The URL can be used to link to this page

04/26/2011 - Work Session - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2011 The City Council met in Work Session on Tuesday, April 26, 2011, at 3 : 00 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance: Council Members Carlton Christensen, Stan Penfold, Soren Simonsen, JT Martin, Luke Garrott, Jill Remington Love and Van Turner. Also In Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Karen Halladay, Council Policy Analyst; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Casey Stewart, Senior Planner; Ray Milliner, Principal Planner; Joel Paterson, Planning Manager; Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Jeffry Niermeyer, Public Utilities Director; Tom Tabish, Lift Stations Maintenance Supervisor; Janine Christiansen, Airport Financial Analyst; Jay Bingham, Airport Finance and Accounting Director; Maureen Riley, Airport Executive Director; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; and Beverly Jones, Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 2 : 07 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND 2 :07 : 11 PM ANNOUNCEMENTS. See File M 11-5 for announcements . #2 . 2 :19 :29 PM HOLD A DISCUSSION ON AN APPROPRIATION RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE ONE-YEAR ANNUAL ACTION PLAN FOR 2011-2012 THAT INCLUDES COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT BLOCK GRANT (CDBG) FUNDING, HOME INVESTMENT PARTNERSHIPS PROGRAM (HOME) FUNDING; EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT (ESG) FUNDING AND HOUSING OPPORTUNITIES FOR PERSONS WITH AIDS (HOPWA) FUNDING AND APPROVING AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT (HUD) . View Attachments LuAnn Clark, Jennifer Bruno, Karen Halladay and Rick Graham briefed the Council from the attached handouts . Councilmember Love said they would start with HOUSING: Item 1, Assist for $350, 000 ; Item 2, Community Development Corporation for $70, 000; Item 3, Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (Housing Match Funds) for $0; Item 4, Housing and Neighborhood Development Division (Housing 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2011 Rehabilitation and First Time Homebuyer Programs) for $600, 000 and Item 5, NeighborWorks Salt Lake for $100, 000 . Council Members were in favor of Items 1 thru 5 . Councilmember Love said next was STREET DESIGN: Item 1, Glendale Street Reconstruction Design for $0 (Council Members starred this item) and Item 2, Kensington and Roosevelt Avenues Reconstruction Design for $0 (Council Members starred this item) . Councilmember Turner recommended $32, 000 for Glendale Street design to be taken from the Jordan River Parkway Trailhead at 1000 North. Councilmember Love said next was STREET CONSTRUCTION: Item 1, ADA Accessibility Ramps for $70, 000 (Council Members starred this item for a balancing number) and Item 2, Glendale Streets Reconstruction for $246, 000 . Council Members were in favor of Item 2 . Councilmember Love said next was SIDEWALKS: Item 1, Sidewalk Replacement Program for $150, 000 . Council Members were in favor. Councilmember Love said next was PARKS: Item 1, Cottonwood Park Sprinkler Irrigation System for $400, 000 . Council Members were in favor. Item 2, Jordan River Parkway Trailhead at 1000 North (had already been discussed) . Item 3, Rosewood Park Parking Lot Replacement for $0 and Item 4, Fifth Avenue and "C" Street tennis courts for $67, 100 . Council Members were in favor of design money. Item 5, Westpointe Park Playground Improvements for $0; Item 6, Fire Station Tennis Courts for $0 and Item 7, 600 East Island Irrigation System for $204, 900 . Council Members wanted to fund $40, 000 for design and use the rest of the money for balancing. Item 8, Property Acquisition for Jordan River Parkway Trailhead for $0; Item 9, ADA Improvements and Riverside Access Study for Alzheimer Memorial Park for $0; Item 10, Jordan Park Defined Activity Areas for $0 and Item 11, Glendale Tennis Complex Restroom Construction for $0 . Council Members were in favor of no funding for Items 8 thru 11. Councilmember Love said next was PUBLIC SERVICES: Item 1, Asian Association for $0; Item 2, Bad Dog Rediscovers America for $0; Item 3 , Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah (School-based Mentoring Program) for $5, 000; Item 4 , Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah (Community-based Mentoring Program) for $0; Item 5, Boys and Girls Club Capitol West Club for $20, 000; Item 6, Boys and Girls Clubs (Youth With a Voice) for $15, 000 and Item 7, Catholic Community Services (St. Mary' s Home for Men) for $10, 000 . Council Members were in favor of proposed funding for Items 1 thru 7 . Item 8, Catholic Community Services (Weigand Day Center) for $20, 000; Item 9, Children's Service Society for $20, 000; Item 10, Community Action Program (Housing Outreach Rental Program) for $20, 000; Item 11, Community Action Program (Northwest Neighborhood 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2011 Center Food Pantry) for $25, 000 and Item 12, Community Action Program (Home Tenant Maintenance Project) for $10, 000 . Council Members were in favor of proposed funding for Items 8 thru 11 but wanted to star Item 12 . Item 13 , Community Health Centers for $65, 000; Item 14 , Crossroads Urban Center, (Emergency Food Pantry) for $16, 500 . Council wanted to star Items 13 and 14 for additional money. Item 15, Donated Dental for $30, 000 . Council Members were in favor of the recommended funding. Item 16, English Skills Learning Center for $7, 000; Item 17, Family Support Center (Crisis Nursery) for $10, 000; Item 18 , Housing Authority of Salt Lake City for $0; Item 19, Indian Walk-In Center (Food Pantry) for $0; Item 20, Indian Walk-In Center (Community Coordination Program) for $0; Item 21, Kostopulos Dream Foundation for $0 and Item 22 , Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake for $10, 000 . Council Members were in favor of recommended funding for Items 16 thru 22 but wanted Item 19 starred. Item 23 , Literacy Action Center for $0; Item 24, Peer Court for $0 (Council Members wanted this item starred) ; Item 25, Rape Recovery Center for $35, 000 and Item 26, The Road Home for $112, 298 . Council Members wanted to take $1, 000 from the Road Home, $1, 298 from Rape Recovery Center and $1, 000 from YWCA for Peer Court. Item 27, Salt Lake County Community Resources and Development for $0; Item 28, South Valley Sanctuary for $0 and Item 29, Splore for $0 . Council Members were in favor of no funding for Items 27 thru 29 . Item 30, University Neighborhood Partnerships for $5, 000; Item 31, Utah Food Bank for $0; Item 32, Utah Health and Human Rights Project for $10, 000; Item 33 , Wasatch Community Gardens (Developing Sustainable Community Gardens) for $15, 000; Item 34 , Wasatch Community Gardens (Youth Gardening Program) for $5, 000; Item 35, Wasatch Homeless Health Care for $40, 000; Item 36, YMCA (After School and Summer Enrichment Program) for $10, 000 and Item 37, YWCA for $39, 000 . Council Members were in favor of funding Items 30 thru 37 . Councilmember Love suggested they round down the Road Home to $110, 000 giving $1, 000 more to Peer Court and take $2, 000 from Crossroads Urban Center to balance funding. A straw poll was taken with Council Members Christensen, Turner, Martin, Penfold and Garrott in favor. Councilmember Love asked for a straw poll on taking $1, 000 from the food pantries and making the adjustment to the Road Home to Peer Court. Council Members Christensen, Turner, Penfold, Garrott and Simonsen were in favor. Councilmember Love said next was PUBLIC SERVICE BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS: Item 1, Alliance House for $0; Item 2, And Justice for All for $0; Item 3, Asian Association of Utah for $93 , 000; Item 4 , Boys and Girls Clubs for $21, 741; Item 5, CAP Head Start Program for 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2011 $0; Item 6, Catholic Community Services for $15, 000; Item 7, Community Foundation for the Disabled/Columbus Community Center for $70, 000 and Item 8, Duel Immersion Academy for $0 . Council Members were in favor of the recommended funding for Items 1 thru 7 . Council Members wanted to take funding from 600 East for Item 8 at $6, 350 . Item 9, Emergency Repair Fund for $10, 000; Item 10, The Haven for $0; Item 11, Kostopolus Dream Foundation for $0; Item 12, Neighborhood House for $13, 400; Item 13, Odyssey House for $0; Item 14, Salt Lake School District for $0; Item 15, Salvation Army for $0; Item 16, University Neighborhood Partners for $75, 000 and Item 17, Wasatch Homeless Health Care for $0 . Council Members were in favor of recommended funding for Items 9 thru 17 . Councilmember Love said next was PLANNING: Item 1, Glendale Park Improvements for $50, 000; Item 2, Centro Civico Mexicano for $10, 000 and Item 3 , Census Data Extraction for $25, 000 . Council Members were in favor of funding Item 1 for $50, 000, approving Item 2 and flagging Item 3 . Councilmember Love said $30, 000 was recommended for PERCENT FOR ART. She said next was CITY ADMINISTRATION. Council Members were in favor of recommended funding. Councilmember Love said next was CONTINGENCY for $50, 000. Council Members were in favor. Councilmember Love said next was HOME: Item 1, CAP for $65, 000; Item 2, Community Development Corporation for $95, 000; Item 3, Community Development Corporation (Property Acquisition) for $0; Item 4, NeighborWorks for $369, 276; Item 5, The Road Home for $95, 000 (Council wanted to put in extra money) ; Item 6, City' s Match Money for $100, 000; Item 7, Housing and Neighborhood Development for $500, 000 and Item 8, Administration for $120, 731. Councilmember Love said next was HOPWA: Item 1, City Housing Authority for $125, 000; Item 2, County Housing Authority for $100, 000; Item 3, Project Based Assistance for the Wyndell for $20, 000; Item 4 , West Valley City for $36, 000; Item 5, Community Action Plan for $100, 000 and Utah AIDS. Council Members were in favor of recommended funding. Councilmember Love said next was EMERGENCY SHELTER GRANT FUNDING: Item 1, St. Mary' s Home for Men for $9, 000; Item 2, Weigand Day Center for $20, 000; Item 3, Community Action Plan (Emergency Rent and Deposit Assistance) for $14, 000; Item 4, Family Promise (Day Center for Homeless People) for $4, 000; Item 5, Odyssey House (Mothers With Their Children Program) for $7, 000; Item 6, The Road Home for $65, 000; Item 7, Valley Mental Health for $9, 000; Item 8, VOA (Homeless Youth Resource) for $23, 115; Item 9, YWCA for $28, 000 and Item 10, South Valley Sanctuary for $0 . Councilmember Love suggested YWCA be given 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2011 the additional $2, 000, Community Action Plan an additional $5, 000, raise VOA to the requested amount of $25, 000, fully fund the Odyssey House and St . Mary' s Home for Men, give Family Promise an additional $1, 000, $40, 000 for the Road Home and $20, 000 for Valley Mental Health. All Council Members were in favor. #3 . 4 :50 : 15 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE MAYORS' RECOMMENDED BUDGET RELATING TO THE DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . View Attachments Maureen Riley, Russell Weeks, Jay Bingham and Janine Christiansen briefed the Council from the attached handouts and a power point presentation. #4. 5: 16: 05 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 163 WEST 1700 SOUTH FROM COMMERCIAL BUSINESS (CB) TO COMMERCIAL GENERAL (CG) PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. PLNPCM2010-00561. THIS WOULD ALLOW EXPANSION OF AN EXISTING CERAMICS MANUFACTURING BUSINESS. (PETITIONER JEREMY NEFF) View Attachments Maryann Pickering and Joel Paterson briefed the Council from the attached handouts . #5. 5:18 :37 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING ON THE PREPARATIONS AND FORECAST FOR SPRING RUNOFF CONDITIONS, INCLUDING THE STATUS OF SOME GROUNDWATER INTRUSION OCCURRENCES. Jeffry Niermeyer and Tom Tabish briefed the Council from a power point presentation. #6. 5: 52 : 17 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING ORDINANCES, SCHEDULED FOR CONSIDERATION THIS EVENING, CHANGING THE CITY'S ZONING REGULATIONS RELATING TO: View Attachments • URBAN FARMS, COMMUNITY GARDENS, SEASONAL FARM STANDS; • GREENHOUSES, COLD FRAMES AND HOOP HOUSES FOR GARDENING; AND • RENEWABLE ENERGY GENERATION SYSTEMS SUCH AS SOLAR PANELS, SOLAR ARRAYS AND WIND TURBINES OR WINDMILLS. Related provisions of Title 21A, Zoning, may also be amended as part of this petition. Petitioner - Mayor Ralph Becker, (Sustainable City Code Initiative) Petition Nos . PLNPCM2010-01337 and PLNPCM2010- 01338 . Casey Stewart, Ray Milliner, Joel Paterson, Janice Jardine, Rick Graham and Ed Rutan briefed the Council from the attached handouts . 11 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2011 Council Members were in favor of removing wind turbines from open space zones in the proposed ordinance and addressing the issue at a later date. Council Members were in favor of taking out open spaces and doing more research. A majority of Council Members were in favor of leaving in residential zones . Council Members were in favor of food sampling but not food preparation. Council Members were in favor of drafting legislative intent to look at demolitions in a broader scope in the future. #7 . RECEIVE A BRIEFINC RECARDINC THE MAYOR'S PROPOSED OPERATING BUDGET FOR THE COLF FUND FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 2012 . #8. 8: 14 : 54 PM CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION, IN KEEPING WITH UTAH CODE § 52-4-2 04, FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (b) ; b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (d) ; c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (c) ; d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; e) FOR ATTORNEY- CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78B-1-137, AND f) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS DEPLOYMENT OF SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE SECTION 52-4-205 (1) (f) . Councilmember Christensen moved and Councilmember Penfold seconded to enter into Closed Session. A roll call vote was taken with Council Members Christensen, Turner, Penfold, Garrott, Martin, Simonsen and Love voting aye. The meeting adjourned at 6 :45 p.m. COUNCIL CHAIR 11 - 6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, APRIL 26, 2011 T RE This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held April 26, 2011 . bj CITyN�+ b $ 11 - 7 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT r April 5,2011 CDBG/ESG/HOMF/HOPWA Briefing OUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide RT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director Karen Halladay,Budget and Policy Analyst TI VE DEFT. Housing and Neighborhood Development AND CONTACT PERSON: LuAnn Clark OPTIONS—ALLOCATION OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT GRANT BLOCK(CDGB)FUNDS Salt Lake City has not received notification from US Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD) regarding the CDBG allocation for fiscal year 2012. Although the amount of the allocation is unknown,the deadline for the Council's decisions regarding the City's One-Year Action Plan for CDBG,Emergency Shelter Grant(ESG),HOME Investment Partnerships Program(HOME),and Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS(HOPWA)funds is the April 26th Council Meeting. The Council received recommendations from the Mayor on March 1st,and held a public hearing on March 22^d to receive public input.Staff has forwarded all correspondence and comments to Council Members that the office received,and has also included written 'mments that have been received since the Council's public hearing. Given the uncertainty of total funding award,the Council may wish to consider the below options when allocating CDBG funds this fiscal year. In general,the Council may want to make allocations tentative until the actual grant amount is known. Estimated Council Considerations Allocation Option 1-No $4,421,626 •Allocate$4,421,626 on a tentative basis subject to the amount of Reduction/Tentative funding actually received by the City. (May require a follow-up Allocation discussion once funds are actually received.) •Instruct all street design,street construction,sidewalks,parks, planning,and public service building improvement projects to hold off on spending funds until final federal allocation is known. •Identify City or capital projects that are typically more stand-alone and one-time in nature,and could be funded in future years. Option 2-10%Reduction in $3,979,463 •Allocate$3,979,463 on a tentative basis subject to the amount of the Tentative Allocation funding actually received by the City.(May require a follow-up (Mayor's Recommendation) discussion once funds are actually received.) •Instruct all street design,street construction,sidewalks,parks, planning,and public service building improvement projects to hold off on making plans to use resources until final federal allocation is known. 0...Option 3-25%Reduction in $3,316,219 •Allocate$3,316,219 on a tentative basis subject to the amount of 1e Tentative Allocation funding actually received by the City.(May require a follow-up (Mayor's Recommendation) discussion once funds are actually received.) •If the cut is less than 25%,the Council could reconvene later in the year to allocate remaining funds. Page 1 •Instruct all street design,street construction,sidewalks,parks, planning,and public service building improvement projects to hold off on making plans to use resources until final federal allocation is known. Option 4-50%Reduction $2,210,813 •Allocate$2,210,813 on a tentative basis subject to the amount of funding actually received by the City. (May require a follow-up discussion once funds are actually received.) •If the cut is less than 50%,the Council could reconvene later in the year to allocate remaining funds or could allocate funds now on a tentative basis. •Instruct all street design,street construction,sidewalks,parks, planning,and public service building improvement projects to hold off on spending funds until final federal allocation is known. Option 5-Establish Funding •Establish funding tiers and allocate funds from worst case to best Tiers Based on Various case scenario. Scenarios •Staff Note: Because the tiers are somewhat arbitrary;one approach to resolve this is to delineate the tiers at the funding levels listed in the above options-50%,25%or 10%. The Council may wish to identify its funding priorities and make tentative adjustments to the Mayor's recommendation if the Council's priorities are different than those recommended by the Mayor. The Council received recommendations from the Mayor,and held a public hearing to receive public input. KEY ELEMENTS On Tuesday,March 1,2011,the Mayor presented recommended budgets for the use of the fiscal year 2011-12 federally allocated Community Development Block Grant(CDBG),Emergency Shelter Grant(ESG),HOME r� Investment Partnerships Program(HOME),and Housing Opportunities for People with AIDS(HOPWA). The exact amount of funding was not known at the time of the Mayor's presentation;it remains unknown at the time of this staff report. Federal government officials have proposed HUD reductions,including CDBG,as a way to reduce the federal budget deficit. As a result of the uncertainty,the Mayor presented three possibilities: 1)no reduction to the CDBG allocation-$4,421,626,2)a ten(10)percent reduction to the CDBG allocation-$3,979,463,and 3)a twenty-five(25)percent reduction to the CDBG allocation-$3,316,219. In addition to the above amounts,an additional$330,084 is available for recapture. The Mayor's recommendations do reallocate recaptured funds to other projects. A summary of the options,FY 2012 Possible CDBG Grant Scenarios Table,can be found in the Analysis of FY 2012 Funding Recommendations section of this report. Council Members have a copy of the Mayor's recommendations,including project descriptions and details, funding requests by organization,the funding level recommended by the Community Development Capital Improvement Project Advisory Board(CDCIP)or Housing Trust Fund Board,and the Mayor's recommended funding level based on the full and reduced HUD allocations. Five-Year Consolidated Plan(2010-2015)-Last year,the Administration prepared a new Five-Year Consolidated Plan and Citizen Participation Plan. HUD requires these plans to be updated every five years. The plan establishes goals,objectives and strategies that Salt Lake City(HAND)will use to administer the HUD grant programs,as well as identifying target areas. The Administration updated the plan with input from local nonprofits,residents,and other City departments. The updated plan included many of the same goals and strategies as the last version of the plan,with two additions. Parks goals were expanded to include Trails,and energy efficiency projects were added as a goal in the Housing category. ,-1 Page 2 POLICY CONSIDERATIONS , he City Council has the following policies with respect to the CDBG,ESG,HOME,and HOPWA programs. The Council may wish to reevaluate its policies to reaffirm or revise them. 1. The Council will not consider awarding CDBG,ESG.,HOME or HOPWA funding to any organization unless an application for funding was received. This allows the City to meet federal requirements that all programs/projects funded are the subject of a public participation process. 2. Due to limitations of future CDBG funds by the federal government,it is the intent of the City Council that administrative and operational support not be increased for existing programs and not be provided to new programs absent extenuating circumstances. New funding requests and programs are identified as such in the "Previous Grants"column of the Council's log books. 3. It is the intent of the City Council to only consider CDBG-eligible projects and programs located within the City's jurisdictional limits for funding. Exceptions have been made in the past for organizations that are located outside Salt Lake City boundaries,but provide services to residents of the City. During prior-year briefings on the Council's CDBG,ESG,HOME and HOPWA policies,Council Members raised several policy issues. 1. During the FY 2007 budget process the Council expressed an interest in giving priority to projects that have been identified for CDBG funding in the 10-Year Capital Improvement Plan that had been recently adopted. This statement could be added to the other policy statements.There are multiple instances of projects that have been generally identified in the CIP 10-Year plan. These are identified starting on Page 11 of this report. The plan is scheduled to be updated again in 2011. Council Members had expressed a concern that CDBG projects are funded for design,but never get funded for construction. Aside from two street design requests (neither recommended to be funded),three planning requests (two recommended to be funded),the Public Services category,and the Administration category,all of the CDBG funding requests are for"bricks and mortar" construction/renovation projects. 3. Council Members expressed an interest in knowing what percentage of the recommended budget was allocated to administration or operating costs,versus one-time"bricks and mortar" or capital projects. By CDBG statute,no more than 15% of the grant allocation,can go towards the"Public Service" category (for salaries and administration activities of non-profits serving the SLC community). In FY 2012's funding recommendation,the Administration has recommended allocating 13.7%towards this category(this assumes a 10%cut funding scenario. In the 25%cut funding scenario, the recommended allocation reaches the 15%cap). Other non-bricks-and-mortar categories include Administration,Contingency, Street Design,and some Housing. A total of 19%of the funding allocation is going towards these other categories (in the 10% cut funding scenario. In the 25%cut funding scenario,22%is recommended for these categories). 4. Council Members raised some questions about CDBG allocations being used to fund projects submitted by City departments rather than from community or neighborhood groups. There is no requirement or restriction from HUD regarding the allocation of CDBG dollars to projects initiated by the administering agency. CDBG funding could be considered a way to augment the City resources in order to accomplish community goals and objectives. A Council Member has noted that other municipalities in Utah have used their CDBG allocation to pay for projects and administrative costs that can otherwise be funded by municipal general funds. The Council may wish to note that if the grant award from the federal government has a cut greater than 25%, the "Administration"category would need to be cut in order to keep it within the 20% Cmaximum. 5. Council Members asked whether the Council could commit multi-year funding in order to finance large projects. While a current Council cannot legally bind a future Council by appropriating future CDBG allocations (and because annual CDBG allocations are dependent on the Federal budget),the Council has Page 3 some tools with which to plan for the financing of major projects. First,the Council can indicate its intent, which is not binding,to fund a project over a period of years. The Council did this in 1998 and 1999 with the construction of the Central City Senior Center,funding half of the project in 1998 and half of the project in 1999. The City simply"holds"the first allocation until the entire budget is appropriated for construction. Second,the Council can utilize Section 108 loans to fund large CDBG-eligible projects. A Section 108 loan is similar to Motor Fuel Excise Tax(MFET)bonding,in that it borrows against future CDBG allocations,like the City has borrowed against future Class C allocations. The City must be able to prove that the City could finance the project and pay back the loan in the event that future CDBG funding became limited. The Council and Administration utilized this funding mechanism in 1989 in order to purchase a property (the Canterbury Apartments)for the non-profit arm of the Salt Lake City Housing Authority,as they were at risk of defaulting on some bonds,which they used to purchase some rental properties. The purchase of the building was deemed to be in keeping with the community development and housing objectives of the CDBG program. In this instance,the City borrowed against a portion of 5 years of future CDBG funding, purchased the Canterbury and financed repairs at the Ben Albert Apartments.The rents from the Canterbury and CDBG funds were used to pay off the Section 108 loan. The properties have now been deeded by the City to the Housing Authority. The City made this policy decision for two purposes:1)to contribute to community housing development; and 2)to solidify the Housing Authority's bond situation,since to default would have reflected negatively on the City's bonding ability. ANALYSIS OF FY 2012 FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS The following information is a brief summary of the proposed 37th Year CDBG,ESG,HOME,and HOPWA budgets(Fiscal Year 2011-12). The summary includes an analysis of the recommended budgets and indicates° where the proposed budgets differ from previous budgets or may not be consistent with previous policy directives adopted by the Council. Council staff has attached the recommendations that were provided during the Mayor's address,as well as a comprehensive description of each project that applied for funding. Community Development Block Grant Program- The Administration received applications for$8,846,220 in 37th Year CDBG funding(down from$7,797,850 in the 36th year). HUD awarded Salt Lake City$4,078,388 in Fiscal Year 2010-11,slightly more than last fiscal year. The Administration is proposing to augment HUD's award with$330,084 in funding reallocated from prior years. Due to the uncertainty of the HUD allocation for the 2011-12 year,the Mayor presented three funding scenarios for the Council's consideration. The first scenario assumes that CDBG estimated funding will not be reduced. The second scenario assumes a reduction of ten(10)percent. The third scenario is based on a twenty-five(25)percent reduction. There is a$1.1 million dollar difference between the no reduction scenario and the twenty-five(25%)reduction in funding. This year,the Mayor's CDBG recommendations are presented for each of these possibilities. The total budget is likely to be between$4.8 million and$3.6 million. Depending on the amount of CDBG funding allocated to Salt Lake City,between forty-one(41)percent and fifty-four(54)percent of funding requested will be met. In addition to the Mayor's recommendations,the Council may want to study and consider other possibilities. Page 4 Table -FY 2012 Possible CDBG Grant Scenarios (based on possible federal budget reductions) Scenario Estimate Amount of Grant Reallocated Total Percent of Funding Award (Includes Prior Funds Total Requests Estimate CDBG and Available Funding Stimulus Funds) Request (Amounts) Met _ 100%(No Cut) $8,846,220 $4,421,626 $330,084 $4,751,710 54% _ 10%Reduction Scenario $8,846,220 $3,979,463 $330,084 $4,309,547 49% 25%Reduction Scenario $8,846,220 $3,316,219 $330,084 $3,646,303 41% 50% Reduction Scenario $8,846,220 $2,210,813 $330,084 $2,540,897 29% Table-CDBG Funding Awarded and Allocated Over the Past Fifteen Years Years in Fiscal Year Grant Award Reallocated Total Program Funds 37 FY 2012 Unknown $330,084 Unknown 36 FY 2011 $4,078,388 $718,225 $4,796,613 35 FY 2010 $4,045,953 $521,759 $4,567,712 34 FY 2009 $4,045,953 $563,192 $4,609,145 33 FY 2008 $4,211,888 $518,468 $4,730,356 32 FY 2007 $4,207,623 $523,361 $4,730,984 31 FY 2006 $4,649,907 $378,138 $5,028,045 30 FY 2005 $4,891,000 $400,000 $5,291,000 29 FY 2004 $4,937,000 $198,465 $5,135,465 28 FY 2003 $4,854,000 $163,800 $5,017,800 27 FY 2002 $5,031,000 $300,000 $5,331,000 26 FY 2001 $4,791,000 $249,279 $5,040,279 25 FY 2000 $4,840,000 $150,000 $4,990,000 24 FY 1999 $4,810,000 $4,810,000 23 FY 1998 $4,999,000 $220,000 $5,219,000 22 FY 1997 $5,145,000 $5,145,000 Table — CDBG Historic Funding Levels (Amount Awarded from HUD) CDBG Historic Funding Levels (amount awarded from HUD) ::':::'::: —.....a....u.. $4,000,000 I II Iflh1fll Ilil IF1flNN •U $3,000,000 I II II II II II II II II II II 111111 II $2,Ooo,o00 III II II II II II II II II II II II II II $ ,000,000 11111111111 1111111111 II II 11 II I $ II II ii ii U iii un H iii u I -leap --lit -lea{ -eat 4.eat .Aeat -lest -e _lea{ -l°t yeas -leaf -le."-, -ea, -leas ZCs titi�a el?) lYf 14;) tib�r `1) el5' tic `5°�r `'~ems ^bl�b ^P '?' "�`'�,c 4) Page 5 The CDBG budget is divided into the major categories.A comparison of overall requests and proposed funding for each category is as follows(note that the Mayor has recommended two funding scenarios-one assuming a 10%cut and one assuming a 25%cut): Funding Summary by Category-CDBG Allocation-FY 11-12 Mayor Mayor(10%cut %af Mayor(25% %of Request CDCIP scenario) total scenario) total Housing $1,300,000 $1,220,000 $1,220,000 29% $1,120,000 32% Street Design 82,000 - - o% - o% Street Construction 646,000 425,673 342,300 8% 309,825 9% Sidewalks 400,000 200,000 150,000 4% 150,000 4% Parks 3,116,010 944,900 847,100 20% 407,100 12% Pubic Services 957,299 605,000 555,500 13% 523,500 15% Public Service Building Improvements 1,425,265 444,491 344,491 8% 228,141 6% Planning 100,000 90,000 40,000 1% 30,000 1% Percent for Art 3,000 5,000 30,000 t% 30,000 t% City Administration 680,471 680,471 660,471 16% 660,471 19% Contingency - - 50,000 I% 51,091 1% I Total Recommended $8,710,045 $4,615,535 $4,239,862 $3,510,128 'CDCIP-Community Development and Capital Improvement Projects Citizen Advisory Board Mayor's Funding Recommdation Breakdown by Category Presented for 10%Reduction Scenario FY 2011-12 Public Service Pudding Public Services Improvements Planning anning 1% Parks 20% Percent for Art 1% City Administration 16% Sidewalks 4% Street Construction 8% Contingency 1% Street Design 0% Housing 29% The following sections detail the major categories,including any differing recommendations between the Mayor and CDCIP board. Page 6 • Housing The City received five applications for 37th Year CDBG Housing funding in the amount of$1,300,000. The below table presents the Mayor's recommended allocation for housing,and includes any item(s) where znding level varies between the Mayor's recommendations or the CDCIP Board's recommendations. Item Applicant Name Request CDCIP Board Mayor— Mayor— # Project Name Recommendation 10% 25% Scenario Scenario Total Housing Category $1,300,000 $1,220,000 $1,220,000 $1,120,000 Items where funding recommendations differed: 3 Housing and Neighborhood $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 $0 Development Division Street Design Two applications were received for street design projects for a total amount of$82,000. The CDCIP Board and Administration did not recommend funding for either the Glendale Street Reconstruction ($32,000) or the Kensington and Roosevelt Avenues ($50,000) street design projects. Street Construction The City received two applications totaling$646,000 for this category,which funds street improvements in CDBG-eligible areas. The CDCIP Board and Mayor recommend funding of$246,000 for the Glendale Street Reconstruction project (Navajo Street from Glendale Drive to 1300 South). The below table presents the Mayor's recommended allocation for Street Construction,and includes any item(s) where funding level varies. Item Applicant Name Request CDCIP Board Mayor— Mayor— # Project Name Recommendation 10%Scenario 25%Scenario Total Street $646,000 $425,673 $315,810 $309,825 Construction Category Items where funding recommendations differed: 1 ADA Accessibility $400,000 $179,673 $69,810 $63,825 Ramps The 10-Year CIP plan contemplates an estimated$2,000,000 per year (from CIP general fund dollars) for local street reconstruction-for non-specified local streets. Engineering submits funding requests for both CIP and CDBG processes in order of need. The Mayor's total amount recommended for Street Construction is$315,810 (in the 10% cut scenario. In the 25% cut scenario, the Mayor recommends $309,000). Sidewalks The CIP 10-Year Plan calls for$900,000 per year in sidewalk replacement(to be matched with$700,000 per year in Special Improvement District funds). There is one application from City Engineering for CDBG- funded general sidewalk replacement. Item Applicant Name Request CDCIP Board Mayor—10% Mayor—25% Project Name Recommendation Scenario Scenario Total Sidewalk Category $400,000 $200,000 $150,000 $150,000 Items where funding recommendations differed: 1 Sidewalk Replacement $400,000 $200,000 $150,000 $150,000 Program irks Where are eleven requests for the park category funding,for a total amount requested of$3,116,010. The CDCIP Board and the Mayor recommend$300,000 in funding for the Jordan River Parkway Trailhead at 1000 Page 7 North. The below table presents the Mayor's recommended allocation for Parks,and includes any item(s) where funding level varies. Item Applicant Name Request CDCIP Board Mayor— Mayor— # Project Name Recommendation 10%Scenario 25%Scenario Total Parks Category $3,116,010 $944,900 $847,100 $407,100 Items where funding recommendations differed: 1 Cottonwood Park Sprinkler I $440,000 $440,000 $440,000 $0 Irrigation System 4 Fifth Avenue and"C"Street $598,000 $0 $67,100 $67,100 NEW Tennis Courts(Design and Engineering Fees) 7 600 East Island Irrigation $204,900 $204,900 $40,000 $40,000 NEW System Rebuild and Central Control Public Services The Administration received applications for$957,299 this fiscal year from thirty-seven organizations. According to HUD guidelines,the maximum amount that can be spent per year on public services expenses is 15%of the total award,plus program income. The Mayor's recommended allocation of$555,500 is just under the allowable cap of 15%(13.7%),in the 10%cut funding scenario. In the 25%cut funding scenario,the Mayor's recommendation of$523,500 reaches the 15%cap.The Council cannot exceed the 15%cap,and if the grant award was finalized much lower than 25%,the Council would be required to cut funding from that category regardless of balancing expenditures overall. The"Public Services"category includes requests from agencies and organizations for operational or administrative support for programs that provide community services. While federal Community Development Block Grant regulations allow a certain amount of funds to be spent for the expansion and improvement of community services,the original intent of the program was to revitalize neighborhoods. Past Councils have maintained a policy not to increase administrative or operational funding for existing programs or to grant operational funding for new programs absent extenuating circumstances.This decision has been in consideration of the programs original intent and in light of limited CDBG funding from the federal government. In a few instances,the Mayor and CDCIP have recommended that agencies receive increased operational and administrative funding,and have indicated that these recommendations were based on extenuating circumstances. The Council may wish to note that cost of living or inflationary increases have not been considered into CDBG funding allocations within recent years. The below table presents the Mayor's recommended allocation for Public Services,and includes any item(s)where funding level varies. Item Applicant Name Request CDCIP Board Mayor— Mayor— # Project Name Recommendation 10%Scenario 25%Scenario Total Public Services $957,299 $605,000 $555,500 $523,500 Items where funding recommendations differed: 4 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 Community-based Mentoring Program 5 Boys and Girls Clubs of GSL $38,864 $20,000 $20,000 $18,000 Capital West Club Page 8 Continued: Item Applicant Name Request CDCIP Board Mayor- Mayor- # Project Name Recommendation 10%Scenario 25%Scenario Total Public Services $957,299 $605,000 $555,500 $523,500 Items where funding recommendations differed: 6 Boys and Girls Clubs of GSL $31,169 $15,000 $15,000 $13,000 • Youth With a Voice • Lied • Sugar House • Capital West 9 Children's Service Society $50,815 $25,000 $20,000 $20,000 Parents as Teachers Program 10 Community Action Program $30,000 $30,000 $20,000 $20,000 Housing Outreach Rental Program 11 Community Action Program $25,000 $25,000 $25,000 $23,000 Northwest Neighborhood Center Food Pantry 12 Community Action Program $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $5,000 Home Tenant Maintenance Project 13 Community Health Centers $75,000 $75,000 $65,000 $63,000 Healthcare Program 14 Crossroads Urban Center $16,500 $16,500 $16,500 $14,500 Emergency Food Pantry 15 Donated Dental $30,000 $30,000 $30,000 $28,000 Community Dental Project 16 English Skills Learning Center $28,000 $10,000 $7,000 $7,000 English Language Instruction 17 Family Support Center $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 $8,000 Crisis Nursery 19 Indian Walk-In Center $29,900 $5,000 $0 $0 NEW Food Pantry 22 Legal Aid Society of Salt Lake $15,000 $10,000 $10,000 $8,000 24 Peer Court $5,000 $5,000 $0 $0 25 Rape Recovery Center $40,000 $35,000 $35,000 $33,000 Sexual Assault Crisis Intervention Services 26 The Road Home $126,000 $120,000 $112,000 $110,000 Community Shelter Services 30 University Neighborhood $8,320 $5,000 $5,000 $5,000 Partnerships Hartland Partnership Center 31 Utah Food Bank $6,500 $6,500 $0 $0 NEW Senior Food Box Program 32 UT Health and Human Rights $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $9,000 Project Case Management and Administrative Support 33 Wasatch Community Gardens $40,800 $0 $15,000 $15,000 Developing Sustainable Community Gardens 35 Wasatch Homeless Health Care $46,668 $40,000 $40,000 $35,000 Fourth Street Clinic Outreach 36 YMCA $10,000 $10,000 $10,000 $9,000 After School and Summer Enrichment Program 37 YWCA $50,000 $47,000 $40,000 $40,000 Page 9 Public Services Building Improvements The Administration received seventeen applications for Public Services Building Improvements totaling $1,425,265. Item Applicant Name Request CDCIP Board Mayor- Mayor- # Project Name Recommendation 10%Scenario 25%Scenario Total Public Services Building $1,425,265 $444,491 $304,491 $228,141 Improvement Category Items where funding recommendations differed: 7 Community Foundation for the $89,488 $70,000 $70,000 $0 Disabled/Columbus Community Center 8 Dual immersion Academy $6,350 $6,350 $6,350 $0 NEW 13 Odyssey House $40,000 $40,000 $0 $0 Women and Children's Center 16 University Neighborhood Partners $125,000 $125,000 $75,000 $75,000 NEW Note: Last year,the Council allocated$233,732 towards the Salt Lake City School District(SLCSD)- Community Learning Center. This year,neither the CDCIP nor the Mayor have recommended funding of the additional$500,000 requested by the SLCSD. ' Planning Three applications for$100,000 were submitted for CDBG funding consideration within this category. The below table presents the Mayor's recommended allocation for Planning,and includes any item(s)where funding level varies. Item Applicant Name Request CDCIP Board Mayor- Mayor- # Project Name Recommendation 10%Scenario 25% Scenario Total Planning Category $100,000 $90,000 $40,000 $30,000 Items where funding recommendations differed: 1 Glendale Park Improvements $50,000 $50,000 $0 $0 NEW 2 Centro Civico Mexicano $10,000 $0 $10,000 $5,000 NEW _ 3 Census Data Extraction $40,000 $40,000 $30,000 $25,000 NEW a Percent for Art The percent for art budget requested was$3,000. The Mayor recommended increasing this to$30,000 under both of the reduced funding scenarios,while the CDCIP board recommended$5,000. Last year's allocation was$25,000. Administration For City Administration requests,CDCIP recommended$680,471,the total amount of the request. The Mayor under both reduction scenarios recommended$20,000 less for a total allocation of$660,471. The Council may wish to note that this line item has remained at this level for a number of years. Page 10 Contingency Each year the CDBG budget includes a line item for project contingency. This is to provide funding for projects that are less than 10% over budget. If the contingency budget runs out, the Administration has the pi-ion of returning to the Council for an additional appropriation. The contingency allocation for FY 2012 is recommended by the Mayor to be roughly$50,000 . The CDCIP Board did not recommend funding the contingency. Last year the Council allocated$60,000. ►The Council may wish to ask the Administration about the current construction cost environment. CIP 10-Year Plan Projects The following are projects identified in the CIP 10-Year Plan that are have funding requests for the current year's CDBG cycle: 1. ADA Physical Access Ramps-$400,000 requested (Street Construction, #1).The 10-Year Plan recommends$400,000 per year to address this issue. However it lists the funding source as "General Fund" (meaning CIP) and not CDBG. Both CDCIP and the Mayor recommended funding this request. The Mayor has recommended$69,810/$63,825 (10%cut/25%cut) while CDCIP has recommended $179,673. 2. Street Reconstruction-$246,000 requested (Street Construction, #2). Though the 10-Year Plan does not identify Navajo Street specifically,it does recommend$2 million per year in"Local Street Reconstruction," from CIP or CDBG sources. Both CDCIP and the Mayor recommended full funding of#2 (Navajo Street from Glendale o 1300 South-$246,000). The typical amount allocated in the CIP budget for Street Reconstruction is$1,000,000, although the Administration has not yet made their FY 2012 CIP funding recommendations. 3. $400,000- Sidewalk Replacement Program (Sidewalks, #1) -The 10-Year plan recommends$900,000 per year from"General Fund" to address Deteriorated Sidewalk Replacement. The request from SLC Engineering was for$400,000. The Mayor has recommended$150,000 (regardless of cut scenario)while CDCIP has recommended$200,000. Historically CDBG has funded this category in the amount of $300,000 on average, although it has been less for the last two years. 4. $440,000 request for irrigation at Cottonwood Park- Irrigation Automation City-wide (Parks#1). The 10-Year Plan calls for$250,000 every other year to centralize and automate irrigation city-wide in City Parks ($1.35 million total from CDBG,$1.55 million from General Fund CIP). Cottonwood Park is not specifically referenced. The Mayor and CDCIP Board both recommended full funding of this request, although the Mayor recommended not funding this project in the 25% cut scenario. 5. $300,000-Jordan River Parkway Trailhead at 1000 North (Parks#2). The 10-Year Plan recommends "TBD" Trail Improvements and Enhancements in the amount of$250,000 every other year. The Mayor and CDCIP Board recommended funding this request in full. 6. $623,750 request for Westpointe Park- ADA Playground Improvements (Parks#5). The 10-Year Plan recommends funding of$100,000 every other year (from the General Fund,not necessarily CDBG) to complete ADA improvements in various parks. Westpointe Park is not specifically referenced. Neither the Mayor nor CDCIP Board recommended funding this project. 7. $598,100 request for Fifth Avenue and C Street Tennis Courts/$228,300 request for Fire Station Tennis Courts-273 North 1000 West-Tennis Courts Improvements (Parks#4 and #6). The 10-Year Plan recommends funding of$200,000 from CDBG, every other year starting in FY 2012,for rebuilding and replacing"to be determined" tennis courts in CDBG eligible areas. The Plan also calls for the general fund CIP to allocate$100,000 every other year for this purpose. The Fifth Avenue courts are specifically referenced in the Plan to be paid for with general fund dollars in FY 2015, although the amount in the plan ($150,000) falls short of what is needed. The Mayor recommend funding for design and engineering of the Fifth Avenue Courts project($67,100), although the CDCIP Board did not. Page 11 Neither the Mayor nor the CDCIP Board recommended funding for the Fire Station Tennis Courts located at 273 North 1000 West. 8. $12,000 request for Jordan Park dog off-leash area-Dog Off Lease Parks-(Parks#10)-The 10-Year Plan calls for$50,000 in FY 2012 to make improvements to existing parks to allow for dog off-leash areas. Neither the Mayor nor CDCIP Board recommended funding this request. 9. $350,000 request for restrooms at the Glendale Tennis Complex-Parks Restrooms Improvements (Parks#11). The CIP 10-Year Plan calls for$180,000 every other year in the last five years of the plans - go towards"to be determined"new and upgraded restroom facilities in City parks. The Glendale Tennis Complex is not specifically referenced. Neither the Mayor nor the CDCIP Board recommended funding this request. Emergency Shelter Grant Program(ESG)- This program is designed to improve the quality of existing emergency homeless shelters,make available additional emergency shelters,meet the costs of shelter operation and provide certain essential social services to the homeless. The Administration received ten applications for a total of$385,000 in ESG funding. The City estimates that it will receive$179,115 from the Federal Department of Housing and Urban Development this year. Total funding for past eleven years is as follows: Year Allocation Reallocated Total FY2011 $180,140 $11,858 $191,998 FY 2010 $180,140 $3,433' $183,573' FY2009 $181,475 $4,450' $185,925' FY 2008 $181,475 - $181,475 FY 2007 $178,855 - $178,855 FY 2006 $178,884 - $178,884 FY 2005 $180,593 - $180,593 FY 2004 $166,000 - $166,000 FY 2003 $171,000 - $171,000 FY 2002 $169,000 - $169,000 FY 2001 $171,000 - $171,000 FY 2000 $172,000 - $172,000 FY 1999 $191,000 - $191,000 Rounded A limited number of agencies in Salt Lake City operate programs that are eligible for ESC'funding. Both CDCIP Board and the Mayor recommended funding for all applicants except the South Valley Sanctuary(a new applicant to the program). The Mayor recommended less funding than the CDCIP Board did across the board because by the time the Mayor reviewed the applications,the City realized that it would receive about $12,000 less money than originally thought. The Administration and staff can brief the Council on the programs and the intended uses of the funds during the work session. Home Investment Partnerships Program(HOME)- The purpose of the HOME program is to provide funding for the expansion of decent,safe,sanitary and affordable housing for very low-income people. Total HOME funding over the past years is as follows: Year Allocation Reallocated Total FY 2011 $1,376,867 $440,042 $1,816,303 FY 2010 $1,236,465 $500,772 $1,737,237 FY 2009 $1,236,403 $600,000 $1,836,403 FY2008 $1,273,714 5361,536 $1,641,310 Page 12 FY 2007 $1,292,136 $370,000 $1,662,136 FY 2006 $1,373,848 $14,015 $1,387,863 FY 2005 $1,455,036 - $1,455,036 FY 2004 $1,453,020 - $1,453,020 FY 2003 $1,354,000 - $1,354,000 FY 2002 $1,350,000 - $1,350,000 FY 2001 $1,215,000 - $1,215,000 FY 2000 $1,209,000 $151,800 $1,360,800 FY 1999 $1,122,000 - $1,122,000 FY 1998 $1,046,000 - $1,046,000 FY 1997 $1,071,000 - $1,071,000 FY 1996 $1,048,000 - $1,048,000 The City received HOME applications totaling$2,367,195 from eight agencies. The City will hopes to receive $1,234,751 from HUD this year in HOME funds,to combine with$113,000 in reallocated funds,for a total funding amount available of$1,347,751 (almost$500,000 decrease from last year's funding cycle). The Mayor and Housing Trust Fund Board recommended funding for all applicants except for Salt Lake CDC (#3). When the Housing Trust Fund Board reviewed the applications,the grant award was expected to be higher. To accommodate the unexpected budget cut,the Mayor's recommendations reflect across the board slight cuts in recommendations,rather than focusing the full cut on one entity. The Administration and staff can brief the Council on the programs and the intended uses of the funds, during the work session. Housing Opportunities for Persons with AIDS (HOPWA) - The purpose of the HOPWA program is to provide housing assistance and supportive services for low-income persons with HIV/AIDS and their families. The HOPWA Grant program provides assistance through formula allocations to eligible States and metropolitan areas. The Salt Lake City/Ogden Metropolitan Statistical Area 'MSA) has qualified to receive funding from year 2005-06 due to the number of HIV/AIDS cases in the MSA, ith two counties added this year,Tooele and Summit. The grant amount this year is$387,189,combined with an additional$13,224 in available funds,for a total of$400,413. The City participates on a Statewide HIV/AIDS Housing Steering Committee to ensure all applications are consistent with the needs identified in the strategy for the MSA. The Steering Committee updated the State HIV/AIDS housing Plan in June 2001,with revisions planned for this year. The City has also met with all entities within the MSA to coordinate their recommendations and determine the services needed in their areas, as well as how best to perform community outreach. There were eight requests for$538,838 in funding. The Board and the Mayor concurred on all funding recommendations for a total of$400,413. The Board and Mayor also made recommendations for what options to pursue if the funding is less than anticipated (hold the Utah AIDS Foundation at a funding level of$9,413,and spread the rest of the cut proportionally among the remaining entities). American Dream Downpayment Initiative (ADDI) - A former program,the American Dream Down payment Initiative (ADDI) has been eliminated. Funds typically awarded were rolled into the HOME allocation. This federal program, ADDI,was new in 2004. The Obama Administration decided to roll the ADDI funds into HOME funds,as the HOME program allows for the same types of uses as ADDI does, and communities can still allocate these funds towards downpayment assistance and homeownership. BACKGROUND The annual appropriations of CDBG, ESG, HOME,and HOPWA are distributed to Salt Lake City by the U.S. epartment of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). In 1995,Salt Lake City submitted a five-year consolidated plan for the CDBG, ESG and HOME programs,which defined how Salt Lake City planned to use its housing and community development resources to meet policy objectives. Each year thereafter,the Mayor Page 13 proposed a one-year action plan,or budget for these programs. The City Council then made the changes deemed necessary and finalized the one-year action plan for submission to the U.S.Department of Housing and Urban Development(HUD). In FY2000-01,FY 2005-06,and again in FY 2010-11,a new five-year consolidated plan was prepared by the Ci • and adopted by the Council for submission to HUD,in addition to the one-year budget for each program. Th: Consolidated Plan is available for review by Council Members. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Frank Gray,Mary De La Mare Schaefer,Luann Clark,Sandi Marler,Sherri Collins,Lehua Weaver,Sylvia Richards,Gina Chamness and Gordon Hoskins • Page 14 ,mount Remaining for Council to appropriate (10%cut scenario) $ 4,309,547 (16.2%cut scenario) $ 4,035,407 (25%cut scenario) $ 3,646,304 APPLICANT NAME PROJECT DESCRIPTION PREY.GRANTS RECOMMENDATIONS PROJECT NAME YEAR I AMOUNT REQUEST CDCIP I MAYOR to%I MAYOR 28% MAYOR 18.2 COUNCIL HOUSING 1 ASSIST Inc Salaries,operational support and rehab.funds 36th 350.000 350,000 350,000 350,000 350,800 350,000 Mr a program that provides emergency home 35th 350,000 Emergency Home Repair and repair and accessibility design to eligible low 34th 350,000 Accessibility 8 Community Design income residents.Repairs include plumbing, 33rd 350,000 heating 8 electrical,roof repair,accessibility ramps,etc. 32nd 350,000 Others 5,767,500 City-wide Total 7.517,500 2 Community Development Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 70,000 130,000 70,000 70,000 70000 70,000 Corporation that provides affordable housing.Services Include 35th 70,000 downpayment assistance grants,purchase and Programsupport rehabilitation of existing housing units and 34th 70,000 property for new construction. 33rd 70,000 32nd 70,000 31s1 70,000 Other, 1.189.147 City-wide Total 1,609,147 3 Housing and Neighborhood Funds to be used by SLC as match money for 36th 100,000 100,000 100,000 0 0 Development Division acquisition.new construction.or rehabfiitatlon of 35tli transitional and permanent housing projects 34th proposed by housing agencies. Housing Match Funds 33rd Others 1,205,000 Total 1,205.000 4 Housing and Neighborhood Salaries operational support 8 rehabifitation 36th 600,000 620,000 600,000 600.000 600,000 600,000 Development Division activities to bring residential properties up to 35th 600,000 housing code standards,provide fast time 34th 600000 homebuyer acquisition and rehabilitation,manage Housing Rehabilitation and First Time a 645 million mortgage pomolio,provide financial 3314 600.000 Homebuyer Programs assistance and emergency repairs In eligible 32nd 600,000 areas or for income-eligible residents. 31 st 600,000 Others 13,052,995 Income eligible neighborhoods Total 16,652,995 1 atghborWorks Salt Lake Salaries and operational support for a program 36th J,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 100,000 10 that provides affordable housing.Services 35th 100,000 Revolvin Loan Fund include:low-interest loans to people who may not g qualify for a traditional bank mortgage, 34th 100,000 acquisition,blended mortgages,and rehabilitation 33rd 100,000 projects. 32nd 100,000 31st 100,000 Others 1,330,000 Westside neighborhoods Total 1,930,000 Housing Total 1,300,000 1,220,000 1,220,000 1,120,000 1,120,000 0 STREET DESIGN 1 Glendale Street Reconstruction Design for reconstruction to include street 32,000 0 0+ 0 0 1 Design pavement,curb and gutter,sidewalk,park strip Glendale Drive from California landscaping,and storm drain improvements. Avenue to Navajo Street Construction: 360,000 2 Kensington and Roosevelt Avenues Design for reconstruction to include street 50,000 0 0 0 0 Reconstruction Design pavement,curb and gutter,sidewalk,park strip landscaping,and storm drain improvements. Kensington from 400 to 500 East Roosevelt from 300 to 400 East Kensington Construction: 300,000 Roosevelt Construction: 300,000 Street Design Total 82,000 0 0 0 0 0 STREET CONSTRUCTION i. 1 ADA Accessibility Ramps Construct access ramps in eligible areas for 36th 270,000 400,000 179,673 69,810 63,825 70,000 individuals who use wheelchairs,strollers, 35th 32,435 walkers,canes,etc.for ADA compliance. 35th-R 252,000 City-wide in eligible neighborhoods 34th 408,942 33rd 300,000 32nd 345,450 31st 304,558 Construction: 343,100 Others 1,278,720 SLC Engineering Design&Engineering: 56,900 Total 3,192,105 2 Glendale Streets Reconstruction Reconstruction including pavement,curb and 35th 30,000 246,000 246,000 246,000 246,000 246,000 gutter,sidewalk,park strip landscaping,and Navajo Street from Glendale Drive to storm drain improvements. 1300 South Design funded in 2009-10: 30,000 20,100 SLC Engineering 225,900 Street Construction Total 646,000 425,673 315,810 309,825 316,000 0 IDEWALKS •I Sidewalk Replacement Program Replace deteriorated and defective sidewalk in 36th 81,000 400,000 200,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 CDBG eligible areas to improve pedestrian 36th-R 189,000 access,safety and walkability. 35th 47,719 35th-R 243,281 City-wide in eligible areas 34th 308,941 Design&Administration-56,900 Others 5,237,802 SLC Engineering Construction:343,100 Total 6,107,743 Sidewalks Total 400,000 200,000 150,000 150,000 150,000 0 PARKS 1 Cottonwood Park Sprinkler Replace obsolete existing system including 36th 88,000 440,000 440,000 440,000 0 400,000 Irrigation System valves,heads,controllers and central control connection and associated landscaping upgrades. 300 North 1600 West Design funded in 2010-11 for$88,000 Materials and construction: 440,000 2 Jordan River Parkway Trallhead at Develop traithead,to include parking lot,curb, 36th 50,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 300,000 0 1000 North gutter,sidewalk,landscaping,irrigation system, security lighting,tables,benches and drinking fountain. Design funded in 2010-11 for$50,000 3 Rosewood Park Parking Lot Remove and replace parking lot with more New 243,960 0 0 0 0 Replacement sustainable materials,utilizing permeable concrete pavement and underground water retention to minimize the amount of run-off 1200 West 1300 North needing to exit the site. Curb,gutter and Design: 40,660 Materials and construction: 203,300 4 Fifth Avenue and"C"Street Tennis Removal of existing tennis courts,retaining walls New 598,100 0 67,100 67,100 67,100 Courts and trees in order to rebuild two tennis courts to meet current standards including new retaining walls,new fencing,and associated landscaping improvements. New benches,drinking fountain Materials and construction: 450,000 Design&Engineering Fees: 67,100 Construction Inspection&Admin: 36,000 Contingency: 45,000 5 Westpointe Park Playground Remove old playground and sand,improve New 623,750 0 0 0 0 Improvements existing curbs and sidewalks,install new bark mulch and play surfacing,install new ADA accessible play equipment,new water play 1100 North 2000 West equipment,relocate existing volley ball court, Playground improvements: 250,000 Splash pad improvements: 250,000 Engineering and Design: 43,750 Administration: 30,000 Contingency: 50,000 6 Fire Station Tennis Courts Replace two existing courts with two new post New 228,300 0 0 0 0 tension courts,replace fencing and net posts, 273 North 1000 West landscaping and irrigation adjustments,install conduits for future lighting and install benches. Materials and Labor: 190,300 Engineering,Design&Admin: 38,000 3 0 East Island Irrigation System Replace obsolete irrigation system that will New 204,900 204,900 40,000 40,000 204.900 Rebuild and Central Control connect to the City's central control system, including new water and power meters and associated landscaping improvements. 600 East between South Temple and 600 South Materials,labor and equipment: 155,000 Engineering and Design fees: 20,700 Construction Inspection/Admin: 13,700 Contingency: 15,500 8 Property acquisition for Jordan Funding to purchase a blighted property adjacent New 65,000 0 0 0 0 River Parkway Trailhead to the Jordan River Parkway and Cottonwood Park for future development of a trailhead for the Jordan River Parkway as well as parking/open space for Cottonwood Park. 356 North Redwood Road Application filed by Fairpark and Jordan Meadows Community Councils 9 ADA Improvements and Riverside Funding for a study to provide river side ADA New 50,000 0 0 0 0 Access Study for Alzheimer access improvements at the Alzheimer's Memorial Park Memorial Park in Poplar Grove and to determine 265 South 1200 West amount of funding necessary to make those improvements. Application filed by Kyle LaMalfa 10 Jordan Park Defined Activity Areas Create fenced,defined activity areas to improve New 12,000 0 0 0 0 safety and security in the Jordan River Park. 1000 South 900 West New,defined activity areas will separate different park uses to mitigate and prevent conflicts. Application filed by Kyle LaMalfa 11 Glendale Tennis Complex Construct restrooms for the Glendale Tennis New 350,000 0 0 0 0 Restroom Construction Complex to encourage new and continued use by the community. The closest existing restrooms are located one block away from this complex. 1700 South 1500 West Application filed by Utah Tongan Tennis Club/Glendale Community Council Parks Total 3,116,010 944,900 847,100 407,100 672,000 0 RV¢IS_ 1 Salaries and operational support for a program 33,600 Asian Association that New 0 0 0 0 provides self sufficiency and employment preparation through English literacy,computer, and life skill training,for refugees and immigrants. Salary for building supervisor for PSBI improvements. U.S.Workplace Communication 2 Bad Dog Rediscovers America Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 5,000 15,000 0 0 0 0 that provides after-school art outreach to students 35th 10,000 Art Instruction Outreach at Backman,Edison,Mountain View,Jackson, Whittier,and Glendale Elementary schools. 34th 10,000 33rd 5,000 32nd 5,000 Total 35,000 l Ig Brothers Big Sisters of Utah Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 5.000 10.000 5,000 5.000 5.000 5,000 that provides a school-based mentonng program 35th 5,000 School-based Mentoring Program for low-income SLC youth in tt site-based sailing 34th 1000 utilizing resources available at the school. Schools include Bennion,Washington,Whittier. 33rd 5.000 Rose Park and Lincoln elementanes. Total 16.000 4 Big Brothers Big Sisters of Utah Salaries and operational support for a program New 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 that provides community-based mentoring for low Community-based Mentonng Program Income oma outside school systeSLCmy.Activities mayofthe includeelementaryewor homk support,sports,vises to museums,etc. Total 5 Boys&Girls Clubs of GSL Salaries for an after-school program that provides 36th 20,000 38,865 20,000 20,000 18,000 20.000 core club activities in guidance oriented character 35th 20,000 Capital West Club development to low Income youth in 34th 20.000 Jackson/Guadalupe area. 33rd 30,000 32nd 30,000 31st 30,000 Others 548.000 567 West 300 North,SLC Total 698,000 6 Boys S Girls Clubs of GSL Salaries for a program that leaches life and social 36th 15,000 31,169 15,000 15,000 13.000 15,000 skills,provides recreational opportunities and 35th 15,000 Youth With a Voice leadership skills for at-risk youth(ages 11-17)at 34th 15.000 the three Salt Lake City centers. 33rd 15,000 Lied-464 South Concord St. 32nd 15,000 Sugar House-968 E Sugannont Dr 31st 20.000 Capltol West-567 West 300 North Others 403,000 Total 498,000 7 Catholic Community Services Salaries fora program that provides residential 36th 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 10.000 10.000 substance abuse treatment for low-income and/or 35th 10,000 St.Mary's Home for Men chronically homeless men,Including veterans. 34th 5,000 33rd 5,000 32nd 5,000 745 East 300 South,SLC Total 35,000 8 Catholic Community Services Salaries for a program that provides day shelter 36th 20,000 20,000 20,000 20000 20,000 20,000 services five days a week for homeless persons, 35th 15,000 Weigand Day Center including showers,lockers,hygiene items,health 34th 15,000 referrals,outreach services through the Utah Dept.of Workforce Services and a support group 33rd 20,000 for substance abuse. 32nd 20,000 235 South Rio Grande,SLC Others 275,000 Total 400,000 9 Children's Service Society Salaries and operational support fora program 36th 38,136 50,815 25,000 20.000 20.009 20,000 that trains and assists parents in helping their Parents as Teachers Program children prepare for kindergarten. 124 South 400 East,SLC 6 I ommunity Action Program Salaries for a program that assists low/moderate 36th ,000 30,000 30,000 20,000 20,000 20,000 income residents to obtain safe and affordable 35th 30,000 HousingOutreach Rental Program housing,by listing apartments for rent and g providing renter training and referrals to other 34th 20,000 agencies for assistance. 33rd 30,000 764 South 200 West,SLC Others 714,000 Total 824,000 11 Community Action Program Salaries and operating expenses for a program 36th 25,000 25,000 25,000 25,000 23,000 25,000 that provides emergency food supply to low- 35th 25,000 Northwest Neighborhood Center Food income west side residents. 34th 25,000 Pantry 33rd 25,000 Others 546,000 1300 West 300 North,SLC Total 646,000 12 Community Action Program Salaries for a program that provides home 36th 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 5,000 10,000 maintenance training and money management 35th 10,000 Home Tenant Maintenance Pro ect training,referrals and other assistance to low- income households who rent.income 10,000 33rd 10,000 32nd 10,000 31st 11,000 Others 158,500 764 South 200 West,SLC Total 219,500 13 Community Health Centers Operational support fora program that provides 36th 75,000 75,000 75,000 65,000 63,000 65,000 medical and dental care to uninsured and low- 35th 75,000 Healthcare Pro ram income persons at two community health centers g in Salt Lake City. 34th 75,000 33rd 89,283 31st 90,000 Central City:461 South 400 East Others 460,000 Total 864,283 14 Crossroads Urban Center Salaries for the food pantry program that provides 36th 16,500 16,500 16,500 16,500 14,500 16,500 R food,referrals and emergency services to low- 35th 16,000 Emergency Food Pantryincome and homeless persons. 9 Y 34th 16,000 33rd 16,000 32nd 16,000 31st 16,000 Others 297,000 347 South 400 East,SLC Total 393,500 Donated Dental Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 30,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 28,000 30,000 15 that provides preventive and restorative dental 35th 30,000 Communit Dental Pro ect treatment to homeless and low income families y and individuals. 34th 24,533 33rd 30,000 32nd 35,000 31st 30,000 Others 129,597 1383 South 900 West,SLC Total 309,130 16 English Skills Learning Center Salaries for a program that trains volunteers who 36th 7,000 28,000 10,000 7,000 7,000 7,000 in turn teach English language skills to non- 35th 7,000 English Language Instruction English speaking refugees and immigrants. 934th 7,000 33rd 10,000 32nd 7,500 Others 74,000 631 W North Temple&other sites Total 112,500 \mlly Support Center Salaries for a program that provides free short- 36th 1000 15.000 10000 10,000 8,000 10000 term crisis nursery services to families with 35th 10,000 Crisis Nursery children who are at risk for abuse or neglect. 34th 10.000 33rd 10,000 2020 S.Lake St,SLC. 32nd 15,000 Others 70,000 Total 125,000 18 Housing Authority of Salt Lake City Funding for equipment to establish the Sail Lake New 10,000 0 0 0 0 City Resource Cantor to assist clients of the Housing Authority with skills necessary to promote self sufficiency through job searches, computer training,resume preparation,GED Salt Lake City Resource Center completion and ESL classes.Equipment will 1776 South West Temple include 12 computers,2 printers,a fax machine and a copier. 19 Indian Walk-In Center Salaries and operational support fora program New 29.900 5,000 0 0 0 Food Pantry that provides emergency food supplies to low 120 West 1300 South income families and individuals, 20 Indian Walk-In Center Salons and operational support fora program New 67.643 0 0 0 0 that provides mental,social and physical heath care services/referrals to American Indians, Alaskan Natives,and other low-income individuals and families residing In Salt Lake Chy. Community Coordination Program 120 West 1300 South 21 Kostopulos Dream Foundation Salaries and operational expenses for a year- 36th 0 5.000 0 0 0 0 round program that includes a summer camp, 35th 5,000 Therapeutic Recreation Programs outdoor field tops,after-school and weekend programs for Special needs children and adults. 34Ih 5.000 33rd 5.000 2500 Emigration Canyon 32nd 5000 Total 20,000 22 Legal Ald Society of Salt Lake Salaries fora program that provides legal 36th 10,000 15,000 10,000 10,000 8,000 10,000 representation to low-Income persons who are 35th 10000 Domestic Violence Victim Assistance vietlms of domestic violence withprolect'rve 34th 10,000 Program orders. 33rd 10,000 32nd 15,000 Others 50,394 205 North 400 West,SLC Total 105,394 23 Literacy Action Center Salaries for a program that provides literacy 33rd 5,000 5,000 0 0 0 0 services to functionally-illiterate English-speaking 32nd 2,000 adults to read and write English. 30th 5,000 Adult Literacy Program Total 12,000 24 Peer Court Salaries for a program that provides an alternate 36th 5,000 5,000 5000 0 0 0 form of juvenile justice where youth are mentored 35th 5,000 by peers to strengthen ties to families,schools, and communtles. Total .pe Recovery Center Salaries for a program that provides crisis 36th ,000 40,000 35,000 35,000 33,000 35,000 0 counseling and services for victims of sexual 35th 35,000 Sexual Assault Crisis Intervention assault. 34th 35,000 Services 33rd 40,000 32nd 35,000 31st 35,000 Others 242,060 Total 457,060 26 The Road Home Salaries for a program that provides shelter and 36th 112,000 126,000 120,000 112,000 110,000 112,298 supportive services to help homeless persons 35th 111,893 Community Shelter Services gain skills to become self-sufficient and move to 34th 110,000 permanent housing. 33rd 125,000 210 South Rio Grande,SLC 32nd 126,000 31st 126,000 Others 2,052,000 Total 2,762,893 27 Salt Lake County Community Funding for computer software licenses and New 12,000 0 0 0 0 Resources and Development leveled readers(based on reading skill level)to provide literacy skill improvements in low-income youth and adults. CAT Computer Labs 2001 South State Street 28 South Valley Sanctuary Salaries for a program that provides shelter and - 36th 0 10,000 0 0 0 0 supportive services to men,women and children 35th 0 who are residents of Salt Lake City that have Domestic Violence Crisis Shelter- been victimized by domestic violence. 34th 0 Case Management Located in West Jordan City 29 Splore Salaries for a program that promotes empowering New 5,519 0 0 0 0 experiences in an active,friendly world through 774 East 3300 South#105 affordable,customized and inclusive recreation and education programs for low-income City residents with disabilities or special medical needs. 30 University Neighborhood Operational support for a program that develops 36th 5,000 8,320 5,000 5,000 5.000 5,000 Partnerships partnerships and programming for low income 35th 5,000 Hartland Partnership Center immigrant youth in collaboration with University of Utah students and faculty. 1617 Secret Garden Lane,#172 Total 10,000 31 Utah Food Bank Salaries and operational support for a program New 6,500 6,500 0 0 0 that provides food boxes to low-income seniors Senior Food Box Program and persons with disabilities. I 1025 South 700 West 32 UT Health&Human Rights Project Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 9,000 10,000 that provides case management and social 35th 10,000 services to increase self-sufficiency among Case Management&Administrative vulnerable newcomer populations who are 34th 10,000 Support survivors of torture and war-related trauma. 33rd 10,000 32nd 10,000 225 South 200 East Total 50,000 asatch Community Gardens Salaries and operational support for a program 36th .,000 40,800 0 15.000 15,000 15,000 that will create a network of sustainable Developing Sustainable Communitycommunity gardens in the City with a focus on Gardens low-Income neighborhoods In partnership with schools,service,community and faith-based organizations. 34 Wasatch Community Gardens Salaries for a program that targets low income at- 36th 5,000 10.000 5.000 5,000 5000 5,000 risk youth ages 5-18 that teaches responsibility, 35th 5,000 Youth Gardening Program cooperation and ecological awareness through 34th 5.000 hands-on gardening expenences. 33rd 5,000 32nd 5,000 769 South 600 East.SLC Others 273,000 1037 West 300 North,SLC Total 298,000 35 Wasatch Homeless Health Care Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 40,000 46,668 40,000 40.000 35.000 40,000 that provides outreach medical services two days 35th 38,000 Fourth Street Clinic Outreach week to homeless persons in the downtown area and to identify the high users of emergency 34th 29,360 health care to get the care they need Ina cost effective manner without resorting to EMS or ambulance services. Downtown area Total 107,360 36 YMCA Salaries and operational support fora program 36th 10,000 10,000 10,000 10,000 9,000 10,000 that provides after-school and summer programs 35th 10,000 After School and Summer for children at Rose Park Elementary School. 34th 10000 Enrichment Program 32nd 10,000 Others 88,600 Total 128,600 37 YWCA Salaries and operational support for a program 36th 47,350 50,000 47.000 40.000 40.000 40,000 that provides crisis shelter and supportive 35th 35,000 Domestic Violence Shelter 8 services to women and children who are vidlms 34th 35,000 Supportive Services of Domestic violence. 33rd 40,000 32nd 40,000 31st 35,000 Others 571,300 322 East 300 South Total 803.6550 Public Services Total 957,299 605,000 555,500 523,500 555,798 0 15%Cap on Public Services 663,244 663,244 596,919 497,433 555,798 555,798 Difference -294,055 58,244 41,419 -26,067 0 555,798 14.0% 15.8% PUBLIC SERVICE 9UILI7ING IMPROVEMENTS • 1 Alliance House Funding for building improvements to nine unit 36th 39,700 19,700 0 0 0 0 apartment building for a program that provides 35th 33.000 Apartment Rehabilitationservices and housing for adults with serious and 34lh 39.000 persistent mental illness.Improvements will Include wall demolition and patching,granite wall 1805 South Main Others 95,500 Total 207,200 2 And Justice For All Funding for building Improvements fora program New 25,000 0 0 0 0 205 North 400 West that creates and sustains resources that support several nonprofit legal aid programs including Legal Aid Society,Utah Legal Services,and the Disability Law Center.Improvements will consist of purchase and installation of new high efficiency HVAC system. `1 .lan Association of Utah Funding for building Improvements for a program 36th .,000 93.000 93.000 93,000 93,000 93,000 that provides services to Asians,Pacific Islanders 35th 0 Energy Conservation and Service and other refugee and Immigrant populations 0db 23rd 38,000 Improvements social,education and cultural programs. The applicant applied fora new HVAC system,restroom renovations,carpeting and wan relocations.However,the building has life safety Issues that must be addressed prior to the ferns requested. Therefore,the request is now for addressing the life safety issues. • • Total 60,000 4 Boys and Girls Clubs Funding for building improvements to Lied Club 36th 10 500 53,281 21,741 21,741 21,741 21 741 building that provides after-school programs for 35th 3,500 Lied Club Improvements Glendale area youth. Install window coverings-- 3,940 Reception area 8 new front desk:27.600 464 South Concord Resurface front entry floor 1,755 Replace bathroom stalls: 8,883 Refinish gym floor: 1,000 Interior paint 10,103 Total 14,000 5 CAP Head Start Program Funding for the construction of a nature-based 36th 185,000 109,146 0 0 0 0 playground to help meet the developmental 34th 146,008 1240 North American Beauty Drive and of low income children through recreational end educational activaies. 31st 107400 Landscape architect 8 Admin:10048 Sprinkler system installation: 9,000 Demolition work: 4,500 Boulders.fill din,top soil 8 sod: 11,600 Trees and shrubs:17,500 Concrete sidewalk tricycle path:12,000 Mount Gazebo/Alphabet HIM:24,500 Construct.zone play area 8 labor. 20,000 Total 438.408 6 Catholic Community Services Funding for building Improvements fora program New 15,000 15,000 15000 15,000 15000 that provides meals to homeless persons to St Vincent de Paul include the purchase and installation of -437 West 200 Sough commercial grade water heater for the kitchen, _ 7 Funding for Improvements to a facility that 36th Community Foundation for the provides employment 8 training programs to low- 40,000 89.488 70,000 70,000 0 70,000 Disabled/Columbus Comm.Canter Income persons with developmental&physical disabilities. Replace roof: 64,000 1850 South 3230 West Upgrade HVAC:Install heaters 8 fans:18,800 Engineenng 8 administration: 6,688 IG oat Immersion Academy Funding for building Improvements for a charter New 6,350 6,350 6,350 0 0 1555 South Glendale Drive school program that provides education to youth horn Kindergarten to Ephth Grade in the Glendale area.Improvements will include the purchase and installation of acoustical wall panels in the school gymnasium. 9 Emergency Rapalr Fund Funding for grants to nonprofit organizations 36th 10,000 10,000 10,000 10000 10,000 10.000 when they experience unforeseen emergencies 35th 10,000 SLC Housing&Neighborhood to their facilities that need repair. 33rd 10,000 Development 31st 10,000 Others 27,000 Total 67,000 10 The Haven Funding for building Improvements for a program New 39.400 0 0 0 0 that provides substance abuse treatment and transitional housing for low-income persons. Improvements will Include electrical upgrades for two buildings, 653 East 300 South 11 Kostopolus Dream Foundation Funding for building Improvements for a program New 5.000 0 0 0 0 2500 Emigration Canyon that provides summer camp,outdoor field trips, after school&weekend programs for special needs youth&adults,Building Improvements will include the installation of an asphalt handicapped accessible parking area at their new equestrian fecflily. 12 Neighborhood House Funding for building improvements for a program 36th 13,300 19,400 13.400 13,400 13,400 13,400 that provides day care to low-Income children. 34th 15,000 Children's Day Care Center Improvements will Include roof-top timer finds for 33rd 15,000 resboom ventilation,a new telephone system and good insurance required to participation in the 32nd 15,000 Restroom ventilation:9,000 31st 17,300 Telephone system'.6,000 Others 140,000 1050 West 500 South,84104 Flood Insurance:4,400 Total 215,600 13 Odyssey House Funding for kitchen Improvements for a program New 40,000 40,000 0 0 0 that provides residential substance abuse Woman and Children's Center treatment for women and children.Improvements will include: 42 506th 500 East Sink,refrigerator,and range:14,248 Cabinets: 9,826 Floonng: 4,825 Interior wall renovation: 9,500 Deck addition. 5,500 Permits&Fees:1,100 '14 Salt Lake School District Funding for construction of a community learning 36th 233,732 500,000 0 0 0 0 center for students at the Mountain View Community Learning Center- Elementary&Glendale Middle schools. Programs offered will be spec to the needs of the community,including language literacy, 1380 South Navajo Street financial literacy,nutrition workshops,health clinics and career counseling. '1 elvation Army Funding for construction of a new 4400 square 35th _,130 200,000 0 0 0 0 foot building to house the Salt Lake Salvation 34th 0 Adult Rehabilitation Facility Remodel Army and their Salt Lake Family Services Program that will offer emergency food,clothing, 33rd 35,000 transportation,after-school programs/services, 32nd 42,415 438 South 900 West and training 8 case management for low-income 31st 60,000 individuals with multiple barriers to setf- ci dfirinnry Total 249,545 16 University Neighborhood Partners Funding for building improvements of new New 175,000 175,000 75,000 75,000 75,000 property at 1578 West 1700 South to serve as the A New Home for Hartland new headquarters for the University Partners/Hartland Partnership Center. 1578 West 1700 South Elevator for ADA Access: 100,000 Fire sprinkling system: 45,000 Restroom renovations: 30,000 17 Wasatch Homeless Health Care Funding for landscape improvements to the New 25,500 0 0 0 0 parking strip to include purchase and installation of irrigation system,plants,soil and amendments, turf,gravel and project design. 404 South 400 West Irrigation System: 12,000 Plants: 9,800 Soil,turf and gravel: 3,100 Design: 600 Public Services Building Improvement Total 1,425,265 444,491 304,491 228,141 298,141 0 PLANNING 1 Glendale Park Improvements Funding to develop a community-based New 50,000 50,000 0 0 0 design/planning process for improvements to the existing uses and facilities in Glendale Park to determine the best upgrades needed to extend its uses and functions. Results will be used to determine future funding needs. Design/Planning 1200 West 1700 South 2 Centro Civico Mexicano Funding to develop a business plan for use to New 10,000 0 10,000 5,000 10,000 obtain funding to build a new facility at the same location. The plan will include cost estimates, research,marketing plan,member's needs and potential building tenants. 155 South 600 West 3 Census Data Extraction Funding to hire a consultant to extract information New 40,000 40,000 30,000 25,000 25,000 SLC Housing&Neighborhood from the 2010 Census Data to help the City Development bridge information from the 2000 Census relative to SLC Council districts. Information will include populations by age,sex,race/ethnicity,household type and size,occupancy status,presence of children in the household and other information specific to Council districts rather than the City as a whole. Planning Total 100,000 90,000 40,000 30,000 35,000 0 8RCENT FOR ART 1 SLC Percent for Art Funding to provide enhancements to City 36th 25,000 3,000 5,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 properties through decorative pavements, 35th 10,000 railings,sculptures,fountains,and other works of art. 34th 25,000 33rd 5,952 32nd 5,000 31st 6,000 Others 47,450 Total 124,402 Percent for Art Total 3,000 5,000 30,000 30,000 30,000 0 CITY ADMINISTRATION 1 City Attorney's Office Partial funding for staff salaries to provide 36th 55,432 23,182_ 23,182 23,182 23,182 23,182 contract administration function for federal grants. 35th 55,432 34th 55,432 33rd 55,432 32nd 55,432 31st 55,432 30th 55,432 Others 903,960 Total 1,291,984 2 Finance Division Partial funding for staff salaries to provide 36th 82,776 82,776 82,776 82,776 82,776 82,776 financial administration and accounting services 35th 82 776 for federal grants. 34th 82,776 33rd 82,776 32nd 82,776 31st 91,967 30th 91,967 Others 945,217 Total 1,543,031 3 Housing&Neighborhood Funding for salaries and operational expenses of 36th 472,804 482,804 482,804 472,804 472,804 472,804 Development HAND to administer and monitor the federal 35th 472,804 grants and to conduct the community processes. 34th 405,616 In prior Years,the Planning Division was provided funding in 33rd 405,616 the amount of$67,188 for the Environmental Planner position. 32nd 405,616 In 35th Year,that position was transferred to HAND. The 31st 405,616 CDBG admin budget was then discontinued for 437,616 Planning 30th and moved to HAND's CDBG administrative Others 3,460,149 budget. Total 6,465,837 3 tyro'',Office partial funding for snianes and operational 36th 709 91,709 91,709 81,709 81.709 81,709 expenses of three positions to provide community 35th 91,709 relations support for federal grants. 34th 91,709 33rd 91,709 32nd 91,709 31st 91,709 3061 91.709 Others 1,517,962 Total 2.159,925 City Administration Total 680,471 680,471 660,471 660,471 660,471 0 CONTINGENCY Contingency Funding set aside to cover unanticipated cost 36th 60,000 50,000 51.092 61.822 overruns on funded projects. 351h 46,776 3481 35.000 Contingency Total 0 0 50,000 51,092 61.822 0 CDBG-R REALLOCATION 1 Sag Lake City Engineering Funds available for reallocation for. 361h-R 189,000 136.175 138,175 136,175 136,175 136,175 35th-R 243.281 Ramps 136,175 138,175 136,175 138,175 136,175 Total Requested/Recommended 8,846,220 4,751,710 4,309,547 3,646,304 4,035,407 0 2011-12 Grant Amount 4,421,626 4,421,626 3,979,463 3,316.220 3,705,323 3,705,323 CDBG Reallocated Funds 193,909 193,909 193,909 193,909 193,909 193,909 CDBG-R Reallocated Funds 136,175 136,175 136,175 136,175 136,175 136,175 4,751,710 4,751,710 4,309,547 3,646,304 4,035,407 4,035,407 Difference .4,094,510 0 0 0 0 4,035,407 CDBG REALLOCATION from FY 2011 Funds 1 Concrete Study Reallocate funds from Sat Lake City Council 90.000 90,000 Office-Administration line tem,to the study of concrete replacement needs In the City. Ramps • • SCANNEu I J: 11Qy�� SCANNED BY:31- yQ�1(��]��/Jf�� {�:l�jl�n'' DATE: H��q FRANK S.GRAY `+�1r1 irl�J I,�aegi i RALPH BECKER DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY&ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT MAYOR o«uTT DIRECTOR OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR RECEIVED fitY DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER ROBERT FARRINOTON,JR. DEPUTY OIRERe° CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL APR 19 2011 RECEIVED Salt Lake City Mayor APR 2 0 2011 Date Received:JG ��D Davi veritt, ief of Staff SLC COUNCIL OFFICt�ate sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 19,2011 Jill Remington-Lo FROM: Frank Gray,CED Director SUBJECT: Updated Commum I-velopment ' ock Grant Recommendations STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark 801-535-6136,luann.clark@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Mayor Becker is recommending funding allocations based on the 16.2%cut. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Congress adopted the Fiscal Year 2011 spending bill on April 14,2011. The budget shows that Community Development Block Grant will take a cut of 16%and all domestic programs will also take a.2%cut for a total cut of 16.2%. This is still an estimate on the funding allocation the City will receive from HUD. As soon as we receive the final allocation amounts from HUD a new resolution will be sent to the City Council ftu. adoption. • 451 SOUTH STATE ,ROOM 404 P.O.BOX 145456,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 5 41 1 4-545 6 TELEPHONE:80I-535.6330 FAX:501.535-5005 www.•Leacw.00We[o SLC Concession Program Redevelopment • Retail Service Concession • Food & Beverage Service • 3o separate proposals from 12 Concessions different firms • 23 separate proposals from 7 • Selected: Paradies Shops, HMS different firms Host, Duty Free Americas, and • Selected: HMS Host, Hojeij/Air Sweet Ventures • Local highlights include: Red Terminal Gifts, McDonalds, and Onion, Sam Weller Books, KSL Salt Lake Brewing News, Sego Lily Day Spa, No • Local highlights include: Market Boundaries (partnered with (P Street Grill, Squatters Pub the Outdoor Retailers), Kids Brewery, Vino Volo/Ale House, Zoo (partnered with Hogle Zoo), Deseret News, Simply Cafe Rio, Greek Souvlaki, Salt Books (partnered with The Lake Pizza & Pasta, Millcreek Children's Hour), Utah! Coffee, Veloce Cucina Toscana, (partnered with Utah's Own), and High West Distillery & and Visit Salt Lake (partnered Saloon with the Salt Lake Convention & Visitors bureau). Retail, News & Gift Program Package i Paradies {m; g r, N Package 2 HMS Host Concourse r 402e1 K a Simply Books ,ir , ` Package DutyFree - , Wall St J News g 3Economist Concourse Second Level Americas \,, . 0 CNBC News _ CNBC News -i f4 Utah! Visit Salt Lake tx Duty Free Americas y e _ .- Kiehl's oia Utah's Own fr Wall St J News — F,s" p `e' boo 1 a . .� if•• . • • - Sego Lily b.�e .ah Brighton ..', r ;'�•'. --tt— 1.1 , 011. , sw ! i, EA Sports -. No Boundaries -_ Concourse B-�T1� 1 ',Opt � � - Second Level::. ' Concours*B s"' \ r Radio Road Ground Level Wail St J News r, ` CNBC News . International Tinniwl TYIO Terminal Secondbvel {• i !\11I`� ,II "�'�� \`1 f Sego Lily >. Imo , a �; I Concourse E - iiii...,....„.. • , e —•Ground Level .j ' i + + ~ ' \ \N� t<A� RMCF � .� � \*1 .0. Brookstone • w 1 KSL News w One �,�. • kg t _a InMotion vel /'•/ Red Onion ' .. �. [Qj /� • . -/ Sam Weller's *a J T-ti e Glamour Walkway 5��:(Q ^�`.�., .': .i-9�,N7 ,.r _ 411 �' I Sunset News Terminal One i CNBC News I. - Second Level l Terminal Two Y•.. ! Ground Level Express ,- �- � ��o_ Package 5 Paradies .�; Concourse P • i Second Level Terminal One Package 6 Sweet Ventures Ground Level • 'g; ,:, Package 7 Paradies ,i4 Package 8 Paradies Proposed - Food & Beverage Program Package i HMS Host .......\ Package 2 Hojeij/ATG ,,, r- , Package 3 HMS Host KrispyKreme Millcreek fr CffJseC evel l z 1 J Ufood Grill Wendy's it 1 ucina pv., SL Pizza Pinkberry xana &Pasta Raising Cane's • 1.. PIP' Seattle's Best Cat Cora Lounge "� Gourmet World a° �� SNTi Seattle's Best by Cat Cora McDonald's Market Street Grill ? ,! * ,r;;,1 ',rah K 1 Manchu Wok '_'T I' • , �S.. `� 4 -� Greek Souvlaki �j�!r s 1.' . _s!1 + fir-- 1 yr Concouras Auntie Anne s Pretz .' 1. * ! I Café Rio \ _ Second Le Starbucks :1 _ French Meadowr�^3„�...� ConcourseB I Terminal Two-- - 1 Ground Level Ufood Grill High West D&S �!h� International Second Level ,,I,r�'i" - ^ Concourse E Terminal ��-:�' l Ground Level J , '. • �1 .` � � it Pei Wei ,�� • . 4 4 Gordon Biersch - =�. !1. /. ' \ Seattle's Best 1.i.t •,e ' 6 O ':/�/.a%. \\ S�i01i � odoba Mex. ' s I Terminal One Starbudcs .'_, . . � �. Third Level Boar's Head i_ �� erg. �;l' i J Package 4 McDonald's `-- }.: , a Great Wraps ' Ila `i Terminal Two 1 1i Terminal One y ,�`-'� PackageSL Brewing Co.Ground Level g IC.. • Second Level g 5: 11 .. i j•, Fresh Market Package 6 SL Brewing Co. 1 1. I If Concourse A Second Level Terminal One Package 7 Hojeij/ATG Ground Level /- 11 j _!1•�l it Retail The Paradies Shops • The Paradies Shops has established itself as the industry leader in airport retail for over 50 years. Based in Atlanta,they operate over 500 stores in more than 70 locations across the United States and Canada. • Recognized as the Best Airport Retailer for the past consecutive 15 years,and the Retailer with the Highest Regard for Customer Service for the past 14 years by the Airport Revenue News' "Best of poll. The Paradies Shops is partnering with local Traci McCormick of Red Onion Food Services. • Successful on Retail Packages 1, 5, 7 and 8 for a total of 18 store locations. • Stores include: o The Red Onion TravelMart o KSL 5 News o Sam Weller's Books o Brookstone o InMotion Entertainment o Sego Lily Spa o CNBC News o No Boundaries o Deseret News o KidZoo (featuring Hogle Zoo) o Visit Salt Lake o Utah's Own o Brighton Collectibles o EA Sports HMSHost Retail • Operating since 1952, HMSHost's Retail Division has steadily grown into a $400M-plus business with newsstands, news/gift stores, bookstores and specialty retail stores across the United States and Canada. • Successful on Retail Package#2 for a total of 9 store locations. • Stores include: o Sunset News o Radio Road o Utah! o The Wall Street Journal News o TechShowcase o Simply Books(featuring The Children's Hour) o The Economist News Duty Free Americas Airports • Duty Free Americas is the largest duty free operator in the continental United States. The company operates 44 duty free stores at 12 U.S. airports including New York, Miami, Chicago, Washington, Boston, San Antonio and Phoenix. The company also operates 64 duty free stores along the U.S.—Mexican and U.S.—Canadian boarders. • Successful on Retail Package#3 for a total of 4 store locations • Stores include: o Duty Free Americas(includes both Duty Free and Duty Paid shopping) o Kiehl's o Glamour Walkway o Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory Sweet Ventures • Sweet Ventures is a woman-owned business and has been in existence since 2002 as a franchisee of Rocky Mountain Chocolate Factory in both Colorado and Utah. • The company manufactures an extensive line of premium chocolate candies and other confectionery products and is the world's premier retail chocolatier with 351 franchisee operated stores worldwide. • Successful on Retail Package#6 with one store location (plus a second location as a sub lessee in ,A, Package#3) Food HMSHost Food and Beverage • An airport restaurateur with operations in more than 100 airports around the globe. • More than 110 years experience serving the traveling public—first in train stations and then in airports and motorways. • Approximately 35,000 employees worldwide and annual sales of$2.3 billion. • Successful on Food Packages#1 and #3. • Restaurants include: o Market Street Grill o Veloce Cucina Toscana o Salt Lake Pizza and Pasta o Café Rio o Millcreek Coffee Roasters o Greek Souvlaki o High West Distillery and Saloon o Smashburger o French Meadow Bakery&Café o Starbucks o Auntie Anne's Pretzel Perfect o Great Wraps o Fresh Market Hoieii Branded Foods/Air Terminal Gifts(HBF/ATG) • For the past 16 years, HBF has operated concessions in the nation's top airports including Hartsfield-Jackson Atlanta International, Orlando International, Reagan National,Washington Dulles, Pittsburg, Boston Logan, Dallas Fort Worth and Baltimore Washington International Airports. • HBF has partnered with Air Terminal Gifts—a local family-owned business operating at Salt Lake City International airport since 1961. • Successful on Food Packages#2 and #7 • Restaurants include: o Pei Wei Asian Diner o Gordon Biersch Brewery Restaurant o Cat Cora Lounge and Gourmet Market o Pinkberry o Seattle's Best Coffee o Wendy's o Ufood Grill o Qdoba Mexican Grill o Manchu Wok o Raising Cane's Chicken o Boar's Head Deli McDonald's USA • Serving the public since 1955, McDonald's is currently the largest food service organization in the world with over 31,000 restaurants worldwide. • Successful on Food Package#4 With one restaurant location. Salt Lake Brewing Company • Salt Lake Brewing Company was formed in 1988 to own and operate Squatter's Pub Brewery, a full-service restaurant and brewery in downtown Salt Lake City. Since 2000, Squatter's Pub Brewery has been in operation at the Salt Lake City International Airport serving breakfast, lunch and dinner, along with handcrafted beers. • Salt Lake Brewing Company has partnered with Taste, Inc.to create a one-of-a-kind restaurant that, in addition to great food, combines handcrafted ales and lagers from Utah's best breweries with fine wines from around the world. • Successful on Food Packages#5 and#6 • Restaurants include: dremok o Squatter's Pub Brewery o Vino Volo/Ale House o Krispy Kreme Doughnuts o Jamba Juice CD 0 O 0) I - 1 Y CD C1) CD � CD � v = N 3:1 co cn CD In 0_ 3 f.9) =I• = =, CO co 03 c......., ci., co 1- co CD r - Q Q. co co c n co Cl) -• ID O -. m CO CO cO N D =- -5 °* I I- r. C0 co I -n Cr)CD Di co70 co o O 0 v Z D A - IN.) T1 to �) o L., w w N > � t' �^' - ( a) o 03 Cl v C N p n COV Ca O O V A V C O Gs) A V D. 0) O O W 0) _, Z -CDO Co N C..W W O co O p rn O CD O O O O O O O O O O O O O O N) _. J "1_ v, w -A N a) CO 3 � Z �, CICO 0) CD CD NJ00 - W O O V Q = N T O CO CID V IV CDC.. O' NCD V N W CD O CO U, 2- CD O O O O O O O CL c O O O O O O O O O (p o (11 CY) Z C1, - W CV6) p N CD O CJ, -x 00 V CJ, CFD N1111 (4 O V - O — C.., (A 0O W O N CD Cl A V -A a1 CO O CD C.9 O O V O Cl) O CD O CDCD O O O ! '~' 111 O O O O a, O O O O al I ~ _. C.,.) N V cDD (4 -1 CO V O p1 '� CD CWT, - CPI Cl O - Q N11 0 - C. O (fl U, -� 4J Cr) - CD CD O u, WO O V W O -a W -1 .Nr ^* N IV O O O co co co co co co co co co O co co co X ° TI a CD 0 D) C Cn = ( < * O '� O� n) iZ CD N Q. CD D) 9 =• .ffr Cv Sv CD CD CD CO --i CD -0 CO CD 74. • C) Z .r 0< n C7 Cv r• v 0 cQ N - C O C) CO 0O o 0 -cn = m D I C) a W D .< 0 6) -.! O �I Q) -in 00 cl co C,J C3) CD O C» CD s= O D ' CD CD IV C....) CO . Cv — O w CD -1 CI -1 CO W .A O O CD CD CD O CD O CD 0 N CD CD CD CD CD CD CD 0 tv O �cJl N D 'TI CD N W Cr) .P. CJ1 03 D' _< CI) CD Oo U1 co -4 co O1 co .ID,.. Q N ( Ili N C i IV .-.J. W -1 CS) a O� 0' LQ O -CO U9 U1 "J1 N O A •. O CD CD CD CD CD CD CDO 0TT CO O O CD CD CD CD CD CDN m' 0 C i 0 � — N O11 T C,,1 s CS) C11 " 0 N U1 -- O') CD �! 01 W CD CD y CD I - .p -i co O W CO CT ° CD CT CD O Co..) CO CD Cn CD CD CD N O U7 — O CD CD CD O O CD CD 111 CD CD O CD CD CD CD CD til VI A a W CS) O) U1 CD W °� -CD CAOO O N a A a N m .A CD N CD CO - ' O C to O m CD A CD CD C l CO C3) W O CD Ul O CD cc cc O a - N O O CD O CD O CD CD O O O CD CD CD O O I c Cl) a fa E.' a (a m U > - 0 U G) a) a) E 3 ' if a) °- — t N L_ > C Y Y to ❑ o I 0 >, z m O a) w, a +' 0 (I) E O c) ❑ > > c5 = O0 N ,• co 2 a) O = -a Q a) 0 co- O 0 O75 T. ate) _cO V) N O COor) cz d Q - U) - Cl)- 0 CU t 00 = 0O Cl) 1_ +, 0) CO "= cu O fQ 'c.N re) d CU c m 0 3 -2 � co > Op O m 3 O c m c a) a) I p > z N o �, m 4,5 U V V (n Y Y Z Q C N O 0 Ce (n J Uati J I 01111111MINip n n n n " Jr," us. ,,1 11 IL n n It 0 CD UCI r'.. riel riCi -.7r---- ark• D rD rD ra _ „-,....., r.JC1 riCI 4 > 7.-,, .-.1 C''', c;I 0 a i 1 I -'Itt"-- rD f'D ,..o,-.1 kr ob 0 § g •. . a.. ,..; ...... r 0 ,ii Iv var-' a) 0 CI) s.)" i I Al • .. .. i A • - ..! . 0 = 13 .a ct VI i .1 ....._ -- , " i -.,. ii-- , ' 'a. ------r---,--4' 4 0 - 4 ..,_,'"!....• • i 2 '4 —..... , 0, CC a i lt,, _., *r. ." r, ...3 t — ..v,- .. -......4. 1 i r - fr. • . , r " rir.--rrN i r F i a ci.3' i 1 •2 Fr 4,t. a ei ,, ,- ,_ _ '4 ? - 9...t ..., f .'.. 0 1 , 4 v w2 71# ' ,f,. t. i,, II 13 --...._ .... „„,.. .., rti 5 7 1 , ; V IA . .! ' "...f ,T, CD "".%— 0, I ti 0 -, g‘ . , . _ u I , , , , t a— p•41. ''''''4) in.-i ill in 0 , •tt• I .-P. . 7 V * c CD -" -4- .. CD r' '•ii..'ill, ...1 ''' — kt 13 rII '1 . R ^ i i i i .1. I ?i I A 1 ,.. • ...% (1:2 ci) w ... 1 t t NJr Cri •0*„ , U . i ....-1-.0 l _t, i r i i: * - C D 7 v c R a C N O .O o (3 as ca (n 0 as as CI a U oo as O cu 0 (I) N " c N ( o o 0 a) N. _ J O d CZ = U O - E _ _ O (n > 2 E • _a O N H N L.. ai O Q L- a E o (C ) I C) t4 a-+ O a. � O _ a. _ t (" m C (n cu � — _0 as O •N N CO _ a a Q > 2 7) Cl) 00 0 C > —I = p O 0 CD U 0 (n > o 0 m c� � a J U J -- U) ig A7.4011 r7.• ,'"''_....., 776: 1,-.. AOI API >.•.. (it 1 •,;,.. ,...AI Mt 1', `,..o... J 0 ..- 0 n.2 mr-- ........ 45.„til F-:;i ,,,• •.4 el Cl) ..C: 2. az ....: oz cn g 1. 1 7 10 e IA = 41- 4-al :7.-.,....4. 1 P P 1:(1,t. .....,..:1 . .... it •7477,, mug . '.. -1*4. 4 • -- ... 0 1 I • .Z4'••• • r .,.,.. . 1 I I 1 Q... i ......., ,I ' • ..1. - AP. La . ....Al..' .-.„ , • t ii +. ,1r. a' r• ---'":;‘) .74- !..... , "..,.... r -3 1 ' .. . - 1, .i, ..,..6... P I4. 73 kf 1:147.14L1 0 3 CD $1'f 9 .. ri,11 , CD ! 1 1_e ••-. . 6 I . t ° ,. 3.., I '-`-- E. "e.g .. •,, t ,•-.- 57 '' ..If hl .... L. eta .-, 'ay.10% • .- '-' I .. PO 14 CD 711 = • v, _,. , 0 .. • ..o. (Pi. ,,, ... XI i ..,..,4, . - eiri"'" . 1. ac4. I 1 . _ • 11 I.•4:;- ' 1 ... .!, ., 0 i ..-. . , - 6-2 .• 0 :1 t• • .i 04, , ., 0 o i / 1 El CL . ,.. . .,v....„)..„ 93 • . .,-.7 C- III i .! r, CI) < ! l a E r.a a CD • -.1 It •I:i n :J.,. co cc, 7.f..., E. A A '1 0 " a1.2l.0 .I)3ig __. (LT, 3 zi ....,_ SCANNED TO: Woc.;,/lalf):: -, SCANNED BY: �� !� ��\\- , DATE: (4-ft. id „,,,,,.. „.........., Q,By Salt Lake City Department of Airports CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL --- Date Received: 11 WO David 'eritt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: HMO 1 I TO: Salt Lake City, Council DATE: April 5, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Maureen Riley,Executive Director SUBJECT: Department of Airports FY 2011-2012 Budget STAFF CONTACT: Jay Bingham,Finance Director 801.575-2916 Janine Christiansen,Manager for Financial Analysis 801.575-2921 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget-Briefing Documents RECOMMENDATION: We recommend adoption of the Department of Airports budget request in conjunction with the City's FY 2011-2012 Budget. BUDGET IMPACT: The Department of Airports budget will generate operating revenues of $125,813,900. Generated revenues include airline rentals, parking fees, concession revenues, cost recovery,and leases from Airport tenants. Operating expenses requested at $87,693,300 includes funding for contractual increases, CBI gate guards, natural gas,utilities, and materials and repairs in the terminal buildings. Full time equivalent (FTE's), decrease to 555.30 net of 34 unfunded positions. The Airport's capital improvement program for FY 2011-2012 is budgeted at $165,922,000, funded by the Airport reserves, Airport Improvement Program(AIP) grants from the FAA, and TSA,Passenger Facility Charges (PFC), and State grants for the general aviation airports. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Airport, as an enterprise fund of the City, does not receive any general fund to support the City's system of airports. This budget provides financial benefits by keeping cost to the airlines reasonably low, creating job growth, funding capital improvements that improve airport safety and security,maintaining and operating aging facilities, and enhancing customer service. PUBLIC PROCESS: Budget request reviews occurred with airline representatives on March 2, 2011, and with the Airport Board's Finance Subcommittee on March 15, 2011. The Airport Advisory Board recommended to the Mayor approval of the budget on March 16, 2011. Airport Executive Director briefed the Mayor March 22, 2011. Pi-cn:3 801-575-2400 1 Fax 801-575-2679 I P.O. Box 145550, Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 ! s!cairport corn CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Iavid Everitt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 5, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Maureen Riley, Executive Director t-Th SUBJECT: Department of Airports FY 2011-2012 Budget STAFF CONTACT: Jay Bingham, Finance Director 801.575-2916 Janine Christiansen, Manager for Financial Analysis 801.575-2921 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget-Briefing Documents RECOMMENDATION: We recommend adoption of the Department of Airports budget request in conjunction with the City's FY 2011-2012 Budget. BUDGET IMPACT: The Department of Airports budget will generate operating revenues of $125,813,900. Generated revenues include airline rentals, parking fees, concession revenues, cost recovery, and leases from Airport tenants. Operating expenses requested at $87,693,300 includes funding for contractual increases, CBI gate guards, natural gas, utilities, and materials and repairs in the terminal buildings. Full time equivalent (FTE's), decrease to 555.30 net of 34 unfunded positions. The Airport's capital improvement program for FY 2011-2012 is budgeted at $165,922,000, funded by the Airport reserves, Airport Improvement Program (AIP) grants from the FAA, and TSA, Passenger Facility Charges (PFC), and State grants for the general aviation airports. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Airport, as an enterprise fund of the City, does not receive any general fund to support the City's system of airports. This budget provides financial benefits by keeping cost to the airlines reasonably low, creating job growth, funding capital improvements that improve airport safety and security, maintaining and operating aging facilities, and enhancing customer service. PUBLIC PROCESS: Budget request reviews occurred with airline representatives on March 2, 2011, and with the Airport Board's Finance Subcommittee on March 15, 2011, The Airport Advisory Board recommended to the Mayor approval of the budget on March 16, 2011. Airport Executive Director briefed the Mayor March 22, 2011. I • I .. .... , P. -....-...-.4........... .....-7-.•--4.-iiiii Ali=ir .., I r� ti!' ! ; 1 I 1,f I YIt CU P > m - �� O r L CJ ca g i ,. I O.O. 0 N cu Q N � N I L 0 i I -0 � a < _ as Icn a) i. \ r,._ , , ii 2 I Si LI 0 , c j ,. . • I • ip, `� ' I I • ill , i k I I { k' d cn I ,l a L C II • cCS a) F' ,E I 0 E a) L TD t -a GJ V a) airk a) _ ' coC E rs) �.. a) a) I ro O O �Q1 Q 0 cis ! ,. i _ N 0 cn ', U 0_ C 4 I — Q c...) o 1E c a) 0 ' `� c a) a 0 O ;� � CD I Q CO c _ E o c 73 a CD ilL i0 W Q c p cv 2 EE >, N I _ U >. rI ID 'cis 6 6 kn I I • I I 1 M T L N I I 1 Nc V 1 Z N °' N ..• 0 N ca U f 1 mQRS I Ico o -0 L ca X U • Q i c a) r pi ir N ,.... O ,,, U t19 U C c • '1 U L ti O N +L+ 3i . 1 ' L U L Q a) L Q N a) fa I �+ U a) I • CZ. cu r cn L N N I .- CD 1 QCZ— 0- 0) 0 m T.o a�i 3 m C c 41 1 - _ o o N 1 as a a °o �1 1 w —I U Z u. ° m ZI CD ii ' i II Tti 1 ( E , 1 i 1 I O ^ O 0 0 0 ^ Co 0 0 0 O O O O I0 OM CO O CO Ncp a) N M M O 00 co a o a) o in ar) o It) in r' N I N Cfl 00 N O r mCD CVN M N CO EA- ta I O ^ O O O O ^ O O O O O O O O O O N 0 0 (NJO O CV Cs Csrt.+ Cl) 0 _ N- O O N- 000 II U O N- ~ Tr Q) to 00 O CO ;� CVO CVClN N_ 0 >- LO CV _O ti CV CV M Tr CO a� tn- cn CO Ts ,,,,, m CDCD O ^ c) O O so ^ coO o o O o O O 0 0 0) CO 0 0 CD c o C0 I o ., ... O a) N4 N Lovi O ti 0 W O (0 N c '� M N 0 O ~ i N 00 cv �1.r a) = M O i >- p m N 6 h. N C.,Q N- Z L. i a 0 c ce c a) I o O V) O 'S ' > ly en Ce E O a) +>-,, N EU _ }' c c O E a) i Q U > O )C — � O i a) i W C W U a �O Q I U o - L = U O L W a) 01 C c ca O — c 4 ` cv C a) 7 a) C) ,/O. o 0 ) s J — 0 L Q N L ) L. ca E }' L_ V) Q) O U a) Q. 8 �.., fC +' CU CZ s8 cn Q 0- 0 a5 Q o U U I 0 Z I— I `w I b O O O O O O O O Cs p O O 0 0 C)N .I-. N r CO a- CO CO0 0 M I r' C) CO M C) O O m O = .— CO C() Lt) N "a OCO Cr) R CO ti CO00 r- t!) COM a Ca N Cal r M T.'"1 LL N ER ER I 0 Co CD CC 0 0 co4, 0 0 0 0 0 (o O N. a) O M O O co C) 0 00 p (4 4 ti �? in C) N O 0y I N V C) M •— O r I,- Cr) co r-- 00 C() 0 C) } O CD N M r Ili LL LL N N LOZ ER ER d Cl.) O 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 a,1 i O 0 0 0 0 O 0 m O a- O — CO CO O C) C`-) N N v O N t- Cr; C) p a N C -a r- O O el , CO N 1 O Q) CDO CO r CO, a- CO LL a] O CO = Q N N M 0 � L ER EA O Q N O O CO CO O O CO CO 4► O N O CO COCO OM M N CO0 O I _ O co M O CO CO C O 0 c L. .4' N. co O M L. M Q 0 N U N in 00 O CO co) .— gyp) 1 >- Q N C 5) r C) r L. LL N N M i (4 EA EA Q Q. I a E O z c U -a O I .s L. a CC m` c as a, 1 m C _c Q co U cn E l— a) 1 y CD c (I)CD C d J s- O V =C N� Q) L L CD a) LiLi- J > c4 C m m C C C C ) L 16 CC C . O )_ LL a) N 'F �& C 1 L G) U) V) S 9 I 1- -1 0 0 Li CO a CC I I 0. .0O 0 O 0 0 0 I O 0 0 0 O 0 0 0 N +.+ N O 0o 0o O 0 In N- r" N 0 M CD 00 t1) O O C) CD IN N CO CO T- tC) 0 M Li CI) CD M a LL CO ce (NA UC) Itn. Eft I CD O O O 0 CD O N to C) N CT) O- Cr) d Cr) as O 06 M 00 C) tr) (D- O O 0 LC) 0o M 0o 0o x— ' CDN as M CD IN- CD CD ' L ) N }. to CD M Z LL Lj N e- ta U) ta Z CD I COC:) CD CD CD C) CD CD ai Z "CT +�+ O N tr) tr) tr) CO O a ,Q C CD M N r) N t N m (n N C) C7 tr) C) N I C7 tr) 0o N>- E co d. CD M N Q) Q N to e- V � Ea O Z N 0 O O O O O O Co O N U CD O 0 O O O O I O _ Cr CO 0o r N to x— O M Q C"")-00O O 1- ezzO O = C V CO to CD O- N O r` CD 0 Q �') d (D LL N e- In O •� ta Q L I Q Oa Q. 73 I p 0 �, o CU C.) o c E a) C as J I CD ca CZ Tu < CD 0 a N 0 a) } 0 F- C 4-0 110 J > ca C C = N Y )( -1, 4_, 73 ca i C — i 0 > 0) _ = CC 0 G) - N S 11 I < U LL Z < LL I b o P. ' m l N = N a ' o LL re N I I ' N CD (D r I N a) a, >- LL LL • a a Z o m o coo M Y f�. N -p N - O.N ` N Y c o (O LL m f4 E O N (I) 't a �- ' _ T Q '� ... a c QCt 3 �. v N cu O Cl) +N•' O N V) CD 0 ca a. N 3 d C Io OM To is .C^ C 7 O )n >' d 0 ii L i 'L W o a c`o 1 ..— a �, N U) Cl) • a.. ill ea O O N ctS _ co _ Oco I ._ C N -, d -a -0 u)as 0 i J O m U " Q E 2 ( 1 .. H N To LL . • • • I I T }' O O 0 CD O O O O O Co 0N O 0 CD O O 0) CDp CDd' r 0) 00 N N O Lci N CO Egzt N O ar) r cD C) It) — CO CD Q e") Lf) CD O = CO el re) (.0N 0- 00 CD c- ') 1- L N 'I' _ O co O O co 0 O O o O co }' +-' O) N t3) N cn t— V) 00 re) c- oin t.) E. Cl) a) coas00 CD N N O Q O' C) N co- N p- i m E 0 v CO 0 •- L C) L 'N CO Q = p as ai CO o 0 0 0 0 0 3 as �' NO Cl) CO Cr) CO CD CT) Ce O L as O 00 O N a it 0 r- N co• 00 t` M as c 73 o N e- �t re) 0 c s O � N 0 N -0 CO NM ti v = co —C O 0 N CO = to CD N m � ! N to LL ca > Ia. NL CD z O 01 ca L.. O L. +J +, •L in' ~ to L L cottS _ L cv CD _ 0 y a D O O O47, Ua • Cl) > - C CD ( =' C) .z •Q a = 73 °r as = to cn E W n L = L X (_C N 0 p frs Q a — > LIJ L U L — c 0 0 0 U i +r > To O _ tv to L L �_ a.d _ �+ .5 as L C) '� fn O = Q c� a =as s J 03 C ' I L b Q m U o cvn a m U o s 0 II I I lir 1 I. O O O O O O 0 O O O O O O 0 CCO D N O rn o cO N CO I CO- O)05 CD rn ql M o o Z CD O) ele- (NJd 1 .CM = O O O O O — .1- 1 CD E c a) O r N E v ti =CD •Cr n Q U D W O0 < a) Cr • O " CD + 4-0 = 4) y= CtQ O E U) Cl) a U — I 00 �.. o +•�03 a) O C cn a) - - �, G) c s= CO -a CS) COa) 0"73 • a? = a 1 cc; c 4) a) 0 — m Y i _ 2 +�' L W N O 0� +� QLL H C IF "' O — 0 0 5 O N LL O E V 0_ N 0 O 0 N 1 O c� O Q > d c/) 0 O N N i O C) ccicNi co - 0•� ca CV I 't I Cr O a) 0_ _ O O O I O O co Q m N Ln Ls" z ti ti 1 0 RI 2 a) @ � � Z. C CL a _ o o O w r cos d O N N c4 _ O L1) O ccr. Q) 1` 1- t V c� 1 — r- U Cl, ta Y N IRS %— .5 (o4I J lik _I cQ CV LL � � � 4) (n `a O `, 4) +� O I c L 0 H I (111) -0 O O o 0 C o o o o = o o o 0 0 N O .1 CO N 1 co (NI ra .. O CD N or) Vcc cn CI) O N .' CD CI) CD 0_O a_ ER 1 a a� 4 UU I O CLM N CD V N E L C ;:: cv L. O N ace i p U 0- 73 4 � >- a � fn M 0 Q Q Fo- a U- � m CD 0. O o O 0 0 0 IF ,.... 0 0. o O o 0 0 o E 0) 0 0 0 0 0 0 N (NI M x-ON cn O N uo O to co CD O LO CT i Q cs I I• CO ci CI) cu O y.r O T L L- N '� a `� Lam I L. - 1a. Q 20 w � ' as Q 73 V 0 `i C -0 'a � \ -° E I c' `� }1 L �) < o) o I CD m LLI M i _o • — (V co . a co • ' CZ p C) >1 r _z o V/ 0 0_ C I 4-0 0 Q 73 w L RI 0 C`+ / — Q N / C L Wqg U -0 c •N (4 L L Q � Ti.) -0 — 0 C)4-0 0 i " C X a (_C ++ ID CU CD Q H -J < < 0 4-0 H sV) ( 6 I 1 I I li , . . i.. .. • \ I ., , ,.0 ,_ I �.'ti / O O Co CD CDa Co co O Co O CDa Cs O G O O O r ) 4;1 p nj O (.O 1 i Ik; CO 00 0 Ll) 00 r O (0 00 CO 't t44-A*. ,,k, ' M N tCCNI- 70 r ,, 1 I • I = • CO 1 5 C a) r m _ Q o 1 M • 03 a C) N N •— _ 4-1 — I °° Cr) OQ to ID ,... I V) •X = • - to •— c�v N O 1— • Ce L — cD O I •c •• c v C J CO • 1 Q. W M : E .� I — CO a) 1 0 o o Q U C a le- _ 0 1 q) o 0 _ Q CN W >' L M 1 •�C O •Q ca J i O a I— _ moo 1 �+- >' Ce a) w ET w >, c CZ c� V iftwoJ L O ; V 1 - Ct3 CD W O L O >, _ C) O CeID 7.., O < O 1 J � � e 3 Q cn Z A I 0 1 • I b 1 I ; 1 \i‘,‘ 0,,, hit., ;\ c. c.i.., O o 0 0 0 0 fi O o O o Co CS 1 f 0 0 o CIo 0 110O Sri O CO O CIt1') N O to O 1 - O a) ti Cs CO LO litc illiti • I , �� D' •• V • • • • • • • civ* 0 N M co D • L I Eci A a : • • C) F;' , ----: 0 01 • r rrA. �.d M • = p p cm,,-,. ..:2-,.z) . .- N(15 i N . 1Q. � Q .� � m 0 N w.• > V ? _ Q Co N W I— 7) p - N >, .O O C 47, tr. _I i YD .C7) a E .° ,s1 ID ca W 1 s o ( Z I I I b M _ tt O O O co O O O O . O O O O p 0 0 p I ,Z O O O O M CS O CS N• M O M M Cy, d' LC) 0 L L I • _ � M � N : . • O ; . '- • : I m • La • E ca m • • ..... a• : cn c111 ' ° ° •(7) °_ ca . _ I- • U a) (1) N cn as ca as x'Q i = V L L. 'C.) � III IF ,N L.. = Q) _c cn a) a) c a) (4 CL C � V E Q LO 2a o � v a I 0 ce Z. N L Q a) IL L 0 a a _ W ct E .2 CDQ °a O L O C •C 0 > — Q. LI '— U U W O 0. O > ♦, U v cn Q. I ....... � o � - .0 c � = a ) U/) a) Q M to W .E W Q Z G) 0) (,) _1 1- O I ( I O so IL, _1}1 z/�[ y CU Q m cn Z y I I W Q) r- %- I V CO CD CD Ts- p V 0 M 6 M M ., O a N O ti CD u N M M Cl) = >_ ti Efl E,g N O CVO Q) CO ,_ EA C u) cc N O el M ._ "a a) v r" 00 t` N- = L) 22 LL a) P c i O Eft <R Ef)- — J ;k TS) V O t- Lt) 2 N N h I` c : Cr) 0 Et _ N N r— O L LLEj>0 • _ titi' m C CD L } ti L _L LL. EA Ef}I m C) 73 C O (0 It) N Co) 4- E › ~ Eft Eft O o W Qmu_ Ef} O C O 0 it N (I) = C O Lii cv _ 0E O O ti I i n- ca p c") Q E • tee) Eft EA- .cc CD N M IL cu Q Ef)- Eft Ef> 8 c _ = Q S 2 I Q 0 Q v) o C c CA —0 E g (f) '(1)_ a) 2 U .v i (/) Q C Q) C N a I .L — im 075 Cti N �, m ° Q c O I U — p ra ca w a) = a U Z i) a CZ —J 0 D TO 17) ( .1 0 N U et S u) v) ca cQ U I D I II O O O O O O o cc O N N CO N 00 O I N V en d O "Cr M CO N coM ca 0.cD to co U a) O I • L N RS a c� I ( U LL L. �j U O ) y C .N. C 'p f6 car g d C R c a °an -a u E ti CO VI « d ) O m = C) Q L '� a m 'a a= d 6 0 R CO U._ LL d W N U D rn «° m 4.. N m O v 0 N U U H w Q) Iy o N IN ^^,, O O O O O L W N CO O O O CI. , CCL. tD O. tO V CO in I I ` 0 inO cD ` 0 C)U Q) OM V co in O 'C C o M C_ m p, to to `\ d I Q �► ca 1 N E _ 0o O n to0 U m 3 d C d 10 V a LL C 0 / / _ o (6 V c E U) (N Y m O fO v 4- C2 UY UN a C...Q.c U O 0 CT) N C d o cin > OCO ` n $>,- o. c . 9%x LE UJc,:, N d C I .. LL ,,,.. N m a W a ~O S I I . I : # , Sil k ;• f: ,..r . I i , .• , 119" ';•-•' ..r . - . . ....mts 1 l Cit 4 <.'r.t; • ‘.. . •, ,... .., . I i *,„ - li 111 ; ., 4 . IIIII '-.. ' 1 , ht 1: ... k . ..... , . : . z.• - ''''''''' • ,..... . 1 . IJ 4 I ' I - t ..,‘ I 1 1 a , •-• . 1 ; .--- ..Ai''•Z., . I 4 t•, ;-3 it .. .i . t 4 1111) •ii.. 11 s p, i , t. i I , 1 . 7 .. I I I D I i -•- I Salt Lake City ' Department of Airports I 1 BUDGET REQUEST P for I I FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 I I I Draft 03/16/11 ii -r Salt Lake City Deportment of Airports Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Budget Message ' March 16,2011 The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive any general fund revenues to support the operation of the City's system of airports.The Department of Airports employs 555 employees and is responsible for managing,developing,and promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities and services,and a convenient travel experience. The FY12 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits including keeping the cost to airline reasonably low,funding important capital projects,which will improve airport safety and security,address customer service needs,maintain aging facilities,create jobs,and provide economic stimulus to the City and State's economy. Air Service Salt Lake City International Airport ranked high in the J.D.Power and Associates'recent survey in passenger satisfaction.The Airport placed fourth among airports with between 10 and 30 million passengers.Served by eight airlines,Salt Lake City International Airport provides 726 average daily scheduled flights to 87 non-stop destinations.The Airport's extensive route network served over 20.5 million passengers in FY10.A small increase in passengers is included in the FY11 forecast with an estimated 1.5%growth for FY12. Delta Air Lines operates a daily non-stop flight across the Atlantic to Charles de Gaulle Airport in Paris, France.By May 2011,Delta will re-start the first daily non-stop flight across the Pacific to Narita Airport in Japan. 1 Economy's Budgetary Impact The current economic conditions have caused the airline industry to reduce capacity in response to the weak demand in travel.Fewer daily scheduled flights with increased passenger load factors are the results of a slow economic recovery.Costs must remain a significant focus.With fuel on the rise again,an effective partnership with the Airport and the airlines is essential for success.Focus on enhancing customer service and increasing overall revenue includes changes in the auto-parking operator, ' redevelopment of the concessions program,and tightening of cost recovering activities. To address the economic recovery environment,the goal was set to keep airline revenue requirements flat with FY 2011.Not funding thirty-four full-time equivalent vacant positions and declaring a moratorium on vehicle purchases for FY12 helped in accomplishing this goal. I Major Capital Projects Guided by the approved Airport Master Plan and various programming and preliminary schematic designs,the Airport,with its consultants and the Airline Representatives,continuously revisit these documents and update the Terminal Redevelopment Program(TRP)implementation plan. One of the first major components of this implementation plan is the End of Runway Deicing Program. ' Taxiway L Deicing Pads are substantially complete,and Runway 34L Pads received a favorable bid.The FY12 budget consists of$55 million for two deicing support facilities and Runway 34L construction.The North Cargo Apron facilitates the next phase of the End of Runway Deicing program at a cost of$14 ' million. In FY12,funding of a total of$35 million for the TRP includes consultants'costs to provide detailed analysis and design to refine the concept for constructing the terminal area development.Major elements ' of the terminals include hold rooms,concessions,circulation,and airline support areas.This project also includes funding for environmental assessment requirements,design of relocating rental car facilities,and the new parking garage. Because of the age of the terminal buildings and the need to provide reliable,safe,and efficient terminal facilities,a budget of$6.5 million includes phase one for renovation of restrooms in concourses A and B, plus the concessions transformation and improvements.Other users have supplanted the Department of ' Airports'office and support space,necessitating the construction of a new office building that will allow consolidation of functions and staff while being near the terminals.Since information technology(IT) infrastructure needs improvement throughout the Airport campus,FY12 budget includes a two-phase fiber resiliency project.These terminal improvement projects have the intent of enhancing the level of safety and service provided to Airport customers. Airfield improvements ensure the safe operation of aircraft and preserve valuable assets.A$3.8 million ' budget for the taxiway H project will mitigate pavement deterioration along the runway crossings;$2.9 million budgeted for apron reconstruction between the service road and Taxiway H between spots 3 and 4,will reduce foreign object debris(FOD)on the ramp;$12.5 million budgeted for rehabilitation of ' Runway 16L-34R will preserve the integrity of the pavement.Keeping in compliance with FAA's advisory circular for winter operations,a snow-equipment storage building for$6.8 million is budgeted to keep the new snow removal equipment inside a conditioned building. Funding for the Airport capital improvement program includes reserves generated by the Airport,Airport Improvement Program(AR)grants from the FAA and the TSA,Passenger Facility Charges(PFC),and State grants for the general aviation airports. ' General Aviation The General Aviation Advisory group continues to provide ongoing review and feedback for the Department of Airports as general aviation facilities are developed.South Valley Regional Airport includes ' a project for$1.3 million to install reinforced concrete storm drain piping at both ends of the runway. Tooele Airport requires no capital improvements for FY12. ii 1 Airline Agreement The FY12 budget was prepared based on the airline use agreement that was in effect July 1,2010.This ' is a three-year agreement with rates and charges consisting of a residual rate-setting method for the airfield cost center and compensatory for the terminals.A one dollar per enplaned passenger incentive rebate,not to exceed 30%of net remaining revenue,continues in FY12 and is credited to the air carriers on a monthly basis. ' Financial Summary The FY12 operating revenues will increase by$3,822,900 from forecast FY11 to$125,893,100.This slight increase is primarily due to the recovery of auto parking revenue,restructuring the cost recovery of t ground transportation fees,and forecasted taxicab concession revenue.Concession contracts expire June and December of 2011.The rebidding of the food service and retail programs was very lucrative with an estimated increase of net revenue in FY13 by 30%.During FY12,food and retail revenues decrease by 6.63%due to remodeling of facilities by the new tenants. Operating expenses will increase less than a half percent over forecasted FY11 to$87,693,300. Mandatory expenditures that were out of the Airport's control included salary and medical insurance ' increases,additional gate guards,service contract escalations,rate increases in fuel and electrical power, and several roof repairs.The FY12 personnel budget of the Airport will not fund 34 full-time-equivalent positions.These positions are currently vacant due to a reduction in staff and provide a savings of approximately$2.2 million over FY11 budget. Aligning resources to the correct locations accomplished the main objective of keeping the budget flat for FY 12. 1111 i i i I lb Conclusion Department of Airport's FY12 budget aligns the Department's mission of managing,developing,and promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities and services,and a convenient travel Cexperience.These facilities and services promote economic development by providing business and �r leisure travelers'access to domestic and international destinations. EBelow is the summary of the Department of Airports FY12 Budget Request: Amended Budget Forecast Request FY 20010-2011 FY 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 Revenues and Other Sources of Funds: I Operating revenues $121,322,500 $122,070,200 $125,893,100 Passenger facility charges 46,244,900 14,481,000 63,614,000 Grants&reimbursements 47,705,000 3,685,200 44,080,000 ' Interest income 4,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 Airport Improvement Fund 46,879,800 1,003,800 30,099,400 Total $266,652,200 $143,740,200 $266,186,500 I Expenses and Other Uses of Funds: iii Operating expenses $87,055,900 $87,371,000 $87,693,300 Passenger Incentive Rebate 10,272,000 10,272,000 10,153,000 Capital equipment 4,440,200 3,565,200 2,418,200 Capital improvements 145,429,000 23,076,900 165,922,000 E Renewal and Replacement Fund 5,000,000 5,000,000 0 Increase to O&M reserves 14,455,100 14,455,100 0 I Total $266,652,200 $143,740,200 $266,186,500 I I Respectfully submitted, IAAA-cu. ... a'� Maureen S.Riley Executive Director ‘110 I I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS PROPOSED BUDGET FY 2011/2012 TABLE OF CONTENTS ' Page Projected Operating Statement 1 Operating Revenues 2 Operating Expenses 3 Organizational Chart 8 Staffing Document 9 Travel Budget 15 Sources and Uses of Funds 19 Capital Equipment 20 Capital Improvement Project(CIP) 21 1 Capital Improvement Project Descriptions 24 1 Performance Measures,Charts and Graphs 55 Acronyms 61 1 i I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 10 FORECASTED OPERATING STATEMENT FOR FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30,2011 AND JUNE 30,2012 I FY 10/11 FY 10/11 FY 11112 I Description Amended Forecast Budget Budget Requested IOperating Revenue $121,322,500 $122,070,200 $125,893,100 Operating Expense 87,055,900 87,371,000 87,693,300 INet Operating Income 34,266,600 34,699,200 38,199,800 Other Income!(Expense) I Interest Income 4,500,000 2,500,000 2,500,000 Passenger Incentive Rebate (10,272,000) (10,272,000) (10,153,000) Total (5,772,000) (7,772,000) (7,653,000) fNet Revenues from Operations 28,494,600 26,927,200 30,546,800 Other Sources of Funds i Grants and Other Funds for Capital Projects 47,705,000 3,685,200 44,080,000 Total PFC Revenues 46,244,900 14,481,000 63,614,000 Funds from Reserves/Others 72,709,200 25,265,800 58,228,000 4 Total Other Source of Funds 166,659,100 43,432,000 165,922,000 Use of Airport Capital Funds E Capital Projects and Equipment Renewal and Replacement Reserve 149,869,200 26,642,100 168,340,200 5,000,000 5,000,000 0 Increase to O&M Reserves 14,455,100 14,455,100 0 Total Use of Airport Capital Funds 169,324,300 46,097,200 168,340,200 Net Airport Reserves $25,829,400 $24,262,000 $28,128,600 I BUDGET IMPACT ON TERMINAL RENTS AND LANDING FEES IActual Budget Forecast Budget Description Request ' FY 09/10 FY 10/11 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 Terminal Rents $ 64.00 $ 75.34 $ 72.66 $ 73.41' Landing Fees $ 1.03 $ 1.66 $ 1.74 $ 1.72 Cost per Enplaned Passenger $3.41 $3.56 $3.58 $3.61 ITotal Airlines Revenue Requirements $35,036,300 $37,423,100 $37,234,300 $38,096,500 I I 1 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS L COMPARISON OF FY 10/11 BUDGETED AND FORECAST OF REVENUES TO FY 11/12 BUDGETED REVENUES IFY 10/11 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 Description Amended Forecast Requested ' Budget Budget Landing Fees I Scheduled Airlines $20,513,000 $21,161,700 $21,084,300 Charters/Commuters 100,100 109,000 110,300 Cargo 1,489,700 1,467,000 1,489,500' Total Landing Fees 22,102,800 22,737,700 22,684,100 Fuel Farm 519,300 519,300 519,300 I Extraordinary Service Charges 290,700 248,000 248,500 Cargo Ramp Use Fee 219,300 202,500 197,200 International Facility Use Fee 368,500 520,200 505,300 I Tenant Telephone Fees 345,200 332,000 332,000 Airline Terminal Rents-TU#1 8,276,400 8,247,200 8,370,400 Airline Terminal Rents-TU#2 18,394,100 18,346,800 19,245,700 I Passenger Boarding Bridge Fees 1,089,200 1,072,900 1,350,700 Executive Terminal 213,100 180,200 231,000 General Aviation Hangars 1,054,700 1,052,800 1,055,300 P FBO Hangars 158,400 238,700 182,800 Cargo Buildings 1,801,000 1,814,900 1,851,100 Flight Kitchen 985,500 1,119,900 1,120,500 I Other Buildings Office Space 3,903,600 3,936,100 4,360,900 938,800 955,500 955,500 Food Service 6,513,200 6,733,200 6,218,800 I Vending 521,600 502,100 482,500 News&Gifts 3,951,500 4,088,900 3,885,900 Car Rental Commissions 12,834,000 13,511,400 13,921,300 I Car Rental-Fixed Rents 2,147,000 2,177,500 2,195,500 Leased Site Areas 1,680,300 1,678,800 1,665,700 Auto Parking 25,046,400 24,350,500 25,403,000 I Ground Transportation 1,230,900 885,600 2,187,900 ARFF Training Revenue 643,800 626,600 630,000 Advertising Media Fees 792,500 684,100 800,000 I Security Charges for Screening 482,700 482,700 482,700 State Aviation Fuel Tax 2,482,800 2,823,600 2,823,600 Fuel Oil Royalties 334,000 309,600 310,300 Military 137,000 137,000 137,000' Other 1,864,200 1,553,900 1,538,600 Total Operating Revenue $121,322,500 $122,070,200 $125,893,100 110 I I 2 `mor- ISALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS COMPARISON OF FY 2010/2011 BUDGET AND FORECAST OF ACTUAL EXPENSES TO FY 2011/2012 BUDGET EXPENSES I Description FY 10/11 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 Amended Forecast Requested Budget Budget ' Salaries and Fringe Benefits Supervisory and Professional $15,100,700 $14,644,300 $15,385,700 I Operating and Maintenance 14,474,500 13,116,100 12,621,200 Clerical and Technical 1,206,200 1,206,200 1,158,100 Hourly and Seasonal 233,600 236,400 177,700 I Uniform and Tool Allowance 76,700 76,700 74,400 FICA/MCR 2,275,500 2,145,200 2,146,600 State Retirement 5,377,000 5,118,500 5,051,900 IHealth Insurance 5,978,800 5,573,500 5,408,800 Total Salaries and Benefits 44,723,000 42,116,900 42,024,400 t Materials and Supplies Books,References and Periodicals 50,600 53,700 51,700 Office Materials and Supplies 105,300 102,600 105,700 I Copy Center Charges 16,400 14,000 13,000 Postage 22,300 22,200 22,200 Computer Software and Supplies 345,000 371,300 415,500 IP Security System Supplies 166,700 142,800 186,300 Gasoline and Oil 622,500 643,600 662,500 Compressed Natural Gas 190,000 294,500 350,000 Other Fuel 225,000 270,200 205,000 ITires and Tubes 80,000 80,000 80,000 Motive Equipment and Supplies 515,000 515,600 515,000 Communication Equipment and Supplies 322,400 332,100 406,500 I Special Clothing and Supplies-Fire&Police 125,400 115,300 116,100 Paint and Painting Supplies 243,800 244,700 243,800 Construction Materials and Supplies 389,400 450,400 627,400 I Electrical Supplies 392,000 392,000 351,000 Road and Runway Supplies 612,000 612,000 605,000 Janitorial Supplies 924,800 923,700 923,100 I Laundry and Linen Supplies 265,200 210,300 172,400 Grounds Supplies 86,000 86,000 86,000 Mechanical Systems Supplies 815,400 823,700 984,800 I Signage Materials and Supplies 33,000 33,000 33,000 Chemicals and Salt 1,057,600 1,062,600 938,900 Safety Equipment 90,800 87,200 79,300 Licenses,Tags and Certificates 26,600 18,000 21,200 I Small Tools,Equipment and Furnishings 356,600 391,800 425,700 Material and Supplies 162,800 193,600 210,900 Total Materials and Supplies 8,242,600 8,486,900 8,832,000 6 I I 3 ' SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS COMPARISON OF FY 2010/2011 BUDGET AND FORECAST OF ACTUAL EXPENSES TO FY 2011/2012 BUDGET EXPENSES 111 I Description FY 10/11 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 Amended Forecast Requested Budget Budget Services Auditing Fees 65,000 57,600 65,000 I Legal Fees 250,000 250,000 250,000 Public Relations 331,800 327,700 311,800 Professional and Technical Services 1,618,800 3,958,400 4,201,900 I Electrical Power 4,038,400 4,054,500 4,236,200 Natural Gas 811,000 814,700 867,700 Water 560,200 561,900 588,500 I Telephone 127,000 132,600 139,600 Communications Maintenance Contracts 232,100. 236,000 240,300 Office Equipment Maintenance Contracts 303,300 294,700 299,100 I Communication Equipment Maint.Contracts 228,000 376,600 436,600 Electrical Maintenance Contracts 60,000 60,000 50,000 Motive Equipment Maintenance Contracts 80,000 94,300 90,000 Janitorial Service Maintenance Contracts 7,731,400 7,731,200 8,091,800 I Building Maintenance Contracts 469,200 466,200 463,600 Ground Maintenance Contracts 12,000 12,000 25,700 p Maintenance Contracts 79,200 100,200 28,600 Airport Deicing Contract 1,036,700 1,036,700 1,002,300 Printing Charges 34,500 52,400 34,600 Educational Training 180,800 176,200 147,300 I Towing Service 30,000 22,300 15,000 Waste Disposal 428,000 399,300 379,000 Passenger Boarding Bridge Maint.Contract 808,800 808,800 859,500 r Baggage Handling System Maint.Contract 1,818,000 1,818,000 1,818,000 Other Contractual Payments 1.796.700 1.990.900 1.717.300 Total Services 23,130,900 25,833,200 26,359,400 IOther Operating Expenses Equipment&Building Rental 172,500 276,200 246,000 I Meals and Entertainment 64,500 79,500 60,100 Employee Meal Allowance 27,700 27,400 27,000 Memberships 268,600 273,100 251,000 I Out-Of-Town Travel 403,500 400,700 361,400 Employee Costs 135,200 149,600 143,500 Bad Debts 30,000 30,000 30,000 Property Liability Insurance 550,000 550,000 550,000' Unemployment and Workers Compensation 275,000 377,400 275,000 Occupational Health Clinic Charges 36,800 36,800 30,800 Water Stock Assessments 20,000 20,000 20,000 ii; International Flight Incentives 600,000 547,000 200,000 Employee Post Employment Benefits 880,000 880,000 880,000 Other Expenses 25.000 33.200 40.600 ' Total Other Operating Expenses 3,488,800 3,680,900 3,115,400 I 4 ISALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS COMPARISON OF FY 2010/2011 BUDGET AND FORECAST OF ACTUAL EXPENSES TO FY 2011/2012 BUDGET EXPENSES 114 I FY 10/11 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 Description Amended Forecast Requested Budget Budget I Intergovernmental Charges Administrative Service Fees 1,122,100 1,238,500 1,394,500 IISLC Police Services 120,000 120,000 120,000 City Data Processing Services 369,400 369,500 375,400 Risk Management Premium 1,450,600 1,451,200 1,253,000 1 Aircraft Rescue and Fire Fighting 4,408,500 4,073,900 4,219.200 Total Intergovernmental Charges 7,470,600 7,253,100 7,362,100 E1 Total Operating Expenses $87,055,900 $87,371,000 $87,693,300 I I I I I I I ill I I 5 ' SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS SUMMARY OF FEES PAID TO SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENTS ID FY 2010/2011 FORECAST AND FY 2011/2012 BUDGET REQUEST I FY 10/11 FY 10/11 FY 11/12 Description Amended Forecast Requested Budget Bud_get I Administrative Service Fees ' Accounting $111,000 $111,400 $117,000 Payroll 77,500 73,600 172,800 I Property Management 0 2,300 2,400 Purchasing 192,200 206,200 216,500 Cash Management 8,500 13,200 13,900 Budget and Policy Development 59,000 64,000 67,200 I City Recorder 32,800 35,100 36,900 City Attorney 160,000 243,700 255,900 City Council 90,200 106,100 111,400 Mayor 51,900 38,000 39,900 Human Resources • 309,600 326,500 341,300 Contracts 29.400 18,400 19,300 ITotal Administrative Service Fees $1,122,100 $1,238,500 $1,394,500 I.. Police Services S.L.C.Police Department 120,000 120,000 120,000 I Information Management System Services Data Processing Division&IFAS 369,400 369,500 375,400 I Risk Management Administration Fees and Premiums 1,450,600 1,451,200 1,253,000 ' Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting(ARFF) S.L.C.Fire Department 4,408,500 4,073,900 4,219,200 Total Fees $7,470,600 $7,253,100 $7,362,100 I I ill I I 6 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS PERSONNEL COST EXPENSE ANALYSIS FY 2010/2011 FORECAST AND FY 2011/2012 BUDGET REQUEST IFY 10/11 FY 10/11 (1) (2) (3) Description Amended Forecast FY 11/12 FY 11/12 FY 11/12 IBudget Base Adjusted Requested I Salaries&Benefits Supervisory &Professional $15,100,700 $14,644,300 $14,798,200 $15,254,600 $15,385,700 Operating&Maintenance 14,474,500 13,116,100 12,319,700 12,611,500 12,621,200' Clerical&Technical 1,206,200 1,206,200 1,128,200 1,155,900 1,158,100 Hourly&Seasonal 233,600 236,400 174,400 177,700 177,700 Uniform &Tool Allowance 76,700 76,700 74,400 74,400 74,400 FICA/MCR 2,275,500 2,145,200 2,076,400 2,135,700 2,146,600 State Retirement 5,377,000 5,118,500 4,701,100 5,032,000 5,051,900 Health Insurance 5,978,800 5,573,500 4,782,500 5,386,900 5,408,800 ITotals $44,723,000 $42,116,900 $40,054,900 $41,828,700 $42,024,400 L FY 10/11 Amended Budget -5.83% -10.44% -6.47% -6.03% YYY... FY 10/11 Forecasted Actual -4.90% -0.68% -0.22% FY 11/12 Base 4.43% 4.92% IFY 11/12 Adjusted 0.47% Notes/Assumptions: ' (1) Base budget request includes salary and benefit costs for current year authorized employees of 552.8 Full Time Equivalents(FTE's)net of 34 unfunded positions. (2) Adjusted Base includes an assumed 2%salary increase,plus merit based on step.Insurance forecasted to increase by 10%,and pension increased by 0.4%. (3) In FY12,2.5 new(FTE's)are included,for a total of 555.3 positions,assuming 34 unfunded. ill I I 7 1111 [ 1( I 1. 1 III ILI Pill I i I II II II II II III l 1 ( "1 1 1 Salt Lake City Department of Ralph Becker Airports Salt Lake City Mayor +March 2011 Salt Lake City Department of Airports Board Maureen S.Riley 'Marco Kunz 'Nana/Fnser Executive Director AssL City Attorney Human Resource Consultant 'Michelle Frew Deborah Lurtscher Personnel l Payroll Management Administrator Coordinator CO Allen G.McCavaess Kevin F.Robins Barbara Gann John Buckner Randall D.Be Peter L Hi Director Director Director Jay C.Bingham Edwin Cherry Director R Higgins Planning&Environmental Engineering Pudic Relations& Director Director Commerual Serwces Director — Mamenance Marketing Finance&Accounting Informal.Technology Aerations I Janine Christiansen Brad Wolfe Steve Marbles — Financial Analysis LisaW Oldham Cammxdal Manager girpon Police Chief Ed Clays, P Neks Michael F.NStltlisn Manager — Manner $upenntendent Environmental -Pavement Manager Into.Tclvwlsgy Facility Maintenanu Programs Manager 'Jett Thomas Daniel L$parlor Jr. Card A.Dellinger— Rescue Si Medardo Gomez General Lodger A.Cole Hobbs Firefighting Airport Arctlited Manager Contracts Manager Bata Chief Superintendent i Facility Development Alan S.RdYfirg AKMtl Maintenance Telecom Manager Kelly R.Oldham Alvin Se.. Manager Greg Bowden Joel Nelson Superintendent — Roger Denney Geographic Audit Manager ProaeM Meager Aisfied Op... Roger —Irllo nation Systems Dig.Gray Electrical Support Superintend. Technical Systeme Robert Baiey Manager Joseph Moat alla — lendpe Audit yDevelopmentme^t Lands.. Programs Heidi Howard Connie M.Proctor Dave KoCoep I Safety Program Superintendent Superintendent Manager Seadty&Control Lendsrde S.Terminals •Salt Lake City Corporation employees assigned to the Airport SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS STAFFING DOCUMENT FY 2010/2011 AND FY 2011/2012 BUDGET REQUEST Division FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FTE FTE Executive Director's Office 8.00 7.00 Public Relations 1.00 1.00 I Commercial Services 13.00 13.50 Finance and Accounting 17.50 21.50 Information Technology 28.00 25.00 L Maintenance 232.00 229.00 Planning and Environmental 10.00 10.00 Operations 243.80 203.30 Engineering 44.50 45.00 Department Total 597.80 555.30 I R Position Title FY 10111 FY 11/12 E. FTE FTE STAFFING-EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR'S OFFICE I Executive Director's Office Executive Director 1.00 1.00 Management Support Coordinator 1.00 1.00 L Training&Employee Services Airport Employee Relations Manager 1.00 1.00 Training Program Manager Airport 1.00 1.00 • 1 Airport Employee Relations Coordinator 1.00 1.00 Employment Services Coordinator 1.00 1.00 Administrative Secretary I 1.00 1.00 Office Facilitator I 0.50 0.00 I Legal Services Property and Contract Specialist 0.50 0.00 Total Positions-Director's Office 8.00 7.00 ISTAFFING-PUBLIC RELATIONS DIVISION Public Relations ' Director Airport Public Relations&Marketing 1.00 1.00 I Total Positions-Public Relations 1.00 1.00 I STAFFING-COMMERCIAL SERVICES DIVISION I Administration Director Administration and Commercial Services 1.00 1.00 Administrative Secretary I 1.00 1.00 C Airport GRAMA Coordinator 1.00 1.00 Commercial Services Commercial Manager 1.00 1.00 L Property Manager 1.00 1.00 Contracts Manager 1.00 1.00 Sr.Purchasing Consultant 1.00 1.00 I Customer/Tenant Relations Coordinator 1.00 1.00 Property&Contracts Specialist I/II 3.00 3.00 ti Contract Development Specialist 1.00 1.50 Property Liabilities Specialist 1.00 1.00 Total Positions-Commercial Services 13.00 13.50 I I 9 ..- I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS STAFFING DOCUMENT P.1* FY 2010/2011 AND FY 2011/2012 BUDGET REQUEST Position Title FY 10/11 FY 11112 FTE FTE 1 STAFFING-FINANCE AND ACCOUNTING DIVISION Administration Director of Finance and Accounting 1.00 1.00 Financial Analysis&Debt Management Financial Analysis Manager 1.00 1.00 L Airport Parking Manager 1.00 0.00 Financial Analyst-Debt Management 1.00 1.00 Budget and Revenue Analyst 2.00 1.00 Accounting Analyst 1.00 1.00 IPart-time/Accounting Intern 0.50 0.50 Internal Audit Contract Compliance Audit Manager 1.00 2.00 I Senior Internal Auditor 1.00 1.00 General Accounting and Financial Reporting General Accounting&Reporting Manager 1.00 1.00 I Accountant)/II/Ill 6.00 6.00 Dept Personnel/Payroll Administrator 1.00 0.00 Warehouse L Warehouse Supervisor 0.00 1.00 Airport Procurement Specialist 0.00 1.00 Senior Warehouse Operator 0.00 1.00 I Warehouse Support Worker I 0.00 3.00 Total Positions-Finance and Accounting 17.50 21.50 STAFFING-INFORMATION TECHNOLOGY E. Information Systems Director Information Technology 1.00 1.00 Information Technology Manager 1.00 1.00 I Network System Engineer II 1.00 1.00 Software Engineer II 1.00 2.00 Network Support Administrator II/III 3.00 3.00 Technical System Analyst III 1.00 1.00 I Telecommunications Airport Telecom/Information Manager 1.00 1.00 Telecommunications Analyst II 2.00 2.00[ Technical Systems Analyst II 0.00 1.00 Technical Systems Airport Technical Systems Superintendent 1.00 1.00 I Technical Systems Program Manager 4.00 3.00 Technical Systems Analyst /II/Ill/IV 12.00 6.00 Network Support Administrator II 0.00 2.00 ' I Total Positions-Information Technology 28.00 25.00 IF I ' 10 r ' SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS STAFFING DOCUMENT FY 2010/2011 AND FY 2011/2012 BUDGET REQUEST Position Title FY 10/11 FY11/12 FTE FTE STAFFING-MAINTENANCE DIVISION E Maintenance Administration Director of Maintenance 1.00 1.00 Airport Maintenance Operations Superintendent 1.00 1.00 [ Airport Maintenance Superintendent 2.00 2.00 Computer Maintenance Mgt Systems Supervisor 1.00 1.00 Aviation Services Manager 1.00 1.00 Airport Maintenance Manager 0.00 1.00 Management Analyst 1.00 1.00 Purchasing Services Officer 1.00 1.00 Airport Facilities Assets Manager 1.00 1.00 I Office Facilitator I/II 4.00 3.00 Structural Maintenance Senior Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 1.00 1.00 L Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 2.00 1.00 Carpenter II 9.00 7.00 General Maintenance Worker 0.00 2.00 F Painter II 5.00 5.00 IY. Facilities Airlines Service Technical Systems Supervisor 2.00 2.00 r Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 0.00 1.00 LFacilities Maintenance Coordinator 8.00 9.00 Facilities Maintenance Warranty 1.00 1.00 ' Preventative Maintenance Airport Maintenance Manager 2.00 0.00 Senior Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 1.00 1.00 Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 2.00 2.00 E HVAC Specialist 1.00 1.00 HVAC Technician II 7.00 7.00 Plumber II 5.00 5.00 L Janitorial Contracts Maintenance Facilities Maintenance Contract Administrator 1.00 1.00 Facilities Maintenance Contract Coordinator 1.00 1.00 Facilities Maintenance Contracts Repair Technician II 3.00 3.00 Sign Shop Senior Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 1.00 1.00 Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 1.00 1.00 Maintenance Electrician IV 1.00 1.00 Airport Lead Sign Technician 2.00 2.00 ' Airport Lighting&Sign Technician 3.00 3.00 Airport Sign Technician II 2.00 2.00 Key Shop 116 Senior Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 1.00 1.00 Technical Systems Analyst II/III 0.00 4.00 Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 1.00 1.00 Locksmith Technician 4.00 4.00 ' 11 ' SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS STAFFING DOCUMENT FY 2010/2011 AND FY 2011/2012 BUDGET REQUEST I Position Title FY 10/11 FY 11/12 FTE FTE STAFFING-MAINTENANCE DIVISION-continued F Airfield&Grounds Maintenance I. Airport Maintenance Ops Support Manager 1.00 1.00 Airport Maintenance Manager 1.00 0.00 I Senior Airport Grounds Supervisor 4.00 4.00 Civil Maintenance Warranty 1.00 1.00 Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 8.00 8.00 Airfield Maintenance Equipment Operator III/IV 66.00 66.00 I Senior Florist 2.00 2.00 South Valley Regional Airport Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 1.00 1.00 rAirport Grounds/Pavement Supervisor 1.00 1.00 Electrical Support Senior Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 1.00 1.00 Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 4.00 4.00 Maintenance Electrician IV 13.00 15.00 Fleet Maintenance L Airport Fleet Manager 1.00 1.00 Airport Fleet Warehouse Operations Manager 1.00 1.00 Fleet Management Service Supervisor 5.00 5.00 C Facilities Maint.Coordinator 1.00 1.00 Senior Fleet Mechanic 4.00 4.00 Fleet Body Repair and Painter 1.00 1.00 Fleet Mechanic I/II 16.00 16.00 Fleet Services Worker 1.00 1.00 Utilities/Building Systems Maintenance E Airport Maintenance Mechanic II 6.00 6.00 Maintenance Electrician IV 5.00 5.00 Facilities Maintenance Supervisor 2.00 1.00 I Warehouse Warehouse Supervisor 1.00 0.00 Airport Procurement Specialist 1.00 0.00 Senior Warehouse Operator 1.00 0.00 I Warehouse Support Worker 3.00 0.00 Total Positions-Maintenance 232.00 229.00 I STAFFING-PLANNING AND ENVIRONMENTAL Planning and Environmental Services Director of Airport Planning/Capital Program 1.00 1.00 I Airport Planning/Capital Program Manager 1.00 1.00 Airport Environmental Program Manager 1.00 1.00 Airport Senior Planner 2.00 2.00 r Airport Principal Planner 2.00 2.00 Environmental Specialist I/II 2.00 2.00 Office Facilitator I 1.00 1.00 ' I Total Positions-Planning and Environmental 10.00 10.00 I I 12 ' SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS STAFFING DOCUMENT 1) FY 2010/2011 AND FY 2011/2012 BUDGET REQUEST Position Title FY 10/11 FY 11/12 I STAFFING-OPERATIONS DIVISION FTE FTE Administration I Director of Airport Operations 1.00 1.00 Airport Operations Superintendent 3.00 3.00 Safety Program Coordinator 1.00 1.00 I Airport Operations Analyst 1.00 1.00 Senior Secretary 1.00 1.00 Office Technician II 1.00 1.00 I Operations Intern 0.00 0.50 Aircraft Rescue&Fire Fighting(ARFF) Senior Secretary 1.00 1.00 I Airport Police Airport Police Chief 1.00 1.00 Airport Police Captain 1.00 1.00 I Airport Police Lieutenant 2.00 2.00 Airport Police Sergeant 9.00 9.00 Airport Police EOD Sergeant 2.00 2.00 Airport Police Officer I/II 50.00 50.00 I Office Facilitator II 1.00 1.00 Office Technician I/Il 2.00 2.00 Airfield&Terminal Operations Airport Operations Manager-Airfield 0.00 12.00 Airport Operations Specialist-Airfield 0.00 19.00 Airport Senior Duty Manager 1.00 0.00 I Airport Duty Manager 9.00 0.00 Senior Airport Operations Officer 5.00 0.00 Airport Operations Officer 24.00 0.00 I General Aviation Services Airport Operations Manager-Airfield 1.00 1.00 Shuttle Services I Transportation Team Coordinator 3.00 0.00 Shuttle Driver I/II 46.00 0.00 Landside Operations I Airport Operations Manager-Terminals 0.00 1.00 Airport Operations Specialist-Terminals 0.00 15.00 Airport Parking Manager 0.00 1.00 I Airport Contracts Coordinator 0.00 1.00 Landside Operations Manager 2.00 0.00 Airport Landside Operations Supervisor 10.00 7.00 Airport Commercial Vehicle Inspector 2.00 0.00 I Airport Landside Operations Officer 29.00 29.00 Access Control Airport Security Compliance Manager 1.00 1.00 ID Access Control Supervisor 1.00 1.00 Office Technician II/1 6.00 6.00 I I 13 ' SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS STAFFING DOCUMENT IDFY 2010/2011 AND FY 2011/2012 BUDGET REQUEST Position Title FY 10/11 FY 11/12 t FTE FTE STAFFING-OPERATIONS DIVISION-continued Control Center I Airport Operations Support Manager 1.00 1.00 Airport Operations Supervisor 6.00 6.00 Airport Operations Coordinator I/II 14.00 14.00 L Paging Operator 1.00 1.00 Regular Part-Time/Paging Operator 3.80 3.80 Emergency Management r Airport Operations Manager Emergency Safety 1.00 1.00 Ground Transportation Landside Operations Manager 0.00 1.00 [ Airport Landside Operations Supervisor 0.00 2.00 Airport Commercial Vehicle Inspector 0.00 2.00 Total Positions-Operations 243.80 203.30 STAFFING-ENGINEERING DIVISION Administration Director of Engineering 1.00 1.00 Civil Engineering and Construction Administration Engineer VII 2.00 2.00 Senior Engineer Project Manager 2.00 2.00 Engineer VI 1.00 1.00 Engineer V 1.00 1.00 Airport Construction Manager 4.00 4.00 [ Professional Land Surveyor 1.00 1.00 Engineering Technician VI 4.00 4.00 Engineering Technician V 5.00 5.00 [ Engineering Technician IV 5.00 5.00 Airport Field Technician 3.00 3.00 Surveyor III 1.00 1.00 [ Architectural Services Airport Architect 1.00 1.00 Senior Architect 1.00 1.00 Geographic Information System(GIS)Manager 1.00 1.00 I Licensed Architect 1.00 1.00 GIS Analyst 0.00 1.00 GIS Specialist 1.00 1.00 I Architectural Associate III 1.00 1.00 Architectural Associate IV 1.00 1.00 Administration Support I Airport Construction Scheduler 1.00 0.00 Project Coordinator III 3.00 3.00 Engineering Records Program Specialist 1.00 1.00 I Office Facilitator 1.50 2.00 Administrative Secretary I 1.00 1.00 I Total Positions-Engineering 44.50 45.00 I I I 14 IMMIIIIIIIIv ' SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS FY 2011/2012 TRAVEL REQUEST I # FY 11/12 Description Sponsoring Agency Attend Requested tExecutive Director and Staff AAAE Airport Trainer's Forum AAAE 1 2,000 I Arts in the Airport Workshop AAAE 1 2,000 ACI Spring Legislative Conferences AAAE/ACI 1 1,800 Miscellaneous AAAE/ACI 1 3,000 ACI-NA 20th Annual Conference and Exposition ACI-NA 1 2,000 I ACI-NA Winter Legislative Conference ACI-NA 1 2,000 ACI-Board of Directors Meetings ACI-NA 1 2,000 ACI-NA CEO Conference ACI-NA 1 2,000 I Airline Affairs Airlines 1 2,000 HOK Design Review Meetings HOK 1 4,000 IPMA/SHRM Annual Training IPMA/SHRM 1 1,500 NAER National Association of Employee Recognition NAER 1 1,500 Airport Finance Conference Standard and Poor's 1 1,500 CPE Education Various 1 2,000' Terminal Redevelopment Workshops Various 1 3,800 Women in Aviation Meetings Various 1 1,000 World at Work HR Local Chapter World at Work 1 2 200 ' Sub-Total 36,300 P Information Technology AAAE IT Association Annual Meeting AAAE 1 3,000 ACI-NA Business Information Technologies Conference ACI-NA 1 3,000 ACI Annual Conference&Exhibition ACI-NA 1 3,000 I Motorola Trunked Radio Group APCO/MTUG 1 Honeywell3,000 Honeywell Airport Security Conference Airport Security 2 2,000 IAUG Global Connect National Conference IAUG 1 3,400 I IAUG Regional Conference IAUG 2 5,000 Factory Training for Airports IED Paging System IED 2 5,000 Intl Security Conference West ISC West 3 4,000 In Depth Training on IP Cameras Systems Setup Pelco Video Security 2 3,000 I I.T.Integration Workshop and Conference Various 1 3 000 Sub-Total 37,400 ICommercial Services AAAE Annual Conference&Expo AAAE 1 1,500 Annual Insurance and Risk Mgmt Conference ACI 2 3,000 I ACI World E-Con Steering Committee Fall Conference ACI World 1 5,000 ACI World E-Con Steering Committee Spring Conference ACI World 1 5,000 ACI-NA Annual Conference&Exhibition ACI-NA 1 1,600 I ACI-NA Concessions Conference ACI-NA 3 4,500 ACI-NA Economic Conference ACI-NA 1 1,500 FAA&IRWA Conference FAA&IRWA 2 3,000 Terminal Redevelopment Workshops HOK 1 3,200 Intl Right of Way Conference IRWA 1 1,700 Western Region Property Managers Conference WRAPM 4 5 000 ISub-Total 35,000 I 15 ' SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS FY 2011/2012 TRAVEL REQUEST 110 # FY 11/12 Description Sponsoring Agency Attend Requested Public Relations Air Service Marketing with Airlines Various 1 2,000 IProfessional Forums Various 1 3,000 Air Service Marketing&Public Relations(Multiple Meetings) Various 1 10.000 Sub-Total 15,000 Finance and Accounting Educate/Update Employees in the Finance Airport Industry AAAE 1 2,400 PFC Workshop and Rates and Charges AAAE 2 4,200 I Miscellaneous Finance and Accounting Training AAAE 1 1,900 Internal Control Development AAIA 1 2,000 Airport Auditors Conference AAIA 3 5,600 I ACI-NA 20th Annual Conference and Exposition ACI-NA 1 2,500 Airports Council Intl Economics Specialties ACI-NA 1 1,500 Miscellaneous Finance and Accounting Training ACI-NA 2 3,000 I BSNUG Western Regional Conference BITECH 1 1,700 Annual FAA Aviation Forecast Conference FAA 1 1,500 Government and Financial Officer Utah Annual Conference GFOA 2 1,200 I Government and Financial Officer Nat'l Annual Conference GFOA 2 3,200 TC-1 Conference TC1-1 1 1,700 Miscellaneous Finance and Accounting Training Various 2 2,400 p Annual Warehouse and Inventory Conference WERC 2 5 200 Sub-Total 40,000 Planning and Environmental IAirports Economics Forum AAAE/AMAC 1 1,800 ACI-NA 20th Annual Conference&Exhibition ACI-NA 1 1,800 I Environmental Affairs Conference ACI-NA ACI- 1 2,000 Airline&Airport Deicing Management Conference NA/ATA/RAA 1 1,800 National Planning Conference APA 1 2,200 Program Guidance for DBE Program Administrators Workshop FAA 1 1,200 I Northwest Mountain Region Airports Conference FAA FAA 3 3,500 Airport Business Diversity Conference /AMAC 1 3,000 Utah Airport Operators'Association Fall Conference UAOA 1 600 I Utah Airport Operators'Association Spring Conference UAOA 1 800 National Transportation Civil Rights Conference US DOT/AASHTO 1 1,800 Annual DBE Training UUCP/PTAC 1 500 I Sustainability/Recycling Conference Various 1 2,000 Miscellaneous Travel Various 1 2 000 Sub-Total 25,000 I Legal AAAE Annual Conference&Expo AAAE 1 1,500 Basics of Airport Workshop ACI 1 1,000 ACI-NA Annual Conference&Exhibition ACI 1 500 ACI Legal Issues Conference ACI 1 1,500 I SWAAAE Annual Conference Sub-Total SWAAAE 1 500 5,000 I 16 ' SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS FY 2011/2012 TRAVEL REQUEST # FY 11/12 Description Sponsoring Agency Attend Requested ' Engineering Airport Planning Design&Construction AAAE 3 5,400 I Airfield Construction Seminar AAAE 1 2,000 Technical Committee ACI 1 2,000 ACI-NA Annual Conference&Exhibition ACI 1 2,200 I American Congress Survey&Mapping Conference ACSM 1 2,000 Geographic Information Systems Conference ESRI 1 2,100 NW Mountain Region Airports Conference FAA 2 2,000 I Miscellaneous Travel Various 5 7 300 Sub-Total 25,000 I Maintenance NW Chapter AAAE Annual Conf and Expo AAAE 2 4,000 F.Russell Hoyt National Airports Conference AAAE 1 1,800 I 84th Annual AAAE Conference&Exposition AAAE 1 2,000 AAAE Large Hub Winter Operations Conference and Expo AAAE 2 4,400 AAAE International Aviation Snow Symposium AAAE 2 4,400 I ACI-NA 20th Annual Conference and Exposition ACI-NA 1 1,500 ACC/AAAE Airport Planning,Design&Construction Symposium ACC/AAAE 2 3,400 American Public Transportation Association APTA 2 2,400 pJanitorial Benchmarking at DIA Denver Intl Airport 1 400 Electric West Sign and Expo Electric West 2 3,200 Trade Show Commercial and Industrial Electrical Practice Electric West Conf. 2 4,000 I Ground Support Equipment Show and Seminar Equip.Manufac.Assn 1 2,200 Lock and Security System Training Hy Security Co. 1 1,900 Annual IFMA World Workplace Symposium IFMA 1 2,100 IFMA Spring Symposium IFMA 1 1,900 I Siemens BAS Training IFMA 1 8,900 Security Systems and Locksmith Training ISC 1 2,100 Worldwide Cleaning Industry Assn.Seminar/Equip.Show ISSA 2 2,900 I Annual Micromain Users Conference MicroMain 1 1,900 Rocky Mountain Fleet Managers Association RMFMA 2 1,500 Trade Show and Seminar on Airfield Lighting SALC 3 6,000 Sub-Total 62,900 Operations ' Large Hub Winter Operations Conference&Expo AAAE 2 3,900 AAAE NW Annual Conference&Expo AAAE 1 1,800 F.Russell Hoyt National Airports Conference AAAE 2 4,000 I AAAE/Bird Strike North America Conference AAAE 1 2,500 Airport Customer ServiceNolunteer Ambassador Conference AAAE 1 2,000 AAAE Parking and Landside Management Workshop AAAE 1 2,000 AAAE Runway Safety Summit and SMS Workshop AAAE 2 4,000 AAAE Law Enforcement Officers(LEO)Training School AAAE 1 1,500 AAAE General Aviation Issues&Security Conference AAAE 1 1,400 I ARFF Training Alliance's/Chiefs and Leadership School AAAE 1 1,500 84th Annual AAAE Conference&Exposition AAAE 2 4,000 ACI-NA Fall Public Safety&Security Conference ACI-NA 2 4,000 I 17 ISALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS FY 2011/2012 TRAVEL REQUEST ilk # FY 11/12 Description Sponsoring Agency Attend Requested IOperations (Continued) ACI-NA Public Safety & Security Spring Conference ACI-NA 1 2,000 I ACI-NA Operations & Technical Affairs Conference ACI-NA 1 1,800 Airport Law Enforcement Agencies Network Fall Conference ALEAN 1 1,500 Airport Law Enforcement Agencies Network Spring Conference ALEAN 1 1,500 I Assn. of Public Safety Communications Officials Conference APCO 1 1,900 ARFF Working Group Conference ARFFWG 2 3,000 American Society of Safety Engineers Annual Seminar ASSE 1 2,000 Bureau of Criminal Identification Annual Training BCI 2 1,000 I Black Chief Officers Committee Conference BCOC 1 1,500 Annual Aircraft Familiarization & Construction Seminar Boeing Fire Dept. 1 1,500 Emergency Management Institute EMI 1 500 I Northwest Mountain Regional Conference FAA 1 1,500 FBI-NA Spring Conference FBI 1 1,600 FBI-NA Fall Conference FBI 1 1,000 I Explosives Ordinance Annual Training Conference IABTI 2 3,000 Intl Assn. of Chiefs of Police Annual Conference IACP 1 1,500 Intl Assn. of Emergency Managers Annual Conference IAEM 1 2,000 ' Intl Assn. of Fire Chiefs Annual Conference !CHIEFS 1 1,500 International Parking Institute Annual Conference & Expo IPI 2 4,000 Fueling Symposium Sea-Tac 1 1,500 Spillman Users Group Systems Administration Training Spillman 2 700 K-9 Program Annual Review TSA 1 1,500 Utah Airport Operators Association Fall Conference UAOA 3 2,000 I Utah Airport Operators Association Spring Conference UAOA 3 2,500 Utah Emergency Managers Assn. Conference UEMA 1 400 Utah State Fire Chiefs Assn. - Leadership Symposium USFCA 1 1,000 I Utah Department of Public Safety Annual Conference UT Dept.of Public Safety 1 500 State Homeland Security Public Officials Conference UT State Homeland Security 1 600 Utah Chiefs Annual Conference UTCOP 1 1,000 I WESTDOG Meeting WESTDOG 1 1,200 Sub-Total 79,800 Department Totals $361,400 I I II ID I I 18 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS FOR FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2011 AND JUNE 30, 2012 Funds Available as of 7/1/10 , Unrestricted Funds Total Funds Available as of 7/1/10 $194,919,000 Sources of Funds Net Increase to Reserves from Operations 26,927,200 Federal & State Grants 3,685,200 PFC Revenues 14,481,000 45,093,400 Uses of Funds Capital Projects 23,076,900 Capital Equipment 3,565,200 Renewal and Replacment Reserves 5,000,000 Increase to 0 & M & Debt Service Reserves 14,455,100 46,097,200 Estimated Funds Available as of 7/1/11 $193,915,200 Sources of Funds Net Increase to Reserves from Operations 30,546,800 Federal & State Grants 44,080,000 ' PFC Revenues 63,614,000 138,240,800 ' Uses of Funds Capital Projects 165,922,000 Capital Equipment 2,418,200 168,340,200 Estimated Funds Available as of 7/1/12 $163,815,800 1 19 I= ME MO MS MIMI IF NM IIIIII Mil Ell fr MIN SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL EQUIPMENT FY 2011/2012 REQUEST Funding Source N=New FY 11/12 Description R=Replace Qty Request PFC Airport Airfield Terminals Landside Other Fleet Equipment ARFF Truck R 1 $ 990,000 $ - $ 990,000 $ 990,000 $ - $ - $ - Total Fleet Equipment 990,000 - 990,000 990,000 - - - Other Equipment Voice Over Internet Protocol (phone switches&equipment) N 1 344,900 344,900 144,900 200,000 Parking and Revenue Control System (credit card server) N 1 130,000 130,000 130,000 Self-Contained Breathing Apparatus (SCBA) R 10 104,600 104,600 104,600 Operating Computer&Software/Server Upgrade R 4 206,200 206,200 73,500 33,400 59,300 40,000 (dispatch)/Service Test Monitor/Communication Access Feed Computer Access Security System Switches R 6 70,000 70,000 70,000 Electronic Citation & Mobile computer Aided Dispatch N 11 69,500 69,500 14,200 55,300 N Remote Breaker Reset Equipment N 1 60,000 60,000 60,000 Q License Plate Cameras&tie In Video Feed R 8 50,000 50,000 50,000 Flight Information Display System (upgrade to equipment) R 1 50,000 50,000 50,000 Rubber Removal Head N 1 32,700 32,700 32,700 Pressure Washers&Sprayer R 3 62,000 62,000 62,000 Carpet Cleaning Machines/Vacuums/Escalator Cleaner R 5 68,200 68,200 68,200 Building Automation System Servers R 1 28,000 28,000 28,000 Fingerprinting Machines R 3 27,000 27,000 27,000 Automated Weather Observing System (ceilometer sensors) R 1 23,900 23,900 23,900 Digital Color Copier Scanner&Thermal Transfer Printer R 2 37,000 37,000 37,000 Digital Ally Systems (patrol vehicles) N 3 16,700 16,700 16,700 Load Bank for Airport Emergency Generators N 1 15,000 15,000 15,000 Trailer R 1 15,000 15,000 15,000 Myers Brake Drum & Rotor Lathe R 1 10,500 10,500 10,500 Transfer Switch for Police Station N 1 7,000 7,000 7,000 Total Other Equipment 1,428,200 - 1,428,200 364,100 296,500 260,500 507,100 Total Capital Equipment $ 2,418,200 $ - $ 2,418,200 $ 1,354,100 $ 296,500 $ 260,500 $507,100 11 It I 1 III ! I t ! I _I ._IL MINI WI EN MI In MI fr INIII SALT LAKE CITY DEPA __ ENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY11/12 FY 11/12 Funding Source FY 11/12 o,. Estimated Cost FY 10/11 FY 10/11 Budget Federal Airport/ Q. AUA Cost Center/Project Title at Completion Forecast CIP Budget Requested Grants PFC Paygo Tenant Total Funds Terminals 24 Concourse and Terminal Renovation Phase 1 $ 5,000,000 - $ 5,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 3,750,000 $ 1,250,000 $ 5,000,000 25 Replace Carousel 9/Oversized Bag Belt TU3 955,000 - - 955,000 955,000 955,000 26 Fiber Resiliency-Phase 1 333,000 - - 333,000 333,000 333,000 27 Fiber Resiliency-Phase 2 388,000 - - 388,000 388,000 388,000 28 Airport Operations Office Building 5,000,000 - - 5,000,000 5,000,000 5,000,000 29 Restroom Remodel-2 Public Restrooms Lower B Concourse 658,000 - - 658,000 658,000 658,000 30 Concession Renovations&Improvements 1,500,000 - 1,500,000 1,500,000 1,500,000 Subtotal Terminals 13,834,000 - 5,000,000 13,834,000 - 5,250,000 8,584,000 13,834,000 Airfield 31 Overlay Taxiway H Connecting Taxiways(H3-H9,H11 &H12) 3,801,000 - 3,760,000 3,760,000 3,000,000 760,000 3,760,000 32 Snow Equipment Storage Building 6,842,000 - 6,842,000 6,842,000 6,842,000 6,842,000 33 Apron Reconstruction-East of Spots 3&4 2,984,000 - 2,984,000 2,204,000 780,000 2,984,000 34 Joint Seal Runway 16R/34L-Taxiways A&B 1,210,000 610,000 2,199,000 600,000 - 600,000 600,000 35 Glycol Enhancement 850,000 850,000 850,000 850,000 36 Runway 16L-34R Pavement Rehabilitation 12,486,000 - 12,486,000 7,251,000 5,235,000 12,486,000 Subtotal Airfield 28,173,000 610,000 12,801,000 27,522,000 12,455,000 12,837,000 2,230,000 27,522,000 Auxiliary Airports 37 SVRA-Drainage Improvements 1,323,000 - 1,323,000 1,257,000 66,000 1,323,000 r.) 38 SVRA-Maintenance Building(Design) 300,000 - 300,000 300,000 300,000 Subtotal Auxiliary Airports 1,623,000 - - 1,623,000 1,257,000 - 366,000 1,623,000 Landside 39 Security/CCTV Enhancement 4,000,000 - 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 40 3700 West Fiber Infrastructure Expansion 1,300,000 - 1,300,000 1,300,000 1,300,000 41 Emergency Generator Replacement-Parking Structure 180,000 - - 180,000 180,000 '180,000 42 Emergency Generator Replacement-Ops/Shuttle Base 180,000 - - 180,000 180,000 180,000 43 Asphalt Overlay Program-Phase 7 750,000 - 750,000 750,000 750,000 Subtotal Landside 6,410,000 - 4,000,000 6,410,000 4,000,000 1,300,000 1,110,000 6,410,000 Land Acquisition 44 Land Acquisition -Airport Improvement 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 6,000,000 Subtotal Land Acquisition 6,000,000 - - 6,000,000 - - 6,000,000 6,000,000 Other 45 Vehicle Shop Rooftop HVAC systems-Phase II 500,000 - 500,000 500,000 500,000 46 Economic Development Reserves 1,000,000 - 1,000,000 1,000,000 1,000,000 47 CIP Committee Reserve/Airport Contingency 4,000,000 - 4,000,000 4,000,000 4,000,000 Subtotal Other 5,500,000 - - 5,500,000 - - 5,500,000 5,500,000 Total On-going Capital Improvement 61,540,000 610,000 21,801,000 60,889,000 17,712,000 19,387,000 23,790,000 60,889,000 E = 4.11.1111 M ON - M ID I 11.0411 MI MI IF - M IF MI4IIM Br SALT LAKE CITY DEPA. ..dIENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM FY11/12 FY 11/12 Funding Source FY 11/12 o Estimated Cost FY 10/11 FY 10/11 Budget Federal Airport/ 42 AUA Cost Center/Project Title at Completion Forecast CIP Budget Requested Grants PFC Paygo Tenant Total Funds Terminal Redevelopment Program(TRP) 48 Taxiway L Deicing Pad-Phase 2(Constr.) 15,080,000 14,080,000 26,185,000 1,000,000 906,000 94,000 1,000,000 49 Taxiway L Deicing Support Facility 6,735,000 - 6,735,000 6,735,000 6,735,000 50 R/W 34L Deicing Pad 40,158,000 2,823,000 24,775,000 37,310,000 17,600,000 19,710,000 37,310,000 51 R/W 34L Deicing Support Facility 6,887,000 - 6,887,000 6,887,000 6,887,000 52 RAN 34R Deicing Pad-(Design) 3,391,000 - 3,391,000 3,391,000 3,391,000 53 North Cargo Apron 14,410,000 - 14,410,000 14,410,000 7,000,000 7,410,000 14,410,000 54 Terminal Redevelopment Program Specialty Consultants 93,663,400 3,803,000 31,713,000 35,300,000 862,000 34,438,000 35,300,000 Subtotal Terminal Redevelopment Program(TRP) 180,324,400 20,706,000 97,083,000 105,033,000 26,368,000 44,227,000 34,438,000 105,033,000 Completed Projects in FY 11 50,573,285 23,076,900 26,545,000 Grand Total Capital Improvement Program $ 292,437,685 $ 44,392,900 $ 145,429,000 $ 165,922,000 $44,080,000 $63,614,000 $ 58,228,000 $ 165,922,000 N N 1ilirr. SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS FEDERAL AND STATE CONTRIBUTIONS FOR FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30, 2011 AND JUNE 30, 2012 ' FY 10/11 FY 11/12 Capital Project Forecast Requested Capital Improvement Projects ' AIP SVRA - Replacement of Airfield Signs $219,800 Taxiway L Deicing Pad - Phase I $3,465,400 Taxiway L Deicing Pad - Phase II 906,000 ' Overlay Taxiway H Connecting Taxiways (H3-H9 and HI 1-H 12) 3,000,000 Apron Reconstruction - East of Spot 3/4 2,204,000 Runway 16L/34R Pavement Rehabilitation 7,251,000 SVRA - Drainage Improvements for Safety 1,257,000 R/W 34L Deicing Pad 17,600,000 North Cargo Apron Expansion 7,000,000 TRP Specialty Consultants 862,000 ARRA Security/CCTV Enhancement 4 000 000 y , p I ' Total Federal and State Funding $3,685,200 $44,080,000 111 ' 23 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS II CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Concourse and Terminal Renovation — Phase 1 I Project Description: This project is the first in a series of projects that will rehabilitate and renovate the concourses, connectors, and pedestrian bridges connecting the parking garage to the terminals. Work in this phase will be focused on Concourse A and the pedestrian bridges. Work will include I renovating and updating floor and wall finishes, upgrading HVAC equipment and controls, remodeling restrooms, and upgrading communications/data infrastructure. I Project Justification: Concourses A, B, C, D and the associated connectors were constructed in the late 1970's and early 1980's. This project will repair and replace building systems and components that are nearing the end of their useful life and that are becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. Communications/data infrastructure will be upgraded to provide more efficiency and support new I technology. Design-Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date IJuly 2011 January 2012 June 2012 Construction Design Testing Expenses Contingency Total I Cost Consultant Budget $ 4,000,000 $ 400,000 $ 25,000 $ 75,000 $ 500,000 $ 5,000,000 I PROJECT LOCATION 1114.' lippo �..t k�. �`, .. t j.• ii .4...,.. . . . . 1 . . . W5i •.. V ... _,f . `- Cyr,'S ..H U ♦ r- .4:S-:• WW1 ft 'fi! -f .' —" r l I C••ila 's9'.tp ;i .- — - `mow t / m. i aria •it1i0 , '' ; .) ' F. 'Flaw �:. ra= , �sJ? ),a-• �� 4`',a srra cIt:ss _.+,1 . " �� _i V tM,t .raft P.%.Rtj Y "tz:..-::.;,. ;FP 1 tri7:----r'III P-(4/ Ail . . . ,,,A4/ . •:A...,..4.,, . : ../.:-'' .-1 ...._1 r' ;\�1, '----- .�,J r y,4 I ►Awt U .4� • ., w' l v`,� elt 17. I 24 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS Plibi CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Replace Carousel 9/Oversized Bag Belt — TU3 I Project Description: This project will replace the original carousel, inbound conveyor system, and oversize bag belt in the Federal Inspection Services (FIS) facility at Terminal 3. I Project Justification: The baggage handling equipment being replaced in this project are over 15 years old and are becoming increasingly more difficult to maintain. I Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2011 January 2012 March 2012 I Constructions Design Consultant Testing Expenses ' Contingency Budget $ 804,000 $ 72,000 - $ 4,000 $ 75,000 $ 955,000 IOperational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none I PROJECT LOCATION ';.••...4$ .., .7. ''')—T 7.' ; '- LI,'r tcl k 1". .` ', :-.Z.1-4-;. . 44/.6° + - *--i•' r ,_-7,- ' 1,, IF) , .• of A - t h ` r r i ;• 1 \ • P , :90510.• i,o,„die""k:iimpmkiptelitp. - / "A"'\ :• , „-- I . 7, ?A _ I ' x t'l 9.',,!i 4YA r` //f ,�_ i. ask' € i ti i+I j/ __ t.��"4 ItS rt, 1 , • -,mod I . s 1.,, i 25 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET b I Project Title: I Rber Resiliency—Phase 1 IProject Description: This project will utilize existing communications duct banks to provide alternate pathway feeds to strategic technology nodes on the airport campus. Work will include installation of fiber optic cable and appurtenances from the existing terminals to facilities in the North Support I Area. Project Justification: This project will provide redundancy for data/telecommunications I infrastructure that is currently fed through the technology node located in Concourse E The redundant pathway will also allow for redistribution of services during future construction to replace Concourse E IDesign Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date August 2011 May 2012 July 2012 I Construction Design Consultant Total Cost Testing Expenses Contingency t ud Total get $275,000 $25,000 $2,000 $3,000 $28,000 $333,000 Operational Impacts I One-time: none I On-going: none 1 PROJECT LOCATION - I .ataas_r. .rmmr da> Y nL _,A / e f :Ili. a#tt. -' . i { - --",,,-.Q1 - :1-:'1*4/ Nli . WICK A•.. . , . . •.• 1 .,.: . ,.••• ...:_ , I . --, +� ,lit y , .., 7 ' - ,-I All . !��_ _ - h ___ . - _ fi• r v. ..- .,1,- " _ .- •. . �-- . .gym' a wean I - ---- - I 26 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS in CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET 'vft/ Project Title: Fiber Resiliency— Phase 2 ' Project Description: This project will utilize existing communications duct banks to provide alternate pathway feeds to strategic technology nodes on the airport campus. Work will include installation of fiber optic cable and appurtenances from existing facilities at the West Airfield lighting vault to the East Airfield lighting vault. Project Justification: This project will provide redundancy for data/telecommunications Iinfrastructure that is currently fed by a single feed from the terminals. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date August 2011 May 2012 July 2012 I Construction Design Consultant Total Testing Expenses ContingencyCost Budget I $ 320,000 $ 29,000 $ 4,000 $ 3,000 $ 32,000 $ 388,000 Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none IPROJECT LOCATION ` ^ �.. ill 804H J i �r ► 01 I ii.:._ . I. 1,-.7'.00./. irr:.- ..-,..w.,- 1.--.. iti:<.:,, .,..,:t:3 , . ,..-. ,. -.,.::: . ... A , .., • , . 1,. , ._4 4: I i, ' ' • ., .s:4:% 2 - , •=-Sf- r" - j x. I • �c a >a +.,r it- - r� { a, t`: :�. I fi• a- • - MIND I .. ' }' .. - - ,.+ tom. � 0 raa�a......^ 4 j~ ! h Y d - y � I I 27 1 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 110 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Airport Operations Office Building IProject Description: This project will design and construct a new office building for some of the Airport Operations staff. The building will be approximately 26,000 to 30,000 square feet and will provide office and support facilities for Airport Operations airfield, police, control center, and access Icontrol (airport security badging) staff. Project Justification: The Department of Airports requires more office and support space in close I proximity to the terminal for its staff. Over time, Airport space in the terminal area has been supplanted by other users' needs including the airlines, concessionaires, and TSA. Consequently, Airport staff has been relocated to various remote locations throughout the airport campus. Many I of the relocated functions such as airport security badging and airfield operations have outgrown their current office spaces. A new office building will allow the Airport to consolidate its staff closer to the terminal area. This office building location will serve both the existing and future terminal complex. This office building will also allow the Airport to reduce the office space Irequirement in the new terminal. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date IJuly 2011 April 2012 November 2012 Construction Design Consultant Testing Expenses Contingency Total Cost Budget $ 4,100,000 $ 369,000 $ 41,000 $ 80,000 $ 410,000 $ 5,000,000 p Operational Impacts _ One-time: none On-going: none PROJECT LOCATION 1 •:Yr.r.. .'e,:•'.t �7t.:: sr.H•x •:,>itz. a :r. . ,r t - --- _fit ra,��: :�'•: x.:ra+sa ts�?: yRtiu• sci;'Sts.ti.:' ma's ,,, ' '` _ 1 �\r :'It r:a AT.: harry Mal 4.1.4g.. ►71111�.: __ _ a...,� • • ", 1. . •i r' 'r.:: Zi...m..ti7 le.r,v R w sr-'sr R�Z`t. �t �q -{1 u i `. ••• Vev. ...•.•r. :a'J�T L�:d'.::/. :Aar:: l • " ..711ii 4 # :91�t ;9 . r:`I :S.l::l`; g•.... Z;:man Sohn.." .rzir„% ', i; u.� t-.;�- .r� _ ` .`,`'. .u., .•'y: • :.a•: s.tra. J ;`%*1:7 T. 't •S`• '•F I', 1' Q/ ,,• •• • s 1:•• -4.1 !vim.:t;,:' .-ri,"II.' lit ......,.---/ :,• ;,I, —,.'si 4".. . 1 F. r .. . _re. ' Alit _•.._. ir' n wr. -.r1i _t- rk. , U s r' . 'r .dL is -t,` . �-. * fi,. i �, � r ,� k. ill li e 1 -, • • 1't',"- • lit. 'r Se • . -_.0.. � 11 ;r 1 28 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS IP CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Restrooms Remodel— Lower B Concourse I Project Description: This project will remodel existing restroom facilities at the Lower B Concourse. Work will include demolition, installing new plumbing fixtures, tile, floor finishes, and automated low flow water valves. IProject Justification: The restrooms in Lower B Concourse were constructed in 1997. The restrooms are heavily used, as they are the only restrooms in the lower level of Concourse B. I Renovating these restrooms will improve customer service and reduce maintenance costs. I Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2011 February 2012 April 2012 Construction Design Testing Expenses Contingency Total ' Cost Consultant Budget $ 523,000 $ 52,000 $ 2,000 $ 3,000 $ 78,000 $ 658,000 I Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none PROJECT LOCATION I . •, ,.. S .. - } 4 ` L 4 I -S • IS:ti:l .Y! i 1/1 1.T.7 M1 T •Aa . • f :.t141C rut :Wis.'itni r• - , I ! g'.- t ate ar tataC L- ' ' sauna.rr- t 1,, ,��, I eralVt .rat ?Si T i1;, .a. __.. lai z_.*.:en c1. , . '1/4 T. LVL. , F ;i- ,,Aill. k' .a' /, 'it . . ., muun,i- . ist, >. UU M=Val . • -• ,•, t i , 1 ; . 0 > r. 0. . :.• 4 o If.)..io.:IN,'. IL ,,',..k.) ..,,,,f....„, k „el I I 29 Ojam, I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 1111/ CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Concessions Renovations and Improvements IProject Description: This project will include program management, design, and construction services necessary to support the redevelopment of the Airport's concessions program. Construction work will include installation of new escalators from the concourse level to the third I level restaurant in Terminal 1 as well as removal of the existing solid wall on the northeast perimeter of the restaurant area and replacing the solid wall with a glass railing to increase visibility to the restaurant level. Other work will include rerouting of utilities and modifying building services as Irequired to support the new concessions program. Project Justification: The Airport is in the process of rebidding its entire concessions program Iwithin the terminals and concourses. Approximately 75 locations within the terminal complex will be remodeled and renovated by the concessionaires over the next 18 to 24 months. This project will allow the Airport to properly support and administer the tenant construction that will occur during the transition period. IDesign Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2011 October 2011 December 2012 IConstruction Design Testing Expenses Contingency Total Cost Consultant Budget I $ 800,000 $ 80,000 $ 20,000 $ 480,000 $ 120,000 $ 1 ,500,000 PROJECT LOCATION - - : 1 1 .,„ . tv--r,11r r., , 4. r; rap '.1.t,;i2 '.7f •:4tt`.7JILs. 1 . ' h . . S .r txasrr ?1,0Mw 4442.4ZIPa4a7R7i.L71T.'S< . •. 'at ' + A, na r. •.•,',. SAY •• 1t Ams. 4 I _ , ..,•`r ,.ar's.a-ns ,ewnas..0 , e t r. . (.Zef•%0 b... '''--.-7,.."1—•'' . 1-to A��{'� tt, iI` ob ti+ .I� t R'�f — '' 7 • A . ` Via•. ,,,•:ki,,, 4 . •..- II 1 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 1 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Overlay T/W H Connecting Taxiways (H3-H9, H11, & H12) IProject Description: This project will resurface the asphalt connecting taxiways from Taxiway H to the hold short line of Runway 16L-34R. The surface will be cold milled to a depth of 3-inches and repaved with bituminous surface course. Taxiway centerline lights and runway guard lights will be Iremoved to allow for the cold milling and reinstalled to match the new surface elevations. Project Justification: Visual inspection of the connecting taxiways (H3-H9, H1 1 , & H12) surfaces I shows areas of severe cracking, rutting and loose aggregate, creating a foreign object debris concern. The existing asphalt surfaces have been in place for 13 years, during which they have only received periodic maintenance to fill cracks and repair minor deficiencies. The resurfacing of the taxiway connectors will restore the pavement integrity and prolong the service life of the taxiways. I Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date December 2008 May 2011 September 2011 IConstruction Airfield Lighting Testing Expenses Contingency Total Cost Consultant Budget I $ 3,337,000 $ 70,000 $ 56,000 $ 4,000 $ 334,000 $ 3,801,000 Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none IPROJECT LOCATION Oil . •, •.� ,s es.. fir. .4•11Il1111111i. �Rnllir, �, 4, '; • !ri! E �.+ l .w •_ \ •1 / " f! i p .: _ _ �_ 9 TJ 1' . ,.2%,3-.: y II ill - — - ".. ._ a �� , • 31 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET %ff, Project Title: Snow Equipment Storage Building I Project Description: This project will construct a building for storing snow removal equipment. Work will include construction of the building, site utilities, paving for maneuvering around the building, and construction of an access road to allow direct access to the airfield. The access road 1 will connect into the perimeter road located east of Taxiway G north of Taxiway H10. Project Justification: The Airport has recently purchased new snow removal equipment to comply I with the requirements of FAA Advisory Circular 150/5200-30B, Airport Winter Safety and Operations. This equipment will allow for the operation of a new snow removal element dedicated to clearing snow from high priority taxiways associated with runway snow removal operations. The Advisory Circular recommends that whenever possible, snow and ice control equipment should be I housed in a heated building to prolong the useful life of the equipment and to enable more rapid response to operational needs. This project will allow the Airport to comply with the FAA's recommendation. IDesign Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date May 2011 October 2011 October 2012 IConstruction Design Testing Expenses Contingency Total Cost Consultant Budget 5,567,000 $ 556,000 $ 109,000 $ 54,000 $ 556,000 $ 6,842,000 Is Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none IP 7.;;M:li _,.. . PROJECT LOCATION ill 4 ;7.,.... .,...... .. `� 1 i �,7"1: / z} • .. -� �?k 1 I7i . _ k;•' ..-. 1 'f.',-} . -1: 0 . - • ;> (-7. va, t,.. . .1.. . .4,„...--_,. .:...1-4*P:7 ' I,,,,:.‘ ? 1 ,, - l':------t-__z "A; :,,I.•-7,- 1:-At; - .. - •• .r am 1. i ..41 I , 32 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 1110 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Apron Reconstruction — East of Spots 3 & 4 I Project Description: This project will reconstruct a portion of the concrete apron between the existing service road and Taxiway H between spots 3 and 4. Work will include demolition and removal of the existing concrete pavement, excavation, stabilization of the underlying subgrade, I construction of new portland cement concrete pavement, and miscellaneous airfield lighting adjustments. IProject Justification: The concrete being reconstructed in this project was constructed in 1981. The concrete panels are exhibiting signs of distress including corner breaks, slab fractures, and spalling creating foreign object debris (POD) on the ramp. The 2010 pavement condition index (PCI) I for this area was 58. This project will reduce the potential for foreign object debris damage to aircraft and maintain the integrity of the apron pavement. I Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 201 1 April 2012 September 2012 I Construction Design/CA Expenses Contingency Total Cost Consultant Budget $ 2,431,000 $ 279,000 $ 54,000 $ 3,000 $ 217,000 $ 2,984,000 IOperational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none 1111 PROJECT LOCATION tii, ' ,\1r : 3 . 5r,. • i4%0.. , .'L'_ ...? �.�. lid f4_J 1 ..., . " . f.''''N'r / , '.- li • -"doktili..' ' .../..-f.-- ,,/,/;!.: -• V -. -..r.,,,.z—i.;i---„, ''‘ -1- ,- r .-- , r zpili- .(1'k I. ',41 iJ , �t yr 1 Ni, . t 1 . 11--z— _ J I '.l L AY '*W11. k: 1 I) 1- _ i' at '. ,;� - - • . , ‘ I 33 fir.. I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET II I Project Tkle: I Joint Seel Runway 16R/34L-Taxiways A&B ' Project Description: This project will reseal the joints in the concrete pavement of Taxiways A and B associated with Runway 16R/34L. Work will include removal of the existing joint seal material, cleaning of the joints, repairs to spalled or damaged concrete panels along the joints as needed,and' resealing the concrete joints. Project Justification: The concrete pavement of Taxiways A and B associated with Runway I 16R/34L was constructed in 1994 and 1995. The preformed neoprene joint seals that were installed when the pavement was built have reached the end of their useful life and must be replaced. Re-sealing the joints will minimize water infiltration beneath the pavement that can cause Idamage to the pavement. This project will maintain the structural integrity of the pavement. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date February 2010 August 2010 August 2011 I Construction Design Testing Expenses Contingency Total Cost Consultant Budget t $ 1,012,000 $87,000 $6,000 $4,000 $ 101,000 $ 1,210,000 I Operational Impacts I One-time: none IOn-going: none ' PROJECT LOCATION ,.xt•:___,..., 1-,:,,...41- ' : .1:- . , ---1_\_-_. -__-=...--.;--. ' - i 7 : ;#''!'-, - -.4 . 1 • • A ,.g w i t . . . ./ to .. ` { Mt z, 1 y ' ..4411111 r _ -M•+rrt7a�.t t..,:o. ..-,,r: - Ity mai „,„ ,.:: logiu,„„,;,, 11..._ I I 34 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Glycol Enhancement I Project Description: This project will replace the Roots Compressor at the Glycol Recycling Plant with a more efficient Turbo Fan technology. Two new turbo fans will be installed in series to generate the temperature necessary to evaporate water during the glycol separation/recycling process. The project I will include design and equipment installation, including ducts, concrete, electrical, bracing and associated construction. I Project Justification: In December 2010, the Roots Compressor at the Glycol Plant stopped operating due to mechanical failure. This is the second compressor that has failed since 2004. The turbo fan technology will increase the recycling plant production efficiency, allowing the plant to run in a continuous I production mode. The fans will require minimal preventative maintenance and will not incur the annual repair and replacement costs associated with the compressor. I Design Start Date Construction Start Date April 2011 Project Completion Date March 2011 November 2011 Construction Design Testing Expenses Contingency Total I 1 Cost Consultant Budget $ 850,000 IOperational Impacts: none One-time: none On-going: none PROJECT LOCATION P „... ..,.. .... _ ,` 4;-.....„-_-......,_ ,..____, _:. __ iy„...., ,-,„ ,PP.:, a . .'. • S .,• t . -- _ .o;•1. - r`c, if.. -h . . .. . .11.i�i I \lilt ' t . l - -'it', i.lie'r L. 1) 1:i ! I r-j-1-.1- ' I • 35 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS II CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title Runway 16L-34R Pavement Rehabilitation I Project Description: This project will remove and replace 4-inches of bituminous pavement over the entire length and width of Runway 16L-34R and the intersecting taxiways up to the hold short lines. The existing centerline light fixtures, touch-down zone light fixtures, extensions, and spacer rings I will be removed before cold milling to remove the existing wearing surface of asphalt. The cold milled surface will be covered with a geotextile fabric prior to repaving. After paving, new extension rings, light fixtures and wiring will be installed. Other incidental work includes grooving I the new asphalt surface, repainting, and removal and installation of surface temperature and moisture sensors. Runway and taxiway edge lights will also be replaced as required to meet current FAA photometric standards. I Project Justification: Runway 16L-34R and all connecting taxiways were last overlaid in 2004. This runway is heavily used for arriving aircraft particularly in periods of low visibility and inclement weather. The runway surface is showing signs of wear and pavement distress including cracking, I rutting, and rounding of the transverse grooving. This project will ensure that the runway's pavement integrity is preservedI . Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date August 201 1 April 2012 September 2012 I Construction Design Testing Expenses Contingency Total Cost Consultant Budget $ 10,763,000 $ 969,000 $ 161,000 $ 54,000 $ 539,000 $ 12,486,000 Iliv Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none PROJECT LOCATION _ 1 . 9s 444 ra - , _L..-J _ _ • I 7 Y _ ti � � 1 ' { f _ - - -----------k---J-- • ' ---- _ ..r . S t.i...„. .,,,„,,,f _ . .,,,,„ ,. . ..... . .......„. . .......... ........ • Emillalir as. tip o . • Ja I _ vh z tf1 111 44e, •• ----_ .i! ..' 7,...e r '' ; t - i -i ate..>' ,-•. aunt �_ �i F .:,' -.. -3- G ,• a"t1.. �a,- {: I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 110 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: South Valley Regional Airport — Drainage Improvements IProject Description: This project will install reinforced concrete storm drain pipe on the north and south ends of the runway at South Valley Regional Airport. Work will include excavation, grading, storm drain pipe installation, and installation of drain inlets and cleanout boxes. IProject Justification: Open drainage ditches currently provide for storm drainage at the north and south ends of the runway. The ditches are located outside of the runway safety area and comply I with FAA requirements. Enclosing the drainage in underground pipes will enhance safety at the runway ends and will improve the drainage capacity of the storm drain system by providing better drainage hydraulics. Maintenance effort will be reduced, as required cleaning of the pipes will be Iless frequent than cleaning the open ditches. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date August 2011 May 2012 August 2012 IConstruction Design/ CA Testing Expenses Contingency Total Cost Consultant Budget I $ 1 ,063,000 $ 117,000 $ 22,000 $ 15,000 $ 106,000 $ 1 ,323,000 Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none PROJECT LOCATION A. `�.r '.,Raves ,_' `d lifi mi.t t + $.:�`4�i ' 1.... titi .. ..,"'R 1 y- -t ,:••f n ..:fl, ....._� ,1,g 4 4. r�-. tt �w. t t J.LI i - ,i"' , ... . ,,,,,. :„. a A'r ,�.I1 :It , 4?.::.!:: .w _s 1: C -1111 f :' -'-t. '_ p ` ill" ,dy' /7_!' ; `r1. L.� _'R-`G#'�,''', .. ..,.i....4. -kr' .i :Jere! 16 4 ,.. . . 1 I 37 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET 16 Project Title: South Valley Regional Airport — Maintenance Building (Design) 1 Project Description: This project will be for consulting services necessary to design a replacement airport maintenance facility at South Valley Regional Airport. The new maintenance building will be Ibuilt to the west of the existing building and will provide storage bays to protect snow removal and maintenance equipment as well as office space for maintenance and operations staff working at the airport. I Project Justification: The existing maintenance facility at South Valley Regional Airport was constructed in 1972 and is becoming increasingly difficult to maintain. The building structure is a pre-engineered metal building with a low slope metal roof with skylights. The roof was repaired in I 2004 but continues to have frequent roof leaks that cause damage in the building, particularly within the office area. Replacing the metal roof and skylights would require upgrading the building to meet current building codes. Considering the age and building type of the existing facility, the consultant will determine if it is more cost effective to construct a new building to meet the Iairport's needs. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date IJuly 2011 TBD TBD Construction Design Consultant Testing Expenses Contingency Total I Cost Budget $ 300,000 $ 300,000 P Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none PROJECT LOCATION �� ,""apt t t . 4 =� ii• — ,aEr1 �, � a ige!Ymnlit;L .�' _ Al& i ce, 0re �I ` I 1 p f� -, jet! r.. iii... ,_ t 7 :- ., '`m: : ',:,:.'t-,,,•,!. , •,,, •�r�lr/ 4 — _ - am . I/ - ,, y is _ t. 38 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 1110 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Security/CCTV Enhancements IProject Description: This project will install closed circuit television cameras (CCTV) at various locations throughout the airport campus. Work will include electrical infrastructure improvements, fiber optic cabling, camera pole installation, CCTV camera installation, and installation of additional I digital video recorders to support the camera installation. Project Justification: This project will provide CCTV cameras to enhance the airport's surveillance Iand monitoring capabilities throughout the campus. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date ISeptember 2010 May 2011 February 2012 Construction Design & Constr. Testing Equipment & Contingency Total Cost Administration Expenses Budget I $ 1,269,000 $ 400,000 $ 10,000 $ 2,150,000 $ 171,000 $ 4,000,000 Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none IPROJECT LOCATION -ate_`.,, ----- --• ''rti`' mow+ - . ,. ti. '"` '" i . , lit ''' , . Il --- i �, /" r f. II ; : Vv/ ''' if-irqi 1 .. • • i^ '•„'t I ` t. t - - I• • I . / . e „l 1 gyp• , - '• - ' E 1 ID ...; Y� r y i „�1Y- �. } —r � _� �, A7t7�t . pia �.a I I . 39 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS II CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: 3700 West Fiber Infrastructure Expansion 7 I Project Description: This project will construct a new eight way fiber/communications duct bank along the east side of 3700 West Street from the intersection with 510 North Street to south of the FedEx building. Work will include trenching, installation of four-inch diameter conduits, access vaults, fiber Ioptic cabling, and asphalt paving repairs. Project Justification: This project continues the expansion of the communications duct bank along 3700 West Street. Previously, a single conduit was relocated from the west side of 3700 West Street to the I east side of the street by the Utah Transit Authority to accommodate light rail construction. This single conduit was replaced with an eight-way duct bank to provide for the Airport's future needs. This project will extend this duct bank the entire length of 3700 West from Terminal 1 to south of the FedEx building I where it will connect to an existing duct bank that continues to the east side of the airport property. The duct bank provides the infrastructure necessary to meet current and future data/communications needs for the facilities located along 3700 West Street. I Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date October 2009 July 2011 October 2011 I Construction Design Testing Expenses Contingency Total Cost Consultant Budget $ 996,000 $ 120,000 $ 15,000 $ 69,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,300,000 I Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none PROJECT LOCATION IP , i. , , ,„, ,..„.„-- tr. ... .:"). I - r . .I K • • . , 0.,...„...--4 I • t atirx.a m•d't. J/ fit' f a 4y,• •'. 4nrc 2sm. f ,r, n'At.tiR: • I O • ./. s, a 1 'lRft:t RBI WAIF AMU. '.. _ - `i� 1. .7/rOIF'ii..., nem: --"- �, ��, \ nun.on& 9L*R a*.."t ' -. • 1 I Cr ), n.,... c. - - it t i . &WV&MIMI as-s.•rernhr ....-7.7.---.;--.•. •.'•' ....... ' 1 4S': s ' d . ISRtl WADI inn: i,<t7 -Yse 1 Asa .*'Fe7f4 cs.:>`9.\.. r"llo1.brat.asr- aam rrr�', = f1 un 7 '` , I • i�vS 3 i \ any at/a le.a. ( 4a71,' t'� „ q \ .. rna�t s+7c�rnel• -�f�` F c - h l y _ e r0,-*Z.: \ 1 L mil. ti' i LL V 72.! 1 15 +. A v. k i h . I`III • �. / L �,r ,,4 • r _ osili - • _ , .. - as��d 10 s a I I 40 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 16 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Emergency Generator Replacement — Parking Structure IProject Description: This project will replace the existing emergency generator that supplies emergency power to the parking structure and car rental lobby. Work will include removal of the existing generator, wiring and panel upgrades as necessary to meet current electrical code, Iinstallation of the new generator, start-up, and load testing. Project Justification: This project will replace an existing emergency generator that has reached the I end of its useful life and is becoming increasingly difficult to service and maintain. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date IJuly 2011 October 2011 November 2011 Construction Design Testing Expenses Contingency Total Cost Consultant Budget $ 60,000 $ 6,000 $ 5,000 $ 103,000 $ 6,000 $ 180,000 Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none IPROJECT LOCATION P • 1 N v .4 ;o �}:•� 'r IrsuL1 Jeer. �.. '.*. .Z . 74%M%eci Z • .�. is ; x k.. ,ply.,1CSTS:.•. i 77 u.un sit[ trij �. H��' () r. q 1 ar: slat sy` 'I'c • qt r' I I • iY r 4441,...t1 es tsau • Invwin!.� ,�.; �r . 7 _• a"' F Ai `tiyt •(••I is ) ^'.,.. ` ...+ ) �� ) 1. 41 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 111 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Emergency Generator Replacement — Airfield Operations/Shuttle Base • I Project Description: This project will replace the existing emergency generator that supplies emergency power to the airfield operations/shuttle base. Work will include removal of the existing generator, wiring and panel upgrades as necessary to meet current electrical code, installation of the I new generator, start-up, and load testing. Project Justification: This project will replace an existing emergency generator that has reached the 111 end of its useful life and is becoming increasingly difficult to service and maintain. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date IJuly 2011 October 2011 November 2011 Construction Design Testing Expenses Contingency Total I Cost Consultant Budget $$ 60,000 $ 6,000 $ 5,000 $ 103,000 $ 6,000 180,000 Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none I PROJECT LOCATION Ill ., . . • n ■ ' v >ti . . i s Mr. c \ ,gip 4 `, ,i ! 1 • -c t r i • v mac. .� w.i•rt ix 1 1 Vr f wax:.:tee. l .-� 4� Vita,'; 4. .4z, wza. • Iasiv rrs _ r{iirri, i 1.,'i.„. I k .i i t. t `1 .tail 1...1 :11,11 �. - _ -Mort!1sea:1 r; n - J ti cts u (J cw�ai� • i�f-r ' , iii4 ./Jr, .; 0" (um�i 1 J " � - - " 3 �1ii1 fi ol I ,....--. ....::.. .E.2 141*: • • MS tt �I,/ s• r l 16 . , _ .gliMI I . 1 42 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS I CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Asphalt Overlay Program — Phase 7 I Project Description: This project is the seventh phase of a continuing program to maintain the Airport's infrastructure. The project will consist of surface preparation, asphalt overlay, and minor drainage corrections to prolong the service life of the Airport's pavement. The primary areas to be overlaid in this I project will be miscellaneous roads and parking lots throughout the airport campus. Additionally, the main entrance road into South Valley Regional Airport will also be overlaid as part of this project. Project Justification: Various roads and parking lots throughout the airport campus are showing signs of I distress and require corrective action to avoid further aging and deterioration. The 2009 Pavement Condition Indices (PCI) for these areas range from the low to mid forties indicating that the pavements are in poor to fair condition. Although the pavement receives periodic maintenance to fill cracks and I repair minor pavement deficiencies, a full asphalt overlay of these various areas is necessary at this time to extend the useful life of the pavement. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date INovember 2010 July 2011 September 2011 Construction Design Testing Expenses Contingency Total I Cost Consultant Budget $ 675,000 $ 15,000 $ 3,000 $ 57,000 $ 750,000 Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none IPROJECT LOCATION r � f . -ems ,i Ir .�.. _' ham.. - -_y ,,+ ` i. *' r itt I .. �: .. i 4't 4,,.. i `� 1 ),R t� t ", a .A r •west•1: t , . ...• -v,: •_ .1t,,ris '' iii --....-'-4 ' I 43 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 111 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Land Acquisition —Airport Improvement ' Project Description: This project is the continuing effort to acquire property near Salt Lake City International Airport, South Valley Regional Airport, and Tooele Valley Airport on a voluntary basis. Various parcels in the vicinity of each of these airports have been identified for future acquisition as ' property is placed on the market for sale. These parcels are needed to prevent residential development or other land uses that may be incompatible with airport operations. The parcels targeted for acquisition are required for approach protection and land use compatibility. Because the ' acquisitions are voluntary, they are only undertaken on a willing-seller/willing-buyer basis. The exact parcels to be purchased will depend on which parcels become available for sale. Project Justification: Salt Lake City currently does not own or control all property near its airports that are needed to protect against incompatible land uses. It is beneficial to own and control property along the extended runway centerline to protect future approach surfaces from development that might obstruct air navigation. In addition, these properties have continuous ' aircraft over-flights on a twenty-four hour basis and should be owned or controlled by the Airport to prevent noise impacts. Furthermore, certain property near the general aviation airports is zoned for incompatible residential uses. These parcels should be acquired to prevent residential encroachment ' that could limit future expansion and development of the airports to their optimum capacities. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date n/a n/a June 2012 ' Construction Design Testing Expenses Contingency Total Cost Consultant Budget Pn/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 6,000,000 Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: minimal 1;) 1 1 1 44 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Vehicle Shop Rooftop HVAC System - Phase II Project Description: This project will replace the rooftop mounted HVAC system at the airport's vehicle maintenance shop. Work will include removal of the existing rooftop units, modifications to the ducting system, and installation of new HVAC units. IProject Justification: The airport's vehicle maintenance facility was constructed in 1986. The heat exchange wheels in the rooftop units are reaching the end of their useful life and are becoming I increasingly difficult to maintain. The new rooftop units will be more energy efficient and will reduce maintenance costs. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date IJuly 2011 March 2012 June 2012 Construction Design Testing Expenses Contingency Total I Cost Consultant Budget $ 410,000 $ 41,000 $ 5,000 $ 3,000 $ 41,000 $ 500,000 IOperational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none PROJECT LOCATION 1 f 1. - �. • �f ►4 `�� ,p- -f f i 111 sl . It \ ', I.,,• ' 1'1' .1 ,,,, : , 40.. - .,..,,.-. .. z.. I , , .1 , ; .....0! . , , . 7-4.......:. , . , , i •, . _ I h , . . . ,....,... .'.._+ C . .. , . ,.; , ..i t 1 :1. t • _- itt--1-,,, 7 :, ,.. .....• • i . 'gli -.PP" - , ,g,, i • '" ij: i 't:,. , . Liti,,, I mo . n.-"- t.Att : c.- .'. . .4 � �` t. .L — r _ illt I. 45 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Economic Development Reserves ' Project Description: A fund has been established and set aside for approved economic and international route development projects. This fund will be rolled forward each year if the funds are not utilized. Project Justification: A marked fund is needed for future economic and international route development opportunities as they arise at any of the three airports. This fund will be used for ' tenant requests or other economic and international route development projects that may require quick action to accomplish. The funds may be used for site preparation, construction activities, economic incentives, or other purposes to promote the Airport's economic and international route ' development. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date As Required As Required As Required Construction Design Testing Expenses Contingency Total Cost Consultant Budget n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 1 ,000,000 I 1 46 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: CIP Committee Reserve/Airport Contingency ' Project Description: A fund has been established and set aside to fund unanticipated Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects. This fund will be rolled forward each year if not utilized. Project Justification: A reserve fund is needed to provide emergency funds for approved Airport capital improvement projects. The funds are established for unanticipated projects and for unforeseen conditions associated with project construction. These funds require approval by the Airport's Capital Improvement Committee. I Design Start Date Construction Start Date As Required Project Completion Date As Required As Required Construction Design Testing Expenses Contingency Total ' Cost Consultant Budget n/a n/a n/a n/a n/a $ 4,000,000 • p 1 I 116 47 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS ID CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Taxiway L Deicing Pad — Phase 2 (Construction) IProject Description: This project will include design and construction of new aircraft deicing facilities at the runway ends. End of runway deicing facilities will include new portland cement concrete paving, glycol collection systems, airfield lighting, glycol storage facilities, fuel storage I facilities, deicing operations control facilities, and other support facilities for deicing personnel. The end of runway deicing facilities will be constructed in a multi-year program with the first construction contract starting in the spring of 2009. IProject Justification: Existing aircraft deicing locations around the existing concourses will be supplanted as new concourses are constructed as part of the Airport's terminal area development plan. Replacement of the deicing pads is one of the first enabling construction projects that must I be completed in order to construct new gates at the Salt Lake City International Airport. New facilities located at the end of each runway will be constructed to replace the existing deicing pads that will be impacted by future concourse construction. This project will enhance safety by I reducing the taxi times from when an aircraft is deiced to when that aircraft departs during weather conditions that require deicing. I _ Design Start Date May 2008 Construction Start Date Project Completion Date April 2010 August 2011 I Construction Cost Construction Testing Expenses Construction Total Administration Contingency Budget $ 14,244,000 $ 177,000 $ 286,000 $ 23,000 $ 350,000 $ 15,080,000 POperational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none PROJECT LOCATION rr !, t'.„..7^>N.„.. tom. ,,,.,. .�i ' l..� `t! , '/i t• f k i7 ' ,6 , 7 i -:, ,,,t‘ .7,17.: -.-1.74: :. -i,'.- 2,14I''' I".. •s\ + Ism ..*:411 � IC '.. a, �y II \V+ lam . y � :1 g, ; we 48 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS III CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Taxiway L Deicing Pad Support Facility IProject Description: This project will include design and construction of a new aircraft deicing pad support facility for the Taxiway L and Runway 34R deicing pads. Work will include site grading, site utilities, site paving, glycol truck fueling facilities, glycol dispensing facilities, and construction I of a support building. The support building will include deicing pad control facilities, glycol storage/mixing facilities, a locker room, a break room, and offices for deicing personnel. I Project Justification: Existing aircraft deicing locations around the existing concourses will be supplanted as new concourses are constructed as part of the Airport's terminal area development plan. Replacement of the deicing pads is one of the first enabling construction projects that must be completed in order to construct new gates at the Salt Lake City International Airport. New I facilities located at the end of each runway will be constructed to replace the existing deicing pads that will be impacted by future concourse construction. This project will enhance safety by reducing the taxi times from when an aircraft is deiced to when that aircraft departs during weather Iconditions that require deicing. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date IFebruary 2011 August 2011 October 2012 Construction Design & Const. Testing Expenses Contingency Total 1 Cost Administration Budget $ 5,540,000 $ 659,000 $ 110,000 $ 24,000 • $ 402,000 $ 6,735,000 PI Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none PROJECT LOCATION I ' !. f rs r tilt` �I' ��, , Y r • 1i • . - l' ,, ,7"-, - ',coo iii....,,,- . .j.:. , ,,I, 1 I 1'' 1,t'•:: '----", '''...i, V'\,.`. \\':\'''''‘:\.3: f.'s'. ''''[. ll f di e ..fix:,� •-Cr i{} - :.- `` T t •l, jr • ' r f '' ilk j`' i 1 : .' t• :' 1 1.� �� • ,I W I1'. , - -1..,,,,;,..---;-,,...-- . ksr:•, — IA ir I •• \•\.'. 3 ID • • • • I 49 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET 1 11) Project Title: Runway 34L Deicing Pad I Project Description: This project will include design and construction of new aircraft deicing pads at the end of Runway 34L. Work will include demolition, site grading, placement of new portland cement concrete paving, glycol collection systems, site utilities, and airfield lighting. IProject Justification: Existing aircraft deicing locations around the existing concourses will be supplanted as new concourses are constructed as part of the Airport's terminal area development I plan. Replacement of the deicing pads is one of the first enabling construction projects that must be completed in order to construct new gates at the Salt Lake City International Airport. New facilities located at the end of each runway will be constructed to replace the existing deicing pads that will be impacted by future concourse construction. This project will enhance safety by I reducing the taxi times from when an aircraft is deiced to when that aircraft departs during weather conditions that require deicing. I Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date May 2008 April 2011 October 2012 I Construction Design & Const.Cost Administration Testing Expenses Contingency Total Budget $ 33,817,000 $ 3,963,000 $ 592,000 $ 95,000 $ 1,691,000 $ 40,158,000 Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none PROJECTr LOCATION Ail .1r y , i . . : . i! [ .1 . ,i-f 1 At tilia.',.:'....1,--.1,, 1,3111L-4-- _ ::,--- -,,..--.,--tir..'-...-0—.....; i= 1,,, —1 i • ! , . - 1,4 f .'?"1"1"111"----":"*""!--";,d'I ‘1 '' • . It. ''' • \ . ‘..., . . 4 ,1. . -! ` j ,i• ,,14.-P • . . _ 4 iii 4.;#\,, *.•1::,\ , ,-,.. ---: .qii '..; .'` ! ` ;�.''' iji ''y••ri...'x'' s\.'4- 4 u sr'4Jy,'rj .e'er (. ' .. ' '�o \'`K'/ tic .i 1 !. , .}3 r. ; i ": 11 �, 1 f _��; J� "+ +tea 1, 4 .�► � ;':Jt _ i_ - a ,' s' I•, ' • .-' . _ ' _ ill ..:.r'� • ••� �.._ l ' Y. +� �[•- ��r.-,I 50 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 111 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Runway 34L Deicing Pad Support Facility I Project Description: This project will include design and construction of a new aircraft deicing pad support facility at the end of Runway 34L. Work will include site grading, site utilities, site paving, glycol truck fueling facilities, glycol dispensing facilities, and construction of a support building. The I support building will include deicing pad control facilities, glycol storage/mixing facilities, a locker room, a break room, and offices for deicing personnel. I Project Justification: Existing aircraft deicing locations around the existing concourses will be supplanted as new concourses are constructed as part of the Airport's terminal area development plan. Replacement of the deicing pads is one of the first enabling construction projects that must be completed in order to construct new gates at the Salt Lake City International Airport. New I facilities located at the end of each runway will be constructed to replace the existing deicing pads that will be impacted by future concourse construction. This project will enhance safety by reducing the taxi times from when an aircraft is deiced to when that aircraft departs during weather Iconditions that require deicing. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date IFebruary 2011 August 2011 October 2012 Construction Design & Const. Testing Expenses Contingency Total Cost Administration Budget $ 5,490,000 $ 659,000 $ 110,000 $ 79,000 $ 549,000 $ 6,887,000 IP Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none PROJECT LOCATION �: i _ )?�=I�'i7.4. 1 .;„: .1. ..yam;,11,7/ V 4, 3?- -,, ,,. ..-..,-,.-..;.--__..1..i. r: S3 - 43 t , ,�ttE !ay `0 .y Y —%,,,T - ' '.! ‘ - - '-.." foNir4i3.11 litilte4:7":.-------.. ----:;. , .1 .--";--:"V-1; .4_,, f \ , ,- 4-:-... ' ____ 3--...:i_>11**,. i r,,.. __ __,..._ - ---, - - f 1 11 lz.i , 'w i , ' f-,rit ' . .;.:'_.,7i.:t.,:_.;.-it ....- ...,-;:;.:,,::::,!;\;*f;,-;:,$,7 ., . I Cii. ifi i'1 t Lam:: , 0.%.„14:4 '°"y' ,�+-, ,- ,, • - ' 51 1 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS 116 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Runway 34R Deicing Pad (Design) Project Description: This project will include design of new aircraft deicing pads at the end of Runway 34R. Work will include design for demolition, site grading, placement of new portland cement concrete paving, glycol collection systems, site utilities, and airfield lighting. IProject Justification: Existing aircraft deicing locations around the existing concourses will be supplanted as new concourses are constructed as part of the Airport's terminal area development I plan. Replacement of the deicing pads is one of the first enabling construction projects that must be completed in order to construct new gates at the Salt Lake City International Airport. New facilities located at the end of each runway will be constructed to replace the existing deicing pads that will be impacted by future concourse construction. This project will enhance safety by I reducing the taxi times from when an aircraft is deiced to when that aircraft departs during weather conditions that require deicing. I Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2011 April 2013 October 2014 I Construction Design Consultant • Testing Expenses Contingency Total Cost Budget $ 3,391 ,000 - - - $ 3,391 ,000 IOperational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none PROJECT LOCATION .511K . 1 1 l ' :,..., 7 .. -.13: it i "1.1 * i' Inn"; c " " •Ke-'3- ' 1 - ' . ,; M f 1 1 if ' '' ` = -- — /I `.. f —` ; I1\ fjf{/j i i l I . : zi -s,` ,t - :,,,, li. r f ,:, if_ f1. amp M.1 kiri�: : N.` '' I ir -- i . _ . "i , it • _ \ .' 1!. 1 , l _ 52 I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS II CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: North Cargo Apron I Project Description: This project will expand the development of the North Cargo area by providing apron to support future cargo buildings. Work will include site preparation, utilities, and portland cement concrete paving for a common use aircraft parking apron. IProject Justification: Cargo facilities in the South Support area of the airport campus are constrained and will need to be relocated to the North Cargo area to allow for construction of ' deicing facilities at the end of Runway 34R. This apron expansion is the first in a series of projects necessary to relocate the affected facilities from the South Support area to the North Cargo area. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date I December 2008 April 2011 October 2011 Construction Airfield Lighting Testing Expenses Contingency Total Cost Consultant Budget $ 13,390,000 $ 150,000 $ 195,000 $ 5,000 $ 670,000 $ 14,410,000 Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none PROJECT LOCATION i Iti 3 2,41110,411k 4111ibilibililikiiiiiiie 1 ---1:-',-.37. '',' . 1 - — _ . ' - ::�' - - r -: - . - : `/ 'I. ' 11 ' ' n, }} z . ij • I • _ • -ti4 . At, --- _ "o:, . _ _ _ • `,Ts ___ �r fl - _ ' .i W -�2: ' --•:- '�"�t_� , i' '° • • _ fr • ltirr.'"''''''' s. --•---... "''' .7.-:'.i,-". .„' -.-- 0 I 53 'I SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2011/2012 BUDGET Project Title: Terminal Redevelopment Program Specialty Consultants [II Project Description: This project provides funding for the consultants necessary to provide detailed analysis and design to refine the concept for constructing the terminal area development from the Airport's 1997 Master Plan. Schematic design drawings will be produced defining the scale and I relationship of all the major elements of the terminal and concourses including hold rooms, concessions, circulation, and airline support areas. The design drawings will show a sufficient level of detail to allow a schematic design cost estimate to be prepared. This cost estimate will be the I basis for additional financial feasibility analysis. Funding is included for completing an environmental assessment to comply with NEPA requirements. This project also includes funding for the design services necessary for the design of relocated rental car service facilities and the new parking I garage. Project Justification: Airline operational need requires additional aircraft parking gates, hold rooms, support areas, and passenger service amenities to accommodate the increasing number of flights I and passengers at Salt Lake City International Airport. Existing gates and hold rooms are being used at full capacity and will be inadequate to meet future demand. Terminal and concourse expansion is required to meet the needs of future growth. I Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2011 - - p Construction Outside Testing Expenses Contingency Total Cost Design Budget - $ 35,000,000 - - - $ 35,000,000 Operational Impacts One-time: none On-going: none PROJECT LOCATION .i.iip.-, ; . - a�ialw . ., I ., . . . .r,... UeC .0:Fart .,,,,,, ,. .,... ....,. , .le'',/ ,,;','.22.—.:.-:-.771.--.=.7::::--7;:;.:\ tlii.LL t r.---z. .. .1",_..,....lie.., 1 .....,-.Ns, ,•i . , .. ,i ; . . --1';;7‘ ii 1,51,,:;;':*r 1.': i.s:...".. :. ..:' ':dilitt4 r‘, 4 .. . ' ._ gr a r ,Mart f t n& 1 \ MI . L. • ,,,..t,t ',% , . 10. I - . ‘ rrof T 1 il r ! , :. , ......_ ....,___,......,r,...1)• • .,..; .1,... :...... I ,,,, .1-*, —:' - jith , „_,.__. Ift_g• ,i• .t r ....'r- ' _1.,., *I _,,t '--•-:.c?tir, 4,,, .,.,, - . ..,. ., . , , ._.. •- ,., , „... , , _...f l ! .- f t l . r Y• i -Pyle .t,t. _'+ �. P "mac" -.C...".•:".<. •::`r++, '1 —Jc.., .t I.a.. '_ 1 54 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS PERFORMANCE MEASURES FISCAL YEARS Total Passengers (in millions) Yield Per Enplaned Passenger ■Operating Revenue Per Enplaned Passenger 2012 Budget 21.1 ['Operating Expense Per Enplaned Passenger ❑Terminal Rents&Landing Fees Per Enplaned Passenger 2011 Forecast 20.8 $13.00 2010 20 6 2009 20.0 $11.91 $11.73 2008 20.7 $11.00 $10.83 $10.46 $10.11 Total Air Cargo/Air Mail(in million pounds) 2012 Budget 308.9 $9.00 2011 Forecast 308.9 $839 $8.30 $8.06 $7.95 cri C11 2010 308.9 $7.04 $7.00 2009 311.3 2008 354.0 $5 00 Total Operations(in thousands) 2012 Budget 367.2 $3 45 $3.58 $3.61 2 2011 Forecast 367.2 $3.00 2010 367.2 2009 371.7 S 1.00 2008 389.2 2008 2009 2010 2011 Fore.c:est 2012 Budget ISALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS OPERATING REVENUE COMPARISON 10 FISCAL YEARS Actual Actual Actual Forecast Budget 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 Operating Revenue: Airline Revenues $43,632,646 $42,853,319 $43,541,249 $56,871,300 $58,704,900 Concessions/Other Rental 64,572,454 63,049,846 61,132,851 $62,375,300 $64,364,600 State Aviation Fuel Tax 2,520,800 2,337,500 2,823,500 2,823,600 2,823,600 El Total Operating Revenue $110,725,900 $108,240,665 $107,497,600 $122,070,200 $125,893,100 1 Total Enplaned Passengers (EP) 10,950,858 9,994,429 10,276,871 10,411,000 10,567,200 Operating Revenue/ EP $10.11 $10.83 $10.46 $11.73 $11.91 L5 YEAR OPERATING REVENUE COMPARISON $140,000,000 -- - 14,000,000 I MUM State Aviation Fuel Tax $130,000,000 O Concessions/Other Rental ® Airline Revenues I $120,000,000 —A—Total Enplaned Passengers(EP) MB - 12,000,000 11111 S110,000,000 (fir 10,000,000 w Z $100,000,000 IP wcu co Ui w ce $90,000,000 0 8.000,000 Z O w z co 17. $80,000,000 Q re w 0 ill O. $70,000,000 6 000,000 Z Q 1— a. O $60,000,000 Z r- I— - w 11 _ __=_ - - __ 4,000,000 $50,000,000 - - --= I 40 000 000 -----_- - _ _- - - - - - 2,000,000 I $3 - _ _ _ _ _ _- lip $20,000,000 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 FISCAL YEAR I I 56 ISALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS AIRLINE RENTS, RATES, CHARGES FEES COMPARISON 1) FISCAL YEARS Actual Actual Actual Forecast Budget 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 Aviation Revenue: Terminal Space $ 23,645,500 $ 22,092,200 $ 22,758,100 $ 26,594,000 $ 27,615,100 111 Landing Fees 12,888,500 14,946,000 13,540,600 22,737,700 22,763,300 Support Buildings 4,984,000 3,622,216 5,126,549 5,947,400 6,456,500 Fuel Farm 772,700 773,900 604,200 519,300 519,300 II Passngr Loading Bridge/400 Hz 1,062,300 1,102,200 1,174,000 1,072,900 1,350,700 Passenger Paging Fees 279,600 316,800 337,800 - I Total Aviation Revenue $ 43,632,600 $ 42,853,316 $ 43,541,249 $56,871,300 $58,704,900 Total Enplaned Passengers (EP) 10,950,858 9,994,429 10,276,871 10,411,000 10,567,200 Aviation Revenue/ EP $3.98 $4.29 $4.24 $5.46 $5.56 I 5 YEAR AIRLINE RENTS, RATES, CHARGES AND FEES I =Total Aviation Revenue — .—Total Enplaned Passengers(EP) I $65,000,000 12,000,000 i $60,000,000 — $55,000,000 — — 10,000,000 $50,000,000 — I $45,000,000 — — 8,000,000 U) DLLI $40,000,000 — 0 z Z W W > $35,000,000 — U) tx 6,000,000 < a I Z $30,000,000 — i` W Z $25,000,000 — J a 4,000,000 CL $20,000,000 — Z W $15,000,000 - $10,000,000 — 2,000,000 I $5,000,000 — $0 I 0 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 FISCAL YEAR ID I I 57 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CONCESSION REVENUE COMPARISON FISCAL YEARS Actual Actual Actual Forecast Budget 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 Concessions: Flight Kitchen $858,100 $906,300 $1,060,100 $1,119,900 $1,120,500 1. Food Service 7,133,200 6,506,300 6,688,800 6,733,200 6,218,800 a Vending 737,500 796,800 730,000 545,400 504,100 News & Gifts 4,766,100 4,145,100 4,103,700 4,088,900 3,885,900 1, Car Rental Agencies 16,313,700 14,148,700 14,504,800 15,688,900 16,116,800 1s Auto Parking 24,816,700 25,713,800 23,811,400 24,350,500 25,403,000 Advertising 1,070,000 920,000 792,500 684,100 800,000 ITotal Concession Revenue $55,695,300 $53,137,000 $51,691,300 $53,210,900 $54,049,100 I Enplaned Passengers (EP) 10,950,858 9,994,429 10,276,871 10,411,000 10,567,200 Concession Revenue/ EP $5.09 $5.32 $5.03 $5.11 $5.11 I 5 YEAR CONCESSION REVENUE COMPARISON i =Total Concession Revenue $60,000,000 }Enplaned Passengers (EP) 12,000,000 IP $55,000,000 - -1 $50,000,000 - 10,000,000 111 $45,000,000 - cn W $40,000,000 - - 8,000,000 ce W Z 0 bib > $35,000,000 Z W W cc U) r Z $30,000,000 - 6,000,000 < O a N $25,000,000 - Ui W W Z I O $20,000,000 4,000,000 a U Z W $15,000,000 -111 $10,000,000 - 2,000,000 $5,000,000 - 4 $0 , 0 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 FISCAL YEAR I Il 58 Nomemmummi SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS OPERATING EXPENSE COMPARISON 110 FISCAL YEARS Actual Actual Actual Forecast Budget I07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 Total Operating Expense $77,101,877 $80,601,572 $81,718,154 $87,371,000 $87,693,300 Total Enplaned Passengers (EP) 10,950,858 9,994,429 10,276,871 10,411,000 10,567,200 Operating Expense/ EP $7.04 $8.06 $7.95 $8.39 $8.30 5 YEAR OPERATING EXPENSE COMPARISON $90,000,000 - -- 12,000,000 =Total Operating Expense I —A—Total Enplaned Passengers (EP) _ $85,000,000 - -- 10,000,000 $80,000,000 - Y $75,000,000 - 8,000,000 CO , P W cc N z 0 Iw $70,000,000 Z W U) 0 - 6,000,000 < z 0- _ $65,000,000 Ce a z Q Li J 0 0- III 0 z $60,000,000 - 4,000,000 W w I $55,000,000 - - 2,000,000 $50,000,000 - $45,000,000 0 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 I Ilimi‘L FISCAL YEAR I I 59 ISALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS OPERATING INCOME COMPARISON t) FISCAL YEARS Actual Actual Actual Forecast Budget I 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 Operating Income $33,623,580 $27,639,093 $25,779,446 $34,699,200 $38,199,800 il Total Enplaned Passengers (EP) 10,950,858 9,994,429 10,276,871 10,567,200 10,567,200 ® Operating Income/ EP $3.07 $2.77 $2.51 $3.28 $3.61 l 5 YEAR OPERATING INCOME COMPARISON $40,000,000 - _ - 12,000,000 I =Operating Income --A-Total Enplaned Passengers(EP) I $35,000,000 - - 10,000,000 1 il p $30,000,000 - - 8,000,000 N W cc cn W z 0 W z cn $25,000,000 - - 6,000,000 Q z a I o z cc W a a J 0 z Z $20,000,000 - - 4,000,000 W I $15,000,000 - - 2,000,000 I I $10,000,000 0 07/08 08/09 09/10 10/11 11/12 FISCAL YEAR I ili 60 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS FY 2011/2012 BUDGET BOOK IDACRONYMS I AAAE American Association of Airport Executives ACI NA Airports Council International - North America AIP Airport Improvement Program AMAC Airport Minority Advisory Committee I APCO Association of Public Safety Communications Officials ARFFWG Aircraft Rescue Fire Fighting Working Group AWOS Automated Weather Observing System I BAS CAD Building Automation System Computer Aided Drawing CASS Computer Access Security System CIP Capital Improvement Program I DOD DOT Department of Defense Department of Transportation DVRS Digital Voice Recorder System I EDI Electronic Data Interchange EDS Explosive Detection System EP Enplaned Passenger EPA Environmental Protection Agency FAA Federal Aviation Administration FBO Fixed Based Operator FHWA Federal Highway Administration FICA Federal Social Security Tax I FOD Foreign Object Debris FTE Full Time Equivalent FY Fiscal Year P GA GFOA General Aviation Government Finance Officers Association GIS Geographic Information System GSE Ground Support Equipment I HVAC IFAS Heating Ventilation Air Conditioning Integrated Financial and Administrative Solution LAHSO Land and Hold Short LAN Local Area Network I LOA Letter of Agreement MOU Memorandum of Understanding NWS National Weather Service I OSHA PCI Occupational Safety and Health Administration Pavement Condition Index PFC Passenger Facility Charge PM Preventive Maintenance I RCAR RFP Rental Car Access Road Request For Proposal RJ Regional Jet I SIDA Security Identification Display Area SLCDOA Salt Lake City Department of Airports SMGCS Surface Movement Guidance and Control System SVRA South Valley Regional Airport I TRP TSA Terminal Redevelopment Program Transportation Security Administration TU1 Terminal Unit 1 TU2 Terminal Unit 2 TVA Tooele Valley Airport UAOA Utah Airport Operators Association UPS Uninterruptible Power Supply I VSCS XBAR Voice Switching Communications System Cross Bound Access Road I 61 Memorandum DATE: April 21,2011 SUBJECT: Proposed changes to the City's zoning regulations relating to urban farms,community gardens,seasonal farm stands,greenhouses,cold frames and hoop houses for gardening and solar and wind energy systems(e.g.solar panels,solar arrays,wind turbines or windmills) • Agenda Items—A.3,D.3 and D.4 • Petition Nos.PLNPCM2010-01337&PLNPCM2010-01338 AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: If the ordinances are adopted the zoning regulation changes would affect Council Districts citywide. FROM: Janice Jardine,Land Use Policy Analyst ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Community Development Department,Planning Division AND CONTACT PERSON: Ray Milliner,Principal Planner COUNCIL PROCESS: The Council held Work Session briefings on February 1,and 15,2011 and held a public hearing on April 5,2011. The Council has a follow- up discussion scheduled for April 26'",with action items on the formal meeting agenda to consider adoption of the ordinances. A. Motions have been prepared for each petition. It would be helpful if the Council reviewed each motion and provided their feedback to staff. Staff can provide additional motions prior to Tuesday's meeting. B. Pages 1 and 2 are general questions. Page 3 relates to seasonal farm stands,greenhouses,cold frames and hoop houses for gardening and small solar and wind energy systems. Page 4 relates to urban farms, community gardens,seasonal farm stands,and large solar and wind energy systems. C. On April 5,2001,the Council held public hearings for both petitions and adopted separate motions to close the public hearing and refer the items to the next Council meeting. The motion adopted by the Council for urban farms,community gardens and seasonal farms stands specified that the following be addressed by the Administration: • Community gardens-hours of operation,community events and sale of products beyond food sales; • Provision for gardening on property owned by another entity; • Fence height regulations;and • Any other issues that Council Members would want to raise. D. Because these items are interrelated,the following information has been provided in one package for ease of reference. (Please see attached documents for details.) • Responses to Council questions raised during the briefings and a conceptual drawing illustrating wind turbine height limits based on lot width. • Open City Hall item and public comments received to date. • Updated fact sheets for urban agriculture/farming,greenhouses and renewable energy systems. • Comment list-public comments received in the Council office. 1 E. Updated ordinances were provided for the April 5th public hearing based on the Council's work session discussions. Changes include increasing the seasonal farm stand size from 100 sq. ft.to 150 sq. ft.; allowing demolition of only one single-family dwelling for an urban farm,prohibiting farm stands to be located in a public right-of-way and expanding the defmition of a community garden to include community events and produce sales. Changes by Planning staff: 1. Suggestion: Expand the definition of Community Garden to include animals,community events and sales of produce. a. Staff has expanded the definition of community garden to include community events and the sale of produce and flowers. b. Staff did not include allowing the raising of animals at a community garden as they are addressed in the animal section of the City Code Chapter 8. In addition, staff is of the opinion that it may be problematic to raise animals in a community garden at a site other than one with an owner or tenant on site. • Is this acceptable to the Council? 2. The proposed changes for urban farms,community gardens, seasonal farm stands,and large renewable energy generation include new uses proposed for the Agriculture AG zoning district. a. The AG zone is listed as a"holding zone"in the zoning ordinance and is only mapped in the Northwest Quadrant. b. The purpose of the AG zone is to"preserve and protect agricultural uses in suitable portions of Salt Lake City until these lands can be developed for the most appropriate use.These regulations are also designed to minimize conflicts between agricultural and nonagricultural uses." c. Proposed changes affecting existing permitted uses are probably not as potentially detrimental as adding new additional uses within the AG District. d. Because the master plan for the Northwest Quadrant has not been adopted,Planning staff removed new uses previously added to the AG zone, since this zoning district will most likely be changed or eliminated with the adoption of a Northwest Quadrant master plan and zoning. • Is this acceptable to the Council? 3. In considering the proposed regulations relative to the proposed Public Safety Building project's plans for solar energy systems,Planning determined that the definitions did not adequately address that system or future similar systems. • Planning staff removed the reference to system size(more or less than 100kW);and instead recommends the differentiating factor be based on"accessory use"or"principal use". • Is this acceptable to the Council? 2 ➢ Greenhouses,Cold Frames,Hoop Houses for gardening and Small Solar and Wind Energy Systems(solar panels,wind turbines and windmills)—Petition No. PLNPCM2010-01338 • Planning staff has indicated that the original draft regulations allow the height of wind turbines/windmills to be increased if the adjacent property owners support it. a. Wind turbines are commonly found in two forms:a set of blades that spin on a horizontal axis similar to a propeller,or a vertical axis system that would appear as a rotating pole. These can be mounted on the ground as stand-alone units or mounted on the roof of a building. b. The proposed regulations would regulate the height of the turbine/tower structure based on the width of the lot on which the structure will be located. c. On 50 or 80 foot wide lots,wind turbines are unlikely because they can't go high enough. d. Wind analysis of the Salt Lake City area(as indicated on a Utah State Government report)shows minimal feasibility for sufficient wind to support use of wind turbines,although wind levels are documented to increase in the western portions of the city. This is also the location of the largest land parcels. • This additional height provision could be eliminated from the ordinance if the City Council deemed it appropriate.If the Council chooses to remove the additional height provision an additional motion will be prepared. POTENTIAL MOTIONS 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance changing the City's zoning regulations relating to urban farms,community gardens,seasonal farm stands,and large renewable energy generation equipment(e.g.solar arrays and large wind turbines or windmills). 2. ["I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance changing the City's zoning regulations relating to urban farms,community gardens,seasonal farm stands,and large renewable energy generation equipment(e.g.solar arrays and large wind turbines or windmills). 3 > Urban Farms, Community Gardens,Seasonal Farm Stands,and Large Renewab! Energy generation Equipment(e.g.solar arrays and large wind turbines or windmills)Petition No.PLNPCM2010-01337 Planning staff response to Council motion items: • Community Gardens: a. Community events: The proposed language allows community events at community gardens but not at urban farms. The rationale is that urban farms are a for-profit entity,while community gardens are non- profit. Planning staff found that it would not be appropriate to allow for-profit entities to hold events and activities in residential zones. Planning staff is not recommending any changes to this language. b. Sale of products beyond food sales:The proposed regulations allow limited sales of products beyond food sales at community gardens. The products must be somehow associated with the garden. For example,a community garden may sell a commemorative shovel,since that is an item"generally associated with a community garden"sales of items such as rubber tomahawks,shot glasses and snow globes would be 1 prohibited.In addition: • The proposed regulations for seasonal farm stands state"Prepackaged"shelf stable"foods produced in close proximity to the farm stand may be sold as well,provided they are fully 1 labeled and produced in an approved health department or Utah State Department of Agriculture facility." • There are no provisions allowing the sale of products beyond food sales on urban farms. The distinction is that urban farms are a for-profit entity,while community gardens are non-profit with a stated goal of educating and enhancing neighborhoods. Planning staff is not recommending any changes to the proposed language. • Provision for gardening on property owned by another entity:Under the current regulations,a person may garden commercially on another person's property provided the gardener has a business license(not necessarily associated with the properties where they garden,just a single business license.).A person may operate as a home occupation similar to the way a landscaper or pool maintenance company would operate. Planning staff is not recommending any changes to the proposed language. • Fence height regulations.Planning staff recommends that the existing requirements in the fencing section of the zoning regulations apply to community gardens. The only reference to wildlife in the fencing regulations is in the Foothill zoning districts. The regulations state that fencing should not create a hazard to wildlife. Generally if one wanted to create fencing that would keep big game wildlife(deer,elk,bears, moose)out,the fence would need to be at least 8 feet tall,and preferably 10 feet. To keep smaller animals (raccoons,rabbits,coyotes)out the fence would need an underground net so that they could not dig under it. Taller fences or fences built with materials not appropriate for the zoning district will have a negative impact on neighboring properties and does not warrant an exception for urban farms. Planning staff is not recommending any changes to the proposed language.(Gardeners have alternatives ^., to tall fences to use within their garden including natural deterrents and netting.) 4 POTENTIAL MOTIONS 1. ["I move that the Council"] Adopt an ordinance changing the City's zoning regulations relating to urban farms,community gardens,seasonal farm stands,and large renewable energy generation equipment(e.g. solar arrays and large wind turbines or windmills). Additional optional motions are provided based on the Council motion adopted on April 51h and recommendations from public comment and Council Members Penfold and Garrott: 2. I further move that the Council revise the definition of a"Community Garden"to read: a. "Community garden"means an area of land where people come together to garden-and-grow eemmunity.Community gardens can be managed and maintained by an individual or group to grow and harvest food crops and/or non-food ornamental crops,such as flowers,for personal or group use, consumption,donation,or sale. Community gardens may also be used as-publie-speees-for eemty building,public education,gatherings and events. Limited sales and events may also occur on the site." (During the Council public hearing,a recommendation was made to change the definition for community garden shown in the highlighted sections.) OR b. "Community garden"means an area of land where people come together to garden and grew-build community. Community gardens may also be used as-publie-spaces for community building,public education,consumption,donation or sale of products,gatherings and events. Limited sales and events may also occur on the site." (Council Member Garrott is recommending that the definition be revised as noted above.) • Planning staff is recommending that the definition be revised removing reference to"grow community","public spaces"and"community building". (see strike through format in the first paragraph above) They have indicated that: The Planning Division would recommend that the definition focus on land use since it is a part of the zoning ordinance. The definition should note what the use is and not what the side-effects or positive outcomes of a community garden are. The term"building community"is nebulous and many types of uses could be considered"building community"(such as libraries,schools,bars, places of worship,street festivals,etc).Some of the other terms such as consumption,donation,etc. may cause problems with interpretations as well. It is better from an administrative/ implementation standpoint to have clear definitions that do not need a lot of interpretation. Furthermore,staff believes that the accessory activities that can be allowed at a community garden (such as events,sales,education,etc)can be listed in the general provisions rather than within the actual definition. The structure of the Zoning Ordinance is such that accessory uses associated with a principal use are allowed. It may be that in some zoning districts it may be more appropriate to have some of these activities than in others. For example,the Qualifying Provisions could be tailored so that Receptions could be allowed at community gardens in commercial zoning districts 5 on Arterials Streets while not allowing receptions at community gardens that are on local streets between two single-family homes. • Council staff note: The Council could elect to include the"community building"language in the whereas clauses of the ordinance rather than the zoning text to express its policy intent. 3. I further move that the Council revise the hours of operation for a"Community Garden"to conform with City Code,Chapter 9.28 Noise Control and other applicable County Health Department regulations. (This change is recommended by Council Member Garrott and Planning staff. The Council may wish to discuss whether this requirement is necessary and, if so,should this also apply to Urban Farms.Again, the distinction the Administration makes between community gardeners and urban farms is community garden =non-profit and urban farm =for profit.) 4. I further move that the Council revise requirements for a"Community Garden"relating to signage and to allow sales stands and exhibits in the public right-of-way. (This change is recommended by Council Member Garrott.Specific changes are noted below.) On Site Sales and Events: Owners and Producers associated with Community Gardens may conduct educational or promotional events, and sell locally grown products and goods generally associated with a Community Garden on site provided the following requirements are met. a) The sale or event is directly linked to the Community Garden. No external events such as a reception or sales of products and goods not generally associated with a community garden are allowed,unless the event is otherwise allowed in the zone by the Zoning Ordinance. b) Signs are allowed as temporary portable signs subject to the regulations in Chapter 21A.46.55 of this ordinance. Signs must be removed immediately following the sale or event-each-day. c) All required City business licenses shall be obtained prior to the sale or event. d) e) The sales stand and exhibits shall be non-permanent stuctures, and must be removed immediately following the sale or event. f) Perishable foods must be stored in a vermin proof area or container when the facility is closed. • Council staff note:This would give non-profit organizations additional flexibility but would not give that same flexibility to for-profit organizations. The proposal does not limit the use of the public way to the area abutting the garden,but that is another option available to the Council. 5. I further move that the Council revise the proposed regulations to allow samples of fresh produce at Urban Farms, Community Gardens and Seasonal Farm Stands. (This change is recommended by Council Members Penfold and Garrott.) • Planning staff is of the opinion that food samples of fresh produce or honey do not need to be prohibited in any of the categories of Urban Farms,Farm Stands or Community Gardens. We do believe that Food Preparation should be prohibited in all three categories because food preparation could allow for other types of uses that are more intensive than may be appropriate and the health/safety issues are more complex. 6 6. I further move that the Council revise the proposed regulations to prohibit demolition of a single-family dwelling for an Urban Farm or Community Garden. (This change is recommended by Council Member Penfold.) • Council staff note:The current wording allows for non-abutting property owners to purchase a home for this purpose. The Council could elect to limit demolition to a single abutting property,prohibit demolition on corners or restrict the demolitions in a variety of ways. 7. ("I move that the Council"] Not adopt an ordinance changing the City's zoning regulations relating to urban farms,community gardens,seasonal farm stands,and large renewable energy generation equipment(e.g. solar arrays and large wind turbines or windmills). 7 March 31, 2011 Responses from the Planning Division to the City Council questions relating to Urban Agriculture and Renewable Energy URBAN FARMS/COMMUNITY GARDENS 1. Revise qualifying provisions to allow only one demolition of a single family dwelling per farm. • Staff has inserted provisions stating that only one demolition is allowed to make room for a community garden. 2. Expand size allowed of farm stands on private property. • Staff has expanded the maximum size allowed from 100 square feet to 150 square feet. 3. Revise standards for farm stands in public right-of-way. • Staff has revised the standard for farm stands to state that they must be on private property and not in the public right-of-way. 4. Expand the definition of Community Garden to include animals, community events and sales of produce. a. Staff has expanded the defmition of community garden to include community events and the sale of produce. b. Staff did not include allowing the raising of animals at a community garden as they are addressed in the animal section of the City Code Chapter 8. In addition, staff is of the opinion that it may be problematic to raise animals in a community garden,which does not have constant staffing or surveillance. c. Chapter 8 states that a chicken, fowl,turkey, duck,goose,rabbit or other like animal is allowed in a residential zone provided a permit is acquired and certain regulations are met (they must be housed within a coop,kept at least 50 feet away from adjoining residences, only so many allowed on each site). It also has requirements for the coops, and pens,what to do if they get away, and the rate at which you need to clean up after them. d. Animals such as cows,horses, sheep, goats and pigs are prohibited within the city limits except for those permitted by Animal Services. Even then,they may only permit them in agriculture zones. e. The Planning Staff recommendation is that animals not be allowed as part of community gardens. The rationale is that the gardens are not occupied or monitored continuously, and the animals may not have constant care(gardens are generally abandoned in the winter). In addition,there is potential for vandalism(people from the outside steal,or harm the animals),neglect, or unintended feeding(animals get out and eat the plants). 5. Are chicken coops excessively limited by lot coverage requirements relating to accessory structures? • City Code Chapter 8 Animals does not include a maximum limit for chicken coop size. In addition,the proposed amendments for accessory structures remove coops from the normal accessory structure limits of the Zoning Ordinance. 6. Is there a need to preclude spraying with pesticides in greenhouses in a residential area? a. Pesticide use is allowed in private gardens. b. The greenhouses will be limited in size by the coverage limits so they will not be very large, thereby resulting in very small amounts of pesticide use. c. Staff is of the opinion that it is not necessary to regulate this. Hazardous materials are regulated through other means. 7. How many instances will there be in the City,where you could combine lots together to get a bigger lot for a bigger urban farm? 1 March 31, 2011 a. There are not a lot of areas in the city with smaller lots where it would be possible to combine lots without violating the maximum lot size of 1.5% of the minimum lot size. Further, the low number of vacant residential lots in the City is such that the opportunity to tear down houses and combine adjoining lots into a large urban farm is not something that is likely to happen a lot. b. There are some remnant lots or parcels that may be combined to create an urban farm, or an existing lot may absorb remnants into it to create an urban farm. But the use would be subject to the rules of the Ordinance. c. There may also be non-residential land uses,in residential neighborhoods where the lot is converted to an urban farm(similar to the property on Texas Street that was formerly a place of worship. But these instances will be rare. It is more likely that, for economic reasons,these types of large lots would be redeveloped for housing(small in-fill subdivisions). 8. Is the lot coverage requirement liberal enough? • It is the Planning staff understanding that the City Council Staff would determine this through the public hearing process with the City Council. 9. How will the County Assessor assess these farm types of uses?Will they be based on agricultural uses? • According to the County Assessor's Office, they classify urban farms and community gardens as "improved lots"and assess them like they would a vacant lot as it relates to the size, zoning, location and site improvements (such as sheds and other structures). If the use was a non-profit,taxation would be different. 10. Can the urban farms fit in with the green belt provisions? • Currently greenbelt status requires 5 contiguous acres and proof of farming. Most would not fit in this category. The State Legislature is looking at decreasing this to 2 acres. Even if this passes, it is most likely that the urban farms and community gardens would be smaller. There are some areas in the City " zoned for Agriculture but even in those instances,many of them are less than 2 acres. 11. Can other types of water sources(such as wells,creeks, etc)be used to irrigate community gardens? • This would be dependent on whether or not the farm or garden has rights to the water running past. The State assigns water rights and chances of a community garden having or acquiring water rights are not very likely. 12. Can these urban farm types of uses have higher fences,especially where wildlife issues may be prevalent? a. The only reference to wildlife in the fencing regulations is in the Foothill zoning districts. The regulations state that fencing should not create a hazard to wildlife. Generally if one wanted to create fencing that would keep big game wildlife(deer, elk,bears,moose)out,the fence would need to be at least 8 feet tall. To keep smaller animals(raccoons,rabbits, coyotes)out the fence would need an underground net so that they could not dig under it. b. Taller fences, or fences built with materials not appropriate for the zone will have a negative impact on neighboring properties that does not warrant an exception for farms. 13. Can you have employees to help harvest the crops? a. Not in residential zones. Home occupation rules do not allow employees that live off site. b. However, there is no mention of"volunteer"in the ordinance. This should not be a problem, as the farms are small and usually the harvest is not such that it would warrant a lot of help to harvest the crops. 14. Expand the definition of Community Garden to include animals,community events and sales of produce. a. Staff has expanded the defmition of community garden to include community events and the sale of produce. 2 March 31, 2011 b. Staff did not include allowing the raising of animals at a community garden as they are addressed in the animal section of the City Code Chapter 8. In addition, staff is of the opinion that it may be problematic to raise animals in a community garden,which does not have constant staffing or surveillance. 15. The proposed changes for urban farms,community gardens, seasonal farm stands,and large renewable energy generation equipment(e.g. solar arrays and large wind turbines or windmills include new uses proposed for the Agriculture AG zoning district. a. The AG zone is listed as a"holding zone"in the zoning ordinance and is only mapped in the Northwest Quadrant. b. The purpose of the AG zone is to"preserve and protect agricultural uses in suitable portions of Salt Lake City until these lands can be developed for the most appropriate use. These regulations are also designed to minimize conflicts between agricultural and nonagricultural uses." c. Because the master plan for the Northwest Quadrant has not been adopted,the Planning Staff is wondering, in hind-site, if we should be adding any new uses to the AG zone, since it will most likely be changed or eliminated with the adoption of the Northwest Quadrant master plan and zoning. d. If any AG District text modification is approved it should be evaluated against the intent of the zoning district purpose statement. Changes affecting existing permitted uses are probably not as potentially detrimental as adding new additional uses within the AG District. e. The Council may wish to consider whether it is appropriate to allow new principal uses in the Agriculture Zone AG(which could be developed in the Northwest Quadrant)prior to having made policy decisions about the future land uses for the Northwest Quadrant. 16. Do farm stands have to pay sales tax? • Per State Code, Seasonal Crops, seedling plants, garden, farm, or other agricultural produce sold by a farmer, employee of the farmer or immediate family member of the farmer are exempt from sales tax, provided they are sold during the harvest season. Poultry,eggs and dairy products are not exempted though. 17. If the sales tax is collected,does it show that Salt Lake City is the point of sale? • City ordinance requires that all entities conducting business in Salt Lake City have a business license. Once a business license is issued, the business is required to register with the state tax commission, who collects all sales tax. The City is then allocated its share of the revenue,which probably will not be much,because a lot of the sales are exempt. 18. Do they require a business license? • Yes, a business license is required unless it is specifically exempted from the regulations. 19. Is there anything in these regulations which would preclude the Sugar House Farmers Market? • A farmer's market is not a permitted use in the Commercial Sugar House Business District CSHBD zone. The Sugar House Farmers Market is conducted in the public right-of-way which is not governed by the zoning ordinance. Therefore, it must be operated as a special permit. • These regulations are not intended to regulate farmers' markets. They are for one specific farm or farmer intending to sell their products. RENEWABLE ENERGY SYSTEMS 1. If wind towers are allowed in the Open Space zone will that mean they could be placed on the Bonneville Shoreline Bench? Have environmental groups been notified? a. Potentially they could be placed on the bench,or any other OS zoned area. The areas where they would be practical(where there is a wind source)are at the mouths of canyons, and on the ridgelines. These areas are near residential areas,popular recreation areas, and significant view corridors. 3 March 31,2011 b. Originally they were not included in the OS zone,but rather only in the M-1 and M-2 zones but the ... thinking changed and they were included as permitted and conditional uses in a number of non- residential zones. This is a concern that was raised during the development of the regulations. The following rationale was used to mitigate: • The use would be conditional. • Most OS zoned property is owned by the City that in turn,has dominion over it. c. The Planning Staff has not specifically contacted environmental groups about this matter. 2. Where are wind towers most likely to be located? a. From a feasibility standpoint,these would most likely be located in areas of the City with larger lots, open land area free from turbulence-causing structures and trees,which is more in the west areas of the city;OR near canyons where wind is common in the morning and evening. b. The actual turbine needs to be approximately 30 feet above the turbulence area created by buildings and trees,or located in an open area free from tall obstructions to wind flow. 3. Why would we need them in residential areas? • The intent is to allow them in all districts but regulate the height based on lot width and size. Thus,in relatively dense residential neighborhoods the small lots will prevent wind turbines;and in neighborhoods with larger lots there will be more possibility for wind turbines. If advances in turbine design allow for future feasibility in dense residential areas,the proposed regulations would not prohibit them,simply stipulate the height limit. 4. Would a wind tower have to be located in a way to ensure it does not hit other utility lines in the event it tips over? a. Yes. In residential areas,the maximum height of the wind tower is based on the width of the lot. Since ^, wind towers need to be high enough to effectively capture the wind,there are probably not a lot of residential areas where wind turbines would be feasible. Having said that,if it was feasible to be placed on a specific lot in a residential area,the placement would have to ensure that it would not hit any other utility lines if it were to fall over. It would also have to meet structural stability requirements to help ensure it would not fall over. b. Large wind turbines would have to ensure that any associated utility lines are placed underground. 5. What role does the Airport have in reviewing large wind turbines to ensure they do not conflict with airport operations? • Any project within an Airport related zones including areas on and adjacent to an airport would be reviewed by the Airport prior to the approval of the wind turbine. All of these types of facilities would also have to meet Federal Aviation Authority(FAA)regulations as well. 4 March 31, 2011 Other 6. In considering the proposed regulations relative to the proposed Public Safety Building project's plans for solar energy systems,Planning determined that the definitions did not adequately address that system,or future similar systems. • Planning recommends deleting the reference to system size(more or less than 100kW);and instead have the differentiating factor be based on"accessory use"or"principal use". See below A "solar array" is a principal use of a packaged interconnected assembly of solar cells used to transform solar energy into thermal, chemical, or electrical energy. A solar array uses solar energy for any or all of the following purposes: (1)water heating, (2)space heating or cooling, and(3)power generation. "Small solar energy collection system"shall mean an accessory structure that is roof-mounted, wall- mounted, or ground-mounted panels the primary purpose of which is to provide for the collection, inversion, storage, and distribution of solar energy for electricity generation, space heating, space cooling, or water heating of buildings located on the same property. �l 7. The original draft regulations allow the height of wind turbines/windmills to be increased if the adjacent property owners supported it. a. Wind turbines are commonly found in two forms: a set of blades that spin on a horizontal axis similar to a propeller, or a vertical axis system that would appear as a rotating pole. These can be mounted on the ground as stand-alone units or mounted on the roof of a building. b. The proposed regulations would regulate the height of the turbine/tower structure based on the width of the lot on which the structure will be located. c. On 50 or 80 foot wide lots,wind turbines are unlikely because they can't go high enough. d. Wind analysis of the Salt Lake City area(as indicated on a Utah State Government report)shows minimal feasibility for sufficient wind to support use of wind turbines, although wind levels are documented to increase in the western portions of the city. This is also the location of the largest land parcels. e. This additional height provision could be eliminated from the ordinance if the City Council deemed it appropriate. l'ili.'-'ii14'.'.:-.11:41-.:-., ;424'''';'`V — ' �' y) to sx�, ". y _. . L\ " ?' ; x' - ate: �\" ,i e 5- e • Wind Turbine Wind Spire 5 f. • • 11 ! , S1j'� f > '1..,e2L 1. 77 • cok 1ti - ti us •..... 0 t M14 ti VI3 *la 4 1, l Z o M. 0 C JAW t 41 � � �, ru +� a �> h A • a. v .t*s.� ,yet 7A.- j"F y s _ .. 'A„.€tv ": Urban Farms, Green Houses, Solar and Wind Energy What is your opinion on the proposed changes? Public comments as of April 20, 2011 , 10:51 PM All Participants Around Salt Lake City ft 40 "' r y � 11, 1 Or :pash AIM - -or IN- • art =t�t�1 3 4 1 �' ar I�H Or 'kla 4„ #„ rip tttt to As with any public comment process,participation in Open City Hall is voluntary. The statements in this record are not 'ecessarily representative of the whole population, nor do they reflect the opinions of any government agency or elected ficials. Urban Farms, Green Houses, Solar and Wind Energy What is your opinion on the proposed changes? Introduction The Salt Lake City Council is currently reviewing changes to the City's zoning regulations relating to: • urban farms, community gardens, seasonal farm stands, accessory structures such as greenhouses, cold frames, and hoop houses in residential areas including single-family residential areas, and • solar and wind energy systems such as solar panels, solar arrays and wind turbines or windmills to be allowed citywide including residential areas and open space zoning districts. Public comments as of April 20,2011,10:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/647 Page 1 of 14 Urban Farms, Green Houses, Solar and Wind Energy What is your opinion on the proposed changes? As of April 20, 2011 , 10:51 PM, this forum had: Attendees: 222 Participants Around Salt Lake City: 29 Hours of Public Comment: 1 .5 Public comments as of April 20,2011,10:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/647 Page 2 of 14 Urban Farms, Green Houses, Solar and Wind Energy What is your opinion on the proposed changes'? All Participants Around Salt Lake City Richard Middleton in District 3 April 16, 2011, 12:00 PM In principle I strongly support these changes. As always, the devil is in the details. I signed up for solar power some years ago, having been told that our garage roof was an ideal site. Then it seemed I would have to have a tilt frame - an eyesore and completely inappropriate in an historic district- so I withdrew. I am already distressed to have power lines and telephone cables interrupting my view of the valley (where we lived in Maryland, utilities were buried) - am I now to have wind turbines as well? I very much like the idea of urban agriculture and locally-produced food - but not if it means we have a rash of unregulated shacks springing up and remaining throughout the summer and fall (one of our neighbors has a "temporary" garage of plastic sheets which has graced the neighborhood for several years). I also wonder how the mayor, who is always full of laudable intentions, plans to keep some form of control over the changes.We already have situations where his initiatives raise these issues. For example, he is trying to create a bike-friendly city (excellent, to a European like myself) - but it's going to take enforcement, not just signs or painting lanes green, to get the two-wheel anarchist minority to comply with traffic rules! (Interestingly, enforcement was strongly endorsed by serious cyclists in the session that I moderated at the last bike summit). Under present economic conditions, how will the city afford to monitor compliance? Semi-anonymous in District 5 April 8, 2011, 6:40 PM i have yet to read all the details of the proposed changes, but i definitely think it is a good idea. i would hope to see more discussion to create a more finely tuned proposal. hopefully those who oppose may provide some reasonable ideas as opposed to complete and utter negativity, or crying. Semi-anonymous in District 6 April 8, 2011, 12:12 PM If I had wanted to live on or near a farm I would have purchased property in a rural, farming community, rather than in the nice (up until now), well maintained, quiet, middle-class, Sugar House neighborhood in which I currently reside. Now I find I may be faced with front and back yard mini- farms, compost piles, chicken coops, out buildings, and produce stands along with the increased potential of rodents, vermin, and increased traffic for those out 'cruising' for neighborhood grown fruits and vegetables, followed by unsightly messes and deserted, deteriorating out buildings when those who jump on the bandwagon for this nonsense, abandon it as the novelty wears off or they find it more difficult and time consuming than they imagined. In case I haven't made my point clear, I AM VEHEMENTLY OPPOSED TO THESE CHANGES! Semi-anonymous in District 7 April 7, 2011, 2:30 PM I favor the plan! As someone who has a few chickens and at least tries to grow a decent garden I would hate for anything to get in someone's way of a more sustainable life way.These activities should be encouraged. This is good forward thinking and am glad to see it. Semi-anonymous in District 5 April 7, 2011, 12:33 AM Public comments as of April 20,2011,10:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/647 Page 3 of 14 Urban Farms, Green Houses, Solar and Wind Energy What is your opinion on the proposed changes? All Participants Around Salt Lake City I'm an enthusiastic supporter of the proposed changes, particular those pertaining to gardening. I've been growing vegetables and flowers in my yard -without grass -for many years. Growing a garden is such an earth-friendly act. No petroleum-based fertilizers or insecticides, no Roundup, no 2,000 mile shipments, no abuses of migrant workers,just wholesome and nutritious (and guiltless) vegetables. I read an article recently by an economist who claimed that growing just 2 meals a week of fresh vegetables is as beneficial to the planet as owning a Prius. I have a couple of raised beds in my front yard and am always amazed by how much they produce, and how much better my vegetables taste compared to what comes from Safeway and Albertson's. And, it's been a terrific icebreaker with my neighbors. Having people stop and chat while I'm in my garden has definitely improved my connection to the community. Occasionally someone drops off some snap peas or a cucumber, and I share some tomatoes or a pepper. Last year a neighbor I'd never met knocked on my door to complement my heirloom tomatoes. We're now great friends. Good stuff Mayor Becker! Alex Hardy outside Salt Lake City April 6, 2011, 6:58 AM Hello, live in Sandy and I moved here from my College town of San Luis Obispo in California... where the greatest farmers' market of all time exists. When I graduated we were tearing out driveways and any pavement we could in order to plant more organic food. mind you that this is one of the hearts of agriculture for the world and we were growing our own... sustainabley.As I made the drive east, dreamed of how I would grow vegies year round in the state with the greatest snow on earth... subterainian wood fired greenhouses... then I found it was illeagle to have anything but green grass in the yard??? Two weeks ago I was told by Sandy City that my cold frame was an illeagle "SHED" AND WAS MADE TO TEAR IT DOWN AND EXPOSE MY FOOD CROPS TO THE ELEMENTS. I am very concearned for Salt Lake City to pass sustainable ordinances so that I may instigate the same in Sandy City. Local food production is Victory of the USA. Localizing economy and retaining local dolars increases the local economy, not a multinational coorperation. If The amount of time and energy spent on maintaining lawns in the usa were converted to victory gardens, energy consumption in the USA would drop by 1/4-1/2. True Providence is preserving the creation and allowing the natural bounty to flow... Providence is the planting of one kernal of corn which increases to 3 ears with 700 kernals each... In reading the proposed ordinance admenda, I found two confusing matters, specifically the allowable coverage by percent of a yard or building. 21A.40.050 B.1a,b both have conflicting set of numbers/allowable percentages...some clarification is in order. as per wind turbines: the restriction of 55dbc is 20dbc less than allowable noise 75 feet from a structure (per sandy city code) Noise pollution from a wind turbine is insignificant compared to having to listen to Lawnmorers every night at dusk for two hours (and associated polution from inefficent gas engines (lawn mowers get about 1/4 mile to the gallon and no cadeledic converters) Joise pollution from a wind turbine is insignificant compared to the chemical pollution from Public comments as of April 20,2011,10:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/647 Page 4 of 14 Urban Farms, Green Houses, Solar and Wind Energy „oak. What is your opinion on the proposed changes? All Participants Around Salt Lake City homeowners appllyign chemicals to thier lawn. Noise pollution from a wind turbine is insignificant compared to the sins of glutounous pollution and subsequent health issues resulting from the minning and burning of coal. Noise pollution from a wind turbine is insignificant compared to the light pollution of excessive and non directed electric lighting (and associated coal pollution) Thank you for allowing me to comment. Alex Hardy, Sadee's Pride Natural Foods, Sandy/West Valley City (I grow an urban Farm in West Valley sized 5 acres and plan on solar and wind to power my ops.) Michael Evans in District 3 April 5, 2011, 8:33 PM Thanks to the council and the mayor for looking to improve upon Salt Lake City's community gardening, urban farming, seasonal farm stand ordinances. I would request that in the Qualifying Provisions for a Seasonal Farm Stand (section 21A.36.220), the council revise the "food preparation" section in regards to samples. Currently, it reads: "Food preparation is prohibited at farm stands, including food samples." While I understand why regulation around this issue exists, it seems that the regulation too severely limits vendors. While working in Austin, TX, their council passed an ordinance that allowed the city and markets to make a food sampling permit available for vendors (which included a requirement for the volunteer or employee doing the food sampling - to be a registered food handler). It allowed vendors to occasionally highlight something that they wanted to offer to customers to taste test, while also staying true to their commitment to food safety. I would appreciate it if the council would consider revising this section of the farm stand ordinance. I am happy to pass along relevant information from the Austin City Ordinances. Thanks -mike Semi-anonymous in District 5 April 5, 2011, 4:04 PM wind turbines create too much noise for residential neighborhoods Wind turbines next door are like: * having a machine shop next door * listening to off road vehicles in a wilderness area * having a constant buzz of a party next door Public comments as of April 20,2011,10:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/647 Page 5 of 14 Urban Farms, Green Houses, Solar and Wind Energy What is your opinion on the proposed changes? All Participants Around Salt Lake City A 20 ft wind turbine is noisy and is not appropriate for a residential area. Trying to have a conversation in an adjacent yard would be trying! Please do not allow wind turbines in the SLC or the foothills. It would be like putting an oil rig on a Southern California beach. George Chapman sugarhouse Richard Schooley in District 5 April 4, 2011, 7:37 PM Although I have not read the details of the proposed zoning changes, I support the concept as provided in the synopsis, except for open space. All open space within SLC should not be open to any development, including wind turbines. Matthew Kirkegaard in District 6 April 4, 2011, 5:54 PM I am very much in favor of the proposed changes in regards to urban farming and renewable energy. Though I ardently support virtually all environmental endeavors, in a city such as ours where our air is often unhealthy to breath, I am especially passionate about anything that could help provide cleaner air. Both urban farming, through reduced produce shipping, and clean energy, by the obvious reduction of burning fossil fuels in the Salt Lake Valley to produce electricity, could be avenues to a city we would never be afraid to just breath in. I am glad Salt Lake has the initiative to work for environmental causes and support the city on these proposed changes.Thank you Mayor Becker for your forward thinking. Semi-anonymous in District 4 April 4, 2011, 3:55 PM I support the changes proposed as they move our city into a healthier, more sustainable way of life. The proposed changes are definitely a step in the right direction. Urban farming is growing in popularity in part because it is a beneficial way to bring community members together as well as live a healthier lifestyle, which connects people to their food sources. Aside from making locally grown food more accessible, buying local helps the local economy, and with fresh produce more accessible (i.e. in one's own neighborhood), less travel would be required in order to attain food, which has all sorts of benefits. I agree with many of the previous commenters in regards to allowance of farms/hoop houses, etc. in front yards. Sometimes the front yard is the area in which one can grow garden crops; persons living under such circumstances should be allowed to maintain a garden/urban farm just like those with spacious and sunny backyards. The alternative energy proposals are also a step in the right direction. However, as was previously mentioned, attaining permits for such energy systems should not be so difficult or expensive that it deters citizens from participating in alternative energy. If that were the case, the passage of the proposed ordinance would be futile. am grateful that the city is moving in such a wonderful direction. The more accessible sustainable Public comments as of April 20,2011,10:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/647 Page 6 of 14 Urban Farms, Green Houses, Solar and Wind Energy What is your opinion on the proposed changes? All Participants Around Salt Lake City living becomes, the more people will live sustainable lifestyles. Let us continue moving in such a direction. Semi-anonymous in District 5 April 4, 2011, 2:31 PM I am in support of environmentally conscience legislation.This is definately a step in the right direction! Scott Christensen in District 2 April 4, 2011, 2:24 PM I think the city is headed in the right direction with allowing these things. I just don't want to see regulation after regulation concerning it. Urban farms -Are community Gardens equal to or the same as? Either of them are great. I know animals aren't included in this proposal but they also are great idea's and relatively simple to manage. I would like to see the regulation on chicken relax even more. $5.00 dollars per bird up to $40.00 dollars is ridiculous. I can see a $5.00 fee total.That would cover the cost of processing paper. I think stands should be allowed on all residential properties. I always get more zucchini than I can eat and it would be nice to sell what I don't use to recoup some of the cost of water.This also teaches families where food comes from and how to manage your crops. Good farming stewards are needed 'di* all the time. #. Wind and Solar- Great, again let's not be so regulated that it doesn't benefit anyone. Both of these items already cost so much it is near cost prohibitive to even own them.Add to that any cost the city puts on it and it could make it not worth doing. Removing structures to put up urban farms or community gardens. I feel it is their property let them. I think it is better than having a run down or abandon building next to you. I'd be willing to my lemonaid from my stand with them. Semi-anonymous in District 4 March 30, 2011, 11:05 PM I think these proposals are a definite step in the right direction. Producing our own food and power locally reduces our impact on the environment in many ways. I agreed with Matt Johnson's statements about growing vegetables 24" or less in front yards.This is a ridiculous restriction. As long as gardens are well-maintained, we should be able to grow rhubarb, beans, tomatoes, peas - all of which grow taller than 24 inches. Ben Mates in District 7 March 30, 2011, 2:04 PM I am all in favor of making it easier to grow our own food and produce our own energy. It's far more efficient to use the resources we have close at hand (soil, water, sunlight, wind) than to have to import what we need from great distances. If we were able to rely almost exclusively on these local, renewable resources, and every community was able to do the same, the necessity for making war on others would be greatly diminished. Public comments as of April 20,2011,10:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/647 Page 7 of 14 Urban Farms, Green Houses, Solar and Wind Energy What is your opinion on the proposed changes? All Participants Around Salt Lake City I have read the proposal for the changes to a more sustainable community and as a business owner in the community and neighbor, I support this initiative. I would like to attend the meeting on the 5th, but will be out of the country. I applaud the efforts to bring the community together on such an important issue, and one that could have long lasting implications for a quality of life that is rapidly eroding in Utah, especially along the Wasatch Front. Matt Johnson in District 2 March 29, 2011, 3:56 PM I have a few comments about the proposed ordinances. I think that they are truly in the right direction, but I would like to tweek them just a little: 1. I don't think that a home owner should be required to remove a sign from their own yard, especially if they have to have a business license. If they plan on selling produce from their home throughout the season, then they should be able to keep the sign up just as long. People are allowed to have political campaign signs in their yards for more than a day. Why not allow them to also promote something worthwhile. 2. I have yet to see anyone address the issue of growing vegetables in your front yard. Ordanance 21A.48.090: LANDSCAPE YARDS says "No specific improvements are required within landscape yards, except that all landscape areas shall be maintained with at least one-third (1/3) of the yard(s) area covered by vegetation, which may include trees, shrubs, grasses, annual or perennial plants and vegetable plants.Vegetable plants shall be limited to a maximum height of twenty four inches (24")." This is a ridiculous regulation! Most vegetables grow taller than 24" and to keep people from growing vegetables in their front yard is against everything the City trying to accomplish with this green initiative. 3. I don't have a problem with people putting green houses or hoop houses in their front yards either. Many people put small hoop houses or cold frames out in sunny parts of their yard to extend the growing season. That includes the front yard if that's where the sun is. These hae never distracted from the beauty of the yard. Semi-anonymous in District 4 March 28, 2011, 12:25 PM I am in favor of these zoning changes. I am an advocate for urban farming and developing more options for energy production closer to home. I won't be able to attend the meeting on April 5th, but encourage all zoning changes in favor of urban farming, community gardens, etc. Semi-anonymous in District 6 March 28, 2011, 6:23 AM I feel that urban farms should be encouraged as long as a reasonable effort is made to keep the farm and surrounding area from become an eye sour. Wind and solar energy at any level should be encouraged. Non commercial wind and solar should be encouraged with tax incentives and new construction building credits. In some cases the visual and audio damage of alternative energy should be over looked for the greater good it is providing. Kyle Deans in District 5 March 27, 2011, 1:05 PM I haven't read the entire legislation on the wind turbines, but I would suggest and suspect that it is written in this way. In order for a residential property to have a wind turbine there must be sufficient Jistance from the top of the turbine to the property line of the residential property in all directions. For Public comments as of April 20,2011,10:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracycom/647 Page 8 of 14 Urban Farms, Green Houses, Solar and Wind Energy 1 What is your opinion on the proposed changes? All Participants Around Salt Lake City instance, if a wind turbine stands a total of 45' including blade, the lot must be a minimum of 90 x 90 and the the placement of the turbine must be centered on the lot. The reasoning behind this is that in the event that the turbine topples it should fall only on the property that it is built on. Jim French in District 6 March 27, 2011, 12:25 PM Should someone operating an urban farm be able to put a temporary seasonal farm stand in their front yard to sell produce grown on the property if it meant having locally grown produce sold close to home? Yes. In fact, I believe that anyone should be able to set up a little farm stand in their front yard.This sort of thing has been happening in the country side for many years, often on a self serve basis. If children can sell lemonade, then why not squash or cucumbers? Should demolition of a house be allowed in order to use the property for an urban farm if it meant allowing for locally grown produce and urban agriculture? Yes, if someone owns the property and wants to set up an urban farm, then I say, "more power to them." Auk Should a solar array be located in areas zoned General Commercial, Gateway, Mixed-Use, ' Research/Business Park, Airport, Manufacturing, Agriculture, Public Lands, and Institutional? What zones are appropriate? I think that solar arrays should be allowed where ever the sun is shining and people, businesses or institutions want to capture the power of the sun. It's interesting that in 14th century villages in Germany, solar panels are everywhere on buildings that make our oldest in Salt Lake City look like new buildings. Sure, some guidelines are o.k.: panels facing and visible from the right of way flat on the roof, not on a tilt rack and maybe the color of the solar panels should blend in to the roof as much as possible if they are visible from the right of way. If the city is going to be really serious about sustainability, then we can't be denying some the right to produce their own clean power simply because folks will be able to see their solar panels.We can't see coal fired power plants, but we certainly are affected by them by the air that we breath and the mercury contaminated fish that we might eat. Should your neighbor place a windmill in their backyard if it means reducing overall energy consumption? Sure. Should wind turbines or a wind farm be located in an area zoned for open space or any of the other Special Purpose Zoning Districts (Research/Business Park, Agriculture, Open Space, Airport, and Institutional)? • * Public comments as of April 20,2011,10:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/647 Page 9 of 14 Urban Farms, Green Houses, Solar and Wind Energy What is your opinion on the proposed changes? All Participants Around Salt Lake City Yes, if the area has been shown to be windy enough to justify a wind turbine.The more power that we can produce locally, the better. Ross Chambless in District 3 March 26, 2011, 8:18 PM I am glad Salt Lake City is considering these proposed changes. I think these changes could encourage more urban farming that people in local community neighborhoods will ALL benefit from. Here are a few thoughts I have on the questions given: "Should someone operating an urban farm be able to put a temporary seasonal farm stand in their front yard to sell produce grown on the property if it meant having locally grown produce sold close to home?" Yes, definitely. Having such fresh veggie stands would also encourage more community engagement and interactions. "Should demolition of a house be allowed in order to use the property for an urban farm if it meant allowing for locally grown produce and urban agriculture?" Absolutely. It seems natural that in some cases, demolishing an old home for the space to grow food will be beneficial in the long run as our neighborhoods adapt to the future necessities of localized food sources. Also, there are many private and fenced, yet undeveloped lots around the City that have sat empty and unused for years. It would be nice if neighborhoods could apply for use permits - through the city, in coordination with private owners -for the purpose of using those open spaces for temporary or seasonal farming and growing food. Perhaps private land owners could also be offered various tax incentives for allowing open lots for community gardening, even if the areas are eventually marked for some new development. (I'm not sure if such tax incentives already exist in some form?) I am also happy to see consideration of more urban solar and wind generators for small and clean power in residential and some non-residential zones. "Should a solar array be located in areas zoned General Commercial, Gateway, Mixed-Use, Research/Business Park, Airport, Manufacturing, Agriculture, Public Lands, and Institutional? What zones are appropriate?" I am supportive of renewable energy equipment being used in commercial and mixed use areas, the airport, on or around public buildings, and in SOME cases public lands. However we should give much careful thought and consideration to any proposals of energy in open spaces that are, or function similarly to, wildlife preserves or parks where people go for quiet and enjoyment of nature. For example, I don't think I would support any proposed wind or solar developments near the Great Salt Lake wetlands. Public comments as of April 20,2011,10:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracycom/647 Page 10 of 14 Urban Farms, Green Houses, Solar and Wind Energy What is your opinion on the proposed changes? '"w All Participants Around Salt Lake City "Should your neighbor place a windmill in their backyard if it means reducing overall energy consumption?" Sure. I would be supportive if any of my neighbors invested in renewable energy for their own residence, because I believe myself and 'other neighbors would benefit from it as well. "Should wind turbines or a wind farm be located in an area zoned for open space or any of the other Special Purpose Zoning Districts (Research/Business Park, Agriculture, Open Space, Airport, and Institutional)?" I have the same thoughts as mentioned before. Any renewable energy development proposed near open spaces should be carefully considered for all potential unintended consequences. Julie Henry in District 4 March 26, 2011, 5:42 PM Hi, My name is Julie Henry. I am a citizen and a city and metropolitan planning major at the U and I have some comments about section 21A.36.200. 8. Delivery and Pick-up: I think that more than one patron should be allowed because it hinders many options.What if one chooses to allow patrons to park on their personal driveway or in their garage, if say they only have one car or they do business when one driver in the home is away at work, maybe ' ' mom or dad are at work, or their high school child is at school. How about the on street parking in front of one's house, why would they not be allowed to use this space for patrons? I think that many of these options will not block traffic or be a hindrance, which I believe is the primary concern here. I do think having some sort of pick-up policy is key. However, it should really be more lenient than one patron at a time. Also, I am surprisingly happy with the parking requirement that is proposed. 10. On site sales:Why must stands and signs be temporary and taken inside after the event? I'm trying to visualize the problems the city would have with permanent signs and stands.Two issues I think the city might be dealing with are aesthetics and city liability. Problem: Aesthetics, in other words, ruining the character of the neighborhood, in a 'concerned' neighbor's words, that sign makes our street just look ugly and it will bring down my property value. Reasoning: o The city allows billboards, ugly gas stations, and many signs throughout the city that destroy the character of the city and make it look.. not good. o Here is a aesthetically pleasing urban garden sign example: http://ci.santa-rosa.ca.us/SiteCollection Images/RP_NS_G_painted%20sign%2091508.jpg --That is how I presume most will look. Public comments as of April 20,2011,10:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracycom/647 Page 11 of 14 Urban Farms, Green Houses, Solar and Wind Energy What is your opinion on the proposed changes? All Participants Around Salt Lake City o Here is an example of what signs posted all around Salt Lake City look like: http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00783/la-fast-food-signs_783699c.jpg http://media.travelpost.com/prod.aws/hotels/4078/Best_Western_Main_Street_Inn_43880_2_081520 06_1408512812_500.jpg --Locally made and handcrafted signs will not look like those and I think that is an improvement. Will it bring down the value? I'm not a realtor but it seems to me that having food that local would raise property value. I would pay more for a home that was closer to an urban garden regardless of what their sign looked like. Beauty also lies in practicality. Problem: City liability for displaced (if the sign blew into the street or someone's yard, or maybe a hooligan thought it might be funny to move it there) or stolen signs (hooligans). Reasoning: Make a provision that says the only person liable for stolen or displaced signs is the owner of the sign and there will be consequences for signs found in the street or in an unwanted area i.e. a neighbor's yard or gutter.To avoid not knowing who's sign is in an illegal area, also note that they must have a business logo or their own name on the sign (which most might have on a sign anyway, I presume.). The personal liability for displaced and stolen signs might cause the sign owner to want to take in their portable signs after an event for fear it might end up somewhere else and they be penalized for it.Also, who trusts kids with things like this?They will probably take in their signs anyway for fear that they might be stolen. It might also persuade an owner to make a permanent sign which I find to be a good thing. It brings attention to the neighborhood/area, more business and can show home buyers that the area is desirable. Also, should the city really be allowed to tell people what kind of furnishings they can and cannot have on their own property? (things like wooden stands, porch swings, and chairs.) 12 & 13. Business license, good idea. A home occupation license? Does this mean that the owner of the far must live in the home? Does this apply to people who rent out duplexes, triplexes, and similar low-density housing arrangements? Does the owner have to occupy one of the dwellings, or may all of them be rented out to people who may or may not work on an adjacent urban garden? It seems that someone works on and urban garden would want to live as close as possible. I'm not completely clear on how all of this works, but I would like to say that I think living and working on the same lot, or in close vicinity, is a good thing for Salt Lake City and I hope that this section does not hinder this. Living next to the place in which you work reduces commutes, which in turn reduces stress, carbon emissions, and the financial strain of maintaining and using an automobile. Please keep this in mind when making your decisions. Public comments as of April 20,2011,10:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/647 Page 12 of 14 Urban Farms, Green Houses, Solar and Wind Energy What is your opinion on the proposed changes? All Participants Around Salt Lake City Just some general suggestions: I think when this ordinance is finalized, there should be a pamphlet or something available to anyone wanting to create an urban garden to help them navigate all of the codes. Also, it would be nice to understand, in more detail, the city's reasoning for some of these changes. It is a bit difficult to comment on the codes and ordinances when we do not understand the reasons for some of the strict regulations. I live near 200 S and 1300 E and I am glad Mayor Ralph Becker and Salt Lake City have started to lead the way in forward thinking! Go SLC!! Semi-anonymous in District 7 March 25, 2011, 7:36 PM I am happy with these changes to enable us citizens of SLC to become more self-reliant for our food and energy needs. I like that we will now be able to grow food in our front yards as well as the back. It would be nice to also be able to have a seasonal farm stand in the driveway of my home. Semi-anonymous outside Salt Lake City March 25, 2011, 4:06 PM 4, I do not live in SLC; however, I will be following the progress of the proposed ordinances because this is very forward thinking and I am hopeful that if Salt Lake takes the lead other cities along the Wasatch front will follow! I am currently residing in Springville,Utah. JN Semi-anonymous in District 7 March 24, 2011, 10:31 PM I support local agriculture and green energy solutions. I think it is important to consider/ regulate pesticide use on these farms. I support organic/environmentally friendly farming. I would hope that these proposed urban farms would be small-scale enough that toxic pesticide use/gmo seeds are not allowed/practical. I would not want toxic neighboring farms polluting out waterways or cross-pollinating with organic/non- toxic farms. Sally Miller in District 7 March 24, 2011, 7:58 PM I am very supportive of these changes. I just signed up for Community Supported Agriculture (CSA) shares and am a big fan of urban farming.The green power proposals are great, too! Semi-anonymous in District 7 March 24, 2011, 5:18 PM I support any and all changes to provide energy in an environmentally conscious way. I also support any changes that allow us to become closer to our food sources. Semi-anonymous in District 4 March 24, 2011, 5:07 PM I know where you can build some wind turbines! On 10000 South between the freeway and state Public comments as of April 20,2011,10:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/647 Page 13 of 14 Urban Farms, Green Houses, Solar and Wind Energy What is your opinion on the proposed changes? All Participants Around Salt Lake City street, I almost get blown off my feet walking there every day! Also, what about putting smaller wind turbines in the median on the freeway? Public comments as of April 20,2011,10:51 PM http://www.peakdemocracy.com/647 Page 14 of 14 Urban Farming - accessory structures Fact Sheet Definitions "Cold frame" means an unheated outdoor structure k ,h. . typically consisting of, but not limited,to, a wooden or concrete frame and a top of glass or clear plastic,used for , protecting seedlings and plants from the cold. "Greenhouse" means a temporary or permanent structure typically made of, but not limited to, glass, plastic, or fiberglass in which plants are cultivated. '`" "Hoop house"means a temporary or permanent structure typically made of, but not limited to, piping or other 11-»,.. material covered with translucent plastic,constructed in a Cold frame "half-round"or"hoop"shape,for the purposes of growing plants. A hoop house is considered more temporary than a greenhouse. - tas .a Background In 2009,Mayor Becker initiated a petition for the purpose +r of amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to encourage practices of sustainable living. The City's intent is to achieve the goal of creating appropriate zoning • regulations that will make Salt Lake City a sustainable community. A portion of those regulations pertains to facilitating the use of accessory structures associated with Greenhouse urban farming and gardening. Purposes V These types of structures are typically seasonal or temporary in nature but can be permanent. These structures have always been permitted in the past but have been subject to the location and building coverage limits - for all accessory buildings, making it difficult to have a garage,shed,and a greenhouse. The intent of the proposed • 'p accessory structures amendments is to encourage and promote their use in urban agriculture by easing some of Small hoop house the typical regulatory barriers or limits often encountered with accessory structures such as limits on location,size,and number of structures. Main points 1.Size:not subject to the usual coverage limits as most accessory buildings,yet still limited. Sustainability Code Amendment Project-Small Renewable Energy Systems Page 1 February 2011 S - Yard coverage: combined coverage for all hoop houses, greenhouses, and cold frames shall not exceed ten percent (10%) when located on vacant lots or, when located on a lot with a principal building, shall not exceed fifteen percent (15%) of the total area located between the rear facade of the principal building and the rear lot line plus the side yard area between the front and rear facades of the principal building. - Building coverage: The combined coverage for all hoop houses, greenhouses, and cold frames shall not exceed thirty-five percent(35%) of the building footprint of the principal structure. 2. Height: subject to zoning district height limit. 3. Location: prohibited in front yard; allowed in side and rear yards. 4. Materials: commonly made of either molded or thin sheet transparent plastic over a frame of metal, wood, metal, or PVC piping. Sustainability Code Amendment Project-Small Renewable Energy Systems Page 2 February 2011 Urban Agriculture Fact Sheet Definitions The following are definitions for Uses that would support Urban Agriculture Goals "Community garden" means an area of land managed and " a maintained by an individual or group to grow and harvest food crops and/or non-food, ornamental crops, such as flowers, for , ' `_ personal or group use,consumption,donation,or sale."Limited A sales and events may also occur on the site. "Urban Farm"An Urban Farm is a farm where food is cultivated, ' processed and distributed in or around a residential or commercial area. Urban fanning is generally practiced for income earning or food producing activities." "Seasonal farm stand" means a sales table, area, or kiosk of locally grown food crops and/or non-food, an ornamental crop such as flowers, that is located off-premise from the location where the food was grown,or when located in any agricultural +ns?r.,.f - district,and operates during the time of year coinciding with the • 1 , growing season. Background In November 2009,Mayor Becker initiated a petition for the purpose of amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to encourage practices of sustainable living. The City's intent is to achieve the goal of creating appropriate zoning, subdivision and site development regulations that will make Salt Lake City a sustainable community.A portion of those regulations pertains to facilitating urban agriculture throughout the city. Purposes The purposes of the urban agriculture provisions are to: 1. Encourage and allow for higher yields through best practices gardening,including water conservation,composting and organic soil enhancement,and natural pest control. 2. Ensure that food production opportunities are planned for and implemented in appropriate areas in the city through the zoning code; 1 3. Provide for a healthy,fresh,and diverse local food source for Salt Lake City residents; 4. Enhance community health through the production,consumption, and/or sale of locally grown food and the physical practice of gardening; 5. Save energy and reduce greenhouse gas emissions through community-based and local food production that minimizes long-distance food transportation; 6. Provide opportunities for community education in gardening and food production and hands-on involvement for citizens; 7. Provide increased opportunities for local jobs; 8. Promote sustainable agricultural practices that ensure longevity of agricultural working lands and ecosystems and that protect against potential adverse impacts of urban agriculture;and Main Points Urban Farm An urban farm is a for-profit farm owned and operated by an individual. These farms provide consumers with a sustainable alternative to traditional grocery stores and access to locally grown fruits and vegetables. The farms would be allowed throughout the entire city,and may be on a vacant lot,or any place with available ground. Persons looking to operate an urban farm,will have to get a business license from the City and meet certain criteria designed to protect adjacent property owners. Selling fruits and vegetables from an urban farm will be allowed,provided the sales occur on farm property(selling on the street or sidewalk is not allowed),and the size of any sales stand is limited to 150 square feet. Persons seeking to house animals such as chickens,turkeys and ducks would be allowed to do so provided they received the proper permits from the City and follow the rules. Larger animals such as goats,cows,sheep,pigs and horses are not allowed. Community Gardens A community garden is a piece of land shared by friends and neighbors for growing vegetables and flowers,and providing opportunities for positive social interactions and recreation.It may be sandwiched between two buildings,on the outskirts of a city,in an apartment building courtyard, on hospital grounds,alongside railroad tracks,or even in your own backyard. Regulations will allow sales,events and activities at the garden provided they do spill off of the farm and into the street or sidewalk. As with urban farms, animals such as chickens, turkeys and ducks would be allowed in a community garden provided they receive property permits from the City and follow the rules. Larger animals such as goats,cows,sheep,pigs and horses are prohibited. 2 4•11i • Groups who want to build a community garden on land owned by the City can apply through a community gardening application available through the Mayor's Office. Seasonal Farm Stands Seasonal farm stands are a benefit available to local fanners and growers who would like to sell vegetables,fruits,or flowers away from where they were grown. Under this new regulation,farmers would be able to sell locally grown(locally grown means that the products were grown in Utah)products in the City from small stands or kiosks no larger than 150 square feet in size. Stands will be required to locate on private property,with the permission of the land owner. No stand will be allowed in the street or on the sidewalk. Stands must be temporary,can only be operational during the harvest season and can only be at one location for two consecutive weeks. 3 Small Renewable Energy Systems Fact Sheet Solar panels mounted on roof of home Definitions + "Small solar energy collection system" shall mean an accessory structure that is roof-mounted,wall-mounted,or ground-mounted panel the primary purpose of which is to provide for the collection, inversion, storage, and distribution of solar energy for electricity generation,space heating, space cooling, or water heating of buildings located on the same property. A small solar energy collection system shall not exceed a capacity of 100 r • 1 kilowatts(kW). "Small wind energy system"means an accessory structure Smell wind turbine on tower defined as a wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind turbine,a tower,and associated control or conversion electronics that has a rated capacity of not more than 100 kilowatts(kW)and that is intended to generate electricity primarily for buildings and/or uses on the same property, thereby reducing on-site consumption of utility power. J. '7 ti _ - -- 1 Background _ _ In November 2009,Mayor Becker initiated a petition for MEV— the purpose of amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to encourage practices of sustainable living. Different version of small wind turbine The City's intent is to achieve the goal of creating appropriate zoning,subdivision and site development regulations that will make Salt Lake City a sustainable III community. A portion of those regulations pertains to facilitating the use of small scale renewable energy generation. ";+ ,Sr—• .. Purposes '' The purposes of these provisions relating to renewable energy systems are to: Photo source „ nergy can 1. Promote the use of wind,solar,and other renewable energy systems; 2. Enable Salt Lake City to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as established by the U.S.Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement,of which the city is a signatory. 3. Provide opportunities for homeowners to save fuel costs; 4. Ensure that site elements do not excessively shade potential solar system locations; 5. Preserve access to wind for small wind energy systems;and 6. Ensure that renewable energy systems are safe and compatible with surrounding developments. Sustainability Code Amendment Project-Small Renewable Energy Systems Page 1 February 2011 Main points Small Wind Energy Systems: 1. Setback: Shall be setback from lot lines a distance equal to the total height plus five feet. 2. Height: Required setback will regulate; must also comply with Federal Aviation Administration height limits. Lot width Allowed Turbine height typically needs to be approx 30' Turbine Height above buildings and trees to get reasonable wind. Prospect of additional height: _ 50'(common for single 20' * Unlikely;requires neighbor approval family districts) 80'(larger lot single family 35' * Unlikely;requires neighbor approval districts,mainly on the benches) 140'(largest lot single 65' * Unnecessary; 65'is probably sufficient to clear family districts) turbulence layer. *or taller if approved by adjacent property owner 3. Location: Subject to compliance with setback provisions. From a cost-benefit stand point, these would most likely be located in areas of the city with larger lots, open land area free from turbulence-causing structures and trees, which is more in the west areas of the city; OR near canyons where wind is common in the morning and evening. The actual turbine needs to be approximately 30' above the turbulence area created by buildings and trees. 4. Sound: Cannot exceed 55dBA for any period of time and measured at adjacent property line. The sound level may be exceeded during short-term events out of owner's control, such as severe storms for battery-charging systems or utility outages for systems connected to the power grid. Small Solar Energy Collection System: 1. Size/Area: No more than 90% of roof area. 2. Height: Shall not exceed by more than three feet the maximum height permitted in the zoning district in which it is located or shall not extend more than 12 feet above the roofline of the structure upon which it is mounted, whichever is less. 3. Location: Can be located on both the primary and/or accessory buildings, or as a separate structure. More specific location requirements are proposed for systems in the Historic Preservation Overlay district. Sustainability Code Amendment Project-Small Renewable Energy Systems Page 2 February 2011 Renewable Energy Fact Sheet Definitions The following are definitions for Uses that would support Renewable Energy Goals "SOLAR ARRAY" A solar array(Systems of about 100 Kilowatt in size)is a principal use of a packaged interconnected assembly of solar • cells used to transform solar energy into thermal,chemical,or electrical energy. A solar array uses solar energy for any or all of the following S purposes:(1)water heating,(2)space heating or cooling,and(3)power generation. i "LARGE WIND ENERGY SYSTEM' A Large Wind Energy System is a wind energy conversion system consisting of a wind turbine or group off 4 wind turbines, tower, and associated control or conversion electronics, } which has rated capacity of more than 100 kW. ; ' • Background z •(.` In November 2009,Mayor Becker initiated a petition for the purpose of amending the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance to encourage 1 raM "'' practices of sustainable living.The City's intent is to achieve the goal of creating appropriate zoning, subdivision and site development regulations that will make Salt Lake City a sustainable community.A , ' s k portion of those regulations pertains to facilitating renewable energy i`~" sources throughout the city. Purposes The purposes of these provisions relating to alternative energy systems are to: 1. Promote the use of wind,solar,and other alternative energy systems; 2. Enable Salt Lake City to reduce greenhouse gas emissions as established by the U.S. Conference of Mayors Climate Protection Agreement,of which the city is a signatory. 3. Provide opportunities for homeowners to save fuel costs; 4. Preserve access to wind for small wind energy systems;and 5. Ensure that alternative energy systems are safe and compatible with surrounding developments. 1 Main Points Solar Arrays A solar array is a linked collection of solar panels and cells that in turn are used to generate electric power. Arrays are used to transform solar energy into thermal,chemical and electrical power. They are generally attached to the overall electric grid,and power generated is sold to the electric company(Rocky Mountain Power). Arrays require large open spaces with lots of direct sunlight. Therefore, arrays will only be allowed in certain commercial zones,manufacturing zones and other non residential areas. Large Wind Energy Systems A large wind energy system is one that has a capacity to generate more than 100 Kilowatts of power(The average annual electrical energy consumption of a household in the United States is about 8,900 kilowatt-hours,equivalent to a steady power consumption of about 1 kilowatt,for an entire year).The height of the structures ranges from approximately 60 meters to 90 meters (approximately 200—300 feet tall)and the blades range from 20 to 40 meters(65 to 130 ft)in length and rotate at approximately 10 to 22 rotations per minute(at 22 rotations per minute,the tip of the blade is travelling approximately 200 miles per hour). The primary issue with large wind energy systems is the size and location. In order to operate efficiently, large wind turbines must be located in windy areas. Salt Lake City has very few locations where there is sufficient wind to warrant installation of a turbine,and these locations are generally in residential neighborhoods where the impacts of the towers would be significant. In Salt Lake City,the most likely spots would be near the mouths of the various Canyons or along the ridgelines of the mountains. These regulations would not allow them in residential areas or most commercial areas,but they would be allowed in open space zones,where most of the ridgelines in the city are,as well as the west side manufacturing zones. 2 Date Submitted llist name surname zip comments Pulled 4/21/11-No Comments Pulled 4/12/11 thoughtfulness in moving our city towards a more sustainable and environmentally-minded community.The public hearing was constructive and the council's humor and support were both greatly appreciated.I am not a public speaker so I would just like to comment further on some of the ordinances prior to your vote.I am glad you are taking time to thoughtfully consider these progressive changes.3 points before I address the specific ordinances:a€C Please keep any changes and regulations to the minimum; the urban farmer knows her land best:the best sun exposure,best layout for farming efficiently,etc,so please do not unnecessarily regulate sites(ie back yard only)a€C Environmental concerns should outweigh aesthetic concerns,ie better to have renewable energy systems sited appropriately to the land for the greatest efficiency.Lawns should be strongly de- incentivized.They are polluting water wasters that serve no real public good.If anything needs regulation,it is green lawns in the desert.RC I would like to see changes in ordinances that would allow for higher-density mixed-income housing(ie garage and mother-in-law apartments) Ordinances:PLNPCM2010-000717:Agree that electronic billboards should not be allowed(wasteful energy use and unaesthetic distraction).Thank you Mayor Becker PLNPCM2010-00064:Agree with allowing accessory side- yard structures,removing proper names of stadiums,removing summary of yard area and size requirements for zoning(hopefully this will allow people to build smaller houses saving energy and land)Downtown Streetcar Alternatives.Agree.I would like to suggest as part of this exploration that consideration be given to creating large pedestrian/bike ways without cars(ie Helena MT,Burlington VT).PLNPCM2010-01338: Greenhouse/Renewable Energy Systems:Thank you for these proposals 4/11/2011 10:41 Sustainability-Renewable Energy Systems Kristina and Mike Heintz 84106 that allow greenhouses/cold frames/renewable energy systems.I would Council Meeting Comment 4/5/11:I feel Urban Argiculture should also be permitted in front yards.Many houses have better suited space in the front,or are south facing with the house blocking the backyard sun 4/12/2011 9:45 Sustainability-Renewable Energy Systems Michael Heintz 84106 exposure. Comment Card from 4/5/11 Council Meeting:Thank you for having the • foresight to bring our City to the Forefront of the localized food movement and urban farming.I would like to request,however,that green houses be allowed in front yards.There are few things as environmentally offensive in a desert as green lawns.They waste water,serve no community use and create pesticide runoff.what could be far more aesthetic and serve a greater community need than front,back,side yard farms replacing lawns. I applaud allowing solar and wind powered residentail systems and ask the 4/12/2011 9:50 Sustainability-Renewable Energy Systems Kristina Heintz 84106 Council to provide incentice and community support in this effort. Comment Card from 4/5/11 Council Meeting:I passionately support allowing urban agriculture in Salt Lake City.This is a wonderful way for people to connect to their environment and have a place in taking care of their communities.Locally grown poduce will benefit our community and our people not only can it improve the quality of life of peole it can provide sustainable food for this valley.We will be forced to find food locally when 4/12/2011 9:54 Sustainability-Renewable Energy Systems Alex Verson oil is depleted or too expensive to ship across the world. Pulled 4/4/11-No comments Pulled 3/29/11 No comments Pulled 3/23/11 O After reading local news articles on the city's consideration of new urban farming and sustainably legislation,I am writing in support of SLC's effort. Many other cities,worldwide,are pursuing local agriculture.This,indeed, will help in reducing unnecessary energy use and atmospheric carbon.I 3/8/2011 15:31 Sustainability-Renewable Energy Systems Lisa Bruemmer heartily endorse these efforts. Make a policy one street lights and city offices,but keep out of private property lighting.Legislation based on the idea of light pollution is a serious 3/16/2011 9:01 Sustainability-Renewable Energy Systems Craig Ogan 84103 over reach. • Date Submitted list name surname zip comments Pulled 4/21/11-No Comments Pulled 4/12/11 city towards a more sustainable and environmentally-minded community.The public hearing was constructive and the council's humor and support were both greatly appreciated.I am not a public speaker so I would just like to comment further on some of the ordinances prior to your vote.I am glad you are taking time to thoughtfully consider these progressive changes.3 points before I address the specific ordinances:ACC Please keep any changes and regulations to the minimum;the urban farmer knows her land best:the best sun exposure,best layout for farming efficiently,etc,so please do not unnecessarily regulate sites(ie back yard only)a€C Environmental concerns should outweigh aesthetic concerns,ie better to have renewable energy systems sited appropriately to the land for the greatest efficiency.Lawns should be strongly de-incentivized.They are polluting water wasters that serve no real public good.If anything needs regulation,it is green lawns in the desert.a€C I would like to see changes in ordinances that would allow for higher-density mixed-income housing(ie garage and mother-in- law apartments)Ordinances:PLNPCM2010-000717:Agree that electronic billboards should not be allowed(wasteful energy use and unaesthetic distraction).Thank you Mayor Becker PLNPCM2010-00064:Agree with allowing accessory side-yard structures,removing proper names of stadiums,removing summary of yard area and size requirements for zoning(hopefully this will allow people to build smaller houses saving energy and land)Downtown Streetcar Alternatives.Agree.I would like to suggest as part of this exploration that consideration be given to creating large pedestrian/bike ways without cars(ie Helena MT,Burlington VT). PLNPCM2010-01338:Greenhouse/Renewable Energy Systems:Thank you for these proposals that allow greenhouses/cold frames/renewable energy systems.I would like to have the requirement in the new proposed ordinance that limits these to backyards removed in order to allow these structures to be placed in the most productive and efficient site on the property be it front/side/rooftop/back.I would like to see the provision of all incentives possible to encourage residents to provide their own power and be their own supplier while sharing their excess.Energy independence and energy security for our future will need to be highly 4/11/2011 10:37 Sustainability-Urban Agriculture Kristina and Mike Heintz 84106 decentralized and localized.We have the renewable resources to become a true"solar city"and Comment Card 4/5/11:I own a small organic gardening service and this year we will be installing flower and vegetable gardens,and growing food to sell.I'm very excited and supportive of the urban farming initiatives as it will make it easier for us to continue to expand 4/12/20119:57 Sustainability-Urban Agriculture Kelli Bellon in sustainable ways. Pulled 4/4/11 Pulled 3/29/11 I am a resident and homeowner in Salt Lake City.I fully support the urban farm initiative and '`J 3/28/2011 9:08 Sustainability-Urban Agriculture Cody Curtis 84111 urge the city council to adopt the changes proposed in Petition No.PLNPCM2010-01337. Pulled 3/23/11 It was nice discussing tiny farms ordinances with you last week.I guess our project is more of a Teeny tiny farm,but Nick and I are excited about the possibility of realizing our urban dream. Our garden will be a beautiful addition to the neighborhood and will promote the ideals of sustainability,self reliance,and health.We have seen other cities such as Portland,Baltimore, and many others adopt ordinances which encourage citizens to become involved in local and sustainable land use practices.It is wonderful to see Salt Lake City take action to beautify and improve our quality of life.Please be aware that we are anxious to comment and follow the proper citizen input procedures on the aCceurban farms€plans.We hope things will in place 3/8/2011 15:29 Sustainability-Urban Agriculture Nick&Claudia Norton soon,as March begins the SLC planting season! • I am writing a letter in support of the new Urban Farming laws currently under consideration. With the sweeping popular trends in Urban farming across the nation,the beautification of cities and neighborhoods that urban farms promote,and the improved quality of life for people that an increase in plant life would add to,allowing more urban farms is simply a necessary improvement for Salt Lake.Changes in the current restrictions have been long fought for by the citizens of Salt Lake.I know of at least 2 properties in the avenues that the neighborhood tried to have made into urban community gardens.Unfortunately,in both cases,lavish homes were built instead,and it has created animosity throughout the area.An urban community farm would have united this area in a peaceful way,rather than leaving feeling of bitter disdain years after the homes were built.Across the country,cities with notable natural parks,and cultivated gardens,are among the most popular for attracting tourism,and increasing the overall living- attraction for citizens.San Antonio's river walk is famous to both locals and tourists,as is Central Park,Golden Gate Park,etc.If allowed,Salt Lake could increase the quality of life for its local population,as well as have another appeal for tourists.Little secret gardens strewn across Salt Lake,where you are able to get fresh,organic produce,would completely benefit our city. Thank you for your time and consideration.I appreciate your compassion and understanding of how important this issue is,and how much Salt Lake will be improved by a change in law when 3/8/2011 15:30 Sustainability-Urban Agriculture Anna Christiansen you pass the current ordinances under consideration. Attached is a letter from Leonard Braus writing in support of Urban Farming in Salt Lake City.He believes that this trend is environmentally positive and locally necessary,and a national movement SLC should join.In addition,local production of food is a positive for SL and for the 3/14/2011 11:51 Sustainability-Urban Agriculture Leonard Braus 84115 quality of life.Leonard encourages the Council to adopt the Urban farming ordinances. Item A . 3 Please see Item C . 3 from 4 . 5 . 2011 Agenda Item A . 3 Please see Item C . 4 from 4 . 5 • Zoii Agenda SCANNED TO: Mtl'r RECEIVED SCANNED BY: " (/� (y�� DATE: 11/ii FRANK B. GRAY ".I\ , ,1� a :,h CCydl�Yl11I,�`1 j RALPH BECKER DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OEIC.r9 MtUItKif4`i c T`6EIC DEVELOPMENT REcErvF E OF THE DIRECTOR MART DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER DEPUTY DIRECTOR APR 1 1 2011 ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Salt Lake City Mayor / / Date Received: Da d Everitt, Chief of Staff Date Sent to City Council: q I l2! TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 8, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Frank Gray, Community& Economic Developmen Department Director RE: Zoning Map Amendment—PLNPCM2010-00561,Nef in STAFF CONTACTS: Maryann Pickering, Planning Division (801) 535-7660 maryann.pickering(cslcgov.com COMMISSION MOTION AND FINDINGS: [Planning Commission] Motion to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Vote was unanimously in favor. RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a briefing and schedule a public hearing. DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mr. Jeremy Neff is requesting to rezone an approximate 10,020 square foot corner parcel located at 163 West 1700 South from Community Business (CB) zoning district to General Commercial (CG) zoning district. The applicant plans to expand his business, which is currently operated on the property directly to the south of the subject property. According to the applicant, the property has historically been used for more intensive uses than what the current district allows. The applicant is requesting the zoning be amended to make the zoning more in line and consistent with the current use of the building. Since the applicant owns the property to the south, currently zoned CG, rezoning of the subject property would create consistent zoning for both properties. In 2004, the same request was approved by the City Council (Petition 400-03-29). There were conditions placed on the project, however, those conditions were never completed or finalized. Therefore, the request approved through Petition 400-03-29 expired in 2005. This current 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 1454136, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4114-54136 TELEPHONE: B01-535-6230 FAX: B01-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED is �� rtecvcco rwrcn applicant has since purchased and would like to rezone this property to make it consistent with the zoning of the property on which he owns and operates a business. The 1974 Central Community Development Plan was updated when the current zoning in the area was adopted as part of the Zoning Rewrite project of 1995. Through the zoning rewrite process, a strip of commercial CB was established along 1700 South. Currently, all four corners of the 1700 South/Jefferson Street intersection remain zoned CB. Master Plan Considerations: The most recently adopted master plan for this area is the Central Community Master Plan, adopted in 2005. This plan calls for medium residential/mixed use along 1700 South between the TRAX rail line and State Street. PUBLIC PROCESS: The Ballpark Community Council was sent notification of the proposed rezoning with an explanation of the past application. Staff asked if the Community Council wanted to have a presentation from the applicant. It was determined that no presentation was necessary. Previously, the People's Freeway Community Council (name changed to the Ballpark Community Council) reviewed the project and supported the change of zoning. At the time of publication of this staff report, no other citizen comments were received. The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on December 8, 2010. There were no issues raised and no one spoke for or against the request at the public hearing. The Planning Commission passed a motion to transmit a favorable recommendation. The vote was seven in favor; none opposed. One commissioner was not present for the vote. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Amendments to the Zoning Ordinance and Maps are authorized under Section 21A.50 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance, as detailed in Section 21A.50.050: "A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the City Council and is not controlled by any one standard." It does, however, list — five standards that should be analyzed prior to rezoning property(Section 21A.50.050 A-E). The five standards are discussed in detail starting on page 3 of the Planning Commission Staff Report (see Attachment 5.B). Sections 10-9a-204 and 205 of the Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 9a, Municipal Land Use, Development and Management Act regulate the requirements for noticing a General Plan amendment and land use ordinance amendment. The petitions for zoning and Master Plan amendment were published in the newspaper on November 23, 2010, meeting State Code noticing requirements. RE: Petition PLNPCM2010-00561:Neff Rezoning Page 2 of 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2. ORDINANCE 3. NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 4. MAILING LABELS 5. PLANNING COMMISSION A) ORIGINAL HEARING NOTICES AND POSTMARK B) STAFF REPORT Attachment A: Site Plan Attachment B: Additional Applicant Information Attachment C: Department/Division Comments C) MINUTES December 8, 2010 — Planning, Commission 6. ORIGINAL PETITION PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition PLNPCM2010-00561 August 31, 2010 Petition submitted and assigned to Maryann Pickering, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. September 28, 2010 Planning staff sent request to various departments and divisions for their feedback on the proposed zoning amendment. October 13, 2010 Planning staff sent an email to the Ballpark Community Council chair describing the application and extended offer to have the item presented at a future meeting. November 23, 2010 Newspaper (Deseret News) publication of Planning Commission public hearing notice for December 8, 2010 hearing. November 23, 2010 Posting of site for December 8, 2010 Planning Commission meeting. November 23, 2010 Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed. December 8, 2010 Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council. January 5, 2011 Ordinance requested from City Attorney's office. January 12, 2011 Planning Commission ratified minutes of December S, 2010 meeting. January 31. 2011 Planning staff receives ordinance from the City Attorney's Office. SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2011 (Amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at 163 West 1700 South from CB (Community Business) to CG (General Commercial) An ordinance amending the zoning map to re-zone property located at 163 West 1700 South from CB (Community Business) to CG (General Commercial) pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00561. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission ("Planning Commission") held a public hearing on December 8, 2010 on an application submitted by Jeremy Neff("Applicant") to amend the City's zoning map (Petition No. PLNPCM2010-00561) to re-zone property located at 1 63 West 1700 South from CB (Community Business) to CG (General Commercial); and WHEREAS, at its December 8, 2010 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council") on said application: and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the City's best interests. NOW, THEREFORE. be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City. Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the property located at 163 West 1700 South (Tax 1D. No. 15- 13-28 3-001), and which is more particularly described on Exhibit "A" attached hereto, shall be and hereby is re-zoned from CB (Community Business) to CG (General Commercial). 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 day of 2011. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. 4014 MAYOR CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney's Oice (SEAL) Date• / / °11 Bill No. of2011. By: _ryt,e� Pa fil C.Nielson`;-Sen oi•C ii) Alrornet -- Published: IIG ATTY-=ib4`9-%I-Oidtnance Reeonina ib_ W 1700 S Jereni NeffDOC EXHIBIT "A" The land referred to herein is located in Salt Lake County, Utah and described as follows: PARCEL 1: Beginning 14 rods East of the Northwest Corner of Lot 12, Block 7, Five Acre Plat "A", Big Field Survey, and running thence East 9 rods; thence South 4.35 rods; thence West 9 rods; thence North 4.35 rods to the place of beginning. Less the following parcel sold to Salt Lake City Corporation for Project No. 38-585 17th South right of way widening: Beginning at a point 346.50 feet North 89°55'31" East from the Northwest Corner of lot 12, Block 7, Five Acre Plat "A", Big Field Survey; running thence South 89°55'31" West 148.50 feet; thence South 0°'12'44" West 1.00 foot to the North line of the existing building; thence North 89°59'39" East 32.895 feet along said North line to the Northeast Corner of said building; thence South 0°00'03" East 2.683 feet; thence North 89°59'57" East 100.185 feet to a point of curvature of a 17.000 foot radius curve to the right; thence Southeasterly along the arc of said curve 19.195 feet to the West line of Jefferson Street; thence North 0°13'44" East 13.606 feet along said West line to the point of beginning. Amok oak NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council will hold a public hearing regarding Petition PLNPCM2010- 00561 a request by Jeremy Neff to rezone property located at 163 West 1700 South from Community Business (CB) to General Commercial (CG). As part of its study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held: Date: Time: 7:00 p.m. Place: Room 315 (City Council Chambers)` Salt Lake City and County Building 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City, UT 'Please enter building from east side. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the petition on file, please contact Maryann Pickering, Prinicpal Planner. at (801) 535-7660 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at maryann.pickeringT(;slcgoy.com. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodations no later than 48 hours in advance in order to attend this public hearing. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. For questions, requests, or additional information. please contact the City Council Office at (801) 535-7600. or TDD (801) 535-6021. Ea-,Sy Pee:10 Labek i A 44 Inc along Eno.to 1 r�Ci �. SLCo Recorde .„1 F.-- . v. ;•f i i7/2010 �! _ VE-Tz s* '.1cC G` e S O F F� �, e:n? F' ,=inn c y Use f�Vt',i'4 I��Iii�S��C;.�lei) �, � ,- ..pop.Up ')' ! .1,, 15132570180000 15132580030000 15132580050000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 204 W 1700 S 1978 S WESTTEMPLE ST 4608 S FORTUNA WY T LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124 15132580060000 15132580070000 15132580080000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 4608 S FORTUNA WY 995 S VISTA VIEW DR 1618 S JEFFERSON ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84124 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84108 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 15132580110000 15132580120000 15132580130000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 1078 E 3300 S 222 W LUCY AVE PO BOX 651276 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84165 15132580140000 15132800030000 15132800040000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 1622 S JEFFERSON ST 1605 S JEFFERSON ST 1884 S 900 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 15132800050000 15132800060000 15132800070000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT PO BOX 966 -- -• 1619 S-JEFFERSON,S T 1629 S JEFFERSON ST WORLAND WY 82401 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 15132800080000 15132800140000 15132800150000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 1637 S JEFFERSON ST 1610 S WESTTEMPLE ST 1614 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 15132800170000 15132800180000 15132800190000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 1622 S WESTTEMPLE ST 1628 S WESTTEMPLE ST 1634 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 15'132800200000 15132800210000 15132800250000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 879 N LITTLE VALLEY RD 3526 N LITTLEROCK.DR 134 W 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 PROVO UT 84604 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 15132800260000 15132830010000 15132840010000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 8889 S SUN LEAF DR '163 W 1700 S 879 N LITTLE VALLEY RD WEST JORDAN UT 84088 SALT LAKE CITY UT 841'15 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 32840020000 '15132850020000 15132850050000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 115 W 1700 S 534 MAIN ST PO BOX 145455 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 KAYSVILLE UT 84037 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 Easy Peel®Labels i .° -= EGr;cl€.i,nn lir�i tc, 1 %fi� � Use Avery®Template 5��0� SLCo Recoi{der F9 c1 Fu z3,• - 9 ex czz.Pop-up ,q; :a j . 17/2010 lr Erw 5.160d I 15132850060000 - - 15134020070000 - - - --• 15134020090000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 67 W 1700 S 241 W 1700 S 241 W 1700 S SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 8z'".14'. 15134020170000 15134020180000 15134260020000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 241 W 1700 S 241 W 1700 S 163 W 1700 S SOUTH SALT LAKE UT• 84115 SOUTH SALT LAKE UT• 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 15134260050000 15134260060000 15134260070000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 185 W 1700 S 183 W 1700 S 2040 W 3605 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 WEST VALLEY UT 84119 15134260080000 1513427.0010000 15134270020000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST 879 N LITTLE VALLEY RD 2001 S STATE ST# N4500 SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84190 15134270030000 15134270040000 15134270050000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 2001 S STATE ST # N4500 2001 S STATE ST# N4500 115 W 1700 S SALT LAKE CITY. UT.. . 84190._ SALT LAKE_CITY.UT) ; 84190... SOUTH SALT•LAKE UT 84115 Allilik 15134270060000 15134270070000 15134280010000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 185 W 1700 S 7 S SNOWSTAR LN 1715 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84092 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 15134300160000 15134300170000 _ 15134300190000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 1738 S WESTTEMPLE ST 1746 S WESTTEMPLE ST 1760 S WESTTEMPLE ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 15134300250000 151134300250000 15134300260000 RESIDENT RESIDENT RESIDENT 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST '1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST SOUTH SALT LAKE UT • 841'15 SOUTH SALT LAKE U T 84115 SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 15134300300000 i I G�cc i�� RESIDENT ( e I1v•� 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST / c^ '- ,- ,,,,-).-,,,-, Divv:210.-, SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 5• 1 I (`- a •: ,, U% (- L Jr 1. � "11-}--7-'il D vi it s . .. ..._.. _.. _ . ... ._.. . . _.t• 'atiiil"" r .:'.31,_,i., ,�f•Ji.i•Ci.ill vr ...�...:;:5',�1 bFi.,.� a1 1='dle.• 1 -__ ., Iic il��...'::1 3;. .rz a;';l.G_ 1 Paee,7 of 7 , 4770 S. 5600\\'. P.O.BOX 704005 gbe,gait gatieau ibutic MEDIAE v e Deseret News \VEST VALLEY CITY, UTAH 84170 FED.TAX 1.D.T 87-0217663 a. i PROOF OF PUBLICATION CUSTOMER'S COPY CUSTOMERNANIEANEl-ADDRESS` -'.""._>s_ `_=,= � ACCOUNTNiTNIBER ';_' .•;� " - ;;_`DATE;:_ - PLANNING DIVISION; 9001394298 I II29'2010 PO BOX 145455 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 ` : :ACCOUNT;:NAIVIE; = 't PLANNING DIVISION, 1"" =_ TELEPHONE `r` _ g_t r` ORDER# ;: 1. .O CE�I13111BER1 8015356184 0000641243 / r r, • Start 11/27/2010 End 11/27/2010 Zoning Ord -- _ _ -.,��.,. - - _ - SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING CAPTIONS` •`z' s> . _, cowotSSION ., - - - ZONING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT HEARING IING ORDINANCE MAP AMENDMENT HEARING On Wednesday, Dec€ On Wednesday,December 8, 2010,at 5,45 P.M.,the Sall .-. _- - _ - - r S1ZE ___ __ - - - - - `, " _ - -_ _ _. Lake ill Planning hear- ing - • - _ ,--" -•_. :'�''LL`- `''y` `3; •� , .-,_- - lion will hold a public hear- « - - ing to take comment and con- sider Petition PLNPCM2010 41 Lines 1.00 COLUMN 00561,a request by Jeremy Neff to rezone property lo- , sated at 163 West 1700 S _ - - _ _ - --_ ;__ - - _ _ _ _ _ - - South. The subject Pelihon :TIMES RATE:::. ', -. _ _ - :- _ would rem ni the property - ---- .• - - - - from Community Business(CB) 3 to General Commercial (CG) If adopted by the City Coun- cil. All persons interested and present will be given on e in MISC.CHARGES = •J AD CHARGES "` :. +.:..< _._` opportunity totThe heasringdwill - - - - - - - `- - " - - - - be held In Room 326 of the Sall Lake City and County Building, 451 South State Street. Accessible parking and entrance are located on the east side of the building. 'Hearing impaired individuals who wish to attend this meet- - - - -- — -- _ •" - ' ng should contact our T00 rrvice number, (601) 535- '6220, faun days in advan.e 56.25 so that an interpreter can he provided. For further'nior- motion regarding this'hear- hear- ing, call Maryonn Pickering at(001)535-7660. AFFIDAVIT OF PLJBLICvTIO?: 641243— _- UPAXLP AS NEWSPAPER AGENCY CORPORATION LEGAL-BOOKER.I CERTIFY THAT THE ATTACHED ADVERTISEMENT OF SALT LAKE CITY II & NINC; CUM\IISSION ZONING ORDINANCE NI AP AMENDMENT HEARING On\V'edacsday.December S.2010.at :45 P.M..the Salt Lnl:e City Pi:tnnilm C'ommiseio FOR PLANNING DIVISION.WAS PUBLISIIL'-D BY THE NEWSPAPER AGENCY CORPORATION.AGLN I FOR THE SALT LAKE TRIBUNE AND DESEREI-NEWS.DAILY NEWSI'APi_RS PRIN I ED IN THE INGLISH LANGUAGE WITH GENERAL_CIRCULATION IN U I:AI1.AND PURI ISl IED IN SALT LAKE CII'Y,SALT LAKE COI INTI'(N TI IE STATE OF UTAH NOTICE IS ALSO POSTED ON UTAI II_FGALS CO\1 ON'111i:S\\1L D.\Y AS'HIE FIRST NI\V'SPAPER PUBLICATION D4I E AND RI-MAINS ON UTAH'LGALS.CO\1 INDE[INAT❑ Y. Start 11'27;2010 End 11/27/2010 �tiv II CRr, I ' L1liL1SI1LD ON ' `f 'fit '' Ioniory L',ILIic Stal^of Utnri �/�t /;` /'t f /(/ /.// , =i + I,'l Comn�insion F: 1 ( l' n.l c SIGNATURE I I 1/29'2010 • \ , ' r ..1'1 THIS IS NOT A STATEMENT BUT A"PROOF 01:PUBLICATION' PLEASE PAY FRO\I BILLING STATEMEN"1 SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING AGENDA In Room 326 of the City oz County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, December 8, 2010 at 6:30 p.m.or immediately following the Work Session The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m. Dinner will be served to the Planning Commissioners and Staff at 5:00p.m. in Room 126. Work Session: 5:30 in Room 326. The Planning Commission will hold a work session from approximately 5:30-6:30. During the Work Session the Planning Staff will brief the Planning Commission on pending projects, discuss project updates and minor administrative matters. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. Mayor Ralph Becker to meet with the Planning Commission to discuss various matters including his Vision for a Green City 2. Clarion Associates will discuss the progress of the Sustainable City Code Initiative project (Staff contact: Cheri Coffey at 801-535-6188 or cheri.coffey@slcgov.com. 3. Discussion about proposed changes to Outdoor Advertising regulations (Staff contact: Doug Dansie at 801-535-6182 or douq.dansie(cLslcaov.com U Approval of Minutes o Report of the Chair and Vice Chair • Report of the Director o Public Hearing 6:30 or immediately following the work session 1. PLNPCM2010-00610: Mark Miller Conditional use for auto sales- A request by Mark Miller Toyota to expand its current facility located at approximately 730 South West Temple. The property is zoned D-2 Downtown Support District in City Council District 4, represented by Luke Garrott (Staff contact: John Anderson at 801-535-7214 or john.anderson@slcgov.com). 2. PLNPCM2010-00672 Harmon's Grocery Store Planned Development - A request by Harmons Grocery for a planned development of a grocery store at approximately 1706 E 1300 South in the CN (Neighborhood Commercial) zoning district and in City Council District 6, represented by JT Martin. The planned development request includes modifications to building and parking setbacks, fence regulations and sign regulations. (Staff contact: Elizabeth Reining at 801-535-6313 or elizabeth.reining©slcgov.corn). 3. PLNPCM2010-00561 Neff Rezoning. A request by Jeremy Neff for a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone property located at approximately 163 West 1700 South from Community Business to General Commercial in order to bring the property and-its use into conformance with the zoning district and to match the zoning of the adjacent property which is also owned by the applicant. The proposed zoning district is CG (General Commercial) and is located in Council District 5, represented by Jill Remington-Love. (Staff contact: Maryann Pickering at 801-535-7660 or maryann.pickerinn@slcgov.com). 4. PLNPCM2010-00504: Phillips Conditional Use for ari Office/Reoe_ption Center in a Landmark site - A request by Bonnie Phillips for a conditional use to allow a reception center at approximately 1229 East South Temple. The purpose of the proposal is to allow space for small gatherings and meetings that foster respectful dialogue, understanding and community discussions. The property is zoned Special Development Pattern SR1-A and is located in Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold. (Staff contact: Ray Milliner (S01)535-7645 or ray.milliner©slcgov.com). 5. f)L,PIP N2O10-003OO S ntry Electric Fence Security Systems Text Amendment: - A request by Michael Pate for Sentry Security Systems to amend Chapter 21A.40.120 of the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The amendment would add language to regulate the use of electric security fences in Manufacturing and Commercial zones. Changes would be City wide. (Staff contact: Ray Milliner at 801-535-7645 or rey.millirr=r Is!c��ov!.ccm). 6. PLNSU52010-00592, Mt. Olivet/Roland Mall - St. Mark's School Subdivision - Guy Kroesche, Stool & Rives, LLP, representing Rowland Hall - St Mark's School, is requesting subdivision approval of the property located at approximately 1443 E. Sunnyside Avenue. Proposed are two (2) parcels; one (1) parcel of approximately 13.087 acres in size (the "RHSM Parcel"), and one (1) parcel of approximately 28.446 acres in size (the "Revised Mt. Olivet Parcel"). This subdivision request is a result of City Council action amending the East Bench Master Plan and rezoning the subject property from Open Space (OS) to include Institutional (I) for the RHSM parcel pursuant to Salt Lake City Ordinance number 21 of 2006. The subject parcel is located in City Council District Six represented by J.T. Martin. (Staff contact: Lex Traughber at S01.535.6184 or PLANNING COMMISSION STAFF REPORT Neff Rezoning x ZoningMapAmendment PLNPCM2010-00561 "- - tI)nx � 163 West 1700 South December 8, 2010 Planning and Zoning Division Department of Community and Economic Development Applicant: Jeremy Neff Request Staff: Maryann Pickering A request by Jeremy Neff to rezone property located at 163 West 1700 801-535-7660 South from Community Business(CB)to General Commercial(CG). mar,arm.pickerine aslcco..coin The most recently adopted master plan for this area is the Central Tax ID: 15-13-283-001 Community Master Plan which was adopted in 2005. This plan calls for Current Zone: CB(Community medium residential/mixed use along 1700 South between the Trax rail line Business) and State Street. Master Plan Designation: Petitions to amend the zoning map of the City require review by the Salt Central City Master Plan Lake City Planning Commission in a public hearing. Upon review,the /�Medium Residential/Mixed per cre Use(10-50 Planning Commission will forward a recommendation to the Salt Lake ( ;dwelling units pe acre) City Council. The City Council is the final decision making authority for �/ Council District: District 5—Jill amendments to the Zoning Map. Remington Love Lot size: Approximately 10,020 square Staff opinion feet Based on the discussion and findings in the staff report,it is the Planning Staff's opinion that the Planning Commission transmits a favorable Current Use: Light manufacturing recommendation to the City Council to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map by rezoning the property located at 163 West 1700 South from CB to Applicable Land Use Regulations: CG with the following conditions: • 21A.10—General Application and Public Hearing Procedures • 21A.50.050—Standards for General The two parcels owned by the applicant are combined into a single lot. Amendments Off-street parking for the existing building is provided. Curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements along Jefferson Street are Notification: installed now or that the applicant enters into a Special Improvement • Notice mailed on Nov 23,2010 District Waiver Agreement with the City to assure the future installation • Sign posted on Nov 23,2010 • Published in Deseret News on Nov 24, of these improvements. 2010 • Posted to Planning Dept and Utah State Public Meeting websites on Nov 23,2010 Attachments: A. Site Plan OB. Additional Applicant information C. Department/Division Comments PLNPCM2010-00561 Neff Rezoning November 23,2010 Page 1 VICINITY MAP rr "--- -t- ^ a Ia •�Y IRMF35 a CG I RM;�F=351 i L CG; , t, fop , CB Subject -,'C -�,V B I r �C B _ .Lit __':!Ali Properly _ 1•• ,. ,�.;; '. __,_ sue._ N- - _ 1700 S •- _ ---T _,,, Lila 1 � } 'ill CG ° GCB 1.3 i I ECsB *:-1rrt r t • ` ` .r I ' , '- CG { - # Y 4-. . }.-. .k tt i li1RMF-35 is _ • , �- Background Project Description Mr.Jeremy Neff is requesting to rezone an approximate 10,020 square foot corner parcel located at 163 West 1700 South from Community Business(CB)zoning district to General Commercial(CG)zoning district. The applicant plans to expand his business which is currently operated on the property directly to the south of the subject property. According to the applicant,the property has historically been used for more intensive uses than what the current district allows. The applicant is requesting the zoning be amended to make the zoning more in line and consistent with the current use of the building. Since the applicant owns the property to the south with is currently zoned CG, rezoning of the subject property would create consistent zoning for both properties. • PLNPCM2010-00561 NetIRezoning November 23,2010 Page 2 In 2004, the same request was approved by the City Council (Petition 400-03-29). There were conditions • placed on the project,however,those conditions were never completed or finalized. Therefore,the request approved through Petition 400-03-29 expired in 2005. This current applicant has since purchased and would like to rezone this property to make it consistent with the zoning of the property which he owns and operates a business. The 1974 Central Community Development Plan was updated when the current zoning in the area was adopted as part of the Zoning Rewrite project of 1995. Through the zoning rewrite process,a strip of commercial CB was established along 1700 South. Currently,all four corners of the 1700 South/Jefferson Street intersection remain zoned CB. Comments Public Comments The Ballpark Community Council was sent notification of the proposed rezoning with an explanation of the past application. Staff asked if the Community Council wanted to have a presentation from the applicant. It was determined that no presentation was necessary. Previously,the People's Freeway Community Council reviewed the project and supported the change of zoning. At the time of publication of this staff report,no other citizen comments were received. City Department Comments The comments received from pertinent City Departments/Divisions are attached to this staff report in •Attachment C. The Planning Division has not received comments from the applicable City Departments/ Divisions that cannot reasonably be fulfilled or that warrant denial of the petition. Analysis and Findings Standards for General Amendments;Section 21A.50.050 A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. However,in making its decision concerning a proposed amendment,the city council should consider the following factors: a. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals,objectives,and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. Analysis: The Central Community Master Plan shows this property as Medium Residential/Mixed Use (10-50 dwelling units per acre). Both the CB and CG zoning districts allow residential dwelling units, including multi-family dwelling,above or below first story office,retail and commercial uses. The area has been developed with commercial uses. The frontage of 1700 South, west of Main Street, is primarily commercial. The residential areas are located mid-block away from the 1700 South street frontage. The residential areas are identified on the zoning map. In 1995, the Zoning Rewrite Project updated and amended the land use and zoning policies of all previously adopted master plans of the City, including the Central Community Development Plan. These properties, and the properties fronting on 1700 South, were zoned commercial as part of the • Zoning Rewrite Project. Given this,the proposed CG zoning is consistent with that designation and is not out of character with the existing zoning in the area and is therefore compatible with the purposes, goals,objectives and policies of the adopted general plan of Salt Lake City. PLNPCM2010-00561 Neff Rezoning November 23,2010 Page 3 Finding: Given the existing commercial zoning in the area, the proposed CG zoning is compatible wit the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the adopted Master Plan. b. Whether the proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the immediate vicinity of the subject property. Analysis: This property is surrounded by CB and CG zoning. The CB zoning extends along the north and south sides of 1700 South and acts as a buffer between 1700 South and the mid block residential properties along West Temple Street. It appears that all four corner lots at the intersection of 1700 South and Jefferson Street were zoned for consistency on the 1700 South frontage. As the adjoining properties to the south and west are already zoned CG, and the building will continue to be occupied by uses that historically occupied the building, rezoning this property to CG will not adversely impact adjoining properties. Finding: The proposed amendment is harmonious with the overall character of existing development in the area. c. The extent to which the proposed amendment will adversely affect adjacent properties. Analysis: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. The building has existed since the 1950's and has been used for a variety of uses. The CG zoning will be more consistent with the building has been used for in the past. Finding: The proposed amendment will not adversely affect adjacent properties. • d. Whether the proposed amendment is consistent with the provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Analysis: This standard does not apply. Finding: This standard does not apply. e. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including but not limited to roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems,water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Analysis: As no changes are proposed to the site at this time, review comments made by various city departments are minimal. The Transportation Division is recommending the same comments as before when the application was reviewed in 2004. They are recommending that since the applicant owns two adjoining lots and that there is no off street parking for this building, off-street parking needs to be provided on the south lot and both lots combined. In addition, public way improvements or a waiver agreement need to be completed. Finding: Future requirements will be evaluated as proposals for new development are submitted. • PLNPCM2010-00561 Neff Rezoning November 23,2010 Page 4 0 Neff Rezoning Site Plan - __ I �:: "�- rw . - r t r..I ' el iii . L5 r -: i f ift. ' c w m _ ins • Q r w • j ,* .i r !'r " i t`r_• • pLKPCM zvio—eC'S6 f 'r C OFFICE USE ONLY • k , : Zoning Amendment . . :--4 ; Petition No. r'ti! .>` 4.i//,re's bate Received: `g / . .,,,.0r-1."_ :r+F o Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance by amending Section: Reviewed By: " - rti:h =` '0C' i"`T .,.,,, o Amend the Zoning Map by reclassifying the above property from a ""' zone to a zone.(attach map or legal description) 4. Address of Subject Property: l G 3 we S 3t, 1700 S0 4I Name of Applicant: l� �e.,m/ lye_ Phone:�© / 4 7 " tg Address of Applicant:J// 3 / 1 e, / / 4v) �7 E-mail Address of Applicant: jypvV Q/17‘,. .e. o Cell/Fax: C4%'' Rev 4,4/.. 7 Applicant's Interest in Subject Property: L9 IVNge Name of Property Owner: /G��' j�r � / Phone: go -42 7 //se • E-mail Address of Property Owner: ,0796 t// � GOn+ Cell/Fax: Al' / b/P/ -3/eb �� p . BO ! aB 7 //.✓� ._ , ^ County Tax Sidwell 4"): Zonin '?,: — Legal Description(if different than tax parcel number): .4 Proposed Property Use AlliiiiiPr ''' Existing e soomtii0' 01 A N U FQ G7 S v0 tN6' Ni4Aiti-P-46,--ro pv,.;- ) Please include with the application: { ' \y� A statement of the text amendment or map amendment describing the purpose for the amendment and the exact ,-' / language,boundaries and zoning district. l7i A complete description of the proposed use of the property where appropriate. „^ ',`", .4..„./ Reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. •", , 4. Printed address labels for all property owners within 450 feet of the subject property. The address and Sidwell -- number of each property owner must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing label.Please include yourself = and the appropriate Community Council Chair(s). Address labels are available at the address listed below.The cost a" / of first class postage for each address is due at time of application.Please do not provide postage stamps. , Legal description of the property. �—? e Cop./ 0,{ tei' well ry7�p i !vie"-)Gel = ' 1`tt Six(6)copies of site plans drawn to scale and one(1) 11 x°17 inch reduced copy of each plan and elevation drawing. r' °.-, 7. .1f applicable,a signed,notarized statement of consent om pr ppeerty q�wnner authorizing applicant to act as agent '; ''"t' ' 8. Filing fee of$885.92,plus$110.74 for each a ceyovver one acre and he cost of first class postage is due at time P' : ;" of application. <:�• Applications must be reviewed prior to submission.Please call 535-7700 for an appointment to review your _: - application. t: ;;.;; :, - Notice: Additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. " All information submitted as part of the application may be copied and made public including professional L� " " architectural or engineering drawinYtwtri rw ei 1\ �jrl3,d ble to decision makers,public and any interested r party. ,ate Requested zoning change from Community Business (CB)to General Commercial (CG) zoning district. The existing use and historical use of the property is ceramic manufacturing, light metal and wood fabrication to support ceramic manufacturing, and shipping and packing and other distribution functions. The adjacent parcel is owned by the same entity as the subject parcel and presently and historically acted as one parcel with the subject parcel. The present use is not compatible with the present zone or the same as the zone of the adjacent parcel (CG). The purpose of this request for zoning change is to make the zone conform to the historical use and match the zone of the adjacent parcel. A similar request for zoning change was approved in 2004, but not acted upon by a previous owner of the property. A letter referencing this is attached. 9 A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE SAI 2 �1`a� ` '� o.��rd©`h__mowNO mosl�o al.� ROSS C. ANDERSoN PLANNING DIRECTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION BRENT B. WILDE DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR DOUGLAS L, WHEELWRIGHT, AICP DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR August 11, 2004 Ms. LaJuan Johnson 3757 Hillside Lane Salt Lake City, Utah 84109 RE: Petition 400-03-29, Rezoning of property located at 163 West 1700 South Street. Amok Dear Ms. Johnson, On August 10, 2004, the Salt Lake City Council conditionally approved your request to rezone the property located at 163 West 1700 South from a Community Business CB to a General Commercial CG zoning district. Please be advised that the rezoning does not become effective until the approval conditions have been met. The approval conditions are as follows: 1. The two parcels owned by the applicant be combined into a single lot. 2. Off-street parking for the existing building be provided. 3. Curb, gutter and sidewalk improvements along Jefferson Street be installed now or that the applicant enter into an Special Improvement District Waiver Agreement with the City to assure the future installation of these improvements. Please work with the Salt Lake County Recorder's office to combine the lots, the Salt Lake Permits and Licensing Division for the required off-street parking and the Salt Lake City Engineering Division to do the improvements along Jefferson Street or obtain a Special Improvement District Waiver Agreement for the future installation of improvements. Amok 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH E41 1 1 TELEPHONE: BO1-535-7757 FAX: SO1.535.6174 W WW.S LCGOV.COM /1 When all items have been completed, please provide me with documentation so that it can be forwarded to the Planning Director for final sign-off. Please be advised that the ordinance rezoning the property expires within one year if the conditions of approval are not met. Sincerely, • , • Ray McCandless Principal Planner C. A. Louis Zunguze, Planning Director Doug Wheelwright, Deputy Planning Director Amok EXHIBIT "A" The land referred to herein is located in Salt Lake County, Utah and described as follows: PARCEL 1: Beginning 14 rods East of the Northwest Corner of Lot 12, Block 7, Five Acre Plat "A", Big Field Survey, and running thence East 9 rods; thence South 4.35 rods; thence West 9 rods; thence North 4.35 rods to the place of beginning. Less the following parcel sold to Salt Lake City Corporation for Project No. 38-585 17th South right of way widening: Beginning at a point 346.50 feet North 89°55'31" East from the Northwest Corner of lot 12, Block 7, Five Acre Plat "A", Big Field Survey; running thence South 89°55'31" West 148.50 feet; thence South 0°'12'44" West 1.00 foot to the North line of the existing building; thence North 89°59'39" East 32.895 feet along said North line to the Northeast Corner of said building; thence South 0°00'03" East 2.683 feet; thence North 89°59'57" East 100.185 feet to a point of curvature of a 17.000 foot radius curve to the right; thence Southeasterly along the arc of said curve 19.195 feet to the West line of Jefferson Street; thence North 0°13'44" East 13.606 feet along said West line to the point of beginning. 110 Salt Lake C..,'IGIS Map e I w Print on:9/9/2010 S -1 ,a: 0 Cr wtA r 1 a , . i Attachment C Department/Division Comment From: To: Subject: RE: PLNPCM2010-00561 Date: Wednesday,September 29,2010 10:19:14 AM Maryann. I have no cor,merts Larry From: Pickering, Maryann Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 1:45 PM To: Walsh, Barry; Drummond, Randy; Garcia, Peggy; Itchon, Edward; Brede, Richard; Butcher, Larry; Limburg, Garth; Spencer, John Subject: PLNPCM2010-00561 Enclosed please find information relating to the above referenced petition. Jeremy Neff is requesting a zoning amendment to rezone from Community Business (CB) to General Commercial (GC). This request was previously approved in 2004, but it was never acted upon by the previous owner. Please review the following proposed request respond with comments by Tuesday, October 12, 2010. If I do not receive a response by this date, I will assume that you have no comments or concerns regarding the proposal. This project is in Accela under the above referenced number. Please update Accela with any comments that you have. If you have questions or need additional information, please let me know. Marjann Fickering, AICF Principal Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 South State Street, #406 PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-5480 (801)535-7660 From: :;a; °. i ''"tea To: ;p., o , ,; - G„,. ; r., ;g- o.c'a-+; Subject: RE: PLNPCM2010-00561 Date: Tuesday,October 05,2010 8:36:26 AM October 5, 2010 Maryann PPickering, Planning Re: petition PLNPCM2010-00561 —zoning Amendment from CB to CC at 163 West 1700 South. The division of transportation review comment and recommendations are as follows: Per the past review comments for Petition 400-03-29, we recommend the same conditions apply. 1 Combine the two parcels—163 W 1700 South and 1712 So Jefferson street. 2 Provide required off street parking. 3 Install public way improvements (C&G sidewalk etc,) or SID waiver agreement per Engineerin 's conditions. Sincerely, Barry V alsh Asimot, Cc Kevin Young, P.E. Randy Drummond, P.E. Peggy Garcia, Public Utilities Ted Itchon, Fire Larry Butcher, Permits File From: Pickering, Maryann Sent: Tuesday, September 28, 2010 1:45 PM To: Walsh, Barry; Drummond, Randy; Garcia, Peggy; Itchon, Edward; Brede, Richard; Butcher, Larry; Limburg, Garth; Spencer, John Subject: PLNPCM2010-00561 Enclosed please find information relating to the above referenced petition. Jeremy Neff is requesting a zoning amendment to rezone from Community Business (CB) to General Commercial (GC). This request was previously approved in 2004, but it was never acted upon by the previous owner. Please review the following proposed request respond with comments by Tuesday, October 12, 2010. If I do not receive a response by this date, I will assume that you have no comments or concerns regarding the proposal. This project is in Accela under the above referenced number, „ ,, Please update Accela with any comments that you have. If you have questions or need additional information, please let me know. .0111104, From: Pickering,Maryann To: eke c2s,2.cor.' Subject: PLNPCM2010-00561 Date: Wednesday,October 13,2010 8:16:00 AM Attachments: FL"PC'1201,_C0561. o„ Hello Elke. I have been assigned a rezoning application that is located within the boundaries of the Ball Park Community Council. The property is located at 163 West 1700 South (southwest corner of 1700 South and Jefferson). The request is to change the corner parcel from Community Business (CB) to General Commercial (CG). This exact application was approved by the City Council in 2004,but since the conditions were never completed, the zoning change was not effective. The application was presented at a People's Freeway Community Council meeting in late 2003 and there was no comments or objections to the request. Attached is a copy of the routing that was sent to various departments. Please let me know by October 20 if your community council would like to have the item presented. If not, I will work on getting the item scheduled for the Planning Commission. }''look Please call or email me if you have any questions. Thank you. Mar-jann Pickering, Ado' Principal Planner Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 South State Street, #406 PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City, UT 84111-5480 (801)535-7660 • 6:59:39 PM Public Hearing Jim Westerhaus, a resident spoke in favor of the project. Chris Eisenberg, a resident, spoke in support of the proposal. He stated that the store had significant historical value, and that a grocery store was very important to the neighborhood. 7:01:3o PM Close of Public Hearing 7:01:w PM Motion Commissioner Wirthlin moved that in the case of PLNPCM2oio-oo672 Harmon's Grocery Store Planned Development the Planning Commission approves the planned development with the two conditions listed on page one of the staff report. Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion Commissioner Woodhead asked if the second condition should be added. Amended Motion: Commissioner Wirthlin moved that in the case of PLNPCM2oio-oo672 Harmon's Grocery Store Planned Development. The Planning Commission approves the planned development with condition one as listed on page one of the staff report. Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion Vote: Commissioners Drown, , De Lay, Gallegos, Hill, Luke, McHugh, Wirthlin, and Woodhead all voted"aye". The motion passed unanimously. 7:ort:1, PM PLNPCM2oio-oo561 Neff Rezoning. A request by Jeremy Neff for a Zoning Map Amendment to rezone property located at approximately 163 West 1700 South from Community Business to General Commercial in order to bring the property and its use into conformance with the zoning district and to match the zoning of the adjacent property which is also owned by the applicant. The proposed zoning district is CG (General Commercial) and is located in Council District 5, represented by Jill Remington- Love. Chairperson Fife recognized Maryann Pickering as staff representative. Ms. Pickering stated that this was a request for a Zoning Map Amendment for a property located at approximately 163 West 1700 South. The request was to rezone from Community Business to General Commercial. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, December 8, 2010 Page 6 The applicant planned to expand his business which was currently operated on the property located on the south of the subject property. Ms. Pickering stated that according to the applicant,the property had been historically used for uses that were more intense than what the current zoning district allows. She added that in 2004 the City Council did approve the same request. There were three conditions placed on the project, and the applicant at that time never acted upon those conditions,therefore,the zoning did expire. Because of that,this application was the same one that was presented six years ago. Ms. Pickering said that the Ball Park Community Council did not comment, nor did they chose to have a presentation on the matter,because they knew that the prior Community Council approved it, and there were no additional comments at the time. She added that as of that time, Ms. Pickering had not received any comments from any members of the public. Ms. Pickering noted that staff did feel that it met the four findings that are required by the zoning ordinance and would recommend that the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council to rezone the proposal. 7:05:4o PM Questions from the Commission None. 7c _}3 Pi\l Comments from the Applicant None. PM Public Hearing No one chose to speak. 7:05::-13 PM Close of Public Hearing 7:06:08 PM Motion: Commissioner McHugh made the motion in regard to the Neff Rezoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2oio-00561 . I move that we transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council based on the discussion and findings of the staff report with the three conditions listed on the staff report. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, December 8, 2010 Page 7 Commissioner Drown seconded the motion. Vote: Commissioners Drown, Gallegos, Hill, Luke, McHugh,Wirthlin, and Woodhead all voted "aye". The motion passed. Commissioner De Lay was not present for the vote. 7:07:34 PM PLNPCM2oio-oo594: Phillips Conditional Use for an Office/Reception Center in a Landmark site -A request by Bonnie Phillips for a conditional use to allow a reception center at approximately 1229 East South Temple. The purpose of the proposal is to allow space for small gatherings and meetings that foster respectful dialogue, understanding and community discussions. The property is zoned Special Development Pattern SRi-A and is located in Council District 3, represented by Stan Penfold. Chairperson Fife recognized Ray Milliner as staff representative. Mr. Milliner stated that the application was for a Conditional Use for Jane's Home. The use that was requested was an office/reception center in a Historic Landmark site within a residential zone. The purpose of the conditional use was that the applicant would like to operate a use that would have non- profit organizations and others to come into the building and use the building for dialogue, meetings, and to have discussions. Mr. Milliner added that the crux of the application was primarily the reception use,when reviewing the application, staff found that the building inappropriate for large scale functions,the applicants have agreed that this was not the case and not their intent. The application has agreed to a conditional approval that would limit the number of people on site at any specific time to twenty five people. With regard to the parking, Mr. Milliner stated that the calculation for it was determined as a historic museum house which on this site,would require five spaces which the site already has, as a result, staff is recommending approval of the project pursuant to the conditions of approval on the first page of the staff report. '7:10 PM Comments from the Applicant The applicant, Bonnie Phillips spoke. She stated that the location was the home of her mother,who had left the home to a foundation that had been created by mother and daughter, "The Manor's Golden Rule Foundation,' After the passing of her mother, it was decided that the purpose of the home would become a place where people could come and discuss community issues in small groups. Ms. Phillips spoke to many of her neighbors and explained what the intent of the usage would be. Her intention was to find out the concerns of her neighbors and address them. She found that one of the categories that concerned her neighbors was the idea of a reception center. She assured them that the foundation was not interested in hosting parties or receptions,but rather a community center for discussion on issues that matter. She wanted to make clear that it was not intended to be a location for large groups. Salt Lake Planning Commission Minutes, December 8, 2010 Page 8 Remarks: Petition No: PLNPCM2010-00561 By: Jeremy Neff Zoning Amendment Date Filed: August 31, 2010 Address: 163 West 1700 South pL/(PCM ZcIv-ecS6/ i; • OFFICE USE ONLY ;'' ' , Zoning Amendment i-- • _ •• . �2,; 1 Petition No. i'tip '.�+`",// 9 ])ate Received: • 8, }i ,s, q1}(_.,j_1��_ o Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance by amending Section: R eviw eedBy: : �',„;j'''�f•0 `l•.'�, o Amend the Zoning Map by reclassifying the above property from a ""' zone to a zone.(attach map or legal description) . Address of Subject Property: ` G 3 �G'CV' / 700 Sot/4 - • Name of Applicant: / / Phone: Address of Applicant: /6 5 (26S T //L ,z) E-mail Address of Applicant: je, � pets �,ell/Fax: %% so/ �lP/. ��v t �yApplicant's Interest in Subject Property: l'\//U�/Z Name of Property Owner. j z_FE6'kl y A / /' Phone: g3D/ 4 7 //f e , t• = E-mail Address of Property Owner: /.//p�/i /,J �o7�r6 Gn, CelUFax: OD / 101o/ "5i/DE, illiri ( � AO / 4-, 7 /l. l County Tax ("Sidwell rO"): /5 i/3 �7g r,G :5 / Zoning: /��8 Legal Description(if different than tax parcel number): � i Proposed Property Use kr,. Existing Property Use M A N U FA G7v2 t/V6 14/14/0.7F,4677f�'//11�1, • �.r._: • . ;r r, Please include v;ith the application: \'t A statement of the text amendment or map amendment describing the purpose for the amendment and the exact language,boundaries and zoning district. F� .`1:',- A complete description of the proposed use of the property where appropriate. ✓• `=• 'l. Reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Printed address labels for all property owners within 450 feet of the subject property. The address and Sidwell number of each property owner must be typed or clearly printed on gummed mailing label. Please include yourself • p, _ r. and the appropriate Community Council Chair(s). Address labels are available at the address listed below.The cost .! ;.;: - ! of first class postage for each address is due at time of application.Please do not provide postage stamps. -1` _ _ Legal description of the property. ` / / r / .::, i�7 OAL Co�'J o"t i'G1 we(/ r�It r',1GI tiac1. -- �6 Six(6)copies of site plans drawn to scale and one(1) 11 x 17 inch reduced copy of each plan and elevation drawing. .., 7. If applicable,a signed ,notarized statement of consent •om r ert caner authorizingapplicant i 5 �5 p w y 4 to act as agent s . ,'9 n&4� b✓t for c, -y, S. hiling fee of S885.92,plus S110.74 for each acre over one acre and the cost of first class postage is due at time _. '? of application. _tz �� Applications must be reviewed prior to submission.Please call 535-7700 for an appointment to review your application. f A },e - Notice: Additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. ± All information submitted as part of the application may be copied and made public including professional architectural or engineering drawirig`s,which-will-be made-available to decision makers,public and any interested party. t;�„ C.. •:---' '`:- ;_.., . -7c-e•••'• .5------ ---,- - -.--------->--''-..-------,,--- ----- % $b 2008 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS-FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: April 26, 2011 SUBJECT: GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND STAFF REPORT BY: Karen Holladay, Budget and Public Policy Analyst CC: David Terry, Bryce Lindeman, Rick Graham, Greg Davis, Nancy Sanders, David Everitt, Gordon Hoskins, Gina Chamness, Randy Hillier, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Jennifer Bruno, Quin Card, Lehua Weaver The City has provided golf facilities for over 80 years. The City owns and operates eight golf facilities (nine golf courses -Mountain Dell has two 18-hole golf courses) as an Enterprise Fund. The main policies that guide the division are to offer an accessible, reasonably priced recreational opportunity to all sections of the golfing public; to preserve open spaces in an urban setting; and to promote tourism and economic development. Golf participants pay fees that underwrite the cost of providing these services. The Council traditionally balances golf fees at a level necessary to ensure the long-term financial stability of the Golf Enterprise Fund while maintaining the golf program's competitiveness within the market. By policy, the General Fund does not subsidize the Golf Fund. However, during last fiscal year (FY 2011) the City's general fund provided $691,195 in order to purchase 2.64 acres of property which allows the Rose Park golf course to expand the driving range. Nccording to the Administration, a fee increase is not proposed until Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. The last .ee increase became effective on January 1, 2010. This was the first across-the-board golf fee increase since 2004. (NOTE: In paperwork submitted for the Golf Capital Improvement Project (CIP) proposal, the Administration is recommending that a portion of the FY 2014 fee increase (up to $0.50/nine-hole round) be allocated to a "Golf CIP Dedicated Fund" for future capital improvements at the City's golf courses. This item is scheduled to be presented to the Council on May 3rd, 2011. ► Does the Council wish to discuss the benefits and challenges of implementing this fee prior to FY 2014? The fiscal year 2011-12 revenue budget of $8,431,088 is estimated to decrease by $183,459, or 2.1% below the revenue budget for fiscal year 2010-11. The proposed FY 2011-12 expenditure budget of $8,843,771 is projected to be $413,726 more than the prior year. Of this amount, $422,782 is the expense budget for the Rose Park driving range expansion. Revenue for this Rose Park driving range expansion was received from a property sale in FY 2011. Total Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) of$639,230 are included in the expenditures of the Golf Fund - 1) Cash Capital Outlay of $135,000 for equipment, facilities, and infrastructure, 2) Debt Service for maintenance equipment and carts of $246,056, and 3) Debt Service (ends FY2014) for golf carts (Pro shop) of$258,174. BUDGET SUMMARY- GOLF FUND • The Golf Fund switched to a new point of sale and tee time reservation system called EZLinks. Advantages of this system include: o Ability to make reservations 24 hours per day. o Attention to customer service. Calls to reserve tee times will be handled by live reservation call center and on-line booking system. o Collection of information to help meet the needs of golfers who use the City's courses. Examples, include emailing/texting reserved tee times, thank you notes, and customer satisfaction surveys. o Zero out-of-pocket annual cost for software, hardware, technical service/support, an live reservation call center services. • No golf fee increases have been proposed for FY2012. • Estimated golf revenues are expected to decrease by $183,459 as compared to the FY 2010- 11 budget. • Estimated golf expenditures, excluding the Rose Park driving range expansion, are expected to have an overall decrease of$9,056 from the prior year. • Cash Capital outlay is budgeted at $25,000 more than the prior year. This allows a net operating income or operating contingency of$10,099 should revenue projections not be met due to inclement weather or continued effects of the recent economy. • The Golf Division is currently replacing maintenance equipment by financing purchases over a three year period. The debt service (FY 2011 thru FY 2013) for the current purchase is $246,056. The next planned debt service payment for maintenance equipment purchase (FY 2014 to FY 2016) is $290,000. One additional purchase is expected to be financed (FY 17 to FY 19) for $280,000. ►Does the Council wish to ask the Administration if Golf Fund Management plans to work with Fleet Management Services in planning the financing and purchasing of equipment needed to care for the City's golf courses. • The Rose Park golf property sale has been completed and additional properties have been purchased. The expansion of the Rose Park driving range has begun and is expected to be completed by November 2011. • The Administration will present its recommendation to fund and address deferred maintenance and improvement projects for the City's golf courses. The identified projects are estimated to cost $22 million. According to the Administration, $23 million could potentially be generated with any excess to be allocated to operating revenue as an offset to lost revenue during construction of major capital improvement projects. • The Administration indicates that a budget of$250,000 in Cash Capital is needed annually through FY 2018 to fund smaller and emergency capital projects (not included in the $22 million CIP proposal). • The Administration states that it needs to budget a net income of at least $200,000 annually to rebuild Cash Reserves and prepare for revenue shortfalls due to inclement spring weather conditions in some years. • • • • 2 The following is the FY 2011-12 proposed budget for the Golf Enterprise Fund: GOLF ENTERPRISE FUND PROPOSED BUDGET Revenue&Other Sources --- Green Fees $ 4,939,804 56.8% $ 150,804 -3.1% Cart Rental 2,019,200 23.4% 50,000 -2.5% Drivin:Ran:e Fees 345,013 4.1% 2,013 -0.6% Concessions 121,200 1.4% 4,000 -3.3% Retail Sales 809,000e 9.5% 8,500 -1.1% Other Golf Fees 83,002 : 137260 1.6% 54,258 65.4/ Advertisin:Fees 23,000 '7775a 0.1% 14,000 -60.9% Interest Income 20,000 1 0.1% 10,000 -50.0% Miscellaneous Leases/Rental 30,428 0.4% 1,500 4.9% Revenue Season Passes 223,900 2.7% 100 0.0% Other/Admission Sales 0 ( 0.0% -- Total Revenue&Other $ 8,614,547 100.0% $ (183,459) -2.1% Sources .•uses&Other Uses --- _.eratin:&Maintenance --- Personal Services $ 3,778,867 $ 3.918.394 44.3% $ 139,527 3.7% Materials and Su..lies 1,159,857 1,265,982 14.3% 106,125 9.1% Other(Charges/Services/Fees, 2,592,465 2,572 703 29.1% (19,762) -0.8% Admin Service Fee,PILOT, Intradepartmental Chgs,Water, Fuel,Utilities) Transfers Out 21,310 0.3% 3,370 15.8% CapitalProjects:Capital - 0.0%aDebt and Debt Service Ca.ital Outla 110,000 6.3% 447,782 407.1% Debt for Facilities and 0 0.0% -_ Irritation Debt for Maintenance 767,546 i 5.7/0 (263,316) -34.3% .ui.ment and Golf Carts Total a. uses&Other Uses $ 8,430,045 100.0%, $ 413,726 4.9% Chain a in Net Assets $ 184,502 - $ (597,185) -7.0% BUDGET ITEMS AND POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE Some of the proposed revenue and expenditure changes to the budget are highlighted below. The"►"symbol indicates questions that Council may wish to address or request additional follow-up information. REVENUES 1. Total Revenue and Other Sources-Overall decrease-($183,459) a. Decrease-Green Fees and Cart Rental Fees-($200,804)Cool and wet springtime weather,highway construction projects,a competitive golf market,and challenging economic conditions over the past couple of years have impacted the City's golf fund revenues. As a result,the FY 2012 green fee revenues of$4,789,000 are budgeted at 3 $150,804 less than they were for fiscal year 2011. The revenue budget of$1,969,200 for cart rental has been decreased by$50,000 from the prior year. The FY 2012 projection for rounds of golf is expected to be 468,000,which is 18,000 more rounds than projected for FY 2011. Additionally,driving range fees,advertising,and season pass revenue budgets are expected to decrease by$15,913 over the prior year's budget. According to the Administration,the City's prices,quality product,and pass programs are better or comparable to other golf courses in the community. b. Decrease-Concessions,Merchandise Sales,Other Fees,and Interest Income- ($33,358)Budget revenue for concessions is down by$4,000 and retail sales are also budgeted at$8,500 less than the prior year. Other golf fees show an increase of $54,258 because merchandise certificates are now handled differently after a policy change which allows a certificate to expire if not used by the expiration date. In addition,the budget for interest income has been reduced by$10,000 for fiscal year 2012. The following chart is the golf customer fee-related actual revenues-green fees,cart rentals, driving range,and retail sales-for the past nine years. The current and proposed fiscal year budgets are also provided for your information. Increase Over Driving Prior Year Green Fees Cart Rental Range Retail Sales Total Year 2002 $ 4,610,868 $ 1,751,798 $ 357,797 $ 682,942 $ 7,403,405 2003 $ 4,816,308 $ 1,761,090 $ 328,325 $ 741,442'$ 7,647,165 3.3% 2004 $ 4,592,025 $ 1,711,052 $ 309,484 $ 707,037'$ 7,319,598 -4.3% 2005 $ 4,543,923 $ 1,624,874 $ 309,807 $ 710,631'$ 7,189,235 -1.8% 2006 $ 4,710,943 $ 1,763,267 $ 321,525 $ 781,093 $ 7,576,828 5.4% 2007 $ 4,763,272 $ 1,951,157 $ 334,510 $ 827,788'$ 7,876,727 4.0% 2008 $ 4,483,569 $ 1,912,527 $ 328,519 $ 807,905'$ 7,532,520 -4.4% 2009 $ 4,519,334 $ 1,882,413 $ 330,452 $ 772,120'$ 7,504,319 -0.4% 2010 $ 4,398,695 $ 1,793,780 $ 327,872 $ 738,057 $ 7,258,404 -3.3% Budgeted 2011 $ 4,939,804 $ 2,019,200 $ 345,013 $ 809,000 $ 8,113,017 11.8% Proposed 2012 $ 4,789,000 $ 1,969,200 $ 343,000 $ 800,500 $ 7,901,700 -2.6% Note: Green Fees in all years prior to 2009 included the sales of Frequent Player Discount cards. Marketing,Advertising,and Promotion Efforts The Salt Lake City Golf Division plans to host over 100 state-level annual tournaments, corporate and group outings,which are held daily throughout the summer,are also held at the City's golf courses. In addition,the Golf Division plans to market and target their services,courses,and promotions to various groups including,youth,parent/junior,men's and women's clubs,and frequent players. 2. Fiscal Years 2010 and 2011-Projected Revenue and Expenditure Budgets and FY 2008 and 2009 Actuals by Golf Course The following table presents the actual and projected revenue and expense activity for each of the City's golf courses. The expense line includes advertising, cash capital budget, General Fund administrative fees, debt service and Golf Division administrative overhead costs. Golf Division administrative overhead costs include golf fund management and office expenses, including supplies, accounting, information technology,insurance,and other costs of operating the Golf Division. 4 Ir I A detailed explanation of how the Golf Division plans to fund and address the operational and capital needs of each course will be further addressed in the Capital Improvements Projects briefing which is tentatively scheduled for May 3rd. FY 2012 Proposed FY 2008 FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 Budget Budget Total Information Only-Administration-Costs Allocated to Golf Courses Revenue $ 279,005 $ 227,634 $ 288,244 $ 275,400 $ 292,000 $ 1,362,283 Expense(ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 797,440 $ 862,138 $ 968,371 $ 1,296,726 $ 1,003,793 $ 4,928,468 Net Income after ODA $ (518,435 $ 634,504) $ (680,127 $ (1,021,326) $ (711,793 $ 3,566,185 Bonneville Revenue $ 1,381,978 $ 1,310,394 $ 1,273,033 $ 1,463,198 $ 1,418,903 $ 6,847,503 Expense(ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin costs) $ 1,113,862 $ 1,125,593 $ 1,079,759 $ 1,249,258 $ 1,281,409 $ 5,849,881 Net Income after ODA $ 268,116 $ 184,801 $ 193,274 $ 213,940 $ 137,491 $ 997,622 Glendale Revenue $ 1,120,146 $ 1,130,708 $ 1,161,649 $ 1,213,450 $ 1,208,350 $ 5,834,303 Expense(ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 1,268,304 $ 1,091,763 $ 1,074,709 $ 1,195,400 $ 1,169,277 $ 5,799,453 Net Income after ODA $ (148,158) $ 38,945 $ 86,940 $ 18,050 $ 39,073 $ 34,850 Forest Dale $ - Revenue $ 677,073 $ 637,635 $ 605,816 $ 658,145 $ 633,276 $ 3,211,945 Expense(ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin costs) $ 524,777 $ 579,622 $ 579,384 $ 631,825 $ 647,055 $ 2, Net Income after ODA $ 152,296 $ 58,013 $ 26,432 $ 26,320 $ (13,779) $ 2 Mountain Dell $ - Revenue $ 1,954,402 $ 1,895,441 $ 1,807,935 $ 2,062,100 $ 2,039,400 $ 9,759,278 Expense(ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 1,706,598 $ 1,579,782 $ 1,629,612 $ 1,789,129 $ 1,832,506 $ 8,537,627 Net Income after ODA $ 247,804 $ 315,659 $ 178,323 $ 272,971 $ 206,894 $ 1,221,651 Nlbley Park $ - Revenue $ 585,252 $ 560,271 $ 511,856 $ 572,984 $ 603,662 $ 2,834,025 Expense(ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 693,052 $ 628,697 $ 646,920 $ 663,302 $ 648,840 $ 3,280,811 Net Income after ODA $ (107,800) $ (68,426) $ (135,064) $ (90,318) $ (45,178) $ (446,786) Rose Park $ - Revenue $ 869,941 $ 923,373 $ 915,998 $ 962,400 $ 920,403 $ 4,592,112 Expense)ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 967,810 $ 1,051,369 $ 1,003,542 $ 1,153,314 $ 1,552,827 $ 5,728,862 Net Income a fterODA $ (97,869) $ (127,996) $ (87,544) $ (190,914) $ (632,427) $ (1,136,750) Wingpolnte $ - Revenue $ 1,153,898 $ 1,211,091 $ 1,134,014 $ 1,316,370 $ 1,228,000 $ 6,043,373 Expense)ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 1,352,294 $ 1,158,491 $ 1,192,695 $ 1,250,807 $ 1,226,885 $ 6,181,172 Net Income after ODA $ (198,396) $ 52,600 $ (58,681) $ 65,563 $ 1,115 $ (137,799) Jordan River $ - Revenue $ 65,694 $ 86,324 $ 92,712 $ 90,500 $ 87,100 $ 422,330 Expense)ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 187,642 $ 204,714 $ 198,697 $ 221,609 $ 192,971 $ 1,005,633 Net Income after ODA $ (121,948) $ (118,390) $ (105,985) $ (131,109) $ (105,871) $ (583,303) Total Golf Fund Revenue $ 7,808,384 $ 7,755,237 $ 7,503,013 $ 8,339,147 $ 8,139,088 $ 39,544,869 Expense(ODA-Operations,Debt&Admin Costs) $ 8,032,386 $ 7,420,031 $ 7,405,318 $ 8,154,644 $ 8,551,770 $ 39,346,102 Net Income after ODA $ (224,002) $ 335,206 $ 97,695 $ 184,503 $ (412,682) $ 198,767 EXPENDITURES 1. Staffing Changes-Full Time FTEs will remain at 40.4. Part-time seasonal positions are 48.61 FTEs. 2. Increase-Personal Services-$139,527 The FY 2012 personnel costs are proposed to be $3,918,394. 5 • 3. Increase-Retail Merchandise Purchases-$3,400 Retail sales are expected to slightly decrease in FY 2012. The budget amount for merchandise purchased for resale will increase .1 slightly. 4. Increase-Materials and Supplies,excluding retail merchandise$106,125 Other than minor adjustments in certain line items,this is a status quo budget. Some of the budget increases and(decreases)include: • Parts and accessories-$109,570-Golf cart batteries at Mountain Dell and Bonneville need to be replaced. • Repairs-$(2,750) • Athletic supplies-$5,000 • Chemicals-$4,500 5. Increase-Water,Fuel,Maintenance,and Miscellaneous Operating Costs-$26,386 The overall net change to the Charges/Services/Fees budget category is relatively small. Some of the larger budgeted increases include: • Water-$12,000 • Building 8s Housing Repair and Maintenance-$10,000 • Printing Charges-$4,300 • Advertising-Access Awards-$4,500 • Fleet fuel and maintenance-$24,228-($20,500 of the total is an increase in the amount budgeted for Fleet Fuel.) • Unemployment comp premium-$13,700-The estimate is based on FY 2011 actuals. • Administrative Fees-$5,800-The estimate is based on FY 2011 actual. ANN Some of the larger decreases occurred in the following accounts: • City engineering and architect fees-($15,000) • Software Maintenance Contracts-($26,583)-The City is working with EZLinks point of sale and tee time reservation system. The EZLinks agreement included new computer hardware and live 24/7 tee time reservation call center services. Salt Lake City's payment for the EZLink system is two tee times per course per day. The previous reservation system was$40,000 annually. • Janitorial Service MC-($6,654) • Administrative Service Fee-($30,000) • P.I.L.O.T. (Payment in Lieu of Taxes)-$4,658 • Intradepartmental charges-($13,708) • Risk management property premium-$4,708 6. Decrease-Debt Service-Principal and Interest Expense-($263,316)A portion of the equipment debt service(Debt Schedule#1)has been completed for a FY 2012 budget savings. Currently there are two active debt service schedules: #2 for maintenance equipment and#1 for carts. Additional debt service schedules are planned for FY 2014,FY 2016,and FY 2017. ► The Council may wish to ask about the Administration about the debt service financing terms. 7. Increase-Cash Capital Outlay-$557,782 The Golf Division has budgeted$135,000 in ^N non-fmanced capital for Equipment and Facilities. Additionally,another$422,782 has been budgeted for the driving range expansion at the Rose Park golf course. The revenue for this project was from the FY 2011 sale of 3.01 acres of land at the Rose Park Golf Course to the 6 • Guadalupe School. This budget is the amount available to spend on needs of the golf division after considering debt service payments,net income,and an operating contingency. According to the Administration,the budget will be used primarily for emergency golf course maintenance equipment purchases and facility repairs. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS-$22,000,000-(Note:A separate staff report will be prepared for the Administration's proposal. The Council briefing is scheduled for May 3, 2011.) In the past,the Golf Fund Manager and Administration have met with Council Members to review various funding options and strategies to fund approximately$22 million in Capital Improvement Projects. A transmittal proposing how the improvements will be funded has been submitted by the Administration. This proposal,which includes options,such as,transferring surplus golf course property to the General Fund or rezoning and selling surplus golf course property,is scheduled to be briefed to the Council on May 3th. LEGISLATIVE INTENT STATEMENTS Fiscal Year 2010-11 Golf Capital Improvement Protects—Further discussion of policies related to use or sale of open space to meet Capital Improvement funding needs.The Administration may wish to forward a proposal or options to consider in advance of a Council discussion on the policy issue. Administration Response-The Public Services Department Director and the Golf Division ivlanager met with the City Council in September 2010 to discuss the general concept of selling golf property.Five parcels were submitted for discussion,including 10 acres at Bonneville, 13.65 acres and.89 at Glendale,and 17.5 and 3 acres at Rose Park. The majority of the City Council was of the opinion that they would consider the sale of such open space under certain conditions.Those conditions were not determined at this meeting.At that same time,it was suggested that Golfs situation could be used as a case study to help develop a policy for open space sales.City administration plans to forward a proposal in the near future. 7 rIN CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT l il21, 2011 Proposed Budget— Salt Lake City Department of Airports 2011-2012 Council Districts: All ort By: Russell Weeks rative Dept. and Contact Person: Department of Airports: Finance Director am, Financial Analysis Manager Janine K. Christiansen is memorandum pertains to the Department of Airports proposed budget for Fiscal -2012. The request has been reviewed by representative of the commercial airlines that use the department's facilities,the Airport Board Finance Subcommittee, and the full Airport Board. The Board at its March meeting adopted a motion to forward a positive recommendation 11111 that the proposed budget be adopted as part of the Becker Administration's recommended budget for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. The Department of Airports operates as an enterprise fund—a fund supported wholly by Airport user charges and state and federal grants.No property taxes are allocated to the enterprise fund. It should be noted that the Department of Airports transmittal contains two documents: the Department of Airports Budget Request of Fiscal Year 2011-2012 and Budget Approval Fiscal Year 2012 Budget. In addition, administrators will make a brief presentation about scheduled changes to concessions in the terminals at Salt Lake City International Airport. KEY ELEMENTS: o As in previous years the proposed budget reflects the department's efforts to keep costs-per-enplaned passengers low to"keep airline revenue requirements flat with FY 2011."' o The proposed budget also reflects the department's efforts to stockpile cash for eventual use in building new terminals. As of June 30, 2010,the department had about$185 million in cash and cash equivalents designated for future development.2 The projected increase to airport reserves in Fiscal Year 2011- 2012 is $28,128,600.3 Cash reserves coupled with the Department of Airports lack of long-term debt ultimately may keep costs-per-enplaned passengers low. 1 Department staff projected that costs-per-enplaned passengers would be $3.61 per passenger in the next fiscal year. o The proposed budget allocates $35 million for consultants to provide detailed analysis and design to refine the concept of for constructing the terminal area development. The budget also includes $6.5 million to improve public facilities inside existing terminals including renovations of restrooms in concourses A and B and improvements to concessions areas.4 New retail and food concessions will be a mixture of national, local and regional businesses. (Please see attachments.) o Operating revenues are projected to increase by about $3.8 million from the current fiscal year. The increase is primarily due to the recovery of auto parking revenue,restructuring cost recovery of ground transportation fees and forecasted taxicab concession revenue.' Revenue from food and retail concessions is projected to decrease by 6.63 percent due to remodeling of concession facilities by new tenants after retail concession contracts expire in June 2011 and food concession contracts expire in December 2011. The department projects a significant increase in net concession revenue in Fiscal Year 2012-2013.6 o The department will not fund 34 full-time-equivalent positions—largely through the consolidation of airport shuttle operations with parking operations and department reorganization—for a projected savings of$2.2 million in personnel costs.'The proposed budget assumes a 10 percent increase in medical insurance rates and a 2 percent salary adjustment plus merit increases for union employees.' POTENTIAL OPTIONS: • Adopt the budget as recommended by the Airport Board as part of consideration of the City budget. • Amend the proposed budget as part of the consideration of the City budget. MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS TO ADMINISTRATION: o Does the Airport have an alternative for medical insurance premium increases higher than 10 percent if increases higher than 10 percent occur? o How might increases in fuel prices affect the department's proposed budget? o Is the department's agreement to work with Delta Air Lines on the route to Narita Airport been affected by the recent earthquake? o At this point is there specific timetable to build new terminals? o Has the project to build light-rail to the airport had any significant impact on airport operations? REVIEW OF PROPOSED BUDGET FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 The table below corresponds to the summary chart on page iv of the Department of Airports Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. 2 Revenue Sources Amended Budget FY Requested Budget Percent Major Categories 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 Difference Change Operating Revenues $ 121,322,500 $ 125,893,100 $ 4,570,600 4% Passenger Facility Charges 46,244,900 63,614,000 17,369,100 38% Grants/Reimbursements 47,705,000 44,080,000 -3,625,000 -8% Interest Income 4,500,000 2,500,000 -2,000,000 -44% Airport Improvement Fund 46,879,800 30,099,400 -16,780,400 -36% TOTAL $ 266,652,200 $ 266,186,500 $ (465,700) 0% The table indicates that projected decreases in revenue from federal airport improvement program grants, interest income, and other grants and reimbursements are offset by projected increases in passenger facility charges. Passenger facility charges are charges added to airline tickets for passengers using a specific airport. The Department of Airports has received federal authorization to collect additional passenger facility charges for Salt Lake City International for renovating terminals.9 Operating revenues—those raised by charges for services and facilities provided by the Department of Airports are projected to grow by about 4 percent. According to the Department of Airports Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2010,operating revenue accounted for 68 percent of the department's total revenue.10 As a percentage of total revenue,revenue from airlines provided the greatest share at 27.4 percent.That was followed by landside concessions such as parking fees and car rental income at 24.8 percent,and revenue from terminal concessions at 7.8 percent.Revenue from leases, general aviation fees,the state aviation tax, and other sources made up another 8 percent of total revenue. Non-operating and capital revenue made up the remaining 32 percent of total revenue was derived from passenger facility charges at 23.8 percent. Smaller percentages from other contributions and grants and interest income rounded out the whole.The percentage shares probably will remain roughly the same in Fiscal Year 2011-2012. Airlines pay for the space they use outside and inside the terminals. Revenue from all airlines is projected to increase by$2,025,608 from the current Fiscal Year's amended budget. Total revenue from all airlines is projected to be about $57.3 million.Terminal rents at $27,616,100 and landing fees at $22,763,300 make up the bulk of revenue in that category." (Please see attachments) Revenue from concessions is projected to increase by$1,206,200 from the current Fiscal Year's amended budget. Projected revenue from auto parking—$25,403,000—car rental facilities —$16,116,800—expected to make up 76.8 percent of the$54,049,100 total.'2 Parking revenue is expected to increase from an increase in people using parking facilities. 3 Expenditures Amended Budget FY Requested Budget Percent Major Category 2010-2011 FY 2011-2012 Difference Change Operating Expenses $ 87,055,900 $ 87,693,300 $ 637,400 1% Passenger Incentive Rebate 10,272,000 10,153,000 -119,000 -1% Capital Equipment 4,440,200 2,418,200 -2,022,000 -46% Capital Improvements 145,429,000 165,922,000 20,493,000 14% Renewal/Replacement Fund 5,000,000 0 -5,000,000 -100% Increase to O&M Reserves 14,455,100 0 -14,455,100 -100% TOTAL $ 266,652,200 $ 266,186,500 $ (465,700) 0% The table above corresponds to the summary chart on page iv of the Department of Airports Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2011-2012. Perhaps the two most notable line items in the table are the apparent elimination of the "Renewal and Replacement Fund"and the Increase to"Operating and Maintenance Reserves."In accordance with the airline use agreement,one-time funding was establishe for reserve funds for Renewal/Replacement Fund and Operating and Maintenance in Fiscal Year 2010-2011.Airlines requested both items when the budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011 was prepared last year.The Operating and Maintenance Reserves fund was a fund that held two months worth of money to pay for operating and maintenance. The passenger incentive rebate also was introduced during budget discussions for Fiscal Year 2010-2011.Under an agreement,airlines using Salt Lake City International Airport receive rebates of$1 per enplaned passenger.The rebate is capped at 30 percent of remaining operating revenue after expenses.The rebate is credited to the airlines on a monthly basis." A projected$42,024,000 in salaries and benefits for 555.3 full-time equivalent employee positions makes up 47.9 percent of the$87,693,300 in operating expenses.The figure for salaries and benefits is$2,698,600 less than the amended budget for Fiscal Year 2010-2011.Again,one reason for the projected decrease is the consolidation of shuttle operations with parking operations under a private provider.14 Also,the proposed budget assumes a 10 percent increase in medical insurance rates and a 2 percent salary adjustment plus merit increases for union employees. The next largest portion of projected expenses is$26,359,400 for services.The figure is $3,228,500 more than the amendment budget for the current fiscal year.About 80 percent of the increase is for professional and technical services.The proposed budget calls for allocating $4,201,900 versus$1,618,800 for professional and technical services in the current fiscal year— an increase of$2,583,100.15 The projected increase in professional and technical services is mainly consolidation of shuttle operations with parking. It might be noted that although the department will no longer provide a subsidy to Delta Airlines for its non-stop flight from Salt Lake City to Paris,the proposed budget contains a$1 million allocation in economic development reserves.16 According to budget notes,the fund"will 101 be used for tenant requests or other economic and intemational route developments that may require quick action to accomplish."The proposed budget also sets aside$6 million to buy land around the three airports the department manages if opportunities arise.'r 4 EL Finally,besides allocating funds to refine the concept of a future terminal and funds to modify existing concourses to meet passengers'needs and new retail and food and beverage concessions, a variety of projects are scheduled to start in the next fiscal year.They include: o An airport operations building to provide office and support space near the terminal. Space in the terminal for department staff has been changed to allow personnel from the Transportation Security Administration,airlines,and concessionaires to locate there,and a new building would alleviate crowding. o A building to store snow removal equipment to meet a Federal Aviation Administration recommendation. o Security and closed-circuit television enhancements. o Improvements to runways,airplane taxiways, aprons near the terminals, and taxiway de-icing pads. Cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Maureen Riley,Gordon Hoskins,Jay Bingham, Janine Christiansen,Jennifer Bruno,Mary Beth Thompson,Lehua Weaver,Quin Card File Location: Department of Airports,Budget 1 Department of Airports Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2011-2012 i. 2 Salt Lake City Department ofAirports Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30,2010, 13. 3 Budget Approval Fiscal Year 2012 Budget,4. 4 Department of Airports Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2011-2012, ii. 5 Ibid.iii. 6 Ibid. iii. 7 Ibid. iii. 8 Budget Approval Fiscal Year 2012 Budget,7. 9 City Council staff notes,Airport Board meeting March 16,2010. 1°Salt Lake City Department of Airports Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the Year Ended June 30, 2010,8. 11 Budget Approval Fiscal Year 2012 Budget,5. 12 Ibid.6. 13 Department of Airports Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2011-2012,iii. 14 Budget Approval Fiscal Year 2012 Budget,7. 15 Department of Airports Budget Request for Fiscal Year 2011-2012,4. 16 Ibid.46. 17 Ibid.44. 5