well as additional improvements, such as parking, a pavilion or other amenities that could benefit the Park. SLC M A S T E R P L A N Appendix J - Planning Process and Civic Engagement Planning Process Civic Engagement Public Open House #1 Summary Public Open House #2 Summary Public Open House #3 Summary Stakeholder Meeting Summaries JULY 7, 2017 J-1APPENDIX J Planning Process In 2009 Salt Lake City completed phase 1 of the master planning efforts that included information gathering and documentation services. This work was commenced in an effort to “gain an understanding of selected site elements, existing burial sections and improvements, architectural developments, and other related Cemetery resources” (CRPA Phase 1 Master Plan, 2009). In early 2016 the City began work to build upon Phase 1 with the kickoff of Phase II Master Planning Services. Phase II efforts include three main planning phases which include: Research and Analysis - review/update Phase 1 information, analysis of additional data Planning Options and Recommendations - development of the planning vision, project goals, and recommendations and options for consideration Master Plan Document Development - development of final recommendations, the Master Plan implementation plan, and compilation into the Salt Lake City Cemetery Master Plan Document Civic Engagement A commitment to collaboration and civic engagement was a cornerstone of the overall planning process. The planning process included a series of public open houses, presentations to the Avenues Community Council, meetings with stakeholder groups (focused on Historic Resources, Natural Resources, and Recreation), and frequent meetings with the City’s internal stakeholder group. The public open houses offered attendees the opportunity to provide input in person and ask questions of the planning team and City Staff. In addition, all public open house content was mirrored on Open City Hall (the City’s online community input platform) to provide those that were unable to attend an opportunity to provide their input. Public Open Houses The planning process included a series of three different Public Open Houses including: Open House #1 - June 2016: Inform, Educate, & Gather Community Input Open House #2 - November 2016: Cemetery Goal Prioritization (held at two locations, Salt Lake City Main Library and the Sweet Library in the Avenues) Open House #3 - May 2017: Presentation of Draft Cemetery Master Plan Recommendations Internal City Stakeholder Group Meetings were held periodically throughout the planning process with the Internal Stakeholder Group to provide updates and receive input and feedback from decision makers within the City. This group was comprised of individuals from various City agencies and departments including Parks and Public Lands, the Cemetery, Public Services, Urban Forestry, Engineering, Civic Engagement, and Planning. APPENDIX J J-2 Stakeholder Groups (Historic, Natural Resources, Recreation) Early in the planning process City staff and the planning team determined that many of the existing Cemetery resources and master planning considerations fell under three main categories. These categories are historic resources, natural resources, and recreation. It was determined that it would be important to gather input from individuals and organizations with specific interest and expertise in these areas. A separate stakeholder meeting was held for each of the different areas of focus and individuals with interest and expertise provided their input related to Historic Resources, Natural Resources and Recreation. These meetings provided important input and perspective including ideas for possible community partnerships, ideas for a variety of activities and uses that could be considered at the Cemetery, and important considerations to keep in mind as planning options and alternatives were developed and evaluated. A detailed summary of these meetings as well as the list of participants is included at the end of this appendix. Additional Engagement Activities Regular meetings were held with City staff from Parks and Public Lands, the Cemetery, Engineering, Planning, and Civic Engagement, to solicit feedback throughout the planning process. Additional engagement activities included meetings with the Internal City Stakeholder Group and Focus Stakeholder Groups, and outreach through a variety of other forums. Additional Community Outreach In addition to the public open houses and multiple stakeholder group meetings, the planning team reached out to the community through the following forums: Open City Hall - Salt Lake City’s online platform provided additional opportunity for community members to comment and provide input on the information presented at the three open houses Avenues Community Council Presentations - two presentations (held June 1, 2016 and January 4, 2017) were given to the Avenues Community Council Avenues Street Fair - a booth was set up to answer questions and provide information about the planning process Social Media - project updates and announcements were provided across Salt Lake City’s various social media platforms A meeting was held with representatives from the adjoining Catholic and Jewish Cemeteries to gather input and explore partnering opportunities J-3APPENDIX J Public Open House #1 Summary June 2016: Inform, Educate, & Gather Community Input The first public open house was held on Tuesday, June 14, 2016 from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Salt Lake City Main Library. The project team planned the open house to gather input from the public to identify the qualities and characteristics considered important by participants and to gather information related to the reasons and frequency of visiting the cemetery. In addition, information was presented outlining the purpose and need of the master plan, the history of the Salt Lake City Cemetery, the history of America’s cemeteries used as public open spaces, and a comparison of activities and uses of other similar cemeteries across the nation. Overall, 35 people signed in, and 22 comment forms were completed at the open house. In addition, 174 individuals visited Open City Hall resulting in an additional 79 responses. Three main themes emerged from the input received. 1. Improve and preserve the natural environment (trees, shrub plantings, and wildlife habitat (41% of respondents) 2. Preserve historic features and character (32% of respondents) 3. Preserve solitude ambiance and dignity of Cemetery (27% of respondents) In addition, input was received on the top reasons for visiting the Cemetery, expansion strategies that should be explored, the importance of continuing to offer burial sites, and input on Cemetery priorities. See the Public Open House #1 Comment Analysis that follows. Open House #1 Source: Cemetery Planning Team APPENDIX J J-4 Public Open House #1 Comment Analysis Public Open House Purpose The Salt Lake City Cemetery Public Open House was held on Tuesday, June 14, from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the downtown Salt Lake City Library. The project team planned the open house to inform, gather input from, and create relationships with the public about the existing conditions, future, and importance of the Salt Lake City Cemetery. Connecting with the community face to face will ultimately help the project team promote collaborative problem solving and make context-appropriate decisions. Overall, 35 people signed in, and 22 comment forms were completed. Public Comment Form Attendees were asked to fill out a two-page comment form, which involved prioritizing values and commenting on open-ended questions. See the questions below. 1. Do you visit the Salt Lake City Cemetery? a. What is the primary reason you visit the Cemetery? b. How often do you visit? 2. What are the important qualities or characteristics of the Salt Lake City Cemetery that you feel are important to preserve or enhance? 3. How important is it for the Salt Lake City Cemetery to continue as an active Cemetery that offers burial space for sale? Please circle one. Very Important Important Neutral Not Important Very Not Important If important, what strategies should be explored in order to expand the Cemetery? Check all that apply. a. Find a secondary location for grave sites. b. Add columbariums (above ground burial space for cremations). c. Develop scattering gardens in the Cemetery. d. Develop a chapel for services. e. Other (write in)____________ 4. Rank the following in order of priority with 1 being highest priority. a. Enhance existing and provide new appropriate recreation opportunities. b. Preserve and enhance the historic features and character of the Cemetery. c. Improve the natural environment with tree and shrub planting. d. Identify alternative sources of revenue (other than burials) to aid in financial sustainability of the Cemetery. e. Expand the Cemetery so that it can continue to offer burial services for the community. f. Other (write in)____________ 5. What activities or uses at the Cemetery would you like to see improved or added? 6. Please share any additional comments. Demographic Questions (optional) What neighborhood or area of the City do you live in? ____________ Gender____________ Age____________ 3 J-5APPENDIX J Overall Comment Themes The comment form responses were entered into a database and analyzed for common themes. These three overarching themes were identified: 1. Preserve historic features and character 2. Improve and preserve the natural environment a. Tree and shrub plantings b. Wildlife habitats, specifically for birds and owls 3. Preserve solitude, ambiance and dignity of Cemetery (dim lighting, low traffic levels, unobtrusive types and amounts of activities, etc.) The data from each comment form question can be found in the following pages. 4 APPENDIX J J-6 Question by Question Comment Form Results Question 1: Visiting the Cemetery Question one asked the attendee: Do you visit the Salt Lake City Cemetery? a. What is the primary reason you visit the Cemetery? b. How often do you visit? The data shows: Frequency is fairly split among the range of people visiting everyday to only 1-5 times per year. Exercise is the primary reason individuals visit the Cemetery Enjoying the nature/peacefulness and visiting family graves are similarly important Very few people visit the Cemetery for convenience 27% 3% 40% 30% Reason for Visiting Visiting family Convenence Exercise View nature/peacefulness 24% 28%24% 24% Frequency of Visits Everyday 1 5 times a week 5 J-7APPENDIX J Question 2: Important qualities and characteristics Question two asked the attendee: What are the important qualities or characteristics of the Salt Lake City Cemetery that you feel are important to preserve or enhance? Three major qualities to preserve stood out. These are listed in order of importance: 1. Wildlife habitats, specifically the bird and owl habitats 2. Historic and rustic nature of the tombstones and architecture 3. Open, quite space of solitude and reflection. 41% 27% 32% Important Qualities to Preserve Wildlife habitat Quiet area of solitude & the open space Historic, rustic nature 6 APPENDIX J J-8 Question 3: Importance of maintaining an active Cemetery Question three asked the attendee: How important is it for the Salt Lake City Cemetery to continue as an active Cemetery that offers burial space for sale? Please circle one. Very Important Important Neutral Not Important Very Not Important If important, what strategies should be explored in order to expand the Cemetery? Check all that apply. a. Find a secondary location for grave sites. b. Add columbariums (above ground burial space for cremations). c. Develop scattering gardens in the Cemetery. d. Develop a chapel for services. e. Other (write in)____________ Participants were primarily interested in adding columbariums, developing scattering gardens, or developing a chapel for services as ways to continue to have the Cemetery be active. Five people also marked that finding a secondary location for grave sites was a viable option, while two people wrote in to add double use of each burial site. 9 5 4 2 1 VERY IMPORTANT IMPORTANT NEUTRAL NOT IMPORTANT NOT VERY IMPORTANT How important is it to remain as an active Cemetery? 5 11 12 11 2 FIND A SECONDARY LOCATION FOR GRAVE SITES ADD COLUMBARIUMS DEVELOP SCATTERING GARDENS IN THE CEMETERY DEVELOP A CHAPEL FOR SERVICES OTHER DOUBLE USE OF SITES Strategies for keeping it active 7 J-9APPENDIX J Question 4: Cemetery priorities Question 4 asked the attendee: Rank the following in order of priority with 1 being highest priority. a. Enhance existing and provide new appropriate recreation opportunities. b. Preserve and enhance the historic features and character of the Cemetery. c. Improve the natural environment with tree and shrub planting. d. Identify alternative sources of revenue (other than burials) to aid in financial sustainability of the Cemetery. e. Expand the Cemetery so that it can continue to offer burial services for the community. f. Other (write in)____________ Two major priorities stood out in the public responses. These are listed in order of importance: 1. Historic features and character 2. Natural environment with tree and shrub planting In contrast, the public thinks it is somewhat important to identify alternative sources of revenue to aid in financial sustainability, but does not believe that enhancing recreation opportunities and expanding the Cemetery are priorities. Highest (1) to Lowest (6) Priority 1 2 3 4 5 6 Median Enhance existing and provide new appropriate recreation opportunities 3 1 3 4 7 1 4 Preserve and enhance the historic feature and character of the Cemetery 13 3 3 2 1 Improve the natural environment with tree and shrub planting 1 13 4 1 1 2 Identify alternative sources of revenue (other than burials) to aid in financial sustainability for the Cemetery 1 8 7 2 3.5 Expand the Cemetery so that it can continue to offer burial services for the community 2 1 1 3 9 2 5 Other (write in) - Wildlife habitat 1 n/a Other (write in) - Enforce a no dog policy. Partner with embalming and cremation services on 11th Ave. 1 n/a Other (write in) - More security in the Cemetery fenced in better along 4th Ave. 1 n/a 8 APPENDIX J J-10 Other (write in) - Create a place to demonstrate natural land care - e.g. natural pest control, encourage birds of pray; broader types of planting to enhance bird species. 2 n/a Other (write in) - Allow dogs, on leash 1 n/a Other (write in) - Provide a funeral service building and a mausoleum to enhance revenue 1 n/a Other (write in) - Preserve a quiet, dark and open space 1 n/a 9 J-11APPENDIX J Question 5: Activities or uses to be improved or added Question 5 asked the attendee: What activities or uses at the Cemetery would you like to see improved or added? This question was open ended and the answers ranged widely (see the table below). Multiple individuals wanted to see a beekeeping area where the bees could help pollinate flowers. Cemetery tours, where guests pay to attend, was also recommended multiple times as a way to generate revenue. Attendees also want to see improved wildlife habitats and added entertainment in the form of charity races, music, and veteran-related celebrations. List of Suggestions Individuals Beekeeping 4 Tour groups that are charged to generate revenue 3 Better habitat for wildlife 2 Music 2 Celebrate Memorial Day and other similar holidays 2 5k or walks for charity 2 Use 'green' methods for lawn care 1 Maintain bicycle access 1 Friends of the Cemetery 1 Better parking options 1 Restrict dog walkers 1 More watering abilities for flowers at graves 1 Allow dogs on a leash 1 Funeral chapel or building 1 Preserve darkness at night 1 10 APPENDIX J J-12 Question 6: Additional comments Question 6 asked the attendee: Please share any additional comments. These responses were wide ranging: some participants offered new comments and others stressed other previously given answers. The main themes are below in order of prominence: 1. The Cemetery should be respected and preserved to maintain the dignity of those who are buried there. 2. More security in the area is needed. 3. Clear rules about bicycle and dog use are needed. Additional Comments Keep it respectful and maintain the dignity of the Cemetery 4 Clearer rules on what is allowed for bicycles, dogs, cars 3 Better security and police patrols 3 Generate revenue - ask LDS church, add a special box on state tax forms for donations 2 Improve the watering system 2 Preserve existing headstones 2 Need to do a better job informing the neighborhood of the open houses 1 The roads need to repaved 1 Maintenance workers appear lazy and are overworked 1 Add more flowers where possible 1 Add celebrations (i.e. Day of the Dead, night sky gazing, walking tours, etc.) 1 11 J-13APPENDIX J Demographic Questions: Location, gender and age The three demographic questions offered insight into which participants attended the open house. Please note that this section was optional for individuals to answer; however, almost all of the 22 comment forms included demographic feedback. Gender: Predominately more females than males attended. Age: The majority of attendees were in their 60s. Attendees in their 30s and 40s were the second largest group. Attendees in their 20s and 70s were the smallest group. The median age was 53.5. Location: Over 60% of the participants were from the Avenues or adjacent to the Cemetery. The second most represented neighborhood was Olympus Cove with 24%. The remaining 16% of attendees fairly equally represented the University area, Sugarhouse, Arlington Hills, Liberty Park and Federal Heights. This field was overwhelmingly more females than males and were predominately in their 30s through 60s. The median age was 53.5. Over 60% of the field were from the Avenues or adjacent to the cemetery itself. While the remainder were spread out from the University area to Federal Heights. 12 APPENDIX J J-14 43% 9%4%5% 5% 5% 24% 5% Neighborhood Avenues University Area Sugarhouse Arlington Hills Olympus Cove Liberty Park Next to Cemetery Federal Heights 27% 73% Gender Male Female 1 5 4 2 7 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 20'S 30'S 40'S 50'S 60'S 70'S Age 13 J-15APPENDIX J Additional Informal Comments: The project team recorded these comments during the public open house on whiteboards, notepads and flip charts. What do you currently like about the Cemetery? The wildlife habitats - birds and animals The trees Unique historical features: buildings, tombstones, architecture Place to visit family The atmosphere: peaceful, solitude, place of refuge, open space Dim lighting - does not add to light pollution in the city Hillside location with fabulous views What activities or uses should be added or enhanced? 5k races Beekeeping Tombstone tours/Historical tours/ Cultural tours Gravestone rubbings Genealogy and history is special to the cemetery and could be leveraged Mormon church financial support: youth group visits, state wide tours 2x a week, donations Combined cemetery/funeral home/cremation tour (partner together) Explore water-wise planting & minimize or find alternatives to pesticides Friends of the Cemetery Add music or a chorus to the top by 11th Ave at certain times Veterans clean headstones of veterans - markers get buried Promote celebrations, especially cultural ones Digitize into map/grave locations Should have a design board for new additions Documentary filmmaking What problems/concerns do you currently have? Need to collect revenue for the City to support it Fix the roads and sidewalks/ curbs and gutters / walls - Erosion maintenance Repair WPA wall along 11th Security - add cameras In order to make it safer - how do we do that without affecting the lighting? More watering ability for plants at graves Dog walking enforcement Limit car traffic Needs larger signs at each entrance that are reflective 14 APPENDIX J J-16 Avoid the exploitation and disrespect of the Cemetery Questionable activities take place Lawnmowers damage headstones - many of which are works of art Irrigation destroys headstones New restrooms are ugly; architecture should be appealing (not necessarily a duplication of the historical) throughout the Cemetery Explore water-wise planting and minimize or find alternatives to pesticides Hire a PR person for the Cemetery Needs to be clear its not a park - it’s a cemetery 15 J-17APPENDIX J All Responses sorted chronologically As of September 1, 2016, 12:05 PM Open City Hall is not a certified voting system or ballot box. As with any public comment process, participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The responses in this record are not necessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected officials. All Responses sorted chronologically As of September 1, 2016, 12:05 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3767 Cemetery Master Plan Visioning Survey Salt Lake City is creating a master plan to guide preservation and management of the Cemetery. We need your feedback. Public Open House #1 - Open City Hall Survey Analysis APPENDIX J J-18 As of September 1, 2016, 12:05 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 163 All Responses: 79 Hours of Public Comment: 4.0 This topic started on June 14, 2016, 4:07 PM. This topic ended on August 4, 2016, 2:31 PM. All Responses sorted chronologically As of September 1, 2016, 12:05 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3767 Page 2 of 163 Cemetery Master Plan Visioning Survey Salt Lake City is creating a master plan to guide preservation and management of the Cemetery. We need your feedback. J-19APPENDIX J Responses What are the primary reasons you visit the Cemetery? Answered 75 Skipped 4 -3 ancestors area beautiful bike buried catholic cemetery connect don enjoy family from get grave graves great headstones historical history interest like members near peace peaceful place quiet reflection relatives s sometimes space t through visit visiting walk walking How often do you visit the Cemetery? % Count Once a year 12.0% 9 Three or more times a year 38.7% 29 Occasionally 18.7% 14 Never 8.0% 6 Other 22.7% 17 What are important qualities or characteristics of the Cemetery that should be preserved? Answered 75 Skipped 4 access all beauty cemetery don family graves gravestones headstones historic historical history include keep Cemetery Master Plan Visioning Survey Salt Lake City is creating a master plan to guide preservation and management of the Cemetery. We need your feedback. All Responses sorted chronologically As of September 1, 2016, 12:05 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3767 Page 3 of 163 APPENDIX J J-20 landscape landscaping large like maintained maintenance natural nice old open peace peaceful people quiet roads s see space stones t those trees value very which wildlife What aspect(s) of the Cemetery would you change, if any? Answered 75 Skipped 4 -add allow better bit cemetery could dogs family find ground headstones just like loved more need none one other out place plants plots roads s see so some space t them they think those trees visit was water who How important is it for the City to continue to offer burial space for sale at the Cemetery? % Count Very Important 13.3% 10 Important 18.7% 14 Neutral 40.0% 30 Not Important 28.0% 21 If the Cemetery is expanded in order to continue offering burial sites for sale, please choose the strategies that should be explored. Cemetery Master Plan Visioning Survey Salt Lake City is creating a master plan to guide preservation and management of the Cemetery. We need your feedback. All Responses sorted chronologically As of September 1, 2016, 12:05 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3767 Page 4 of 163 J-21APPENDIX J % Count Find a secondary location for grave sites 54.1% 40 Add columbariums (above-ground burial space for cremated remains) 59.5% 44 Develop scattering gardens in the Cemetery (for scattering cremated remains) 56.8% 42 Other 18.9% 14 Other: Answered 12 Skipped 67 --000 24 800 after believe burial buried cash cemetery current do dog families flow found into maintenance more obligation offer only other place please plots pre-sold provide rights run sale seems sites so sold space speed st they years Please indicate on the table below which of the uses you would support being added or enhanced at the Cemetery. Site Amenities: gift shop, chapel, interactive kiosks, visitor center % Count Supportive 14.7% 11 Neutral 30.7% 23 Cemetery Master Plan Visioning Survey Salt Lake City is creating a master plan to guide preservation and management of the Cemetery. We need your feedback. All Responses sorted chronologically As of September 1, 2016, 12:05 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3767 Page 5 of 163 APPENDIX J J-22 % Count Not supportive 54.7% 41 Natural: arboretum, birding, native planting, wildlife corridor % Count Supportive 77.3% 58 Neutral 9.3% 7 Not supportive 13.3% 10 Passive Recreation: pedestrian trails, jogging, biking, stargazing % Count Supportive 70.7% 53 Neutral 12.0% 9 Not supportive 17.3% 13 Events/Activities: weddings, meetings, arts stolls, beekeeping, 5K races, lecture series, concerts/plays % Count Supportive 28.0% 21 Neutral 18.7% 14 Not supportive 53.3% 40 History & Preservation: Friends of the Cemetery, National Historic District designation, history tours, genealogy research % Count Supportive 84.0% 63 Neutral 13.3% 10 Not supportive 2.7% 2 Cemetery Master Plan Visioning Survey Salt Lake City is creating a master plan to guide preservation and management of the Cemetery. We need your feedback. All Responses sorted chronologically As of September 1, 2016, 12:05 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3767 Page 6 of 163 J-23APPENDIX J Comments or other ideas: Answered 24 Skipped 55 -all amenities become buried canyons cemetery concerts dead don events fun gift history into like more near other people place quiet races see shop site some space t they think those though tours up visit visitors want who your As part of the master planning process, draft goals have been established. Please help us prioritize these goals by putting in order of your preference. Average Priorities Preserve and enhance the Cemetery's historic features Enhance natural resources and habitat for wildlife Enhance bicycling and walking infrastructure Explore new ways to increase revenue Enhance existing and provide new recreation opportunities Expand the Cemetery to continue offering burial services Additional comments or concerns: Answered 25 Skipped 54 -beautiful burial cemeteries cemetery continue could do does doing don gardens genealogy green land more most need needs Cemetery Master Plan Visioning Survey Salt Lake City is creating a master plan to guide preservation and management of the Cemetery. We need your feedback. All Responses sorted chronologically As of September 1, 2016, 12:05 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3767 Page 7 of 163 APPENDIX J J-24 new open park people perhaps place public recreation resource revenue s some space support t take thanks they think what where Cemetery Master Plan Visioning Survey Salt Lake City is creating a master plan to guide preservation and management of the Cemetery. We need your feedback. All Responses sorted chronologically As of September 1, 2016, 12:05 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/3767 Page 8 of 163 J-25APPENDIX J Public Open House #2 Summary A second public open house was held Wednesday, November 16, 2016 from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Salt Lake City Main Library. The primary purpose of this public open house was to present analysis findings and seek the public’s input on the prioritization of Master Planning goals. A series of 17 goals were developed by the planning team with input from City Staff and Stakeholder Groups. The public was provided with 1 blue sticker (worth 2 points) and 5 green stickers (worth 1 point each) and asked to place the blue sticker next to the goal they felt was the highest priority and the 5 green stickers next to their other highest priorities. The responses were then tabulated to identify the goals identified as the highest priority See the Finalized Goals Tabulation that follows for more information. A more detailed description of the prioritized goals can be found in Chapter 2. Overall, 28 people signed in, and 26 participated in the goals prioritization activity. In addition, 123 individuals visited the topic on Open City hall resulting in an additional 32 responses. The information from the open house was also presented at the Greater Avenues Community Council on January 4, 2017 with 24 people participating in the goals prioritization activity. Open House at Avenues Community Council Source: Cemetery Planning Team APPENDIX J J-26 Public Open House #2 - Finalized Goals Tabulation J-27APPENDIX J APPENDIX J J-28 Public Open House #3 Summary The third and final public open house was held on May 17, 2017 from 4:30 p.m. to 7:30 p.m. at the Salt Lake City Main Library. The planning team presented recommendations from the Draft Master Plan for public input and review. Twenty-three people signed in at the open house, five of whom provided written comments. All of the information presented at the open house was also posted to Open City Hall where 92 individuals visited the topic resulting in an additional 8 comments. Overall, the comments received during the public open house and those from Open City Hall were positive and supportive of the Master Plan recommendations. A brief summary of the public input is given here: A majority of respondents indicated their support for pedestrian and bicycle enhancement recommendations. A majority of respondents expressed interest and support for the development of columbarium walls. One participant asked if consideration had been given to allow for construction of columbarium walls on individual burial plots (to provide 10-20 niches for a family). These could even be funded by the family but constructed and managed by the Cemetery. There was support both for and against relocating the Maintenance Facilities to the tennis court area at Lindsey Gardens. Support was expressed for increasing Cemetery fees with a hope that added costs will be reasonable and considerate of families’ resources. Two respondents specifically noted that they would support a Friends of the Cemetery group with one respondent indicating they would be willing to donate time to assist in preparing the nomination to the National Register of Historic Places or serve as a volunteer on other committees to assist in the implementation of the Master Plan. Concern was expressed that recommendations to enhance recreational uses (jogging, cycling) are inappropriate and show little regard for the Cemetery history, though these comments were certainly in the minority. J-29APPENDIX J Stakeholder Meeting Summaries Page 1 SALT LAKE CITY CEMETERY MASTER PLAN INTERNAL STAKEHOLDER MEETING – MEETING SUMMARY #1 May 19, 2016 Minutes Recorded by: G Brown Design Location: Engineering Office Attendees Distribution/Contact Name: Representing: Y N Phone email Salt Lake City (Owner) Dawn Wagner SLC Engineering – Project Manager Y Nancy Monteith Owners Rep - Parks & Public Lands Y Mark Smith Cemetery Sexton Y Kristin Riker Parks & Public Lands Y Robyn Stanczyk Civic Engagement Y Tony Gliot Urban Forestry Y Lewis Kogan SLC Open Space Y Colin Quinn-Hurst Transportation Y Katia Pace SLC Planning N Planning Team Mathew Winward G Brown Design – Principal/PM Y Dustin Wiberg G Brown Design Y Gemma Puddy Intrepid Y Other Invited Attendees Y/N = In Attendance * = By Telephone # Description Action By Due Date A Items to Be Discussed 1.1 Background, Purpose and Need, and Schedule Mark discussed the background of the project and cemetery. The cemetery is a great resource to SLC. Sale of grave sites is almost complete (800 left). The City is contractually obligated to maintain the cemetery for ever, but the cemetery is not able to do so without large subsidies from the City. Cemetery infrastructure is in disrepair and will require millions to improve. The three main purposes of the project are to: guide preservation, management, and development of the cemetery. expand access and enhance appropriate uses. address future financial sustainability. 1.2 Internal Stake Holder Meetings Generally the purpose of the internal stake holder group is to help guide and steer the development of project alternatives, interactions with the public, and the final master plan document. The group will APPENDIX J J-30 Page 2 also be asked to help review and scrutinize content that will be presented to the public. It is anticipated that there will be a total of 6 Stakeholder Meetings, which will generally be held on the 3rd Thurs. of each month. There will be months when the group will not need to meet. The planning team will notify stakeholders of the meeting schedule. 1.3 Cemetery Challenges and Opportunities Each department representative was asked to think about the different challenges and opportunities that exist at the cemetery. The following bullet points summarize the discussion: Opportunities: Beautiful, quiet space Excellent views to the City below Biking and walking trail master plan goes around the cemetery. Mark indicated that it was done that way because there used to be an ordinance the prohibited bikes in the cemetery. However, that ordinance has been changed to allow bikes in the cemetery. If routes through the cemetery are incorporated, there would have to be methods to encourage bikers to slow down while in the cemetery. The urban forest within the cemetery has a good age distribution of trees compared to other City parks. Potential to market the cemetery through social media, website, tourism. Significant amount of wildlife utilizing cemetery and its connection to open space. Cemetery has some of the most wildlife compared to other parks in SLC parks system. Other parks adjacent to the cemetery. Area around Sexton’s house does not have gravesites. Trail connections to Bonneville Shoreline, 11th Ave., and City Creek Challenges: Aging infrastructure (roads, retaining walls, etc.) Long-term care No trails through the cemetery Steep grades and slopes – sometimes difficult to route a funeral coach for a burial. Parking generally on one side of the road. Once the pattern is established, other visitors will generally follow. Sometimes difficult to provide trees in the context of the site and for the City. The greater tree canopy coverage across the city, the better health benefits. Funding for maintenance and planting of new trees Local vehicular traffic cuts through the cemetery from 11th Ave. to 4th and is a safety concern. Colin to investigate if there have been any vehicular studies already performed for the road network within the cemetery. Trees near graves can pose problem; damage caused to grave site, who pays to fix damage? What if someone plants a tree and it ruins someone else’s property? Currently trees can only be planted in easements and on the perimeter of the cemetery because of liability of damaging other graves. Formal parking lots are limited within the Cemetery. Where would it be appropriate to encourage visitors to park who come to visit the J-31APPENDIX J Page 3 Cemetery during an event? Other Uses Discussed Yoga/Meditation Center Self-guided tree tour Bird watching Reception Center/Chapel Informal meditation opportunities Incorporate the Cemetery site into the bike and pedestrian master plan Each access point into the cemetery could have a bike rack. Develop a hierarchy of roads throughout the cemetery Implement a marketing campaign to encourage visitors to come to the cemetery. Is it being promoted as a SLC destination? Wildlife safe crossing across 11th Ave. Enhance wildlife habitat where appropriate; including planting native vegetation. Implementation of artwork Capitalize on the connection to the park adjacent to the cemetery. Maybe this is a location of shared parking for both the cemetery. Maybe parking adjacent to the open spaces north of the cemetery. 1.4 Visioning Discussion The question was raised as to what the cemetery should be? The following bullet points summarize the thoughts and discussion: Quiet, tranquil place It was suggested that when presenting to the public, it may be a good idea to highlight other cemeteries as part of the precedent study. The consultant indicated that this is planned to be included in the upcoming open house. It is one of the most beautiful places in the city to visit Promote the cemetery through social media, tell the city about it. You can tell a lot about a city by the way we treat a cemetery. Since the LDS church has a great interest in genealogy and family history. Maybe the church would be interested in investing in the cemetery. Are there properties adjacent to the cemetery that may be purchased to help expand the capacity of the cemetery? The more reasons to visit the cemetery and buy in to the vision, the higher likelihood of increasing funding to the cemetery. 1.5 Brainstorm and Input A list of brainstorming ideas was presented to the group for review and comment. It was suggested that we should propose alternative uses that are feasible to implement. The group is to review the brainstorming list and provide comments back to GBD. Mark suggested that group service projects should be removed because the City Attorney has previously indicated that there is too much liability. Currently, no professional filming or photography is permitted in the cemetery. It was suggested that cemetery use precedent studies would be useful in gauging public acceptance of uses in the SLC Cemetery. We cannot assume what the public thinks, we need to ask. APPENDIX J J-32 Page 4 Mt. Auburn cemetery in Boston has been able to make the cemetery a destination of the city because of its beauty. This could be a cemetery to review as part of the precedent study. We should consider being upfront in the Public Open House and list items that cannot be on the list due to certain conditions (Dogs, Service Groups, Professional Photography, Filming, etc.). B FOLLOW UP FROM PREVIOUS MEETINGS N/A G NEXT MEETING Day: Thursday, June 16th, 1:00 pm – Located in the Engineering Building (tentative – will confirm by email) Please notify us of any clarifications or corrections to the meeting summary via email within one week of receipt. Clarifications or corrections can be emailed to mwinward@gbrowndesign.com J-33APPENDIX J SLC Cemetery Master Plan INTERNAL STAKEHOLDER MEETING SUMMARY September 09, 2016 9:00 am – 10:30 am A. INTRODUCTIONS & SIGN-IN (9:00-9:05) Name Department Email Address Mathew Winward G Brown Design Andrew Noorlander G Brown Design Susan Becker Zions Public Finance Kristin Riker SLC P&PL Greg Davis SLC Public Services Bryce Lindeman SLC Parks Tony Gliot SLC P&PL Urban Forestry Dawn Wagner SLC Engineering Lewis Kogan SLC P&PL Nancy Monteith SLC P&PL David Triplett CRSA Katie Kourianos Intrepid Robyn Stanczyk SLC CE Susan Crook Historical Landscape Architect Robin Carbaugh Carbaugh Associates Brian Campbell ESI Mark Smith* SLC Cemtery Sexton Katia Pace SLC Planning B. ITEMS TO BE DISCUSSED 1. Presentation – Summary of Public Input from OH #1 (9:05 -9:15) Input indicates desire to preserve historic character & features Preserve natural resources Maintain solitude, ambiance & dignity of cemetery Visitor breakdown: 30% visit family, 30% for solitude, 40% for exercise Discussion about clarifying rules/restrictions on dogs and bikes Action: G Brown to forward Public Involvement summary report to internal stakeholder attendees. 2. Presentation & Discussion – Summary of Financial Assessment Findings (9:15 -9:50) It will be imperative to help public understand cost implications & magnitude of updating deteriorating infrastructure Current losses are between $600,000 & $900,000 per year? Question was asked, “What are the losses due to?” Total expenses per grave sold plus opening/closings is $2,112. Total revenue per grave sold plus openings/closings is$1,159. City is in a sense “repaying a loan” of perpetual care funds. APPENDIX J J-34 City council recognizes responsibility to keep standards/maintenance high Discussion of an endowment to offset costs – how much would be needed? A principal investment of $10 million could generate $300,000 - $400,000 per year. Discussion on how other municipalities treat perpetual care funds – it is common to put them into the general fund – Salt Lake Cemetery shows the highest expenses per acre, but comparables in Utah are limited for size and history Need to validate costs of updating roads/infrastructure Discussion was had related to possibility of double or triple depth burials. Double deep burials are maximum depth for safety reasons – Currently cemetery practices allows for each plot to hold two burials and 6 cremations. Cemetery staff encourages purchase of double deep plots. Currently the cost is the same for buying a single or double deep burial right (the only cost difference is in opening and closing the grave). Mark Smith commented that costs of double deep burial rights haven’t been increased because it would be unfair to change it now. However, many other cemeteries charge more for a double depth plot with it still being of greater value for a double depth than a single depth grave due to possibility of two burials. Nancy’s clarification at end is that there is “no silver bullet” to solve the cemetery’s perpetual care fund challenges. G Brown indicated that trying to improve the perpetual care funding as well as minimize losses through expansion is really just kicking the can down the road unless rates for both burials and perpetual care are significantly increased. Ultimately, at some point years ago, administration likely acknowledged the perpetual care obligation the city has for the cemetery and determined that whether the money was set aside in a separate fund or mingled with the general fund really didn’t make much difference because the City was financially obligated either way. If perpetual care had been set aside into a separate fund it could have been managed to grow due to interest. The idea that there is now a need to “fix” the perpetual care funding circumstance is really a misunderstanding. We are really just re-visiting the funding management practices to determine if their might be a more beneficial means of managing perpetual care funds. We will need to evaluate pros and cons of making a change vs. continuing to manage in the same manner. Maintenance of the cemetery (not including openings/closings), is consequently fairly comparable expense-wise to an acre of managed, standard park. Should the city cemetery be expected to cover all its costs when it has other uses and importance that fit into the overall park and open spaces discussion? If the cemetery were to be recognized and promoted as public open space with encouraged use by the public, would there be the same expectation for the cemetery to be financially self-sufficient? The public does not generally expect parks to be self-sufficient. It seems to be understood that parks are “subsidized” by the city. 3. Present Planning Scenarios for Input Overall Presentation & Discussion of Planning Scenarios (9:50-10:05) Discuss Enhancement Ideas and Opportunities (10:05 – 10:25) It will be important that planning scenarios illustrate clear trade-offs between the different scenarios Create a seamless representation of how each scenario addresses challenges including financials J-35APPENDIX J Lindsey gardens, city open space, other cemeteries, access points should show up on scenarios – scenarios need to show a broader context. To adequately determine specific needs of the maintenance facility the City would need to perform a “needs assessment” for the maintenance of the cemetery and develop a detailed program to guide what maintenance facilities should be. This should be included as key recommendation of the master plan. Lindsey Gardens: Nov 2nd – Kristin Riker has a meeting with community council about area of Lindsey Gardens (LG) proposed for use. This meeting will be to discuss removing tennis courts/walls (safety hazards) and creating an extension of the dog park. Be very careful about suggesting changes to Lindsey Gardens – the public sees it as black and white (the enormous 120 ac cemetery is taking from 15 ac park) There has been pushback in the past about adding graves to Lindsey Gardens. Planning scenarios will need to present a compelling reason for the use Lindsey Gardens if included . – At open house, public needs to know “What is the intent of any changes to LG” It will be important to provide adequate detail and visually soften graphic representation (size, color) of changes to Lindsey Gardens compared to what is currently shown on the scenarios. Planning Scenarios will need to show benefits or improvement to Lindsey Gardens or clearly articulate the trade-offs. Planning scenarios proposing impacts to Lindsey Gardens will need to look for ways to be beneficial to both – the Cemetery LG. – Can the case be made that it is trading park space for park space, just different programming and uses. May be able to add value to Lindsey Gardens and Cemetery by accommodating multiple needs/uses. Maintenance facilities (not just a shed, but attractive facilities) can be shared between parks & cemetery Parking shared by Lindsey Gardens and those using cemetery for passive recreation Maintenance building with rooftop tennis courts, green roof or other park use. Maintenance, dog park, parking, columbarium – can they co-exist in the same space, enhancing experience and access to all users? Consider city-wide comments, needs and uses - not just those with closest proximity to the cemetery (even though they may be the loudest) It is the city’s charge to use public lands for their highest and best use. Historic Resources: Natural Resources: Recreation (appropriate recreation): Add connections to the Bike/Ped master plan to the scenarios Bike/Ped paths along 11th Ave are tight – provide access/connections through cemetery City owned open space across 11th Ave has potential for access to trail system/trail head – Can the space accommodate both uses, columbarium/memorial gardens and trail access? – What impact would developing this area have on natural resources (wildlife)? APPENDIX J J-36 SLC Cemetery Master Plan STAKEHOLDER MEETING SUMMARY HISTORIC FOCUS GROUP September 28, 2016 1:00 pm – 2:30 pm A. DISCUSSION ON NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES (NRHP) SLC Cemetery is eligible and would likely qualify under all 4 requirements. Nelson Knight (Utah SHIPO) would love to see it nominated Pros: Listing on NRHP could be used to leverage funding, solicit grants, workshops (ex. gravestone restoration), marketing MP should outline what is needed to complete nomination, including estimates of costs. Property owners, friends organization, city, or individual staff members can initiate nomination process. Susan Crook indicated that if the city initiates the nomination, there will likely be significant buy-in from the public/others. (It shows the city is invested in the Cemetery) Cultural Landscape Report / Historic Structures Report / Initial HALS could be amended Every time cemetery does any improvements – it should include some historic investigations. Really, thorough “Investigation” should be done as part of any improvement to the cemetery – this should be a recommendation of the master plan Maintain “Integrity” – If a change is to be made – must first document How do we prioritize recommendations in the master plan? B. A KEY RECOMMENDATION OF HISTORIC ASSESSMENT IS A “PRESERVATION MANAGEMENT PLAN(PMP)”SHOULD BE DEVELOPED – NEEDS TO BE KEY RECOMMENDATION OF MASTER PLAN Inventory & assessment of all historic assets/resources which will provide guidance on applicable “treatments” for said assets Preservation Management Plan should include “Treatment Plans” based on Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and include schedules for implementing treatments PMP should include a calendar of annual and preventive maintenance with budget line items Master Plan could include a recommendation that Period Plans be completed for entire cemetery (Historic maps indicating significant changes to the cemetery over time) Gravestones / carvers should be considered in the historic assessment Could be built on volunteerism – ask volunteers to participate & help with maintenance C. OPPORTUNITIES FOR FUNDRAISING Charge for “LDS Prophets/Apostles” map given out (currently free) Donation boxes Build an online inventory similar to “Findagrave.com” where users can sponsor a grave (both the physical gravesite and to keep information available online) J-37APPENDIX J What does a partnership/relationship with friends group (or others) look like? Consider renaming, or rather, change cemetery’s identity to treat it as a Park space (Art & History Park, SLC Historic Preserve, etc.) – Would this make it eligible for ZAP or other funding? There are opportunities for fundraising everywhere (family reunions, sponsor a grave, family funds, donation boxes, - people simply need an mechanism/avenue to donate) People are making a lot of money off of cemeteries. There is not much that is more powerful than an ancestor’s grave. Key donors may be willing to help if it has a benefit Is group aware of particular grants that may be available. D. SEXTON’S HOUSE IS A HISTORIC GEM The conflict between converting it to a new use and destroying its history is enormous Conversion to a new use would require significant upgrades to meet current code, at the risk of destroying its historic fabric The building lacks accessibility. One complaint (from public, employee) about lack of accessibility, and it could cease to serve its current use (as offices) What does the Sexton’s house become if additional facilities (including offices) are built? Ideas from group include: Research center, artist in residence, other professional in residence Long term lease as an actual residence (revenue generating) On-site program director (who gives tours, manages venues), Cemetery Keeper E. LINDSEY GARDENS Park is part of the Avenue’s history Can act as a staging area for activities in the cemetery (shared use between two parks) Lindsey Gardens and Cemetery could both greatly benefit from a multi-functional space shared between Lindsey Gardens & Cemetery F. DISCUSSION ON EVENTS AT THE CEMETERY What is average attendance like for: Veterans Day Service Memorial Day Gold Star Mothers Christmas Box Angel monument – (Dec. 6th) Body Donor Program Annual Memorial Service (Friday before Memorial Day) Are there other events going on we should be aware of? May be worth a survey to determine which groups are using the cemetery for gatherings Group seemed to agree there is a need for an all-weather building to host events, memorials, etc. There is a need for a gathering space at entrance – a space to tell stories similar to “Living Histories” that takes place at Forrest Lawn (actors dress up as famous residents of the cemetery)” Cemetery needs a “space to celebrate the history and tell the story.” As soon as facilities are in place that will accommodate gatherings, they will get used. What about a pavilion? Could have a Guide to Trees – but would need to develop it, and determine where it is housed (physically, digitally)? APPENDIX J J-38 Could have a Guide to Wildlife – would need to develop it, and determine where it is housed (physically, digitally)? Events probably requires a ‘program manager’ Could it be identified as a “Preserve” in City’s Open Space Plan? Historic Focus Group Stakeholder Meeting - Attendance List Jenny Lund, Historic Sites Division Director, LDS Church Linda Hilton, Independent Charles Shepard, SLC Landmarks Chair Nelson Knight, Utah Stat Historical Preservation Office Nancy Monteith, SLC Parks and Public Lands Katia Pace, SLC Planning Mathew Winward, Cemetery Planning Team - G Brown Design Andrew Noorlander, Cemetery Planning Team - G Brown Design David Triplett, Cemetery Planning Team - CRSA Gemma Puddy, Cemetery Planning Team - Intrepid Susan Crook, Cemetery Planning Team Robin Carbaugh, Cemetery Planning Team J-39APPENDIX J SLC Cemetery Master Plan STAKEHOLDER MEETING SUMMARY NATURAL RESOURCE FOCUS GROUP September 28, 2016 3:00 pm – 4:30 pm A. WILDLIFE Water is lacking for birding (source of water is good for both birds & bats) Bats would need water source to be flat and open It doesn’t need to be large for birds, but must be consistent/reliable Addition of a fountain/water feature as part of scattering gardens, columbarium plaza, Sexton’s House plaza, etc. Bear populations are on the rise, use care when developing water features Wildlife: Deer, Fox, Owls, Moose, Coyote, others Wildlife viewing is a compatible use with the cemetery (passive recreation) Is the public tolerant/open to wildlife in the cemetery? Public input to this point has been very much in favor of wildlife. Consider treating the cemetery as a preserve (History Preserve, Nature Preserve, Wildlife Preserve) Preserve corridors for wildlife movement/access Understory plantings (Small trees, shrubs, perennials) is lacking for birds, wildlife, insects As part of tree inventory, it may be worth considering an analysis of understory plantings– provide recommendations for new planting locations Great Salt Lake Audubon Society has field trips to cemetery The Christmas Bird count is an annual event. Data collected goes to National Audubon Society and is used in research Could highlight the fact that cemetery is contributing to national research and share that information with the public. Public may be interested in # of bird varieties and types of birds observed at cemetery. Hummingbird / Butterfly Gardens are worth consideration Bees, insects are better for bird/wildlife habitat Idea was presented that planting native flowers over graves could be considered as an lawn alternative) Maintenance may be an issue. Volunteers a potential solution? B. DEER DWR currently has proposal out to collar & track urban deer. Cemetery may be a good site for consideration Track how many deer are using the cemetery to winter. If it is significant, it could lead to funding from DWR or sportsman’s groups. DWR access/permission to trap & collar deer on cemetery property? Recommendation for vegetation that supports winter deer, but discourages summer (browse such as sage brush, bitter brush, etc.) APPENDIX J J-40 Deer need water, cover and food A wildlife crossing at 11th Ave. may be worthy of consideration Plantings to attract deer to certain areas of the cemetery, and deter from the edges (reducing chances that they will move into the city) C. TREES Someone reported the late Larry Sagers as saying, “SLC Cemetery has the best collection of evergreen trees in the state.” Cemetery has great value as arboretum SLC Cemetery is likely the city’s largest carbon sink Any Implications for climate change? New plantings should be drought tolerant Trees will need more care as they age – they should be preserved, treated differently from newer trees. Trees in the cemetery are a huge asset to the community, environment, wildlife There is a challenge to sustain trees because they often conflict with cemetery use (burials.)Potential for two phases of tree care: 1)while the cemetery is actively burying 2) once burials are complete Is the cemetery at capacity for plantings? Where can new plantings go now? Right of ways – Perimeters, roads, edges Replace dead trees Repurpose of roadways to include columbariums/plantings/pedestrian paths Identify & label Heritage trees Cemetery is a vibrant part of the urban forest How do we manage trees as they age? Especially if they are significant in terms of historic, size or species Master Plan could make recommendations to leave dead or dying trees (for wildlife). Plan would need to clearly identify why the City would be doing this and how they would manage this from a safety standpoint. Do we replace every tree that dies? Do all locations still work? Prolong life of dying trees to be used as habitat for wildlife (cavity nesters) Educate public why dead trees are left D. UTILITIES/STORM WATER There are small (likely non consistent) springs in 11th Ave Park. Currently springs are dumped into storm drainage system, there is potential to intentionally daylight at certain locations that could include parts of cemetery to encourage wildlife Can the cemetery become “Zero Discharge” – all storm water is managed onsite Bioswales, green edges to roads Explore roadway cross sections to convert some roads (pedestrian pathway, columbarium walls, seating, green infrastructure) – Doing so has multiple benefits; enhancing connectivity, wildlife habitat, and potential for revenue generation. Dawn can get city survey showing easements around pipelines E. ALTERNATIVE USES FOR CEMETERY J-41APPENDIX J If we are preserving the space for solitude and wildlife then we probably should not encourage large groups (over 20 people) Encourage use & access, but it should be low impact or low intensity Are there groups that use the cemetery formally? Partnerships will be key to maintain and enhance the cemetery There should be a focus on “Balanced Solutions” “It is a vast but intimate space.” What is its value as part of the public open space network. Much of its value to wildlife is in have 120 acres of contiguous open space Often urban open spaces this size would be programmed as “Active Recreation” parks. Cemetery could fill a specific and valuable need and niche in the City’s Open Space Network F. OTHER GROUPS TO INVOLVE/ASK FOR INPUT OR CONSIDER FOR PARTNERSHIPS Funeral Homes/Funeral Directors, Professional Cemetery organizations Question was asked if Fire department requires access. Thought was probably not as it has not been an issue previously and it is not required on Parks. If it was, fire department usually wants 26’ Road widths (which is not possible in most areas) Jewish Cemeteries, Catholic Cemetery, Japanese Sections Potential for DWR or other stakeholder groups have a booth/board or participate in Public Open House Natural Resources Focus Group Stakeholder Meeting - Attendance List Tyler Murdock, SLC Open Space Sylvia Gray, Great Salt Lake Audobon Robby Edgel, Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Brad Steward, SLC Public Utilities Tony Gliot, City Forester, SLC Parks and Public Lands Nancy Monteith, SLC Parks and Public Lands Dawn Wagner, SLC Engineering Mathew Winward, Cemetery Planning Team - G Brown Design Andrew Noorlander, Cemetery Planning Team - G Brown Design APPENDIX J J-42 SLC Cemetery Master Plan STAKEHOLDER MEETING SUMMARY RECREATION FOCUS GROUP October 13, 2016 9:00 am – 10:30 am A. SUGGESTED ANALYSIS MAP UPDATES Take cemetery road widths off bike/ped analysis map (or change color) Existing bike/ped paths should be thick/bold - proposed should be dotted and/or lighter Show adjacent parking & grades of surrounding areas B. BIKES/PEDESTRIANS Path on 11th Ave was put in for both cycling & running (done in 1980’s) Cemetery is currently used for running Suggested that bike/ped paths through cemetery be laid out related to GRADE – stair step across cemetery May path goes from Ex. Closed gate @ Cypress, NW to open gate @ 920 & 11 th Ave. , stair stepping up the slope to avoid going straight up hill Biking & Jogging routes: 6% grades are considered steep - 3-4% is optimal Overlay topography to bike/ped plans C. 5K RUN/WALK 5k’s are the city’s most scheduled events Need more 5k trails that avoid roads (cost goes up on public roads due to police presence required) Liberty Park is only place with 5k trail that avoids roads Is there potential to have a loop through the cemetery? Is the cemetery appropriate for 5k runs – would a 5k “Walk for ______” be more compatible with cemetery? Connect to Lindsey Gardens or other space for setup Gather / start outside – run through cemetery – end outside Lindsey Gardens, 11th Ave Park, Popperton Park, others? Potential for conflict with funeral services Most 5k’s start at 6:00 or 7:00 am – Funerals start at 10:00 or 11:00 5k with a steep section could be good Participants need to know what and where amenities are located: Restrooms Fill water bottles What is pavement surface like? What are the grades like? (access) D. BIKING Potential to use cemetery roads to “Learn to Ride” a bike (formally organized or informal?) J-43APPENDIX J Could possibly ideintify 3 potential routes/sites to offer flexibility to move in case of funeral Bike Races (some may be too fast to be compatible, ex. Tour of Utah) Action: Nancy to forward GBD feedback about Bike/Ped received from Becka Bikes & walking can open up different funding opportunities (there are usually more funding opportunities for trails or bike paths than cemeteries). E. OTHER EVENTS Movies in the Cemetery Avoid burial plots – what other spaces could be used? (Sexton’s House Lawn?) Are any roads wide enough to use? May be worth having a test run for a “movie night in the cemetery” to gauge public interest/perception SLC Marathon – possible route through cemetery Fitness route - self-guided with workout stations? Story Walk – where participants read 1-2 pages of a book at a time, posted at various locations throughout the cemetery. Tie the stories into the history, nature, trees (use the cemetery as an educational resource – opportunity to teach kids about death?) Can story walk pages use space on the recommended “History Panels” Contact Linda Hilton (from Historical Stakeholder Group) to see if tour groups are going through permitting process (ghost tours) F. EVENT CONSTRAINTS Events held in the Cemetery should be required to follow certain restrictions, examples: Cap at certain number of people How would we deal with events if a funeral was happening - participants must be out & cemetery cleaned by certain time (in case of funeral) Parking for events is an issue – park elsewhere? How to encourage/ensure people don’t park in the cemetery for events? Potential for parking at 11th Ave, Lindsey Gardens, Ensign Elementary School If parking for events is off-site, how is access to cemetery? Grades?) Events create need for restrooms Limit to smaller events (what is an acceptable/appropriate # of people?) Events may need approval from Fire Department (depending on size, attendees) Events over 500 people trigger health department review (restrooms/wash hands) Events usually require amplified sound? Master Plan could identify specific criteria that would need to be met if an event were to qualify for use at the cemetery. Events requests to City generally range from 200 – 1000 people G. ADDITIONAL COMMENTS Ryan stated “We are out of spaces in SLC for events.” Ryan and Melissa suggested that it may be worth planning some “Test Events” to gauge public sentiment. Taylorsvile City has done a “Tombstone Tales” event at their cemetery portraying stories from the past. Action: Ryan & Melissa to look through list of event request to see what could be compatible with Cemetery APPENDIX J J-44 Send out a survey to special event applicants to see how they imagine using the cemetery as an event space Action: Brian (ESI Engineering) to send grading to GBD Master Plan should look for opportunities to promote Lindsey Gardens & Cemetery as part of one big open space system instead of competing uses/systems. “We owe it to the process to ‘open up the ideas’” “We should make cemetery a place to use” Could possibly bundle with other projects for Access to Bonneville Shoreline Trail Can kids walk to school through cemetery? – check nearby school walking routes Recreation Focus Group Stakeholder Meeting - Attendance List Melissa Kinney, Special Event Permitting Ryen Schlegel, Special Event Permitting Becka Roolf, SLC Transportation Nancy Monteith, SLC Parks and Public Lands Dawn Wagner, SLC Engineering Mathew Winward, Cemetery Planning Team - G Brown Design Andrew Noorlander, Cemetery Planning Team - G Brown Design Katie Kourianos, Cemetery Planning Team - Intrepid Brian Campbell, Cemetery Planning Team - ESI Engineering J-45APPENDIX J SLC Cemetery Master Plan MEETING MINUTES MEETING WITH CITY EMERGENCY MANAGEMENT TEAM Date: March 23, 2017 Time: 2:30 - 3:00 pm In Attendance: Eric Witt – Salt Lake City Emergency Management Training and Exercise Coordinator Nancy Monteith, Mark Smith, Mathew Winward, Andrew Noorlander Discuss Cemetery’s role in City Emergency Management Situations In the event of an emergency, the Cemetery and its assets (equipment/machinery/fuel station, personnel, and open space) become valuable resources to the City. Cemetery personnel and equipment could be called on to help clear roads. The Cemetery itself could be used as a staging area (however, the use of the City’s open spaces would be prioritized as follows: golf courses, parks, cemeteries). The State is responsible for mass casualties and would most likely use refrigerated trucks. Discuss risks and possible emergency situations related to the Cemetery Eric stated the three greatest risks related to the Cemetery are: Active Shooter scenario (Mark commented for gang burials, the Police Gang Unit is involved as they have potential to become tense – bloods vs crips) Landslide Fire (urban interface fires) Other emergency situations include: winter storms, earthquakes Earthquake – Fault Line is along 13th East and Highland Drive from 400 South to 2700 South. Every Elementary school in the city has been seismically retrofitted. The City will likely have to assist the University of Utah with students in the event of an emergency affecting campus Flooding likely isn’t an issues as the city has spent millions on storm drain and flood mitigation (Floods of ’83 are extremely unlikely to happen again) Flood though the Cemetery (in the 1940’s???) mostly damaged headstones. Rumors of bodies floating down roads are untrue. Bodies coming up (due to flood/landslide) aren’t likely to carry/cause much disease Discuss current emergency procedures & processes related to the Cemetery Continuity of Operations Plan Each city department is in the process of creating a continuity of operations plan (hazard plan) with the City Emergency Response team Cemetery Fuel Station elimination could have implications for emergency response APPENDIX J J-46 Identify recommendations of updates or changes to current processes, policy, etc. (including health & safety but also giving consideration to impacts and preservation of historic features) Any updates or changes to the cemetery’s processes/policy would have to be vetted through City Planning – those already in place are likely fine. Provide input on departments and personnel needed to address emergency situations Mayor is ultimate decision maker of what and how things happen in an emergency In the event of an emergency, the Cemetery’s assets can be used at the discretion of the Public Services Director (under direction of the Mayor or his/her designee). Equipment Fuel Personnel Open Space Emergency Operations Center (EOC) would require bi-hourly report on staff/equipment/necessary functions. Cemetery would still provide its necessary functions (burying dead, mowing, watering, paying employees, etc.) Refer to Title 22 of Salt Lake City Code SLC M A S T E R P L A N JULY 7, 2017