Loading...
02/14/2006 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14 , 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, February 14, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Absent: Jill Remington Love . Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Morris Haggerty, Senior City Attorney; D. J. Baxter, Mayor' s Senior Advisor Lyn Creswell, Senior City Attorney; Chris Bramhall, Senior City Attorney; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Jennifer Bruno, Council Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Constituent Liaison; Susi Kontgis, Budget Analyst; Louis Zunguze, Community Development Director; Alex Ikefuna, Planning Director; Doug Dansie, Community Planning/Land Use and Transportation Planner; Alison McFarland, Senior Advisor for Economic Development; John Naser, Engineering Senior Project Manager; Tim Harpst, Transportation Director; Bob Farrington, Downtown Alliance; David Oka, RDA Executive Director; Tom Hanzinski and Hans Detlefsen, HVS Convention, Sports and Entertainment; John Inglish and Ralph Jackson, Utah Transit Authority, Mary Guy-Sell, Hub Project Manager; Chuck Querry, Fire Chief; Larry Littleford, Deputy Fire Chief Support Service; Dr. Steven Joyce, EMS Medical Advisor; Dennis McKone, Fire Administrative Assistant and Media Relations; Scott Freitag, Fire Program Manager and Media Relations; Daniel Walker, Fire Captain and EMS Director; Steven Hoffman, Fire Operations; Jeff Thomas, Airport Fire Chief; and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy City Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 35 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . 5 : 35 : 37 PM RECEIVE A PRESENTATION AND BRIEFING BY HVS CONSULTANTS REGARDING THE UTAH THEATER AND ARTS DISTRICT CONCEPT STUDY REQUESTED BY THE REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY BOARD . View Attachments Bob Farrington, Dave Oka, Tom Hanzinski and Hans Detlefsen briefed the Council with the attached handout and a power point presentation. #2 . 6 : 27 : 18 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FOR THE FINAL DETERMINATION OF THE LIGHT RAIL INTERMODAL HUB EXTENSION CONFIGURATION AND TRAX STOP LOCATIONS . (PETITION NO. 400-04-52) View Attachments 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, FEBRUARY 14 , 2006 #3 . 8 : 07 : 42 PM RECEIVE A PRESENTATION ON THE AMBULANCE SERVICE PROVIDER TRANSITION FROM THE SALT LAKE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT. View Attachments Fire Chief Quarry, Larry Littleford, Dr. Steven Joyce, Dennis McKone, Lyn Creswell, Jennifer Bruno and Scott Freitag briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember Buhler asked how Salt Lake City would be better off with a new ambulance provider that was not local . Chief Quarry said the Fire Department was committed to providing the best service to the City. He said the request for purchase (RFP) process which had been approved by the State Bureau of Emergency Medical Services, opened up new participation. He said the new provider would meet and exceed the RFP expectations . Mr. Freitag said there would be no fiscal changes for Salt Lake City with the new provider. Councilmember Buhler asked that service level complaint letters to the provider be given to the Council . #4 . 9 : 06 : 17 PM (TENTATIVE) RECEIVE COMMENTS FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ON LEGISLATIVE ISSUES . No briefing was held. #5 . 9 : 06 : 31 PM (TENTATIVE) CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO EXECUTIVE SESSION FOR THE PURPOSE OF STRATEGY SESSIONS TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. §§ 52-4-4 , 52-4-5 (1) (A) (iii) AND 52-4-5 (1) (A) (iv) , AND ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED, PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE ANN. § 78-24-8 . No Executive Session was held. #6 . REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND 9 : 06 : 43 PM ANNOUNCEMENTS . There was no Executive Director Report. See File M 06-5 for written announcements . The meeting adjourned at 9 : 20 p .m. Council Chair Chief Deputy City Recorder This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes for the City Council Work Session held February 14, 2006. cm 06 - 2 II 111 ` ' H I 1I z O a) 1 1, H Fil z z zal C13 1I 1 1H -1 z a) ii—i 1 I 1 1 1 1 z 8 °.t ■■C 4.i CIS co.6■r C 4- O o >II 1 tino , (13 4-1 valmo 0) 0 0 („,) a) 0 L o el Inc N >141 4-. N w NI- II M C _ N (l V NEc a ~ = a 1 4 1 g D Ip3 .. I 1 H . III , W C ^^(1)1 C •W .- `-~� — U a) a) .,,,,,, �' � C W •C.) -_0 oo ., i (/) a_ u).• a) O -t — O C• s_ (:). ,.. c u) u) a) u) = c C:) — 0 a) CO o x a) w C 0 > C -- 0 � •- n 0 O c a) U N a) v -- 73 N—.L I .� C o (/) a) o c') > > Q. LL N 0 I Cl) i T till i • •� [U N c — to O c 4) 4) O N U j 0) 0) U .0 C- , •� •C� O MI O CD St a) L- a. c 0 0 0- •- c "V c a) a) co CD r.) O > .� E U) > � � 7) LLD O r O _ 0 W U cn t. = 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 m . U co al U V) lit > O _C CO -0 •� O O O O (/) CZ C 0 I- CD 0 _ U) a) a- as i cn 2 Q U Q p c kiii.j d 1 d '''' 'kry = •. ill Y: €) % f a3 f a I r g a g ; , 2 ,> z 'E �„, , ..0 i4 �; ! m R , i , € g A .a,„..' ' ,T i [ � I Y E $ i 4111 :, d4r3!: , 144 r1II f 1 a3 -2. -, §,) g P -E to .g a to- t t to -g I- ,,5 to to 8 § -§ 210 MM6 a" -AD1- 43 M M M 4 ! ! Pam = $ (1 Icilgl4Pi) cn I §') .8 M lig -m -cil .g g .g g g -4-3 1-:g •g •F 2 fi ! -0- _ .c@ 1 2 § Ei- 2 Pel # § _ `6 pplo -51 210 , , Pp ppir 2E. . - 2 1,), P _Eg -. E. I' dDEI , A1 $ i) fi'i'- - 0- zz g -8- gAgi) (h .- gifggg -Ar.- mligggigggfl g , 2 i 7 g g _9. § a %).' (k).• 1 p 7 g To Dom *g § oesm -. 5_ 2 2, -.5. 9 9 2 i 13 13. 2 2 ?ii a ini _ 5- g@M :f .g. Pg _EA _ EEupEgpm. ig g ao2 0022trOm 02 z e5 aLTE00E 0 0 A E a 8 T m 13 -6 I0. b 4(—) ,_ >I 2 8 • to i' i i `n (58-11 ! ig M - - '= to .- 2 g m — c'e5 2 v 2 -6 "og 1 I &-8c A i.1) ciirLTE ! -2: 1 r): i 1 0 3 33— g IT -' ;_ 4 P -ci.$ -t°46‘511- coiggMlilig °61Scd- g 8 latch 5 22 n28' LEETCt' h a3o3o3a3 31 gEAAA ' 1! i LI 1 ‘... di i !z I1 -' 4. I '^ V J U 0 -�. . L3 a) -� O 0— E C6 E3 to '— O y— U O O O� O O C� O u) O -'...,,,-- E N .. -I-6., 4) O U U U :� C6 'v O O — 0 C� O C� -N }' V) O ,� ' U � �U) U - 1 O O C6 O � � � O U .N � � C � � O `er � -— �ocs E � .. 2 0 c � -o � � � � ° O - 4- 4) i .— i 1 •� a O U O U .0 .� -� 1. ,.. , ., -.. : . ., O O L O O .c� -"-° '' � • • • • i ‘..ddi r< � k III �- o co E L L a) a) 'CI)— a) a) cu a) •L -o a) a) CO C A N O NCU C) v) 2 (6 a) a) Cn - + C LC) it U CO U tam O o (6 N (0 _ _ O a.. a) N co C) p c a) o E U — c Lc) o a >, U aW C) � O c CL p U (0O A C aic OQ m Q C -a 'v) o_ a) Qu) •U a) c o c LE L a) - o co E a) c- E � N NQ C U a L �.0 4- CO a) C o a) (6 'C L a) CD � a NO 'U L C Un a 0 c.) N -0 . -; CD C a) c O O ( •� c CD a) U 'a-) -0 x a) (a a) = O -� a) � OU 'Cc _a 7 L c a) O O. a) O a) C • .N 0 C CO a) U � L �- O U c •- U a) O to '� N a) C � � -0 > CO _C "0 Q a) cu C "a C cn I— 5 = a--� O O U) N O O OE � U .N �+O Q CD c U 'a p) Q o C cn U) O a) — C L a) co `t- -. �i +-+ Q L C (O a) .N (a a) O) C = CD N O1 (Q � Q ,C C L 0 to N � N ) U) a) C = >, E � o - = c o caE , o a) > a) U .5 � o � (3 0. < m . C.) 0 in (n -0 co a 1— .0 2 id 01111.° • • • • • • • F A � i t a-0 > 0) (� - L E 2 >, O c O a) a) c) (1) 1- r-- < _ 0 .• Lo (/) " CD C� II , 0 co o' .= 0 CD- o -1-a-i) a) a) a) E o o o o a a) C ° O >, o) 0 O L (1) 2 1.-- 2 ° E Lo :1-• w O Q co •= �; o.. 0 z o 0 0 0 a) co a Q 0 L a) 0_ OU CD CO C L. r Vi-�F 0 a :I1I Ali 4 co cts C p 0 C� O O (.0 Cio N Lf) I••• V- O O 0) ..... o ci N CO N— r- O co z , V— V— N— a) ce c c‘l •Q o c-.) 0 0 co Q d' CO 0) CO (6 0) o E w see CD o CD CD Z TI• E. O al _O co N CO Z Q CD11•1•11 Cill CO U ._ U c co cf) co U _(13 0 2 < 2 — to U C) CU " CD EL O id O a m a., z 0 0 Ifil i's-.' ni n 0) N o 0 0 N I` N N M CN r- CO �- M Cc a N o 0 0 0 o E a N ti M Cr) t` ,tiY.' o 9q N 0 O O O 00 O 0 Q_ <..-..L..BCT ww)•L°1 ii 111 . a� = u) CL ,, — L) E w 2 U_ 0 ! (5')z11 �,, a L. ccr)s tQ tou) (13 ' t C. U = p V 2 - 0 (la = 0 F.. coU 2 z O O 0.441 Him .t, , ,'k o CA C L CO >. p I` r- Cr) Cr) CS = Lim N Cr). N N N N a 4-1 � � N o " C) ti CO Cr) `I" I` O Z _ SIM N N N r- C ) o Q) a a imia mil a 13 0 z U 0 CD co CD 2 alU t C� 0 CD CO CI a) s_ a m O — � U 2 z0_ O O fill LCD O O O O O O O N a) O O O O 0 CO 1` cd Cfl LU CO L' o 0 0 0 o CD O O 00 O N O 00 N CO N 4 '� l co — O M M co M w r r r r r O N (,� O O O O O O O 70 Cii �'co a) O co O O O C r r r r r r r c O CO . m. N N M O ti CO c°n co O LU LU N d) v I . o 0 0 0 0 0 0 (0 Ls, C) �— CO M N m N CO d' LU M CO• N CD Q (NI C`7 d' C.fl 71 N- + 00 Ls) Lc!) LU LU L �- n CO d' LU (.0 ti hool p 41 G: URI h1I, , N T- Cfl i- CO O N 1- NCN cy) CO2 O) co O) co coCO r- HV Cr CO O I` O p LO N CO N N CO 1` CO CO N N-- ti CY) 1.0 mot' O M N 00 LC) ti N CS)C L co N.- CY) N O O O .. _ v CO N co- '�r M 1` 0 c N O) co co co C CD Ir 00 U 0 6 0 a Co +.• 07 LO CO CO LO (NIv. N CO o° CD I` C3) 1` 1` N.".N.". 0 CC N—N— CO 1` LO CO O) co .L- O N 00 '�t CY) c' M 00 0 a 2 cor- d' M Co0 0 CD N- 444. it v,:.c.:.:7 Q "a) ,7r .7r .7t- �r -7r d- - -0 N CO d- 1.0 Cfl N- CO Olio 1-",.,:: C CO i i in i i Lo i -F .�-- ) Lo D N CY) 't 1.0 CO N- I- 1 li ,„. "` 1 it _ -0 pm. a_ N N Cr) COCC) la R� N 00 Cr)C I CO N p E ♦c,, N CC) 00 N CO- O I'_ G� pCO O Ln N O CI a ILO 71- Cr) N CO i 0) L° Lf) O N CO '� CC:) O M CO a) Ln Cr) 00 CO • N CU ow CO O E c i CO if) d- Ln O O 0) O � � 07 ti 6 O (Y) CYj = t 0 (/) I I 1 :. � O d' N , I` 'i CO N- 0) 0. N N }+ p _ ,0 (� CO < LV to to (,) Q0 0 2 , :.. ,.. CO ,,, ddi .::. 4., die Hill P r d. _c as O O O 0 +, O O O O O = - 30 � N Q C,fl 0� O 'I"i O CO-00 Z Cfl d' Co ` I` N Q L. 0 L. _ c RS U = o Q o 0 0 o NN N Z CO 0D 0 0 a) 1..V J Fes v) --. C O O CD Co ' _ :c CD CD CD O O O U !� N N- 00 Cr) N- N E cc:; 00 Cfl 00 N M 6) 0 0 CO 6) N O (� Q Lo ct- Cr) r- N 13 Q C O O O O O Q N 0 00 Co ca cis z N- O d' -t Gu ti 00 N 00 cc2 Q COT- °' c • L. ZIII () o .(/) (./) a. CD 0 • 0 ti RS Q. '- CCT3 4! U t A 4) O z pi > CO C6 . O Ca � _. — (,) , 0 ,, "' 1 ! w CO C.) 2 Z o.. 0DO* ''''' ' 0 .. L a) > r a O O U O a 'L N }' O N — U) �' .U C) crs . O 0 N u) U O ._ ^ U .� C = p Q L =;-, O U O .� a) cn N p rvIc 0 .L _ I` A cO � (13 �, a) a) ca N � L El..) + 1- co N 0 Lt --- co CO o _,-.) ~ O O O d' .� O N O O ~ — co cLo P.. N C C U X'4--": -'-L cn ca C O oo Ccti o E— ao c a) P _c) CZ c L a3 a) � � 0 co O U � � a) s — cg, > D c O � � rnQ � 0 0 � ��� C 1 i I E I �,1 1` � 1 ra.t, aig 2 i dill [,%1 11110 p) (6 CD �_-� U) - � � N a) O to N V C •N N a) _C C O '' (a to V O . a) (a^' c _CU L cn W ^'as - L cu as a) N - Locu Lo U) OU co R + C OO wp - 0 Co 0 � OV aN a) C In _ (u cn N — N E co N O E O O O O N to a) .... cn • .� O .— E II a) Q - U a • U a) i--' U O _ CO CO (O 0 w (a _CO 2 O 0_ 0_ 0_ c 0_ CI a) L co Q 0o c.) 0 COo as cu O as O) 4.-; cp 0 C C • O O -C U) a) - N • N a) 0 i N O a) N ( COCn UQ 'O O OQ U E 4O • O a) §- 8 O § z •- a) = H I I _C ^ Q _C 4-' U C C O• O CU Q U C C V CO 0 U) O co C co C �C N C) CO Q co N - C cu O CO 0 U 0 E O o CO 0_ • N � 73 a.. N a) . 0 N `= U) •pQ. 0_ (6 (13 U to _0 C C -0 C OO N O o > C „,C -- o E o al `� o o a) o `�- o = C �- co- C o Q 0E - L X N 0 0 0 0 -0 C N zo v� moo ocva � m � 4I I< , , vz 1 ,. . . ~ co co 0) c lc CD CD 0 co O U C�- ' E U �- • •0 0 o >lk All O U� ��� v a) � rn� Ocn cac� c0 E Q. O co co co > O - i o i O) E --1- co U E -tu) o cv;5 "o E a) O a) 0) to .-F-3 O a) c0 E 0 O ( a) O > ill O O O yw^ • • ,i,' i' it. 1 ,..0 i, • - dd i ' Ali lz fi 1 L Q Q Q Q `� N000Nco `rO OOOOc0 , � gc� � O � g cN- o 1- h M N r- A A— N CNT NV A— CV d- cM I� N e- CO �O N N �Mt 1 § i L U) ULh U) U N V h IdIHU r � 7 co 3Ihillin M 15 U) il Ill t) 1 u) A u) Ili A L N CO 0 LU d' O CZ) O O O O O O O O p OO O O O O O } N O N �— V- LC) CO O- 00) 0 co O N O 8 8 O OM A %- CM- L 0- •:1-7 g" M CO 7 LDS � � § .-g u) g i -§ 7-1 Z cu 1) ti .§ 7-1-5 Z co ,:! Ig ts 712 Z CO m •k 05 i Jo rz :E „ 6 (!J g g C5 1 j$ 18 (!J g ;' 4 o ig e3 g 2 C5 15 1 '< H _..... 1..... i_. 1 1 I n it CD N— pg Irna°'o � � c`i c� S oc� ` i c` ic`�S �i orn a V (V .— e- N I` I T- N.- N W N T- .- ` N M 69 M ON- r �Of) Lf) Co N- LU cN C 00 1 N d N O' 2 ch N O rn O 0 0 C5j M CO �- 00 I- N N N O CO O O N N 0) CV O N- N- C) •- O) to co 8 O C) N c) Si' N ti CQ cNV vv N o Coo COCO ' r ., N (0 N- N COM r- O) O N r N N N_ O 0 0 N f� N N M �- pp (� N �j N . 000 O c 7 0) N- co Cfl CO 0�0 O N O CO 4 N l tj M N cp7 i� 00 lf� pp CV CV �- CV t�� r- O Co N �— Co f� o) N 00 �t O l!) M N � �, N e-- pppp N h O M CO . r- t( g g O `7 c7 N CO O h" g V f� CO �, N _ CQ O CO CO CQ SS (� 00 M 00 �t d0 M M 00 cV N - CO n cam- N O r O r N 'T— O g Q S O �jp p N O 00 § Co C) N O § Co(7 Ti �t M S C O C) M CD S M L N M N vvv Co O) Co N Co O ,- CO LC Co N CO p O) O CO pp tf) Co O co N N- O N Lo N� r- O O N O CO Co Co d M CO O N Co ' N LU CO N 0 N g a O d - .„;:::,:', 1 § ) .53h,1 I.- .,_ .F g w 01 6 c,i; i i 1 ..t,li -tti . _ $ 2 § °6 A -. ......,.... g c'13 ilI (J W — 0 i =`.) i_=(-) cs , c1 iik -,?_tis2 3ggXa ; 2 n a - 1 ' ' 1-J • l' -03 Its ,, ... _ z '.14. ', 2 f2 IL-3 12 2 (53 ' „ : pi tz , 1 !' 'lid 1 10 t T .a ..-7. 1 I ; ; ' s lids mII C) N T 0) N TCO O V N d- r- r- N N 3) N T 1,- a) opa) O �N- - d N 1� L) T I-- �[ co I- CO N LO CO CONI` CO N T T N T CDd- CO CO O N C) CO CO O O CO CO r CO N N CO 0 go I i N CO' p O � - 0- to N N-- LC) lO T- O LO V V r CO TNCOQ I- — N L) N O d• N N N- 0) T CO T N 0 N N- N- CO U) U) cCU) co1- N40) M0R O I` co- Cro M d' LC c6 N cri CV cM (p co- oi qp o) C) N N N N O LC) N CO N CO COd r- d M 0') d COO CO N C 2 N Ln d' N d' r- N L() T O N N T CO T CO CO O CO r- N N LC) LO CO N NO I's CO N M d' N d CO M LC) M NT O d' CO CO OD CO V COCOT CCD CO N 0) e- N CO N LC CO N- OD d r- N- CO N N- N N d: N CO LO N- CO LC) 00 dr CO N-cy -- C) ci ti1. d' CO C3) N qp r- N Ln N- L() C3) v r- U) a T L() Nr CO T N U) O C V N O 'Cr (A d d N O CO NI- CO T CO T N O N CLNOHO S L ti 8 � N 0) ~ .1. COTN d• � N- CO - N d' N CO - T ) N- ` CO O CO 0r r N--- CO CV 1� r= ti 0) CO T N N CO N Tti CO O Q N Si QTf Q g ) 0M0 0 d' ,t N- d' r- N d' C) C) d' N N r- CO N- it; N N N O M CD C 115 N- 0 O c- Ln N in- 0p Ln N C7 I: N: r �j N C CD CO N O) d' d' T CD U) In C7 O d' CO d' c- N CO O) N T T CM 00 CV N N 2 6 co $ M g 6:7) 6 .a /� ,L .2 d LL ((2 a, 8 g A --,) 1 .r._ , 0 Q. ..2 g r-d .1 1 0,52 A g . 1 Jililib 48 ....8 ! 7 .a.°) :LB -_ w3 ii:1100.i, 1,'.?z,,—: ,, ill I . a N c a) ^E _a) 0 ) L co cO a) o CD ca a) _ � t/) Q L l^ co q i 0 O cn o LIE a)) �--co c cn a) a) o co }, Q c� O V) L- +-+ + COL0 Q _ N u)oci) v a) o o j L- p � � _C � coo v, cu • a) o o .� iL I U 0 C..)• . • HVS Convention,Sports&Entertainment Salt Lake City—Cultural District Market Study Executive Summary 1-1 1 . Executive Summary The findings of this report generally conclude that Salt Lake City has the potential to develop a cultural district in the downtown area. HVS recommends the development of a mid-sized theater with approximately 800 seats and a large theater with approximately 2,400 seats in close proximity to one another and other downtown cultural assets. The two proposed facilities would substantially augment the community's ability to attract cultural activities to the downtown area. Moreover, these venues could serve as anchors to the proposed cultural district. This report provides a detailed discussion of local market conditions, a review of comparable facilities and cultural districts around the country, an evaluation of regional and national industry trends, our analysis of demand potential in the Salt Lake market area, an inventory of supply, preliminary facility program recommendations, and an analysis of financial operations for the proposed new theaters. The report devotes individual sections to most of these topics. But we provide a brief discussion of them in the summary below. This study does not provide an analysis of the potential or likely effects the new theaters will have on existing performing arts venues located throughout the Salt Lake market area. However, some of the research presented in this report may be useful to individual facility managers in drawing conclusions about how the proposed development of additional cultural assets downtown will affect these various facilities. Market Analysis The primary market is defined as the Salt Lake City MSA,which includes Salt Lake County, Summit County, and Tooele County. This primary market has a population of approximately 1.1 million residents. The secondary market consists of all or parts of several other surrounding communities in Davis County,Morgan County, Utah County,Weber County, and Wasatch County. The secondary market is defined as those residents within 50 miles of downtown Salt Lake City which are not included in the primary market. This HVS Convention,Sports&Entertainment Salt Lake City—Cultural District Market Study Executive Summary 1-2 secondary market has a population of approximately 800,000 additional residents. The visitor market is defined as all visitors who originate from at least 50 miles away. Personal income levels are approximately $26,900 per capita in the Salt Lake MSA. This is lower than the national average of about$28,600 per capita. Two demographic factors that help to explain this variance are household sizes and the average age of the local population. In the Salt Lake MSA the average household size of 3.1 people is much larger than the national average of 2.6 people. The local population is also much younger than the national average. The average age in the Salt Lake MSA is only 31.5 years compared to the national average of 36.2 years. The Salt Lake market area has exhibited relatively rapid population growth. Per Capita incomes are relatively low compared to national averages, partly due to large family sizes and a younger population in the subject market area. A good system of highway transportation serves the broader Salt Lake region well. The Salt Lake International Airport provides adequate commercial air service to most major urban destinations across the country. Strong market growth and good transportation infrastructure are important components in the development of a successful cultural district. Comparable Districts HVS reviewed several existing arts and culture districts around the country. In particular, we studied cultural districts in Denver, Milwaukee, and Pittsburgh. The Denver Center for the Performing arts anchors a concentrated downtown area called the Scientific and Cultural Facilities District. This district includes 11 performance theaters with approximately 11,300 seats in roughly a four square block area. In 2005 a combination of City issued debt and private donations helped fund a $92 million redevelopment of the Ellie Caulkins Opera House in downtown Denver. The Milwaukee Center District includes a cultural and theater area called the Downtown Theatre District. This district has nine theaters that offer approximately 8,400 seats in a concentrated downtown area. The Milwaukee Center District owns and operates these theaters. In 2003 the restored Milwaukee Theatre opened,financed through limited obligation bonds issued on behalf of the Milwaukee Center District at a cost of nearly$42 million. HVS Convention,Sports&Entertainment Salt Lake City—Cultural District Market Study Executive Summary 1-3 A Heinz endowment of $20 million helped to create the Pittsburgh Cultural Trust (the "Trust") in 1984. Since then the Trust has served as an arts agency as well as a real estate and economic development organization. It has been instrumental in buying, renovating, and building facilities in downtown Pittsburgh to create a 14 block area along the Allegheny River known as the Pittsburgh Cultural District (the "Cultural District"). The Cultural District includes five major performing arts facilities in addition to numerous buildings that contain restaurants, cafes, galleries, retail, parking, and other patron amenities. HVS also evaluated market characteristics of these comparable communities for comparison with Salt Lake City. Compared to other major metropolitan communities with existing cultural districts, some key strengths of the Salt Lake City market are its income distribution characteristics, educational attainment levels,and the rate of population growth. Industry Trends HVS reviewed trends in participation rates in several performing arts categories. The National Endowment for the Arts ("NEA") conducts a Survey of Public Participation in the Arts. The most recent survey was completed in 2002. The NEA has conducted the survey every 10 years, dating back to 1982. Key findings from the survey data indicate trends in what percentage of the national population attends certain performances in a typical year and how many times people attend each performance category. Table 1-1 shows national participation rates in several key performing arts categories. Table 1-1 Historical Participation Rates in Performing Arts Performing Arts Category 1982 1992 2002 Ballet 4.2% 4.7% 3.9% Classical Music 13.0% 12.5% 11.6% Musical Plays 18.6% 17.4% 17.1% Non-Musical Plays 11.9% 13.5% 12.3% Opera 3.0% 3.3% 3.2% Other Dance' N/A 7.1% 6.3% I "Other Dance"refers to dance other than ballet,such as folk and modern. Source:National Endowment for the Arts HVS Convention,Sports&Entertainment Salt Lake City—Cultural District Market Study Executive Summary 1-4 In the United States more people attend musicals than any of the other selected performing art category. Non-musical plays and classical music also have fairly broad audience appeal. In contrast, ballet and opera have more specialized audience niches. A small percentage of the population attends ballet or opera. Table 1-2 shows the annual frequency of attending different performing arts categories, based on survey responses. Data measuring the frequency of participation in the arts only goes back to 1992,as shown below. Table 1-2 Average Annual Number of Attendances by Participants Attendances Attendances Performing Arts Category Per Year Per Year (1992) (2002) Ballet 1.7 1.7 Classical Music 2.6 3.1 Musical Plays 2.3 2.3 Non-Musical Plays 2.4 2.3 Opera 1.7 2.0 Other Dance 3.0 2.0 Source:National Endowment for the Arts Arts participants attend classical music events 3.1 times per year, which is more frequently than any other type of performance, according to recent survey data. In contrast,ballet audiences reported going to approximately 1.7 ballet performances on average in 2002. Most performing arts categories are able to attract their audience to an average of between two and three performances each year. Inventory of Supply HVS reviewed local area facilities and interviewed dozens of arts organizations located throughout the Salt Lake market area. The report highlights both physical structures and the groups that utilize these venues. Table 1-3 shows a list of existing performing arts facilities located in Salt Lake County. HVS Convention,Sports&Entertainment Salt Lake City—Cultural District Market Study Executive Summary 1-5 Table 1-3 Current Inventory of Performing Arts Facilities Salt Lake County Facilities Church of Latter-Day Saints Venues Abravenel Hall Assembly Hall Capitol Theatre Conference Center Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center Other Facilities Salt Lake Art Center Depot at the Gateway University of Utah Facilities Draper Historic Theater Babcock Eccles Center for the Performing Arts Gardner Hall Grand Theatre Kingsbury Hall Hale Center Theater Lab Theatre John W.Gallivan Center Simmons Pioneer Memorial Theatre Off-Broadway Theare Salt Lake Acting Company Theatre Salt Lake City Mainbranch Library Sources:Salt Lake County Center for the Arts,Salt Lake City&HVS The existing inventory of performing arts facilities supports a broad range of ballet, chamber music, contemporary dance, drama, musical, opera, and symphony performances. Three of the largest downtown facilities include Abravenel Hall, the Capitol Theatre, and the Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center. The County owns and operates these three facilities. Kingsbury Hall is another large venue,owned and operated by the University of Utah. Table 1-4 shows a list of performing arts groups HVS identified in Salt Lake County, with help from City, County, and University representatives. HVS interviewed several of these groups. HVS Convention,Sports&Entertainment Salt Lake City—Cultural District Market Study Executive Summary 1-6 Table 1-4 Performing Arts Groups Arts Organization Classification Venue Ballet West Ballet Capitol Theatre Broadway&Utah Musical Theatre Capitol Theatre,Kingsbury Hall Brolly Arts Non-musical Plays Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center Chamber Music Society of Utah Classical Musical Garner Hall Childrens Dance Theatre Other Dance Capitol Theater,Rose Wagner Performing Arts Centel Grand Theatre Muiscals&Plays Grand Theatre(Community College) Hale Theatre Musicals&Plays Hale Theatre Kingsbury Hall Presents Presenter Kingsbury Hall Jubilate Classical Music Salt Lake City Recital Hall,St.Paul Episcopal Church LDS Church Religious,Various Auditorium,Assembly Hall,Conference Center Museum of Fine Arts Exhibits Museum of Fine Arts(University) Odyssey Dance Other Dance Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center,Kingsbury Hall Pioneer Theatre Company Musicals&Plays Pioneer Theatre Plan B Theater Company Non-musical Plays Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center Pygmalion Productions Theatre Company Non-musical Plays Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center Repertory Dance Theatre Other Dance Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center Ririe-Woodbury Dance Company Other Dance Capitol Theatre,Rose Wagner Performing Arts center Salt Lake Acting Company Non-musical Plays Salt Lake Acting Company Stage Salt Lake Art Center Education/Exhibits Salt Lake Art Center(downtown) Salt Lake City Film Center Film Library Theatre,Broadway Theater,Tower Theater Salt Lake Film Society Film Broadway Theater,Tower Theater Salt Lake Men's Choir Classical Music Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center SB Dance Other Dance Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center Sundance Institute Film Variety Tooth&Nail Theatre Company Non-musical Plays Rose Wagner Performing Arts Center University of Utah(Associated Students) Non-musical Plays Kingsbury Hall Utah Museum of Art&History Exhibits Utah Museum of Art&History(downtown) Utah Symphony Classical Music Abravenel Hall Utah Opera Opera Abravenel Hall Viva Voce Classical Music Garner Hall Sources:Salt Lake County Center for the Arts,Downtown Alliance,Salt Lake City HVS This list includes many of the performing arts groups and venues tracked by Salt Lake County and ArtTix. While these groups produce the majority of attendance for the selected performing arts categories analyzed in this report, HVS acknowledges this is not a complete list of all performing arts groups in the Salt Lake market area. Demand Potential Perhaps the most common measure of demand potential is annual attendance. Using our findings about industry trends and participation rates combined with local market research for the Salt Lake market area, HVS estimated demand potential in several performing arts categories. These HVS Convention,Sports&Entertainment Salt Lake City-Cultural District Market Study Executive Summary 1-7 demand potential figures are based on current market conditions for the Salt Lake area. Table 1-5 shows our calculations of annual demand potential for the Salt Lake market in several performing arts categories. Table 1-5 Demand Potential for Performing Arts Primary Secondary Total Demand Event Category Market Market Visitor Market Potential Ballet 49,091 29,986 9,149 88,227 Classical Music 289,589 177,484 49,625 516,697 Musical Plays 274,014 170,524 54,275 498,813 Non-Musical Plays 192,790 120,497 39,040 352,327 Opera 71,355 43,506 8,832 123,693 Other Dance 117,932 73,906 17,388 209,226 Source:HVS International Local demographics, regional arts participation rates, and national industry trends suggest substantial potential for demand in these performing arts categories. The performance categories with the greatest popularity or broadest appeal include classical music, musicals, and plays. Even ballet, opera,and dance show significant demand potential in Salt Lake City. Table 1-6 compares estimated demand potential with estimates of actual ticket demand in the Salt Lake market area, based on attendance data from individual venues,performance groups,and Salt Lake County. Table 1-6 Comparison of Demand Potential& Recorded Demand Event Category Recorded Demand %of Growth Demand Potential Potential Potential Ballet 70,000 88,200 79% 18,200 Classical Music* 415,200 516,700 80% 101,500 Musical Plays 387,199 498,800 78% 111,601 Non-musical Plays 175,368 352,300 50% 176,932 Opera 116,000 123,700 94% 7,700 Other Dance 84,758 209,200 41% 124,442 *Attendance data from the LDS Church was not available at the time of this study. category. Sources:Arts Groups,ArtTix,HVS,Salt Lake County HVS Convention,Sports&Entertainment Salt Lake City—Cultural District Market Study Executive Summary 1-8 Each of the selected performing arts categories exhibits some growth potential in the Salt Lake market area. The categories exhibiting the greatest potential for demand growth are non-musical plays, other dance, and musical plays. Although HVS does not interpret these measures of growth potential as a strict indicator of how much additional demand new facilities might induce to the market, these findings are nonetheless a useful guide for determining which performing arts categories are most likely to represent opportunities for growth. Facility Program Recommendations Daniel P. Coffey &Associates assisted HVS in our review of existing facilities and provided input concerning the recommended facility program for the proposed cultural district in downtown Salt Lake City. Based on our market findings and architectural input, HVS recommends the development of the following: three small black box theaters,with audience capacities between 60 and 125 seats; six or more flexible support spaces for use as studios, rehearsal space, classrooms, storage, and possibly banquets; a reduction of seats in the Capitol Theatre from approximately 1,800 to approximately 1,500, thereby increasing comfort and improving sightlines; a flexible mid-sized theater with approximately 800 seats on the main floor and up to 1,400 seats total, including luxury boxes and balcony seating; a large theater with approximately 2,400 seats suitable for major Broadway productions as well as large ballet, opera, and entertainment performances. HVS recommends the development of these cultural assets in a close geographic area to help form a district proximate other downtown cultural assets such as the Capitol Theatre and the Utah Theatre. Attendance Projections Based on our market findings, facility recommendations, and our understanding of the industry HVS calculated attendance projections for the proposed mid-sized theater and the proposed large theater. We also project the number of performances that correspond with attendance projections. Table 1-7 summarizes HVS projections for the proposed mid-sized theater in downtown Salt Lake City. HVS Convention,Sports&Entertainment Salt Lake City—Cultural District Market Study Executive Summary 1-9 Table 1-7 Attendance Projections Mid-Size Theater Base Year Large Theater Base Year Number of Performances Number of Performances Chamber Music Series 12 Ballet 20 Concerts 8 Concerts 10 Special Events/Other 20 Family Shows 8 Musical&Non-Musical Plays 105 Musicals 120 Opera 24 Opera 6 Other Dance 10 Special Events/Other 4 Total Annual Events 179 Total Annual Events 168 Average Attendance Average Attendance Chamber Music Series 750 Ballet 1,700 Concerts 650 Concerts 2,300 Special Events/Other 700 Family Shows 2,200 Musical&Non-Musical Plays 900 Musicals 2,100 Opera 1,400 Opera 1,900 Other Dance 800 Special Events/Other 2,000 Total Attendance Total Attendance Chamber Music Series 9,000 Ballet 34,000 Concerts 5,200 Concerts 23,000 Special Events/Other 14,000 Family Shows 17,600 Musical&Non-Musical Plays 94,500 Musicals 252,000 Opera 33,600 Opera 11,400 Other Dance 8,000 Special Events/Other 8,000 Total Annual Attendance 164,300 Total Annual Attendance 346,000 HVS projects demand for approximately 179 performances and 164,000 attendees in a stable operating year for the proposed mid-sized theater. We project demand for approximately 168 performances and 346,000 attendees for the proposed large theater. Financial Operations HVS provides an analysis of financial operations at the proposed theaters. For the purposes of this study, we assume both the mid-sized theater and large theater will be developed simultaneously and will be managed and operated by Salt Lake County's Community Services Department. We based our financial analysis on historical operations at existing County facilities, proprietary financial data from comparable theaters, discussions with County officials, and our own internal proprietary financial models. HVS projects an annual operating deficit of approximately $130,000 for the proposed mid- sized theater and annual operating income of approximately$300,000 for the proposed large theater. A detailed discussion of financial assumptions and projections is provided near the end of this report. MEMORANDUM DATE: February 9,2006 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Trax Connection—Delta Center to Intermodal Hub CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, DJ Baxter, Louis Zunguze, Alex Ikefuna, Tim Harpst, Gary Mumford, Mary Guy-Sell,Doug Dansie,Ralph Jackson This memorandum pertains to issues that may be raised in a February 14 briefmg about the proposed light-rail connection between the Delta Center Trax station at South Temple and 400 West streets and the Intermodal Hub at 200 South and 600 West streets. Representatives from the Utah Transit Authority as well as Mayor Ross C.Anderson's Administration are expected to attend the briefmg. The briefmg is in advance of a scheduled February 21 public hearing on the issue. This memorandum contains a number of attachments that may be pertinent to the discussion. KEY POINTS • The key issue before the City Council might be whether it is in Salt Lake City's interest to pursue immediate construction of two light-rail stations between the Delta Center Trax station at South Temple and 400 West streets and the Intermodal Hub at 200 South and 600 West streets. • According to a number of representations from UTA officials, the transit agency now appears to agree with Mayor Ross C.Anderson's Administration that two stations should be built along the planned connection and that the first station to be built would be at 125 South 400 West—with some caveats. • The Administration's written transmittal indicated that City and UTA officials agreed two stations should be built along the connection but that they disagreed on which station should be built first. • However, according to a letter from UTA received Friday, the transit agency's main concerns now center on completing agreements—including accords on funding the project—between the City and UTA by the end of April and finishing construction of the light-rail connection by late 2007. (Please see Attachment No. 1.) • The Administration's transmittal contains a proposed resolution authorizing the extension of the light-rail system and the addition of two new stations at 525 West 200 South and 125 South 400 West, pursuant to Planning Division Petition No. 400-04-52. The City and UTA filed the petition. (Please see Attachment No. 2.) • If the City Council adopts the proposed resolution after the February 21 public hearing, significant details would remain to be worked out. The details include negotiation of an interlocal agreement addressing issues outlined in the Utah 1 Transit Authority letter such as budget, funding, and construction management of the proposed Trax extension; potential negotiation of criteria which, when met, would trigger construction of the second station; and negotiation of a public-way use agreement to grant UTA the use of City streets and related property. • UTA has indicated that it would like to have the proposed extension ready to operate when UTA's commuter rail line between Ogden and Salt Lake City opens. UTA's publicly stated deadline for the commuter rail line to open is sometime between May and September 2008. However, the UTA letter indicates a potential for the commuter rail line to open in late 2007. MATTERS AT ISSUE/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION • Again,UTA now appears to agree that two stations should be built on the proposed light-rail extension and that the first station built should be at 125 South 400 West. • UTA's position on construction of a second station at 525 West 200 South appears to be that an interlocal agreement would contain negotiated criteria involving ridership numbers and development that would determine when the second station would be built. However, there has been some oral indication from UTA officials that initial construction of the Trax extension could include construction of a concrete base for the second station so that, in effect, everything except a station's "street furniture" might be included in initial construction. UTA's position raises two points: o Previous interlocal agreements between the City and UTA have included definitions of what would be "betterments"to light-rail projects. In the Main Street to University project, "betterment"was defined as "any change in the Project requested by any Stakeholder other than UTA after the execution of the ... contract where the total of the changes requested within the same change order results in a net increase to the contract price for the Project ..."(Please see Attachment No. 3.)It should be noted that the Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency financed construction of the light-rail station on 900 South 200 West. A question is then: How much of the proposed second station would be considered a "betterment?" o Criteria for determining the appropriate level of riders has not been negotiated. The approach to the criteria could determine whether the second station would open for operation in the near future or the distant future. • Operators of the Gateway Mall parking garage and some Capitol Hill residents have voiced concerns over locating a light-rail station at 125 South 400 West. Mall parking operators have voiced concerns over the effect on northbound vehicles' ability to turn left on 400 South into a parking garage. Some Capitol Hill residents have voiced concerns over the potential of a light-rail station to slow southbound automobile traffic on 400 West Street to the point where vehicles start to flow through residential neighborhoods. o City Council staff has encouraged the Administration to request a written response from the Gateway Mall parking operators about their position pertaining to a light-rail station at 125 South 400 West. o The Administration is prepared to provide addition information on the potential effect a station would have on southbound automobile traffic 2 along 400 West. It should be noted that the Transportation Advisory Board considered the issue in 2004. • UTA officials have indicated that the letter to Salt Lake City from the Transit Authority is the Authority's position for negotiation of an interlocal agreement between the City and UTA. • Besides agreement on the construction of a station at 125 South 400 West the letter proposes: • That all agreements between the City and UTA be signed by the end of April. • That the connection between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub be finished by the end of 2007. • That construction costs for the project be borne in the following way: 28 percent Salt Lake City, 28 percent UTA,44 percent federal dollars. • That Salt Lake City's financial exposure would be about$8.5 million. • That Salt Lake City turn over ownership of the Intermodal Hub at 600 South 200 West to UTA. • The apparent change in UTA's previous positions raises some questions to consider: • As a matter of public policy is it in Salt Lake City's best interest to have the two stations built simultaneously, or should the second one be built at a later date? ■ Would it cost more to build a second station simultaneously and operate it, or to build a second station at a later date? • As a matter of public policy, should Salt Lake City pay construction costs for the second station or operating costs? (UTA estimates it would cost$1 million to build a station, and $150,000 to operate and maintain it.) • As a matter of public policy, is it in Salt Lake City's best interest to turn over ownership of the Intermodal Hub to UTA? ■ Although UTA appears to have revised its previous position, are there issues involving businesses and residents near the proposed 400 West Street station that need to be addressed? • City Council Members previously have heard arguments in favor of a single light-rail station. To what extent are the issues raised previously mitigated by new information or information that the City Council was not previously aware of? Background Issues involving the proposed light-rail connection between the Delta Center Trax station at South Temple and 400 West streets and the Intermodal Hub at 200 South and 600 West streets appear to have moved rapidly in the past several weeks. The issue in a variety of respects appears to remain fluid. It should be noted that the UTA letter attached to this memorandum and Administration transmittal reflects the position of the UTA Planning and Development Committee and UTA administrators. The full UTA Board of Trustees has yet to take a formal position. The Planning and Development Committee is made up of UTA Board Members. 3 It also should be noted again that the City Council briefing scheduled for February 14 originally was scheduled to address issues involving the number, the location of stations along the proposed light-rail connection between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub, and the timing of their construction. Although UTA appears to have moved toward placing a higher priority on other issues involved in the project, the number of stations and when they should be built are part of budgetary issues and issues of joint or separate responsibilities of the City and UTA. To recap, a connection between the Intermodal Hub at 600 West 200 South and the light- rail system has been contemplated for a number of years. According to the September 1, 1998 study Salt Lake City Intermodal Center Final Environmental Assessment by the Sear-Brown Group methods of connecting the Intermodal Hub to the light-rail system included high frequency bus shuttles and extending the light-rail system to the Intermodal Hub. (Please see Attachment No. 4.) The Administration and UTA have discussed issues involved in Petition No. 400-04-52 for about two years. The Salt Lake City Transportation Advisory Board voted to support the concept of a light-rail extension with two stations running in the middle of 400 West Street and 200 South Street in 2004.The Salt Lake City Planning Commission adopted a motion on November 30,2005, to recommend that two stations be built as part of the development of the connection. However, the Planning Commission recommended that the option of building one station first and the other later be considered. As late as November 22, 2005,UTA appeared to support construction of a single station on 200 South Street east of 500 West Street. (Please see letter UTA letter to Planning Commission in Planning Division Staff Report, Section 6 titled Intermodal Hub Trax Extension Analysis Report.)According to the Administration transmittal, the transit agency revised its position more recently to support a two-station,phased concept. However, the Administration and the transit agency differed on which station should be built first—UTA advocated building the station at 525 West 200 South first; the Administration favored building a station at 125 South 400 West first, according to the transmittal. As of the writing of this memorandum,UTA appears to agree that the station at 125 South 400 West should be built first. Budgetary matters may not have been contemplated for the February 14 briefing,but in light of UTA's letter outlining its position on the project, it might be worth noting that most preliminary figures estimate construction of the project at roughly$30 million to $33 million. It should be noted that the figures include construction costs of building two stations. If the proposed shares of construction costs become 28 percent City, 28 percent UTA, and 44 percent federal funding, Salt Lake City's share of the total cost could be about$7.5 million to $8.5 million. It should be noted that the Administration has estimated construction cost at$9 million,to include the potential for inflation at a rate of 10 percent. Of that, the City has about$2.4 million in Redevelopment Agency funds already allocated, and$2 million in funds through a UTA cash contribution from about 2001. The Administration has requested roughly another$4.1 million in funds in the 10-Year Capital Improvement Program. The request is broken down roughly as $1.8 million in Class C Road funds for improvements to 200 South Street, $1.15 million in RDA funding, and$1.15 million from the City's general fund. It should be noted that the$4.1 million request actually is projected to help pay off$6.5 million the City lent to the Intermodal Hub enterprise fund from the general fund in 1999. 4 U T A Attachment No. 1 February 10, 2006 Salt Lake City Council City& County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Re: Intermodal Hub and TRAX Connection Dear Council Members: Salt Lake City and UTA have been working together over the past several years to design, construct and operate the Intermodal Hub at 600 West and 300 South along with the light rail transit (LRT)TRAX Connection between the Hub and the existing Delta Center LRT Station. Recent discussion has focused on several issues including project schedule, agency funding participation and number of stations. Presented in the following sections of this letter is the UTA position with respect to each of these issues. As outlined below, it is of critical •mportance to UTA that decisions regarding these matters be made quickly so that the Intermodal Hub and TRAX Connection can be completed in time for revenue operation when commuter rail begins service. I.HISTORY When Salt Lake City (City) made the decision to shorten the viaducts coming into downtown for economic and development opportunities, it became necessary to relocate the Amtrak operation from Rio Grande Station. After considerable study and deliberation, the decision was made to create a new Intermodal Hub on the west side of 600 West between 200 South and 400 South. This new location also required that rail operations of both Union Pacific and Amtrak would need to be adjusted and a new light rail connection to the existing TRAX line would be required. The City entered into an interlocal agreement(ILA) with UTA to facilitate federal funding participation in the project. A letter of no prejudice (LONP) for approximately$40 million was secured from the Federal Transit Administration (FTA). An LONP grants the recipient authority to incur costs without prejudice prior to future Federal Grant approval. The authority to incur costs however does not constitute an FTA commitment that future Federal funds will be approved or authorized for the project. Included in the LONP was a budget of$12 million to design and construct a several block LRT TRAX connection to the Intermodal Hub from 400 West along 200 South to the Hub on 600 West. It was agreed in the ILA between the City and UTA that the Hub and TRAX Connection would be funded with FTA bus grants and the City would fund the local match. FTA bus grant funds would pay 80 percent with the City providing the remaining 20 percent local share. However, FTA does not guarantee the source of funding nor its matching ratio. No funding was assumed from UTA. UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY 3600 SOUTH 700 WEST (84119) P. O. BOX 30810 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84130-0810 TEL. 801.262.5626 www.rideuta.com Initial planning for the West/East light rail transit (LRT) line was based on a corridor that extended from the University of Utah to Salt Lake City International Airport. It was decided that the LRT line would run along 400 South to 400 West, north on 400 West to North Temple and then west along North Temple to the Airport. An environmental Record of Decision was obtained for the planned West/East alignment. As the West/East LRT line was eventually implemented, it did not extend along 400 South west of Main Street. No LRT line was therefore built along 400 West as originally planned. It therefore became necessary for the LRT TRAX Connection to include not only the segments on 600 West and 200 South,but also the segment along 400 West between 200 South and South Temple. Funding for the segment along 400 West, however, was not included in the original ILA budget for the Intermodal Hub. The City has proceeded over the past several years to construct facilities at the Intermodal Hub. The cost to date has been approximately$22 million. Greyhound commenced operation from the Hub location in August of 2005. Amtrak has been operating out of a temporary station along 600 West at the south end of the Hub site. UTA began operating local bus service to the Hub in December of 2005. The original LONP expired October 31, 2005. A new LONP was negotiated with FTA for$45 million total Federal and local matching funds which included $30.5 million for the entire length of the Hub TRAX Connection along 600 West, 200 South and 400 West. Initially, FTA took the position that bus grant funds could be used to construct the Intermodal Hub,but not for construction of the TRAX Connection. Based on further discussion, FTA accepted a funding proposal submitted by UTA that allows bus funds to be applied to construction of the 600 West portion of the TRAX Connection. Environmental clearance for this TRAX Connection has been approved by FTA. While the new LONP was being negotiated, UTA submitted a request to FTA to allow the use of approximately $5 million total (Federal and local UTA) in unused funding for the Medical Center LRT Extension in order to construct a storage track along 400 West. In January of 2006, UTA received notice that the grant amendment was approved. II. SCHEDULE UTA is currently constructing a commuter rail line from Weber County to the Intermodal Hub in Salt Lake City. This project is scheduled to be completed by September of 2008 or earlier. Depending upon winter weather conditions and construction progress, it is possible that commuter rail operation to the Hub could open in late 2007. Recent agreement has apparently been reached to construct the track realignment project in the vicinity of Grant Tower simultaneously with the commuter rail project. UTA considers it critical to have the Intermodal TRAX connection in place at the time that commuter rail commences operation to the Hub. UTA also believes that this is the City's desire. It is therefore of great importance that a mutual agreement be reached in the very near future on funding and responsibility for completing the design and constructing the Hub TRAX Connection. Delay resulting from lack of agreement on schedule, funding and stations may have already foreclosed some of the options for completing final design and construction of the TRAX Connection. UTA is prepared to work with the City to achieve the objective of having the TRAX Connection in operation by late 2007. Decisions regarding schedule, funding and stations need to be incorporated into an ILA by April 2 2006 in order to move forward with the project and open in time to meet the anticipated Commuter Rail schedule in late 2007. The critical milestones to achieve this objective follow: • Interlocal Agreement April 20, 2006 • Advertise for Construction April 30, 2006 • Start Construction July 15, 2006 • Substantial Completion Late 2007 III. FUNDING FOR THE LRT TRAX CONNECTION Under the current ILA, the City is responsible for the estimated full $30.5 million (or whatever the actual costs are to construct the project) and then working together with UTA in seeking annual Federal matching funds to reimburse the City for up to 80% of the project cost. Past Federal grants have ranged from$1 to 3.5 million per year. The FY06 appropriation is $1.5 million. Currently the City has over matched the project by approximately$4 million plus the costs of the current ongoing design efforts of$1.7 million. Short falls in Federal grant reimbursements have been covered by the City. Financing costs have been absorbed by the City because they are not allowable for grant reimbursement. The City's commitment for the project under the current ILA would require the obligation of an additional $25.5 million; $30.5 million less UTA's pledge of$5 million in Medical Center funds. Assuming that the Federal funds continue to be appropriated at an average estimated amount of$2 million per year, the time value of money or finance cost that the City will have to absorb could be in the range of approximately$7.5 million. Since the Federal appropriations amount can not be guaranteed and a new LONP will need to be received from ETA every 5 years, there is inherent risk in determining the actual costs to the City. UTA and the City have been working for some time to establish an alternative funding strategy for the LRT TRAX Connection from the Hub to the Delta Center. A funding proposal was developed and submitted to FTA in the Spring of 2005. This proposal was accepted by FTA as the basis for transferring $5 million of remaining Medical Center funds to the TRAX Connection on 400 West. Under this proposal, the federal share is 44 percent. The local share is split with 28 percent (approximately$8.5 million) from the City and 28 percent from UTA. A new ILA will need to be executed between the City and UTA in order to incorporate this revised funding approach, Based on the most current cost estimate, the $8.5 million in local share that would be paid by the City is approximately equal to the cost of design and construction for 200 South. This amount is also approximately equal to the estimated cost for street reconstruction and utilities for the entire alignment. Funds provided by UTA and FTA would pay for design and construction of the LRT TRAX portion of the project. It should be acknowledged that the delay in moving this project forward has already escalated the costs. In fact, the design team has now estimated that the $30.5 million cost estimate that was performed last May 2005 based upon 35% completed plans has now increased by 5 to 10 percent due to the inflating construction climate and the escalating costs of materials. As the design progresses, estimates may again be higher due to advancement of the design, continuing delays, and escalating material costs and will only be known when the design team completes an updated cost estimate. The current design includes some betterments that may have to be deleted or deferred from the project to meet the budget. Once a baseline scope and budget for the project is agreed to in 3 the ILA, any betterments or desires beyond the baseline will need to be deleted, deferred or otherwise paid for at the requesting agencies expense. As discussed earlier, UTA and the City Staff have developed an alternative funding proposal to the one contained in the current ILA. This proposal is based upon UTA and the City each funding approximately 28 percent of the project with the remaining 44 percent of the funding coming from FTA. UTA recommends this funding assignment or split of costs with the City as it is consistent with the funding proposal already submitted to FTA. Under this alternative funding proposal, UTA would assume the City's risk of getting reimbursed by FTA for the federal share of the funding. In exchange for assuming this greater funding responsibility and the inherent risk in timing and securing future federal funding appropriations, UTA would assume control of the LRT TRAX connection project, ownership of the Hub from the City, and complete the remaining Hub plaza and other project improvements. The City would be reimbursed for its current overmatch from future Federal funds as agreed to in the ILA. UTA would pay the construction and financing costs for the TRAX portion of the project and future project improvements to the Intermodal Hub. Under this proposal, the City would have no further financial obligation beyond the approximately $8.5 million to construct the roadway and utility elements of the project. IV. POTENTIAL RIDERSHIP RELATED TO INTERMEDIATE LRT STATIONS The Hub TRAX Connection will have a terminal station at the Hub on 600 West south of 300 South. The TRAX Connection will connect to the existing Delta Center Station on South Temple at 400 West. There has been considerable analysis and discussion regarding the number of intermediate stations between the Hub and the Delta Center. UTA submitted a letter to the Planning Commission in December of 2005 recommending a single station on 200 South between 400 West and 500 West. The City prefers two stations with one at 125 South 400 West and the second at 525 West 200 South. Based on analysis and discussions that have taken place since the presentation to the Planning Commission, UTA is prepared to agree to two stations along the TRAX Connection with one being constructed initially and the second to be completed at a future date. UTA is prepared to support the station at 125 South 400 West as the first station with the station at 525 West 200 South to be constructed some time in the future. Criteria would be established in the new ILA stipulating when the second station would be constructed. The UTA Board of Directors has established policies and goals related to investment per rider(IPR) and total transit ridership. It is UTA's position that to initially construct and operate two intermediate stations along the LRT TRAX Connection would not generate sufficient ridership to be consistent with established goals and objectives; it would be dictating to UTA to operate an inefficient transit system. The second intermediate station should therefore not be constructed until sufficient development has occurred to generate additional ridership that would meet UTA ridership and IPR goals. To determine the eligibility of the second station today, UTA has analyzed the number of jobs that the 525 West 200 South second station would add to the number of jobs within a 1/a mile walk distance of the first station. The results of this analysis indicate that presently there would be less than 300 added jobs within 1/4 mile walk distance of the second station, resulting in perhaps 150 new riders per day. However, the models also indicate that this new stop would reduce the commuter rail riders by 75 per day, thus there would be only 75 net new riders;fit the second station when the TRAX Connection starts operation. Commuter rail passengers would likely be frustrated riding TRAX trains that stop at a station with few or no passengers getting on or off. 4 In addition to the concern about low passenger boardings at the second station, UTA has also completed analysis that indicates a reduction in cost effectiveness for the system with the minimal passenger activity at the second station. This is because the low potential ridership does not justify the added capital and operating costs that would be involved. Based on these findings, UTA is not prepared to provide funds for construction and operation of the second station. V. BUS SHUTTLE SYSTEM UTA has analyzed the requirements for a bus shuttle system should the LRT TRAX Connection not be built in time for the opening of commuter rail. UTA currently operates buses and routes in the downtown area that could be modified to serve the Intermodal Hub. UTA remains committed to constructing and operating the LRT TRAX Connection between the Intermodal Hub and the Delta Center. However, if agreement with the City regarding funding, schedule and stations cannot be reached in time to meet the scheduled opening of commuter rail, UTA is prepared to operate a bus system that would provide a circulation system to Downtown for commuter rail passengers. VI. RECOMMENDATION UTA looks forward to working with the City Council and staff in order to reach an agreement for the design and construction of the TRAX Connection to the Hub so that light rail will be in service when the commuter trains roll into downtown Salt Lake City. As documented in this letter, UTA has recommended appropriate solutions to the questions of schedule, funding and stations for the project. Although UTA has no responsibility for participating in funding of the Intermodal Hub and TRAX Connection under the current ILA, UTA is willing to provide up to 28 percent of the project funding along with assuming responsibility and risk for seeking reimbursement over time from FTA for the 44 percent federal portion of the project. This proposal is contingent, however, on UTA assuming ownership of the Intermodal Hub in return for the additional risk and investment in the project. Due to the limited time now remaining to design and construct the Intermodal Hub TRAX Connection, it is imperative that agreement between the City and UTA be reached immediately and incorporated into a new ILA between the parties. If such an agreement cannot be reached on the schedule discussed above, UTA is prepared to provide the alternative of a bus shuttle system to transport commuter rail riders to downtown and the University. UTA looks forward to working with the City to address these issues and move forward with this important project that will provide enhanced transportation access and promote future development for Downtown Salt Lake City. • ely, n M. General Manager/CEO 5 Attachment No. 2 RESOLUTION NO. OF 2005 AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF THE LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM AND THE ADDITION OF TWO NEW STATIONS AT 525 WEST 200 SOUTH AND 125 SOUTH 400 WEST, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-04-52 WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has constructed (or is constructing) an intermodal hub to facilitate bus, light rail and commuter rail users; and WHEREAS, in order to make bus, light rail and commuter rail systems work together, the existing light rail must be extended from its current terminus to the intermodal hub; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has studied the matter and has decided that this resolution is in the best interest of the City. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows : 1 . Extension of the light rail line from its current terminus to the intermodal hub is approved; and 2 . The City Council does hereby approve the construction of two (2) additional light rail stations at approximately 525 West 200 South and 125 South 400 West; and 3 . The Salt Lake City administration is hereby authorized to negotiate and draft an agreement with the Utah Transit Authority that is consistent with this resolution. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of March, 2005 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt a City ttorneys Office Date CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER By . IARESOLUTAInterlocal re 200 West and 400 West TRAX Stations-12-07-05 draft Attachment No.3 Part 10, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and the Interlocal Cooperation Act, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. NOW, THEREFORE, for and in consideration of the premises, and for other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, UTA, the City, UDOT and the University do hereby agree as follows: SECTION 1. DEFINITIONS "Betterment"means any change in the Project requested by any Stakeholder other than UTA after the execution of the Design/Build Contract where the total of the changes requested within the same change order result in a net increase to the contract price for the Project under the Design/Build Contract; provided, however,that the term Betterment shall not include: (i) any change which is required to bring a facility into compliance with any then-applicable code provision or other applicable standard; (ii) any measures taken to mitigate environmental impacts identified in UTA's Environmental Impact Report or Statement, or other environmental mitigation measures required by the Project; (iii) any repair or replacement of an existing facility damaged or disturbed as a result of the Project; (iv) any change reasonably required to implement a Performance Specification or to implement the System properly or in a manner consistent with the Performance Specifications; or(v)any change necessary to give effect to the reasonably discernable intent of the Stakeholders. "City" means Salt Lake City Corporation, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah. "City Council" means the elected council of the City. "CCT" means the Community Coordination Team established pursuant to Section 7 of this LRT Agreement. 2 Salt Lake City Interrnodal Center Project No. 13611 September - Attachment No. 4 < , '' ` Joint Development Opportunity. The opportunity to provide joint development in conjunction with the Salt Lake City Intermodal Center is I' very important in the overall success of the center. Joint development provides the potential revenue generation that will offset operation and maintenance (O&M) costs and provides for a more attractive j system. • Intermodal System Integration. Intermodal system integration refers to the ability of the Intermodal Center to become integrated with the other transportation modes available in the study area. In this case, it refers to the ability of the transit connection to provide a "seamless" connection to the RCR, the N/S LRT alignment and proposed W/E LRT alignment and the existing bus system. t • Parking Requirements. A successful transit connection for the Intermodal Center will lead to a decrease in the overall demand . . for parking for both the CBD and Gateway areas. This decrease in overall demand is due to the ability ?'I`:f r � `- of the transit connection to maintain the "seamless" transfer of modes, thus increasing ridership and reducing parking demand. • Construction Impacts �: The impacts during construction and implementation of the transit connection will be important in determining the timeframe in which the system can become operational and play an important role in the overall perception of the project. _' , • Air Pollution/Noise Impacts Two of the main environmental impacts of any transit/transportation project are the impacts of the preferred alternative on air and noise pollution. • Capital/Operation&Maintenance Costs In order to determine the impacts of Capital and O&M costs for the different alternatives, an independent analysis was conducted by UTA to compare these modes of-transit connectivity. This - analysis was performed for a high frequency bus shuttle system and an LRT connection both with and without the proposed W/E LRT alignment. Based on these criteria, the analysis evaluated LRT and local bus options linking the Salt Lake City E i `- Intermodal Center at 200 South 600 West to the Salt Lake City CBD and includes High Frequency Bus Shuttle,LRT extension and No Build alternatives. B.1 High Frequency Bus Shuttle The high frequency bus shuttle system would involve the use of conventional buses to provide service from the Intermodal Center to the Salt Lake City CBD. In order to meet the needs of the `' RCR ridership, it would be necessary for the High Frequency Bus Shuttle system to operate separately and independently of the existing bus system. As this shuttle would need to operate during the peak time periods, the bus fleet necessary for this operation would be in addition to - the existing UTA bus fleet. The High Frequency Bus Shuttle system would operate on the same general route as an LRT - circulator approximately 2.9 miles round trip between the Intermodal Center and downtown. The route would extend from 200 South 600 West, east on 200 South to 400 West, south on 400 West to 400 South, east on 400 South to Main Street(or State Street as an alternative), north to South Temple(North Temple as an alternative),west to 400 West,then continuing south to 200 South back to the Intermodal Center. It would also be possible to run an alternative route in the ,' opposite direction(north on 400 West and east on South Temple)to handle peak demand on the is 4 "` or s' ;THE SEAR-BROWN GROUP 17 tz , . Project No. 13611 Salt Lake City Intermodal Center September1998—Final Environmental Assessment 'k northern edge of this route, thus reducing total travel time for passengers with a final destination '` on the northern edge of the CBD. 1, There are several advantages and disadvantages of the High Frequency Bus Shuttle system based on the criteria outlined earlier. One of the main advantages of this system is that it would not involve the construction of an LRT spur to connect the Intermodal Center with the downtown CBD and would therefore require no capital cost investment aside from additional buses. This option would also provide more flexibility in meeting the needs of the transit users as routes would be more flexible and easier to change compared to an LRT connection. The disadvantages of this system include such factors as increased congestion on downtown City streets as the total number and frequency of buses would be increased to meet the peak demand. This increase would also contribute to increased air•and noise pollution and higher transit operating costs. It would be necessary to purchase up to 13 additional buses to meet the proposed needs in the long term, thus increasing congestion on downtown City streets and ' adding to the overall operation and maintenance costs of the bus system. I A summary of the site selection criteria and results for the High Frequency Bus Shuttle option is shown in Table 5. i B.2 LRT Extension There are two LRT connection options between the CBD and the Intermodal Center at 200 South 600 West. Option 1 would involve extending 0.625 miles of double track line from the N/S LRT alignment that begins at South Temple 400 West to the Intermodal Center, along 400 West to 200 South,west to 600 West and south to 300 South. Option 2 would be feasible if the proposed W/E LRT Airport to University of Utah alignment were constructed with its alignment on 400 West Street. This scenario would be a shorter 0.375 mile extension along 400 West 200 South to 600 West and south to 300 South. Both configurations would be constructed as double, centerline track. In order to provide for a "seamless" connection to the Salt Lake City CBD, both Option 1 and Option 2 would provide for a connection to the downtown area. Option 1 would provide a 2.42 mile two-direction light rail shuttle connection from the Intermodal Center, along the existing tracks of the N/S LRT alignment (operational in 2000) to downtown Salt Lake City. The Intermodal LRT shuttle would travel on South Temple and Main Street to 700 South and 200 West. A crossover track at this location would allow the LRT shuttle to reverse direction returning to the Intermodal Center. Option 2 would include a two directional loop shuttle that would be routed through downtown on the N/S and W/E LRT alignment utilizing 400 West, South Temple,Main Street and 400 South. Several alternatives for the LRT alignment from the connection point at 400 West were reviewed to determine the 200 South preferred alignment mentioned earlier. These alternatives are as follows,with graphical representation provided in Figure 4: • Alternative 1:200 South to 600 West; • Alternative 2: 100 South to 500 West to 200 South to 600 West; • Alternative 3: 100 South to 600 West. i THE SEAR-BROWN GROUP +' ` �_' 18 .r •. SALT LAKE CITY INTERMODAI, HUB �1'L'p�p11'p'Yy^ . .......mw 0 lI ,1 IL10 i .0 1Y .._ ■11.6. ImMINIPIrrir !' 1 + ;r' ° r ; ; k��iR Gam" . - ,.......,,.-- 1 • • TRAX CONNECTION CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING 0 February 7, 2006 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION I - Salt Lake City Administration's City Council Briefing A. Discussion Issue Origin Analysis • Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension Analysis Report • Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension Traffic Operations Report • Public Process o Public Input o Community Council Recommendations o Transport Advisory Board Recommendation o Planning Commission Recommendation Salt Lake City Administration's TRAX Connection Recommendations Future Hub Briefing Issues • TRAX Connection Funding • Phased Station Construction Criteria • Hub Ownership • Hub/TRAX Interlocal Agreement B. Interim Station Options Recommendation Station Options • Two Stations • Phasing Two Stations • One Station C. Development Criteria • Traffic Impacts • Property Access • Pedestrian Access • Bicycle Access • On-Street Parking • Depot District Development • Homeless Care Provider Access D. Basis for Recommendations • Route • Alignment • Traffic Movements • Overhead Contact System • Station Design • Streetscape Design • Mid-Block Pedestrian Crossings • Stations Locations SECTION II- Salt Lake City Community Development Department's City Council Briefing (Planning Commission Recommendation) SECTION I SALT LAKE CITY ADMINISTRATION' S CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING A. DISCUSSION , ,r ,l ROSS C."ROCKYY" !� ANDERSON y 1�' " Yf come : lips 1'/�1�MAY OFFICE OF THE MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officery ` " DATE: February 7, 2006 FROM: D.J. Baxter, Senior Advisor to the Mayor RE: TRAX Connection—Delta Center to Intermodal Hub STAFF CONTACT: Mary Guy-Sell, Hub Project Manager, at 535-6244 or mary.guy- sell@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedules a briefing to hear the Administration's recommendations for the Hub TRAX Connection DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing BUDGET IMPACT: The Administration will be requesting additional funding for the roadwork, sidewalks, and utilities associated with construction of the TRAX Connection DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City(City) and the Utah Transit Authority(UTA)are working jointly to extend the light rail (TRAX) line from its existing terminus at the Delta Center to the Intermodal Hub, located at 300 South 600 West(Fig. 1). The Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub will function as the central transit transfer point for commuter rail, light rail, UTA bus, Greyhound bus,Amtrak, and transit support services. The light rail connection is planned to be constructed so that its opening can coincide with the opening of commuter rail service at the Intermodal Hub. The primary point of contention on this project has been the number and location of stations to be built between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub. Both the Salt Lake City Administration and the Utah Transit Authority recommend two stations to be located between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub. The recommendation includes developing one station with the TRAX extension project and one in the future when mutually agreeable criteria are met. The Salt Lake City Administration and the Utah Transit Authority do not agree on which station would be built first nor the criteria that would trigger construction of the second station. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 406,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com • .Y.-....e ; i +�w�. y. K 1 1 j i.tv�' �'-. 4 ;1 ,ice y44101 ,>�' ' }wTl'-.. ., �'' " I 1. _- .. a -u ,._ .1,. •S.• - .a Oft, r-, €. a ;i• . DELTA f CENTER 4 {i 1 * „r`s ' - _r +..-.1 ., 0 O H ,, • l l�T � ri, Tr -3, t ,a, ' ! r. .-1 k4 , •+ I _ : .� .. 200 SOUTH --. . I<... INTERMODAL HI!B '� r i At 1:. 300 SOI-TII 4" . a;f►. 2'.-tlR'�. ._..�,.,, ,- d .:.. !w4-.. _ - 4 •t .:. _. ''. r.^aif�'/• rJF. _ �" I.EGEND -- " - �� MI NI SLC TRAX EXTENSION PROJECT " '" - EXISTING TRAX "'y 4.: PROPOSED STATION �� '` ., °' x. _ 1 frit . 7. - ,_ ; .. - 400 SOl'TH `, Figure 1 —Hub TRAX Connection Overview February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 3 The stations will be located at 125 South 400 West and 525 West 200 South, continuing the "every other block" station pattern already established in the downtown. The bases for the two-station recommendation include maximizing access to the transit system in a neighborhood that represents Salt Lake City's best(and,perhaps, only) opportunity for new medium- and high-density residential and mixed-use development and providing easy transfer points to future expansions of the rail transit system. The Administration's core contention is this: construction of a rail line or extension is, at minimum, a 50-year planning decision that will dramatically affect the form and pace of development well into Salt Lake City's future. The Administration believes that adequate demand exists today for a station on 400 West, and that within the near future, development will provide enough additional demand to warrant a second station at 525 West on 200 South. At the very least, Salt Lake City should ensure that the line is built so it can accommodate the second station as easily and inexpensively as possible when it is warranted. The Utah Transit Authority believes that adequate demand exists today for a station at 525 West on 200 South and that a future station at 125 South on 400 West will be warranted if development occurs as anticipated by the City. Issue Origin The TRAX Connection will be jointly funded, designed, and constructed by the City and UTA. The TRAX Connection will operate within Salt Lake City streets. UTA will operate and maintain the system. An interlocal agreement between the City and UTA will be necessary to address design, construction, budget, funding, management, station locations, and alignment. A Public Way Use Agreement will be needed to grant UTA use of the City streets and related property. Analysis Salt Lake City Administration is prepared to make recommendations for the Hub TRAX connection for consideration by the City Council. These recommendations are based on exhaustive analysis by the Hub TRAX connection design team and extensive input from the community. The design team includes Parsons Transportation Group (engineering consultant), UTA staff, City Planning, City Transportation, City Public Utilities, City Engineering, and the Mayor's Office. Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension Analysis Report The Parsons Transportation Group, as a consultant to the City, undertook a thorough analysis of the TRAX Connection(refer to "Section II—Salt Lake City Community Development Department's City Council Briefing" for a copy of the full report). The team was in agreement on the following recommendations (refer to "D. Basis for Recommendations"for further detail). a. Route(Fig. 1): 400 West(South Temple to 200 South), 200 South(400 West to 600 West), and 600 West(200 South to 350 South) as previously determined in the University to Airport Final Environmental Impact Statement and the Intermodal Hub Environmental Assessment. b. Alignment: Double track, center running to match the existing downtown system. c. Traffic Movements: Preserve existing traffic movements at major intersections. d. Overhead Contact System: Low-profile catenary to minimize costs and accommodate 500 West intersection width. e. Station Design: Canopies, seating, and landscaping to match existing downtown stations. f. Streetscape Design: Furniture and paving patterns to match existing downtown systems. February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 4 • • „a.- "sue-s4{ § { -, `�T ,:' i��,k r= a:z•K: .F. r 4 . _ -- ` t lit- . .- „a ' z • ' '# e gt.', r vas MIAs € - e •"„ -:ors N - wn 1. 1 •'ir 3 s ..> , a 3 + H F z � .: p •$ "�s r,.. fir•- r s*" ..*:. .- Z L!k� A }$ Y g :find:. � f 2 `' fir, �1 i tf l' # t �' �,, • x . 1 } ` � � � t DELTA 44 'r d s t2#�«--; $. -*.z,r*: �, t aye a''4 ;i - 3 li ' A �f � i CENTER r� �=i -'-''if:'---frri li •7,'--4.;;-'-,-.'.-.i',''-......'','.:'''- ...„.4-..'"I-.''';* y3 § •!erlt rI fi; + 1 Nj ~i —. : + 1 f 23 100 SOUTH f ,c,-,,,,,.24i. t,.,-"r!';r ..71 1_„. ......7,,..„.I ;,,. ... ...,,,... !,•1 c4 k1 ,.• ,C" f E..... " k �: x X et ` t ' } ,TR 4- -�tt: 'kz - �_ a ' trrift 1 y a •.. .,„„.. ...,„,._ .... .,„ ..„r„4.;,,,„i„..,,,,..:.,„,,,,.._._..,,„,t.... _,.. .„:,: ,,_.,..J.,_:1 ,,,.y: .,...t..,1„.;::.,...., ,./,.,.:. :. A - ' f '--;51"-.. 4-." •,---•-------i-.:-- o‘ift::,,-:44-'-'4Ai ' ' --. ,,--'4ii)-'---•"f, 200 SOt► I H ^— *„,.,,,-,.'';i:""-'1.,:.;;'3.3**-- ''-':-._ . .**,--,'',1...r:".„1,,,:t7.77,7,-;3,7;1.: 3-.?",,"1.:*!"'::;:;--;-"4"i"7:.,.,-*ci,'. '_ `` Sr'*" ""' "d,,' -' ,, '."'"'" •-fin 7:11:7.,ij Ilk ` F/1 i,S -.r .R V1 y� -,A-.. ,_y.. i1 AE,e,-;--.i Sr,i. "R'''.'"' `''' W g - W '# ....___ as'} t_l § '. ,?' !„ INTERh7ODAL _ o -4: o ;, - '.,.... , } - O — f O - P > Tr, �' LEGEND �. ;" ` ' SLC TRAX EXTENSION PROJECT 4 • _� I -"' EXISTING TRA X ° 1.! : PROPOSED STATION 10 .,--:•''.: .•-,---- -,- !--;.-.'-,:'c.* ..-,',`--:;---t:„.:',-1"4--'-r„,,,-,:,;,„„,, , ...-4. - -- 1--"- --';:: A-."•'''''' -.:•.:--,•;'‘-''' 4.AA'- •''''',?-41-'--Alr.e:'ti t'l''''''!7-:,, -''-" : ''-' '-:"•'-'''''A --A ' ' - r, Figure 1 —Hub TRAX Connection Overview February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 3 g. Mid-block Pedestrian Crossings i. 350 West across South Temple in conjunction with existing Delta Center station ii. 150 South across 400 West in conjunction with station at that location iii. Rio Grande (450 West) across 200 South recommended with or without station at that location iv. 550 West across 200 South recommended with or without station at that location v. 350 South across 600 West in conjunction with the Hub Station h. Hub Station(Fig. 1): 325 South 600 West, along the west edge of 600 West i. Interim Stations (Fig. 1): The final issue, the interim station locations between the Delta Center and the Hub, has generated extensive debate. The final report placed equal weight on the attributes of each option. i. Single Interim Station: Minimizes costs and travel time. ii. Two Interim Stations: Maximizes urban land use opportunities and access to the system. Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension Traffic Operations Report The Parsons Transportation Group, as a consultant to the City, completed the Traffic Operations Report for the TRAX Connection in conjunction with the TRAX Analysis Report. The analysis concluded that minimum acceptable levels of service are maintained at all intersections along and adjacent to the alignment, under all station location options. A copy of the full report is available from Salt Lake City Transportation upon request. Public Process The team sought and received input from Community Councils, the Mayor's Bicycle Advisory Committee, Downtown Alliance, Transportation Advisory Board, Planning Commission,business and property owners along the TRAX route, and the general public. All of this input and the design team's analysis were taken into consideration in developing the Administration's recommendations. Several city and community organizations have taken a formal position on the number of stations. Those groups and their associated positions are as follows: • Capital Hill Community Council: One Station(Section II—Salt Lake City Community Development Department's City Council Briefing) • People's Freeway Community Council Recommendation: Two Stations • Downtown Community Council: Two Stations (Section II— Salt Lake City Community Development Department's City Council Briefing) • Transportation Advisory Board Recommendation: Two Stations, Phased (Section II— Salt Lake City Community Development Department's City Council Briefing) • Planning Commission Recommendation: Two Stations, Possibly Phased(Section II— Salt Lake City Community Development Department's City Council Briefing) February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 5 Salt Lake City Administration's TRAX Connection Recommendations a. Route (Fig. 1): 400 West, 200 South, and 600 West b. Alignment: Double track, center running c. Traffic Movements: Preserve existing traffic movements at major intersections. d. Overhead Contact System: Low-profile catenary e. Station Design: match existing downtown stations f. Streetscape Design: match existing downtown systems g. Mid-block Pedestrian Crossings i. 350 West across South Temple in conjunction with existing Delta Center station ii. 150 South across 400 West in conjunction with the station iii. Rio Grande (450 West) across 200 South without a station iv. 550 West across 200 South recommended with the station v. 350 South across 600 West in conjunction with the Hub Station h. Hub Station (Fig. 1): 325 South 600 West i. Two Stations i. 125 South 400 West (Fig. 2): Construct with the TRAX Connection ii. 525 West 200 South (Fig. 3): Construction timing based upon mutually agreeable "Phased Station Construction Criteria" (see below under Future Hub Briefing Issues) jointly developed by the City and UTA. • I GATEWAY SUMMER PARKING j4 4• 1/4... 400 WEST ENTRANCE • • +zs s goo w TRAX STATION: 444NEST e i, — ---994_W0:51_ -N\ o Figure 2 - 125 South 400 West Station (construct with TRAX Connection) h .4111111111111111111611 C• — Figure 3—525 West 200 South TRAX Station (future construction) 1121 February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 6 Future Hub Briefing Issues The following issues relate to the TRAX Connection, but are more appropriately addressed after the Council has made a decision on the number of stations. Therefore, the Administration, with the support of the Council's Intermodal Hub Subcommittee, recommends that the Council set a future date for briefing and discussion of these issues. TRAX Connection Funding The most recent cost estimate, dated June 14, 2005, for the TRAX Connection is approximately$30 Million. Due to significantly higher construction costs in 2005, we expect that costs may have increased as much as 10% over the original estimate, resulting in a revised cost estimate of$33 Million. The TRAX team is working to reduce the scope of the project to bring it back within the $30 Million budget. An updated estimate will be completed with final design. The City Administration requests City funding for approximately$9 Million(this amount includes the 10% escalation factor). The City has already secured $4.4 Million($2.0 Million from UTA and$2.4 Million from RDA) of the $9 Million. Anticipated appropriation requests were identified in the 10-year budget proposal submitted in fall of 2005 (less the escalation factor). This funding request is also consistent with the funding proposals presented to the Council in prior budget years (less the escalation factor). UTA would fund approximately$24.0 Million(this amount includes the 10% escalation factor) including securing FTA monies currently estimated at$5.0 Million. Phased Station Construction Criteria Should the Council recommend two interim stations with one station to be constructed in the future, a phased station construction criteria agreement with UTA will need to be negotiated. Below are two recommendations for establishing criteria- a. Ridership: Second station triggered when Delta Center,400 West, and Hub station ridership reaches specified average weekday boardings, as determined by the City and UTA. or b. Development: Second station triggered when existing and future development within '/4 mile of the TRAX Connection alignment reaches a specified number of residents, employees, and visitors, as determined by the City and UTA. Hub Ownership The City and UTA have always contemplated that UTA would ultimately assume ownership and operation of the Hub. UTA has requested that the City negotiate the transfer of the Hub ownership as part of the Hub and/or TRAX interlocal agreement. February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 7 Hub/TRAX Interlocal Agreement • Project Budget (includes construction and project management): Currently estimated at $33.0 Million (includes 10% escalation factor for above-normal construction cost increases). • Funding: FTA grant (20% - local, 80%Federal) • Station Locations: 125 South 400 West (build with TRAX Connection), 525 West 200 South to be constructed at a future date based upon mutually agreeable criteria jointly developed by the City and UTA. • Scope: Based upon 65% Design and Engineering documents which will be mutually agreed upon by the City and UTA. • Design: Parsons, as a consultant to the City, will complete final design with review and input jointly provided by the City and UTA. • Construction Method: UTA anticipates contracting with a Construction Manger/General Contractor for construction of the TRAX Connection. • Public Way Use Agreement: UTA's use of City streets for TRAX. • Hub Ownership: The Hub is currently owned and managed by the City. UTA has requested that the City transfer ownership and management of the Hub to UT February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 8 B. INTERIM STATION OPTIONS B. INTERIM STATION OPTIONS Salt Lake City Administration's TRAX Connection Recommendations There has been significant debate between supporters of two stations (525 West 200 South and 125 South 400 West) and supporters of a single station on 200 South. The Administration supports a line configured for two stations because of the long-range development opportunities in this neighborhood. The configuration of this rail extension will influence the form and pace of development for decades to come. As such, the line should be designed with long term planning, cost, and ridership considerations in mind. Salt Lake City Administration is recommending two stations (Figs. 4 and 5)because the stations will: 1. Optimize existing and future high density development in the Depot District area. 2. Increase public transit ridership through accessibility and visibility on 200 S. and 400 W.. 3. Optimize "user friendliness"and predictability by matching the existing downtown TRAX station spacing with one station every two blocks. 4. Optimize safety and user friendliness by matching the existing downtown station layouts. 5. Support future development of rail transit in Salt Lake City with potential connections on 400 and 600 West Streets. 6. Preserve the 500 West right-of-way for the completion of the Park Blocks as defined in the Gateway Development Master Plan and supported by both the City Administration and the Planning Commission. Organizations supporting the two station locations include UTA, the Downtown Community Council, the Transportation Advisory Board, the majority of businesses along the TRAX connection(including a majority of businesses within the Gateway development), the Salt Lake City Planning Commission, and the Salt Lake City Administration. The UTA, TAB, Planning Commission, and the City Administration support a phased approach by building one station with the TRAX connection and the second station to be constructed based upon mutually agreeable criteria jointly developed by the City and the UTA. Opposition to the two stations and support of a single 200 South station comes from three sources: 1. Capitol Hill: The Capitol Hill Community Council has voiced concern that a TRAX station on 400 West will decrease the level of service on 400 West and increase traffic on Victory Road; thereby increasing traffic through the Capitol Hill neighborhood. The Airport/University FEIS initially recommended a station on 400 West. The Hub TRAX connection engineering consultant team evaluated the traffic impacts a 400 West station would impose on Victory Road and determined that the 400 West stop would not increase traffic on Victory Road or in the Capitol Hill neighborhood. The City Transportation Division agrees with and supports this conclusion. TAB thoroughly reviewed the Capital Hill Community Council's concerns with the 400 West station and voted to support the two station recommendation. 2. Boyer Company: The Boyer Company would like to maintain its left turn access (from northbound traffic on 400 W) into the Gateway Summer Parking Garage located at approximately 150 South 400 West. The Boyer Company supports a single station alternative to be located on 200 South at Rio Grande Street. Refer to "C. Development Criteria" for discussions regarding the Boyer Company's request for a left turn access from northbound traffic on 400 West into the Summer Parking Garage. February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 11 II. 3. Dakota Lofts Residents: Some Dakota Lofts residents have expressed concern over station noise from a 400 West station. However, they are more concerned about maintaining their on-street parking along 400 West. If the 400 West station is not constructed, the Boyer Company has requested that the left turn access into their summer parking be provided. In order to accommodate the left turn access, the on-street parking in front of the Dakota Lofts will have to be eliminated and the sidewalk substantially narrowed to allow room for the left turn lane which, in turn, places the northbound traffic lanes adjacent to the narrowed sidewalk. Two Stations: 525 West 200 South and 125 South 400 West(Figs. 4 and 5) GATEWAY SUMMER PARKING 4 f• 400 WEST ENTRANCE a Li r i w f� �^ `=aj� in s us MI TRAX STATION I: •... 10.. � I i • M= • 111 _ —` 49i1 Wt3J_ 0 uu S N N O I\ NORTHFigure 4- 125 South 400 West Station (construct with TRAX Connection) I � a iki._, � t i.o 1 - 1 r II if' Il , , \ 1 ,i Figure 5—525 West 200 South TRAX Station (future construction) , There is a general consensus among the Hub TRAX design team that two stations would function the same as the existing downtown TRAX stations. The typical layout for the downtown TRAX stations is for one end of the station to abut an intersection and the other end of the station to fall at approximately mid-block with a signalized mid-block crosswalk. The existing downtown stations are spaced at one station every two blocks. The City Administration believes the short- and long-term benefits to the Depot District community and to public transit ridership far outweigh the arguments against the two- station scenario. February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Pane 12 Two Stations Pros 1. Two stations optimize current and future development plans for the Gateway area. a. Redevelopment of the blighted Gateway Area was initially conceived in 1978. In 1998, the Gateway Development Master Plan(GDMP),which includes the Intermodal Hub and TRAX Connection, was adopted. i. The GDMP is comprised of two documents; the"Gateway Specific Plan" and "Creating an Urban Neighborhood." ii. The GDMP promotes 24-hour mixed-use urban neighborhood with high-density residential and commercial transit-oriented development(TOD). iii. Throughout the development of the Gateway project, City planning staff reiterated to the Boyer Company that left-in/left-out access would be eliminated along 400 West and 200 South once the TRAX line was constructed. b. The City, guided by the GDMP, is promoting high density residential and commercial development in the Gateway area. c. Based on the type of development projected for the area and the current timeline for TRAX and commuter rail, SLC is projecting an increase of 10,000— 15,000 residents in the Depot District over the next 10—20 years. According to UTA, this will result in an increase in daily transit ridership of 5,000—7,500. These projections do not take into account the additional increase in ridership due to employment and visitors to the area. d. Other communities have found that development intensifies and land values increase adjacent to TRAX stations. e. The locations of the two stations maximize the development potential along the TRAX extension corridor with their proximity to existing mixed-use, transit-oriented development projects and vacant properties. f. Because of the concerns of many of the city's existing neighborhoods, Salt Lake City's opportunities for medium- and high-density residential development are limited. The Depot District/Gateway area is one of the few areas of Salt Lake City where higher-density development projects are likely to be met with enthusiasm. As such, this area represents one of Salt Lake City's few remaining opportunities to create a vibrant urban neighborhood, home to enough residents to support the goods and services needed by a downtown residential neighborhood. 2. Two stations will promote public transit ridership. a. Increased development and density will result in increased transit ridership. b. An increased number of access points, with minimal additional delay, will also result in increased ridership. c. The existing station spacing throughout the downtown is one station every two blocks. The two-station configuration continues that pattern. d. Stations on both 400 West and 200 South will increase the visibility of the system and promote accessibility by providing additional access points adjacent to two existing high- traffic destinations, the Delta Center and the Gateway Development. In particular, the 400 West station would sit immediately adjacent to The Gateway's largest concentration of restaurants, the Cineplex Theaters, and the Clark Planetarium—all high-traffic destinations. e. Closer station spacing increases the use of the system throughout the downtown(residents carrying packages, employees at lunch,visitors to conventions, etc.) and places more residences, offices, and retail outlets within a shorter walking distance of a station. f. The 30-second delay to the average commuter riding commuter rail into SLC is a negligible proportion of their overall commute time. February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 13 a • Two Station Cons 1. Increased costs to build two stations instead of one. 2. Increase travel time by 30 seconds. Salt Lake City contends that commuter rail passengers (20—45 minute ride)will not be deterred from using commuter rail due to a 30 second delay at the second interim station. Instead,the Administration firmly believes that TRAX ridership will increase with the two station scenario. 3. Increased UTA operations and maintenance costs. 4. Two station configuration eliminates any possibility of left turn access into 400 West entrance to The Gateway's Summer Parking facility. Phasing Two Stations The City Administration and UTA support a phased approach to construction of the two stations. One of the two stations would be constructed with TRAX and the second would be constructed at a later date, based upon a set of mutually agreeable criteria to be jointly developed by SLC and UTA. The City recommends constructing the 125 South 400 West station(Fig. 7)with the TRAX Connection. I . I GATEWAY SUMMER PARKING 400 WEST ENTRANCE •• 1.��. Ji ' mot ♦ 8 8 Figure ''7- 125 South 400 West Station (construct with TRAX Connection) � The 125 South 400 West station is recommended because- • Significant existing development adjacent to the station. • The station can support the overflow of Delta Center crowds. • Gateway businesses and employees support the station. • The Boyer Company supports the station if the decision is to build two stations. • The station has multiple opportunities for interconnections with other transit extensions. • The opportunity for future development at this location is modest, and substantially lower than the opportunities available at the 525 West 200 South station site. The City recommends constructing the 525 West 200 South station(Fig. 8) in the future based on mutually agreeable criteria jointly developed by SLC and UTA. At the very least,the tracks at this station location should be"wowed" and the station infrastructure provided as part of the TRAX extension project to accommodate completing the station in the future with minimum construction impacts. C February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 15 AMMiii=7.11 1 I I .10 vl 11 -I f; 111 ' .-- -- Figure 8—525 West 200 South TRAX Station ture construction) ,Z (fu • The existing development at this location is modest. • The opportunity for future development at this location is significant. • The station's proximity to the Hub limits the likelihood it would be used as a transfer station to another line. It is hard to imagine a transit routing that would provide access to this station, but not continue another 2 blocks to the Intermodal Hub, the more likely transfer point. UTA recommends constructing the 525 West 200 South station (Fig. 8) with the TRAX Connection and constructing the 125 South 400 West station (Fig. 7) in the future based on criteria jointly developed by SLC and UTA. Salt Lake City should ensure that the line is built so it can easily accommodate these stations when they are warranted. If the Council believes that the second station will be warranted at some time in the near future, there is an argument that supports building them both now, as the costs of building the second station will only increase over time, both because of inflation and because of the need to construct it under a separate contract while maintaining train and vehicle traffic. Furthermore, some businesses have noted that constructing both stations now avoids the second round of impacts that will come from undertaking another construction project at a later date. One Station: Rio Grande Street (approximately 450 West) and 200 South There is a general consensus among the Hub TRAX team that a single station at Rio Grande on 200 South would be compromised and would not function the same as the existing downtown TRAX stations. The station cannot follow the typical layout (see below), nor is the station spacing (one station every three blocks) the same as the downtown station spacing(one station every two blocks). 425 West 200 South (Fig. 9): The midpoint between the Delta Center and the Hub is 425 West 200 South. This station location is not feasible due to the 90 degree turn onto/from 400 West. It requires at least 40 feet beyond the turn to bring the tracks parallel. The station could shift west 40 feet to meet this need, but the general consensus is that the obstacles to this station would exceed the obstacles to the 460 West 200 South station option, and make it infeasible. February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 16 J '-I I I ---� -- --_.-__i_ J CMI OM MU l'"""! Dr J� D-D D-a O .i.r 9a- I �...•_ �L'-C-_-_ 1 4 ii i • \-111, tip Figure 9—425 West 200 South Station Alternate V? 475 West 200 South(Fig. 10): The west end of this station would abut the existing 500 West intersection. The existing 500 West intersection is 66 feet west of the 500 West right-of-way identified in the Gateway Development Master Plan and preserved for the 500 West Park Blocks. The Gateway Development Master Plan would have to be amended to allow this station to be built.Neither SLC Administration nor the SLC Planning Commission recommends amending the Gateway Development Master Plan to accommodate a TRAX station at 475 West 200 South. I Station Platform _ I, alli � or t era . . -- .� -- - -: - N,.4A'1 is Figure 10—475 West 200 South Station Alternate Z 460 West 200 South(Fig. 11): The west end of the station would be shifted 66 feet east of the existing 500 West intersection to align with the preserved 198-foot right-of-way. There are various obstacles to providing a TRAX station at this location. I Median Station Platform ,.,. I ---- ----— �_fir " — r �I .r -- --- --._w w.I�/�, �o... .,ar r......�3 _`�_7 ^� NO�71rn1 ' : 1 — p �§ li 3 itil Figure 11 —460 West 200 South TRAX Station Alternate ldF 1. Precludes a direct pedestrian crosswalk across 200 South connecting the Rio Grande sidewalks. It is possible,but not advisable, to design a crosswalk through a TRAX station because of the elevation change between the street and station. A ramp system was evaluated but because UTA • uses different styles of TRAX trains having door openings at different locations, all of the February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 17 platform edges would have to accommodate a TRAX door opening/closing. SLC Transportation identified several irresolvable safety concerns with such a configuration. 2. Would lead to westbound trains backing across the west and north crosswalks and through the intersection of 400 West and 200 South periodically when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk accessing the east end of the station platform or crossing 200 South. 3. Limits the length of the eastbound-to-northbound left turn lane at 400W/200S which limits the number of vehicles that can turn and may cause left turning vehicles to back into the eastbound through lane. 4. The proximity of the signalized crosswalk at the east end of the station to the 200 South Summer Parking driveway could lead to periodic blockage of the access to and egress from the driveway. 5. The west end of the station platform would have to be elongated by 66 feet to connect to the crosswalk at the existing 500 West intersection. This would need to stay in place until such time that the intersection at 200 South/500 West is widened. 6. Neither crosswalk would align with both the end of the station and the intersection and would therefore increase the frequency of pedestrians crossing to/from the station without using the crosswalks and traffic signals. One Station: 125 South 400 West or 525 West 200 South Single stations at either of these locations are exactly one-third of the distance between the Delta Center station and the Hub Station. Single Station Pros 1. Reduces initial construction costs. 2. Decreases TRAX travel time by 30 seconds. 3. Decreases UTA operations and maintenance costs. 4. If a single station were sited at 525 West 200 South, with no provision made for a future station on 400 West, this would provide for the possibility of a 400 West left turn into Gateway's Summer Parking facility. Single Station Cons 1. Does not optimize existing and future high density development in the Depot District area. 2. Decreases transit passenger accessibility within the Depot District. 3. Decreases "user friendliness"because station spacing does not match the existing downtown TRAX station spacing with one station every two blocks. 4. Increases passenger safety risks and transportation impacts.[explain] 5. Does not provide 400 West transfer point to support options for future expansion of rail transit in Salt Lake City. 6. 475 West 200 South station would preclude implementation of Park Blocks through 200 West and is contrary to the Gateway Development Master Plan. February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 18 i sMnMr sda :— 12. o-G a-0 -,.__.. e r 4 I !I • Figure 9—425 West 200 South Station Alternate 1" 475 West 200 South (Fig. 10): The west end of this station would abut the existing 500 West intersection. The existing 500 West intersection is 66 feet west of the 500 West right-of-way identified in the Gateway Development Master Plan and preserved for the 500 West Park Blocks. The Gateway Development Master Plan would have to be amended to allow this station to be built. Neither SLC Administration nor the SLC Planning Commission recommends amending the Gateway Development Master Plan to accommodate a TRAX station at 475 West 200 South. Station Platform i1 hC » a aw...e�*3w-..� � f --7.- . . . 2veNTH 4.' 1 i r A a3 1 Figure 10—475 West 200 South Station Alternate `i'J 460 West 200 South (Fig. 11): The west end of the station would be shifted 66 feet east of the existing 500 West intersection to align with the preserved 198-foot right-of-way. There are various obstacles to providing a TRAX station at this location. Median ;� • r Station Platform r- 4111- of �y __. ��zt yr_.'3:.�-,t-?clr-'11: -- _ rrrr 200vxrnh iwnoi iv k1- � F------ o a I Figure 11 —460 West 200 South TRAX Station Alternate �-� 1. Precludes a direct pedestrian crosswalk across 200 South connecting the Rio Grande sidewalks. It is possible, but not advisable, to design a crosswalk through a TRAX station because of the elevation change between the street and station. A ramp system was evaluated but because UTA uses different styles of TRAX trains having door openings at different locations, all of the February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 17 C. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA C. DEVELOPMENT CRITERIA 1. Traffic Impacts: One of SLC Transportation's criteria for all transit, roadway and development projects requires a Level of Service (LOS) of"D"or better. All impacted intersections were evaluated by the consulting engineer and meet the LOS of D, or better. The 400 West 200 South intersection is the critical intersection with respect to traffic flow along the TRAX extension. In evaluating the impacts of a. a single station east of the existing 500 West intersection(475 West) b. a single station east of a widened 500 West intersection(460 West) c. 2 stations, one at 125 South 400 West and another at 525 West 200 South d. a left turn traffic signal at 150 South 400 West and a station along 200 South all scenarios have a similar impact to the function of the 400 West 200 South intersection. A left turn traffic signal at 150 South 400 West will eliminate the possibility of a mid-block pedestrian crosswalk at that location. Some additional impacts triggered by a station at 460 West 200 South are noted in III- Station Location Options. Assuming a healthy growth rate in traffic volume, in the year 2020 the intersection operates at the poor end of Level of Service D in each case, with each scenario having between 46 and 50 seconds of delay per vehicle on average. This level of service is already common at most major intersections in the downtown during peak hours. 2. Property Access: Maintaining property access was an essential element of the Hub TRAX connection analysis. The center running alignment preserves existing driveway access points for all properties. All properties with driveways are impacted by the elimination of non-intersection left-turns, but this impact is minimal for most vehicles since U-turns with protective signaling will be available at the intersections. Utah Paper Box: Utah Paper Box, located on the east side of 400 West between 100 and 200 South, is serviced by large semi-trucks which currently use the middle of the street when backing into their docks. In discussions with Utah Paperbox, it was determined that a widened driveway will be provided to mitigate for the narrower useable street. Gateway Summer Parking: All garage entrances into Gateway's Summer Parking garage would be preserved. However,both the northbound left turn from eastbound 200 South and the westbound left turn from northbound 400 West into the Summer Parking garage would be eliminated. The Boyer Company is particularly concerned with the loss of the 400 West left turn access. It should be noted that in 1999, the Boyer Company commissioned"The Gateway Salt Lake City Traffic Impact Study" as required by Salt Lake City for development projects. The Boyer Company's document states— "Based on the constraints outlined in this section, the following assumptions have been made in terms of parking access: 4. West/East LRT built as planned on 400 West, limiting access on 400 West to right-in/right-out only." Although the Boyer Company was aware that the TRAX line would restrict access along 400 West to right-in/right-out only, the City wanted to ensure that elimination of the left turn access would not preclude patrons from accessing the Summer Parking garage. The TRAX February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 21 team analyzed alternative options for northbound traffic on 400 West wanting to access the Summer Parking garage: a. left on 200 South and turning right into the Summer Parking garage b. left on 100 South and turning left into the Summer Parking garage c. U-turn on 100 South and turning right into the Summer Parking garage d. take 300 West (instead of 400 West) to 100 South, make a left turn onto westbound 100 South, make a left turn from westbound 100 South onto southbound 400 West and then a right turn into the Summer Parking garage. The Boyer Company contends that the majority of traffic driving northbound on 400 West and making a left into the Summer Parking garage on 400 West are coming from I-15. With appropriate signage at the freeway off-ramps, Gateway patrons could be directed to 300 West instead of 400 West for accessing the Summer Parking garage. Parsons has also made the following recommendations to improve parking access to Gateway Summer Parking: Access to the Gateway Summer Parking could be improved by more conspicuous signing for the 200 South and 100 South entrances. The 100 South entrance could be converted to a two lane entrance; there is no booth for exiting, the exit (for monthly passes only) is often blocked off, and this entrance actually provides quicker access to available parking. While performing a left-turn across 100 South is probably easier than across 400 West, the one drawback to accessing the 100 South entrance to Summer Parking with a left turn is the minimal queue space available in the center lane. But 100 South has two through lanes in each direction and the traffic volumes are 30% of those on 400 West. "Exit" signing within the garage emphasizing the 200 South exit to help familiarize parking patrons with that entrance/exit. The Boyer Company has requested consideration of a left turn access into the Summer Parking from 400 West if a station is not approved at 125 South 400 West. Salt Lake City and UTA have developed criteria for the Boyer Company to analyze. Once the TRAX team receives the analysis, they will review it to determine whether or not the left turn is feasible. The following issues regarding the left turn have already been identified: a. The signal can operate without adding to the delay that will already exist at 400 West 200 South. b. The time length of the left turn signal phase will need to be restricted based on the number of vehicles capable of entering the parking structure without backing onto the sidewalk or street. This has not been evaluated, but the ticket vending and payment stations will likely need to be relocated to maximize the value of a signal c. The east curb of 400 West adjacent to the Dakota Condominiums, 150 South to 200 South, will need to be shifted approximately 4 feet 6 inches to the east to allow room for a southbound to eastbound left turn bay at the intersection of 200 South and 400 West. This will result in a loss of all 6 on-street parking stalls at that location and narrow the width available for sidewalk from the existing 15 feet 6 inches to 11 feet. There is an existing 6 foot wide fire stairwell along the building. Unless it could be reconfigured, there would be only a 5 foot wide area adjacent to the stairwell for the walkable portion of the sidewalk. Additionally, the business entrances may have to be modified due to these impacts. d. The southeast corner of 400 West 200 South would need to be reconfigured to allow the northbound traffic lanes to slide eastward to align with the relocated receiving lanes to the north that would be located further to the east due to the left turn lane into the parking structure. February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 22 e. Payment responsibility for the cost of a left turn signal into the parking garage would need to be identified. A signal at this location is not included in the LRT extension project budget nor needed to provide general access to the Gateway. One similar accommodation was made at 550 South Main where the abutting property owner who made the request was responsible for the signal cost. f. A left turn signal and a TRAX station cannot co-exist at this location. g. A cost estimate for installing a signal and making the other changes noted above has not been prepared. 3. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access at all intersections has been preserved. In addition, mid-block pedestrian crossings with signals are recommended at both station locations and at Rio Grande across 200 South. Due to Salt Lake City's large block size and the addition of TRAX, the mid-block pedestrian crossings provide safe and important pedestrian connections that promote a walkable community and support higher density development and higher transit ridership. 4. Bicycle Access: 200 South and 600 West have existing bike lanes adjacent to the TRAX connection route. These bike lanes will remain. The issues critical to the safety of bicyclists are on-street parking and rail crossings. 5. On-Street Parking: Throughout preliminary engineering, the goal has been to maximize the amount of on-street parking along the TRAX route within the constraints of minimum sidewalk width, maintaining dedicated lanes for through traffic, turning movements (left and right), bike lanes, and station location. The one exception to this is the south side of 200 South between 400 West and 500 West where no parking currently exists and the City indicated a preference for maintaining the status quo. The Boyer Company has requested consideration of a north-to-west left-turn from 400 West into the Gateway Summer parking if a station is not planned at 125 South 400 West. They also emphatically prefer that a station not be built at this location, so that a left turn can be accommodated. The left turn would require the elimination of on-street parking in front of the Dakota Lofts and would reduce the adjacent sidewalk by 4 feet 6 inches. (See related comments above in Section 2). Parking is planned to be provided on the south side of 200 South from 600 West east to the mid-block crossing. The impact to Thomas Electric is that currently his operations include deliveries by 1-ton and semi-trucks. 1-ton trucks back into the delivery door to off-load. Semi-trucks pull curbside between the delivery door and Woodbine in a designated delivery/loading zone. This delivery/loading zone would be eliminated due to the mid-block crossing which will be immediately west of the Woodbine driveway. It is possible to convert 1 or 2 of the standard parking stalls in front of Thomas Electric into a loading zone. 6. Depot District Development: The TRAX connection should support the existing and future development in the Depot District in accordance with the goals of the Gateway Development Master Plan. The existing layout of the Downtown LRT system is one station every two blocks. The proposed two- station scenario will continue this established spacing. The Gateway Master Plan and current zoning both identify this area as the emerging recipient for high—density development in the February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 23 City. Both stations are adjacent to easily developable sites. The 525 West 200 South station is adjacent to property (north) that has been consolidated by one land owner(approximately 7 of the 10 acres on the block). The 125 South 400 West site is adjacent to the Frank Edwards site (approximately 2.5 acres) that is available for development and the Utah Paper Box site that also has future development potential. The Westgate Building is presently being converted to housing. Zoning on both sites allows for high-density housing with unrestricted density to maximize the site potential. 7. Homeless Care Provider Access: SLC Administration, the Planning Commission, and the City Council have all expressed their support for preserving the co-location of homeless care provider services in the Depot District and providing accessible public transportation to people using those services. a. The recommended two station scenario provides access to a TRAX station within one block of the homeless care provider services. b. The single station alternative at approximately Rio Grande and 200 South provides direct access to the homeless care providers located to the south of the station. February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 24 D. BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS • D. BASIS FOR RECOMMENDATIONS 1. ROUTE: 400 West, 200 South, 600 West The light rail connection route was previously determined in the environmental documents for the Airport/University line (West- East Light Rail Project Final Environmental Impact Statement, completed in 1999) and the Intermodal Hub project(Salt Lake City Intermodal Center Environmental Assessment completed in 1998). The route will extend from the Delta Center south on 400 West, west on 200 South and south on 600 West to the Intermodal Hub as illustrated in Figure 12. , = � ids? - t 141 Cy ..,.t ...4 xi 4 DEI T.1 Y : , ' r .:� s ` L 1 • I, . , x , :et sil. $, :,:4-: t t, « . , . i , ( M f 4 4.. 'ate , ,:'x ' .... e,, z 4. ,,''' ' .. rig" tV l \‘'.1 Z..;:t...4:3:''''''':i'''' ' '' ' ' ,:-. 4.11tIC Nti.--'ft''''''''',41'''''''t'''''.*:".t.1: r \{\'`,,, „%:: '-f:r* *:;:i't' ' It\ 1 s i t.4 t @ .,.. ':: 1.7:741 - ,: !! �` , ! , 200 S()I 1 , h . ,I I.* . It INTER1 )IAI. f t` i a # c f ,,. K a i.,h- It:B ; YW- t pY inr, & ,am „1 � f :� - y M , l 4 a . 300 SOUTH ., d a� gg z ,. x: —_ 2%. ,. '. MI MI tilt"TRNX EXTENSION PROJECT ',; . i r a� x I XItiElM. TRXX Figure 12—Light Rail Connection Route 2. ALIGNMENT: Center Running Three light rail alignment configurations were evaluated: "center running(Fig. 13)," "side running (Fig 14)," and "combination running (Fig. 15)." Center running is recommended because it has the least impacts on driveway access,bicycle paths, sidewalks, utilities, and it has been used throughout all of downtown and along the majority of the remaining UTA system. The Hub station is an exception to the center running alignment. Side running is recommended at the Hub because of the February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 27 existing rail systems on the west side of 600 West and because it eliminates a street crossing for thousands of daily passengers between buses, commuter rail, and light rail. R/W R/W 132 FEET -- SIDEWALK ROADWAY t SIGHT RAIL—7 ROADWAY SIDEWALK •77- Figure 13— Center Running R/W R/W 132 FEET --SIDEWALK I ROADWAY - IGHT RAIL--SIDEWALK — NI' Figure 14—Side Running R/W R/W 132 FEET SIDEWALK' ROADWAYT-RAILT ROADWAY I—RAILT-'I SIDEWALK e \I o ...:a.,.,ii:,, 'rye Figure 15— Combination Running 3. TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS All existing traffic movements at major intersections have been preserved. Traffic movements at Rio Grande and 200 South have been limited to right turn only. Through and left turn movements from northbound on Rio Grande onto 200 South have been eliminated for the following reasons: • Rio Grande Street north of 200 South is a one-way (northbound) privately-owned street. The Boyer Company has not expressed any interest in maintaining the through-traffic access from south of 200 South on Rio Grande. • The existing and future traffic counts from northbound traffic on Rio Grande south of 200 South heading either straight on Rio Grande Street or turning west onto 200 South is negligible. The traffic impacts to preserving those traffic movements are significant. February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 28 4. OVERHEAD CONTACT SYSTEM: Low-profile Catenary Three different overhead contact systems were evaluated; full-depth (standard) catenary, low-profile catenary, and trolley wire. All three have been used within Salt Lake City: • Full-depth (standard) Catenary: 2100 S to 1300 S (Sandy/Salt Lake line) • Low-profile Catenary: University light rail line • Trolley Wire: Main Street and South Temple Low-profile catenary is recommended because it minimizes costs and the number of poles while maintaining an urban feel to the system. 5. STATION DESIGN: Match Existing The architecture of the light rail stations will match the existing architecture of the other Salt Lake Light Rail Transit(LRT) stations. • Canopies • Seating • High-block(ADA access) • Trash receptacles • Ticket vending • Trees 6. STREETSCAPE DESIGN: Match Existing Street lights, landscaping, and public furniture will match the existing elements in the downtown. The sidewalk paving patterns will meet the administrative guidelines for the downtown. • Cactus light poles along 400 West and 200 South • Asparagus light poles along 600 West • Trees • Trash receptacles 7. MID-BLOCK PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS Mid-block pedestrian crossings at TRAX stations increase pedestrian access and safety to/from the stations while decreasing the likelihood of jaywalking. Additionally, once the TRAX line is in place a mid-block pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Rio Grande and 200 South is essential for safely accommodating the existing and future pedestrian crossings at that intersection. a. 150 South 400 West in conjunction with station b. Rio Grande (450 West) and 200 South c. 550 West 200 South in conjunction with station d. 350 West South Temple at existing station e. 350 South 600 West in conjunction with the Hub Station 8. STATION LOCATIONS: Hub station at 325 South 600 West with two stations; 125 South 400 West(future build) and 525 West 200 South. The following station locations were evaluated during preliminary engineering: a. 25 South 400 West(Airport/University FEIS): This station was identified in the Airport/University FEIS as a connection point between the Airport/University line and the February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 29 Sandy line. It was anticipated at that time that the University line would continue down 400 South to 400 West, turn north to North Temple, then west along North Temple to the Airport. Early on, this station location was eliminated because both the University and Sandy lines utilize the Delta Center station. b. 125 South 400 West(Fig. 16): This station was considered as part of a two-station scenario because it follows the existing station pattern throughout the downtown (1 station/2 blocks), is adjacent to the Gateway development to the west, and developable property to the east, provides a station loading alternate for Delta Center events, and provides future direct transit connections along West. • GATEWAY SUMMER PARKING + 400 WEST ENTRANCE �i 1 4• • -li • r W ...... I r o 444SY.SJ ® I e I -494_WF:SJ_. O 1 O h 611106 0 0 N � Figure 16- 125 South 400 West Station Recommendation c. 475 West 200 South(Fig. 17): This station was considered because it is approximately halfway between the existing Delta Center station(325 West South Temple) and the proposed Intermodal Hub Station (325 South 500 West), and it is adjacent to the Gateway development. This station is only feasible if the existing 500 West ROW is narrowed by amending the Gateway Development Master Plan which provides for the widening of 500 West to allow for the 500 West Park Blocks. Station Platform I`I HMV Figure 17—475 West 200 South Station Alternate 6 February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 30 d. 460 West 200 South(Fig. 18): This station was considered as an alternate to the 475 W 200 S station. Median { Station Platform II .ate �Ai J r��� !- 1 200�xmi g r G. I 4Figure 18—460 West 200 South TRAX Station Alternate e. 525 West 200 South(Fig. 19): This station was considered as part of a two-station scenario because it follows the existing station pattern throughout the downtown(1 station/2 blocks), is adjacent to significant development opportunities to the north, and existing/future development to the south. k i L---, I 1.1 I ,i hi _. _. _, _ _ — -- 11 v i, of t b (1 ) Figure 19—525 West 200 South TRAX Station Recommendation z f. 325 South 600 West(Intermodal Hub) (Fig. 20): This station is a part of the Intermodal Hub. , .o' _ . sa Figure 20—325 South 600 West Intermodal Hub TRAX Station �i� February 7, 2006 Hub TRAX Connection—City Council Briefing Page 31 SECTION II COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT'S CITY COUNCIL BRIEFING (PLANNING COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION) A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE aw� gitt ORIEM19 ( ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON DIRECTOR DEPT. OF COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR BRENT B. WILDE OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DEPUTY DIRECTOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL,77 1 � TO: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer DATE: Jan ary 30, 2006 FROM: Louis Zunguze, Community Development Direct r RE: Petition 400-04-52 by Salt Lake City and the U f ri y(UTA) for final determination of the Light Rail Intermodal Hu xt nsion configuration and TRAX stop locations STAFF CONTACT: Doug Dansie, Principal Planner, at 535-6182 or doug.dansie@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council schedule a briefing and a Public Hearing DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing BUDGET IMPACT: Impacts vary depending on the final decision and/or expectations for the City to participate in the construction of Light Rail Transit(LRT) stations DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Petition 400-04-52 was initiated by Salt Lake City and UTA to determine the final configuration of the light rail extension between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub and to determine the number and location of TRAX stops. City Council action is required because the request has land use implications and because the extension of TRAX will require the long-term financial and public property commitment of the City. Analysis: The project involves the construction of a light rail transit(LRT)alignment connecting the existing Utah Transit Authority(UTA) light rail terminus at the Delta Center(325 West South Temple)to the Intermodal Hub located at approximately 300 South and 600 West. (The Intermodal Hub LRT station will be located at approximately 325 South 600 West.) The City, UTA, and TRAX extension consultants have examined three different alignment options for the TRAX extension along the proposed route: side-running (track on the east side), split-running(track in center and on east side on 400 West), and center- 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7105 FAX: 801-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM running track. The side-running and split-alignment options were eliminated because both alternatives severely affect development potential of adjacent blocks by blocking all vehicular access and interfering with the operation of the Delta Center. Therefore, the center track alignment has been chosen as the preferred alignment. The center alignment tends to restrict left-turn lanes but allows options for on-street parking, does not block driveways, and is consistent with the majority of the existing TRAX system. A station location at 75 South 400 West was considered as an option but eliminated because of its proximity to the Delta Center station. A station at 475 West 200 South was also considered but eliminated due to its impact on the 500 West Park Blocks and right- of-way. The design team considered three separate alternatives for the number of stations to be located between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub: no stations; only one station on 400 West or 200 South; or two stations with one on 400 West and one on 200 South. Although there is only one viable location for a station on 400 West(125 South 400 West), there are two possible sites on 200 South that must be considered. These sites are located at 460 West and 525 West. A final determination of the number and location of the station(s)must be made. The alternatives and general pros and cons are discussed below. Alternative 1 —No Stations: This alternative provides no station between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub, a distance of 4,350 feet(0.82 miles). No STATIONS PRO CON • This alternative provides the fastest • This option does not have service between the Intermodal significant support because it does Hub and the Delta Center. not provide the benefit of transit access. • The lack of intermediate stops does not serve existing or potential development in the area. Alternative 2—One Station: There are three possible options to be considered under the one-station alternative. The possible station locations are: • 125 South 400 West—Option 1 • 460 West 200 South—Option 2 • 525 West 200 South—Option 3 Petition 400-04-52—Light Rail Intermodal Hub Extension&TRAX Station Configuration Page 2 of 8 Option 1 ONE STATION OPTION 1-125 SOUTH 400 WEST PRO CON • This configuration provides • The Boyer Company would like to immediate access to Clark maintain a mid-block northbound Planetarium and the Delta Center. left turn into their 400 West • This option maintains a two-block "Summer" parking garage, which spacing from the Delta Center is impossible with a station at that station,consistent with the rest of location. (The creation of such a downtown. left turn lane would have similar • This option accommodates impacts as a station because it development potential on the block would also add an extra mid-block south of the Delta Center. traffic signal. In either case, the • All travel lanes will be maintained. same number of through travel The northbound left turn at 100 lanes that presently exist will still South could be accommodated at exist on 400 West.) the station with a protected left turn • Some residents have expressed signal (something that has not been concern that LRT would slow done or is not possible at other traffic on 400 West, which they stations on the system). view as the throughway from the • This configuration provides good north to bypass Capitol Hill. (A development opportunities to the traffic modeling analysis of LRT Utah Paper Box block(300-400 and a station on 400 West shows West 100-200 South). virtually no shifting of traffic from • Having a station on 400 West 400 West to other Capitol Hill would provide a visual cue that streets would occur.) Other access to the transit system is transportation actions in the future available. will also affect this northern access, (e.g., an HOV off-ramp at 100 South, potential extension of 500 West to Beck Street, closure or signaling of Victory Road). • This option, without a station on 200 South, places a station four blocks from the Hub, leaving a wide gap between stations. Petition 400-04-52—Light Rail Intermodal Hub Extension&TRAX Station Configuration Page 3 of 8 Option 2 ONE STATION OPTION 2— 460 WEST 200 SOUTH PRO CON • At the time of the Planning • Because of technical issues, the Commission hearing,the UTA station would be positioned east of expressed a desire to see this the intersection of 500 West single-station option implemented (anticipating the Park Block because it provided the fastest alignment),which creates a short travel time that met the maximum left-turn pocket at 400 West. spacing requirement of%2 mile • The station in this configuration between stations. It is adjacent to does not align well with a 90° curve, where trains must crosswalks and poses significant slow down. technical and safety issues such as • With this option, the station is having a crosswalk cutting through equidistant (three blocks) between the platform, reducing the length the Delta Center and the of the east-to-north left turn late on Intermodal Hub and provides 400 West and requiring trains to adequate coverage. stop at more precise positions at • This configuration places a station the platform. The Transportation close to the Rio Grande Street Division does not recommend this intersection, providing configuration. access/egress to and from the Rio • With or without a station, Grande area. infrastructure will eliminate the possibility of cross-vehicular traffic on Rio Grande. (However, opportunities for pedestrian crossings remain.) Option 3 ONE STATION OPTION 3-525 WEST 200 SOUTH PRO CON • This option accommodates the • This option, without a station on future development of the Park 400 West,places a station four Blocks and will not affect the blocks from the Delta Center, intersection at 400 West, 200 leaving a wide gap between South, the most critical of all stations. intersections, from a traffic control • This option accommodates all auto standpoint, involved with the traffic movements but requires the TRAX extension project. elimination of on-street parking on • The site is two blocks from the the south side of 200 South Intermodal Hub and adjacent to adjacent to the station to maintain parcels of land that have significant the eastbound-to-northbound left development potential. turn lane. Petition 400-04-52—Light Rail Intermodal Hub Extension&TRAX Station Configuration Page 4 of 8 • The station is located just after a 90° turn onto 200 South,which already requires that trains slow. Alternative 3—Two Stations: Under this alternative, stations would be located at 125 South 400 West and 525 West 200 South to achieve the best spacing between stations. Two STATIONS- 125 SOUTH 400 WEST AND 525 WEST 200 SOUTH PRO CON • The spacing of these stations is • Two stations add approximately 30 consistent with the spacing of seconds to the travel time from the Downtown stations(two blocks Intermodal Hub to the Delta apart). Center. • The Gateway Master Plan • Two stations will increase anticipates high-density residential operations and maintenance costs. mixed-use development to • The UTA has stated that two accommodate large numbers of stations will decrease ridership. people living in the area. However,the geographical area • More TRAX stops make an urban involved in this case is too small neighborhood more walkable. for UTA's standard ridership • This neighborhood is the only one modeling tools to quantify this in the City where high-density statement. housing does not have zoning • This configuration will not issues or neighborhood opposition. accommodate a mid-block left-turn It is likely that student,medical lane into the Gateway"Summer" center, or downtown service parking garage. housing could easily develop in this area, making pedestrian access to LRT critical. • With stations located on 400 West and 200 South,the LRT extension serves two different rider markets. For example: the City Center and Temple Square stations have identical spacing as these proposed stations,yet because they are on different streets they provide their own separate visual cues to transit access and serve riders that would not necessarily see (or use) another station around the corner. Petition 400-04-52—Light Rail Intermodal Hub Extension&TRAX Station Configuration Page 5 of 8 Associated Issue: Standardized Left-Turn Lane at 150 South 400 West: The Boyer Company has proposed a protected turn lane across the light rail tracks to accommodate northbound left turns into the Gateway on 400 West. This proposal, if implemented, would affect the station location decision because a mid-block left-turn lane and a station cannot both be built on 400 West at 125 South. When the original Gateway complex was built, the developers conducted a traffic study based on the assumption of future LRT on 400 West. The project was approved with the expectation of right-in/right-out access only on 400 West (no left turn). If a station is built at 125 South 400 West, motorists traveling northbound on 400 West can access Gateway parking by making a left turn at 200 South and then turning right into the parking garage. Other options include continuing north on 400 West, turning left onto 100 South, then turning left again into the parking structure on 100 South or performing a U-turn at 100 South to access the"Summer"parking garage entrance. LEFT-TURN POCKET ON 400 WEST PRO Con • Allows the owners of the • The traffic effects of an extra Gateway to maintain a traffic signal on 400 West, northbound left turn from 400 required to accommodate mid- West into their "Summer" parking block left turns, are similar to a garage. LRT station at the same location. • The left-turn lane moves all traffic lanes east,requiring the removal of on-street parking and narrowing of the sidewalk in front of businesses at the Dakota Lofts. • A left turn in may be provided but not a left turn out(because of space constraints). Recommendation: The Planning Commission review involved a balancing act based upon two differing philosophies for the area: A) The area Master Plan calls for high-density development, which compliments the rest of Downtown and should accordingly be served with two stations. B) The area is currently less dense than the Downtown core; therefore only one station should be built to allow transit access to reach the core Downtown more quickly. Because of the long-term desire to increase densities in this portion of Downtown and Petition 400-04-52—Light Rail Intermodal Hub Extension&TRAX Station Configuration Page 6 of 8 technical difficulties with the 460 West 200 South one-station alternative,the Planning Commission voted to forward a favorable recommendation for construction of two stations, constructed in a phased approach of one station now and a second station in the future when mutually agreed upon by both the Utah Transit Authority and Salt Lake City. Because of noted negative impacts, the Planning Commission also recommended disallowing the proposed 150 South 400 West northbound left-turn lane into the Gateway "Summer"parking garage(refer to prior section labeled"Associated Issue: Standardized Left-Turn Lane at 150 South 400 West"). Master Plan Considerations: The Gateway Master Plan calls for the general area to develop as a high-density mixed-use area of the City(second only to Main Street). PUBLIC PROCESS: Open House: Open Houses were held for the public in January 2004 at the Union Pacific Depot and in April 2005 at the Intermodal Hub. The Open Houses provided an opportunity for the public to view the project. There were approximately 150 people at the first Open House and 125 people at the second. The first Open House was primarily to let people know the scope of the project. Comments were received at the second Open House regarding the number of stations,arguing both sides of the issue. Other issues discussed at both Open Houses included Commuter Rail, Transit Oriented Development ordinances, the Intermodal Hub,and Bus Rapid Transit. Transportation Advisory Board: The Transportation Advisory Board recommended the phased development of two stations, located at 125 South 400 West and 525 West 200 South, at their April 5, 2004,meeting. Planning Commission: A Planning Commission briefing and Public Hearing was held in January 2004, with no formal action taken. A final Public Hearing was held on November 30, 2005. At that meeting,the Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council "supporting a two-station alignment with a recommendation that the two stations [125 South 400 West and 525 West 200 South] be phased based upon demand following the recommendation of UTA". The Planning Commission further clarified that the City and UTA jointly determine when the second station is warranted. The Planning Commission also recommended that the Transportation Division and City Council consider the northbound left-turn lane across the LRT tracks into the Gateway at 150 South 400 West be "disallowed,"therefore making any modifications to the streetscape to accommodate the left turn unnecessary. RELEVANT ORDINANCES: Petition 400-04-52—Light Rail Intermodal Hub Extension&TRAX Station Configuration Page 7 of 8 Because this proposal involves the long-term lease or franchise of a public street,the street closure process is being used as the decision making process for LRT alignment. This course of action is consistent with two previous decision making processes involving the North-South and University light rail lines. The City Council is also involved in associated funding decisions. Per Salt Lake City Code, Section 2.58 and Utah Code, Title 10-9-305, streets may be closed and disposed of by the City after following proper procedure as outlined in Section 2.58 of City Code. The Planning Commission reviews the request and recommends whether the property should be declared surplus. The City Council has final approval of all street closures. The Mayor, or his designee, will be responsible for the actual lease/sale of the street. UPDATE: Subsequent to the Planning Commission decision,the Administration has continued to work with UTA with the intent of reaching a unified agreement consistent with the Planning Commission recommendation. The results of these discussions will be presented to the City Council in a supplemental transmittal from the Administration. • Petition 400-04-52—Light Rail Intermodal Hub Extension&TRAX Station Configuration Page 8 of 8 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Chronology 2. Proposed Resolution 3. City Council Public Hearing a. Notice b. Mailing list 4. Planning Commission Hearing a. Original Notice and Postmark b. Staff report (includes PC minutes from January 28, 2004 and TAB minutes from April 5, 2004) c. Agenda d. Minutes Nov. 30, 2005 5. Original Petition 1 . Chronology Chronology October 20, 2003 The project was initiated November 3, 2003 Joint meeting with UTA and technical staff to begin project. January 2, 2004 Notices for open house sent to Community Council Chairs and interested parties. January 4, 2004 Notice of Open House printed in Newspaper. January 8, 2004 Public open house for the Transit Oriented Development Plan for the Depot District and the Light Rail extension from the Delta Center to the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub. Held in the Union Pacific Depot Grand Hall located at 400 West South Temple at the Gateway in Salt Lake City. January 13, 2005 Notices for Planning Commission sent to Community Council Chairs, adjacent land owners and interested parties. January 28, 2004 The Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing. April 5, 2004 Transportation Advisory Board was briefed on the issue and made a recommendation. May 2004 - October 2005 Negotiations with UTA (interlocal and funding). March 29, 2005 Notices for open house sent to Community Council Chairs and interested parties. April 7, 2005 Public open house for the Transit Oriented Development Plan for the Depot District, the Light Rail extension from the Delta Center to the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub, the Intermodal Hub Bus Terminal, commuter rail, bus rapid transit, and U of U Honors Think Tank analysis of the area surrounding the Hub.. Held in the Hub Bus Terminal in Salt Lake City. November 15, 2005 Notices for Planning Commission sent to Community Council Chairs, adjacent land owners and interested parties. November 30, 2005 The Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council in support of two stations. December 6, 2005 Staff requested a resolution from the City Attorney's Office. December 22, 2005 Received resolution from Attorney's Office December 14, 2005 The Planning Commission ratified the minutes of the November 30, 2005 meeting. 2. Proposed Resolution RESOLUTION NO. OF 2005 AUTHORIZING THE EXTENSION OF THE LIGHT RAIL SYSTEM AND THE ADDITION OF TWO NEW STATIONS AT 525 WEST 200 SOUTH AND 125 SOUTH 400 WEST, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-04-52 WHEREAS, Salt Lake City has constructed (or is constructing) an intermodal hub to facilitate bus, light rail and commuter rail users; and WHEREAS, in order to make bus, light rail and commuter rail systems work together, the existing light rail must be extended from its current terminus to the intermodal hub; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council has studied the matter and has decided that this resolution is in the best interest of the City. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows : 1 . Extension of the light rail line from its current terminus to the intermodal hub is approved; and 2 . The City Council does hereby approve the construction of two (2) additional light rail stations at approximately 525 West 200 South and 125 South 400 West ; and 3 . The Salt Lake City administration is hereby authorized to negotiate and draft an agreement with the Utah Transit Authority that is consistent with this resolution. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of March, 2005 . SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt a City ttorneys Office Date CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER By C\RESOLUTI\Interlocal re 200 West and 400 West TRAX Stations- 12-07-05 draft 4. Planning Commission Hearing a. Original Notice and Postmark b. Staff report c. Agenda d. Minutes 4a. Original Notice and Postmark L _ NOTE: The field trip is scheduled to leave at 4:00 p.m.J AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISI .(�k1NE ' k V. In Room 326 of the City& County Building at 4 S ' e Street Wednesday, November 30,2005, at 5:4 . The Planning Commissioners and Staff will have dinner at 5:00p.m.,in Room 126. During the dinner,Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM WEDNESDAY, November 9, 2005. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR Briefing of Northwest Quadrant Master Plan Timeline and process(Everett Joyce) 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA-Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters(Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or karryn.greenleaf(c�slcgov.com; Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or douq.wheelwright(Wslcgov.com): a) Salt Lake City Public Utilities and Murray City conducting business in relation to the UTOPIA project-Murray City is requesting that Public Utilities issue standard utility permits to allow telecommunication lines to cross the City owned property of the Jordan and Salt Lake City and Canal,at two locations within the City of Murray,Utah.The locations are approximately 7200 South 500 East and 7500 South 500 East and the crossings are requested as part of the UTOPIA project and may be either underground or aerial in nature.The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the standard utility permits as requested. b) Draper City and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department-Draper City is requesting that Public Utilities issue standard utility permits allowing bridge structures over.and utilities under,the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal at two locations. The locations are located at 13600 South Dahle Way and 12400 South 111 West.Additional permits will be issued to each utility as separate entities. The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the bridge crossing and standard utility permits as requested. c) Wathen Construction and Salt Lake City Public Utilities-Wathen Construction is requesting the realignment of an existing waterline easement. The realignment of the waterline easement at 2400 East Oakcrest Lane is necessary to facilitate development of the property. The old easement will be vacated in exchange for a new easement alignment. This location is in Cottonwood Heights City. The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the requested easement realignment. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Petition No.400-04-52-Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority(UTA)are jointly working to connect the existing terminus of the light rail line at the Delta Center,located at approximately 350 West South Temple, to the Intermodal Hub located at 300 South 600 West. The Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub will function as the central transit transfer point for commuter rail,light rail,UTA bus,Greyhound bus, Amtrak,and transit support services. The light rail connection is planned to be constructed by the Spring of 2008 to coincide with the opening of commuter rail service at the Intermodal Hub.The route of the light rail extension will be along 400 West,200 South,and 600 West. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission will hold a public hearing regarding the number and location of stations along that route with the intent of providing a recommendation to the City Council. (Staff-Doug Dansie 535-6182 or douq.dansie(akslcgov.com) b) 1)Petition No.400-05-06-A request by Richard Astel for approval to rezone the properties located at approximately 516-524 South 500 East Street and 517-533 South Denver Street from a Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential(RMF-45)zoning district to a High Density Multifamily(RMF-75)zoning district. The applicant is also requesting approval to rezone approximately twenty-five feet(25') of the rear portion of the property located at approximately 466 East 500 South Street from a Residential/Office(RO)zoning district to the same zoning district as the Planning Commission recommends for the 516-524 South 500 East and 517-533 South Denver Street properties;preferably RMF-75. The request also includes an amendment to the future land use map of the Central Community Master Plan to identify the properties as High Density Residential rather than Medium High Density Residential. The purpose of this request is to accommodate the construction of a 43 unit multi-family residential development. (Staff-Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.tew(8slcgov.corn) 2)Petition No.410-748-A request by Richard Astel for planned development approval for a 43 unit multi-family housing development located at approximately 516-524 East and 517-533 South Denver Street. Included is a request to modify provisions of the zoning ordinance including but not limited to: a.Allowing grade changes in excess of two feet(2')to accommodate driveway entrances to a subterranean parking structure; b.Allowing multiple buildings with a shared common area over an underground parking structure on a single lot; c.Modifying minimum yard standards to allow an encroachment of the subterranean parking structure;and d. Modifying minimum yard standards such that the RMF-45 standards would be applied to the proposed development etc. The parcels are currently zoned RMF-45. (Staff-Janice Lew at 535-7625 orjanice.lew(Wslcgov.com) 3)Petition No.490-05-23-Theas Webb requesting preliminary subdivision approval to reconfigure several existing parcels located at approximately 466 East 500 South Street,516-520 South 500 East Street,and 517-533 South Denver Street into three parcels to accommodate the construction of a 43 unit multi-family residential structure. The parcels are currently within the RO and RMF-45 zoning districts. (Staff-Janice Lew at 535-7625 orjanice-lew(Sislcgov.corn) c) Petition No.400-05-08 and Petition No.400-05-09-Rowland Hall, St Mark's School requesting to amend the East Bench Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map to identify the property located at approximately 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue as Institutional rather than Open Space and to rezone the property from an Open Space to an Institutional zoning classification. This is a 13-acre portion of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery property. (Staff-Everett Joyce at 535-7930 or everett.joyce(a,slcgov.com) 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 9NJ2JV]H V -JO ]3L[ON I b8 I n •�`li� a�{el lle 30H1SOd Sfl - i S 11198 woIjpalleuy , r �� , OOb wd Iaa,lS ajejS UInoS ISb soot/s�nl #k+2( ', . / a ®� tie)a»aS uo�sslluwo� 6uluueld `t T '� uolSlAla 6viUUeld Alit aAel 1leS I .!'4 £LS10s91.H9l.01. F ill out rat. t - d parte ate if you wish to speak and which agenda item you will add,ess. 7. Alter the stab and petitioner presentations•hearings will be opened for public comment. Community Councils will present their comments at the beginning of the heating 1. In order to be considerate of everyone attending the meeting_public comments are limited to 3 minutes per per son per item A spokesperson who has been asked by a group to summarize their concerns will be allowed 5 minutes to speak. W,itten c omments are welcome and will be provided to the Planning Commission in advance of the meeting if they ate submitted to the Plantain oral' k,;;t:: oon the d4416H16501573 y� be lore the meeting. Witten comments should be sent to: r 8 Salt lake City Planning Qireclorr4 _ 451 South Stale Street,Room 406 ' i}'ti ry1 11/15/2005 Salt lake City.171 54111 f ,t}- a 4 Mailed From 84111 4 Speakers will be called by the Chan. t' w US POSTAGE 5 Please stale your name and your affiliation to the petition or whom you,epresent at the beginning of your t omments 6 Speakers should address their comments to the Chair, Planning Commission members may have questions lot the spea►ei Speake,s may not debate with other meeting attendees T Speakers should to(us the,. comments Or,the ayenda item E Itraneous ant),rpetrtive r omments should be avoided 8 idle, those registered have spoken,the Chair will invite one, t omments Prior speakers may be allowed to supplement their pievuous t omments al this time 9. Alter the hearing is ttosed the discussion will be'united among Planning Commrssrone,s and Stall Unde, unique l itt vmstanc es.the Planning Commission may t ioose to reopen the heaiin1 to obtain a0ditionat information 10 Salt lake City Co.poration complies with all ADA guidelines. If you ale planning to attend the public meeting and.due to a disab.£ay,need assistance in understanding or participating in the meeting, please notify the Planning 011ie e 48 hours in advanc e of the meeting and we will try to provide whateve, assrstanc e may be requi.et) Please call 53S,71S7 In. ££ itti £ £ £ ilia£ iii1 ££ ££i £i £. £i ££!ii �•'r .'.,-;"t iclttcltik�c'�rsunc NA fv-s, M �"WEVPS *latetriecat ABC •>. a .504 Order: 6502'WZ9D Pubs: 1,4 Rate: ',R Phone: 801 S35t181 Class: 010 �Chsr9es $0.00 Acoaunt: S5356182 Start Date 11 1.6j2005 List Price:. $307.t* Name: Iva, Stop Date: 11/16/200S Payments: $0.00 rim SLC PLANNiNC COMt•1iSSION Insertions: 2 Balance: $307.00 Lines: 5, Taken By: 65 WigilcilrY MOS sow `'.7maova "r�rer ro C°:Zirlid4.Urn 10 Ara ArgMa4Y Al ore woo., f . Cf*i��pt- Mt, 10:` o�p�p 3 W1s1 f• I I�W$4. Th � tr .Mrr 7.taorvlM Maar is du Yaa- s ElV;Gq Ani- l! Moult ap p]rt so M Solo Id sat is Nassiod lob A2DOCdrobNdoy eo•rpw .4o�rnS r W [NMpr 11 _t} Soil Lake CI f ,E111111 • ca • ��a rile •«oaa r•o 0 rwaare OI•rp irsiTeuto souk gro inters co'oro odil$ "cCra r•b • + xii roomo� to •rots victors. N NOr. Soh it Ur. Far miss rokorsais or tot w•og I �a Doll don,4aea-. pa.cora br hall ftotilaibunt,t ;144Xnir Nlw4k (101)237.2000 CI,a:sil"iui (101)23 7-3,776 In*We CIdol t ed Fax (d01)233.2775 Outsida Crab*inadhis (601)237.2310 ttar:ruilmunrtfhx Mtp:/;www.silrlb.txim M1p:Ifwww,dau+erelnevn.cum 1-moil: ittsssd►0r4ACurp.c»m 4b. Staff report DATE: November 30, 2005 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Doug Dansie, Principal Planner RE: STAFF REPORT FOR NOVEMBER 30,2005 MEETING CASE#: Petition 400-05-52 APPLICANT: Salt Lake City/UTA STATUS OF APPLICANT: City and transit provider PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Light Rail Extension: The project involves extending the existing light rail system by approximately six blocks. PROJECT LOCATION: The light rail route from the Delta Center to the Intermodal Hub: 400 West , 200 South, 600 West. COUNCIL DISTRICT: District Four,Nancy Saxton REQUESTED ACTION: It is required that the Planning Commission provide a recommendation to the City Council regarding the commitment of public property. The proposed light rail extension will not involve the disposal of any public street or property;however, it will require a long term lease agreement with UTA for a commitment to the rail alignment within the street. APPLICABLE LAND USE REGULATIONS: The adjacent land is zoned Gateway Mixed-Use GMU, Downtown D-3 and Downtown D-4. All three zoning districts allow for high-density- medium height construction. The Intermodal Hub is zoned CG General Commercial. SURROUNDING ZONING DISTRICTS: North—G-MU (mixed-use). South - D-3 Downtown residential. Petition 400-04-52 1 November 30,2005 East- D-4 Downtown support and D-3 Downtown residential. West- G-MU (mixed-use) and CG General Commercial (Intermodal Hub). SURROUNDING LAND USES: North—Vacant, Gateway mixed-use center, Retail. South—Vacant, Mixed-use, Homeless shelter. East—Mixed, uses, Sport arena, Vacant land, Housing. West—Gateway mixed-use center, Intermodal Hub, Mixed-uses. THE ADMINISTRATION RECCOMENDATION FOR THE HUB TRAX CONNECTION IS AS FOLLOWS: 1. Route: 400 West (South Temple to 200 South), 200 South(400 West to 600 West), and 600 West (200 South to 400 South) 2. Alignment: double track and center running to match the existing system throughout the downtown 3. Traffic Movements: preserve existing traffic movements at major intersections 4. Overhead Contact System: low-profile catenary to match the existing University TRAX line 5. Station Design: canopies, seating, and landscaping to match the existing downtown stations 6. Streetscape Design a. street lights and public furniture to match the existing downtown elements b. sidewalk paving patterns to match the existing administrative guidelines (concrete or concrete pavers) 7. Mid-block Pedestrian Crossings a. 150 South across 400 West and 550 West across 200 South in conjunction with station b. Rio Grande (450 West) across 200 South c. 350 West across South Temple 8. Station Locations: match existing 2-block spacing and existing station configurations in the downtown. a. 325 South 600 West (Intermodal Hub) b. 525 West 200 South and 125 South 400 West Salt Lake City's recommendation is to build both TRAX stations with the TRAX connection. Although UTA has always preferred a single intermediate station, UTA had reached a compromise position with Salt Lake City and were recommending the 525 West 200 South station to be built with the TRAX connection and the 125 South 400 West station as a future build contingent upon development. When the project was presented to the Transportation Advisory Board in 2004, Salt Lake City Petition 400-04-52 2 November 30,2005 and UTA jointly supported the two intermediate stations with 125 South 400 West as a future build. The full Administration recommendation and its rationale regarding all eight issues are addressed in a memo, which is attachment number 5 to this report. ANALYSIS /DISCUSSION / FINDINGS OF FACT The following discussion provides a brief analysis of the issues related to the number of stations and their location. One Station Scenario Location Considerations: In a one-station scenario, the station would likely be located at 475 West 200 South. This site is directly adjacent to the homeless shelter and the Gateway. If the station were constructed using the existing street configuration of 500 West, a station would be possible. Such a station would block Rio Grande Street from continuing north to south across 200 South (this option would not likely happen even if there is no station constructed at this site because of other technical issues). The eastern end of the station would nearly line up with the sidewalk of Rio Grande Street, creating a midblock walkway. However, if a station at this location follows the 500 West right-of-way line, which is 66 feet east of the existing intersection and designed for a continuation of the Park Blocks once the power substation is reconfigured, the station would be pushed east to a point(460 West 200 South)where the midblock walkway no longer lines up with Rio Grande Street and the left turn bays on 400 West would be short, resulting in left turn capacity restrictions at the intersection. These alternatives are illustrated on pages 27 and 28 of the Analysis Report. Because the alternative to push this station to the east is difficult at best, a one station alternative at this location would protrude into the 500 West right-of-way, making the long term completion of the Park Blocks, as originally conceived, difficult to accomplish. A second one-station alternative consists of using 525 West 200 South. This site preserves the 500 West right-of-way and the Park Blocks. This site technically works, but is ranked lower because of the resulting 4-block spacing between it and the Delta Center Station. Rationale for one-station: Arguments for one station include the desire to move the system faster (less stations equals fewer stops) and that one station(475 West or 460 West 200 South) would be located immediately south of Gateway accommodating pedestrian walk through (pedestrians would walk the entire length of the Gateway from the Delta Center to 200 South). Petition 400-04-52 3 November 30,2005 Rational against one-station: Arguments against one station include general land—use and access considerations and effects on the 500 West right-of-way. The Gateway area is identified in all master plans to have the highest potential high-density land use outside of the central core. It is the one area of the City where high-density mixed-use buildings are physically feasible and politically encouraged. A higher number of stations enhances the ability to serve the higher density envisioned for the area. If greater densities are achieved in this area, resulting in increased ridership, it eliminates many of the concerns regarding immediate lack of ridership. The one station alternative would undermine the objective to serve the proposed high-density mixed-use development envisioned for the area. The 475 West 200 South location would impact the potential development of the Park Blocks. Two station scenario Location Considerations: In a two-station scenario, the stations would be located at 125 South 400 West and 525 West 200 South. The 400 West station would be immediately adjacent to the Clark Planetarium. The 200 South station would be located immediately north of the Bridges project and southeast of the Orbit Cafe. Neither station has significant technical problems, although the 400 West station would conflict with a left turn proposal from the Boyer Company for Gateway The Analysis Report indicates the two-station scenario could be built with a station at 525 West 200 South and a future station at 125 South 400 West. However, since the costs of building a future station are much greater than simply building the station at the original time, it is recommended that they both be built at the same time. Also, because of adjacent development, the 125 South Station would likely have more initial ridership than the 525 West 200 South station. Rationale for two-stations: Arguments for and against the two station scenario are the inverse of arguments for one station. The proposed two station layout is consistent with the two-block spacing of stations within other areas of Downtown where higher densities are allowed and encouraged. . The staff has endorsed two stations for two fundamental reasons 1) two stations technically work better than the single station (in terms of layout) and 2)they provide better coverage and service to the area as well as promotion of desired redevelopment. The existing layout of the Downtown LRT system is one station every two blocks. The proposed two-station scenario will continue this alignment. There have been concerns expressed that two stations are not warranted because densities are not as great as elsewhere in Downtown, however the Gateway Master Plan and zoning both identify this area as the emerging recipient for high—density development in the City. Both stations are adjacent to easily developable sites (see IBI massing study attached to this report). The 525 West 200 South station is adjacent to property (north) that has been consolidated by one land owner(approximately 6 of the 10 acres on the block). The 125 South 400 West site is adjacent to the Frank Edwards site (approximately 2.5 acres) that is available for development and the Utah Paper Box site that also has future development potential. The Westgate Building is presently being converted to housing. Petition 400-04-52 4 November 30,2005 Zoning on both sites allows for mixed-use development and high-density housing with unrestricted density to maximize the site potential. Staff has had discussions with several developers regarding proposed, but unannounced, development along the 500 West corridor. The two station scenario provides increased transit loading capacity for the Delta Center. The two station alternative provides more flexibility in future interface for transfers to light rail, streetcar or other forms of transit. The Gateway area is an emerging part of Downtown that should be served, in the long term, by the same level of pedestrian access to the light rail system that is accommodated elsewhere in Downtown. Rational against two-stations: The argument for one station presumes that a single station is adequate for coverage and that trains should travel through the area be as fast as possible to get people from the Intermodal Hub to,Downtown. Concerns previously expressed regarding the number of stations: The primary points of contention regarding the number of stations are as follows. 1) UTA is concerned that if development does not occur as anticipated, the stations will be underutilized. Response: Planning Staff contends that there is a need to be proactive with station location and that development will occur at stations. The desire to accommodate higher densities in this area is a primary motivating factor for encouraging more access to the LRT system. UTA's concerns are minimized if high-density development occurs surrounding the proposed stations. 2)The second station will add approximately 30 seconds travel time. Response: Staff contends that any ridership lost from an additional 30 second delay, (which will likely occur in conjunction with a 15 to 45 minute ride on commuter rail) will be replaced by ridership created by increased access and development at the stations. Again, UTA's concerns are minimized if high-density development occurs. Specific Concerns regarding the 125 South 400 West station. There are three groups that have expressed concern regarding the proposed 400 West station: the Boyer Company, some members of the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council and residents of the Dakota Lofts. Concern: The Boyer Company has been concerned that the 400 West station will restrict access into their parking garage. Petition 400-04-52 5 November 30,2005 Response: It should be noted that in 1999, the Boyer Company commissioned "The Gateway Salt Lake City Traffic Impact Study"as required by Salt Lake City for development projects. The Boyer Company's document includes the following statements which acknowledge that the Light Rail system will affect parking access and specifically that the parking entry on 400 West will be right-in/right-out: Page 1 Purpolc The purpose of this study is to evaluate the potential impacts to traffic C41V1114600 sod operations from the proposed Crummy development to he construed in the tanner Unioo Peak Railroad South Yard and to identify necemmty mitigation measurts to minimize and offset those impacts. The proposed development is to he accessed via a staics of perking gunge accesses on 200 South, 100 South,400 West and 500 Weti, The development wilt also be accessed via Utah Transit Authority(UTA)bus and Light Roil Transit(LRT)aeMec. Page 16 29&South Light roil tracks are planned along 200 South prov°iduay LRT access to the platter late/modal Center al 200 South 600 West, It has been assumed for this analysis that this spur is in oparaticm. This limits access onto 200 South to right=uvrlght.out only. Id0 West Light rail trucks see planted along 400 Wes as pan of the W'estrlast LRT project. it his been assumed for the analysis that the West,1 au LRT Is in operation. The eons►rvcr on of this line llndu access oa 400 West to right-intright.out only. Page 25 Site Attila Ow of the main issues to address in isms of tratTtc and improvement analysis is that of site access including the number of access points and the number of lanes to tcsvict the psalohuur thn.s se each of the access points. Severat of the constraints outlined in Section V: Projected Traffic,subsection Dip&err/ syson have direct impact on the location of parking access to the development_ Based on the constraints otalinui in this section,the following assuutptions have been made In terms of parking access I. No available access provided on North'templet between 400 West and Rio Brande Street due to viaduct constraints. 2_ I-1S North IIOV trui'tz to exit onto 100 South. This restricts access to this street,but does not eliminate parking access in any way. t 200 South access limited to right-in%right-out fluty due to Intermodel LRT span on 200 South. 4, West/East LRT built as planned on 400 West, limiting access on 4tt0 West to right. inrriglit-out only. Staff contends that while access to the Gateway is important, there are alternatives to continue to facilitate access, including turning options into existing parking entries on 100 and 200 South Streets. If a one-station scenario is chosen, which does not include a station on 400 West; there is no guarantee that a left turn lane for the Gateway would be feasible. The Administration Petition 400-04-52 6 November 30,2005 has provided the Boyer Company with criteria to determine feasibility; however, even if it is feasible, there are other considerations. For example; a left turn lane into Gateway would necessitate widening the street to the east, which would result in removing all on- street parking for the Dakota Lofts. Decision makers must decide if that is a reasonable cost. The technical reasons surrounding the left turn lane proposal are more fully discussed on page 4 of the Administration's recommendation. In any scenario, the left turn lane would not be available during the construction time period, causing the interim need for signage and marketing to re-educate the public. Therefore, Staff contends that the solution is not to abandon the 400 West station, but to work with the Boyer Company regarding signage and other marketing strategies to overcome any initial inconvenience of traffic pattern alterations. Concern: Some members of the Capitol Hill Community Council have been concerned that a station on 400 West will slow traffic, diverting it into their neighborhood. The Community Council opposed the station, however it was not unanimous. Response: The number of traffic lanes is not being altered on 400 West. All 400 West intersection movements are being accommodated, including left turns near stations (which presently do not exist elsewhere on the system). The existing center-of-the-street left turn lane will be eliminated regardless of the station (to accommodate the rail). A signal would still be required at 150 South 400 West to accommodate either a midblock walkway without a station or a left turn Gateway parking lot entry without a station. The tragic consultant working with Parsons (light rail consultant) indicates that the station at 125 South 400 West will not alter general tragic flow in the Capitol Hill neighborhood and will not cause unacceptable levels of service for any traffic movement. 400 West was analyzed at South Temple, 100 South and 200 South for various scenarios. Currently, the Level Of Service (LOS) at these intersections is A, B and C at South Temple, 100 South and 200 South, respectively (i.e., no change under the two station concept) In the conservative 2020 traffic volume analysis, South Temple goes to LOS B, 100 South goes to either LOS C or D, and 200 South goes to either LOS D or E depending on what option is being discussed. Regardless of Light Rail, general traffic growth will eventually deteriorate the LOS. For example, 2020 traffic without light rail erodes South. Temple and 400 West from LOS A to B. The other two intersections stay at LOS B and C respectively, but the amount of delay per vehicle increases. Salt Lake City Transportation indicates that LRT has virtually no impact on traffic volumes on Victory Road. Victory Road generally accommodates different types of traffic with different destinations. A 400 West station or a midblock crosswalk have about the same impact and resultant LOS, If there are both, the City would likely operate the crosswalk signal to allow a full street crossing initially, but if at some time in the future the traffic flow justified it, the City could operate the pedestrian crossing as two crossings using the station as a refuge. Petition 400-04-52 7 November 30,2005 Although there continues to be some neighborhood disagreement as to the disposition of 400 West because of its adjacency to West High, the Capitol Hill Master Plan designates 400 West as a commuter street and calls for increasing the speed limit to match 300 West while still maintaining West High student safety. The City officially views 400 West as an arterial street (300 West is an arterial State Highway). Staff supports the general desire to discourage traffic through the Capitol Hill neighborhood, but does not find that the station on 400 West will affect neighborhood/commuter traffic any more than the other proposed alternatives (left turn, mid-block crosswalk). The Capitol Hill Master Plan discourages significant increases in density in most Capitol Hill neighborhoods. The proposed two station alternative provides access to an area of the City (Gateway) where high-density housing is physically and politically favorable, relieving pressure on other areas that are subject to high-density pressures. Concern: Staff received several email correspondences from residents of the Dakota Lofts. Their concerns tend to revolve around potential noise (station announcements, bells, talking at stations, etc.). Response: Many of these letters were written prior to the residents being made aware of technical impacts of the LRT system. Specifically: If a station is built at 125 South 400 West, parking will remain along the street in front of businesses at Dakota Lofts. However, If a left turn lane is installed for access to Gateway (and a station not built) the parking will need to be removed and the sidewalk narrowed. The northbound traffic lanes will be relocated eastward adjacent to the new curbline. This affects business owner on the ground level of the Dakota Lofts. Loft resident were not aware of this fact at the time that they wrote letters. The City does not have follow up letters from the residents or business owners. There will be a station near the Dakota lofts in either a one station or two station scenario (125 South 400 West in a two station scenario; 475 West 200 South in a one station scenario), therefore the noise issue will be similar in both cases (although the building is closer to the 400 West station). There are methods of reducing the volume of announcements at station in off-peak hours. A more detailed staff response is found in the Letters and Comments attachment to this report. Petition 400-04-52 8 November 30,2005 Support for two stations: The Transportation Advisory Board heard the issue on April 5, 2004 and voted to recommend two stations (minutes attached). The Rio Grande Community Council has endorsed a two—station concept. Summary: Several design issues are previously committed or have not met with opposition: • The alignment will be (from the Delta Center) south on 400 West, west on 200 South and south on 600 West(to the Intermodal Hub). • The alignment will be in the center of the street with double tracks. • The architecture of all light rail stops will match the existing architecture of the other Salt Lake Light Rail Transit (LRT) stations. • The overhead catenary system will be"low-profile" similar to 400 South. • Street lights and public furniture will match the lighting and street furniture of Downtown. • Sidewalk paving patterns will match administrative guidelines (percentage of concrete and/or concrete pavers). The following option is not being pursued because of technical reasons: • A vehicular street crossing at Rio Grande and 200 South. Petition 400-04-52 9 November 30,2005 Findings The Planning Staff finds the following: 1. The Gateway and Downtown Master Plans call for significant residential and mixed-use reinvestment into the Gateway area. 2. The zoning of the area is designed to accommodate significant mixed-use development. 3. Based upon master plan and zoning considerations as well as recent public reinvestment, the West Downtown/Gateway area is intended to be one of the most densely populated areas of the City, accommodating growth in the City that may not be accommodated in other, more established, neighborhoods. 4. A two station scenario will best stimulate growth in the area and serve future land use densities. 5. The two station scenario is consistent with spacing of other Downtown stations, while remaining further apart than downtown stations of many other cities such as Portland and Denver(Portland streetcars are only 400-600 feet apart). It is similar to the spacing between the City Center and LDS Temple Square stations. 6. A one station scenario would result in station spacing similar to the existing spacing between the Library to Gallivan Plaza stations. 7. The single station scenario at 475 West 200 South would permanently affect the potential for the construction of the Park Blocks and is inconsistent with the Gateway Master Plan. 8. The single station scenario at 460 West 200 South has numerous technical problems making the solution unattractive. 9. The Gateway project was built knowing that there would be Light Rail track on 400 West and that parking entries would be limited to right-in/right-out movement/circulation. The proposed left turn lane on 400 West into the Gateway creates impacts onto other businesses (removing parking for the Dakota Lofts). 10. Unlike the current Light Rail system where left turn lanes are prohibited at all station locations, the proposed extension design allows for left turn lanes at any station scenario, maintaining most traffic movements. 11. The traffic impacts on 400 West under any scenario (station, left turn lane, mid- block walkway) have similar impacts, but none that significantly impair access from the north (Capitol Hill). 12. A 400 West station was originally proposed as part of the University/Airport Light Rail system as a major transfer point and a station on 400 West continues to hold potential for interfacing/transfers with future bus/light rail or streetcar options. 13. Two stations adjacent to the Delta Center increase the capacity of transit ridership to Delta Center events (the existing station is currently maximized with south bound traffic only—a second station near the Delta Center allows for transit access to the intermodal hub and points north) Petition 400-04-52 10 November 30,2005 Recommendation Based upon the analysis and findings, staff recommends the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council supporting the following: 1. Route: 400 West (South Temple to 200 South), 200 South(400 West to 600 West), and 600 West (200 South to 400 South) 2. Alignment: double track and center running to match the existing system throughout the downtown 3. Traffic Movements: preserve existing traffic movements at major intersections 4. Overhead Contact System: low-profile catenary to match the existing University TRAX line 5. Station Design: canopies, seating, and landscaping to match the existing downtown stations 6. Streetscape Design a. street lights and public furniture to match the existing downtown elements b. sidewalk paving patterns to match the existing administrative guidelines (concrete or concrete pavers) 7. Mid-block Pedestrian Crossings a. 150 South across 400 West and 550 West across 200 South in conjunction with station b. Rio Grande (450 West) across 200 South c. 350 West across South Temple 8. Station Locations: match existing 2-block spacing and existing station configurations in the downtown. a. 325 South 600 West(Intermodal Hub) b. 525 West 200 South and 125 South 400 West Salt Lake City's recommendation is to build both TRAX stations with the TRAX connection. Although UTA has always preferred a single intermediate station, UTA had reached a compromise position with Salt Lake City and were recommending the 525 West 200 South station to be built with the TRAX connection and the 125 South 400 West station as a future build contingent upon development. When the project was presented to the Transportation Advisory Board in 2004, Salt Lake City and UTA jointly supported the two intermediate stations with 125 South 400 West as a future build. This endorsement should be supported because staff strongly views this area as a strategic component in achieving the City's long term goal of encouraging significant residential development in the Downtown. Attachments: 1. IBI Group massing study for Intermodal area 2. Previous Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes 3. Transportation Advisory Board Agenda and Minutes 4. Letters and Comments (including staff response) 5. Administrative Hub TRAX Connection recommendation 6. Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension Analysis Report Petition 400-04-52 11 November 30,2005 1. IBI Group massing study for Intermodal area ✓ ' �k /tea. ,. % 6 doff. -.. _y o i� .<^',�". ��7F Asa'*'„,...,ti.mx '�, 6. 4 - �' ..+"`y, ,. TA .--.0--- �,..414.1qa-5 .„,.„,,,„,p/ , '-p,-.,..--7...,..-:::-it,..,444,;,....i,,,,,, ,........4...:.....5, v ,1 .-://e*:',VrAgall'"."-- -,`‘' / iirl 4iy:4;„,-- .. -- ''-',11.L.,2‘,..---v77.: . --, i ".1' / i ji4r./' assmil [Z,"*.1 'r i i i ✓e.;r ,,,;......,._,..t.:., ..:0' p ; tk,,q0. r / ' �c,.�°, I'� ill Aeai t( �!! , , ¢ 5 ' ''' J¢,� `' � QIII�FS 'aW II`iliar .�� �., ,� s '7 # `fjw..- ~-_,. This conceptual view (looking northwest from 500 West at 400 South) illustrates massing potential for new. buildings only (most existing buildings are only shown by footprint). The llustration represents a modest growth scenario using current zoning regulations, with few sites maximized. 1. Rio Grande 0 Union Pacific c� Intermodal Cityfront Apartments 2. Previous Planning Commission Agenda and Minutes AMENDED AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, January 28, 2004, at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commission will be having dinner at 5:00 p.m., in Room 126. During the dinner, Staff may share planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting will be open to the public. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES from Wednesday, January 14, 2004 2. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR 3. REPORT OF THE PLANNING COMMISSION CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 4. OTHER BUSINESS a. Presentation of the Intermodal Small Area Master Plan by IBI Consulting Firm, and presentation of the Intermodal Light Rail Extension by Parsons Consulting Firm. (Staff— Doug Dansie at 535-6182) b. Presentation by Kevin Horn, A.I.A. and Richard Sheinberg, Developer, representing Capitol Park Condominiums L.L.C, for a proposed residential condominium conversion project for the old Veteran's Administration Hospital and Annex buildings, on a 5.1 acre parcel located west of the intersection of 13th Avenue and "F" Streets, in the Foothill Residential "FR- 3" zoning district. A total of 32 residential units are proposed for the two existing buildings. (Staff— Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178) SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, January 28, 2004, 5:45 pm Present from the Planning Commission were Chair Prescott Muir, Vice-Chair, McDonough, h, Tim Chambless, Bip Daniels, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Peggy 9 Laurie Noda, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig. Present from the Planning Staff were Planning Director Louis Zunguze; Deputy Planning Director Brent Wilde, Deputy Planning Director Doug Wheelwright; Principal Planner Doug Dansie, Principal Planner Joel Paterson; Planning Commission Secretary Kathy Castro; and Deputy City Attorney Lynn Pace. Presentation of the Intermodal Small Area Master Plan by IBI Consulting Firm, and presentation of the Intermodal Light Rail Extension by Parsons Consulting Firm. This presentation began at 6:15 p.m. Principal Planner Doug Dansie gave a brief history of planning for the Downtown area and then introduced the Small Area Master Plan and the Intermodal Light Rail Expansion. He said that the Small Area Master Plan will generally cover the area between 400 West to 1-15 and North Temple to 400 South. He said concurrently the City is proposing an extension of the TRAX line which will go from the Delta Center stop, south on 400 West to 200 South, and west on 200 South to 600 West into the Intermodal Hub. Mr. Dansie said that the following presentation is intended to brief the Planning Commission on the development and receive input regarding the issues they may raise. He noted that the City has a policy of expanding Downtown development to the west and south of Downtown and have made decisions to implement that policy. He noted that the area west and south of Downtown can handle the increased density. Commissioner Chambless referred to the area proposed for the TRAX expansion and said that it may be an attraction for more people to live in the City. Mr. Dansie agreed and said that this is one area of the City which can handle increased density. Commissioner Chambless asked Mr. Dansie if affordable housing is envisioned to be developed in that area. Mr. Dansie answered that the City policy is not to create neighborhoods of exclusive affordable housing, rather to develop a broad range of mixed housing types. Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Dansie if an 1-15 ramp is envisioned to exit onto 100 South. Mr. Dansie said that there was discussion to add an additional ramp for carpools, onto North Temple which met opposition; the compromise was to exit the freeway at 100 South and 600 West. Mr. Ray Witchurch representing IBI Consulting Firm addressed the Commission saying that IBI was retained to review the Gateway area, considering the recent impacts and determine ways to create a more walkable community. He referred to the proposed TRAX extension and Intermodal Hub and said that IBI is taking into consideration the fact that this is a unique neighborhood which is in transition. He said that the study will review the block patterns and the connections from the external neighborhoods which come into this area. He added that the design guidelines and policies for the Gateway area will also be reviewed. Chair Muir asked Mr. Witchurch to describe the boundaries of the study area. Mr. Witchurch replied that it will cover the area from North Temple to 400 South and 1-15 to 400 West. Chair Muir stated that the study will obviously include the Gateway and asked if the study will include an analysis of how the regional shopping area meshes with localized retail. Mr. Witchurch answered that they will not deal with the market analysis; however, they will analyze the pedestrian and vehicular circulation in a theoretical manner. Mr. Dansie added that Gateway takes up a large part of the area for the study but there are several large property owners as well, and part of this process is working with those property owners to discover their development plans and try to tie them all together to make sure that the whole is greater than the sum of the parts. Commissioner Chambless asked how many years into the future is this proposal planned for. Mr. Dansie answered that it is difficult to foresee technological advances; however, Light Rail Transit contracts are for 50 years. Commissioner Chambless asked what type of lighting is proposed. He worried that the crime in the area may increase due to the neighborhood being in transition. Mr. Witchurch said that the lighting will be comparable to that of Main Street. Mr. Dansie added that the lighting will be defined by district. There have been discussions regarding the notion that this area is a separate district from Downtown as well as the idea that the same light fixtures in the Downtown District should be carried over to this area. He noted that the lighting will be pedestrian friendly. Commissioner Chambless referred to the concept of bringing City Creek above ground. He wondered if fountains are envisioned to be incorporated into the walkable community. Mr. Dansie said that the City has conceptually brought City Creek above ground in different areas of the City such as City Creek Park, The LDS Church Conference Center and the fountains in Gateway to create the image of City Creek. At 500 West the Army Corps of Engineers is working with the City to bring the water from the aqueduct at North Temple along an abandoned rail line to the Jordan River which would be actual City Creek Water. Commissioner McDonough wondered how this study will address the relationship between the Gateway District and Main Street. She asked how the issues will be identified initially to set the stage for the proposed expansion. Mr. Witchurch answered that one issue that they are identifying is establishing precincts that would have different character in that area. Mr. Paterson added that some of the guidance is coming from the Design Guidelines in the Gateway Master Plan; in that the Gateway area is broken into smaller sub-districts which will have their own character. Mr. Zunguze added that the project must have synergy with the entire Downtown. He said that one interesting feature which is being carried over from the discussions regarding department store definitions, is the notion of not creating a one size fits all approach to the Downtown. The intent is to create differentiated areas which offer different things and still create synergy to bring liveliness to Downtown. Chair Muir referred to when the department store definitions were analyzed and said that he felt that the Gateway Master Plan did not prescribe what the Gateway Development turned out to be. He said that that issue needed to be addressed and he felt that this study is the vehicle to do so. He said that perhaps the Gateway Plan needs to be reinvented. Mr. Witchurch said that the TRAX stops are going to be the key to how the areas develop. The activity centers will basically spread out from the TRAX stop locations. Chair Muir referred to the HUD standards for noise and proximity to homes, he wondered if there are mitigation measures in place if the surrounding area of the rail corridor is expected to be highly residential. Mr. Dansie answered that the Federal Government now allows the creation of quiet zones. The City is in the process of putting gates in several locations along the rail road line with the goal that trains would be able to run throughout the City with out blowing their horns. Mr. Evan Nixon representing Parsons Consulting Firm spoke to the Planning Commission saying that Parsons has been hired by the City to work on the preliminary engineering of the TRAX extension. He referred to a diagram of the extension and described the area. He said that the alignment of the extension was decided by environmental studies done of the area. He said some of the issues that they are working out are where to place the TRAX along the road. He said that they found that the center of the road is the best option. Another issue they are currently working through is where to have stops along the line. Commissioner De Lay asked Mr. Nixon if the only section proposed to be extended is the area from South Temple to the Intermodal Hub. Mr. Nixon answered that at this time, that is correct, but there are options in the future. Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Nixon what his recommendation is as to how many stations there should be and their locations along the line. Mr. Nixon referred to a diagram of the existing North and South TRAX line and University TRAX line which had 1,300 foot radius circles on it. He said that the circles represent the distance a person is willing to walk before it becomes an inconvenience. One idea of the extension is to have the same feel as Downtown and create a similar spacing; however, from an operation point of view the more stations there are, the slower the ride is going to seem. Chair Muir asked the Commission's perspective as to the importance of an intermediate station mid distant between the Delta Station and the Intermodal Hub at the expense of the opportunity to continue the 500 West Park Blocks; or does that opportunity create a higher priority, and the station should be adjusted subordinate to that opportunity. Mr. Nixon said that if there is a stop at 475 West it must be pushed up against the intersection of the existing 500 West, not the potential 500 West, to minimize the amount of jay-walking to get to the station platforms. Commissioner De Lay asked if Mr. Nixon is aware of the high amount of pedestrian traffic at the potential 485 West 200 South station. She mentioned the concern that a completely new traffic flow would be created due to the amount of people who do not use the crosswalk. Mr. Nixon said that the hope is that the public would use the crosswalk which is not being eliminated. He added that he appreciated that concern and that is an issue that needs to be reviewed. Chair Muir added that as he has been working with the Homeless and Humanitarian Committee, trying to deal with the Homeless situation, he has found the access to public transportation is paramount to the success of social programs. Commissioner De Lay agreed but felt that that block has a large amount of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and she felt it is ridiculous to have a stop there. Mr. Nixon said that all of the impacts mentioned are probably going to be there whether there is a stop or not due to the fact that there will be a train moving down the center of the street. He added that there will be a curb line along TRAX to minimize U-turns and such. Commissioner De Lay asked if the events at the Delta Center have been taken into account. She mentioned concerns with the amount of traffic which those events create along 400 South. Mr. Nixon said that they have prepared a computer simulation to illustrate different scenarios that have been taken into account. Mr. Dave Garish addressed the Commission as a representative of Fehrn Peers Consulting Firm, which is a sub-consulting firm to Parsons on this project. He presented three computer simulations which illustrate the one station alternative, the two station alternative, and the train conductor's view while moving down the extension. He said that the Delta Center events raise concerns that the left turning lane is available at 500 West, as well as the Gateway summer parking garage access. He mentioned that they figured current traffic counts and projected them into the future 20 years and then completed an evaluation on existing and future conditions. Commissioner McDonough referred to the different scenarios presented and asked if the scenario with the 475 West station is the only scenario which prevents the 500 West Boulevard continuing south. Mr. Dansie answered that that is correct. Mr. Nixon described the layout of TRAX entering the Intermodal Hub and the different configurations that have been studied. Commissioner Daniels asked Mr. Nixon to describe the efforts in place to accommodate the elderly and people with disabilities. Mr. Nixon stated that both ends of a station have mini high blocks in place to accommodate a level entrance to the train. Commissioner Diamond suggested another alternative which would reroute the extension from 400 West south to 400 South then turn right going west. Mr. Nixon said that he did not think UDOT would approve using 400 West for another TRAX line, as well as the viaduct altered or avoided in that case. Ms. Mary Guy-Sell noted that the alignment of the rail between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub was determined in the late 1990's when the original Airport to University EIS and the Intermodal Hub EA was completed. The alignment is not an issue which should be addressed at this point. Commissioner McDonough felt that it is more important to allow the City to have the flexibility to execute the vision of 500 West and deal with the technical issues as they come. She said that she would support the elimination of the 475 West station location, which would narrow the debates between whether there should be one or two stations. She felt that certainly one station is necessary to contribute to a walkable community. Commissioner Daniels agreed with Commissioner McDonough that there must be one stop minimum to serve those in that community. Commissioner Noda agreed and said that the future will probably bring more growth in that area. She said that a walkable community is definitely something that should be encouraged. She did not think that one additional stop, in the two stations scenario would deter people from riding TRAX. Commissioner De Lay said that as a resident of the neighborhood she felt that one stop would be better than two because of the noise factor which will impact the neighborhood. Commissioner Diamond asked how difficult would it be to design a future station. Mr. Nixon answered that that is an option. Commissioner Diamond suggested that the proposed station be moved to about 600 West rather than 500 West to accommodate a future stop and future growth. Mr. Dansie said that if the stop is moved too far west then the TRAX train would be making a 90 degree turn which is not feasible. Commissioner Chambless referred to the future growth of the City and the population and said that the current planning must give the City as much flexibility as possible to accommodate future growth. Commissioner McDonough encouraged the consultants to maintain the 500 West Boulevard and the pedestrian crossing. Mr. Dansie said that anywhere there is a station there will be a pedestrian crossing. He referred to South Temple near Crossroads Mall and Temple Square where there is a mid-block crossing and no station, and said that a mid-block crossing may be an option here as well. Chair Muir summarized by saying that the Commission is concerned with maintaining the 500 West Corridor and not precluding with what is done with the light rail that opportunity in the future. He said that they support that idea of one station minimum between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub and possibly two while trying to maintain pedestrian connectivity. He added that it is important that the left turn into the summer parking garage at the Gateway be maintained. Mr. Nixon said that the comments given this evening are appreciated. He said that both the station on 400 West and the turn lane are not possible. Chair Muir said that he realized that and suggested that the left turn be maintained initially and not preclude a station in the future, which may come at the expense of the left turn. He said that the consultants would have to weight which alternative is more reasonable. 3. Transportation Advisory Board Agenda and Minutes TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD AGENDA April 5, 2004 4:00 P.M. Transportation Division Office 349 South 200 East, Suite 450 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 NOTICE This meeting will be held in the conference room on the first floor of the building. 4:00 p.m. 1. Welcome and Approval of Minutes of the March 1 Meeting. 4:05 p.m. 2. Light Rail Extension to the Intermodal Hub. 4:45 p.m. 3. General Updates. 4:50 p.m. 4. Set May Meeting Agenda. 4:55 p.m. 5. Other Business. 5:00 p.m. 6. South Davis Transit Needs Analysis Update. 5:30 p.m. 7. Adjourn. Note: If you are unable to attend an Advisory Board meeting, please contact Joe Perrin or Kevin Young and let them know SALT LAKE CITY TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD Minutes of the April 5, 2004 Meeting Present from the Transportation Advisory Board were Joe Perrin, Debbie Medina, MarkSmedley, Frank Algarin, Jim Jenkin, Bonnie Mangold, Suzanne Weaver, Jeanetta Williams, Kelly Gillman, Scott Atkinson, Nancy Fillat, and Tim Harpst. Also present were Kevin Young, Jay Nelson, Mary Guy-Sell, Evan Nixon, RalphJackson, David Goeres, David Thompson, Joel Paterson, John Naser, Greg Scott, D. J. Baxter, Doug Dansie, Russell Weeks, Mark Bassett, and Milton Braselton. The meeting was called to order at 4:02 p.m. by Chairperson Joe Perrin. Joe asked for approval of the March 1, 2004 meeting minutes. Motion: Suzanne Weaver moved to approve the minutes of the March 1, 2004 meeting. Jeanette Williams seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. Tim Harpst started the presentation on the light rail extension to the Intermodal Hub by explaining that the board is being asked to make a recommendation on the overhead contact system, the alignment of the tracks, the track alignment at the Hub, and the number and location of stations. Tim also explained that Bonnie Mangold had provided the board members with some additional information related to the Capitol Hill Master Plan and from the traffic analysis which was done as part of the State Capitol Renovation project. Mary Guy-Sell gave some background information to the board on this project. The city is taking the lead on this project rather than UTA because the city owns all of the streets and wanted more control over the project. Mary explained previous processes that have occurred related to this project. 400 West was looked at as part of the West/East light rail project Environmental Impact Statement, which was completed in 2000. The Environmental Assessment for the Hub was also completed in 2000. Mary said additional traffic impact analysis work had been done as part of this project, in order to take into account any additional impacts, such as the potential closure of Columbus Street. Mary said the city administration is recommending the overhead contact system be the low profile catenary system, a center running alignment on both 400 West and 200 South, the track location at the Hub be on 600 West, and that there be two stations, with one at 525 West 200 South and one at 125 South 400 West. The station on 200 South would be built as part of the initial project and the 400 West station would be built in the future. Evan Nixon explained the layout of the stations. On 400 West the tracks would flare out to accommodate the future station. The new stations would look the same as stations on the rest of the light rail system. On 600 West the tracks would run down the center of the street from 200 South to 300 South and then would transition to the west side of the street south of 300 South. Evan told how commuter rail will be situated on the Hub site, which required moving the light rail track from adjacent to the commuter rail track to 600 West. Kelly Gillman asked if due to the weaving of the track on a street are there really fewer poles with a low profile catenary system compared to a trolley wire system. Evan said there were fewer poles with a low profile catenary system because the low profile catenary system allows for longer spans. Joe Perrin asked about a midblock pedestrian crossing on 200 South at Rio Grande Street. Evan said there would probably be a midblock pedestrian crossing at this location as well as midblock pedestrian crossings at locations where there were stations. Evan explained what the lane configuration would be on both 400 West and 200 South. Mark Smedley asked about bike lanes and pointed out the need to have wider bike lanes where the bike lane crosses the tracks. Evan said the current bike lanes on 200 south and on 600 West would remain and wider widths would be looked at during design. Evan said there will be some changes to the existing parking along 400 West and 200 South. The existing angle parking would be converted to parallel parking. On 400 West parking is maintained except on the east side of the north half of the block between 100 South and 200 South. On 200 South quite a bit of parking is lost due to the space needed for the station and for left turn lanes at the intersections. Mary Guy-Sell explained the layout of the Hub and the passenger transfer between commuter rail and light rail. Bonnie Mangold discussed the information she had given the board members related to the Capitol Hill Master Plan and the State Capitol Renovation project. Bonnie said the Capitol Hill Community Council supports the closure of Columbus Street but they are not in support of any projects that might impede the flow of traffic on 400 West because of the potential diversion of traffic onto Capitol Hill neighborhood streets. Bonnie said the concern is not with the light rail tracks on 400 West, but with having a station on 400 West and the impediment to traffic flow. Tim Harpst said these were the same concerns the city had and that is why there is no reduction of traffic lanes proposed on either 400 West or 200 South. The design maintains the traffic carrying capacity on both these streets and also keeps options open for future transit from Davis County. Dave Goeres explained the traffic capacity and impact modeling that was done as part of this project and as part of the State Capitol Renovation project, which included the potential closure of Columbus Street. A 4% traffic growth rate was used in the modeling, which, based on historical growth, is a high percentage and provides for a very conservative estimate. Jim Jenkin asked why, if Columbus Street were to be closed, it was projected that so little traffic would move to 400 West as compared to 300 West. Dave said it was because 300 West has adequate capacity to carry additional traffic. Joe Perrin asked the board if they wanted to handle the recommendations together or separately. Joe said he agreed with the recommendations regarding the overhead contact system, track alignment on 400 West and 200 South, and the Hub track alignment on 600 West, but he wasn't convinced about having two stations. Bonnie Mangold suggested the board address the first three recommendations together and the fourth be addressed separately. Motion: Debbie Medina moved that the board accept the first three recommendations as recommended by the city administration. Kelly Gillman seconded the motion. The motion passed unanimously. The board continued their discussion on the fourth recommendation by the city administration regarding the number of stations and station locations. Ralph Jackson explained the flaws with the 475 West and 460 West station locations. Motion: Bonnie Mangold moved that the board recommend there be only one station and it be located on 200 South. Jim Jenkin seconded the motion. The motion failed by a vote of two in favor and eight against. Joe Perrin expressed concern about the future expansion of the 500 West 200 South intersection in order to accommodate the continuation of the park blocks and how the operation of the street and light rail would be more difficult because of the additional traffic signal that would be needed and the short distance between the signals if the park blocks are extended to include 200 South. Motion: Mark Smedley moved that the board accept the recommendation of the city administration, which was for an initial light rail station to be located at 525 West 200 South and a future station to be located at 125 South 400 West. Jeanette Williams seconded the motion. The motion passed by a vote of eight in favor and two against. Tim Harpst gave the board members a corrected copy of a letter sent to Mayor Anderson by the Capitol Hill Community Council opposing a light rail station at 125 South on 400 West. The resolution passed by the Capitol Hill Community Council was passed by a majority vote, not a unanimous vote, as was stated in the copy of the letter the board received previously. Tim told the board their recommendations would be passed on to the Planning Commission and City Council as this project moves through the approval process. Greg Scott of the Wasatch Front Regional Council (WFRC) gave the board an update on the South Davis Transit Needs Analysis project and gave the board handouts of five alignment alternatives for transit service between South Davis County and downtown Salt Lake City that are being considered for further review. They are looking to have one alignment that will work even if the type of transit changes in the future. Greg went over the five alignment options in Salt Lake City, which include 1-15 via 100 South, 1-15 via 900 West, the commuter rail line, Beck Street via 300 West or 400 West, and Beck Street via Victory Road. The mode options being looked at are light rail, bus rapid transit, and street cars. These modes can mix and match between exclusive right-of-way and mixed running with car traffic. Transit can also be run within auto restricted zones (ARZ), such as transit and car pool vehicles in the same lane. WFRC is looking for the board's input on routes that should and should not continue in the study process, such as a short list of options. Greg said the study team is considering not advancing the 1-15 via 900 West option and the Beck Street via Victory Road option for further analysis. Kelly Gillman asked if we were shortchanging our options, such as 900 West, since 1-15 and 300 West corridors are restrictive. It was discussed that 900 West is viewed as Aout of the way@ for the majority of commuters from South Davis County who want to get to downtown and points east and that transit needs some priority to attract users. Debbie Medina asked how a transit service would be funded. Greg indicated it would be funded by the transit funds collected in each county. Ralph Jackson pointed out that light rail could run on the commuter rail tracks since UTA owns the right-of-way and doesn=t share it with the Union Pacific Railroad. Greg suggested he come back to the board in May with more detailed information on the options recommended by the board to keep on the short list. Milton Braselton stated his belief that 900 West is out of the way and what is needed is to have a fast way to get people between Davis County and downtown. Motion: Debbie Medina moved that the board recommend that WFRC proceed with three alignment alternatives, which are 1-15 via 100 South, the commuter rail line, and Beck Street via 300 West or 400 West. Frank Algarin seconded the motion. The motion passed with one abstention. It was noted that more modeling and travel time data would be collected for the I- 15 via 900 West alternative to determine if this alternative should be considered further. The board set Monday, May 3, 2004 for the next meeting. Agenda items will include the South Davis Transit Needs Analysis project and an update on the commuter rail project. With no further business, the meeting adjourned at 6:15 p.m. 4. Letters and Comments Dear Mr. Paterson and Mr. Dansie, I wanted to share my thoughts on an issue which you will be addressing at your upcoming planning commission meeting on January 12th. I am aware that you will be discussing the Intermodal Light Rail Extension and the proposed stops for the extension. I urge that you vote against the stop proposed for in front of California Pizza Kitchen on 400 W. I live at the Dakota Lofts on the corner of 400 W and 200 S, and this stop will create a lot of noise for the residents on the west side of the building as well as create a traffic mess as a result of all residents trying to enter our parking lot via the gate along 400 W. Of concern to SLC residents as a whole, I also believe that a stop so close to the proposed stop near the homeless shelter and the Delta Center is unnecessary. It will increase the cost of the extension as well as slow the line. The Delta Center stop is sufficient to serve the Gateway and the Homeless Shelter stop is sufficient to serve as a second Gateway stop and as a stop to deliver residents to the businesses on 200 S. I won't be able to attend the meeting on the 12th, but please feel free to e-mail me back if you have questions. Thank you for your time and consideration. Best, Jenny Thomas 380 W 200 S#302 Salt Lake City, UT 84101 Salt Lake Planning Commission Joel Paterson Doug Dansie RE: Trax Extension I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Trax Station on 400 West in front of the California Pizza kitchen. I am an advocate of mass transit, and use Trax daily to get to and from work. I reside and own property in the Dakota Lofts located at 380 W 200 S, and currently serve on the Owner's Board as President. We are a mixed use building with residential and commercial units. I am very concerned about the plans to put a Trax station on 400 West in front of our building and another station around the corner on 200 South. I do not want a stop on 400 West for the following reasons: *There is NO necessity for two stations within one block of each other; this wastes resources and tax money. *The Delta Center and 200 S station are close enough together. *The line will be slow as a result of excess stopping, and make Trax a less efficient means of transportation. *Noise from the station (announcements, people, train brakes, etc.) will disturb residents and reduce the property value of the residential units at Dakota Lofts. *Street parking will be reduced or worse, eliminated. Close street parking is a necessity for the small local businesses located at Dakota Lofts. *Occupants of the building will lose left turn access into the west gate of our building. *Two stops will segregate people who live/work east or west of 400 west, not join us a a community. Please express these oppositions to the Planning Commission to ensure they understand the impact of the 400 West station. Thank you. Chamonix Larsen AMD Architecture 311 South 900 East Ste. 103 Salt Lake City, UT 84102 Tel. 801-322-3053 chamonix@amdarchitecture.com Salt Lake Planning Commission Joel Paterson Doug Dansie Trax station on 400 West I am writing to express my opposition to the proposed Trax Station on 400 West in front of the California Pizza Kitchen/Clarke Planetarium. I currently live and own property in the Dakota Lofts located at 380 W 200 S. I am very concerned about the plans to put a Trax station on 400 West and another station around the corner on 200 South. It is excessive for there to be three stations within two blocks of each other. Trax will be even slower as a result of all the stopping and will make the line a less efficient form of transportation; this wastes resources and tax money. I agree with the Boyer Company and the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council that the Delta Center and 200 S stations are enough. Another stop in between is unnecessary. Please inform the planning commission of my opposition to the 400 West Trax station. Thank you. Matt Manes Axiom Design 331 S. Main Salt Lake City, UT 84111 801-532-2442 mattm@axiomdc.com After sending notice for the January 12, 2005 meeting (which was postponed until March 9, 2005 due to lack of quorum), the staff received three letters from residents of the Dakota Lofts condominiums. The following is a brief listing of their concerns and a staff response. *There is no necessity for two stations within one block of each other; this wastes resources and tax money. Master Plans indicate that this is the one area of the City where higher density is both physically accessible and politically palatable. Higher density/intensity neighborhoods thrive on transit service. *The Delta Center and 200 S station are close enough together. The spacing between the Delta Center Station and the 125 South 400 West Station is exactly the same as the spacing between the City Center station (75 south Main) and Abravanel Hall (125 West South Temple). The two-block spacing, even on a corner, is consistent throughout the Downtown area. As noted in the Gateway Master Plan, it is intended to increase density and transit opportunities in this area similar to other portions of Downtown. The two stations also allow the Delta Center to split their event ridership, with northbound passengers using 125 South 400 West (via commuter rail and the Intermodal Hub) and southbound passengers using the existing Delta Center station. The existing Delta Center station, which presently does not accommodate northbound patrons, is currently maximized during evens. *The line will be slow as a result of excess stopping, and make TRAX a less efficient means of transportation. The dwell time at a station is measured in seconds. While a station will be slower than a non-station, the question is whether it is significant enough to lose ridership from commuter passengers or if it will increase ridership with local passengers. It is the staff's contention that people arriving via commuter trains will have already ridden 15 to 45 minutes and an additional 30 seconds between the Intermodal Hub and Downtown will not significantly harm ridership, but by having transit immediately available, it will attract development near the station, which, in the long run, will increase ridership. *Noise from the station (announcements, people, train brakes, etc.) will disturb residents and reduce the property value of the residential units at Dakota Lofts. The noise from the turning movement of the trains will exist regardless of the existence of a station. UTA has investigated methods of minimizing rail "squeal" in response to complaints along the 400 South line (near the S curve/1000 East). Such solutions include lubricating the track. The proposed station itself is located at the north end of the block, Dakota Lofts is at the south end. The LRT service does not operate late at night (midnight to 5 am Sunday through Thursday, 1 am to 5 am Friday and Saturday). If noise from announcements at the stations is an issue, there are methods of minimizing it, such as a nighttime volume controls. The honking of horns in dangerous situations will occur regardless of station location. *Street parking will be reduced or worse, eliminated. Close street parking is a necessity for the small local businesses located at Dakota Lofts. Parking has been considered in making this decision. The scenario with the greatest impact on parking would be to have a protected left turn lane for the Gateway (which is not recommended for other technical reasons) because it involves an extra lane in the street, which consumes most of the on- street parking. The no station/no left turn alternative allows the most parking, however, a station at 125 South 400 West will still allow parking along the west side of the block and at the south end of the east side of the block, adjacent to the Dakota Lofts. It should be noted that the City's long range goal for downtown is to make it as accessible by all modes of transportation. This proposal maintains some parking while promoting transit and pedestrian friendliness. *Occupants of the building will lose left turn access into the west gate of our building. The left turn lane will be lost under any scenario (including a protected left turn for the Gateway, which would be northbound into the parking lot only) *Two stops will segregate people who live/work east or west of 400 West, not join us a community. The 125 South 400 West station would allow a mid-block crosswalk, which would provide better east/west access than a left turn lane (not recommended), which would not have a mid-block crosswalk. A no station alternative could be built with or without a crosswalk. Additional Staff comments regarding Capitol Hill traffic: • Davis County traffic headed to the southern end of the business district should use the faster route from the 400 South off-ramp, not 400 West via 600 North. • 300 West has surplus capacity. • There is a separate proposal to modify Capitol Hill traffic patters by installing traffic signals on Main/Columbus/Victory at 300 and 500 North, which will slow over-the-hill traffic, making 300 and 400 West more attractive for commuters. • Other streets in Capitol Hill have been blocked or signed to discourage their use (for example: stop signs have been installed on 200 West and Center Street to slow traffic). 11 January 2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Dear Ladies and Gentlemen of the Commission: I am writing to comment on Agenda item 5 f.,Intermodal Light Rail Extension to be considered at your meeting tomorrow night. Representing the ownership of The Gateway Project,we would like to go on record as opposing the location of a station on 400 West at 1"South. Our opposition is based on the following: 1. When The Gateway was approved,it was our understanding that the planning concept, which we embraced by what we built,encouraged people to stroll and walk the retail and to"experience"the ambiance of the inviting streetscape. We don't want or need another station on 1"South where,visually,you can literally see the cars for Trax stacked up at the Delta Center station. We are surprised that the planning staff would not much prefer to encourage the stroll from the Union Pacific Depot to 2"d South on Rio Grande with a much more logical location for a station,namely at the end of walk at 2"d South and Rio Grande. We have been told that staff feels this additional location will also prompt more "development"in the area. It is difficult to see how this could be so;nevertheless,it would appear that interest in the yet to be developed trumps the requests of a project already built. 2. The planning staff says that Trax stations are located every two blocks in the Main Street area and that same pattern of frequency of stations should exist on 400 West. Why doesn't the same density of zoning apply then also on 400 West if this area is to treated similarly for station locations? It is our understanding that UTA planners are not in favor of the"two station"plan being proposed because of operation inefficiencies,aside from the additional cost incurred. 3. One of the concerns we have with the station location on 400 West is the congestion with our large parking garage between 1st and 2"d South. 58%of the cars that use that garage enter off 400 West. Approximately 65%of those enter coming from the South and make a left-hand turn in. Obviously,with a station there,no left turns would be possible,which will discourage some of 1.5 million cars coming to The Gateway annually. Re-education of drivers or U-turns at 1"South,as encouraged by staff,will not do the job. 4. We would encourage one station between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub and we would recommend it be at the end of Rio Grande at 200 South as per the attached rendering. No potential development area will be slighted nor will anyone be hardshipped. The system will run more efficiently and the city will save considerable money for not having to build an extra station. Thank you very much for your consideration. H Roger Boyer,Gateway Associates • r Y 3tt r { +"fit' { d; t 'Y S� a1 ., 'f w' 1�kr' r J �. Ir i,1 7 t� 7.x "js , . .:i .:.i . . ‘ / • I �.'1' ' { a { � :f 1 _ a • , . ,„ ) 0, / ./ r 5 • ce lr. , p,' 'Mk .:1",'''''-o......?',,. ,":',.,.''. \ ' / / 7 Y. f .. . .: -. , •, ., ''''. '‘t, , .-.=,kit, 7 ,, • / . T Ff rA i OFF (�(�'::. ,�r� //�/�(li -.` P s 4i rp7.,"/—.'-'''..,4, '‘\,* ,," :-•-• .. ff(( �}fis N { 4 p p'g •� 't f ',i ,1: ! Y`�, 7 j,f l�_/ p�^�'X '4 :t i.# ,` �'Ke ii R7t n\• y .�+�w i Z f '� � �.x' �Efe ' ,{ ;vo �.— / ys ,'Ai !`f'!r{� ' •r 1,y�' ! s (q x 5 /s s'� 1 j R LL ,. '{t' ,y .,v ' 4 " , /// `A �s1 i °"';._ »1t X� s r:, tt,+z31. .,r(tt9 f. l f t /. 5 lijpf is 1� pp y ' t i .J rl.• S i i•Vill tiii ate, { s.{G'�,\ !2(' \ ,, fir• /{ {I ,r \.. A it t ',•4 ''j� f J 4' i j G i f c .. 1 • 111.rid>� 5' Y's,?,". • s a+ { ,29 Zy8 7 b h`� F `a AtfS,/' sr . 9 . t l eft i: til; k s.$ 1 ' Rl 1: 1 t� { 1 ? M . / • ° t Fis G , 14 % :i7,:., , ''''::.,,. :Is.,,. ,, '.'''''.t 4. 11.E y q;.. (5 'c,� , '� i Y rk , y r t •y a 1, i y �, � �"? { e i nr Rio Grande/Downtown Community Council To: Salt Lake City Council&Planning Commission Topic: TRAX Extension to Intermodal Hub-Support for two additional TRAX stations Date: January 10, 2005 I write on behalf of the Rio Grand/Downtown Community Council to urge the Planning Commission and City Council to support the proposal for two TRAX stations between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub.The Rio Grande/Downtown Community Council supports the two-station option as opposed to the one additional stop. I would like to emphasize that we support this option in the strongest possible terms.The reasons are as follows: 1)SLC is trying to encourage transit-oriented development in the west downtown area.We feel that the maximum number of TRAX stations(two)is a crucial component to this concept. 2)We feel that making this decision based on budgetary constraints is extremely short sighted and false economy. 3)We believe more people will use TRAX to visit the Gateway and to come to this part of town, if there are two stations. Placing a station on 400 West between 100 South and 200 South will provide riders easy access to the movie theaters, and will also help to encourage redevelopment of the block to the west.A second stop on 200 South between 500 West and 600 West will ensure easy transit access to the Bridge Projects as well as to the block to the north,which is also ripe for redevelopment. 4)A single stop solution,with a station on 200 South between 400 West and 500 West will forever foreclose the possibility of adding another station along this extension.We want this area to develop into a high-density urban neighborhood,where having TRAX stops every two blocks, like the rest of downtown,makes perfect sense. 5)We do not believe that a station on 400 West will discourage shoppers from patronizing the Gateway project.There are numerous ways to access the Gateway parking garage without making a left turn on 400 West,and we believe shoppers who drive to Gateway will quickly begin using those other options. 6)Making a community'walkable"does not mean forcing people to walk greater distances. Faced with a longer walking distance,most will just choose to drive. Making a community walkable means making it easy and enjoyable to walk.This means providing easy,frequent access to the transit system,which also increases the number of people riding transit. In conclusion,we firmly believe it would be extremely shortsighted and fiscally irresponsible for the City to opt for a single TRAX station for this proposed extension.When this area is bustling with new development,and when it becomes home to thousands of residents,as we hope and the city's master plans intend,residents and businesses alike will wonder why the city and UTA did not have the vision and wisdom to include two stations in this area.The Rio Grande/Downtown Community Council strongly supports two additional TRAX stations for the pending TRAX extension in the downtown area. Bill Davis-President Rio Grande/Downtown Community Council November 14,2005 Dear Doug, I had a comment about the number of TRAX stations being planned for the HUT extension. At one time there was talk of creating a street car loop that would continue south on 400 west and turn on 700 south to reconnect with the TRAX line. Is this still the plan? If so, I think there should be two stations on the HUB TRAX line, and a street car station at 350 South on the streetcar loop.. If the street car loop is not going to be constructed, then there should only be one TRAX station added, at the corner of 200 south and 400 west. The reason is because Pioneer Park needs to have public transit in close proximity. This area is seeing a large amount of growth. There is a high number of residential units in that area; Artspace, the Dakota lofts, Westgate, Warehouse condos, Pierpont, Uffens, the planned Broadway Park Lofts as well as extended stay hotels, the Palladio and other apartments that would all benefit from having a TRAX station or street car station nearby. The city is saying they want two TRAX stations to accommodate future residential growth that they hope will someday be along 200 south and 500 west. Well, there is already a large population of residents that could benefit from TRAX now. It is near Pioneer Park, a park that the city would like to see more vibrant and alive. If no street car loop is to be built, that puts the two TRAX stations considerably farther from the park and an area that is experiencing a renaissance. So I guess to conclude, Two TRAX stations would be ideal, *if* the street car loop is created. This would be the best way to service the area. If there is no street car loop, There should only be one station, as it would be the most equidistant and effective in servicing the general area. I just thought I'd share my thoughts. Thanks, Michael Hatch Hi Doug, Thank you so much for responding to my comments. I didn't even think about how a 90 degree turn could cause complications with a station. That helps a lot. It is good to know that a station will at least be as close as possible. I would love for the street car loop to become a reality. I am glad the idea is not completely dead. Thanks again for the information and good luck in making your final decision. -Michael Hatch Dansie, Doug wrote: >Michael >Thank You for your thoughts. >I have placed your email into the staff report that will go to the >Planning Commission to assure that your comments will be heard by the >decision makers. >In response to your specific questions: The idea of a street car loop >is alive, but not in the forefront at the moment. Salt Lake City and >UTA are in the process of creating a report to study the links between >transit and Downtown land use. One of the items to be considered is >the potential for transit extensions. I cannot guarantee that a >streetcar will be the outcome of any study; however, it is a distinct >possibility and remains on the table. >Also, the discussion of a LRT stop at the corner of 200 South and 400 >West was not pursued because of the difficulty of placing a station >immediately adjacent to a 90 degree turn on the LRT line (it is >difficult to exit the station immediately into a turn and the location >has an effect on other traffic movements) . You may note that no >station on the existing LRT system is located at a 90 degree turn. >Because of this, any station on 200 South, between 400 and 500 West, >would be pushed to the west end of the block. A potential station at >475 West 200 South (which may be part of a one station alternative) >would be roughly equidistant from Pioneer Park as a station at 125 >South 400 West (which is suggested as part of a two station scenario) . >Both are roughly >1.5 blocks from Pioneer Park (at their closest point) . >Thank you very much for your comments. >Doug Dansie, Principal Planner, AICP November 21, 2005 To Whom it may concern: I am writing today to express my opinion regarding the two tracks stops on or about 500 west and the other at 400 west. I am the General Manager of the Orbit Cafe located at 540 west 200 south, I would very much like to see these two stops come to be. I want them, I want them!!!!! Have a great day, Jason Recek Orbit Cafe 801.322.3808 November 21,2005 Hi Doug, How are you? NHS is submitting this email to request our support for trax stops at 400 West and 500 West along 200 South. NHS has learned that many of our tenants at Citifront utilize trax and the more stops you have along 200 South, the better it serves the residents in Poplar Grove, Fairpark and Rosepark. In addition, the more stops you have along 200 south, the greater the potential for small business development outside of the Gateway area. Please call if you have any questions. Thanks. www.sinhs.or_q November 21,2005 Dear Mr. Dansie, Mary Guy-Sell mentioned to me today that you're accepting emails regarding whether to build one or two TRAX stations in the vicinity of Gateway as the line is expanded between the Delta Center station and the new Intermodal Hub. From our perspective, we'd appreciate a stop as close to the Clark Planetarium as is practical. Our experience with patrons who visit us via TRAX is that the Delta Center is "too far a walk for my children." Times have changed since I was a kid and my parents would let me walk several blocks between my bus stop and the movie theater I was going to with my friends. Now, parents seem willing to only allow unaccompanied children to venture a stone's-throw at best from a bus stop. We will have more than 1/3 of a million people visit the planetarium this year. If we are to see that number grow in the future, I believe that maximizing convenience of access to public transportation will be critical if we are to get families to visit the Gateway. The single station option at 2na South and Rio Grand is at the extreme far southern end of Gateway, and is of no more benefit to the majority of Gateway businesses than the Delta Center station. However, two stations between the Delta Center and the new hub, with one of them located at 125 South 400 West, would be optimal for people wishing to shop the center of Gateway, including visiting the Clark Planetarium and the new Children's Museum. We are of course anxious about the potential impact that construction of the new TRAX lines will have on our visitors during the actual construction phase. We nonetheless believe in the value of quick and efficient public transportation, and we are especially eager to see a TRAX station located such that we are a convenient, short walk from us. Thanks for your time, Seth Jarvis, Director Clark Planetarium 456-4921 November 21,2005 Good Afternoon Doug, Jason Recek at Orbit Cafe has asked that I drop you this note, confirming that my business partner and I are indeed in support of the two Trax stops that have been proposed at 400 west and 500 west. We own Aerolab Salon, located in the Bridgespace building at 511 west 200 south. When the project is completed, we feel that the additional foot traffic will be very benificial for our business and the businesses surrounding us. If you have any need to reach me, please call 364.4092 or email me at this address. Thank you, Canace Pulfer / Annika Lohrke - Owners Aerolab Salon 511 west 200 south, #130 SLC UT. 84101 Dear Doug, Please attach the following letter to the staff report regarding the TRAX extension. Thank you, Bonnie Mangold November 22, 2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Planning Commission Members, This letter may or may not be pertinent, as unfortunately in order to submit a letter in time to be included in your staff report, I've had to submit it before a Planning report was available to study. Hence these comments are based on the plan and information provided to the Transportation Advisory Board in April 2004. At that time, TAB approved, as requested by the Administration, two TRAX stations for the Intermodal Hub extension: one at 125 South 400 West and one at 525 West 200 South. The Avenues' representative and I (representing Capitol Hill)were the two Board members opposed to a two station scenario. The UTA representative also indicated that this was not the UTA's preference. One of the reasons other board members voted for the two locations is that the Administration's preferred 200 South location at 525 West is so far west that if it were to be the only station it really isn't very useful. That location is too far from the Delta stop and too close to the Hub to be the only station. As the UTA representative pointed out, 525 West is so close to the HUB commuter rail platform that arriving commuters might just as easily walk to that TRAX station as to the one at the HUB. A location between 400 and 500 West would be better for a one station scenario. The idea that a 400 West station would be needed for future high density residential development east of 400 West was another consideration for some of the Board. This presupposes people would be unwilling to walk one and a half blocks to the Delta or a 200 South station. I see the future need, if indeed high density residential development occurs, to be one of capacity: frequency of trains rather than frequency of stations. There are two factors that tend to negate each other but which had not been quantified at the time of our meeting. They are: 1. more frequent stops, thus a longer trip, equals loss of ridership, and 2. the less distance to be walked to a station the more likely an increase in ridership. We were told that this latter factor cannot or had not been quantified, and so these had not been evaluated against each other. The staff report provided to us showed minimal impact on traffic flows and capacity on 400 West with the presence of TRAX and a station. However consideration of a broader future scenario and detailed examination of the data included in that report still lead me to the conclusion that with TRAX on 400 West it will be difficult to shift commuter traffic to 400 West as called for in our Capitol Hill Master Plan. Adding a station and crosswalk/signal on 400 West compromises that further. It is not so much that capacity is impacted, though our idea of having a middle lane reversible in direction according to the rush hour traffic-as done in some cities - is of course no longer viable. It will be drivers' perceptions of an impaired route and the resultant signal delays that will make it difficult to get drivers to use 400 West as opposed to cutting through the historic Capitol Hill neighborhoods. Estimates are that by the year 2020, with TRAX and a station and crosswalk, the 400 West/200 South intersection (the crucial one as that is the first intersection where drivers from the North would turn left to travel east into or across the City)will operate at a Level of Service of D minus. According to the Table 14 provided to TAB, the LOS drops to E if it is a full crosswalk, D minus if it is only a half crosswalk. This is a barely acceptable Level of Service. The 2020 combined delay of the three signals studied will go from 85.8 seconds with no station to 113.4 seconds with the station and a full crosswalk present. As far as I could tell the data does not take into account the additional loss of time due to the mid-block crosswalk signal. In studying the figures I noticed that as we go forward in time the delays caused by the presence of the station don't just increase arithmetically as traffic volumes increase. The difference in the near future is calculated to be only about 4 seconds but the delay increases by seven times that before the traffic even doubles. That doesn't bode well for the long term. In that same TAB meeting, a consultant for the South Davis Transit Needs Analysis stated that by 2030 studies show that 300 West will be very congested. Nevertheless it is one of three proposed routes being considered for the South Davis Rapid Transit alignment. This is a dedicated pathway for bus or possibly rail service. This alignment would be via Beck Street and either 300 or 400 West-a significant impact to both regardless which one loses the car lanes. A potential future closure of Columbus Street would also be a significant impact. 400 West is currently under utilized despite our efforts to encourage UDOT and the City to balance traffic flows on the various commuter routes through the Capitol Hill neighborhoods. 400 West is the best place for excess traffic to go. The current relatively smooth flow from Beck Street and from the 600 North freeway exit into downtown via 400 West needs to remain and, if anything, improve. (The pertinent Capitol Hill Master Plan discussion and policies re 400 West can be found on pages 16 and 17 of the Plan.) All impacts to either 300 or 400 West will affect commuter car traffic flows through the CH District. I fear that incrementally 400 West will be made useless to serve a key purpose that our community needs it to serve, i.e. pulling commuter traffic off the narrow neighborhood streets. It is after all the only remaining City owned arterial street in our District(what with Main Street defunct), and car traffic is not just going to go away. I am certainly in favor of mass transit systems-we see it as a necessity to help address commuter impacts on our District-but despite all that may happen in terms of mass transit, the overall car commuter traffic is not likely to diminish from current levels, given the projected Davis County growth. Ideally we would have mass transit scenarios that don't conflict with vehicular transportation needs of the future, so that the two approaches don't just cancel each other out. We will need both I suspect. If this Commission prefers a one station scenario, which I hope will be the case, I do think such a station should be closer to 400 West.The arguments for why it can't be closer to 400 West are not insurmountable, and I don't think a compelling need for two stations has been shown. My apologies if this letter is based on out-of-date information. I cannot be at the meeting, yet wanted to give some input because of the concerns we have in the Capitol Hill community about the overall commuter traffic problems and our need for 400 West to carry a greater percentage of that traffic. Sincerely, Bonnie Mangold, Trustee Capitol Hill Community Council and member of TAB Note: Pages 16 and 17 of the Capitol Hill Master Plan are the Transportation and Circulations section of the Plan. These pages contain specific policy statements regarding the need to discourage commuter traffic through Capitol Hill. The Plan acknowledges that 400 West was improved by the City as an alternative to other residential streets. The Plan encourages the use of 400 West, which is designated as a primary commuter street. 400 West is classified as an arterial. The Plan encourages making it easer to perform southbound right turn movements onto 400 West from Beck Street(at 900 North). The plan asks to increase the speed limit on 400 West to match 300 West and to take measures to insure West High safety. The plan also calls for traffic controls on Victory Road/Columbus/Main to discourage through traffic. The complete Master Plan is available at the Planning Office. 5. Administrative Hub TRAX Connection Recommendation MEMORANDUM FROM: D.J. Baxter TO: Alexander Ikefuna, Salt Lake City Planning Director DATE: November 23, 2005 SUBJECT: Hub TRAX Connection Recommendations RECOMMENDATIONS Salt Lake City(SLC) and the Utah Transit Authority(UTA) are jointly working to connect the existing terminus of the light rail (TRAX) line at the Delta Center to the Intermodal Hub, located at 300 South 600 West. The Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub will function as the central transit transfer point for commuter rail, light rail, UTA bus, Greyhound bus, Amtrak, and transit support services. The light rail connection is planned to be constructed by spring of 2008 to coincide with the opening of commuter rail service at the Intermodal Hub. In order to meet the spring 2008 deadline, the final design and construction schedule for the TRAX connection is already tightly constrained. Salt Lake City's Administration is prepared to make recommendations for the Hub TRAX connection (refer to Figure 1) for consideration by the Planning Commission. These recommendations are based on exhaustive analysis by the Hub TRAX connection design team and extensive input from the community. The design team includes Parsons Transportation Group (engineering consultant), UTA staff, SLC Planning, SLC Transportation, SLC Public Utilities, SLC Engineering, and the SLC Mayor's Office. The team sought and received input from Community Councils, the Mayor's Bicycle Advisory Committee, Downtown Alliance, Transportation Advisory Board,business and property owners along the TRAX route, and the general public. All of this input and the design team's analysis were taken into consideration in developing the Administration's recommendations. HUB TRAX CONNECTION RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Route: 400 West(South Temple to 200 South), 200 South(400 West to 600 West), and 600 West(200 South to 400 South) 2. Alignment: double track and center running to match the existing system throughout the downtown 3. Traffic Movements: preserved existing traffic movements at major intersections 4. Overhead Contact System: low-profile catenary to match the existing University TRAX line 5. Station Design: canopies, seating, and landscaping to match the existing downtown stations 6. Streetscape Design a. street lights and public furniture to match the existing downtown elements b. sidewalk paving patterns to match the existing administrative guidelines (concrete or concrete pavers) 7. Mid-block Pedestrian Crossings a. 150 South across 400 West and 550 West across 200 South in conjunction with station b. Rio Grande (450 West) across 200 South c. 350 West across South Temple 8. Station Locations: match existing 2-block spacing and existing station configurations in the downtown. a. 325 South 600 West (Intermodal Hub) b. 525 West 200 South and 125 South 400 West Salt Lake City's recommendation is to build both TRAX stations with the TRAX connection. Although UTA has always preferred a single intermediate station, UTA had reached a compromise position with Salt Lake City and was recommending the 525 West 200 South station to be built with the TRAX connection and the 125 South 400 West station as a future build contingent upon development. When the project was presented to the Transportation Advisory Board in 2004, Salt Lake City and UTA jointly supported the two intermediate stations with 125 South 400 West as a future build. -) • • ..e. ,_ : .,1),. •4'.= ... i A**".'1, •.:-=i-'•“'ll- eT.-- -F***tr*•= '":-, i '=- I +" :t8 syI 1 -t- i DELTA (` I CENTER fi i ; € t h 100 SOUTH 4,i..1.11.1ii1l111i1., ,11-11 ',I_,,i''t[ :`-,,1', r5t,_'r s� -'"": e W ...Ni, , ,..01i...4, ; 0 iii.,.- ' -— ''''''—.-f......--, f t Y ...W.c '.-F i._...... :1.-++rt .e'�.. if ,. 200 SOUTH V :.4 s, • w V� F•A� ' • =" t„INTERMODAL{ '3 ,1 .!- ' _ ' .i c • e' HUB - R _ "'- ;- ' :.: ' :..3,t,' :11 ''' - -.--- 4'''''T '1411'itzi 17)41''-- '''Ta",ilr: tioll—,,ak.""F.,44;-.'6.--3L:1-**:"'-':", ,. '1:1 1. 5 ,_ ;I I - 300 SOUTH 3 , `c ,. LEGEND t I MI I SLC TRAX EXTENSION PROJECT i llirt . i e.:11 t j #R i -, i l, r EXISTING TRAX '` " mumPROPOSED STATION i.'. 400 SOUTH .-.. . : , r'i ,z; r , .. ? z f :I Figure 1 -Hub TRAX Connection Overview 2 PROJECT ASSUMPTIONS 1. Traffic Impacts: One of SLC Transportation's criteria for all transit, roadway and development projects requires a Level of Service (LOS) of"D" or better. All impacted intersections were evaluated by the consulting engineer and meet the LOS of D, or better, during peak hours. The 400 West 200 South intersection is the critical intersection with respect to traffic flow along the TRAX extension. In evaluating the impacts of a. a single station east of the existing 500 West intersection (475 West) b. a single station east of a widened 500 West intersection (460 West) c. 2 stations, one at 125 South 400 West and another at 525 West 200 South d. a left turn traffic signal at 150 South 400 West and a station along 200 South, all scenarios have a similar impact to the function of the 400 West 200 South intersection with some additional impacts triggered by a station at 460 West 200 South as noted under Station Location Issues. Assuming a healthy growth rate in traffic volume, in the year 2020 the intersection operates at the lower end of Level of Service D (during peak hours) in each case, with each scenario having between 46 and 50 seconds of delay per vehicle on average. This level of service is already common at most major intersections in the downtown during peak hours. 2. Property Access: Maintaining property access was an essential element of the Hub TRAX connection analysis. The center running alignment preserves existing driveway access points for all properties. All properties with driveways are impacted by the elimination of non-intersection left-turns, but this impact is minimal for most vehicles since U-turns with protective signaling will be available at the intersections. Utah Paper Box is serviced by large semi-trucks which currently use the middle of the street when backing into their docks. In discussions with Utah Paper Box, it was determined that a widened driveway will be provided to mitigate for the narrower useable street. Gateway Summer Parking Garage: All garage entrances into Gateway's Summer Parking garage would be preserved. However, both the northbound left turn from eastbound 200 South and the westbound left turn from northbound 400 West into the Summer Parking garage would be eliminated. The Boyer Company is particularly concerned with the loss of the 400 West left turn access. It should be noted that in 1999, the Boyer Company commissioned "The Gateway Salt Lake City Traffic Impact Study" as required by Salt Lake City for development projects. The Boyer Company's document states— "Based on the constraints outlined in this section, the following assumptions have been made in terms of parking access: 4. West/East LRT built as planned on 400 West, limiting access on 400 West to right-in/right-out only." 3 Although the Boyer Company was aware that the TRAX line would restrict access along 400 West to right-in/right-out only, the City wanted to ensure that elimination of the left turn access would not preclude patrons from accessing the Summer Parking garage. The TRAX team analyzed alternative options for northbound traffic on 400 West wanting to access the Summer Parking garage: a. left on 200 South and turning right into the Summer Parking garage b. left on 100 South and turning left into the Summer Parking garage c. U-turn on 100 South and turning right into the Summer Parking garage d. take 300 West(instead of 400 West)to 100 South, make a left turn onto westbound 100 South, make a left turn from westbound 100 South onto southbound 400 West and then a right turn into the Summer Parking garage. The Boyer Company contends that the majority of traffic driving northbound on 400 West and making a left into the Summer Parking garage on 400 West are coming from I-15. With appropriate signage at the freeway off-ramps, Gateway patrons could be directed to 300 West instead of 400 West for accessing the Summer Parking garage. Parsons has also made the following recommendations to improve parking access to Gateway Summer Parking: Access to the Gateway Summer Parking could be improved by more conspicuous signing for the 200 South and 100 South entrances. The 100 South entrance could be converted to a two lane entrance; there is no booth for exiting, the exit (for monthly passes only) is often blocked off, and this entrance actually provides quicker access to available parking. While performing a left-turn across 100 South is probably easier than across 400 West, the one drawback to accessing the 100 South entrance to Summer Parking with a left turn is the minimal queue space available in the center lane. But 100 South has two through lanes in each direction and the traffic volumes are 30% of those on 400 West. "Exit" signing within the garage emphasizing the 200 South exit to help familiarize parking patrons with that entrance/exit. The Boyer Company has requested consideration of a left turn access into the Summer Parking from 400 West if a station is not approved at 125 South 400 West. Salt Lake City and UTA have developed criteria for the Boyer Company to analyze. Once the TRAX team receives the analysis, they will review it to determine whether or not the left turn is feasible. The following issues regarding the left turn have already been identified: a. The signal can operate without adding to the delay that will already exist at 400 West 200 South. b. The time length of the left turn signal phase will need to be restricted based on the number of vehicles capable of entering the parking structure without backing onto the sidewalk or street. This has not been evaluated, but the ticket vending and payment stations will likely need to be relocated to maximize the value of a signal c. The east curb of 400 West adjacent to the Dakota Condominiums, 150 South to 200 South, will need to be shifted approximately 4 feet 6 inches to the east to allow room for a southbound to eastbound left turn bay at the intersection of 200 South and 400 West. This will result in a loss of all 6 on-street parking stalls at that location and narrow the width available for sidewalk from the existing 15 feet 6 inches to 11 feet. There is an existing 6 foot wide fire stairwell along the building. Unless it could be reconfigured, there would be only a 5 foot wide area adjacent to the stairwell for the walkable portion of the sidewalk. Additionally, the business entrances may have to be modified due to these impacts. 4 d. The southeast corner of 400 West 200 South would need to be reconfigured to allow the northbound traffic lanes to slide eastward to align with the relocated receiving lanes to the north that would be located further to the east due to the left turn lane into the parking structure. e. Payment responsibility for the cost of a left turn signal into the parking garage would need to be identified. A signal at this location is not included in the LRT extension project budget nor needed to provide general access to the Gateway. One similar accommodation was made at 550 South Main where the abutting property owner who made the request was responsible for the signal cost. f. A left turn signal and a TRAX station cannot co-exist at this location. g. A cost estimate for installing a signal and making the other changes noted above has not been prepared. 3. Pedestrian Access: Pedestrian access at all intersections has been preserved. In addition, mid-block pedestrian crossings with signals are recommended at both station locations and at Rio Grande across 200 South. Due to Salt Lake City's large block size and the addition of TRAX, the mid-block pedestrian crossings provide safe and important pedestrian connections that promote a walkable community and support higher density development and higher transit ridership. 4. Bicycle Access: 200 South and 600 West have existing bike lanes adjacent to the TRAX connection route. These bike lanes will remain. The issues critical to the safety of bicyclists are on-street parking and rail crossings. 5. On-Street Parking: Throughout preliminary engineering, the goal has been to maximize the amount of on-street parking along the TRAX route within the constraints of minimum sidewalk width, maintaining dedicated lanes for through traffic, turning movements (left and right), bike lanes, and station location. The one exception to this is the south side of 200 South between 400 West and 500 West where no parking currently exists and the City indicated a preference for maintaining the status quo. The Boyer Company has requested consideration of a north-to-west left-turn from 400 West into the Gateway Summer parking if a station is not planned at 125 South 400 West. They also emphatically prefer that a station not be built at this location, so that a left turn can be accommodated. The left turn would require the elimination of on-street parking in front of the Dakota Lofts and would reduce the adjacent sidewalk by 4 feet 6 inches. (See related comments above in Section 2). Parking is planned to be provided on the south side of 200 South from 600 West east to the mid-block crossing. The impact to Thomas Electric is that currently his operations include deliveries by 1-ton and semi-trucks. 1-ton trucks back into the delivery door to off-load. Semi-trucks pull curbside between the delivery door and Woodbine in a designated delivery/loading zone. This delivery/loading zone would be eliminated due to the mid-block crossing which will be immediately west of the Woodbine driveway. It is possible to convert 1 or 2 of the standard parking stalls in front of Thomas Electric into a loading zone. 5 6. Depot District Development: Salt Lake City views the TRAX connection as an infrastructure tool that will not only support the existing development in the Depot District but also promote development of the Depot District in accordance with the goals of the Gateway Development Master Plan. Planning staff have endorsed the two station recommendation for two fundamental reasons 1) two stations technically work better than the single station (in terms of layout) and 2) they provide better coverage and service to the area. The existing layout of Downtown LRT system is one station every two blocks. The proposed two-station scenario will continue this established spacing. There have been concerns expressed that two stations are not warranted because densities are not as great as elsewhere in Downtown, however the Gateway Master Plan and current zoning both identify this area as the emerging recipient for high—density development in the City. Both stations are adjacent to easily developable sites. The 525 West 200 South station is adjacent to property(north) that has been consolidated by one land owner(approximately 7 of the 10 acres on the block). The 125 South 400 West site is adjacent to the Frank Edwards site (approximately 2.5 acres) that is available for development and the Utah Paper Box site that also has future development potential. The Westgate Building is presently being converted to housing. Zoning on both sites allows for high-density housing with unrestricted density to maximize the site potential. 7. Homeless Care Provider Access: SLC Administration, the Planning Commission, and the City Council have all expressed their support for preserving the co-location of homeless care provider services in the Depot District and providing accessible public transportation to people using those services. a. The recommended two station scenario provides access to a TRAX station within one block of the homeless care provider services. b. The single station alternative at approximately Rio Grande and 200 South provides direct access to the homeless care providers located to the south of the station. STATION LOCATION ISSUES There is general consensus among the Hub TRAX design team and the community regarding Salt Lake City Administration's recommendations for the route, alignment, left turn movements, overhead contact system, station design, streetscape design, and mid-block crossings. The one notable issue of contention is regarding the number of stations. A basic division occurs between supporters of two stations (525 West 200 South and 125 South 400 West) and supporters of a single station (Rio Grande and 200 South). SLC is recommending two station locations because the stations will: 1. Optimize existing and future high density development in the Depot District area. 2. Increase public transit ridership through accessibility and visibility on both 200 South and 400 West. 3. Optimize "user friendliness" and predictability by matching the existing downtown TRAX station spacing with one station every two blocks. 4. Optimize passenger safety and user friendliness by matching the existing downtown station layouts. 5. Support future development of rail transit in Salt Lake City with potential connections on 400 and 600 West Streets. 6. Preserve the 500 West right-of-way for the completion of the Park Blocks as defined in the Gateway Development Master Plan and supported by both SLC Administration and Planning. 6 Support for the two stations includes the Rio Grande Community Council, the Transportation Advisory Board, businesses along the TRAX connection (including businesses within the Gateway development), and the Salt Lake City Administration. Opposition to the two stations and support of a single Rio Grande 200 South station comes from four sources: 1. UTA: UTA prefers a single station at 475 West 200 South. If Salt Lake City makes the decision to preserve the 500 West Park Blocks as envisioned in the Gateway Development Master Plan, UTA prefers the single station at 460 West 200 South. UTA believes there will never be adequate ridership to warrant two stations in this area. 2. Capitol Hill: The Capitol Hill Community Council has voiced their concern that a TRAX station on 400 West will decrease the level of service on 400 West and increase traffic on Victory Road; therefore increasing traffic through their neighborhood. The Airport/University FEIS initially recommended a single station on 400 West. The Hub TRAX connection engineering consultant team evaluated the impacts on Victory Road and determined that the 400 West stop would not increase traffic on Victory Road. The City Transportation Division agreed with and continues to support this conclusion. TAB thoroughly reviewed the Capital Hill Community Council's concerns with the 400 West station and voted to support the two station recommendation. 3. Boyer Company: The Boyer Company would like to maintain their left turn access (from northbound traffic on 400 W) into the Gateway Summer Parking Garage located at approximately 150 South 400 West. The Boyer Company is supporting a single station alternative to be located on 200 South at Rio Grande Street. Refer to Project Assumptions, above, for discussions regarding the Boyer Company's request for a left turn access from northbound traffic on 400 West into the Summer Parking Garage. 4. Dakota Lofts Residents: Some Dakota Lofts residents have expressed concern over station noise from the 400 West station. Two Stations: 525 West 200 South and 125 South 400 West There is a general consensus among the Hub TRAX design team that two stations would function the same as the existing downtown TRAX stations. The typical layout for the downtown TRAX stations is for one end of the station to abut an intersection and the other end of the station to fall at approximately mid-block with a signalized mid-block crosswalk. The downtown stations are spaced at one station every two blocks. SLC Administration believes that short and long-term benefits to the Depot District community and public transit ridership far outweigh the arguments against the two station scenario. Two Stations Pros 1. Two stations optimize current and future development plans for the Gateway area. a. Redevelopment of the blighted Gateway Area was initially conceived in 1978. In 1998, the Gateway Development Master Plan(GDMP), which includes the Intermodal Hub and TRAX extension, was adopted. i. The GDMP is comprised of two documents; the "Gateway Specific Plan" and "Creating an Urban Neighborhood." ii. The GDMP promotes 24-hour mixed-use urban neighborhood with high-density residential and commercial transit-oriented development (TOD). iii. Throughout the development of the Gateway project, SLC planning staff reiterated to the Boyer Company that left-in/left-out access would be eliminated along 400 West and 200 South once the TRAX line was constructed. 7 b. SLC, guided by the GDMP, is promoting high density residential and commercial development in the Gateway area. c. Based on the type of development projected for the area and the current timeline for TRAX and commuter rail, SLC is projecting an increase of 10,000— 15,000 residents in the Depot District over the next 10—20 years. According to UTA, this will result in an increase in daily transit ridership of 5,000—7,500. d. Development intensifies and land values increase adjacent to TRAX stations. e. The locations of the two stations maximize the development potential along the TRAX extension corridor with their proximity to existing mixed-use, transit-oriented development projects and vacant properties. 2. Two stations will promote public transit ridership. a. Increased development and density will result in increased transit ridership. b. An increased number of access points, with minimal additional delay, will also result in increased ridership. c. The existing station spacing throughout the downtown is one station every two blocks. The two—station configuration continues that pattern. d. The layout of the two stations is the same as the existing downtown stations, promoting ease of use and optimizing passenger safety. e. Stations on both 400 West and 200 South will increase the visibility of the system and promote accessibility by providing additional access points adjacent to two existing high- traffic destinations, the Delta Center and the Gateway Development. f. Closer station spacing increases the use of the system throughout the downtown (residents carrying packages, employees at lunch, visitors to conventions, etc.) and places more residences, offices, and retail outlets within a shorter walking distance of a station. g. The 30-second delay to the average commuter riding commuter rail into SLC is a negligible proportion of their overall commute time. h. The two-block (1600 linear feet) spacing of the TRAX stations exceeds the average spacing of downtown light rail stations in other cities with successful public transit systems and should be considered the maximum acceptable spacing for downtown SLC. Portland—960 if Denver— 1145 if Seattle— 1535 if i. The single station option would create a three-block spacing equivalent to 24001f, or almost %2 mile. 3. The 400 West station supports future development of rail transit within SLC and will assist in completing a downtown loop (Fig. 2) if this option is selected. 8 N.,, o v, c c -1 = - - ' , , _ 0 4 V I In, e, ;.w •.,,; .:figi) : TRAX ''.!---- CI`.: t_-7,.,� _- UNIVERSITY TO 400 WEST TRANSFER r - , _° AIRPORT LINE I ' , "" �a NORTH J _ r7 NORTH.SOUTH LINE Figure 2— TRAX Transfer a. The 400 West station will provide flexibility for a cross-platform transfer from one line to the other. b. If the University line(U-line) were to continue to the airport, via 400 West, as currently approved in the FEIS,passengers could transfer between the airport and north/south line at 0 400 W, similar to the U and North/South line transfer at Gallivan. Without this transfer, airport riders would have to travel additional distance out of direction, thereby slightly reducing ridership. c. If the TRAX line were continued south to 700 S or 400 S along 400 W, the 400 West station would provide an optimal transfer point for the TRAX lines. Two Station Cons 1. Increased costs to build two stations instead of one. 2. Increase travel time by 30 seconds. Salt Lake City contends that commuter rail passengers (20—45 minute ride)will not be deterred from using commuter rail due to a 30 second delay at the second interim station. Instead, Salt Lake City firmly believes that TRAX ridership will increase with the two station scenario. 3. Increase UTA operations and maintenance costs. 4. Eliminate any possibility of left turn auto access into Boyer's Summer Parking. One Station: Rio Grande Street(approximately 450 West) and 200 South There is a general consensus among the Hub TRAX team that a single station at Rio Grande on 200 South would be compromised and would not function the same as the existing downtown TRAX stations. The station cannot follow the typical layout(see below), nor is the station spacing (one station every three blocks)the same as the downtown station spacing (one station every two blocks). 0 9 425 West 200 South: The midpoint between the Delta Center and the Hub is 425 West 200 South. This station location is not feasible due to the 90 degree turn onto/from 400 West. It requires at least 40 feet beyond the turn to bring the tracks parallel. The station could shift west 40 feet. However, the general consensus is that the obstacles to this station would exceed the obstacles to the 460 West 200 South station option. 475 West 200 South: The west end of this station would abut the existing 500 West intersection. The existing 500 West intersection is 66 feet west of the 500 West right-of-way identified in the Gateway Development Master Plan and preserved for the 500 West Park Blocks. The Gateway Development Master Plan would have to be amended to allow this station to be built. Neither SLC Administration nor SLC Planning recommends amending the Gateway Development Master Plan to accommodate a TRAX station at 475 West 200 South. 460 West 200 South: The west end of the station would be shifted 66 feet east of the existing 500 West intersection to align with the preserved right-of-way. There are various obstacles to providing a TRAX station at this location. 1. Precludes a direct pedestrian crosswalk across 200 South connecting the Rio Grande sidewalks. It is not possible to design a crosswalk through a TRAX station because of the elevation change between the street and station. A ramp system was evaluated but because UTA uses different styles of TRAX trains having door openings at different locations, all of the platform edges would have to accommodate a TRAX door opening/closing. 2. Would lead to westbound trains backing across the west and north crosswalks and through the intersection of 400 West and 200 South periodically when a pedestrian is in the crosswalk accessing the east end of the station platform or crossing 200 South. 3. Limits the length of the east-to-north left turn lane at 400W/200S which limits the number of vehicles that can turn and may cause left turning vehicles to back into the eastbound through lane. 4. The proximity of the signalized crosswalk at the east end of the station to the 200 South Summer Parking driveway could lead to periodic blockage of the access to and egress from the driveway. 5. The west end of the station platform would have to be elongated by 66 feet to connect to the crosswalk at the existing 500 West intersection. This would need to stay in place until such time that the Park Block is implemented across 200 South. 6. Neither crosswalk would line-up with both the end of the station and the intersection and would therefore increase the frequency of pedestrians crossing to/from the station without using the crosswalks and traffic signals. Single Station Pros 1. Minimizes construction costs. 2. Decreases TRAX travel time by 30 seconds. 3. Decreases UTA operations and maintenance costs. 4. Provides direct accessibility to homeless care providers on south side of station. 5. Provide possibility of a 400 West left turn into Gateway's Summer Parking. Single Station Cons 1. Does not optimize existing and future high density development in the Depot District area. 2. Decreases transit passenger accessibility within the Depot District. 3. Decreases "user friendliness"because station spacing(one station every three blocks) does not match the existing downtown TRAX station spacing with one station every two blocks. 4. Increases passenger safety risks and transportation impacts. 10 R/W R/W 132 FEET -- SIDEWALK ROADWAY I RAIL r ROADWAY 'SIDEWALK- I V d! i r(:s;) L?—; Figure 4— Center Running R/W 132 FEET R/W. SIDEWALK!= ROADWAY j- •LIGHT RAIL- - SIDEWALK-- V r/ Mill AI Figure 5—Side Running R/W R/W 132 FEET LIGHT LIGHT -- SIDEWALK I ROADWAY RAIL I ROADWAY I`- RAIL 7 SIDEWALK 44 ,�, Figure 6— Combination Running 3. TRAFFIC MOVEMENTS All existing traffic movements at major intersections have been preserved. Traffic movements at Rio Grande and 200 South have been limited to right turn only. Through and left turn movements from northbound on Rio Grande onto 200 South have been eliminated for the following reasons: • Rio Grande Street north of 200 South is a one-way(northbound)privately-owned street. The Boyer Company has not expressed any interest in maintaining the through-traffic access from south of 200 South on Rio Grande. • The existing and future traffic counts from northbound traffic on Rio Grande south of 200 South heading either straight on Rio Grande Street or turning west onto 200 South is negligible. The traffic impacts to preserving those traffic movements are significant. 12 4. OVERHEAD CONTACT SYSTEM: Low-profile Catenary Three different overhead contact systems were evaluated; full-depth (standard) catenary, low-profile catenary, and trolley wire. All three have been used within Salt Lake City: • Full-depth (standard) Catenary: 2100 S to 1300 S (Sandy/Salt Lake line) • Low-profile Catenary: University light rail line • Trolley Wire: Main Street and South Temple Low-profile catenary is recommended because it minimizes costs and the number of poles while maintaining an urban feel to the system. 5. STATION DESIGN: Match Existing The architecture of the light rail stations will match the existing architecture of the other Salt Lake Light Rail Transit (LRT) stations. • Canopies • Seating • High-block (ADA access) • Trash receptacles • Ticket vending • Trees 6. STREETSCAPE DESIGN: Match Existing Street lights, landscaping, and public furniture will match the existing elements in the downtown. The sidewalk paving patterns will meet the administrative guidelines for the downtown. • Cactus light poles along 400 West and 200 South • Asparagus light poles along 600 West • Trees • Trash receptacles 7. MID-BLOCK PEDESTRIAN CROSSINGS Mid-block pedestrian crossings at TRAX stations increase pedestrian access and safety to/from the stations while decreasing the likelihood of jaywalking. Additionally, once the TRAX line is in place a mid-block pedestrian crossing at the intersection of Rio Grande and 200 South is essential for safely accommodating the existing and future pedestrian crossings at that intersection. a. 150 South 400 West in conjunction with station b. Rio Grande (450 West) and 200 South c. 550 West 200 South in conjunction with station d. 350 West South Temple at existing station 8. STATION LOCATIONS: Hub station at 325 South 600 West with two stations; 125 South 400 West (future build) and 525 West 200 South. • Salt Lake City Administration is basing our recommendations on input from the TRAX engineering consultant team, UTA staff and administration, City Planning, City Transportation, Public Utilities, City Engineering, Rio Grande Community Council, Transportation Advisory Board, business and property owners along the TRAX route, and the general public. 13 The following station locations were evaluated during preliminary engineering: a. 25 South 400 West(Airport/University FEIS): This station was identified in the Airport/University FEIS as a connection point between the Airport/University line and the Sandy line. It was anticipated at that time that the University line would continue down 400 South to 400 West, turn north to North Temple, then west along North Temple to the Airport. Early on, this station location was eliminated because both the University and Sandy lines utilize the Delta Center station. b. 125 South 400 West: This station was considered as part of a two-station scenario because it follows the existing station pattern throughout the downtown (1 station/2 blocks), is adjacent to the Gateway development to the west, and developable property to the east, provides a station loading alternate for Delta Center events, and provides future direct transit connections along West. GATEWAY SUMMER PARKING + 400 WEST ENTRANCE • ).tt• • • � � D• 4�6 126 S SOO W TRAX STATION' Am. ;a.• EC REST ® I e 944 WES-C C1 Farr •rti� o c o a N O Figure 7- 125 South 400 West Station Recommendation Wri c. 475 West 200 South: This station was considered because it is approximately halfway between the existing Delta Center station (325 West South Temple) and the proposed Intermodal Hub Station(325 South 500 West), and it is adjacent to the Gateway development. This station is only feasible if the existing 500 West ROW is narrowed by amending the Gateway Development Master Plan which provides for the widening of 500 West to allow for the 500 West Park Blocks. Station Platform I`I -- — /!!ice■i r - . ,. 2 az Figure 8—475 West 200 South Station Alternate 111-F 14 d. 460 West 200 South: This station was considered as an alternate to the 475 West 200 South station. i -- Median— i '� Station Platform -,I re --. - __�/ "`.=-�tea-,- r ----- _ 4 I rY US } xFigure 9 460 West 200 South TRAXStation Alternatecc e. 525 West 200 South: This station was considered as part of a two-station scenario because it follows the existing station pattern throughout the downtown (1 station/2 blocks), is adjacent to significant development opportunities to the north, and existing/future development to the south. property to the east, and provides future direct transit connections along West. L i [ T ttN Z�I Figure 10--525 West 200 South TRAX Station Recommendation f. 325 South 600 West (Intermodal Hub): This station is a part of the Intermodal Hub. i i toc_scu• _.,-7, .il mac— --- - - - _ - - �- • ,_- ii AN NORTH '/ Figure 11 —325 South 600 West Intermodal Hub TRAX Station 6. Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension Analysis Report • • • • Salt Lake City • • Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension • • • • Analysis Report • • • May 2004 • • • .t • 3tom • 6414 pcm....mp,---11111144 __ • e-y'p.. ;� ... 4v.-. L q t -- • i I , 41.41. • _ R' .i e I �����lil s' 1•`, r � r it 1 Ficii, ,P.,, _.' ,2 re a • .. e • • • • • • . A* 00100 PARSONS U T A 4:;) • • • TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 1 INTRODUCTION 3 The TRAX System 4 Environmental Studies 4 West/East Light Rail Project FEIS 4 Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub Environmental Assessment 5 The Intermodal Hub 5 The Gateway District 6 Gateway Development 6 Delta Center 6 Area Businesses 6 Residences 6 Community Services 6 Depot District Transit Oriented Development Study 7 100 South HOV Interchange 7 Public Involvement 7 Local Business Contacts 7 Project Open House 7 Community Councils 7 Transportation Advisory Board 8 Mayor's Bicycle Advisory Committee(MBAC) 8 Planning Commission 8 UTA Configuration Control Committee(CCC) 8 ALIGNMENT ANALYSIS 9 Alignment Alternatives 9 Center Running 9 Side Running 9 Combination Running 10 Criteria/Analysis 10 Future Expansion Options 10 Public Utilities 11 Private Utilities 11 Light Rail Operations 14 Traffic Operations 14 Driveway Access 15 i 400 West 15 200 South 19 On-street Parking 22 Geotechnical Considerations 22 Cost Implications 22 Alignment Recommendation 23 STATION LOCATION 24 Station Layout 24 Station Locations Alternatives 25 75 South/400 West 25 125 South/400 West 25 460 West/200 South 25 475 West/200 South 25 525 West/200 South 26 Two Stations— 125 South& 525 West 26 No Station 26 Criteria/Analysis 26 500 West/200 South Intersection 26 Pedestrian Access 28 Sidewalks 29 Parking 30 Traffic Operations 32 Intersection Level of Service(LOS) 32 Mid-block Streets 32 Public Utilities 33 460 West/200 South 33 475 West/200 South 33 525 West/400 South 33 Two Station- 125 South& 525 West 33 Private Utilities 34 460 West/200 South 34 475 West/200 South 34 525 West/400 South 34 Two Station- 125 South& 525 West 34 Land Use 34 Walking Distance Comparison 36 TRAX System Operations 36 System Speed 36 System Complexity 36 Operational Costs 37 Station Spacing 37 Cost 39 Station Location Recommendation 40 INTERMODAL HUB 41 ii Alignment 41 600 West Corridor 41 Center Running 41 Side Running 41 Center/Side Running 41 Hub Requirements 43 Pedestrian Movements 43 Traffic Flow 43 Parking 43 "Kiss and Ride"Loop 43 Package Drop-off 43 Bus Movements 43 STREETSCAPE 45 Streetscape and Trackway Design 45 400 West 45 200 South 46 SLC Intermodal Hub (600 West) 46 Stations 47 Overhead Contact System 47 APPENDIX 1 Public Comments SLC Transportation Advisory Board SLC Community Councils SLC Mayor's Bicycle Advisory Committee SLC Planning Commission UTA's Configuration Control Committee in • EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This analysis report provides a brief background of the SLC Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension Project(the"Project") area and evaluates where the TRAX location on 400 West and 200 South roadways the tracks should be; on the side of the roadway or in the center of the roadway. This report also evaluates the number of stations needed along the corridor and their locations. The Project alignment along 600 West is discussed along with specifics on the Intermodal Hub. Finally, the streetscape along the entire Project corridor is discussed with recommendations on an approach that would be consistent with the surrounding area. Background The Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension(Project)involves the implementation of a TRAX extension from the existing Utah Transit Authority(UTA)TRAX terminus at the Delta Center(325 West South Temple)to the Intermodal Hub located at 300 South 600 West. The TRAX extension route and a station on 400 West were previously evaluated and listed in approved environmental documents. The 400 West portion was detailed, including a station at 75 South/400 West, in the West/East Light Rail Project Final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS), completed in 1999. The 200 South and 600 West portions of the TRAX line were listed in the Intermodal Hub Environmental Assessment (EA)completed in May 1998. Prior to initiating design or construction of the Hub, an updated and detailed analysis of the Project corridor was performed. The information gathered and the results of that analysis are summarized in this document. Analysis This analysis focuses on four key areas: track alignment within the street cross section, location, station location(s); configuration of light rail at the Intermodal Hub; and streetscape design to be used along the Project corridor. The various track alignments evaluated included placing the tracks on the side of the roadways, in the center of the roadway which has become the standard downtown, or a combination of these alignments. In the station locations analysis, nearly every feasible location for a station along the corridor was reviewed. Following a screening process, a more detailed analysis was conducted for three alternatives: a station at 460 West/200 South; a station at 475 West/200 South; and a dual station alternative with stations at 125 South/400 West and 525 West/200 South. The third area of analysis focused on the track alignment and station location on 600 West, as it integrated into the Intermodal Hub. The final area of analysis focused on the streetscape design for light pole types, overhead contact system pole types, landscaping, and station designs. Results The results of the analysis revealed that a center running alignment was the"best"alternative in all categories evaluated. The station location analysis results showed that a single station was adequate for most criteria ; however, the two stations alternative provided shorter walking distances between stations and provided the best overall coverage for future development opportunities. Recommendation Based on the results of the analysis performed, the City recommends the following system configurations for the Intermodal Hub TRAX extension: Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 1 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension • • • TRAX Alignment: Center Running • IMF Stations: Two Stations • 125 South/400 West(future) • 525 West/200 South • Hub Alignment: Center running track on 600 West, transitioning to a • west side station location, south of 300 South. • . Streetscape: Cactus Lights on 400 West and 600 West Asparagus Lights on 200 South • Street trees in tree wells along Project • Low Profile Catenary System(similar to 400 South) • -7 - I • I Ill �J i z • ' DELTA X' • CENTERF f w \ , . , li 4'0 - _a 100 SOUTH sue = • ve A • �, • { f 1 7, t F I u viz 1 '4 • - 200 SOUTH • • , INTERMODAL - - 3. --- «q _ ' I • lir,_ HUB i ). ', {. t, 300 SOUTH LEGEND • r __ Q BB is SLC TRAX EXTENSION PROJECT''' EXISTING TRAX • PROPOSED STATION • \ S PROPOSED FUTURE STATION • Figure ES-1—Project Map 411040, Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 2 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • • • • • • INTRODUCTION AIThis analysis report provides a brief background of the SLC Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension • Project(the"Project")area and evaluates where within the 400 West and 200 South roadways • the tracks should go; on the side of the roadway or in the center of the roadway. Also evaluated • are the number of stations needed along the corridor and their locations. The Project alignment along 600 West is discussed along with specifics on the Intermodal Hub. Finally, the streetscape • along the entire Project corridor is discussed with recommendations on an approach that would be • consistent with the surrounding area. • The Project consists of a light rail transit project connecting the Utah Transit Authority's existing • light rail terminus at the Delta Center to Salt Lake City's Intermodal Center at 600 West/300 South. The alignment extends from the Delta Center south two blocks on 400 West, west two • blocks on 200 South to 600 West and then south on 600 West to approximately 325 South. The • rail/track system will be designed consistent with UTA's existing system while maintaining City • criteria for roadways, sidewalks, landscaping, utilities,and street lighting. Figure 1 illustrates the Project area. • • t, ; DELTA• CENTER • CO . . - - i - . - ,i i a \ ; ''' rll . _ _ ,.,,,. 100 SOUTH _ D+ •• .' • I . -- x • 200 SOUTH -. oit • :'..5 4::,_ _ al' 11-4 1E-' .. P• • II 'INTERMODAL 3 � - It HUB k • ��g-- 300 SOUTH 4 _ ... -_ l' Ut 1 \ • k LEGEND 1 • NI El SLC TRAX EXTENSION PROJECT `' N " • EXISTING TRAX 411) 1110,. Figure 1. Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension Project • Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 3 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • • • • • This introduction provides a brief summary of UTA's existing light rail system, the fish environmental studies that have been conducted in this area, details on the Intermodal hub, the ear various districts involved, and information on UDOT's 100 South HOV Project. ID THE TRAX SYSTEM • The Utah Transit Authority currently • operates a light rail transit system "ANI`"`" rojea Area • between Sandy and downtown Salt i Sattlarniplt U • Lake City(Sandy/Salt Lake Line) �' / and from downtown Salt Lake City *-ax- • to the University of Utah's Health - .,,, • Sciences Center(University Line) ,,,n .S• iafp 1 for distances of 15 miles and 4 :1,311 5...1 i r ., miles, respectively, see Figure 2. le le • The light rail system currently ; is terminates at the Delta Center, near 3 m•50.1 • 400 West/South Temple. % 1 • UTA operates a fleet of 40 light rail ,�,,,,a vehicles providing service 7 days a - �., ,. • week generally between the hours of J ,44. ��� e. • 5:00 AM and 11:30 PM. The ,,.t J r i S�,:.,• , • • existing system has been developed URRAY : v K r:IR}�t6 in a way that up to four light rail }:di i • vehicles can be linked together, 71100 soup II 0 ���h~ CO operated by a single operator. Operating consoles are at both end -r..s.�„ e I P ,,,,,���, 1 of each vehicle to facilitate changing , + Elvottibish =>. • direction at the end of the line. 8 etaos.a . When a vehicle reaches the end of "°°°S""` S the tracks the operator moves to the " c mot."o•wa p B a ,x err" vy, • other end of the train,which then t m,411/011819. 3 t a SANDY W becomes the"front"of the train. • The vehicles normally change t souru 4 I t ,a.a�Ma .- • direction only at the end of a line. Figure 2. UTA TRAX System • ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES • All projects using federal funds are required to follow the National Environmental Protection Act • (NEPA) guidelines, which require an environmental study to ensure all impacts are identified and • mitigated as much as possible. This Project has been evaluated as part of two separate • environmental studies. The West/East Light Rail Project FEIS evaluated, among other areas,the environmental impacts along the 400 West portion of this Project; and the Salt Lake City • Intermodal Hub Environmental Assessment evaluated the environmental impacts along the 200 • South and 600 West portion of this Project. Below are specific definitions of the referenced documents. IIII • West/East Light Rail Project FEIS • The West/East Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS)document was completed in March Ira 1999 with the Record of Decision signed in December 1999 completing the entire EIS process. • Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 4 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • 40 • • • The West/East FEIS provided an environmental evaluation of the proposed light rail line from the folk Salt Lake City International Airport on the west side of Salt Lake City to the University of Utah OUP Health Sciences Center on the east. The Record of Decision identified a station directly north of • the 100 South/400 West intersection with the tracks in the center of the 400 West. • Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub Environmental Assessment • The SLC Intermodal Hub Environmental Assessment was completed in May 1998. The • assessment focused on the location of the Intermodal Hub and the extension of light rail from the Intermodal Hub along 200 South to 400 West to tie into the West/East TRAX line. • • THE INTERMODAL HUB • The Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub will provide centralized mobility and transportation • enhancements to Salt Lake City, the Wasatch Front Region, and the State of Utah by serving local bus,regional commuter rail, light rail, Amtrak, Greyhound, taxis, shuttles,pedestrians,and • bicyclists. The Hub will be located on approximately 17 acres in downtown Salt Lake City and is • bordered by the Union Pacific mainline to the west, 200 South to the north, 600 West to the east, and 700 South to the south. The site is optimally situated adjacent to the Union Pacific mainline, • the proposed commuter rail alignment, 1-15, I-80, HOV lanes for convenient bus access to I-15 • and I-80,and a Class II bike route along 200 South, connecting the west side of the valley to the • University of Utah. Figure 3 illustrates an artist's rendering of the Intermodal Hub area. • Design of the facility has addressed the historic nature of the site,which served as the original • location of the Rio Grande Passenger Depot. The east freight warehouse will be incorporated into the new facility along with elements from two warehouses demolished during construction. • Pedestrian and bicycle access to the Hub has been an essential consideration in designing the facility to accommodate all modes of transit. The project is seeking LEED's (Leadership in • Energy and Environmental Design)certification through sustainable design and operation practices. Activation of the facility will increase the overall efficiency of travel within the State, • improve air quality, generate opportunities for Transit Oriented Development throughout the • surrounding community, and conserve energy resources. • • • • - • - - - • • -- A • • • • Figure 3. Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub 411111 Analysis Report Salt Lake City • May 2004 Page 5 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • 41 THE GATEWAY DISTRICT The Gateway District Master Plan establishes the City's goals for the Project area. The Gateway District is comprised of approximately 650 acres of land located three blocks west of Main Street. It is bounded by Interstate 15 (I-15) on the west, 300 West on the east,North Temple on the north and 1000 South on the southern end. The transformation of the Gateway District began with the consolidation of the railroad tracks and the shortening of the viaducts (bridges over the railroad tracks). These two acts have changed the perceived character and uses of the area. They make visualizing the area as a vital and important part of downtown Salt Lake City possible and the creation of an urban neighborhood feasible. The goal of the Gateway Development Master Plan is to create an opportunity for residents of Salt Lake City to have a place to work, live, learn, and relax in close proximity to downtown. The Gateway should encourage density, variety, and excellence in urban design architecture that surrounds usable and attractive open space. To date, development is taking place within the area. Gateway Development The Gateway Development is a multi-use development including 500 residential units, 650,000 square feet of retail areas, and 250,000 square feet of office space. This development spans approximately 30 acres and has become a vital part of the downtown area. Delta Center The Delta Center is a special event arena covering an entire 10-acre city block. The primary use of the Arena is for the Utah Jazz basketball team. Other events are staged including concerts, rodeos, ice shows, and motor-cross. Area Businesses There are many businesses along the Project corridor. These range from restaurants and retail to printing and repair shops. Throughout this report, the various businesses are referenced and discussed. Residences There are three main residential areas along the Project. Located at 400 West/200 South,the Dakota Lofts provide approximately 35 residential units. The Gateway residential units are located north and west of the Project corridor,along the west side of the Gateway development and at build-out will provide approximately 500 units. Finally, the Bridges Development, located at 500 West/200 South, provides 62 units. Community Services There are two community support groups along the corridor along 200 South. The St.Vincent's Soup Kitchen provides meals and the Salt Lake City Road Home provides lodging for those in need. Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 6 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension ' ' ti u .4 DEPOT DISTRICT TRANSIT ORIENTED DEVELOPMENT STUDY The Depot District, bounded by North Temple, 400 West,400 South and I-15, will be significantly impacted by the completion of the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub (Hub) in 2007. Property owners and developers in the Depot District are anxious to capitalize on development opportunities arising from the Hub development. Salt Lake City would like to encourage development that enhances transit ridership by expanding upon the framework established by the Gateway District Master Plan. The City is, therefore, undertaking the Depot District Transit Oriented Development(TOD)Plan. The goal is to create, with the broad support of the community and the major property and business owners in the area, an enforceable TOD plan that will guide development in the Depot District, create a new zoning district for the hub area, and provide recommendations for any regulatory (zoning) changes needed to implement the plan. 100 SOUTH HOV INTERCHANGE Another noteworthy activity occurring in the Project Area is the Utah Department of Transportation's current plans for a High Occupancy Vehicle(HOV)on/off ramp from Interstate 15 (I-15) destined to connect to City streets at 100 South/600 West. This new HOV interchange will be for travelers going to and from the north. The significance of the HOV ramp is that the traffic volumes on 100 South and 200 South will increase substantially when the ramps are implemented. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT A robust public involvement process has been implemented through a combination of one-on-one meetings with property owners, workshops with public agencies, open houses with the public, and public policy meetings within UTA and Salt Lake City citizen boards, commissions, community councils, and administration. Following are descriptions of the different activities completed to promote public involvement. Local Business Contacts Each local business along the project corridor was visited in person by a Salt Lake City representative during the week of January 5, 2004. The businesses were briefed on the Project, provided an information sheet, and invited to attend the January 8,2004 Project Open House. Records of the businesses visited and the handouts provided are included in Appendix A-1. Project Open House On January 8,2004,an open house was hosted at the Union Pacific building located at 400 West/South Temple. The Open House presentation provided information on the Project as well as Salt Lake City's on-going transit oriented development study. The open house was well attended. Documentation on the Open House is provided in Appendix A-2. Community Councils Salt Lake City encompasses a large geographic area with many communities established throughout. The communities typically have a keen interest on the different infrastructure projects that have the potential to impact their community areas. These communities have established formal Community Councils that serve as conduits for information between the City and the community. The Project corridor lies within the People's Freeway and Rio Grande Community Councils. Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 7 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension f5 H`gf Based on interest, other community councils were provided a Project briefing. These councils were as follows: The Greater Avenues Council, Capital Hill Council, Poplar Grove Council, and the Rose Park Council. Transportation Advisory Board The Transportation Advisory Board(TAB)is a forum, managed by Salt Lake City's Transportation Division, to provide citizen input regarding transportation decisions and issues affecting Salt Lake City. TAB members provide recommendations to the Transportation Division, the Mayor, and City Council regarding the development and implementation of the City's Traffic Calming Program; regional, city wide, and local transportation issues; crossing guard policies and crossing guard placement; alternative transportation and travel demand strategies; promotion of public education of transportation issues; prioritization of funding for transportation related capital improvement projects; and serve as a coordinating body and resource for organizations interested in transportation issues affecting Salt Lake City. Mayor's Bicycle Advisory Committee (MBAC) The Mayor's Bicycle Advisory Committee was provided a briefing on the Project. Assurances were given that bike lanes would be implemented on 200 South and on 600 West. Planning Commission The Salt Lake City Planning Commission was provided two Project briefings. The Planning Commission stressed the importance of maintaining the full width of the 500 West right of way. UTA Configuration Control Committee (CCC) UTA's CCC was provided two separate Project briefings. The general consensus was that the Project is vital to the planned commuter rail project. UTA voiced concerns with the number of light rail stations between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub and believes one station would provide adequate service to the area. Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 8 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension ALIGNMENT ANALYSIS The alignment of TRAX on the street cross section can be configured several ways. The three configurations studied include"center running", "side running", and"combination running" (a combination of center and side running). This section of the report evaluates these different configurations along the corridor; 400 West and 200 South. Additionally, this section describes the alignment alternatives, compares the alternatives using(7)seven different criteria, and presents a recommended alignment. Later in this report, the area around the Intermodal Hub including 600 West is discussed. ALIGNMENT ALTERNATIVES Center Running Center running allows traffic lanes on both sides of the track corridor and allows left turns only at signalized intersections. This configuration is used in nearly all of UTA's existing light rail system downtown Figure 4 illustrates an example of a"center running"alignment on Salt Lake City's 400 South, east of Main Street. R/W R/W 132 FEET SIDEWALK ROADWAY LIGHT RAIL I— ROADWAY SIDEWALK -- J a-Zcal-a Tiara r Figure 4. Center Running Side Running A"side running" light rail configuration is less common and as named, locates the alignment on the side of the roadway. UTA's system currently employs a side running alignment along Wasatch Drive and Medical Drive on the University of Utah campus. Side running allows traffic lanes to run independently of the track corridor,allowing left turns as dictated by roadway striping. However, side running complicates right turns at intersections and limits driveway access on whichever side the tracks are situated. Figure 5 shows an example of"side running" alignment in Denver. R/W R/W 132 FEET — SIDEWALK I - ROADWAY — LIGHT RAIL -SIDEWALK — V I! finTal 4111.111.1. I MI gill I il >=-: .Ci�,i';t3—=say., Figure 5. Side Running Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 9 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension Combination Running "Combination running" is a non-traditional configuration and would be unique in the downtown area. Combination running involves one track in the center of the roadway and one on the side of the roadway with traffic lanes between the trackways. Issues with turning movements and driveway access are similar to the previous discussions. Figure 6 illustrates and example of a "combination running"alignment in Baltimore. d: - FEET I N > JI, IIII II ` � Figure 6. Combination Running Combination running captures the worst of both center and side running including more utility impacts, driveway impacts, parking loss, and more complicated operations. The combination running TRAX alignment on 400 West and 200 South has been identified as a non-option based on the multitude of impacts and will not be evaluated further in this document. CRITERIA/ANALYSIS As with any analysis, the evaluation categories must be defined. The track location evaluation categories include future expansion, public utility impacts, private utility impacts, UTA TRAX operations, traffic operations, driveway access, on-street parking, and station layout. The alignments were evaluated independent of station locations. The details of the evaluation are provided below. Future Expansion Options i Based on the success of light rail in the Salt Lake ,, y , ' ,' area and the importance of the Intermodal Hub, , future expansion of light rail is likely. This evaluation addressed what impact the locations of ' � l" t f ; r t om"60; �. the tracks, within the designated roadways, would 4 __ have on the ability to expand in the future. The Or locations evaluated are shown in Figure 7. t '� ' - ' (Left to Right) ill.` • Westbound on 200 South ,lam 1 + - " • Northbound on 600 West r • Southbound on 600 West ° h. ='° - • Northbound on 400 West t • Southbound on 400 West . 1;Tut'sI Figure 7. Future Expansion Options Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 10 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension The results of the analysis indicate that future expansion is generally not impeded at any of the locations listed above regardless of whether the rails are center running or side running. This only applies if the alignment location is consistent from street to street. When the light rail system is center running on one street and transitions to side running on another, the transition at the corners can have an impact on the sidewalk and adjacent lanes of traffic. Provisions for trackwork for half grand unions and/or switches for future expansions are not planned to be included in the Project. Grading and OCS pole layouts however will incorporate such options. FUTURE EXPANSION SUMMARY • Future expansion is not limited by center or side running tracks • Center running tracks have less impact to sidewalks at corners. Public Utilities Public utilities include water, sewer, and storm drain facilities. Currently, Salt Lake City Public Utilities (SLCPU) has established a criterion that requires the relocation of all public utilities underneath the guideway or within 9-feet of the trackway centerline. This is referred to as the Restricted Utility Area (RUA). An exception to this rule is storm drains which can remain as long as access to the system is provide from outside the RUA. The utilities listed in Table 1 are those that are parallel to the proposed guideway locations, are within the RUA(2.25-feet wider than the guideway), and would likely require relocation. The values provided do not assume any stations and have been rounded to the nearest 200-feet. Additional utility impacts due to stations are covered later in this document. SLCPU has also established the criterion that any mains or laterals crossing perpendicular to the RUA have casings for future access. Private Utilities The private utilities listed in Table 2 are those that are parallel to the proposed guideway locations, within the RUA (2.25-feet wider than the guideway), and may or may not require relocation. The values provided do not assume any stations. Often private utilities can remain underneath the trackway depending on the location of the overhead contact system(OCS)poles, the type of access needed, and the depth of the facilities. The quantities have been rounded to the nearest 200-feet. UTILITY SUMMARY • A center running alignment impacts fewer utilities overall. Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 11 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension cs j o W il t t U U o C c 0 0 0 v0 CO CO .0 Y -C C U 0 0 C U O C CO m CO O oD m t7 L -C O 0 U C O C 'i C i N r N t .0 O 0 V C 0 C 'T C 'i O .- O M M C 0 C 0 C) CO N CON 00 N .c 3 t O d C p O (> N C O C .r O O o O b0 o Tt 0 O O 0 0 C 0 C COO .1 T C C 0 O N ` O t (0 V U C t C E co co L w+ L y., .F+ . 0 L cc, •+ L ,0 ... I. (0 .4+ _� :I-. O ++ O ar �0 O ;r+ f0 `` O +_ f0 0 +l 00 0 0 c („) = C C a) a) a) C C i 0) a) ,_, a) _ EE C CD = 'c � C � � C � E � � 'c 'act *aC m a) (va 3 a N = 3 = 3 a' (va C) in CO N = y CD Qa � Qa LL a- re `'' 1— r. 0 � o N t Q" • • a� Z 2f \ • \ / ƒ \ 44 '4.) \ 3w \ f { ; k k 2 <3 - e - m E o CO k J k J \ 5 a . v k 0 o • } } / \ / Cri 2 0 & c 0 & c o _ o \ § jr,), . o 2 q . O. > th CO CL > a \ n ± • \ au) « ° 5 0 « ° s } \ CV n } \ 0 0 > 103k to > 0 / o u_ ito CO 11 LI" jj0 151 � % .Cill 0 ca J cken = o y 0 Fo / = o x � Co } - Co Z - / mp 2p 55 0 0 / J \ 77 S 2 m § 2 D0 DU c 0:47, _ 0 10 oo.3 o ook \ Cl I.CO D 2 0 2 2 0 E it izQ 0 Q co co f g I. k 0 0 -0 0 0 6 0 C / § 0 c g a U U \ 2 2 0 0 0 2C 0) o� @� © ° c ■ £ ■ £ *I ■ ■ 2 £ ■ ■ £ E E C •E 0 E § -0 c § E E c c t V •c cs ■ H § § n § H u. it u. re w k �� ) 2k Light Rail Operations The goal of light rail operations is to provide light rail service in a safe and reliable manner. In order to do this, the light rail vehicles need to run unimpeded within a designated corridor. Obviously, in the downtown, the light rail vehicles must stop at intersections and platforms. The ability to optimize vehicle movements in an intersection is a function of minimizing the number of phases a signal must accommodate to provide the necessary movements. A center running guideway is isolated from traffic lanes and allows crossings only at signalized intersections. As the traffic signal cycles through its different phases, turning movements, through movements, and cross movements are coordinated with the through movement of the light rail vehicle. As a light rail vehicle approaches an intersection, the coordinated traffic signal system attempts to provide opportunity for the light rail vehicle to proceed without stopping creating a"priority" system. Typically, when automobiles are traveling parallel to the light rail vehicle through an intersection, the automobiles and the light rail vehicles share the same traffic signal phase. A side running guideway operates very similar to the center running system however a separate traffic signal phase is required for the train since automobiles traveling parallel to the train must be allowed to make right turns at intersections and would otherwise be in conflict with the train. This additional phase ultimately has an impact on automobiles and light rail operations. LIGHT RAIL OPERATIONS SUMMARY • A center running alignment is best for light rail operations • A side running alignment creates a need for an additional signal phase at intersections Traffic Operations Traffic operations change with the introduction of light rail as turn lanes are adjusted and traffic lanes are shifted. A center running guideway eliminates non-intersection left turns but allows right turn in/right turn out driveway access. This is discussed in more detail below under Driveway Access. The number of thru lanes and turn lanes are not impacted with a center running guideway. Parking may be available on both sides of the roadway depending on available rights of way and desired sidewalk width. Center running is the only type of guideway system currently used in downtown Salt Lake City. Operationally, the more consistent a system is, the easier it is for the public to operate around it. A center running guideway on 400 West and on 200 South would be consistent with South Temple, Main Street, 700 South,400 South, and 500 South. A side running guideway allows non-intersection left turns and has no impact on the number of thru lanes and turn lanes available for roadway traffic. All crossing locations would require train activated crossing gates or other active warning system. While crossing gates provide a safe operational scenario, they are considered undesirable. The most significant impacts of a side Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 14 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension a 411 • running guideway are the signal impacts discussed under System Operations (an additional phase • in the traffic signal cycle), the fact that a side running guideway prohibits parking adjacent to the 4160 guideway, and that all driveways require active crossing gates and signals. Also, a side running • guideway on 400 West and/or 200 South would be unique to the traveling public in the downtown area. 411 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SUMMARY • • A center running alignment is best for traffic because it allows driveway access • without the need for crossing gates • • A center running alignment eliminates mid-block left turns but this impact is • lessened by allowing U-turns at intersections • Driveway Access • Driveway access is significant to I. _ , • businesses and residents along the "cf' a• = -• J ,...,._• Project corridor. Both center : : R.lr,� ��� running and side running • configurations impact driveway •.., ,y Zi=. • ` ��� • access. A center running guideway ;. , n ; •;;::.' ,z eliminates all non-intersection left •••• • turns. Side running results in the F : . DELTA ° • elimination of driveways or the • CENTER need for crossing gates at any o , • remaining driveways. Following is GATEWAY • a discussion of the individual © ••"• CO access needs of the businesses and f — '• > . •'�'• .... residents along the corridor, the • — ' '` alternative access routes available, a goo sour• ° and the level of impact side running 15_ • tracks have on the businesses and • residents. C. — 400 West GATEN'Al r•411 ElUP&L • Along 400 West there are five ©o _ • driveways on the east side of the UTAH PAPER BOX LEGEND roadway and three on the west, see ' la _ - (.(:atewax Development •• Figure 8. The propertyowners with I. 1 \akt orixeway gur DAKOTA : 2.Gateway Devebpment •driveways include the Gateway 1 LOFTS II \\'inter Parkin Y • " 3.(:atewa�Ikvebpment • --,�••� .- .. a.Dena<enter development owning all three d"" - eking • driveways on the west side of 400 F7;-��i]f� - 5.1 tah Power&Light West, the Delta Center, UP&L(two _ 6.l tah Paper sox 11 --rn._ .. - -g 7.Dakota Lou, driveways), the Utah Paper Box, • and the Dakota Lofts. Figure 8. 400 West Driveway Access 411 Gateway Development Valet Driveway-The Gateway Development has a valet parking loop at • approximately 20 South. This valet service serves a very limited amount of traffic. The loop is • not impacted with a center running configuration because the driveways can be easily restricted to right turn in/right turn out access without impacting valet operations. However, a west side • running alignment would require driveway closure or the installation of train activated gates. ie.,Ir Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 1 S of 48 Intermodal Hub 411 TRAX Extension • • • Gateway Development Winter Parking Garage- Further south on 400 West, at approximately 70 South, the Gateway Development's Winter Parking Garage access has two lanes in and two WIlanes out. This parking garage has a capacity of approximately 1,000 vehicles. A center running • guideway would permit right turns in and out and prohibit left turns. The existing entrance/exit on 100 South provides an alternative access point mitigating the loss of left turn access into and • out of this garage. Additionally, the public will have the opportunity to do U-turns at the next • available intersection. • A side running guideway in this area would cause significant operational issues considering the • parking garages have a ticket/payment controlled entry/exit process requiring drivers to obtain a . ticket to enter the garage. Locating the guideway adjacent to these activities would complicate the traffic operations and would require the ticket/payment areas to be relocated further into the • parking garage. • Gateway Development Summer Parking • Garage-The Gateway Development also has • a driveway located at approximately 150 - -. • South serving the Summer Parking Garage i _ with two lanes in and two out. This parking �_ • garage has a capacity for approximately 1,500 _ • vehicles and, when combined with the Winter Parking Garage, serves over a million patrons - - --' • • Eli • per year. A center running guideway blocks • the left turning movements into and out of the _____ -- • Summer Parking Garage. There are two alternatives available to the current left turn 0 into the garage for motorists northbound on • 400 West if a center running guideway is implemented. First, if a station is not located on 400 West, a mid-block signalized intersection • could be implemented at 150 South allowing left turns across the trackway. The second • alternative is to divert traffic to the other existing entrance/exits on 100 and 200 South. These alternatives are described in more detail below. • • A mid-block signalized intersection at 150 South would allow protected left turns into the • Summer Parking Garage. However, there are some operational constraints that make an intersection a less attractive alternative. For instance, because this parking garage has a • ticket/payment process as described for the Winter Garage, there would be a limit to the number • of vehicles able to make left turns based on the"bottleneck"caused by patrons stopping to collect a ticket. Also, in order to provide a left turn, the left turn would have to start at the 200 South • intersection causing the sidewalk widths to be reduced to 12-feet on the east side of the road and • 10-feet on the west. In order to facilitate the lanes needed, the sidewalk space on the east side of • the roadway would be reduced to the minimum 12-feet. In this configuration, there would be two thru lanes in each direction, a right and left turn lane(west side)and a left turn on the east side. • The 150 South intersection and a station platform at 125 South cannot be implemented together • for lack of space. The 125 South station platform is discussed in more detail later in this document. • • An alternative to providing the left turn at 150 South is to divert traffic to the existing 100 South 111 or the 200 South garage access points using signage. While patrons may be accustomed to using the 400 West access when traveling from the south, it is assumed that they will quickly learn to • Analysis Report Salt Lake City • May 2004 Page 16 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • • • • access the garage elsewhere or to do a U-turn at the 100 South intersection allowing them to enter 41112the garage on 400 West. ow • During events when large volumes of vehicles are exiting in a short period of time, the vehicles exiting on 400 West are directed south on 400 West with the majority of vehicles turning west on • 200 South. This type of operation currently is facilitated by using the parking lane along the west • side of 400 West as a right turn lane at 200 South. This "parking lane"or right turn lane is • recommended for all alternatives. • Considering the amount of traffic using the parking garage and the operations during special • events,a side running guideway along the west side of 400 West is not considered prudent. • Delta Center—The Delta Center, located •ti F • on the east side of 400 West between South ;.''`'ig '_ • Temple and 100 South has a driveway at ''; ,; approximately 60 South. Pursuant to ;:tr^ • discussions with the Delta Center staff,the = • Delta Center is not impacted by the loss of - - left turns in and out of the driveway. The , traffic circulation pattern preferred by the • Delta Center has the driveway at 60 South • as a right in/right out only. A side running i guideway would have a significant impact • on the Delta Center operations due to loss of • the parking lane for staging large vehicles during special events. 410 Utah Power—Further south, Utah Power • owns the next two driveways on the east side between 100 South and 200 South at • • approximately 130 South and 150 South. r--tea`` ,J ,,,,,;; "...• [ • These driveways are not for public use and `.- I provide access to an electrical substation -• , rr • • ,; ,Lrt nil area of approximately 1.1 acres. Because ,I� • these access points are controlled and are _, r I �all��l�ll 1 1 • not frequently utilized, the impacts of the loss of left turns in and out are considered • minimal. A side running or center running • guideway would have minimal impact on idialla this driveway however, the driveways will • have to be widened to accommodate the large vehicles. • • • • • • 1 Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 17 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • • • Utah Paper Box-The Utah Paper Box SAsk owns the next driveway along the east side , IMP of 400 West at 160 South. This driveway is • at the back of the business and supports employee parking and the shipping needs of • the business. The Utah Paper Box makes - boxes for a wide range of merchandise, 44e. N- MI— • primarily confection products such as those• r produced by the Western Nut Company. _ - • The factory, located along 400 West, is __ • responsible for printing the boxes, which are - then shipped to another location for .= : z • assembly. The Utah Paper Box consumes • approximately 300 tons of paper per month. Semi-trucks are used to deliver paper, ink, and other • supplies and for hauling the printed boxes to the next stage in the process. Six(48-foot long) semi-trucks use this driveway each day. Because the loading docks are too close to 400 West,the • trucks typically serve the docks by both stopping on 400 West and backing into the docks from • 400 West or by pulling through the property via alleyways off of 200 South,pulling straight onto 400 West and then backing to the docks. The loss of left turns into and out of this driveway has a • minimal impact to the Utah Paper Box based on the current operations. To facilitate the reverse • movement to the loading docks and to avoid conflict with a center running guideway, the driveway will need to be widened and merged with the Utah Power and Light driveway located • directly north of this driveway. • A side running guideway would have a significant impact on operations because the track • crossing would have to be controlled by gates that would activate each time a light rail vehicle COapproached. Semi-trucks backing across the guideway would create an operational situation • unacceptable to both UTA and the Utah Paper Box. For this reason, the Utah Paper Box would be forced to change their operations by either relocating or making significant building • modifications. • Dakota Lofts-The final driveway on the • east side of 400 West supports the -1 V13• residential needs of the Dakota Lofts. The • Dakota Lofts is a 6-story condominium -complex with approximately 35 residential -'' : 1, • units; the ground floor is used for retail. a; IV !, • The driveway access on 400 West is gated i ilgillii, and code controlled. An alternative access - • is provided to and from 200 South. A center • running guideway would continue to allow - `r • right in and right out access but would prohibit left turns. Because this access is - • residential, the travel patterns of residents are expected to adjust by either performing U-turns at • the intersections or approaching the area using a different course. • A side running alignment would have a significant impact to this driveway based on the code- • controlled access and the need for drivers to stop while the code is entered and the gate opens. • Likely, with a side running guideway, this driveway would have to be closed or the code- controlled access eliminated. Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 18 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • • • 200 South •0 Along 200 South there are four and five driveways on the north and south side of the street, respectively. See Figure 9. •• _ ;' MIKE SHOENFELD STUDIOS • /i\ _ III L IC RBFE . ' z, 41I SUMMER . •r • I GARAGE i 'ARKING s _ r, ` � ' ` u . I' 'I.Ii-.1trr;i • El13 7 El _ HONG KONG a ' • TEA HOUSE ._ y — SOUP I. ��i .w KITCHEN • _ A -h _ 309WLC I THOMAS • ELECTRIC •_ . V -� S LEGEND I.Gateway Development,Summer Parking 6.Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City(Soup Kitchen) • 2.McCarthey Properties(Orbit Cafe) 7.Woodbine Street(550 West) 3.Mike Shoenfeld Studios 8.Thomas Electric(Delivery Door)S 4.Garage Entrance(566 West) 9.Hong Kong Tea House Delivery Alley(575 West) • 5.309 W LC(Vacant Lot) • Figure 9. 200 South Driveway Access CO Gateway Development(parking garage)- i _:..__ -`—'-__ - • At approximately 425 West, on the north • side of the roadway, the Gateway —TT— = — Development's Summer Parking Garage has -, • access with one lane in and out. A center 2 - _,` ._=_ • running guideway would permit right turns .iiiiiiii4• in and out and prohibit left turns. The loss ,, — -_ of left turns has a minimal impact on garage o • operations at this entry/exit because the • majority of traffic using this driveway can approach from the east and upon exiting - • utilize the 500 West/200 South intersection • to circulate nearly any direction. A side running guideway in this area would create significant operational issues due to the controlled • entry/exit process of the parking garage and the need for train activated crossing gates. • McCarthey Properties(Orbit Café)-The Orbit Café is located at approximately 540 West on • the north side of the roadway with a surface parking lot east of the building. A center running • guideway would permit right turns in and out and prohibit left turns. Vehicles currently using the • parking lot are passenger vehicles and delivery vehicles. There are no existing alternative access points for the Orbit Café. Patrons arriving from the west will have to perform a U-turn at the 500 • West intersection and similarly, patrons departing to the east will have the option of either • making right turns around the block or performing a U-turn at the 600 West intersection. A side running guideway on the north side of 200 South would have minimal access impacts to this • Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 19 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension N. r • • • driveway but would require the driveway to • have train activated crossing gates x <"` Mrcontrolling access to and from the parking ' ,, lot. ,k • = r.000 , • } • -, • • Mike Schoenfeld Studio-The Mike • Schoenfeld Studio is located at '~' ' approximately 560 West on the north side of ;i , '�i • the roadway with a controlled access ', d:� '. • parkemployee arkin areaprovided east of the �r4` ing , F#',12_ • building. A center runningguidewaywould i — . -v; q. . g � .i i permit right turns in and out and prohibit left ;` ;t. • turns. Only passenger vehicles use this t., ,, _% ,1,j 1 • parking lot and there are no alternative �` • access points. Because employees become —-- ; accustomed to access routes, the loss of left �' CO turns is considered insignificant for this ilk • property. A side running guideway on the north side of the roadway would cause • significant operational difficulties due to the coordination of the train activated crossing gates and • the business' controlled access gate. Likely, the controlled access gate would have to be moved • further into the property. • Garage Entrance(566 West)-This access i ' • is currently not used and the building has lost its Right of Occupancy. The impact of -o_ • no left turns is considered insignificant at I i I , • this time. A side running guideway would ;}I!;;,' Iforce this access to be eliminated or Ii"pi,' • significantly altered to accommodate train # _ • activated crossing gates. Regardless of • alignment, it is recommended this driveway illipic access be removed. . • • :_PIP • • 309 W LC (vacant lot)-Located at approximately 420 West on the south side of the roadway, • this access is currently serving as a parking lot for passenger vehicles. With a center running guideway, right turns in and out would be permitted; left turns would be prohibited. However, 40 Analysis Report Salt Lake City • May 2004 Page 20 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • • • • • based on the proximity to the intersection, left turns are already prohibited. Alternative access is • available to and from 400 West. Vehicles approaching this property from the east will have an aopportunity to perform a U-turn at the next available intersection. A side running guideway • would require a train activated crossing gate be installed however, because an alternative access is available, the closure of the driveway should be reviewed further. • • Roman Catholic Bishop of Salt Lake City (Soup Kitchen)-The next driveway access to the • west belongs to the Roman Catholic Church and is located at approximately 430 West on the south side of the roadway. The driveway serves passenger vehicles and delivery vehicles and has • no alternative access. A center running guideway would provide for right turns in and out of the • driveway; left turns would be prohibited. The loss of left turns is considered minimal since U- turns are possible at the next available intersection and it is assumed traffic will redirect • accordingly. A side running guideway would have minimal access impacts to this driveway but a • train activated crossing gate would have to be implemented. • Woodbine Street(550 West)-Located mid Pr' - • block, this alleyway provides access to a • surface parking lot serving the Bridges Development and delivery access for Thomas • Electric. This alleyway connects with an . • east/west alleyway that accesses 500 West _ t (Eccles Ave.). A center running guideway ' • would permit right turns in and out and 1 ;04'_ , _ .i ile • prohibit left turns. Considering the available :, '" • alternative access, the loss of left turns is considered insignificant. A side running CO guideway would have minimal access impacts . to this alleyway however, train activated gates would have to be implemented. • • Thomas Electric (Delivery Door)-Located . at approximately 560 West, on the south side ��of the roadway, Thomas Electric has a � . ` • delivery door accessing 200 South. Currently, • delivery vehicles (1-ton vehicles)back to the delivery door daily and off-load merchandise. • Semi-trucks pull curbside between the • delivery door and Woodbine in a designated loading zone. While a center running • guideway prohibits left turns, based on the • type of existing parking(back-in, diagonal) and that vehicles will be able to do U-turns at • 600 West, the loss of left turns is manageable. • A side running guideway on the south side of • 200 South would have a devastating effect on this business' ability to receive deliveries forcing the need to relocate. • • • IAnalysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 21 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • • • • Hong Kong Tea House and Restaurant • Delivery Alley (575 West)-Located at 575 ` ' N �..IMP `� West, a delivery driveway is provided - -•, directly west of the Hong Kong Tea House ',. • and Restaurant. This driveway access has a • limited amount of room and cannot support • large semi-truck delivery. When used, the delivery trucks are able to back into this • delivery area. A center running guideway • will have little impact on this driveway entrance. A side running guideway, along • the south side of 200 South would likely • cause the driveway to be closed. Due to its NM* • narrow width, there is not room to ""° incorporate the train activated crossing gates and still have a usable entrance. • • DRIVEWAY ACCESS SUMMARY • There are 16 driveway access points along the Project corridor • • A center running alignment has the least impact on driveway access • • A side running alignment forces driveways to be eliminated(impacting businesses) • or to have gate controlled access • On-street Parking III On-street parking will be impacted by the implementation of light rail. The magnitude of the • impacts is dependent upon the lane configurations, sidewalk widths, station platform locations, 4114111) and guideway location. A side running guideway has the greatest impact on parking. Parking adjacent to the guideway is not permitted based on safety issues associated with patrons walking • into traffic lanes or on the guideway. Considering this, if a side running guideway is • implemented either on 400 West or 200 South, no parking will be permitted adjacent to the trackway. A center running guideway can afford parking on either side of the roadway as space • permits. Parking is discussed more fully later in the document during the station location • analysis. • ON-STREET PARKING SUMMARY • • A center running alignment is the best alternative for preserving parking • • A side running alignment precludes parking on that side of the roadway II Geotechnical Considerations • Based on the recent pavement and soil samples collected along the Project corridor, there is no • significance, with respect to geotechnical considerations,to the location of the guideway on 400 • West or 200 South. • Cost Implications • The construction/capital cost difference between a center running guideway and a side running • guideway is a function of the number of utilities impacted underneath the guideway and the number of crossing gates required at driveways for the side running alignment. • • 41111.. Analysis Report Salt Lake City IP May 2004 Page 22 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • • • • Utilities—The utilities, both public and private, impacted by a center running alignment are less w than those impacted by a side running alignment. The number of utilities impacted is directly OOP related to cost. • Crossing Gates—The side running scenario requires crossing gates to be placed at each active • driveway. The center running alignment does not require crossing gates and is there for less • expensive with respect to crossing gates. • • COST SUMMARY • • A center running alignment is the most cost effective alternative • ALIGNMENT RECOMMENDATION • Based on the evaluation results, the center running guideway is a better alternative than the side • running guideway. The center running guideway"out performs" side running with respect to future expansion, utilities, system operations, driveway access, and cost. Table 3 below • illustrates a summary of the criteria. All criteria are not weighted equally. • Table 3. Alignment Analysis Summary • ALIGNMENT ANALYSIS SUMMARY Center Running Side Running Future Expansion Best Worst • Utilities Best Worst • • TRAX System Operations 1 Best Worst • •• Driveway Access Best Worst • • Cost Best Worst • • • • • • • Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 23 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • • • • • STATION LOCATION IPS Based on the Alignment Analysis above,a Station Location evaluation was performed assuming a • center running corridor on 400 West and 200 South. The Station Location section provides • discussion on the specifics of a TRAX station, the various station location alternatives, the criteria • and analysis comparing each alternative, and resulting in a summary table comparing each alternative. • • Station Layout • UTA's standard center loading, light rail station platform can accommodate a 4-car light rail • train, is 355-long, and is approximately 18-feet wide. A station platform is elevated 8-inches • above the rail. Access ramps are located at each end of the platform to provide the ADA • community or others who have difficulty using stairs,access to the light rail vehicles. Figure 10 illustrates a typical station platform. • • MINI HIGH BLOCK CANOPY CANOPY • 0 e a r, o a a a a o r.P. o. o a • ";74 a 00 '1' a a 0 '"0 CI C Ellp Clow! • MINI HIGH BLOCK • • - 132.0' 41110 SIDE ROADWAY 40.5' ROADWAY SIDE • WALK }WALK�-9, . _,,,, 11.3' - -17.9'��11.3 - �� • .4mi._, _i_a ,� • ,,, ,,, ,,,;(::?, • Figure 10. Typical Station Platform • Station platforms are always adjacent to a signalized intersection unless the station platform is • outside of the roadway corridor. The rationale behind this is based on the following: • • Pedestrian Access—On busy roadways,pedestrians utilize pedestrian signals to cross the • roadway and to access the station platforms. • • • Light Rail Operations—Light rail operations are more successful when the average speed is as high as possible. Impacts to average speed include station stops and signalized • intersections. By combining these two activities (signal stops and station stops), light rail • operations are more efficient. • • Mid-block Access—Mid-block access provides the public with the ability to access the • station platforms without walking to the nearest intersection. To facilitate mid-block • crossings, signals are installed to provide a controlled crossing of the traffic lanes and the • Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 24 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension guideway. For this Project, mid-block crosswalks will be provided at all stations as applicable. Considering all of this, several proposed station locations have been evaluated based on criteria significant to the City, UTA, and the community. The stations first were screened for any"fatal flaw"attributes or impacts that could not be mitigated; once identified, these stations were not evaluated further. Following is a listing of the various station alternatives and evaluations as appropriate. STATION LOCATIONS ALTERNATIVES 75 South/400 West The 75 South/400 West station has been identified as having a fatal flaw based solely on its proximity to the existing Delta Center Station platform located at 325 West/South Temple. The walking distance from the 100 South intersection to the west end of the Delta Center Station is less than 1000-feet. This station was listed in the West/East FEIS as a transfer station between the Airport to University Line and the Sandy to Salt Lake City Line, prior to the selection of the Intermodal Hub site. With the introduction of the Intermodal Hub, the need for a transfer station has been eliminated. Considering this, all alternatives with the 75 South/400 West station will not be evaluated further. 125 South/400 West The 125 South/400 West station, located directly south of the 100 South/400 West intersection, has been identified as having a fatal flaw when used as the only station between the Delta Center Station and the Intermodal Center. The fatal flaw determination is based primarily on the lack of coverage along 200 South and the proximity of the station to the Delta Center Station. This single station alternative will not be evaluated further. 460 West/200 South The 460 West/200 South station is located on the east side of the 200 South/500 West intersection. The 500 West corridor is unique in Salt Lake City with its 198-foot wide right of way created as part of the City's Gateway Development Master Plan. North and south of the 200 South intersection, the full right of way is used to provide a wide median in the center of the right of way. Due to an existing Utah Power substation located at approximately 180 South on the east side of 500 West, the 500 West roadway narrows as it approaches the 200 South intersection. The 460 West/200 South station alternative would respect the widened right of way and would be located east of the right of way placing the station approximately 60-feet east of the current intersection. This would be the only station between the Delta Center Station and the Intermodal Hub under this alternative. 475 West/200 South The 475 West/200 South station is the same as a the 460 West/200 South station except this station platform would be located within the widened 500 West right of way and would be adjacent to the existing, narrowed intersection. This would be the only station between the Delta Center Station and the Intermodal Hub under this alternative. Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 25 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension 525 West/200 South The 525 West/200 South station is located on the west side of the 200 South/500 West intersection. While similar with respect to spacing to the 125 South/400 West station alternative, this station is centered in an area with significant development potential and for this reason will be evaluated fully. With this scenario, this would be the only station between the Delta Center Station and the Intermodal Hub. Two Stations — 125 South & 525 West This scenario employs two of the single station alternatives listed above; the 125 South/400 West Station and the 525 West/200 South Station. No Station This scenario has been identified as unacceptable based on the separation between the Delta Center Station and the Intermodal Hub Station. This station alternative will not be evaluated further. STATION ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY The station alternatives that will be evaluated further are: • 460 West/200 South • 475 West/200 South • 525 West/200 South • Two Stations— 125 South & 525 West CRITERIA/ANALYSIS The placement of stations along the corridor has been evaluated carefully, comparing the benefits and the impacts. For this analysis, the four station alternatives are compared based on pedestrian access, sidewalks, parking, traffic flow, mid-block streets,public utilities, private utilities, land use, walking distance, TRAX system operations, station spacing, and cost. 500 West/200 South Intersection The 500 West/200 South intersection is the focal point of the difference between the 460 West and 475 West station alternatives. 500 West has a unique right of way width of 198-feet compared to the City's standard of 132-feet. This width currently accommodates a 100' landscaped median in the center of the roadway providing urban park space for the residential development, existing and proposed. This layout follows the Gateway Development Master Plan. Due to the Utah Power substation located at approximately 180 South/500 West on the east side of the roadway, the 500 West median was discontinued between 120 South and 280 South; this narrowed the 500 West roadway making it more consistent with a standard roadway corridor. Figure 11 shows this area. Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 26 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension • • • • .i O • • --i • • , • a . • .. -I—, -- • _.[ • • ~� iiiw • • Figure 11. 500 West Looking South from Median at 150 South • • With the introduction of a light rail corridor on 200 South and the possibility of a light rail station directly east of the 500 West/200 South intersection,the issue as to where the station should be • placed was evaluated. The crux of the issue is whether the station is adjacent to the current • intersection and partially within the 198-foot right of way [the 475 West alternative] or should the • station be placed further east allowing the future roadway to be realigned to provide a median adjacent to the intersection [the 460 West alternative]. Figure 12 illustrates the two scenarios. • Median • Station Platform A.w lb .1 • p Lam' �� • �' f .—:Zc-�,1L=ICIt-}=T—�-_ • - - - �� Y rII_ r ! _ • 5 s • Widened Intersection-460 West Alternative • I L Station Platform i I I • / , ANIL • � � '! �i i • §. x • Narrowed Intersection-475 West Alternative • Figure 12. 500 West/200 South Intersection • • The primary purpose of the widened intersection is to maintain the median urban park area in the • center of 500 West. While this park area is an amenity to the residents in the area,there are other ways to provide urban park area while maintaining the narrowed intersection. The benefits of the IAnalysis Report Salt Lake City • May 2004 Page 27 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • • • • • narrowed intersection include the fact that the 200 South/500 West intersection can be controlled with a single traffic signal, the 475 West station can be adjacent to the intersection shortening VIwalking access, and the mid-block crosswalk can be located at Rio Grande aligned with • pedestrian flows. Alternatives to the 500 West median are illustrated below in Figure 13. • _It _ 100 SOUTH ice\ 100 SOUTH y "„\ • 1 i _____ W ra I • nMI 8 in IIII 8 • o.. O _ __ • 200 SOUTH K Eyrir..::M, 200 SOUTH O p pm-vai,:am, O • i/ • Z 0 0ct o PIERPONT 0 0 PIS • 3 Ow O • 3 p POINTS OF INTEREST ca © POINTS OF INTEREST J0 I- m V r1I STATION LOCATED ADJACENT TO - m O (i)STATION LOCATED ADJACENT TO • 300 SOUTH WIDENED INTERSECTION 300 SOUTH NARROWED INTERSECTION AND WITHIN 500 WEST RIGHT OF WAY • ®UP&L POWER STATION-S6M TO RELOCATE O2 UP&L POWER STATION-$6M TO RELOCATE • _ v EXISTING LANDSCAPED MEDIAN ' CJ EXISTING LANDSCAPED MEDIAN PROPOSED LANDSCAPED AREA IND ®PROPOSED LANDSCAPED AREA • J PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK TOO CLOSE TO 400 W.INTERSECTION O5 PEDESTRIAN CROSSWALK, ADJACENT TO RIO GRANDE • - 400 SOUTH v INTERSECTION CONTROLLED WITH TWO TRAFFIC SIGNALS DUE 400 SOUTH ©INTERSECTION CONTROLLED TO WIDTH WITH SINGLE TRAFFIC SIGNAL 411 460 West/200 South 475 West/200 South • Figure 13. 500 West Right of Way Alternatives • • 500 WEST/200 SOUTH INTERSECTION SUMMARY • • The 460 West/200 South alternative preserves the 500 West widened corridor but creates a poor mid-block crosswalk situation near Rio Grande • • The 475 West/200 South alternative violates the 500 West widened corridor but • aligns well with the Rio Grande mid-block crosswalk • • The 525 West/200 South and the Two Station alternative have no impact on the 500 West right of way III • Pedestrian Access • Providing pedestrian access to station platforms is absolutely paramount to the success of transit. The station platforms are accessed at signalized intersections or via mid-block crosswalks. Table • 4 below provides a brief summary of the access potential for each of the station alternatives. • IIP Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 28 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • Table 4. Pedestrian Access Station Alternative Intersection Pedestrian Access Mid-Block Crosswalks 460 West/200 South 500 West Intersection but the With station platform 60-feet station is 60-feet further east to further east, a mid-block accommodate the widened 500 crosswalk would impact the West right of way. 400 West/200 South intersection and would be very close to the Gateway's Summer Garage driveway 475 West/200 South 500 West Intersection Crosswalk directly east of Rio Grande 525 West/200 South 500 West Intersection Crosswalk would be approximately 560 West/200 South Two Station- 125 South 100 South and 500 West Crosswalk would be at 160 & 525 West South and 560 West, respectively The 460 West/200 South Station is located away from the existing 500 West intersection and prevents the ability to have a mid-block crosswalk. A detriment of no mid-block crosswalk is that passengers wanting to walk north on Rio Grande from the station platform are forced to walk west to 500 West to exit the station, then reverse direction and walk east to get back to Rio Grande. Obviously most people will attempt to jaywalk which is unlawful and creates an unsafe situation for pedestrians, automobiles, and light rail vehicles. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS SUMMARY • The 475 West/200 South, the 525 West/200 South,and the Two Station alternatives provide mid-block access. • The 460 West/200 South alternative, while able to have a "mid-block" crosswalk, the crosswalk would be very close to the 200 South intersection creating an undesirable situation Sidewalks The balance between providing parking and widening sidewalks is difficult to determine and is typically site specific. For this project, parking will be provided where possible while keeping sidewalks a minimum of 12-feet wide. The only exception to the above is that to incorporate a station platform on 200 South, with a left turn lane at the intersections, sidewalks will have to be reduced to 11.5-feet, 6-inches less than the 12-foot minimum. This reduction is due to the bike lanes in both directions on 200 South. Considering the 4-foot tree wells planned for the sidewalk in this area, the effective walking space will be 7.5-feet. The major corridors currently facilitating light rail differ significantly from one another. For example, Main Street had very limited parking but very wide sidewalks. Conversely, 400 South has no parking, narrow sidewalks,and uses its 132-feet of right of way space to accommodate additional lanes of traffic. The figures below illustrate a few of the other light rail corridors in Salt Lake City. Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 29 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension - 132.0' - ' 3.0' 31.75' P 113.0.5'- r 41.0' 1 10.0'� r 31.75' SIDE WALK ROADWAY GUIDEWAY ROADWAY SIDE WALK .1 ::\3 ,...7-? . rithij`T ( .‘. . --... -E. '‘I frq - 177 - 1 mm - - i '" Figure 9 - Main Street Light Rail Corridor - 132.0' [.--2.5' 2.5' -+10.5' 34.0' 38.0' 34.0' 10.5' WALK ROADWAY T GUIDEWAY T ROADWAY EWALK t C MI_ _�, .- 1-'-:4: M Mil -�- II Figure 10- 400 South Light Rail Corridor - 132.0' - 2,5' 2.5' -1 2.0' 5.75' 40.5' -1 1.0' 5.75' --1 2.0'- 1r2 2 WALK ROADWAY T GUIDEWAY TURN ROADWAY W d A . ....... 4;3 Y■i _ i'..! : Iti /11 ill ..., , - Figure 11 -Anticipated 400 West Light Rail Corridor - 132.0' r-2-5' 2.5'--1 - -11.5' 14 2' 27 0' 40.5' -1 1.0'- 22.0' 2 j-----11.5'- SIDE ROADWAY GUIDEWAY LEFT ROADWAY 148 4 SIDE WALK BIKE' TURN (BIKE WALK E:rS: IM i E' rni .1 NMI i IrmiAl iii 9 it Figure 14. Anticipated 200 South Light Rail Corridor SIDEWALKS SUMMARY • All station alternatives can provide the required 12-foot sidewalks Parking Parking is very important to the residents and businesses along the Project Corridor. Primarily, most have access to off-street parking with the exception of the Delta Center, the businesses in the Dakota Lofts,Thomas Electric, the Hong Kong Tea House, and the Bricks. Regardless of the station alternatives selected, it is anticipated that on-street parking areas can be provided for each. Exact parking numbers will not be available until the design of the system is accomplished taking Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 30 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension into account driveways, fire hydrants, sight distance requirements, and other factors. Figure 15 illustrates areas parking may be provided. L \I c,—, [ 111 [ Z, O Z p O O ,, ., LEGEND ., IFGFND STATION tttc =.oc= STATION CZZ721 PARKING ®PARKING APPROX. # OF STALLS = 90 APPROX. # OF STALLS = 110 J20C SOUTH 200 SOUTH ♦ / L ♦ / L • 460 West/200 South 475 West/200 South L L /~\ fn /A N w , w OZ 3 �I 3 o o f o a ' LEGEND LEGEND STATION AIM STATION ®PARKING ®PARKING APPROX. # OF STALLS = 115 ; L. APPROX. # OF STALLS = 105 • 200 SOUTH 200 SOUTH 525 West/200 South Two Station- 125 South & 525 West Figure 15. Parking PARKING SUMMARY • There are 217 existing parking stalls along the Project corridor • The 525 West/200 South alternative has the least impact to parking • The 475 West/200 South alternative impacts parking the most • The 460 West Station and the Two Station alternatives impact parking about the same. Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 31 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension Traffic Operations Regardless of the station alternative selected, the traffic flow will be similar with all alternatives. Along 400 West there will be two lanes of thru traffic in each direction and left turn lanes at each intersection. Similarly, on 200 South there will be two lanes of thru traffic in each direction, left turn lanes at each intersection, and a bike lane in each direction. Other than the signalized intersections along the corridor at 100 South, 200 South, 500 West, 600 West, and 300 South there will not be any other vehicular crossings of the guideway. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) The operating performance of an intersection is classified by Level of Service(LOS). LOS is the average time in seconds that each vehicle is delayed at an intersection. LOS is defined by letter designations or ratings, A to F, with A representing the best performance and F the worst. A LOS key is provided in Table 5. Salt Lake City has established a target LOS or D, or better, at each intersection throughout the downtown area during peak traffic flows. Table 5. Level of Service SLC INTERMODAL TRAX EXTENSION Intersection LOS Evaluation LEVEL OF SERVICE(LOS)*-VISSIM No TRAX Build TRAX with Station at : Stop Future 475 125 S& Intersection Control Existing (2020) West** 525 West 525 W No Station No Build 400 West&South Temple Signal A B B B B B 400 West& 100 South Signal B B C C D C 400 West&200 South Signal C C D D D D 200 South&Rio Grande Stop NB A A A A A A 200 South&500 West Signal A B C C C C 200 South&600 West Stop N/S A A C C C C (Fut.Sic n.) 200 South&300 West Signal C C D D D D 100 South&300 West Signal A A A A A A 200 South&900 West Signal A A B B B B Average Delay per Vehicle LOS Signal Stop *Though LOS may be the same,the delay can Control be 10-25 seconds more per vehicle. A < 10 < 10 **460 West Station has additional delay but B > 10-20 > 10- 15 remains within LOS values C >20-35 > 15-25 D >35-55 >25-35 E >55-80 >35-50 F >80 >50 TRAFFIC OPERATIONS SUMMARY • All station alternatives can achieve an acceptable LOS D or better with the implementation of the Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension Mid-block Streets Throughout downtown Salt Lake City, there are some mid-block streets bisecting the large blocks forming corridors ideal for pedestrian use. This category of evaluation was established to identify Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 32 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension which station alternatives best use the existing or future mid-block alleyway areas. Following is a list of existing mid-block areas. Rio Grande Street (existing)- This mid-block roadway runs in a north-south orientation and is located between 400 West and 500 West. This street has a single lane in each direction south of 200 South and is one-way(northbound) north of 200 South. Rio Grande north of 200 South is a private roadway with a public use easement. Woodbine Court (existing)—Woodbine Court is a single lane roadway or alley extending south of 200 South at approximately 550 West. The possibility for mid-block roadways is likely along 400 West at 150 South on the east side of 400 West and at 550 West north of 200 South. For this reason, mid-block roadways are a non- discriminate criteria. MID-BLOCK STREETS SUMMARY • All station alternatives place a station near an existing or future mid-block roadway. Public Utilities Public utilities include water, sewer, and storm drain facilities. Currently, Salt Lake City Public Utilities (SLCPU) has established a criterion that requires the relocation of all utilities underneath the guideway or within 9-feet of the trackway centerline. This is referred to as the Restricted Utility Area (RUA). An exception to this rule is storm drain on 400 West which can remain under the trackway as long as access to the system is provided from outside the RUA. The utilities listed below are those that are impacted by a widened guideway to allow for a station and are in addition to the utility impacts listed in the Alignment Analysis. Included are those utilities that are parallel to the proposed guideway locations, within the RUA (2-feet wider than the guideway), and would likely require relocation. The quantities have been rounded to the nearest 200-feet. 460 West/200 South Single Station at 475 West/200 South with widened 500 West intersection: • 400-feet of 54-inch storm drain main(Affected but will remain in place) 475 West/200 South Single Station at 475 West/200 South with narrow 500 West intersection: • 400-feet of 54-inch storm drain main(Affected but will remain in place) 525 West/400 South Single Station at 525 West/200 South • 600-feet of 12-inch water service line and associated connections • 400-feet of 60-inch storm drain main(Affected but will remain in place) Two Station - 125 South &525 West Two stations, one at 125 South/400 West and 525 West/200 South: • 400-feet of 48-inch brick arch sanitary sewer main line (400 West) • 600-feet of 12-inch water service line and associated connections (200 South) • 400-feet of 60-inch storm drain main(200 South, Affected but will remain in place) Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 33 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension SLCPU has also established the criterion that any mains or laterals crossing perpendicular to the RUA be provided with casings for future access. Private Utilities The private utilities listed below are those that are within the RUA(2-feet wider than the guideway), and may or may not require relocation. Often private utilities can remain underneath the trackway depending on the location of the OCS poles, the type of access needed, and the depth of the facilities. The quantities below are in addition to those listed in the Alignment Analysis and have been rounded to the nearest 200-feet. 460 West/200 South Single Station at 475 West/200 South with widened 500 West intersection: • No additional impacts 475 West/200 South Single Station at 475 West/200 South with narrow 500 West intersection: • No additional impacts 525 West/400 South Single Station at 525 West/200 South • 400-feet of US West telephone conduits Two Station - 125 South & 525 West Two stations, one at 125 South/400 West and 525 West/200 South: • 400-feet of US West telephone conduits (200 South) UTILITIES SUMMARY • The 460 West/200 South and 475 West/200 South alternatives impact the least amount of private utilities • The Two Station 125 South& 525 West alternative impacts the most private utilities Land Use The land use along this corridor will have a significant impact on the success or failure of the transit extension. Along this Project corridor,there are many opportunities for development that should ensure a successful system. The land development opportunities are illustrated in Figure 16. The circles shown in the figure represent a '/4 mile walking distance. Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 34 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension mow • F 1E 1 ,.,I/ / . •2•• ) PA 3 , ':e,. m,1 r ,/ /I 6g I?• r / gq N,t TEMPLE SONHiFAiIE / : ,,,. ,// ;,v„,077..),1„''vA 4,.., 7,,!/ '...E..„.L,..A,i ,,.. IjENlI • ,m soLml 8• mmok______IL, % Z. iii. % TR AS• �,� S@+�,R r. � � � PI ��q iii, / III Eli ; s , . • ril• ' PIOMERL-- I L — / R PARK lei , I • oi IWANM INMENII MI MI I EVAIII IlValjniAIM EMME NM MN I • 525 West Station 475 West and 460 West Stations •• 7souttitatteale 1 �. �/ 1241 • � � LEGEND /// ■ ■• SLC M18 TRAX EXTENSION • /r EXISTING TRAX _ FUTURE DEvELOPLIENT AREA • L �� �; - r` EXISTING DEVELOPED AREA • raii: ,--L- r I •IMPORT IliC) ,,,Tu .1_,iiiirly _Ara •• �K\fIi I� • Figure 16. Land Use Maps • The'/<mile walking distance circles illustrated in the figures show that all of the scenarios • provide overlap of walking- distance boundaries. Each alternative provides a slightly different • coverage but in summary,the 475 West Station appears to provide the best overall coverage • without significant overlap and consistent with the rest of the downtown area. • Independent from the walking distance criteria, the 475 West Station alternative and 525 West • Station alternative create a perception on 400 West that there are no stations available since a • station platform will not be visible to the public from most of 400 West. However, the trains and track will be readily visible. This perception may be significant to the development opportunities • on the east side of 400 West in the block between 100 South and 200 South. • LAND USE SUMMARY • • The Two Station- 125 South& 525 West alternative provides the best coverage for • future land development opportunities • • A single station at 475 West is adequate to meet industry walking distance needs • The 525 West/200 South single station alternative does not adequately cover the 400 • West area Analysis Report Salt Lake City • May 2004 Page 35 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • • • • • Walking Distance Comparison Il&thilr The distance a transit patron is willing to walk is a function of many factors including age, mobility,purpose of trip,and whether or not packages or parcels are being carried. For this • analysis,a'/4-mile distance was assumed to be a practical walking distance. • In Figure 17 below, the difference in coverage is shown between the two-station alternative and • each single station alternative. \ ! y - - 1 • 0 7 it 0 \- • SOUTH TEMPLE 1I ._ SOUTH TEYIPIE 1 J/ Nori r a • •0 , 1m 80UTH //�/ tIONN • fiT I i e i ; riA R• .J ; ma) 200 %d L Pi1FOIR . L • 000 ` _ . TH i no •�i`w• i �, i•_� • . ! : - • SOUTH — L Sao wu —� dm saml 1111 525 West Station 475 West sad 440 West Stslbss LE• GEND ••im• SIC HUB TRAX EXTENSION eim AREA C G TRAX 110 �������, AREA COVERED BY 475 WEST OR 460 WEST STATION BUT -'�•- NOT COVERED BY TWO STATION SCENARIO , AREA COVERED BY r .2 COVERED BY ONE TSTATION SCENARIO SCENARIO BUT NOT WO STAON • • Figure 17. Walking Distance Comparison • • TRAX System Operations • Light rail operations, that is,the day-to-day operations of the light rail system focus on system speed, operational safety, and system complexity. This section addresses the impacts of system • alignment and station locations on system speed and system complexity. II System Speed • Light rail vehicles typically travel the speed of adjacent autos in order to coordinate with • intersection traffic signals. The traffic signals and train signals are coordinated to provide train • "priority"through the intersections, expediting the train. The most significant impacts to light rail speed are 90-degree corners, station stops, and the acceleration-deceleration before and after • these features. Impacts are lessened when these features are adjacent to each other allowing the • acceleration/deceleration sequence to only occur once. • System Complexity • Operationally,the 475 West, 460 West, and 525 West stations provide the"best"operating • scenario because they are as close as possible to 90-degree turns and they provide the least • number of station stops. The dual station scenario with a station at 125 South/400 West and 525 West/200 South will have an additional impact to system operations due to the additional station 9 Analysis Report Salt Lake City • May 2004 Page 36 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension 1r • • STATION LOCATION • • stop along the corridor. The additional time incurred by an additional station stop is averages approximately 60 seconds (30 seconds each way). • Operational Costs • The Utah Transit Authority has conducted a study on the operational costs associated with adding • station platforms to the light rail system. Basically, the methodology used involved taking the annual overall operating costs of the light rail system and the number of hours of operation • annually creating a cost of time. The cost per unit of time was then multiplied by the additional • time the station stop added to the system. This resulted in an additional cost of$300,000 per year • per station. • TRAX SYSTEM OPERATIONS SUMMARY • • Operationally, the single station alternatives are best since there are lower • operational costs and the overall trip time for commuters is reduced. • Station Spacing • UTA's light rail transit system allows access exclusively at station locations. Station platforms • are provided where passengers can board or alight the light rail vehicles. Ridership on a light rail system is dependent, among other factors, on system speed and system • accessibility. When a system has too few stations, ridership can decrease because accessibility becomes too difficult. Conversely, when a system has too many stations ridership can also • decrease because the system speed declines making trip time too lengthy and light rail a less • appealing alternative. 410 In an urban environment, such as the downtown area,the public's access to transit is solely • pedestrian in nature as compared to the use of"park and ride" lots in the south valley area. • Typically, as an industry standard, it is assumed the public is willing to walk'/< mile(1,300') or less to access light rail transit. This is approximately two Salt Lake City blocks. Assuming a • pedestrian is willing to walk in either direction to or from a station, this creates a maximum • station spacing of 2,600-feet to achieve the 1/4-mile maximum walking distance. Figure 18 • provides an illustration of existing station spacing elsewhere on UTA's TRAX system. • • • • • • • • • • • • Analysis Report Salt Lake City • May 2004 Page 37 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • • • • •IIO 1600' IJEDaDDDEDDDT' „ • li ��� SEE FIGURE 16 Mai ( I O • � PJLin I 1 .1z _ • LIL .�Li L • -III rn 1 • . H -I, - - L • I -, I I I I I I — —I I—I —I C� aInk` I , 2800' _13200' 2000' 4900[ L1600 ' _11.1 D FT1 2400' �E '0 • r • -7 --i , 1200' H I - 0} k H i • n I i r1 L 3600' X I 1� T'.I- [I , - rik• i �• I• 1T _n_ HE • \11/ 4= I i i n im —mmrnm -T-I i r j Legend _ • _e._ proposed SLC Trax Extension • —jr117-I r� 3000' /� Light Rail Station —— • �'� (Ir �,� ri all I Lila] X SOC Distance Between Stations u • Figure 18. Station Spacing €0 Figure 19 illustrates the station spacing for the station alternatives, measured from center of • station to center of station. • • • ( • r L / Lii • • 2740' 2800' 3200'r 1600'i� ® I ,® 1 +esOUTH _— 1:,u!'i,t: _ ir ll Ir I • 200SOUTH���� ZOOO 2.nsount ��m�� 7'77'.:4i� zoo SOUTH mm� �� • 2060'1 , 1600' L 1600'_ L y -• Ju 460 West 475 West 525 W. Two Station- • 125 South & 525 West • Figure 19. Station Alternative Station Spacing • • 9 Analysis Report Salt Lake City • May 2004 Page 38 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • • • • STATION LOCATION • illustrated in Figure 19,all station alternatives result in station spacing within the range of IMP• As � UTA's existing station spacing seen elsewhere in UTA's TRAX system however, the 525 West • Station alternative slightly exceeds the 2,600-foot spacing criteria by 175'. • STATION SPACING SUMMARY • • The Two Station alternative provides a station spacing comparable to Main Street • • The 460 West/200 South and 475 West/200 South alternatives both provide walking • distances less than the industry standard of • Cost •• The cost difference between the station alternatives is dependent on utilities,the station • platforms, and the long term operational cost. • Utilities—The difference in utility costs is a function of widening the guideway the width needed • to accommodate a station platform. Based on the analysis,the 460 West/200 South and 475 • West/200 South alternatives have the least utility impacts and therefore cost the least. • Station Platforms—Obviously, the single station alternatives cost less than the two station • alternatives. • Operational Cost—The operational cost are a function of not only maintenance of the platform • but also the operational cost of adding more time to each trip while maintaining the same level of 110 service. Single station alternatives cost less operationally than the two station alternatives. • COST SUMMARY • • The 460 West/200 South and 475 West/200 South alternatives are the least • expensive; fewer stations, less impacted utilities • The 125 South& 525 West Station alternative is the most expensive as compared to • the other alternatives • • • • • • • • • • • • 4110., Analysis Report Salt Lake City • May 2004 Page 39 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • inimil • • • SS STATION LOCATION RECOMMENDATION • The recommendation for the"best"station alternative is a function of what is most important to • those making the decision. Because not all analysis categories are weighted equally, the"best" alternative is not readily evident. Table 6 below illustrates the results of the analysis. •• Table 6. Station Location Analysis Summary Station Alternatives • 125S. & 525 . • Analysis Categories 460 West 475 West 525 West West • 500 West/200 South Good Worst Best Best • Pedestrian Access Worst Best Best Best • • Sidewalks Good Good Good Good • Parking Good Worst Best Good • • Traffic Operations Good Good Good Good • Mid-Block Streets Good Good Good Good CO• Utilities Best Best Worst Worst • • Land Use Good Good Good Best • Walking Distance Good Good Worst Best • TRAX System Operations Best Best Best Worst • Station Spacing Good Good Worst Best • Cost Best Best Best Worst • • Salt Lake City has determined that the land use development along this corridor is very important • and key to the success of the area. Considering this,the Two Station— 125 South& 525 West • alternative is the"best"alternative. • • • • illAnalysis Report Salt Lake City IP May 2004 Page 40 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • • • INTERMODAL HUB IMP • The Intermodal Hub section of this report discusses the alignment of TRAX around the hub area • as well as the requirements of the hub as they relate to the services the hub facilities provide. • ALIGNMENT • Phase I construction of the Intermodal Hub Project is currently underway with construction of the • UTA/Greyhound Bus facilities. At the same time UTA has advanced the design of the Commuter • Rail Project providing more detail on commuter rail station needs and criteria. This light rail project was originally intended to extend further west on 200 South turning south and entering the • Intermodal Hub at approximately 650 West. This placed the Hub light rail platform between the • commuter rail platform and the bus loading area. As the design for the site progressed, it became necessary to relocate the light rail alignment back to 600 West. Due to modifications to the • commuter rail platform placement, the criteria that the stations cannot be curved, anticipated • double tracking of the commuter rail system,restrictions on platform widths, and the lack of ability to modify the bus loading area, the Project alignment was moved to 600 West. Figure 20 • illustrates the Intermodal Hub area and the 600 West alignment. •• Moving the corridor to 600 West created a good urban design solution and tremendous opportunity to provide a Hub area with transit modes on both sides—ideal for the number of • modes of transportation involved with this Hub area. Further, having the alignment on 600 West • provides space on 200 South,west of 600 West, for additional bus loading areas, parking, or other uses. • 600 West Corridor • Similar to 400 West and 200 South, the light rail corridor on 600 West can be built as a center • running alignment, a side running alignment or as a center/side running alignment. Following are the pros and cons of the different corridor alignments. • • Center Running • A center running corridor has all of the advantages previously mentioned in this report. The only notable disadvantage to center running is that pedestrians walking between the light rail station • and the commuter rail station at the Hub would be required to cross the southbound lanes of 600 • West. For this reason, no further consideration was given to a center running corridor. • Side Running • A side running corridor along the east or west side of 600 West is not an attractive alternative for • many of the same reasons as those previously discussed regarding 200 South and 400 West: driveway access impacts, loss of parking, and complications with traffic operations at • intersections. For this reason, a side running corridor was also discounted. • Center/Side Running • The center/side running corridor as shown in Figure 20 captures the best of both center running • and side running. Parking is maintained between 200 South and 300 South on both sides of the • roadway and the station placement allows transit patrons to access both commuter rail platforms • and light rail platforms without crossing traffic lanes. For this reason, the center/side running guideway is recommended. Analysis Report Salt Lake City • May 2004 Page 41 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • • Silk _-_:_.---4. ,-----nr-mum------- . MO X- T 1 ` l \. fr ,� NWIAYNMMIWlNMIIIIM �� • :;: • ,� FUTURE • \2-1.A:1 � PARKING 'IcY I _y • , \ BIKE LANE O • ''•:.‘ .r w N� 3 • m 2 O O ____N o ti • O / Z O '/ • O z 'i 1 i • m \ V %i V ij j • \ • O300 SOUTH • • , � Illi: l � LIGHT RPJL • • 4110 1 PLATFORMS • WALKWAY TO �: I • PLATFORMS . v LEGEND •��• '•� ••. PEDESTRIAN ACCESS • b• ,•.•i' is Ui. •• .yip W . .__s • • � 1 r • I 1 • Figure 20. Intermodal Hub and 600 West • • • 600 WEST CORRIDOR SUMMARY • The light rail station was moved to 600 West because the alternative along the west • side of the Hub could not be implemented within acceptable design criteria • • Center running TRAX on 600 West will not be used because it forces transit patrons • to cross traffic lanes. • Side running TRAX on 600 West will not be used because it eliminates parking • along the street and impacts driveway access to the Hub • • Center/Side running is recommended for 600 West • c) Analysis Report Salt Lake City • May 2004 Page 42 of 48 Intermodal Hub • TRAX Extension • • k .. '" HUB REQUIREMENTS The Hub will serve three different types of rail service and two different bus service providers. The Hub layout has been planned to facilitate the various modes including pedestrian corridors, "kiss and ride"areas,package drop-off, and bus maneuvering areas. The specifics of each of these is discussed below. Pedestrian Movements Pedestrians obviously are significant to a successful transit hub. The Hub currently provides pedestrian movements throughout and around the Hub area except for the Greyhound maintenance area located west of the Greyhound facility. Figure 20 illustrates the pedestrian movements with shaded arrows. Traffic Flow The traffic flow at the Hub is fairly simple. With the light rail corridor in the center of 600 West, the traffic flow northbound and southbound become very similar to that on Main Street with no guideway crossings allowed at non-intersection locations. The result of this is that a vehicle turning southbound on 600 West has the option of turning into the"kiss and ride" at 300 South, turning east onto 300 South or continuing south on 600 West. The 300 South/600 West intersection will be signalized providing different phases for traffic, light rail, and pedestrians movements. The bus way located west of the Greyhound terminal will serve UTA Bus loading, Greyhound Bus loading, and Greyhound Bus maintenance. It will not be open to the public. Bus traffic will be routed southbound along 600 West to approximately 250 South where it will enter the Hub site at a"BUS ONLY" entrance. All buses will exit onto 200 South. Figure 20 illustrates this area. Parking Parking around the Hub will primarily be on-street parking located on the east and west sides of 600 West between 200 South and 300 South. The parking will be parallel parking and can accommodate approximately 35 spaces. "Kiss and Ride"Loop A"kiss and ride" loop is planned as the gateway to the Intermodal Hub. The loop will be located directly west of the 300 South/600 West intersection and provides sufficient space for vehicles to maneuver around stopped vehicles. The loop will be integrated with the planned traffic signal at 300 South and will be fully signal controlled. Package Drop-off Greyhound Bus, along with passenger service,provides a parcel service. In order to facilitate the collection of parcels, the"kiss and ride" loop will provide the public the ability drop packages off, similar to a mail drop. Bus Movements The two bus service providers at the Hub are UTA and Greyhound. The UTA Bus service is a local to regional bus system providing service along the Wasatch Front. Greyhound provides regional to inter-state service. While both bus service providers offer distinctly different service, their movements in and around the Hub are very similar. Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 43 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension All buses entering the Hub will originate as southbound on 600 West, entering the Hub at approximately 250 South. The UTA buses will circulate through the core of the Hub stopping along the westernmost boundary of the Hub, adjacent to a commuter rail platform, facing southbound. When scheduled, the buses will then circulate through the Hub and exit onto 200 South at the north end of the Hub. Greyhound buses follow primarily the same route except Greyhound will stop adjacent to its own facilities, still in the core area of the Hub. HUB REQUIREMENTS SUMMARY • Pedestrian-ways are available throughout the Hub • Traffic flow along 600 West and surrounding streets will meet future traffic needs • Parking is provided along both sides of 600 West—200 South to 300 South • A "kiss and ride" loop is provided at 300 South with easy access to all modes • Package Drop-off will be in the "kiss and ride" Loop • Buses have been provided adequate maneuvering space Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 44 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension STREETSCAPE The scope of work for this section includes the visual design of the elements that make up the TRAX Project and the streets along which it runs. These elements include the trackway itself, the poles and hardware for the overhead power system(the"OCS" system), the architecture of transit stations, and the streetscape elements of sidewalks, street lights, trees and other supporting features. STREETSCAPE AND TRACKWAY DESIGN This Project is located entirely within downtown Salt Lake City which has a well-developed and regulated program of urban and streetscape design. Urban design for light rail is primarily a matter of fitting in the design of light rail facilities—its tracks, overhead power systems, and stations—with the city's streetscape program. In practice, this is accomplished by basing the design of the Project on the existing light rail lines already in the Downtown area, in particular the University Line along 400 South. The following paragraphs describe the urban design approach to each section of the Project along 400 West, 200 South, and adjacent to the SLC Intermodal Hub on 600 West. 400 West The new Gateway Center, an intensive pedestrian-oriented mixed-use development, occupies the entire west frontage of 400 West from 50 North to 200 South. A variety of urban uses occupy the east frontage of 400 West with the Delta Center being the most intensive and pedestrian-focused. Overall, the street is an important and highly-used pedestrian corridor. Generally, the light rail trackway will follow the center of the street in the same manner as the University Line along 400 South. The urban design of the trackway will include a"low profile catenary"OCS system, using the same decorative pole designs and colors as used on 400 South (University Line) or Main Street(Sandy/Salt Lake Line). As elsewhere in the downtown,the trackway will be embedded in concrete, commonly referred to as"embedded track". While some cities have used ballast type track in urban areas,Salt Lake City has established a standard for embedded track that applies along this Project corridor. As along 400 South, taper medians and other residual spaces in the track right-of-way will be landscaped with ground-covering, low maintenance plantings. It is recognized that safety for landscape maintenance staff is a major concern(issues of working in close proximity to operating light rail vehicles) as is the ability of plants to survive the harsh center-street environment. Sidewalks along 400 West will be patterned as an"80-20"ratio of concrete slab to pre-cast concrete pavers (i.e. 80%slab to 20%pavers per length of sidewalk)in a pattern to be further determined during design development. As part of this process, public artists may be involved in sidewalk design or to provide specific artworks for incorporation within the design. This involvement may constitute the"arts in transit"component of the project. Other sidewalk components will include street trees and street lights. Trees are already provided along the west frontage of 400 South and maintained under joint-agreement by the City and the Gateway development. Lights proposed for 400 West are the standard City ornamental option known popularly as the"Cactus Light". The option consists of a central ornamental pole(similar to the light rail catenary pole), topped with an ornamental fixture and with a secondary pair of Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 45 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension fixtures on bracket arms (hence the name"Cactus", after the arms on a Saguaro cactus). Typically, the lights are spaced at seven units per standard downtown block face. 200 South The second section of the Project runs west along 200 South between 400 West and 600 West. 200 South in this section traverses an area of intense study and active redevelopment as a growing extension of Downtown. The Gateway development occupies the northern frontage of 200 South between 400 West and 500 West, greatly enhancing pedestrian activity along the street. The blocks to the west and south are under study currently as a future"transit oriented development" (TOD)mixed-use urban district linking the existing historic Rio Grande Depot (at 300 South and 500 West) with the new SLC Intermodal Hub along 600 West. 300 South and 200 South are both key corridors serving the TOD district and linking the new Hub with the rest of Downtown. 300 South is envisioned primarily as a"walking street"lined with shops and other pedestrian-focused activities and 200 South as a combined vehicular, transit, and pedestrian corridor similar in character to 400 West. The trackway and streetscape design along 200 South are envisioned as equivalent to that along 400 West with the following distinctions: 1. The block between 400 West and 500 West will feature sidewalks, lighting, and landscaping similar to proposed conditions along 400 West. Along the south side of 200 South, under current conditions, landscaping would be maintained by fronting property owners. To maintain urban design standards equivalent to those of existing TRAX corridors in Downtown, it may be necessary to explore higher levels of municipal support (i.e. maintenance by the Parks Department) or joint operating agreements between the City and individual or grouped property owners, as is done currently with the Gateway development along 400 West. 2. In the block between 500 West and 600 West, the"80-20" sidewalk design(see above) would be replaced by a design pattern under development as part of the ongoing TOD study and design of the SLC Intermodal Hub. This design is currently under discussion and will be incorporated in the Project design later in the design development process. 3. Street trees along 200 South will also be determined in coordination with the TOD and Intermodal Hub planning and design processes. As with median landscaping(see above), the City will provide a list of tree options with an emphasis on drought tolerance and low maintenance. Street lighting along the whole section of 200 South will utilize the"Cactus Light" standard ornamental pole and fixtures (see above). SLC Intermodal Hub (600 West) The trackway will turn south from 200 South onto 600 West and terminate at a station, south of 300 South, serving the SLC Intermodal Hub. The line will run in the center of 600 West between 200 South and 300 South then transition to the west side at 300 South before entering the station. In the future the line may be extended south along 600 West, staying along the west side of the street adjacent to the existing mainline railroad corridor. In most respects,the urban design of the trackway and streetscape along 600 West will be similar to that along 200 South and 400 West. However, many details of the streetscape(plantings, Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 46 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension lighting, sidewalks, crosswalks) will be developed in cooperation with the design of the Intermodal Hub and the planning of the TOD district(see above). A fundamental objective of this design will be the facilitation of pedestrian movements along 300 South between the Hub and the Rio Grande Depot and the various pedestrian movements among the different transportation modes within the Hub, including the TRAX Project, commuter rail, intercity buses, UTA buses, and Amtrak trains. Under evolving City urban design for 600 West, street lighting will likely utilize a City ornamental standard popularly known as the"Asparagus Light". This option is identical to the "Cactus Light" (see above) except that the bracket arm fixtures (the"cactus arms") are omitted. STATIONS It is already agreed between UTA and the City that the architecture and urban design of stations along the Project (excluding the station at the Intermodal Hub) will utilize the standard design already used along the University Line and the Downtown section of the Sandy/Salt Lake Line. This design prototype is an interpretation of traditional Downtown architecture based on the exterior canopy designs of the historic building at the northeast corner of Main Street and South Temple. The design is harmonious with the City's streetscape standards for Downtown, including the use of the"Cactus"and"Asparagus" light fixtures and the corresponding ornamental designs of the light rail catenary poles and associated hardware. The station platform features two canopy structures with standing and sitting areas under cover and a third canopy over a short elevated platform section, termed a "Mini-High Block", allowing wheelchair users to board trains at floor level. The architecture of the canopies is the"signature" visual feature of the stations and sets the overall urban design of the system. Platform materials and finishes will match those of the stations along the University Line. The Sandy/Salt Lake Line stations along Main Street and South Temple utilize granite pavers as a platform surface, whereas the University Line stations feature the more economical use of patterned concrete. This quality of finish is deemed acceptable for the Project stations and compatible with the urban design standards for the sidewalks. It is recommended that these streetscape, trackway, and station design standards be incorporated into the Project so that it will blend in completely with the other light rail lines in Downtown, the Sandy/Salt Lake Line and the University Line. The result will be a transit system and street network that"reads"as a whole in terms of visual design and urban beautification. This sense of visual unity works to the advantage of both UTA and the City. For UTA, transit riders are best served by a system that is universally recognized and thus easily understood and used. For the City, unifying visual design will go far to extend the sense of Downtown into the areas west of 400 West that are currently moving from old industrial uses to new mixed-use communities of vibrant residential, commercial, recreational, and institutional opportunities. OVERHEAD CONTACT SYSTEM There are three different overhead contact systems used in the light rail industry; all three have been used within Salt Lake City. The three types are full-depth(standard)catenary, low-profile catenary, and trolley wire. A full-depth catenary system involves two wires, a messenger wire(top wire)and a contact wire (bottom wire) supported by poles spaced approximately 180' to 210'. The minimum gap between Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 47 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension the two wires is approximately 17-inches. In Salt Lake City, this type of system is used between 2100 South and 1300 South on UTA's Sandy/Salt Lake Line. A low-profile catenary system also involves two wires but has a narrower pole spacing of 120' - to 160' maximum. The minimum gap between the two wires is 3-inches. This type of configuration is used in Salt Lake City on 200 West, 700 South, and all along the University light rail line. There are approximately 6 poles required per block. Trolley wire involves only one wire but has a reduced pole spacing of 80' — 100'. The trade-off with a trolley wire system is that only one wire is suspended but the number of poles required is substantial. There are approximately 9 poles required per block. This type of system is used on Main Street and South Temple. Based on consensus within UTA and Salt Lake City, the value of fewer wires is less significant than fewer poles. For this reason, a low-profile catenary system is recommended for the Project. OVERHEAD CONTACT SYSTEM SUMMARY • A low profile catenary system is recommended for the Project. Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Page 48 of 48 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension APPENDIX Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension PUBLIC COMMENTS Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension • TRANSPORTATION ADVISORY BOARD Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension COMMUNITY COUNCILS Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension p p MAYOR'S BICYCLE ADVISORY COMMITTEE Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension 7,10. PLANNING COMMISSION Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Intermodal Hub TRAX Extension • UTA'S CONFIGURATION CONTROL COMMITTEE Analysis Report Salt Lake City May 2004 Intermodal Hub TRAX Project t1TA UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY 3600 South 700 West Salt Lake City, UT 84119 TEL 801-262-5626 November 22, 2005 Salt Lake City Planning Commission City&County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: UTA's position regarding TRAX station alternatives for the TRAX Connection Dear Commission Members: In the process of planning for the UTA TRAX connection from the Delta Center to the Intermodal Hub along 400 West, 200 South and 600 West, UTA and Salt Lake City jointly undertook an analysis to evaluate alternative solutions to several design issues related to the project. As part of the study, alternative TRAX stations were considered along 400 West and 200 South, see Figure 1. Based on the results of that analysis, UTA has concluded that one station on 200 South between 400 West and 500 West is preferred over the alternative of two stations with one on 400 West and one on 200 South. The UTA preference for a single TRAX station is based upon findings summarized in the attached table and discussed in the remainder of this letter. Station Alternatives • Two Stations—One station would be located in the center of the tracks on 400 West just south of 100 South (125 South), see Figure 2. The second station would be located in the center of the tracks on 200 South just west of 500 West(525 West). The Terminal Station for the TRAX Connection would be just south of 300 South on the west side of 600 West. • Single Station -Three possible locations were considered for a single station on 200 South. Two of the location options for a single station are at approximately the mid point between the Intermodal Hub and the Delta Center, see Figure 3. These two single station options are in the middle of 200 South at 460 West and 475 West. The third option for a single station on 200 South is the same as the 200 South station for the two-station option located at 525 West. Parking Construction of a single station at the three possible locations on 200 South would reduce the number of available parking spaces as follows: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Page 1 • Station at 460 West— 107 spaces • Station at 475 West— 127 spaces • Station at 525 West— 102 spaces Construction of two stations at 125 South 400 West and 525 West 200 South would eliminate a total of 112 parking spaces. Intersection Level of Service (LOS) Based on traffic operations analysis, all intersections are forecast to operate at LOS D with either one or two stations. The amount of delay at the 200 South/400 West intersection is slightly higher with two stations compared to a single station on 200 South. Impact on Public and Private Utilities The impact on public and private utilities along 200 South is about the same for a single station between 400 West and 500 West compared to the station that would be built west of 500 West with two stations. Constructing a station on 400 West has impact on both public and private utilities that would not occur with a single station on 200 South. Impact on Preserving 500 West Right-of-Way For the two-station alternative, one station would be at 125 South 400 West. The second station would be at 525 West 200 South, see Figure 2. The station at 525 West 200 South would be west of the 500 West ROW line and therefore preserve all options for ROW width along 500 West. This would also be true if the station at 525 South 200 West were constructed as the single station for the TRAX Connection. If a single station is located east of 500 West on 200 South it would be constructed so that the west end of the station platform is located at the east property line of 500 West, see Figure 3. The location of the east ROW line on 500 South is dependent on whether the existing intersection is preserved, or the intersection is widened to allow for a wider cross section of 500 South. If the single station were constructed at the existing intersection of 200 South and 500 West(475 West), the east end of the platform would be accessed by a crosswalk that lines up with the west sidewalk of Rio Grande (455 West). This option would preclude widening the existing ROW by 66 feet to provide the 198-foot ROW for 500 West. A single station at 475 West 200 South is the station location preferred by UTA. If the decision is made to revise the intersection to achieve the planned 198-foot ROW for 500 West, the ends of the platform would be moved 66 feet to the east. Under this option, a cross walk would be provided just east of Rio Grande that would traverse the station rather than being located at the east end of the platform. Either scenario would Salt Lake City Planning Commission Page 2 provide a single station that is not in conflict with the existing or widened ROW for 500 West. Land Use/Walking Distance to TRAX Stations One element of the study was to examine the land use walk access within 1/4 mile of TRAX stations for each alternative. Based on results of the analysis, a single station on 200 South provides the best overall coverage for land use walk access to TRAX stations without significant overlap of the 1/4 mile walk access zones. One area of future development is the block along the east side of 400 West between 100 South and 200 South. This entire block is within 1/4 mile walk distance for a single station as well as for two stations. The difference of about 600 feet in walk distance for this block between a station on 400 West and a station on 200 South is not likely to result in significant development potential for the block. Furthermore, depending on the type of development, developers may prefer a station in an adjacent block rather than immediately in front of the development. Station Spacing(Distance Between Stations) The average station spacing with a single station is 1,985 feet compared to a station spacing of 1,205 feet with two stations. Although it may appear that closer station spacing would provide better land use access, the zigzag alignment along 400 West, 200 South and 600 West offsets the potential benefits gained by closer station spacing. TRAX Ridership Potential An important objective for UTA in all of its programs is to maximize ridership on the light rail transit system. Potential ridership on the TRAX Connection and future economic development is related to walk access to stations along the alignment. As part of the study, a graphic was prepared that compared walk access within '/4 mile of TRAX Connection for either one or two stations. A copy of the walk access analysis graphic is attached to this letter, see Figure 4. As illustrated in the graphic, there are two small areas on the east side of the TRAX Connection where there is a difference in '/4 mile walk access for the two options being considered. For the block on the east side of 300 West between 100 South and 200 South, there is an area where better access is provided with two stations. On the other hand, walk access within 1/4 mile is diminished under the two-station scenario for the block bounded by 300 South, 400 West, 400 South and Rio Grande. The net difference in potential ridership for these two locations combined is minimal. Therefore, there is little potential difference in ridership from these two blocks with one station compared with two stations. To the northwest of the TRAX Connection, there is an area in the graphic extending from 200 South and 700 West to 50 South and 500 West. In this area, two stations provide better walk access within '/4 mile than would be provided by a single station. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission Page 3 southwest portion of this area is the current location of the UTA Central bus maintenance facility. The northeast area has existing development that will likely change over time. Constructing a station on 200 South to the west of 500 West for two stations rather than to the east of 500 West for a single station is not likely to have a significant positive effect on potential ridership attracted to the TRAX Connection from this area. UTA therefore concludes that there is minimal ridership benefit or economic development potential to be gained by having two stations compared to a single station on 200 South. Capital and O&M Cost The capital cost for two stations is higher by approximately $1 million compared to constructing a single TRAX station. Additionally,the annual operation/maintenance cost is about$150,000 higher with a second TRAX station. Finally, the second station adds approximately 30 seconds to the 5-minute trip between the Intermodal Hub and downtown Salt Lake City. Summary and Conclusions In summary, UTA prefers a single station on 200 South for the TRAX Connection because of lower impact on utilities, lower capital and operation costs and less delay compared to constructing two stations. A single station on 200 South provides the best overall coverage for pedestrian access to TRAX stations within the established standard of mile walking distance. Because the two stations on the TRAX Connection would slightly shorten walk access for only a few future development areas,the minimal increase in TRAX ridership would not justify the capital and operating cost of the second station. UTA is committed to working with the City on this important project in order to provide significantly improved public transit access via the TRAX Connection from the Delta Center to the Intermodal Hub. This Connection is an important link to commuter rail which will provide high quality access in the near future from Salt Lake City to Weber, Davis and Salt Lake Counties. Additionally,the TRAX Connection will support and enhance transit oriented development along the Connection and in the area surrounding the Intermodal Hub. Sincerely, John M. Inglish General Manager/CEO Utah Transit Authority Salt Lake City Planning Commission Page 4 Single TRAX Station Table Summary Evaluation Factor Single Station on Stations on 400 West and 200 South 200 South Number of parking spaces 460 West— 107 125 South - 112 impacted 475 West— 127 525 West - 102 Intersection Level of Acceptable LOS (D or One intersection with Service above) for all intersections slightly lower LOS Impact on Public Utilities Avoids station impact on More impact resulting in utilities in 400 West higher cost Impact on Private Utilities Avoids station impact on More impact resulting in utilities in 400 West higher cost Impact on preserving 500 May affect ability to No impact West right-of-way preserve ROW Land Use/Walking Distance Best overall coverage Slightly shorter average to TRAX stations without significant overlap walk distance but of 1/4 mile walk access to significant overlap of stations mile walk access Station spacing (distance 1,985 feet 1,205 feet between stations) TRAX Ridership Potential Walking distance to future Additional area within 1/4 development within 1/4 mile mile of a station not likely of a station to be sufficient to justify additional station Capital cost Lower cost Added cost of approximately $1 million for 2nd station TRAX operation& Lower cost Increased cost of Maintenance Cost approximately $150,000 annually due to 2nd stop Travel time from CBD to Trip time of approximately Additional delay of commuter rail 5 minutes approximately 60 seconds due to stop at 2nd station Salt Lake City Planning Commission Page 5 Single TRAX Station Table Summary Evaluation Factor Single Station on Stations on 400 West and 200 South 200 South Number of parking spaces 460 West— 107 125 South- 112 impacted 475 West— 127 525 West- 102 Intersection Level of Acceptable LOS (D or One intersection with Service above) for all intersections slightly lower LOS Impact on Public Utilities Avoids station impact on More impact resulting in utilities in 400 West higher cost Impact on Private Utilities Avoids station impact on More impact resulting in utilities in 400 West higher cost Impact on preserving 500 May affect ability to No impact West right-of-way preserve ROW Land Use/Walking Distance Best overall coverage Slightly shorter average to TRAX stations without significant overlap walk distance but of Vs mile walk access to significant overlap of'A stations mile walk access Station spacing(distance 1,985 feet 1,205 feet between stations) TRAX Ridership Potential Walking distance to future Additional area within '/4 development within '/4 mile mile of a station not likely of a station to be sufficient to justify additional station Capital cost Lower cost Added cost of approximately $1 million for 2nd station TRAX operation& Lower cost Increased cost of Maintenance Cost approximately$150,000 annually due to 2nd stop Travel time from CBD to Trip time of approximately Additional delay of commuter rail 5 minutes approximately 60 seconds due to stop at 2nd station 0 Salt Lake City Planning Commission Page 5 • ^ ‘,.o S o a.) Fii to L. • �._ ... ae t '• _S1V-x - _'- i±,,.7.,\yi,,3-j- 7 y I • C .71 - CA r r.4 s /'x tI. , 4 f., . MO I v- i ... t,! t 'iit..- _ A '7 a)i It r + r .S 0 Qr. S ` , .. F-, xl 1 4, tt !1•''•-t; -.-7,'j* - - ,',..,.: !,•', ok.' 1,-: ' 1,' -ct . 'OAT.II- LI -..,1.!.., loc ,, ,-4,..,10.1... ,. ._.,.....:7;, w , . ; ,, . - - „J:„•,, „. ....._.. si..._.•' -.,t— . .. , . ._. ., htl5} • „.4.4.. , -, Iiii**.N.,-,t, -Y �� z c aIi ' a ,r �. r raj c) ------......"7---...........,:: ': A 1,!," r: ""' l' - '-.T, .. . •i .... .- ,---1-••• . '' ' .- • • • c o v, an v, m i '� O U I• 1• ` e. t, _ 9 F.Ua,.., iiii, II fta cz _.1 c., 1 ... S. I o ii I • / Ii o � II ez ; 1 o T. F w C " ' t w I ,j,� o 11, # \ c low ``� I11 to el in O , • • E ' a lill ).l i y _• I ' �'111 f I z w E- �1 � 11 . g, -.! it i k.f BEI (..) I•li 1 y \ 4 r 1 \'‘i: . i i U _ f \ a ct x 1 [ a c O a 0 y O I O ifr— I W F F i a I . c. ! r* I. �'Y S cA i..• • i cA lAi 11_pm I I . i1 I ► 1 a. z : I . 0 z W X W X Q I pC A E— i ` I U W cr) i UTA UTAH TRANSIT AUTHORITY 3600 South 700 West Salt Lake City, UT 84119 TEL 801-262-5626 NORTH 300 NORTH I- I- 0 U cu 0 cc000 to La EC z w SEWARD coy O O: 4 NORTH 0 200 NO f. - CKSON AV < g o co o ,.. �. CC m '1) / uu)i r' ..0" \ ./... ' v~ (HIGHWAY 186) / \ / / NO / / /o / scu S < .r ■ I // /'f T Too SO /� 8 if , 8i /, �+ Q ' rJ L / t n= .m..i. r1..4 F r...r ►� 200 �/ SOUT�i z 1 0 PIERPO w 0 PIERPOI G / ce Q a m 0 0 SOUTH 300 1 /-'I / �/\ I r ` . /• PIONEER m w ) 7...."\"19 . PARK a C SOUTH 400 / SOUTH / PACIFIC AV I POl C I- r h CO 'AVE W W W I— Co S 8 § 500 SOUTH 9 P. LEGEND Figure 4 EXISTING STATION- INTERMODAL HUB STATION-MN STATIONS AT 125 S,400 W&525 W/22O0 S. L—_I STATION AT 475 W'SOO S-I I TWO STATIONS',MILE WALKING DISTANCE-—— ONE STATION',MIUE WALKING DISTANCE- 600 SOUTH 1/4 Mile SLC TRAX EXTENSION lid PARSONS r U T A Walking Distance 4 _ )n Page 9 • FEHR & PEERS 1R.ANSPORT.A1 ION coNSLI;rAVTs MEMORANDUM • To: Jake Boyer, Boyer Company From: Dave Goeres, Ryan Hales, David Thompson Date: November 23, 2005 SUBJECT: TRAX EXTENSION TRAFFIC SUMMARY F&P#: 1882-4 Background Fehr and Peers served as the traffic consultant for the TRAX Extension Project. This project involved the evaluation and design of the TRAX extension from the existing Utah Transit Authority(UTA)TRAX terminus at the Delta Center(325 West South Temple) to the Intermodal Hub located at 300 South on 600 West. The TRAX extension route and a proposed station on 400 West were previously approved in two separate environmental documents. The 400 West portion was approved in the West/East Light Rail Project Final Environmental Impact Statement(FEIS),completed in 1999. The FEIS also approved a single station at 50 South 400 West, northwest of the existing station at the Delta Center. The 200 South and 600 West portions of the TRAX line were approved in the Intermodal Hub Environmental Assessment(EA)completed in May 1998. • The analysis completed by Fehr and Peers focused on four key areas of design of the proposed TRAX Extension: the track location; station location(s); the configuration of light rail alignment at the Intermodal Hub(600 West); and the streetscape design to be used along the project corridor. The process and results of these analyses were provided to the design team and Salt Lake City in the Traffic Operations Report dated June 28, 2004 Stations Locations and Traffic As part of this study, Fehr and Peers completed the traffic analysis for different station location scenarios. Nearly every feasible location for a station along the corridor was reviewed during the station location analysis. Following a screening process,a more detailed analysis was conducted for four alternatives: No Stations along the alignment One station at 460 West/200 South; One station at 475 West/200 South; and A dual station alternative with stations at 125 South/400 West and 525 West/200 South. An additional scenario was proposed for evaluation during the study. This alternative would accommodate northbound vehicles on 400 West, to turn left across the TRAX alignment into the Summer Parking entrance. This movement would provided by means of a signal located on 400 West, at approximately 150 South. This alternative is only feasible if a one station alternative is selected, because constructing a TRAX station on 400 West will block this potential access. The Summer Parking access signal will stop only southbound traffic on 400 West, while northbound through traffic will free-flow to the 100 South intersection. The traffic evaluation in this study used Synchro/SimTraffic and VISSIM software to simulate more realistic traffic and transit conditions and to obtain more accurate results for each of the intersections. In addition to the analysis, F&P developed visual simulations (movies) of the alternatives. The conditions for the existing, future no-build, and future build scenarios, were presented in the report, and summarized in Table 14. (Provided as a copy to this memo.) The table provides the Level of Service (LOS) and average delay per vehicle for each scenario. Results The results of the analysis revealed that each of the station alternatives can be designed to mitigate traffic operations to the generally accepted LOS D criteria standards. The critical intersection along the alignment is 200 South at 400 West. This intersection has the heaviest volume of traffic,and the TRAX alignment turns at this location. Of all the alternatives,the single station on 200 South alternative provides the best traffic conditions at this critical intersection,LOS D with 37.7 seconds of delay per vehicle. The two station alternative provides acceptable LOS D conditions(45 seconds)at the critical intersection. "The 200 South intersection remains at LOS D, with some additional delay. Again, the southbound left- turn at 200 South incurs delay in a shortened storage lane, which increases delay at this intersection." (June 28, 2004 report). The concern for traffic operations at this critical intersection is that if traffic grows beyond projected volumes, the short(75')southbound left turn storage lane on 400 West at 200 South will more rapidly be overwhelmed with traffic, which may more rapidly deteriorate the traffic conditions at the intersection. The alternative with a single station on 200 South and the left-turn access on 400 West into the Summer Parking provides acceptable LOS D(46 seconds)traffic operations at the critical intersection, and fully acceptable LOS B (11 seconds of delay)at this new intersection. This alternative is planned with a longer (175')southbound left turn storage lane on 400 West at 200 South,which will better serve this critical intersection. (Parson preliminary design sheets for Open House) Salt Lake City Hub TRAX Connection Boyer Summer Parking Left Turn Criteria 23 November 2005 F&P Review and comments 21 November 2005: The following responses to these questions are based on the evaluation completed for the TRAX extension by Fehr and Peers during the Preliminary Design and approval phase. The traffic evaluation for the TRAX extension showed the following results. The best alternative for traffic operations along the 400 West Corridor (100 South to 200 South) was the No Station on 400 West scenario. The next best alternative was the NB LT into Summer Parking. The second worst alternative was the 2 Station, no 150 South Pedestrian Crossing. The worst alternative was the 2 Station, 150 South Pedestrian Crossing. The following criteria are to be addressed as part of the evaluation of the northbound to westbound left turn from 400 West in the Summer Parking facility at Boyer's Gateway development. 1. TRAX operations should be assumed at busiest possible schedule which would be 5 min headways in one direction. This should be modeled to appear as a train passing the left turn in question every 2 1/2 minutes (one from each direction). Existing TRAX VISSIM model was completed with 15 minute headways, trains passing in opposite directions at 7.5 minutes for all scenarios. This is the minimum headway currently operated on either the N-S or University Line. We are unaware of any increased operation / decreased headway that UTA is planning for the extension. Any further decrease to 10 min or 5 min headways, as suggested here, will create operational issues on the lines elsewhere in the system. If this increased TRAX frequency is requested for this scenario, all other previously evaluated scenarios should be recalibrated, since none were conducted with these operational conditions. 2. The signal at 150 South should operate allowing left turns in a protected phase only, requiring stop of southbound traffic. The signal would be pre- empted to give priority to TRAX movements. The evaluations to date have used this configuration. The results were provided in Table 14 of the report. 3. No left turns out of the parking garage will be allowed. 1 /L Number of traffic lanes should not change. t=i i ""..5' 4' iY..i.ELFf Gtft":t ii. zhe she rt EF t_f at 2Cit South c.n 40 ° is This short ( E ) sforap rim Vjt=: Ct"�<�t: �'�7',fc�k _na,• i'a�.icny deteriorate 01E. traffic t snditici the Intel section than i n the othe rcenai-ics. 5. Traffic level of service and delay time of adjacent intersections (400 Wesi/200 South and 400 West/100 South) should be analyzed along with the left turn into the Summer Parking to determine whether they operate relatively the same as without the left turn; and no or little delay to TRAX service. The evaluations to date have shown that the left turn into the suinteer parking operates at LOS E (i1 seconds delay per vehicle) while maintain LOS D (46 sec/vfeh) at the critical 400 West / 200 South intersection. Since all of the scenarios were run with TRAX Priority, nc delays were allowed for the TRAY in any scenario. 6. Traffic analysis should consider that the left turn into the Summer Parking garage is not a free flow movement and that it is impacted by the location and traffic implications of the parking ticket machines inside the parking garage. The signal into Summer Parking was operated at V2 cycle (45 seconds) of the other main intersections. This cycle length allowed 6 vehicles to cross the TRAX line during the 12 seconds of green time. These 6 vehicles need to be accommodated in the receiving lanes of the parkinu garage. 7. Traffic analysis should utilize the same basic assumptions used in the traffic analysis done for the TRAX extension project and match the same future year 2020 conditions. The evaluations to date have used this configuration. The results wsae provided in Table 14 of the report. 8. Traffic analysis should consider the operation of this left turn signal with and without an associated east/west pedestrian crosswalk. The east/west pedestrian crosswalk must be located as close to mid-block (150 South) as possible. The evaluations for the Summer Parking signal did not provide e pedestrian crossing at 150 South. A pedestrian crossing at this location is not recommended because it detrimentally affects the operations of 400 West. Both NB and SB traffic has to be stopped .,;, allow pedestrians to cross. Pedestrian activity currently is and will be sufficiently accommodated at 100 South and 200 South. The only scenario that included the pedestrian crossing was the two TRAX station scenario. This was requested to provide access to the end of the station platform. This two station scenario provided the worst traffic conditions along the study corridor. 400 West / 200 South intersection remained LOS D, but increased average delay to 50.4 seconds. Additionally, the 400 West / 100 South intersection increased delay to LOS D (38.1 seconds). 9. Impacts of right turning vehicles into the Summer Parking and stopping pedestrians on the sidewalk during the left turn phase must be included in the analysis. A pedestrian crossing signal will be installed to prevent pedestrian crossing of the garage entrance throat during the Left Turn green phase time. Right turning vehicles will be stopped by the SB signal on 400 West, and yield to LT vehicles, as at all signalized intersections. 10. Traffic analysis must include recommendations on how to address potential problems, such as left turning vehicles backing onto the sidewalk, into the street and over the TRAX lines, if the modifications to the Summer Parking ticketing system do not produce the desired results of allowing adequate stacking and movement into the parking garage. The modifications to the summer parking wilt be designed and testes; tQ: accommodate the left turn vehicles. As with all existing signals an intersections, a malfunction in the signal is typically accommodated other drivers yielding to the conditions. 11. Traffic analysis should estimate how many vehicles will actually be able to access the Summer Garage by using the protected left turn. This should be expressed as a share of the total vehicles accessing the Gateway parking facilities, and as a share of the total accessing the Summer parking garage through the 400 West driveway. These figures should be provided both in absolute numbers and percentages of the total. The Boyer Company conducted parking counts at their garages. The counts revealed 555,000 cars enter the 400 West entrance annually. Using the highest quarterly count of 126,500 approximately 1,400 cars per day use this entrance. From the counts, approximately 65% of the entering vehicles approach from the south, and would therefore use the new protected left turn signal. Based on these counts and distribution, about 915 vehicles per day would use the new signal. The signal timing at the Summer Parking was modeled at a 45-second cycle. This provides 80 cycles in a one-hour period, with 6 cars using the green time each cycle. At full capacity this signal could provide the protected left turn movement into the summer parking for 480 3 12. The study should include an estimate of all costs necessitated by the installation of a traffic signal at this location. The base case for this analysis should be the 'assumption of a center-running IRA,: line, double-tracked, on 400 West, without a station or any provisions for a future station. file estimate should include all traffic signal equipment, semaphores, controllers, c,ondurt, electrical power supply, `,tc.rtui.k, testing arfd programming, 'along with the ongoing costs of power supply and signal phase evaluation and adjustment for the initial 5 years of operation. The estimate must also include mitigation work to adjacent properties. This mitigation work includes narrowing the sidewalk in front of Dakota Lofts along 400 West (including reconfiguring their existing access stairs and potentially reconfiguring their business entries), reconfiguring the sidewalk at the southeast corner of the 400 \A/ 200 S intersection, and potentially reconfiguring the truck-loading access to the Utah Paper Box property on 4-00 West. NE ' i=ef. Y{viL ..j i e C _._. t_f i I Though this alternative (based on preliminary plan submittec ni 2 04, does propose narrowing sidewalks by 3.5 feet on the southern half of the east side of 400 West., it provides a longer SS Li. pocket at 200 South, which improves the operation of this intersection over the station alternative. Also, the alternative provides parking on the northern half of the east side, which the two station alternative does not. Sidewalks on both sides at 400 West, the intersection sidewalk, 'i West parking and truck access to the Paperbox will be reconfigured duritia the TRAX construction, regardless of the selected alternative. 13. The study should calculate the cost per vehicle admitted to summer parking by way of the left turn phase, and evaluate the cost effectiveness of this solution. £ 25,000> Vehicles- using the signal 36Or )00 annually s CO w x x D ,... 0 ;-. i ,I i i; 84 .../ ____. , 7"),"( .L�3fc.,0t 10.4 ........... 44 414,4k\ i lo)00. : i,,, I o .... : LC3M iSc BIM SSb O 3 ill[V O01d 0 3QNtldD ON CAC G V 0 de I 0 O o 0 8 ` NI WI WI 1 a � c a Al a �. IF [1...sait,,,,c �� Lc 31P.to; I 161 cam- 1 ' CZ d' d° M T 1. . z 0 4 4 W E. 1 , , 1 : ..11 1 , .Jr H f r 04 CA Page 1 of 2 Rockwood, Cindy From: Dansie, Doug Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 2:05 PM To: Rockwood, Cindy Subject: FW: Station Spacing From: Harpst, Tim Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 2:02 PM To: Guy-Sell, Mary; Dansie, Doug; Baxter, DJ; 'rjackson@uta.cog.ut.us' Cc: Young, Kevin Subject: RE: Station Spacing More precisely, 660 foot long blocks with 132 foot right-of-way = 792 feet per block and one intersection Timothy P. Harpst, P.C., PTOE Transportation Director Salt Lake City Transportation Division Phone: 801 535-6630 349 South 200 East, Suite 450 Fax: 801 535-6019 Salt Lake City, Utah 841 1 1 email: tim.harpst(ci.slc.ut.us From: Guy-Sell, Mary Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:53 PM To: Dansie, Doug; Baxter, DJ; Harpst, Tim; rjackson@uta.cog.ut.us Subject: Station Spacing All — SLC's blocks are approximately 800 If from center of street to center of street. In UTA's letter to the Planning Commission, they stated that the average distance between stations (single station scenario) is 1985 feet. That is not correct. The distance between the Delta Center station and Hub station is 4800 If(800 x 6). On average, a single station would then be spaced 2400 If from either station. The 475 West station is actually 2800 if from the Delta Center and 2000 If from the Hub station. UTA further stated that the station spacing for the two station scenario is 1205 feet. That is not correct. The station spacing is 1600 If(800 x 2). Thank you, 1 1/30/2005 Page 1 of I Rockwood, Cindy From: Dansie, Doug Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 2:03 PM To: Rockwood, Cindy Subject: FW: TRAX stops at Gateway From: Seth Jarvis [mailto:SJarvis@slco.org] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:53 PM To: Dansie, Doug Cc: dhilke@childmuseum.org; abutler@childmuseum.org; Chris Crowley; Erin Litvack Subject: TRAX stops at Gateway Doug, I've been doing more thinking about the implications of the one-stop vs. two-stops options for the TRAX line between the Delta Center and the new Intermodal Hub. Schools are having an increasingly difficult time getting busses for their field trips. Both the costs of maintaining the busses, and now the high cost of diesel fuel, is forcing more and more schools to forego field trips for their students. The two-stop option, with a TRAX stop at 125 South 400 West, would allow students from all over the Wasatch Front area to take public transportation to the heart of the Gateway, within easy reach of both the Clark Planetarium and the new Children's Museum of Utah. The one-stop option's TRAX station at 200 South & Rio Grand is probably beyond most teacher's willingness to "herd" students and therefore limits the attractiveness of public transportation for school groups. The planetarium and the Children's Museum would lobby UTA to offer discounted mid-day (when ridership is low) fares for school groups to reach our facilities. This would get young people introduced to taking public transportation, as well as allow cash-strapped schools to offer their students opportunities for field trips that would otherwise be unavailable to them. This to me is all the more reason to select the two-stop option for extending TRAX from the Delta Center to the new hub. Please pass this suggestion along to whomever you think is appropriate, and don't hesitate to get in touch with either myself or D.D. Hilke, Executive Director of the Chidren's Musuem of Utah about this subject. Thanks for your attention and best regards, Seth Jarvis, Director Clark Planetarium 11/30/2005 Page l of l Rockwood, Cindy From: Dansie, Doug Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:31 AM To: Rockwood, Cindy Subject: FW: Trax Stations From: Larry Blunk [mailto:larryblunk@hotmail.com] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 10:27 AM To: Dansie, Doug Subject: Trax Stations Doug, I would like to express my desire that only one station be built for the Trax ext. to the hub. Traffic in the area can be bad as it is, but with adding the second station, I think it would only add to the problem. People can walk a short distance to catch Trax on Second South, or the Delta Center. I'm aware of the Mayors standing on this issue, and respect him and his opinion, but I work in the area, and feel one station is more logical, and cheeper! Regards, Larry Blunk 1757 Park Street, SLC, UT. 84105 801-466-3430 11/30/2005 Page 1 of 1 Rockwood, Cindy From: Dansie, Doug Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 1:41 PM To: Rockwood, Cindy Subject: FW: From: Julie [mailto:julie.steinmetz@comcast.net] Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 12:30 PM To: Dansie, Doug Subject: Hi I am a real estate agent who works at Urban Utah Homes and Estates. I also have clients who live in the Dakota loft building. I wanted to express my opinion on the topic of two Trax stations within one block of each other and location. I am opposed to TWO stations, mainly because: 1) All parking spaces where a TRAX station will be located on a street would be eliminated. We have NO guest parking at the Dakota as it stands, now. Parking is a challenge in that vicinity for most business down there anyway. 2) It heard it is possible that all the trees will be taken out on the west side of the Dakota building. We desperately need the trees and the shade. In fact we could use more down there. 3) The noise level, for those who live and work at the Dakota will become more intense, part of the package of living downtown, nonetheless needs to be considered. There are `computer voices' announcing when trains are coming and going from the station, and the brakes create noise on the stops and turns. I feel that there needs to be Considerable thought into where you decide to place the station of all those involved in that area. Thank you Julie Steinmetz Julie Steinmetz Urban Utah Homes and Estates 380 West 200 South suite 104 Salt Lake city,Utah 84101 801-455-9144 juliegurbanutah.com 11/30/2005 Page 1 of 1 Dansie, Doug From: SHANEANEWMAN@aol.com Sent: Wednesday, November 30, 2005 5:06 PM To: Dansie, Doug Subject: ONE station © The Gateway is MORE than enough We already have the station @ The Delta Center. It would make the most sense to build the station on the South Side of Biaggi's in front of the Homeless Shelter. 11/30/2005 T IE DODO RESTAURANT CANYON CULINARY, INC. I � TO: Ra1� . S{)q FAX: 9?7.0 Y(4)'>� COMPANY: PHONE: FROM: 4�/1 DATE ('R), C,' RE: PAGES ONCLUDING COVER): NOTES: 1 52 SOUTH 400 W ES-•SALT LAKE Cam.UTAEi 84101 PHONE:(801)456-2473 FAX:(801)456-0571 November 30, 2005 To whom it may concern, The Dodo Restaurant at the Gateway Mall supports 2 stops in our area. One being on 400 West and the other n 200 South. Please use this letter as oar vote as we can not attend the meeting. T ank ou, i CCU K.` ie Fehr T e Dodo Restaurant Manager ilWahlteY T GATEWAY CENTER 175 So. Rio Grande Street Salt Lake City. Utah 84101 (801)456-0050 (801)274-1595 Fax FAX TRANSMITTAL Phone: (801) 456-0050 Store Location (801) 456-0051 Store Fax (801) 277-2748 Main office (801)274-1595 Main office fax TO: a„ &vV- eI FAX NO. eni - 5�j j- c DATE: /1Jcu �v1I ,► ) (2 % ATTN: FROM: 1 A5 C�i'/1�grAzIA Message: �s -) ' f'le A 41Gv1 PAA pL• Lt Q `? t 1 1 . -- Le} l Total number of pages including this cover sheet [._ Id Nd60:E0 SOW 02 '^ON TS009St.T08 : 'ON XUd lari00J,*J 1HdN(lH : W021d FROM : T FAX NO. : 8013638818 Nov. 30 2005 05:15PM P1/1 41) CTHOMAS ELECTRIC COMPANY r ( =_ Established 1915 l� A"�d 549 West 200 South •— _ ' Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 Y ..—.i - Phone(801)-363-8817 • Fax(801)-363-8818 • Toll Free(800)-369-5332 Date: 11/30/05 To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Richard Thomas Re: Public Hearing-Petition -Intermodal Light Rail Extension I would like to submit the following comments concerning the proposed additional Trax stops. 1. The two station alignment means that I will be able to go out my front door and walk approximately 750 feet, which takes about 3 minutes, and board the light rail at the Intermodal Hub. If I'm feeling lazy,I can instead walk east approximately 360 feet, which takes a minute and forty seconds and board the light rail at 500 West. If I'm in the mood for some real exercise, I can walk past the 500 West stop and catch the light rail around the corner on 400 West, approximately 2 minutes further on from the 500 West stop. Imagine having three light rail boarding choices within six minutes of our front door. If you want to count the Delta Center station, there will be 4 Trax stops within 9 minutes of leisurely walking distance. I think it is safe to say that a person could walk from the Intermodal Hub to the Delta Center is less time than it will take to ride Trax- Isn't this overkill? 2. But we are planning for the future, the planners have said. We will see an increase in density that we will justify this infrastructure. This month marks my 30th year at Thomas Electric. In 30 years,the only increase in density along 200 South that we have seen is the result of the Gateway project and Bridges apartment building, all in the last 5 years or so. Many of the limits to growth in the neighborhood apply today that have always applied. A careful study of property ownership in the area leads one to the conclusion that aggregation of small parcels into large parcels is very unlikely to happen anytime soon. With the exception of the Phil MoCarthey property, the remaining parcels between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub are unlikely to result in large projects being developed anytime soon, if ever. Current zoning allows for buildings that have a maximum height of 40 feet. Density improvements from infiil will be limited and slow to occur. Why spend over a million dollars more and over a hundred and fifty thousand a year to maintain an extra Trax stop that can't be justified by the numbers now or any time in the foreseeable future. 3. For an assortment of reasons,virtually no one wants the two stop alignment. UTA does not,the owners of Gateway do not,most of the property owners and business owners do not, and even most of the members of the city council do not. From my point of view, as the owner and operator of a business on 200 South,the Trax extension with a stop between 500 and 600 West will create traffic and parking problems that we may not be able to overcome. Why is the Mayor's office pushing this? Months ago,when I attended an open house and learned of the two-stop proposal, I suggested to the folks involved in this planning that they put away their maps and planning circles temporarily and walk the neighborhood between the Intermodal Hub and the Delta Center. Perhaps they could get a feel for the neighborhood by so doing. Perhaps they could discover that four stops within 12 minutes walking distance wasn't so smart after all. The Main Street environment has proved that, even if you build it, they still might not come. I would hope that each person voting on this has taken the time to walk the route between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub and is not basing his or her decision on maps and circles. Second South is not Main Street. With the present tuning it never will be, and because of that there will be less density. I hope that common sense may play a role in your decision. 4c. Agenda AGENDA FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City&County Building at 451 South State Street Wednesday, November 30,2005,at 5:45 p.m. The Planning Commissioners and Staff will have dinner at 5:00 p.m.,in Room 126. During the dinner,Staff may share general planning information with the Planning Commission. This portion of the meeting is open to the public for observation. 1. APPROVAL OF MINUTES FROM WEDNESDAY, November 9,2005. 2. REPORT OF THE CHAIR AND VICE CHAIR 3. REPORT OF THE DIRECTOR Briefing of Northwest Quadrant Master Plan Timeline and process(Everett Joyce) 4. PUBLIC NOTICE AGENDA—Salt Lake City Property Conveyance Matters(Karryn Greenleaf at 483-6769 or karryn.greenleaf(a�sicgov.com; Doug Wheelwright at 535-6178 or douq.wheelwrightslcgov.com): a) Salt Lake City Public Utilities and Murray City conducting business in relation to the UTOPIA project—Murray City is requesting that Public Utilities issue standard utility permits to allow telecommunication lines to cross the City owned property of the Jordan and Salt Lake City and Canal,at two locations within the City of Murray, Utah.The locations are approximately 7200 South 500 East and 7500 South 500 East and the crossings are requested as part of the UTOPIA project and may be either underground or aerial in nature.The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the standard utility permits as requested. b) Draper City and Salt Lake City Public Utilities Department—Draper City is requesting that Public Utilities issue standard utility permits allowing bridge structures over, and utilities under,the Jordan and Salt Lake City Canal at two locations.The locations are located at 13600 South Dahle Way and 12400 South 111 West.Additional permits will be issued to each utility as separate entities.The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the bridge crossing and standard utility permits as requested. c) Wathen Construction and Salt Lake City Public Utilities—Wathen Construction is requesting the realignment of an existing waterline easement.The realignment of the waterline easement at 2400 East Oakcrest Lane is necessary to facilitate development of the property.The old easement will be vacated in exchange for a new easement alignment. This location is in Cottonwood Heights City.The Public Utilities staff intends to approve the requested easement realignment. 5. PUBLIC HEARINGS a) Petition No.400-04-52—Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority(UTA)are jointly working to connect the existing terminus of the light rail line at the Delta Center,located at approximately 350 West South Temple, to the Intermodal Hub located at 300 South 600 West.The Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub will function as the central transit transfer point for commuter rail,light rail,UTA bus,Greyhound bus,Amtrak,and transit support services.The light ral connection is planned to be constructed by the Spring of 2008 to coincide with the opening of commuter rail service at the Intermodal Hub.The route of the ligk rail extension will be along 400 West,200 South,and 600 West.The Salt Lake Cky Planning Commission will hold a public hearing regarding the number and location of stations along that route with the intent of providing a recommendation to the City Council. (Staff—Doug Dansie 535-6182 or doug.dansie rLslcgov.com) b) 1)Petition No.400-05-06—A request by Richard Astel for approval to rezone the properties located at approximately 516-524 South 500 East Street and 517-533 South Denver Street from a Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential (RMF-45)zoning district to a High Density Multifamily(RMF-75)zoning district. The applicant is also requesting approval to rezone approximately twenty-five feet(25')of the rear portion of the property located at approximately 466 East 500 South Street from a Residential/Office(RO)zoning district to the same zoning district as the Planning Commission recommends for the 516-524 South 500 East and 517-533 South Denver Street properties;preferably RMF- 75. The request also includes an amendment to the future land use map of the Central Community Master Plan to identify the properties as High Density Residential rather than Medium High Density Residential. The purpose of this request is to accommodate the construction of a 43 unit multi-family residential development.(Staff—Janice Lew at 535- 7625 or janice.lew(a�slcgov.com) 2)Petition No.410-748—A request by Richard Astel for planned development approval for a 43 unit multi-family housing development located at approximately 516-524 East and 517-533 South Denver Street. Included is a request to modify provisions of the zoning ordinance including but not limited to: a.Allowing grade changes in excess of two feet(2')to accommodate driveway entrances to a subterranean parking structure; b.Allowing multiple buildings with a shared common area over an underground parking structure on a single lot; c. Modifying minimum yard standards to allow an encroachment of the subterranean parking structure;and d. Modifying minimum yard standards such that the RMF-45 standards would be applied to the proposed development etc. The parcels are currently zoned RMF-45. (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.lew(c.sicgov.com) 3)Petition No.490-05-23—Theas Webb requesting preliminary subdivision approval to reconfigure several existing parcels located at approximately 466 East 500 South Street,516-520 South 500 East Street, and 517-533 South Denver Street into three parcels to accommodate the construction of a 43 unit multi-family residential structure. The parcels are currently within the RO and RMF-45 zoning districts. (Staff—Janice Lew at 535-7625 or janice.lewaaislcgov.com) c) Petition No.400-05-08 and Petition No.400-05-09—Rowland Hall,St Mark's School requesting to amend the East Bench Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map to identify the property located at approximately 1443 East Sunnyside Avenue as Institutional rather than Open Space and to rezone the property from an Open Space to an Institutional zoning classification. This is a 13-acre portion of the Mt.Olivet Cemetery property.(Staff—Everett Joyce at 535-7930 or everett.ioyce(aislcgov.com) 6. UNFINISHED BUSINESS 4d. Minutes SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING COMMISSION MEETING In Room 326 of the City & County Building 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah Wednesday, November 30, 2005 Present for the Planning Commission were Laurie Noda (Chairperson), Tim Chambless, Babs De Lay, John Diamond, Robert Forbis Jr., Peggy McDonough (Vice Chairperson), Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott and Jennifer Seelig. Craig Galli was unable to attend. Present from the Planning Division were Alexander Ikefuna (Planning Director), Cheri Coffey (Deputy Planning Director), Douglas Wheelwright (Deputy Planning Director), Everett Joyce (Senior Planner), Doug Dansie (Principal Planner), Janice Lew (Principal Planner), Cindy Rockwood (Acting Planning Commission Secretary) and Deborah Martin (Senior Planning Secretary). A roll is being kept of all who attended the Planning Commission Meeting. Chairperson Noda called the meeting to order at 5:45 p.m. Minutes are presented in agenda order and not necessarily as cases were heard by the Planning Commission. Audio recordings of Planning Commission meetings are retained in the Planning Office for an indefinite period of time. A field trip was held prior to the meeting. Planning Commissioners present were Chairperson Laurie Noda, Tim Chambless, Kathy Scott, Jennifer Seelig and Robert Forbis. Planning Division Staff present were Doug Dansie, Everett Joyce and Janice Lew. PUBLIC HEARINGS Petition No. 400-04-52— Salt Lake City and the Utah Transit Authority (UTA) are iointly working to connect the existing terminus of the light rail line at the Delta Center, located at approximately 350 West South Temple, to the Intermodal Hub located at 300 South 600 West. The Salt Lake City Intermodal Hub will function as the central transit transfer point for commuter rail, light rail, UTA bus, Greyhound bus, Amtrak, and transit support services. The light rail connection is planned to be constructed by the Spring of 2008 to coincide with the opening of commuter rail service at the Intermodal Hub. The route of the light rail extension will be along 400 West, 200 South, and 600 West. The Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the number and location of stations along that route with the intent of providing a recommendation to the City Council. At 5:51 p.m., Chairperson Noda introduced Petition 400-04-52 and Staff, Doug Dansie. The members of the presentation committee included Doug Dansie, Principal Planner; DJ Baxter, Senior Advisor to the Mayor's Office; Tim Harpst, Director of Transportation; and Ralph Jackson, Utah Transit Authority (UTA). Mr. Baxter began the presentation with a discussion of the proposed light rail extension in relation to the existing University and Sandy light rail lines. The proposed new rail would travel south onto 400 West and turn west onto 200 South proceeding to 600 West and turning south to end at the SLC Intermodal Hub. Commuter rail will enter upon the west side of the Intermodal Hub. A cross platform transfer would connect the two rail lines creating a seamless transfer for riders. Coordinating the TRAX line and the commuter rail project schedule together will create a more efficient and seamless transit offer. Salt Lake City's goal is to support existing and future development in the Depot District and Downtown area while providing a smooth connection to Downtown from the Intermodal Hub. UTA's goal is to link commuter rail to the TRAX system ensuring efficient service and continued successful ridership. Meetings with community councils, property owners, businesses and public houses have been held to discuss the options of one vs. two possible stations The recommended configuration is to have double tracks in the middle of the street to match the existing area. Traffic movements will be maintained with the exception of Rio Grande Street. None of the stakeholders on Rio Grande Street have requested the preservation of the present traffic movements. Drivers would not be able to cross the TRAX lines at Rio Grande Street. The overhead electric system, station design, streetscape design and landscaping will be consistent with the existing system on 400 South. Four mid-block pedestrian crossings are being recommended along the route: 150 South across 400 West; 550 West across 200 South; Rio Grande Street across 200 South; and 350 West across South Temple. (The latter is currently a crosswalk, but will need to be signalized.) Two stations are recommended at; 400 West and 100 South, and 200 South just west of the 500 West intersection. The purposes of this recommendation are to 1) optimize existing and future high density development in the Depot District; 2) increase ridership by preserving the pattern of existing stations and access points; 3) support future transit development in the Downtown area with a possible downtown circulator or loop. (Originally the light rail line had an airport line crossing at 400 South and turning up 400 West towards the airport. The City is still interested in having such an option and will consider a rail street car or a light rail line continuing south on 400 West. With this option in mind, a transfer station at this point will allow for such continuous options); 4) preservation of the 500 West park blocks. Having the two stations with appropriate spacing provides 1600 linear feet of walking distance between stations. The following cities have the indicated distance between stations: Portland, 960 feet; Denver,1145 feet; and Seattle,1535 feet. Compared to other high density area transit system, 1600 linear feet is a large number. The development potential in the Downtown area is tremendous. As much as 10-15,000 new residents are expected to reside in the area; given the prospective growth of the next 10-20 years. Businesses, employees, special event patrons and an increase of residents warrant the proposal of two stations. If a single station is located in the midpoint between the Delta Center and the Intermodal Hub the possibility of adding a second station further on the line is eliminated. If two stations are not presently warranted, a consideration for a single station at one of the two designated options is recommended in order to preserve the option of building a second station on the line. Leading and encouraging future development with transit infrastructure is an option; as is only meeting the current demand. A single station at the Gateway development near the theaters is the first choice of the Administration if a single station is the recommendation of the Planning Commission. Many citizens support the option of two TRAX stations. After 18 months of analysis and discussion with the public, the Administration suggests that the long-term interests of the city are best served by a two-station configuration. The neighborhood is prime for high density and residential development in the future and the intensity of the development warrants a two-station approval. Mr. Jackson stated that much progress has occurred and an agreement has been reached on funding for the project. A fairly affirmative confirmation has been received from the Federal Transit Administration for one portion of this project. The preference of UTA is to have a single station. Noting the summary table on page 5 of the letter distributed from UTA, Mr. Jackson further discussed the reasons why one station is preferable. 1) Parking. On 200 South there are three locations for a station; 460 West, 475 West and 525 West. The smallest displacement of parking is located at the stations suggested at the 525 West or 460 West. 2) The intersection level of service. All of the proposed stations will operate with the same level of service, but the single station generates the lowest amount of delay at that intersection. On 400 West the southbound left turn lane is shortened because of the placement of the station. 3) The impact on public and private utilities. There are more utilities in the street on 400 West when compared to those situated on 200 South. Building a station on 400 West would prove more expensive. 4) The preservation of 500 West. The Master Plan suggests that 198 feet of the 500 West area is designated as a right-of-way. If the right-of-way is not preserved, the UTA recommends the station located at 475 West; if the right-of-way needs to be preserved, the recommendation for the 460 West station would be the second choice. If the preservation of the right-of-way is chosen by the City, the street will need to be widened and until widened, the platform would need to be extended to the existing crosswalk. An alternative to this is a design of the crosswalk at the middle of the platform rather than the end. The design of this station would differ because of the accommodating crosswalk needs. If crossing the street, a pedestrian would be required to go up and down a slope. The third choice for a single station is to place the station on the west side of the street (one of the solutions for the two station recommendation). Upon considering the walking distance between the two alternatives, a balance is found because of the areas surrounding the stations. The differences in walking distances are not large enough to influence the potential ridership. UTA supports transit-oriented development, but is unsure that increasing the transit traffic in this area warrants a two-station construction. Station capacity is not a concern, as the ridership statistics on the transfer point at the Gallivan Plaza station served 6,000 riders a day. As a transfer point, it is capable of handling such numbers and these purposed stations, even with full development, will not reach such a heightened capacity. Capital cost is about one million dollars for the second station on 400 West. An additional annual operating cost of$150,000 a year is also a consideration. Commuter rail passengers transferring at the Intermodal Hub to Downtown have already ridden a fairly circuitous route and UTA believes TRAX would serve the riders better with only one stop rather than two. The Planning and Development Committee of UTA, having suggested its first preference, but they are willing to accept the recommendation to move forward with two stations with the condition that one station be built now and another built in the future. The conditions suggested with this recommendation are to build a WOW for the second station. The cost of the second station would be covered wholly by the City or the City and the developer and UTA and the City shall jointly agree on the threshold of development required before the second station construction. Mr. Tim Harpst requested consideration of some of the transportation facts and figures presented. The following points are of concern: 1) The spacing of the station every two blocks. The City's proposal of a two-station development does continue the spacing continuation. 2) The 400 West station provides flexibility for growth and development. By placing a station on 400 West and interlining routes from different communities, the opportunity for transfers is more feasible. UTA and the City have recently released a request for proposals for a major transportation and transit study in the Downtown area, requesting an in-depth evaluation of the long-term transit future. The two-station recommendation provides flexibility to tie into the studies for future Bus Rapid Transit from the north and south. 3) Parking along the street is a concern as most angle parking will need to be altered parallel parking. No exact number of"lost" parking stalls can be given because of the preliminary stage of design. 4) Level of service. A grade system is used with A being the best while F being a failure and a target level of service D. With a conservative projection of 20 years, every scenario returns with a grade of a lower D. The intersection of 200 South and 400 West is considered the control intersection and will be impacted first, regardless of which option chosen. 5) The commute time with an additional station adds approximately 30 seconds onto the TRAX route. 6) A left turn signal consideration has been requested to be considered by the Gateway Development as an entrance option to their Summer parking garage. This option is only available if a 400 West station is not selected. Signalized controlled crossing are a main safety consideration for TRAX and aggressively enforced. Several points were considered regarding the Gateway request and a traffic impact study was required. The study conducted took into account the parking restrictions imposed upon the existing Gateway parking facilities. In the analysis conducted by Salt Lake City Transportation for the light rail study, the access points for drivers to reach various points along the route were considered. The proposed left turn signal can be completed and maintain a level of service D for the future. A traffic study was provided by the Gateway. The consultants stated that a left-turn lane could be provided. Six vehicles would be limited in the left-turn lane if constructed as proposed. One of the impacts associated with this option is the widening of the street on the south half of the block. Six parking stalls on the east side of the Dakota Lofts will be eliminated, while the curb be moved 31/feet towards the Dakota Lofts building; narrowing the sidewalk. The developer would be responsible for incremental additional expense not associated with the TRAX line. 7) The proposed station at 475 West 200 South does extend into the right-of-way for the 500 West park blocks. This location is not recommended because of the preclusion of the development of the park blocks. 8) The proposed station at 460 West 200 South is a concern for the pedestrians. The location of the crosswalk would create some confusion for TRAX riders because of the inconsistency of the station. This choice is very limiting because of the future train purchase options; only trains with a configuration fitting this specific station could be considered. With this station a pedestrian intersection in the middle of the street would be required. The left-turn lane from 200 South to 400 West would be shortened given this option. This intersection is the control intersection and would continue to serve as a level of service D, but the left-turn lane will be maximized more frequently than past years. Mr. Dansie made numerous points regarding the neighborhood of the Gateway area. The areas of the Avenues, Capitol Hill, Central City, and the East Central have all been down zoned within the past years. It is necessary for cities to have a high-density, vibrant neighborhood. Through the Gateway Master Plan, this area has been designated as high density. Consolidating the railroad tracks and shortening the viaducts have created the physical environment to build high- density. The Gateway is an area of the city that is physically and politically capable of accommodating a high-density neighborhood. One of the attractions to the area is the number of large land owners in the Gateway area. Any block of development that occurs near to these proposed stations will create an immediate impact in the area. Travel time is a fine-scaled choice. With respect to commuters traveling through the area, the 30-second addition of time is not necessarily enough time to consider. The City views this area as the second densest potential area in the City, second only to Main Street. Residents of The Dakota Lofts have shown great concern for the noise because of the location of the proposed stops. Noting the location on the map according to either the one- or two-station option, The Dakota Lofts will be close to a station in either scenario. There is potential for the noise to be lessened; for example, lubricant was used at the S-curve on 400 South to reduce the noise made as the train proceeds up the hill. The station positioned at 400 West has caused some confusion regarding which scenario would cause loss of parking for the Dakota Lofts. Construction of a 400 West station would cause a loss of on-street parking adjacent to the station but not parking adjacent to the Dakota Lofts. The left-turn lane option would eliminate all on-street parking adjacent to the Dakota Loft. Chairperson Noda requested questions for the applicant from the Commissioners: Commissioner De Lay related an experience with a member of the City staff who stated that the project would begin in March. She questioned the truth of the statement. Ms. Guy-Sell was the individual who spoke with Commissioner De Lay and related that she was informing all business owners within the area that the coordination of construction process would begin in February/March 2006. The actual construction will begin approximately in June 2006. Commissioner De Lay requested clarification of the location of the stations. Would the location of the stations be every other block; and if so, she asked how the area is considered as every other block. Mr. Dansie clarified by illustrating the existing stations placements on the map; noting that each station is separated by one and one half block face. The spacing between the Delta Center and the 400 West station is exactly the same as the Temple Square and City Center stations. One argument against the distance factor is the density in the Main Street area is higher than the area of 400 West; however, the potential of high density is higher for the area of 400 West than any other location within the City. A second comparison, for the one station scenario, is the spacing between the Library station and the Courthouse. Commissioner De Lay questioned the elimination of the trees in the area if the left-turn lane is pursued. In one of the reports it states 31/2 feet of the sidewalk will be removed while vehicles will be within 5 feet of the doors. With the trees gone, the cars will be rather close to the doors. She also was concerned about the non-existing landscaping plans. Mr. Harpst explained that the design presented does require the curb being moved 3 'h feet closer to the building. Therefore, the trees could be impacted. The Northbound outside lane would be adjacent to the curb along that designated portion of the block. Mr. Dansie explained that because of the stairs exiting from the Dakota Lofts, if the trees are replaced, a narrower, meandering sidewalk would be constructed. Although landscaping is important, the planning for the project has not reached the level to prepare landscape designs. Commissioner Seelig and Commissioner De Lay discussed the width of the sidewalk on both the east and west sides of 400 West to determine if they are the same. Mr. Harpst responded that a "best fit" scenario will be discussed during the final design stages. Commissioner Seelig requested clarification about the spacing of the one- or two-station locations. Mr. Baxter repeated the spacing of station locations in other high-density cities. Since the stations are lined up flush with the intersections, the station spacing is calculated by the length of the block and the width of the street. The Delta Center station to the 400 West station would be 2800 feet from east end to east end. Mr. Jackson also stated that the distance from the Delta Center to the 465 West station was 2740 feet, while from the Hub to the west end of the 465 station is slightly over 2000 feet. Commissioner Seelig requested to know if any noise complaints or issues have been raised by property owners regarding existing TRAX stations in the same proximity as the proposed stations. She also requested to know if such issues have been raised how they had been mitigated and how the proposed models relate to existing stations. Mr. Jackson responded with remarks about the environmental commitment UTA carries with each TRAX line. The same mitigation that was considered for the University and the Medical Center line will be used for the proposed project. Commissioner Seelig and Commissioner De Lay discussed the noise from the possible TRAX stations. It was pointed out that the Library station bell was heard prior to the beginning of the meeting, although the station is across the street. Mr. Dansie related that most of the existing TRAX line is on commercial frontage. Adjacent to the University station, there are homes near and noise is a concern, but Staff has no immediate documentation on noise complaints. The closest relationship of residential to an immediate station is the 900 South station. There is a difference, because that station is placed on a straight line and doesn't have the noise from the curve. Commissioner Seelig clarified her question to include the line located at Main Street and 400 South. Residential units are on upper floors of the New Grand hotel. She questioned if any complaints had been received relating to the noise from the trains as they turn from one street to the other. Mr. Baxter has received some complaints regarding the S-curve noise further east. The UTA rail operations team has done their best to lubricate the trains to reduce the noise. Mr. Jackson informed the commissioners that a unit called the "click-o-matic" has been installed on the S-curve resulting in a decrease in noise complaints. If the noise was a problem with the proposed rail, the same process would be initiated. Commissioner Seelig requested if it was common practice to reduce the noise at night on existing rail lines or if this instance would be the first. Mr. Jackson confirmed that the proposed area might be the first place for such practice. Commissioner Chambless requested demographic projections for the immediate downtown area. Mr. Dansie responded that in the Gateway area the zoning is mixed resulting in more opportunities for residential and commercial. The requirement for residential is not as great as in East Downtown, but according to the land size and zoning, the accommodation of 10,000 - 15,000 people would be a logical consideration. Commissioner Chambless and Commissioner De Lay discussed the areas of development just beyond the area of 200 South and 400 West for residential dwellers. The location of the stations on 200 South will determine where the developments are. The area could become a magnet for significant residential development. Mr. Dansie re-stated that large land owners have expressed interest in development, including three developers who are in the fact gathering stage of potential development. Commissioner Chambless asked if UTA could supplement the area with bus shuttle service. Mr. Jackson stated that the option could be considered; although, operating costs would be a factor. Commissioner Chambless questioned the expense of the two-station construction and the difference between the one- or two-station options. Mr. Baxter stated that many factors are considered with construction costs. Inflation of future construction of a new TRAX station situated between two active stations could cause conflict. Originally the estimate of the 900 South station construction cost was $500,000, but the inflation and difficulty of construction between active rail lines cost was between $1 to $1.2 million dollars. Regarding the left-turn lane, Commissioner Scott requested to know how many other entrances were available to the Summer parking garage. Mr. Baxter stated that two other entrances are available; one on each the North and South ends. Commissioner Scott, noting the transit study by Fehr & Peers, asked if many modifications would need to be made in order to create the left-turn lane and who would bear the expense. Mr. Harpst stated that the incremental cost would be imposed upon the developer. As a requirement, the private property must have enough space to receive the vehicles that passed through the traffic signal. Preliminary information states the private property can hold up to nine cars. Six vehicles would be the maximum allowed in the left-turn lane at one time. Any modifications to the private property and the cost of the left-turn lane are the responsibility of the developer. Hearing no further questions, Chairperson Noda opened the public hearing and asked if anyone representing the Community Councils was present. (7:15 P.M.) Peter Von Sievers, Chair of Capitol Hill Community Council expressed concern regarding the traffic distribution towards 400 and 300 West. Given the proposed TRAX line, the arterial traffic routes will become more congested. The Capitol Hill Community Council opposes the option for two stations and supports the concept of one station. Commissioner Scott requested information about the Community meetings held regarding the area of 400 South and the TRAX line and any complaints resulting from the implementation of that TRAX line. Mr. Von Sievers stated that the main difference is that 400 West north of Gateway doesn't have many businesses while 400 South does. Commissioner Chambless requested quantifiable data regarding the impact of automobiles in the Capitol Hill area. Mr. Von Sievers stated that data is being collected by Tim Harpst and the Transportation Division. The community is meeting with Transportation due to the high amount of traffic cutting through the residential areas to reach the eastern portions of the City. Mr. Harpst agreed that the traffic impacts in the Capitol Hill Community have been reviewed for the last two decades and traffic control changes have been initiated. With the proposed design of TRAX there will be no loss of north/south through lanes and should not cause much impact on the traffic. Mr. Von Sievers suggested updating the traffic studies that have been conducted because of the new stoplight on 300 North and Main Street. Hearing no further comments, Chairperson Noda opened the public hearing to comments from the public. (7:26 P.M.) Mr. Richard Thomas, an owner of a business at 549 West 200 South, stated that too much money was being placed in a walking circumference of twelve minutes. The two-station plan will place a station directly in front of the Bridges building, creating a noise impact for the residents. For the one-station plan, the noise will be reduced because of the placement. Any of these options are going to cost the taxpayers money and reduce the existing walkable community. Mr. Kelly Favero, a business owner on 400 West, opposes any loss of parking at the Dakota Lofts because of the potential effect it could have on his business. Ms. Chamonix Larsen, President of the Home Owners Association of the Dakota Lofts, represents the 30 plus families and 4 locally owned and operated businesses located with the Dakota Loft building. There has been much expressed regarding the trees, noise and the parking that could be lost. Because of the historic nature of the building noise is problematic. As a TRAX rider it seems that the Downtown stops can result in slower travel through the area. Ms. Larson has no opinion of whether or not there should be two stations or one, as the building will be affected either way, but requests a critical consideration of the walkable sense of the community. Mr. Jake Boyer, The Boyer Company, is in favor of the TRAX line and strongly encourages development in the area. Much of the development outlined for the future is directly related to the existing development. An independent traffic engineer has conducted a study regarding the one- vs. two-station matter and concluded that the one-station option is superior. With approximately 915 vehicles per day a left-hand traffic signal could facilitate 450 vehicles per hour into the Summer garage. As the Gateway Mixed Use zone varies from the Downtown zone in terms of intensity of use, it seems unnecessary to continue the same pattern of stations when the density cannot be reached in the Gateway Mixed Use zone to the same extent as the Central Business District. Commissioner De Lay mentioned that the developer would be responsible for the cost of changes and modifications made if a left-turn lane was implemented. She requested that Mr. Boyer consider that perhaps the public could be re-trained to enter at different areas of the parking garage. Mr. Boyer agreed and recognized the cost as the developers' responsibility and would be willing to pay the expense at the cost of continued business success. Mr. Boyer stated that the 400 West entrance/exit is the largest and most often used. Commissioner Muir stated that the left-hand turn lane was an independent issue in regards to the one- vs. two-station proposal. He asked Mr. Boyer if the allowance of a phased station construction was proposed if the Boyer Company had an opinion of the location of the station. Mr. Boyer stated that the location is not necessarily the core concern of the Boyer Company. Providing a left-hand turn lane only to remove it upon an increase in traffic would be the least desired option of the Boyer Company. Commissioner Muir stated that the future location and accessibility of the TRAX station might offset the disadvantage of people who drive. Mr. Boyer agreed that a large source of traffic within the Gateway is those who come into the city from the south. TRAX is supported by the Gateway, but there is hesitancy to place the success of the development on only transit and possible density. Commissioner Diamond referred to the subcommittee meetings that at one time discussed the option of connecting underground parking at 200 South to the Gateway development.While studying this option, there should be some consideration in creating a new entrance on 200 South. Mr. Richard Thomas had a question regarding the support for the two-station alignment. Mr. Baxter stated that members of the Rio Grande Community Council and 74% of business owners support two stations while 14% supported one station and another 14% were neutral. Many of the businesses stated that with two stations the employees would have easier access to the companies. Commissioner De Lay noted the presence of the Dakota Lofts, the Gateway, and the Capitol Hill Neighborhood Council as opposed, as well as many other businesses within the area. She asked who was in favor. Mr. Baxter listed the names of several specific businesses and organizations who had expressed support for the two station scenario. Commissioner Muir asked Mr. Baxter if the left-hand turn lane issue was required to be connected to the decision of the one vs. two station petition or if the two-station petition is passed and phased through time would the option of the left-hand turn lane be further explored. Mr. Baxter stated that if a station is built on 400 West the option of a left-hand turn lane is eliminated. If the two station position is a phased approach the City would require UTA to place a WOW in the tracks to accommodate for future construction. The WOW in the tracks would make it difficult to impossible to accommodate the left-turn lane during the Interim. Ms. Coffey stated that the left-hand turn lane is not for the Planning Commission to decide, as the final decision rests with the Transportation division. Mr. Harpst stated that the left-hand turn lane is an Administrative decision, but the input of the Planning Commission and the City Council would be advisable. Chairperson Noda read the following letters into the record: Mary Guy-Sell, Mayor's Office; Seth Jarvis, Clark Planetarium; Larry Blunk; Julie Steinmetz, Urban Utah Homes and Estates; Shaneanewman (email); Katie Fehr, The Dodo Restaurant; Travis Worthen, Humphrey Yogart; Richard Thomas, Thomas Electric Company; Dave Goeres, Ryan Hales & David Thompson, Fehr& Peers. Seeing no one else wishing to speak, Chairperson Noda closed the Public Hearing and the Commission went into executive session. Commissioner Muir questioned the cost of returning to the location of the prospective station site to build the station without the WOW in the tracks; therefore, allowing the present capability of a left-hand turn lane. Ms. Guy-Sell stated that significant utility cost is necessary to return to the location and build a station. By WOWing the property now, the surrounding street would not need to be uprooted and provide fewer disturbances to the surrounding businesses upon construction. Commissioner Seelig requested clarification on the impact of the width of the sidewalk if a TRAX station was built or if left-turn lane was constructed. She wondered if the impact would be heightened with one option or the other. Mr. Harpst stated that the difference is 3 '/feet for a left-turn signal, resulting in the removal of on-street parking and the shifting of northbound lanes to a location of five feet from The Dakota Loft building. Returning to a prior question from Commission Muir regarding the cost to return and construct a station without a WOW system, Mr. Jackson stated that the service would need to be temporarily terminated to accommodate for the construction of the station and reconfiguration of the rails. The cost for a TRAX station newly built is between $500,000-750,000. The cost of construction for the 900 South station where the WOW was already placed was a little over one million dollars. It would be less expensive to build both stations at one time rather then return to the site and begin construction again. Commissioner De Lay relayed personal experience and questioned those in need of two TRAX stations on 400 West. Stating that emergency vehicles, event traffic and Delta Center traffic use 400 West and 200 South as an artery for transportation and either location will cause damage to the quality of life for residents and businesses. Commissioner De Lay and Commissioner Scott discussed the noises associated with the TRAX stations. The one- vs. two-station noise does make a difference because of the associated buffers surrounding the area. Commissioner Muir stated concerns regarding the solutions presented. The support for future potential of the 500 West parkway is a major priority. It is an uncomfortable thought to forever preclude the option of the second station. If one station is approved with the option of allowing TRAX to build a second station without the WOW at 400 West, there will be a burdening cost to UTA to build another station. Chairperson Noda noted that transit oriented development could increase the density within the designated area. The development of the land is a futuristic thought and extremely important for planning. By constructing a 400 West station, ease of access to the Gateway would be achieved. Although the left-turn lane option would be eliminated, it could be mitigated by the ridership resulting from TRAX. Commissioner Chambless agreed with Chairperson Noda, anticipating residential and mixed use growth. With the anticipation of the certainty of growth, it is the duty of the Planning Commission to plan for the future. Commissioner Seelig concurred with Commissioner Chambless, and agreed that other entrances to the Summer parking garage can be used. Commissioner McDonough agreed with the current discussion. According to the previous discussions about the 500 West parkway, the one-stop proposal is difficult. It seems favorable to leave the sequence of the two-station construction to demand, the furthest west station being built first. Commissioner Diamond stated that the situation with building the station beyond 500 West now would be rarely used. The study concludes that the station should be situated between 400 West and 500 West; with that in mind the Rio Grand crosswalk is not a favorable option. The crosswalk at 500 West would allow the potential of the Boulevard to come through in the north/south direction. One station between 400 West and 500 West seems the most logical option for TRAX. Motion on Petition 400-04-52 Commissioner Muir moved that regarding Petition #400-04-52, based upon the analysis and findings in the Staff report, the Planning Commission transmit a favorable recommendation to the City Council supporting a two-station alignment with a recommendation that the two stations be phased based upon demand following the recommendation of UTA. Commissioner Scott seconded the motion. Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Forbis, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner McDonough voted "Aye". Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner De Lay were opposed. Commissioner Galli was not present. As Chair, Chairperson Noda did not vote. The motion passed. The Commission took a 5-minute recess. Chairperson Noda made a clarification regarding the motion (accepted by Chairperson Muir), to include the recommendation of UTA and the City as the deciding bodies to determine when the second station is warranted. Commissioner Scott stated that since there was extensive discussion on the left-hand turn lane, the Planning Commission might consider sending a recommendation regarding the left-turn lane. Motion for Clarification on Petition 400-04-52 Commissioner Scott moved to offer a recommendation to the Transportation Division and City Council to consider the left-hand turn lane disallowed; therefore, making any modifications to the streetscape to accommodate the left-hand turn unnecessary. Commissioner De Lay seconded the motion. Commissioner Scott, Commissioner Chambless, Commissioner Forbis, Commissioner Seelig, Commissioner De Lay, Commissioner Diamond and Commissioner McDonough voted "Aye". Commissioner Muir opposed. Commissioner Galli was not present. As Chair, Chairperson Noda abstained. The motion passed. 5. Original Petition ��aw PETITION NO. 1(4_(`/- -- PETITION CHECKLIST Date Initials Action Required fr' Petition delivered to Plapning ' Petition assigned to: kiliity /%1 �.G�_ Planning Staff or Planning Commission Action Date Return Original Letter and Yellow Petition Cover t'. Chronology { Property Description (marked with a post it note) Affected Sidwell Numbers Included Mailing List for Petition, include appropriate Community Councils ' ;' �r Mailing Postmark Date Verification 4 7,. Planning Commission Minutes ' ` Planning Staff Report _1 Cover letter outlining what the request is and a brief description of what action the Planning Commission or Staff is recommending. '' '7 Ordinance Prepared bythe Attorney's Office 1=`� t� �''`� t� P y , Ordinance property description is checked, dated and initialed by the Planner. Ordinance is stamped by Attorney. f , c- t /t / H.o Planner responsible for taking calls on the Petition Date Set for City Council Action Petition filed with City Recorder's Office 4-, r.1 U) +-J •rH u G o m `n I •� ,0 .-. 3 0• r-1 u •rl a) a) .0 O •H of r� .0 cw o Q a p cd a-) d G v E. •d u H p 'd •-1 4-1 .0 QJ a) ,2) c!) a) 0 aU 4-1 E- d H CO • •0 � ,—i o CCo1-1` be • G o - o U) m a � ,a o .-, ZH G d ro G o Z a moo) 0 w � E-- 0 m x O .-1 cd 3 ao o 0 l a) ,-C a) 3 cc) , b +-1 o 0 w o G in o a d •mm +J G 1r4 60 .-1 CV 4-c 'd I m a) 4i 4-4 •rl M 3-1 cd a) a) ,.0 a) 4-) U ,-I bD d a) E ,J 4- ,J • 'Ns 401) G X G cd G P 4-i •H G cd G ar. a) W � 4J 4-1a) H O H O V) �' tu a. I P H U) H Cl) .0 4-1 �+ a) .--I CU � a) w ap U) o a X • .[ a a) N A N H R; U '- a) H 0 +J CO '- A CO • Page 1 of 2 Hardman, Ellie From: BONSCELLO@aol.com Sent: Monday, February 13, 2006 7:36 PM To: Council Comments Subject: TRAX Stations February 14, 2006 Dear City Council Members, These comments are based on the plan and information provided to the Transportation Advisory Board in April 2004. My understanding is that the plan has not changed significantly since then and that two stations are still being recommended. In 2004 TAB approved, as requested by the Administration, two TRAX stations for the Intermodal Hub extension: one at 125 South 400 West and one at 525 West 200 South. The Avenues' representative and I (representing Capitol Hill)were the two Board members opposed to a two station scenario. The UTA representative also indicated that this was not the UTA's preference. One of the reasons other board members voted for the two locations is that the Administration's preferred 200 South location at 525 West is so far west that if it were to be the only station it really isn't very useful. That location is too far from the Delta stop and too close to the Hub to be the only station. As the UTA representative pointed out, 525 West is so close to the HUB commuter rail platform that arriving commuters might just as easily walk to that TRAX station as to the one at the HUB. A location between 400 and 500 West would be better for a one station scenario. The idea that a 400 West station would be needed for future high density residential development east of 400 West was another consideration for some of the Board. This presupposes people would be unwilling to walk one and a half blocks to the Delta or a 200 South station. I see the future need, if indeed high density residential development occurs, to be one of capacity: frequency of trains rather than frequency of stations. There are two factors that tend to negate each other but which had not been quantified at the time of our meeting. They are: 1. more frequent stops, thus a longer trip, equals loss of ridership, and 2. the less distance to be walked to a station the more likely an increase in ridership. We were told that this latter factor cannot or had not been quantified, and so these had not been evaluated against each other. The staff report provided to us showed minimal impact on traffic flows and capacity on 400 West with the presence of TRAX and a station. However consideration of a broader future scenario and detailed examination of the data included in that report still lead me to the conclusion that with TRAX on 400 West it will be difficult to shift commuter traffic to 400 West as called for in our Capitol Hill Master Plan. Adding a station and crosswalk/signal on 400 West compromises that further. It is not so much that capacity is impacted, though our idea of having a middle lane reversible in direction according to the rush hour traffic-as done in some cities- is of course no longer viable. It will be drivers' perceptions of an impaired route and the resultant signal delays that will make it difficult to get drivers to use 400 West as opposed to cutting through the historic Capitol Hill neighborhoods. Estimates are that by the year 2020, with TRAX and a station and crosswalk, the 400West/200 South intersection (the crucial one as that is the first intersection where drivers from the north would turn left to travel east into or across the City)will operate at a Level of Service of D minus. According to the Table 14 provided to TAB, the LOS drops to E if it is a full crosswalk, D minus if it is only a half crosswalk. This is a barely acceptable Level of Service. The 2020 combined delay of the three signals studied will go from 85.8 seconds with no station to 113.4 seconds with the station and a full crosswalk present. As far as I could tell the data does not take into account the additional loss of time due to the mid-block crosswalk signal. In studying the figures I noticed that as we go forward in time the delays caused by the presence of the station don't just increase arithmetically as traffic volumes increase. The difference in the near future is calculated to be only about 4 seconds but the delay increases by seven times that before the traffic even doubles. That doesn't bode well for the long term. In that same TAB meeting, a consultant for the South Davis Transit Needs Analysis stated that by 2030 studies 2/14/2006 Page 2 of 2 show that 300 West will be very congested. Nevertheless it is a route being considered for a South Davis Rapid Transit dedicated bus lane alignment. This alignment would be via Beck Street and either 300 or 400 West -a significant impact to both regardless which one loses the car lanes. 300 West is also supposed to be redeveloped along one stretch in a more pedestrian/neighborhood friendly fashion, including a middle parklike median. A potential future closure of Columbus Street would be another significant impact. 400 West is currently under utilized despite our efforts to encourage UDOT and the City to balance traffic flows on the various commuter routes through the Capitol Hill neighborhoods. 400 West is the best place for excess traffic to go. The current relatively smooth flow from Beck Street and from the 600 North freeway exit into downtown via 400 West needs to remain and, if anything, improve. (The pertinent Capitol Hill Master Plan discussion and policies re 400 West can be found on page 17 of the Plan.) All impacts to either 300 or 400 West will affect commuter car traffic flows through the CH District. I fear that incrementally 400 West will be made useless to serve a key purpose that our community needs it to serve, i.e. pulling commuter traffic off the narrow neighborhood streets. It is after all the only remaining City owned arterial street in our District(what with Main Street closed), and car traffic is not just going to go away. I very much support mass transit systems -we see it as a necessity to help address commuter impacts on our District as well as State wide issues - but despite all that may happen in terms of mass transit, the overall car commuter traffic is not likely to diminish from current levels, given the projected Davis County growth. Ideally we would have mass transit scenarios that don't conflict with vehicular transportation needs of the future, so that the two approaches don't just cancel each other out. We will need both I suspect. If the Council prefers a one station scenario, which I hope will be the case, I do think such a station should be closer to 400 West. The arguments for why it can't be closer to 400 West are not insurmountable, and I don't think a compelling need for two stations has been shown. My apologies if this letter is based on out-of-date information. I cannot be at these meetings, yet wanted to give some input because of the concerns we have in the Capitol Hill community about the overall commuter traffic problems and our need for 400 West to carry a greater percentage of that traffic. Sincerely, Bonnie Mangold, Trustee Capitol Hill Community Council and member of TAB 2/14/2006 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 14,2006 TO: City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno,Policy Analyst RE: Briefing relating to Salt Lake City Fire Department Ambulance Transition process KEY ELEMENTS A. In 2003,the State Legislature adopted a bill that developed the RFP process that is currently in place. It was developed over three years by a consensus among all licensed EMS providers in the State,in order to give local jurisdictions more control over their ambulance service. This is the RFP process that Salt Lake City used in 2005. 1. Under the current system,a provider must first obtain a contract with a City (through an RFP process),and is then issued a license by the Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (BEMS). Previously the license was separate. 2. This,in effect,gives the City more power over enforcing the agreed-upon contract,because the license is intrinsically tied to the contract. 3. Questions have been raised about the interpretation of the term'governing body' included in the legislation. The Salt Lake City Attorney has interpreted that this issue is administrative. As such,the Council has not been involved in the RFP or selection process. B. The most recent Gold Cross contract expired in October 2004. Before expiration, Gold Cross proposed a substitute contract(see Exhibit 1 in the transmittal with concerning items underlined) that would: 1. Decrease paramedic reimbursement by 60% ($500,000 per year); 2. Take over patient care in 50% of the medical calls by stipulating that the entity first on the scene would remain in control of the scene; 3. Maintain the current structure of communications. SLCFD had indicated a desire to combine communications (dispatch,contact)for efficiency. Gold Cross maintains their own dispatch center,and was proposing to continue to do so. C. Because this proposed contract did not suit the SLCFD's needs,the decision was made to issue an RFP in an attempt to obtain a more favorable contract that would result in a better service to the City and more efficient coordination with the SLCFD. D. The Fire Department along with the Purchasing Division and the Attorney's Office, then drafted an RFP to comply with the recently created state law. The Bureau of Emergency Management Services then reviewed the RFP,made suggestions which were incorporated and then officially approved the RFP. 1. Subsequently to the City advertising the RFP in January 2005,the State Legislature made small amendments to the EMS Act to include additional requirements in the RFP process. These requirements were retroactive,so the City complied, and extended the RFP's deadline to allow all parties to adjust to the amendments. 1 2. The City then hosted a pre-submission conference for all interested parties in order to answer questions and clarify concerns. 3. No formal protests were filed during the RFP process. E. The City received two proposals, one from Gold Cross Ambulance and one from Southwest Ambulance. The committee reviewing the proposals included the Fire Department's medical director, other fire department personnel, and three outside experts. Names of the committee members are included on page 3 the Administration's transmittal. 1. The committee conducted a five month review process that included site visits,interviews,questions,and three rounds of voting. 2. Pages 5 and 6 of the Administration's transmittal compare in chart form, elements of the EMS system,and if each of these elements are provided by the (1)current system, (2)Gold Cross' 2004 proposed contract, (3)the RFP,and (4) Southwest Ambulance's final contract. Please note that the information on the Gold Cross RFP response is not available for comparison due to a pending appeal of an open records request. Gold Cross has indicated that their proposal contains proprietary information. This is the reason the 2004 proposal from Gold Cross is being used for background information. Of the 14 elements listed,Southwest satisfying all elements listed,and are providing 10 that are not provided by the current system,nor would have been provided by Gold Cross' 2004 proposed contract,including(an enhancement of service). : i. Full integration between the Fire Department and Southwest; ii. Guaranteed/dedicated ambulances to Salt Lake City (14); iii. Integrated communications (use the SLCFD's dispatch system); (recommended by the Fire Department Audit) iv. Singular medical director for Fire Department and Southwest; (recommended by the Fire Department Audit) v. AVL and GPS system will be implemented by Southwest in order to select the closest unit to the scene and instantly relay information to the dispatch center (computerized electronic vehicle tracking systems); vi. Coordinated training for EMTs and paramedics; vii. Cost savings of$53 per transport because the service level is basic (intermediate service only provided by SLCFD at no charge to victim); viii. Same shift schedule as Fire department(ensuring continuity); ix. Agreed to submit medical reports from the scene; x. Agreed to pay all applicable fines and penalties 3. Southwest received the top rank in each of the three rounds of voting. F. A final contract with Southwest ambulance was signed on December 15,2005. The BEMS has issued a license to Southwest to be the ambulance provider for Salt Lake City beginning April 3,2006. G. Southwest has communicated that they are committed to hiring a majority of its EMTs and management personnel from the Salt Lake City area. To date,they have received over 200 applications for employment in Salt Lake City. H. Page 4 of the Administration's transmittal includes a timeline of events leading up to the Salt Lake City Fire Department's ambulance provider transition. I. Page 7 of the Administration's transmittal includes a timeline for implementation of Southwest Ambulance service in Salt Lake City. 2 J. Attached to the transmittal is a copy of the lawsuit filed by Gold Cross against the City in Third District Court. POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR THE ADMINISTRATION A. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if any time implementation schedules have changed,given the current status of Gold Cross' litigation against the City. B. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if any costs of SLCFD and Southwest"integration" (training,medical direction,dispatch,etc) will have to be born by the City-equipment,personnel,etc. C. The Council may wish to ask the Administration to further explain the decision to request that the ambulance RFP responders provide a basic,rather than more advanced,level of service. D. Should the Council wish to discuss specifics of the pending litigation,an executive session time slot will be available. 3 Salt Lake City Fire Department Ambulance Transition Presentation To the Salt Lake City Council February 14, 2006 Background - In 2003, the Utah Legislature amended the Emergency Medical Services act to allow local jurisdictions (cities, counties, special service districts) to issue request for proposals (REPs) for 911 ambulance and paramedic services. Until 2003, all licenses for ambulance and paramedic services were issued by the Utah Department of Health's Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (BEMS) through a convenience and necessity process. "fhe reason the legislature changed the law to include the REP process was to give local jurisdictions the ability to have much more influence in the selection and oversight of their ambulance and paramedic providers. The creation of the REP process was developed by consensus among all of the licensed EMS providers in the state over a three year time period. Under the previous convenience and necessity process, the license issued by the BEMS was independent of any contracts that an ambulance company had with a city. If an ambulance service lost its contract with a city, the ambulance service would continue to be the sole licensed service, and cities had no way of enforcing their contract. In fact, the ambulance service was not required to even have a contract with a city in order to have a state license. When the RFP process was created, the license became linked to the contract. In order for an ambulance service to receive a license from the BEMS, it first has to secure a contract with a city after successfully competing in an RFP process. Therefore, the city has the ability to write an RFP that met its needs, is able to conduct the selection process according to state law and city procurement procedures, negotiate a contract, and administer and enforce the contract. Once the contract has been signed, the BEMS grants the license to the ambulance provider. If, at any time, the contracted ambulance service lost its contract because of breach or negligence, the BEMS would also revoke the license, thus giving the local jurisdiction total authority to administer the contract and oversee its emergency medical services program. Gold Cross Ambulance has been the ambulance provider for Salt Lake City for many years. The most recent contract between the city and Gold Cross expired in October 2004. Before its expiration, Gold Cross submitted a proposed contract that included increasing response times (taking longer to get to the scene), decreasing the paramedic reimbursement by approximately 60%(about $500,000 per year), taking over patient care in more than 50% of the medical calls, circumventing the 911 system in emergency calls, and failing to fix the serious communications problems. (A copy of the proposed contract is attached and marked as Exhibit 1. These five areas of concern are underlined and noted in the attached proposed contract). After careful review and consideration, including previous contract negotiations with Gold Cross, it was obvious to the fire department that the most prudent and appropriate process for fixing the deficiencies in the EMS system, including the lack of a high-performance contract, was to issue an RFP. RFP Preparation and Release In the spring of 2004, the fire department, with assistance from the Purchasing Division and the Attorney's Office, began drafting an RFP. The fire department relied heavily upon the guidelines, rules, and advice of the BEMS while creating the REP. In the fall of 2004, the fire department submitted the RFP to the BEMS for approval.The BEMS made several recommendations to the city pertaining to the RFP and its language and the city complied. The BEMS then approved to the RFP to be released. The fire department also met with city council executive staff and two city council members. In January 2005, the city published the RFP according to the rules set by the BEMS and in accordance with city procurement rules. During the time that the RFP was released, the state legislature amended the EMS Act to include additional requirements in the RFP process. These 2 amendments were retroactive to include Salt Lake City's already published, approved. and issued REP. In the spirit of cooperation and consensus, the city agreed to the retroactive clause in the amendment and supported the change. The city then amended its REP to include the new requirements, had it re-approved by the BEMS, and extended the reply time requirement for the ambulance companies responding to the RFP. In a measure to assure openness, fairness, and clarification, the city hosted a pre-submission conference for interested parties, answered all questions submitted by potential respondents, and clarified all concerns and questions prior to the closing date of the REP. It is important to note that the city never received any formal complaints or protests for any potential respondent during the entire RFP process, including announcement, response period, selection period, or contract negotiation period. Selection Process The city received two proposals, one from Gold Cross Ambulance and one from Southwest Ambulance. A selection committee was formed. The committee consisted of fire department personnel, the department's medical director, and other experts, including four outside and independent experts. The selection committee consisted of the following people: Scott Freitag, Chair(SLCFD) Larry Littleford, Deputy Chief(SLCFD) Raleigh Bunch, Battalion Chief over the Medical Division (SLCFD) Steve Hoffman, Paramedic/Firefighter and Local 1645 representative (SLCFD) Steven Joyce, MD,Medical Director(SLCFD) Ken Cowley, CIO, Salt Lake City Corporation Jake Nielson, Retired Fire Chief, West Jordan Jeff Maxfield, Director of the Utah Fire and Rescue Academy, UVSC Richard Metcalf,Fire Chief, East Hartford Connecticut Fire Department The selection committee conducted a thorough five month review process. The review included site visits to each company, interviews with mayors, fire chiefs, and medical directors where each company provides service, interviews and presentations with each company, follow up questions, and three rounds of voting. hi each round of voting, Southwest was the topped ranked offeror, and was selected unanimously as the top ranked offeror in the final ranking process. Once the final selection was made, contract negotiations began with Southwest Ambulance. A final contract was signed on December 15, 2005. The BEMS has issued a provisional license to Southwest to be the 911 ambulance provider for Salt Lake City beginning April 3, 2006. Under this new integrated agreement, Southwest Ambulance will be dispatched by the fire department's 911 center, they will use the same radio communication system as the fire department, a GPS system will be implemented to track each ambulance, EMTs from the fire department and Southwest ambulance will work the same 24 hour schedules, train together, and follow the same medical operations plan. Southwest Ambulance will dedicate 14 ambulances to Salt Lake City specifically for 911 responses. Ambulances will be positioned throughout the city to guarantee quick response times. The ambulances will be painted the same color as fire engines, have logos identifying them as "Serving Salt Lake City" and be equipped and staffed according to Salt Lake City's needs. Southwest Ambulance will hire the majority of its EMTs and management personnel from the Salt Lake City area. Southwest has received over 200 applications for employment in Salt Lake City. 3 Timeline of Events 1995 Salt Lake City Fire began a study to look at ambulance services 1995 Salt Lake City Fire proposed taking over ambulance transport 1995 Salt Lake City Council hires ECIC, an EMS consulting firm, to review the EMS system in Salt Lake City, including whether the fire department should take over ambulance transport. _ 1996 ECIC determines that the current system of contracting with a private ambulance company is the best system and the city should continue with its two-tiered response system. 1996 The fire department begins negotiating with Gold Cross to improve the EMS system in the city, following the advice of ECIC. Of outmost importance is the correction of communication problems between the two communication centers. 1996 In a memo sent to Gold Cross employees from Mike Moffitt, Director of Field Operations, he states, "Please remember, Gold Cross communications are our first priority." 2001 Serious radio and communication problems arise between the fire department and Gold Cross. Salt Lake City converts radio system to 800 mghz in preparation for the Olympics. March 9, Gold Cross applies to the BEMS for an upgrade of its ambulance license from basic- 2001 IV to intermediate. In its application, Gold Cross states, "When licensed at the intermediate level Gold Cross Ambulance does not anticipate any changes to the current operational interface with other EMS agencies that we work with in the Salt Lake Valley. We are not seeking a change in dispatch protocols within the Salt Lake area nor an additional level in the tiered response plan that we are currently using with the other BLS first responders and paramedic providers that we work with in Salt Lake County. We anticipate the dispatching of paramedic rescue units with our ambulances to remain the same as in the past."(Letter attached as Exhibit 2) March 21, Salt Lake City Fire protests Gold Cross's application to"upgrade"to an intermediate 2001 level. (see letters attached,marked Exhibit 3 and Exhibit 4). Salt Lake City Fire also protests to the BEMS,but a loophole in the administrative rules allows the BEMS to issue an intermediate level license without a hearing. 2002 In order to improve communications, Salt Lake City installs a dedicated data wire-line to Gold Cross's computer aided dispatch system. The fire department requests Gold Cross install a similar link from their CAD to the 911 center. 2002-2004 In multiple dispatch steering committee meetings, Salt Lake City requests Gold Cross install the CAD link from its dispatch center to the fire department's dispatch center. The link never occurs. Jan. 2004 Gold Cross delivers a proposed contract to Salt Lake City. In the contract, Gold Cross proposes(among other things): 1. An increase in response times for both emergency and non-emergency calls 2. 60%reduction in paramedic on-board reimbursements to the city 3. Patient control by their EMTs on 50%of all EMS calls 4. A circumventing of the 911 system by not including emergency calls received by Gold Cross through their private, seven digit line 5. No correction of the problems related to dispatch, data,and communications Jan. 2005 Salt Lake City issues an RFP for ambulance transport Dec. 2005 Salt Lake City signs a contract for ambulance services with Southwest Ambulance 4 Comparison of Elements of the EMS System Elements Current Gold Cross RFP Final Contract System Proposed Requirements with January 2004 Southwest Full Integration between the fire department and No No Yes Yes the ambulance provider Yes Yes Minimum Dedicated number of Minimum and peak Ambulances to No No levels of ambulances 6 Salt Lake City peak ambulances ambulances 9, total in system is 14 Yes Southwest has contracted with Integrated No No Yes the fire Communications department for full and complete dispatch services First response First response and paramedic First response and paramedic service provided First response and and paramedic service provided by fire paramedic service service provided by fire department, provided by fire by fire Service Level department, ambulance department, department, ambulance provided by ambulance ambulance provided by private provided by private provided by private ambulance, but ambulance at basic private ambulance charged at the rate ambulance at intermediate rate basic rate Medical Two separate Two separate Coordinated One medical Direction medical medical medical direction director for both directors directors agencies Yes Within the dispatch services agreement, the city and GPS and AVL No No No Southwest will implement a AVL and GPS system for selecting the closest unit 5 Elements Current Gold Cross REP Final Contract System Proposed Requirements with January 2004 Southwest Paramedic Fee Yes, 100% Yes, 40°4% Yes, 100% Yes, 100% Reimbursement Yes, the fire department will provide continuing Training education for all Coordination No No Complete EMTs and Paramedics, including Southwest employees Basic rate for Intermediate basic service Cost to the rate for basic Intermediate rate Basic rate for basic (saving an public for basic service service average of service $53.00 per transport) Shift schedule Same 24 hours (continuity of Different Different Not required shifts as fire care issues) Scene Control Fire Half fire,half Fire Fire Gold Cross More than two dozen reports, due Agreed to submit Reports None 5 reports monthly and all reports submitted electronically Penalties for response time non- Southwest Penalties and compliance, late or agreed to pay Fines None None missing reports, applicable fines false reports, and penalties missing equipment Contract length 4 years, with the tied to license ability to renew for length and less 10 years 10 years two additional 4 Agreed than ten years year periods per period (possible total of 12 years) 3 6 Timeline of Implementation December 15, Contract signed with Southwest Ambulance 2005 January 2006 BEMS issues provisional license to Southwest January 2006 Southwest and Salt Lake City Fire begin meeting to plan transition January 2006 Southwest begins acquiring buildings for headquarters and stations January 2006 Southwest begins announcing employment opportunities January 2006 Southwest begins employee orientation meetings January 2006 Southwest orders 10 brand new ambulances and orders 4 current ambulances refurbished and painted for back up use in Salt Lake City January 2006 Southwest orders all of its radios and equipment and supplies February 2006 Southwest begins interviews for new employees February 2006 Southwest continues to work with the fire department on implantation March 2006 All employees hired and trained March 2006 Ambulances and equipment arrive in Salt Lake City March 2006 Training and operational testing begins April 3, 2006 Southwest commences operations 7 [)raft 1 .(U. .„nuarry I 2.4 4— AGREEMENT THIS AGREEMENT, entered into this day of , 2004, by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, ("City"), and GOLD CROSS SERVICES, INC., dba GOLD CROSS AMBULANCE, a Utah corporation ("Gold Cross"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Gold Cross is licensed to provide Ground Ambulance EMT Intermediate 9-1-1 and non-9-1-1 services, including Ground Ambulance Paramedic Inter-facility transports within the corporate limits of the City; and WHEREAS, City is the sole licensed provider of Paramedic Rescue services; and WHEREAS, Gold Cross has previously satisfactorily provided 9-1-1 ambulance service for the benefit of the City and its inhabitants pursuant to an agreement with the City since 1972; and WHEREAS, City is willing to contract with Gold Cross for 9-1-1 ambulance services as a sole source upon the terms hereafter stated; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Fire Department shall be the supervising and administrative agency for the City's Emergency Medical Services program, including the emergency dispatch of all equipment, according to medical dispatch protocols. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements herein contained, and other good and valuable consideration, the receipt and sufficiency of which is hereby acknowledged, the parties hereby mutually agree as follows: I. Contract Date. This Agreement shall begin as of midnight on , 2004 and shall continue until midnight of 2014. 2. Services to be Provided. Gold Cross shall provide 9-1-1 ambulance services at no less than EMT Intermediate levels seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day, so as to meet the public convenience and necessity emergency medical transport needs of the inhabitants of the corporate limits of the City. Gold t7as:e 45 Cross shall maintain service levels that serve the public timely, at fair cost, te.iv.,;t- t.cl . and with reasonable access to the service. " ':S G4wSc-5-3. Equipment. Gold Cross shall maintain ambulances of standard make and 41:7vd. 0hNec%ss4.41 manufacture, modern, clean and neat in appearance, and fully equipped in . .�5+ 4_, �.A,,,.. -. accordance with State of Utah requirements. Such ambulances shall conform 1 to all federal and state requirements, including but not by way of limitation, those requirements contained in chapter 8a, title 26 of the Utah Code Annotated, 1953 as amended and any future rules and regulations enacted or promulgated. Gold Cross shall maintain sufficient ambulances to adequately service the EMS needs of the inhabitants of the City. Further, Gold Cross shall support such ambulances with such equipment as appropriate to facilitate the performance of the terms of this Agreement. 4. Communications System. All ambulances shall be equipped with such communications equipment that is capable of instant two-way transmission and receiving communications between the ambulance and the City's dispatch center. The system shall be licensed by the Federal Communications 2 Commission and any other agency empowered. Gold Cross may use such municipal and fire radio channels as necessary for Gold Cross to he in communication with the City's Dispatch office and Fire Department personnel. Gold Cross shall follow City radio procedures. The Parties shall cooperate in maintaining the telephone system so that the City's dispatch is connected through a restricted station extension system to the dispatch office �f Gold Cross.. The City shall instruct its agents to send requests for service dKm,_w Q q electronically over a dedicated data line to Gold Cross so as to improve the `o "Nu A ees 4-="-+S accuracy of data transferred and shorten the call transfer time interval. ` ' _'� Pp 5. Personnel. Gold Cross shall furnish personnel that are properly trained and certified by the Utah Department of Health or any other agency empowered to license such personnel to transport sick and injured persons in an emergency medical response situation, as well as personnel to operate and maintain the equipment and to provide such other support as are needed to perform this Agreement 6. Service Delivery Points. Gold Cross shall deliver ambulance services from such places and points, as it deems appropriate to meet the response time No del, 1.4. requirements of this Agreement. The City shall permit Gold Cross to post its .^^-b., ta....ets ambulances on City property to the extent that such posting does not interfere with the operations of the property's occupant and to the extent that such posting does not violate any existing zoning regulation. 7. Dispatch. The City shall refer to Gold Cross all 9-1-1 medical calls from any source through the City's dispatch system or electronically over a dedicated 3 data line. The City shall notify Gold Cross of all EMS responses, including those where there is no City vehicle dispatched. 8. Emergency Responses. The Medical Priority Dispatch System Protocol shall govern all responses of emergency equipment. Gold Cross ambulances shall be dispatched with protocols developed by the parties. The City shall provide Gold Cross with timely notice of all street closures via facsimile at (801) 975- 4190. It is intended that Gold Cross shall meet minimum compliance goals 90% of the time during each month. Conditions not under the control of Gold Cross that interfere with Gold Cross' ability to meet minimum compliance goals shall include adverse weather conditions, adverse road conditions, unusual EMS demand during a certain period, the intrusive actions of third parties, and the like. 9. Performance Standards. Gold Cross shall provide such ambulance and personnel as necessary to meet the EMS 9-1-1 transport needs of the inhabitants of the City. Adequate service shall include responding to the location dispatched within ten(10)minutes for life threatening situations or respond to the dispatched location within fourteen (14) minutes for non-lifel'eaye, Rasp-�s� threatening situations on 90% of all calls responded to in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association("NFPA") Standard 1710. The NFPA 1710 standard measures the response time from the time that the dispatch is received by Gold Cross to the time that the response vehicle arrives at the location dispatched. The time includes the dispatch time, the turnout time, and the travel time to the incident scene. This response time standard shall be 4 waived on calls where multiple ambulance vehicles are required on the same incident, except for the first responding ambulance. In the case of a single incident where a large number of ambulance vehicles are required, response times to other incidents may be extended. During periods of severe weather, natural disasters, acts of terrorism, or other man-made disasters, response time will correspondingly be extended and not used to compute the percentage of 1 s , e compliance with the above standard. Compliance with the standard shall be in;K;��'^^ - calculated in accordance with the following example: If the total number of ec. ,i,IdeG a calls was 1000, and the number of calls not responded to within the 10 or 14 -y.‘a v 1 a il e minute compliance times was 50 and of those 50 calls there were 40 calls that met the exception criteria and 10 calls that did not, then the percentage that did not meet the compliance criteria would be calculated by dividing 10 calls by 1000 calls. In this example, 1% of the calls did not meet the compliance requirements but that 1% was well within the allowance of 10%. Failure to meet the monthly requirements stated above for a period of three consecutive months, or a total of four months during any twelve-month period that commences with the effective date or anniversary date of this Agreement, may constitute a breach of the Agreement. 10. Incident Command System. The uniform Incident Command System ("ICS") shall control management of activities at the incident scene as between the parties and as among all third party EMS providers and emergency service providers. 5 I 1. On-Scene Medical Control. The following procedures shall he followed by the parties: A. Upon arrival at the scene of an incident where patient care is already in progress by the City agency. Gold Cross shall: 1.) Contact the officer or paramedic in charge for an information report on patient care that has already been provided without interrupting any ongoing patient care. 2.) Request assignment to assist in any addition care. 3.) Avoid duplicating any patient assessment or treatment. 4.) Work under the direction of the officer or paramedic in command of the incident scene until the transfer of the patient to Gold Cross control has been completed. B. Upon arrival at the scene of an incident where patient care is already in progress by Gold Cross, the City paramedic response personnel shall assume command of the incident scene. Command of the incident scene shall be in accordance with the Incident Command System ("ICS"). 1.) Contact the ambulance EMT or paramedic in charge for an information report on the condition of the patient, and any treatment that has been provided without interrupting patient care. 2.) The person with the highest level of licensure shall assume care and treatment. If the highest level of licensure for Gold 6 Cross and the City are equal, then the first of the highest level Ail g L S p J.� -,�sf licensed persons to commence administration to the lJ �� tat- kJ" patient shall continue care and treatment. c ,ko1 e� ata çReque5t assignment to assist in any additional care for the patient. 4.) Remain in charge of the incident scene. 5.) Avoid duplicating any patient assessment or treatment. On non-PMA transports, at the time that the patient is placed in a Gold Cross ambulance, Gold Cross shall assume total responsibility for patient care; on transports where City paramedics are on board to provide medically necessary advance life support ("ALS") care during transport, the City paramedic shall be responsible for directing the ALS care of the patient, even if Gold Cross has its own paramedic aboard. As required by Salt Lake EMS District Protocol No. 1, Gold Cross shall not delay the initiation of treatment or transportation of a patient in anticipation of a response from the City. All parties shall cooperate and assist in patient care at the incident scene. 12. Restocking. Gold Cross shall restock the supplies of the City on a one for one basis with the brand carried by Gold Cross, for most disposable items used during patient care at the incident scene, not including medications. In the event it is in the best interest of patient care not to restock at the incident scene, City shall within 24-hours of the incident furnish to the Gold Cross a list of items to be replaced accompanied by the date(s) of service, time(s), location, name(s), and incident number(s) of the patient(s) for which the items 7 were used. Upon receipt of the list Gold Cross will resupply the City by delivery to one central delivery point or by other arrangement agreed to by the Parties. 13. Charges. Gold Cross shall make such specific charges for services that it renders and that any City personnel renders in accordance with R426. Gold Cross shall be responsible for billing and collecting all services for which it is authorized by the UDOH. In no event shall the City be liable for any service provided a patient, except those patients that the City would otherwise be liable to pay for. If a patient is covered by workers' compensation or some other insurance policy, Gold Cross shall bill the appropriate insurance carrier, even if the City furnishes the insurance coverage. 14. CMS Rules and PMA Fees. The Center for Medicare and Medicaid Services ("CMS"), formerly HCFA, has adopted rules that include fee schedules, rules and regulations that regulate the provision of and reimbursement of certain medical transportation charges. Congress has mandated the establishment of a "national" ambulance fee schedule ("NFS") for ambulance services paid under Medicare. The fee schedule was to be applied on and after January 1, 2000. Pub. L. No. 105-33, §4531(b)(2) &(3), to be codified at 42U.S.C. §1395 m (1). The NFS is being phased in over a five-year period. Medicare pays for ambulance service in both emergency and non-emergency situations when medically necessary, and if the ambulance and crew meet regulatory requirements. Medicare will pay a base rate and will pay for mileage. The fee schedule is based on a blend of a percentage of the old payment system 8 with a percentage of the payment based on the NFS. The phase-in years. percentage of the old payment system and the percentage of the fee schedule are described in the Federal Register and the Code of Federal Regulations. It is intended that the parties share in the Medicare payment in proportion to the percentage of the Medicare allowed charges of the UDOH allowed charges multiplied by the maximum allowable PMA fee. Due to the Medicare reimbursement fee schedule as currently described, fees can no longer be paid to Gold Cross, and thus Gold Cross can likewise no longer pay such fees. 15. PMA FEES. ow 16. No Intent to Waive Defenses. By this agreement, the City does not waive any rczA-' - defenses, rights or limitations available under the Utah Governmental - Immunity Act, 63-30-1, et seq., Utah Code Ann. Neither City nor Gold Cross waives any of their rights or limitations available under Utah law. 17. Private Transports. The terms of this Agreement do not apply to or affect or control private calls directly to Gold Cross. 18. Licenses. Gold Cross shall maintain such licenses to the extent that state law y ' r- ..�1 C�«.ve^4 does not preempt such licensing requirements, as it is required to maintain by q I law, including business licenses that are required by City ordinance. s--ys-r v ' 19. Coordination Meetings. The Parties shall establish a time, place and date for monthly meetings of management level personnel to identify, discuss, and solve any issues concerning the delivery of EMS to the inhabitants of the City by the Parties. If no issues have been identified prior to the meeting date and the Parties agree that there is no purpose to be served, then the meeting may 9 he continued to the next scheduled date. The parties shall cooperate completely and fully with each other and their related agencies that provide emergency services and health care. Any questions, concerns, or complaints from third parties that are provided to the City shall be presented at the Coordination Meeting for discussion and appropriate disposition. Any party about whom a question, concern, or complaint has been raised shall he responsible for resolving the matter within a period determined by the Coordination group. If that party does not successfully resolve the matter within a reasonable period, the other party may forward the matter to the Utah Department of Health or other appropriate agency for disposition. If the matter does not come within the jurisdiction of the Department or another agency, or if the agency does not have the ability to provide the relief that is sought to resolve the matter, the party may present the matter to such other institution as does have jurisdiction and the ability to render relief. 20. Standbys. In the event that the City requests Gold Cross to respond to an emergency incident that requires "standby" for an extended period for a fire and law enforcement where there may be potential injuries, there will be no fee charged for the time the ambulance is standing by. Only when Gold Cross becomes actively involved in patient care/transport shall any fees and charges be made. CU r 21. Insurance. Gold Cross shall carry workers' compensation insurance on all employees engaged in performing this Agreement and provide evidence of vte,A: Ck4 e.c14`f such coverage within 30 days after each anniversary of this Agreement. It 10 will also provide comprehensive general liability insurance, with the City named as an additional insured, in the minimum amounts of S500,000 for property damage, and Medical Malpractice of$1,000,000. In addition, Gold Cross shall maintain a policy' to cover handling, loading and unloading of patients during all phases of transportation. No reduction or cancellation shall occur without giving the City 30-days written notice. Gold Cross shall provide certificates of insurance to the City. In the event that governmental immunity limits are altered by legislation or judicial opinion, the City may request that Gold Cross modify its insurance coverage accordingly in an amount that is acceptable to the City. 22. Reports. Gold Cross shall provide to the City by the 20th of the month a written report concerning: (1) the total number of calls responded to, including the dates, times and description of each incident; (2) the number of calls canceled before a response was completed; (3) the total number of calls and percentage that did not comply to the response time requirement; (4) the number of consecutive months during the calendar year where Gold Cross has not met the compliance requirements of this Agreement; and (5) the total number of months during the calendar year where Gold Cross has not met the compliance requirements of this Agreement. 23. Indemnification. Each party agrees to indemnify, release, hold harmless, and defend the other party, their officers, representatives, agents and employees from all claims, damages, expenses, liabilities and judgments, for injury to persons, loss of life or damage to property occurring because of its negligent 11 acts or omissions of the other or those of its officers, agents or employees arising out of the activities occurring pursuant to this Agreement. 24. Records. The books and records that the Parties create and maintain pursuant to this Agreement are the property of the Party that creates and maintains such records. The parties shall keep and maintain such records as are required by this Agreement and by law and shall comply with all confidentiality agreements and regulations as are in force. The parties shall have access to such books and records of the other at reasonable times and at the inspecting party's expense to the extent that any record pertain to activities arising under this Agreement. In no event shall this provision be construed as entitling a third party to have access to any record of either Party as the result of a Party creating or maintaining a record, except to the extent that the third party has independent bases for such access. In the event that a third party requests or demands a right to access a record in the possession of a Party that was created or maintained by the other Party, whether by judicial or administrative process or not, the possessing Party shall immediately notify the other party of such request or demand and shall not provide such record without obtaining the explicit written instructions from the other Party. In the event that a Party is compelled by judicial or administrative process to supply the record, the Party who created or maintained the record may subrogate itself in place of the Party possessing the record and take whatever action appropriate with regard to such record. 12 25. Medicare Audits and Adjustments. Records of Gold Cross are audited periodically by Medicare, and other third-party payers. These audits often occur many years after the fact. Gold Cross shall give the City notice of any audit that is being conducted by any agency as soon as Gold Cross becomes aware that such an audit results in adjustments to the payment obligations owed by the Parties. Therefore, the parties agree that if, as a result of an audit by Medicare, or any other third-party payer it is determined that advanced life support services were not required by a patient or patients using the criteria of these payers and payment for advanced life support services are denied retroactively, Gold Cross shall notify the City of denial. If an audit requires that a repayment be made, for advanced life support services, each party will be responsible for paying their share of the amount owing. Repayment shall be in cash within the time frame required by the audit. City shall assist Gold Cross in appealing such audits. The terms contained in this section of the Agreement shall survive the termination of this Agreement. 26. Independent Contractor Status. It is understood that Gold Cross is an independent contractor and that its officers and employees are not employees, officers or agents of the City nor entitled to any employee benefits as City employees as a result of the execution of this Agreement. 27. Breach of Agreement. In the event that either party believes that the other party has breached this Agreement, the non-breaching party shall following the procedures prescribed in paragraph numbered 19 herein. 13 28. Dispute Resolution. All disputes shall be first presented in accordance with paragraph 19 herein. In the event that the matter cannot be resolved to the satisfaction of the parties by the methods described in paragraph 19, the dissatisfied party may pursue the appropriate remedy as provided by law. 29. Termination. This Agreement may be terminated by: (1) the agreement of the parties; (2) by a material breach of significant terms of this Agreement that is not resolved within the allotted period; (3) the expiration of this Agreement; and (4) loss of governmental authority to perform the terms of this Agreement. A breach of this Agreement shall be deemed a material breach if the failure to cure such breach unreasonably exposes the inhabitants of the City to the loss of public convenience and necessity. 30. Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire Agreement between the parties, and no statements, promises or inducements made by either party or agents for either party that are not contained in this written contract shall be binding or valid; and this Agreement may not be enlarged, modified, or altered, except in writing signed by the parties. 31. Use of Terms. The meaning of words not defined by this Agreement shall be as defined by the Utah Emergency Medical Services Act of 1999, as amended, title 26, chapter 8a of the Utah Code and as defined by regulation at R426. 32. Governing Laws. The Laws of Utah shall govern this Agreement. 33. Applicability Outside City. This Agreement does not purport to control Gold Cross' business outside the jurisdiction of the City. 14 34. Successors Bound. The Parties each intend to bind their successors. executors, administrators, and assigns to the terms and conditions of this Agreement. Neither Party shall assign, sublet or transfer its interest in this Agreement without the consent of the other. 35. Enforcement. In the event that either party shall be compelled to obtain the services of an attorney to enforce the terms hereof, the successful party shall be entitled to recover attorney's fees and costs. IN WITNESS WHEREOF the Parties have executed this Agreement this day of January 2004. Salt Lake City Corporation Gold Cross Services, Inc. By: By: Its: Its: 15 (_) ', ' C2( ; Al 1717 S01ITII R1,11)\V U()D I SA1 "I LAKE CI"I 1 .a1 r.l I' ; I1(1 NHUNI March 9, 2001 Jan M. Buttrev, Director Bureau of Emergency Medical Services Utah Department of Health P.O. Box 142004 Salt Lake City, Utah 841 14-2004 Gold Cross Services, Inc. d.b.a. Gold Cross Ambulance a Utah corporation whose principals consist of R. Gene Moffitt and Jared D. Miles, propose to upgrade the level of service currently provided from Basic-IV level to EMT-Intermediate ambulance services. Gold Cross Ambulance currently provides ambulance services within the geographic boundaries of Salt Lake County which has a population base of 890,000 people including Salt Lake City, West Valley City, South Salt Lake City, Murray, Holiday, Taylorsville Bennion, West Jordan City, Draper, 414 Riverton, Bluffdale, and any other cities or towns that may be incorporated in the future. Gold Cross currently holds ambulance licenses to provide service at the basic-IV level and the paramedic inter-facility transport level. When licensed at the EMT-Intermediate ambulance level Gold Cross Ambulance will be able to provide a higher level of care to the patients that we treat and transport. Gold Cross Ambulance currently employs sixty five full and part time paramedics and one hundred and fifty two emergency medical technicians, seventy one are EMT Intermediate, in the Salt Lake area. Fourteen more paramedic students are currently enrolled in local paramedic training courses. Gold Cross Ambulance will utilize our current fleet of fifty five ambulances to provide EMT- Intermediate ambulance services. Please refer to attachment for detailed list of all ambulances. Gold Cross Ambulance utilizes thirty one station and staging locations throughout our service area to provide rapid response to all requests for service. The stations are located at 754 West 1700 South, 947 South 200 West, 6660 South 400 West, 4649 West 3500 South, 5600 West 3500 South. The staging locations are located at 1953 West California Avenue, 140 North 900 West, 800 South 900 East, 2100 South 500 East, 1638 South 900 East, 200 South 400 East, 1067 East 3300 South, 3400 South Main St., 3200 East 3300 South, 4700 South 900 East, 3900 South 2300 East, South, 3400 South Main St., 3200 bast 3300 South. 4700) South 900 last_ 3000 South 2300 last, 4500 South 400 West, 6200 South Highland 1)r . 5600 South 000 Last. 5050 South State St., 705 East 7200 South, 3 300 South 1100 West, 2100 South kedvvood Rd._ 7200 West 3500 South, 3600 South 2700 West, 4700 South 3200 West. 6200 South 3600 West. 7200 South Wasatch. each staging location also has from four to ten additional locations that arc utilized depending on tune of day and the day (tithe week. Gold Cross Ambulance maintains a supply and equipment warehouse staffed twenty four hours a day and stocked with ample medical supplies and equipment to restock and supply each ambulance on a constant basis. Gold Cross provides its' own restock and supple we do not restock from hospitals or other agencies. Gold Cross Ambulance has a full time Quality Assurance Coordinator on staff. Our medical director supervises and directs the quality assurance program and provides in field observation of performance as well as monthly continuing medical education for our EMT's and paramedics. Gold Cross Ambulance utilizes full time personnel to manage and supervise field operations. EMT's and paramedics report directly to a field operations supervisor, this supervisor is on duty 24 hours a day and monitors the activity levels durisig his shift to provide for uninterrupted provision of ambulance service. The field operations supervisor also responds to all major incidents and is a vital part of the medical scene command structure as the transport sector commander. The field operations supervisor reports directly to the assistant operations director. The assistant operations director reports to the vice president of operations who reports directly to the president/CEO of the company. When licensed at the intermediate level Gold Cross Ambulance does not anticipate any changes to the current operational interface with other EMS agencies that we work with in the Salt Lake Valley. We are not seeking a change in dispatch protocols within the Salt Lake area nor an additional level in the tiered response plan that we are currently using with the other BLS first responders and paramedic providers that we work with in Salt Lake County. We anticipate the dispatching of paramedic rescue units with our ambulances to remain the same as in the past. Michael S. Moffitt, ice President, Operations Gold Cross Services, Inc. CHARLES M. C�UERRY L\ to-jay ��"��, ©e,�` ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON c„c FIRE DEPARTMENT n1a,1rl' March 27, 2001 Gene Moffitt Gold Cross Ambulance, Inc. 1717 South Redwood Road Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Dear Gene: On behalf of the fire department, I want to express my appreciation to you for hosting us last week to discuss issues related to the provision of EMS in Salt Lake City. In reference to the meeting held March 13, 2001 held at your offices, I am responding in writing to you with the fire department's concerns regarding Gold Cross Ambulance's application for a change to Intermediate Ambulance from Basic Ambulance. I have had the opportunity to meet with my executive staff, members of the Medical Division, and Dr. Steven Joyce, Salt Lake City's Medical Director, and we have developed the following concerns. I have enclosed a copy of Dr. Joyce's concerns. 1. The Intermediate level certification for EMTs is intended to be used in the rural setting, where EMS providers do not have the resources to hire or train EMTs to be paramedics. Salt Lake City has invested a tremendous amount of resources to train and certify many paramedics. Salt Lake City residents benefit from the highest paramedic to resident ratio than any other city in Utah. We find it the additional cost of having intermediate EMTs in addition to the paramedics in Salt Lake City is not cost effective. 2. There are no medical studies that prove intermediate trained EMTs have a positive impact on the outcome of patients. We do not agree with the notion that more training is better. We strongly believe that the more an EMT or paramedic can practice their skills, the better their skills will be. It is our belief that by introducing a level lower than paramedic, patients may receive a lower level of care than is currently provided by the fire department. By having twice or three times the number of EMTs who can provide some level of advanced life support, skill levels will decrease because the frequency of doing those skills by individuals will decrease. 3. Salt Lake City, as well as all of the other urban EMS systems along the Wasatch Front, utilises the two-tiered EMS system of basic life support (BLS) first response and transport and advanced life support (ALS) paramedics. Nowhere is the intermediate used as part of the response type. 315 EAST 200 SOUTH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 941 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-799-41 0 1 FAX: 801-799-3038 �i acc.cm•wca 'March 2', 2UU1 By introducing a third tier (intermediates), many fractures in the current system will occur. Dispatch protocols, scene and patient control policies. EMS council protocols, and field personnel training will need to be modified if you change your licensure level to intermediate. 4. We all operate under a "system"approach in the delivery of emergency medical services. We agree to discuss issues at the local and county level. In discussions with our colleagues, there has been no EMS agency in favor of introducing intermediates into the current EMS system. It has been discouraging to know that your planning and training has been done without the involvement of the other EMS agencies in this valley. For the reasons listed above, Salt Lake City formally requests that you not proceed with the change in level of your current ambulance license. Salt Lake City Fire is the basic life support and advanced life support EMS provider for Salt Lake City. Gold Cross Ambulance has been contracted with to provide basic life support ambulance transportation. Any change in this relationship or system design could have detrimental impacts on the overall quality of the EMS system in Salt Lake City. We look forward to working closely with you and your agency in the future and hope we can open our lines of communication even further so as to develop changes or enhancements to the EMS system proactively and cooperatively. Sincerely, Charles M. Querry Chief Salt Lake City Fire Depart ent cc: Rocky Fluhart Jan Buttrey, Director BEMS Enc. 1 `"- - 1— a I ' `d� � 1 I R1 -��ATIONI CHARLES M. QUERRY �.� �,. ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANCJEPSON ,FE°"'E' FIRE DEPARTMENT March 21, 2001 Chief Charles M. Querry Salt Lake City Fire Department 315 East 200 South, 7 Floor Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Dear Chief Querry: Gold Cross Ambulance recently announced its intention to "upgrade" to Intermediate EMT Ambulance licensure in Salt Lake County. I have many concerns regarding this move. First of all, it is unnecessary. EMS literature does not support the addition of intermediates into a functioning 2-tiered paramedic/EMT system, especially now that all basic EMTs are defibrillator-equipped. Intermediates have only been felt to improve patient care in rural environments in which paramedics are absent or have prolonged response times. Analysis of our cardiac arrest experience in Salt Lake City has shown excellent response times for both ALS and BLS. Intermediate EMTs offer no techniques or treatments not currently available in our system. Patients requiring advanced life support during transport are cared for by paramedics trained to a higher level of care than intermediates. The public has not demanded I-EMTs, and if polled, would undoubtedly prefer paramedics. Again, I-EMTs are not necessary in our system. Secondly, there is no convenience to the public. If a patient needs advanced life support, paramedics will provide that care regardless of the presence of I-EMTs. In fact, I can only imagine that ambulance charges to the public will increase as the result of unnecessary I-EMT service being provided on basic life support transports (see the IV example below). Third, the initial clinical training and subsequent competition for experience by I- EMTs will dilute the experience of paramedics countywide. The county has long endorsed paramedic practice, and our paramedics must maintain their skills through good clinical training and field experience. In fact, the skills of our paramedics are already being diluted by the common practice of Gold Cross IV-certified EMTs starting 315 EAST 200 SOUTH, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 941 1 1 TELEPHONE: 1301-799-4101 FAX: 801-799-3039 ,scrum P..Pca "convenience" IVs on I3LS transports. These patients should have IVs started by paramedics who can administer fluids or medications if needed, or not have (Vs at all if no subsequent use is anticipated. The public is paying for [Vs they don't need_ started by providers who couldn't use them if they were needed. Finally, Gold Cross claims that "any additional training is good". "hhis is totally unsupportable. Training to an intermediate level in an already well-functioning 2-tiered ALS system will create intermediates in search of work that doesn't exist. They will be frustrated that their skills can't be utilized, or will come into conflict with the existing system in trying to use skills that are intended to be used by paramedics. This has the potential to create conflicts at the scene of EMS care, especially in view of recent rule changes, which give "higher trained" intermediates control over basic EMTs, even when they are contracted to act only as a transport agency to the licensed BLS first responder. In conclusion, although I can sympathize with Gold Cross' desire to maximize income by providing intermediate service, I believe such a move would be detrimental to the public and all the current providers in our well-functioning EMS system in Salt Lake County. Please don't hesitate to call on me if I can be of further help in opposing this licensure change. 0111 lY Aoali i Stev• M. Joyce D edical Directo Salt Lake City Fire Department /._ , 711(Pez,tv Salt Lake City Corporation Request for Proposal, RFP No. IA SALT LAKE CITY 911 BLS AMBULANCE SERVICE SALT LAKE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT e t Specification No. F1-100 Contract No12-1-04-0575, Rev. January 3, 2005/ds INFORMATION & REQUIREMENTS I. OBJECTIVE. Salt Lake City Corporation (the "City"), is soliciting competitive sealed proposals from qualified contractors to provide fully integrated 911 basic life support ambulance transport services for the City("911 BLS Ambulance Service"). The Salt Lake City Fire Department ("SLCFD"), a division of the City, provides licensed rescue paramedic and designated quick response services for the City and a qualified offeror should submit a proposal that fully integrates its emergency medical services ("EMS") model with that of the SLCFD. II. BACKGROUND. A. General background Formed in 1851, the SLCFD has grown into a metropolitan fire department with responsibility for fire suppression, emergency medical care, special operations, hazardous materials, 911 dispatch, fire investigation, fire prevention, and public education to the 181,000 residents and 100,000+visitors each day within the boundaries of Salt Lake City's 111 square miles. EMS responsibilities of the SLCFD include first response EMS and paramedic advanced life support ("ALS") response. In addition to general residential and commercial structures, Salt Lake City includes multiple high-rise buildings, oil refineries, an international airport, a major chemical processing facility, the state capitol and other government buildings, a major university, five hospitals, heavy and light rail, interstate freeways, multiple family dwellings, and urban wildfire interface. Aging residential structures, a considerable indigent population, and increasing vehicle congestion, add to the challenges of providing the service. The SLCFD operates fourteen(14) strategically located fire stations, utilizing(13) thirteen fire engines, three (3) fire trucks, one (1) hazmat unit, one(1) heavy rescue unit, seven(7) aircraft rescue units, one (1) airport paramedic unit, and other support vehicles. Daily, the SLCFD has two (2) battalion chiefs and the typical operational staffing of 95 firefighters. This allows for a minimum of four(4) firefighters on each engine and truck, which is consistent with staffing levels recommended by the National Fire Protection Association ("NFPA"). By using cross-trained/multi-role firefighters, the SLCFD's EMS/paramedic staffing utilizes the same personnel and apparatus as fire suppression staffing. Some of the fire engines are staffed with firefighter/EMTs, and others are staffed with firefighter/paramedics. In order to send the right equipment and right personnel to a scene, the SLCFD uses a sophisticated dispatch system for prioritizing calls known as the Medical Priority Dispatch System (MPDS). The SLCFD is the State of Utah licensed provider of paramedic rescue services and the designated quick response unit within Salt Lake City, but does not provide ambulance transport services. Ground ambulance transport services for both emergency 911 service and non-911 service are currently provided by Gold Cross Services. Inc. ("Gold Cross"). The SLCFD's Emergency Medical Dispatchers ("EMDs") use thirty-three medical code types signifying various types of injury or illness and a five-stage level of seriousness to code situations applied with established protocols to determine and dispatch the appropriate equipment and personnel. Every response to an EMS request for service proceeds in stages from the receipt of the request through the delivery of the patient to appropriate care and return of the responding unit(s) to available status. Times must be captured in each of these stages for two separate purposes: 1) to ensure that the system performs for the patient's benefit and 2) to evaluate the process and diagnose the causes of poor response time performance so corrections can be made. Response type, time, and mode (lights and sirens or non lights and sirens) standards for Salt Lake City are described in Attachment 3, Minimum Response Time Requirements. These response criteria are applied under normal circumstances and apply to the first and second subsequent calls for service. In the event of multiple simultaneous calls or calls that require more than two (2) ambulances or paramedic units, these response parameters should be followed as closely as possible. The SLCFD believes that a complete EMS system provides instruction and training to community members; works with other community health care providers to develop injury and illness prevention programs; receives and reacts to emergency 911 communications; and provides emergency first response, ambulance transport, paramedic advanced life support, specialized rescue, and delivery to a hospital. Support for these components should include quality improvement and assurance programs, training, continuing education, and certification. EMS system components that further the foregoing include, but are not limited to: • 911 communication and dispatching services • Quick Response Units • Paramedic Advanced Life Support providers' • Ambulance transport providers • Specialized Rescue including hazardous materials • Vehicles and equipment, including fuel and other operating expenses (Leasing or purchasing) • Durable medical supplies and soft medical supplies (bandages, dressings, medications, etc.) • Personnel (hiring; training; salaries and benefits; uniforms; etc.) • Appropriate certification of personnel and resources • Continuing education and training • Medical Direction Off-line and On-line • Quality improvement program • Planning Page 2 of 58 • Billing • Overhead and administration • Stations and Buildings (utilities, maintenance, new buildings, etc.) • 911 Emergency Medical Dispatchers certified through the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch ("NAED") • 911 callers interrogated using the Medical Priority Dispatch System Protocols (MPDS) • Dispatch center accredited with the NAED • Effective mutual aid agreements with other cities or agencies Funding of the EMS System in Salt Lake City The EMS system in Salt Lake City is funded primarily from General Fund tax dollars and user fees. The General Fund tax dollars provide for the SLCFD's infrastructure; administrative overhead, state of readiness; and direct and indirect costs including first response, advanced life support, rescue, incident command, and dispatch services. User fees primarily cover the cost of providing ambulance transport and a portion of the SLCFD's paramedic services. According to State of Utah Administrative Rule R-426-16-2, only licensed ambulance transport services may bill patients, insurance companies, and government providers (Medicaid, Medicare) for EMS services. Licensed Paramedic Rescue agencies, such as the SLCFD, may contract with the transport provider for the reimbursement for paramedic services when a paramedic rides on board with the patient to a hospital. There are no exclusions in the current Rule to prohibit the ambulance provider and the EMS agency to contract for the recovery of other costs associated with EMS services, such as dispatch, first response, special rescue, etc. The direct costs for SLCFD for providing EMS for FY04 was $3,495,951. Currently, Salt Lake City Fire has three sources of revenue to recover costs for the provision of emergency medical services: (1) General Fund taxes; (2) Paramedic on-board (ALS) fees; and (3) Grants. For FY 2004 (July 1, 2003 to June 30, 2004) those revenues were: • 1. General Fund Taxes $ 2,800,476 2. Paramedic on-board (ALS) Fees $ 642,100 3. Grants $ 53,375 Total $ 3,495,951 The City and the SLCFD have determined that it is in the best interest of the City, its residents, businesses, and visitors, to fully evaluate the total EMS program for Salt Lake City to ensure that the best, most appropriate level of service can be maintained. As part of such process, the City desires to contract with an ambulance provider that will help the City recover its costs. B. State EMS Rules and Regulations and Other Standards and Protocols In the State of Utah, EMS is regulated by the Utah Department of Health ("UDOH"), Bureau of Emergency Medical Services ("BEMS"). This regulating authority comes from the Utah Legislature by way of statute in Utah Code Title 26 Chapter 8a—Utah Emergency Medical Services Act ("EMS Act"). This Act gives the BEMS and a committee known as Page 3 of 58 • the EMS Committee, authority to write and enact administrative rules that cover the provision of EMS in the State. The UDOH, by way of the BEMS and the EMS Committee, has the following responsibilities as they pertain to EMS (this is not a complete list of duties): • Establish certification and reciprocity requirements • Establish designation requirements • Promote the development of a statewide emergency medical services system • Establish requirements for the coordination of emergency medical services and the medical supervision of emergency medical service providers • Adopt rules in accordance with Title 63, Chapter 46a, Utah Administrative Rulemaking Act • License ambulance and paramedic providers • Permit ambulances and emergency response vehicles • Establish maximum rates or fees for EMS services in the state of Utah Fees charged by EMS and ambulance transport providers should conform with the Utah Department of Health EMS Maximum Ambulance Transportation Rates and Charges. The fees charged for items such as medical supplies, medications, and oxygen must be reasonable and at a fair market value. The City believes that fees charged in Salt Lake City should be commensurate with the services provided. For example, a patient that receives basic life support care should be charged at the approved Basic Life Support rate and not a higher rate based on the licensure level of the transport provider. To illustrate: a provider that is licensed at the intermediate or advanced level, but which only provides BLS care, should charge the lower of the rates to the patient. This practice will ensure that patients are billed for services received not licensure level of the provider. When possible, the transport provider should establish and utilize a bundled charge method. Currently, Medicaid and Medicare require billings to be bundled, that is, basic rates, supplies, and medications are bundled together rather than separate line items. Mileage must be billed as a separate line item. In 1999, the Utah State Legislature amended Utah Code Title 26 Chapter 8a and introduced new language that included the active participation of local governments in the development of local goals for EMS. Specifically, Utah Code 26-8a-408 (7) states, The role of local governments in the licensing of ground ambulance and paramedic providers that serve areas also served by the local governments is important. The Legislature strongly encourages local governments to establish cost, quality and access goals for the ground ambulance and paramedic providers that serve their areas. The amended EMS Act gave authority to local governments in the decision making process of the provision of EMS in their jurisdictions. In 2003, the Utah State Legislature amended Utah Code Title 26 Chapter 8a 405.2 to include the ability of political subdivisions to contract for 911 ambulance services if a local government desired to do so. Specifically, Utah Code 26-8a-405.2 (1) (a) and (b) state the following under the heading of"Selection of provider-- Public bid -- Public convenience and necessity." Page 4 of 58 (a) Al political subdivision may contract with an applicant approved under Section 26- 8a-404 to provide 911 ambulance or paramedic services for the geographic service area that is approved by the department in accordance with Subsection (2), if the political subdivision complies with the provisions of this section. (b) The provisions of this section and Section 26-8a-405.1 do not require a political subdivision to issue a request for proposal for ambulance or paramedic services. If a political subdivision does' not contract with an applicant in accordance with this section, the provisions of Sections 26-8a-406 through 26-8a-409 apply to the issuance of a license for ambulance or paramedic services in the geographic service area that is within the boundaries of the political subdivision. Utah Code 26-8a-405.2 (2) requires that the City submit its draft request for proposal to the UDOH prior to publication. The City complied with that requirement and on (date) the UDOH approved this RFP. The City intends to award an agreement consistent with this state-approved RFP. Utah Code 26-8a-405.2 (4) states that in awarding a contract the political subdivision shall follow the "competitive sealed bidding" procedures of Utah Code 63-56-20. The City believes that Code requirement would only apply if the agreement included fees or charges that might vary. In this case, the City believes that all costs are fixed. The contractor will be expected to collect fees from its customers based on the state-approved rates. Also, the City will expect the contractor to collect and reimburse the City for its paramedic services based on the maximum state-approved rate. Consequently, there are no variable costs to negotiate and no need to follow a competitive sealed bid procedure. The City will rely on the RFP process to select and award an agreement. Additional information on Utah laws, rules, and regulations, which are subject to periodic changes, can be found at www.le.state.ut.us. Regionally, the SLCFD participates in the Interhospital Council and its protocol standards. These protocols are developed by EMS providers, doctors, hospitals, and air medical providers. Although individual agencies are not required to adopt and adhere to these protocols, agencies are strongly encouraged to participate in their development and follow them. The protocols are known as District IIB Protocols and can be found at www.slcgov.com/fire. Locally, the SLCFD's medical director("Medical Director") oversees and approves policy and protocol for the SLCFD to follow. The Medical Director meets regularly with various department committees and staff to develop and refine these policies and protocols. The Medical Director has final say as to the day to day medical operations of the SLCFD. The Medical Director feels that the widely used two-tiered ALS/BLS Model for EMS,with BLS transport augmented by Paramedics aboard when needed, is the most cost-effective and efficacious EMS system model for Salt Lake City. The SLCFD is a career fire department as defined by the NFPA and it attempts to follow the guidelines and standards set by the NFPA as closely as resources allow, including those Page 5 of 58 related to staffing levels. With respect to certification, minimum staffing requirements, and response times, the SLCFD follows NFPA guideline 1710. As it pertains to advanced life support calls, NFPA 1710 and NFPA 5.3.3.4.4 require at least four people, two EMTs and two paramedics, to respond. It is anticipated that the SLCFD will continue to provide the two paramedics in such situations. C. Goals of this RFP Through this RFP, the City and the SLCFD hope to contract with a qualified provider of ambulance services with the following: • Meet or exceed the emergency 911 response times set forth in Attachment 3 (Response Time Minimum Requirements). • Bill and collect fees authorized by the BEMS, including, when applicable, all additional amounts attributable to the SLCFD's paramedic on-board services and pay the amounts attributable to the SLCFD's paramedics to the SLCFD. • The City is studying possible methods of increasing revenues to the City for the recovery of current and new costs. The SLCFD is also interested in providing certain services for the ambulance transport agency such as dispatch, training, and quality improvement. Addressing these concerns in proposals is encouraged. • Integrate its operations as closely as possible with those of the SLCFD in order to provide joint and seamless communication and service in ways that improve efficiency and effectiveness while reducing costs. Consideration should be given to having dispatch, radio, CAD and other communication facilities; first response; incident command; patient transport; paramedic services; training; quality improvement programs; research; and community education totally integrated between the SLCFD and the selected contractor. Such integration might also include revenues and cost sharing mechanisms, funding mechanisms, common station housing facilities, supplies, related technology, geographic information systems ("GIS")with automated vehicle locator ("AVL"), grants, and emergency preparedness. NOTE: Non-911 ambulance services, pursuant to Utah State Code §26-8a-405.2 (2) (c), shall continue to be provided by the current licensed provider, Gold Cross Services, Inc. III. HISTORIC SERVICE VOLUMES AND PATIENT MIX Ambulance transport statistics for Salt Lake City for calendar years 2000-2003 are set forth in the table below solely for use in evaluating and responding to this RFP. Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 Total Medical Coded Runs 18540 19421 19401 18563 Cancelled Before Arrival (Code 5) 491 333 311 314 Cancelled After Arrival (Code 10) 1311 1165 1264 1226 Percent of Cancelled 10% 8% 8% 8% DOA at Scene (Code 30) 272 263 249 288 EMT to Hospital (Code 35) 4713 5148 5135 4691 Percent Transported EMT 25% 27% 26% 25% ALS to Hospital (Code 40) 4166 4169 3846 3821 Page 6 of 58 Year 2000 2001 2002 2003 Percent Transported ALS 22% 21% 20% 21% Percent Transported (EMT + ALS) 47% 48% 46% 46% Air to Hospital (Code 45) 9 18 20 18 Transport Non-EMS (Code 65) 156 227 275 212 Refusal of Care (Code 50) 1935 2203 2074 1929 No Care Required (Code 55) 5673 5120 6000 5629 Denial of Care (Code 60) 7 20 26 26 _ Percent of No Care 41% 38% 42% 41% Total 18733 18666 19200 18154 IV. PERFORMANCE AGREEMENT Because human lives are at stake, the agreement that results from this Request For Proposal shall require the best, most appropriate level of performance and reliability. The following performance shall be taken into consideration when evaluating continuation or extension of the agreement. • Ambulance response times must meet the response time minimum requirements described in Attachment 3. • Every ambulance unit must at all times be equipped and staffed to operate at the levels described herein. • The conduct of personnel must be professional and courteous at all times. • Adherence to all requirements in the Agreement. V. INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS Offerors should review the required insurance coverage and notice of policy cancellation requirements that will be part of the resulting agreement(s). Such insurance information is provided under Paragraph 4 of the Sample Agreement. Proposed pricing must include associated insurance costs. The selected offeror will be required to provide insurance certificates meeting all requirements at the time of notification of conditional award. VI. PRE-PROPOSAL CONFERENCE. Offerors are advised there shall be a Pre-proposal Conference held at a.m. on 200 , in the Purchasing, Contracts & Property Management Division located in Room 235 of the City and County Building, 451 South State Street. All interested offerors should be in attendance. The purpose of this conference shall be to clarify any questions regarding these specifications. If necessary, following the conference, a written addendum shall be issued to all offerors. Questions not submitted prior to or at the conference may not receive a written response. VII. GEOGRAPHIC SERVICE AREA The map at Attachment 5 shows the corporate boundary of Salt Lake City and identifies the locations of the City's fire stations and local hospitals that have emergency rooms. Such map is provided for help in preparing proposals. It is the City's intent to contract with a qualified Page 7 of 58 provider to provide service for the entire area of Salt Lake City, with no orphaned area. The entire area of Salt Lake City is referred to herein as the "Geographic Service Area." VIII. PROPOSAL SUBMISSION ❑ Sign and return the Proposal Response Cover Sheet (ATTACHMENT 1). The form must be signed by a company representative authorized to bind the offeror contractually. ❑ Submit all required information as outlined in the Proposal Content & Evaluation Criteria section of ATTACHMENT 1. o Submit original proposal and--- (-) proposal copies in a sealed envelope or other sealed container. o Mark envelope or container with RFP No. and submission deadline date. o Submission Deadline: 3:00 pm, weekday, Month 00, 2004 o Submit to: Salt Lake City Corporation Purchasing, Contracts & Property Mgmt Div. 451 South State, Room 235 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 o Proposals received after the 3:00 pm deadline will be placed in the file unopened and will not be considered. o Proposals will be opened in a manner preventing external disclosure of proposal contents. Proposals will then be sent to the City-appointed selection committee for evaluation. IX. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The City's designated contact person for questions or additional information concerning the services specified in this Request for Proposal, or for additional information concerning Request for Proposal procedures and regulations (i.e., submission deadline, forms required, etc.), or Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accommodations, is Bryan Hemsley in the Purchasing, Contracts &Property Management Division: telephone (801) 535-6347; TDD (801) 535-6021; FAX (801) 535-6190; e-mail (bryan.hemsley(&,ci.slc.ut.us). Page 8 of 58 ATTACHMENT 1 Proposal Response Cover Sheet RFPNo. µ SALT LAKE CI PROPOSAL FOR 911 BLS AMBULANCE SERVICE TO: Salt Lake City Corporation Chief Procurement Officer Purchasing, Contracts &Property Management Division 451 South State Street - Room 235 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 The undersigned, having carefully read and considered the Request for Proposal to provide 911 BLS Ambulance Service for the City's Fire Department, does hereby offer to perform such services on behalf of the City, in the manner described and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in the attached proposal. Services will be performed at the rates set forth in said proposal. OFFEROR Company Name: Doing business as: [ ] an individual [ ] a partnership [ ] a corporation [ ] a limited liability company (mark appropriate box), duly organized under the laws of the State of BY: (Signature of authorized representative) (Please Print or Type Name) PRINCIPAL OFFICE ADDRESS: Street Address City County State Zip Code Telephone ( ) FAX ( ) E:mail Address TAXPAYER IDENTIFICATION NUMBER: Employer I.D. No. OR Social Security No. (Corporation or Partnership) (Individual) ALL PROPOSALS MUST INCLUDE THIS COVER SHEET AND THE PROPOSAL CONTENT& EVALUATION REQUIREMENTS LISTED ON THE NEXT PAGES Page 9 of 58 PROPOSAL CONTENT & EVALUATION CRITERIA 911 BLS AMBULANCE SERVICE Instructions: When preparing proposals, reply to each of the following proposal content and evaluation criteria in the order listed. Please restate each numbered point listed below followed by your response in full, narrative sentences, and provide any requested materials: QUALIFICATIONS A. A statement of the firm's experience and qualifications to meet the requirements of the City as outlined herein. Include a general overview and history of your company, number of years in business, number of employees, corporate headquarters location, type of business, names of the firm's chief officers, and where you do business. Offerors may include an annual report or statement of finances, if available, but it shall not substitute for the written narrative requested for this item. B. Identify proposed staff members who would be involved in providing the services requested herein and submit statements or resumes detailing their qualifications. Your proposal should include information on levels of training received by each staff member and detailed descriptions of their involvement with projects of similar or identical scopes. C. All staff providing service under this agreement shall be required to be certified by the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services; Utah State Code §26-8a-101 et seq. Upon award of the agreement, the City may require proof of such certification. Explain both the timeline and how you intend to have all personnel so certified if you are awarded this agreement. D. Detail your firm's experience in providing the services requested herein for similar customers of similar size, with dates of performance and/or completion, customer name, contact person, and telephone number(s). The City requests that you provide such references for at least three (3) other cities or other governmental subdivisions. By providing such references you agree that neither the City nor the clients referenced shall have any liability regarding the provision of such references or the City's use of such references in making selections under this request for proposal. E. Describe your organization's education, training, and development programs for staff members. F. Describe how you would propose integrating training and continuing education with the SLCFD. G. The City will expect the selected contractor to develop and maintain career opportunities for EMS personnel and make every effort to assist personnel in their Page 10 of 58 career development and professional progress as well as institute programs for employee advancement and retention. Explain how you propose to accomplish this. H. Is your company currently involved in arbitration and/or litigation for any reason? If so, please elaborate. I. In addition to the information and qualifications speci fled above, identify any special knowledge or skills provided by your firm that may be related to or helpful to the services requested herein. J. Describe how you will operate and bill patients as a BLS transport even if your license and/or personnel are qualified at a higher level. II. PROPOSED APPROACH TO PROJECT Based on the background provided in this RFP, describe how your organization would assist the City in providing the best 911 BLS Ambulance Service, including at minimum the items described below. A. Describe in detail how your service responds to 911 emergency calls to ensure prompt response times and explain how you will meet the performance standards required in this Request For Proposal, including but not limited to the response times for ambulance set forth in Attachment 3. (Note: See requirement in Utah Code 26-8a-405.2) B. Describe your services' acceptable time of call, to time on scene, time allowed on scene and transport time as outlined by your protocols. Provide an example(s) of how you handle multiple vehicles being deployed at the same time. C. Describe how you document the times referenced in paragraph's A and B above (whether the crew keeps track of its own time and mileage or whether computerized dispatch with a 24/7 qualified staffed dispatch center is used.) D. The contractor will be expected to establish resource allocation models that most appropriately utilize EMS resources to their maximum efficiency and develop response plans that send the most appropriate resource in the most appropriate mode. Explain how you propose to do this for Salt Lake City and how it will ensure adequate EMS coverage will always be available. Indicate how all EMS standards will be met or exceeded during normal conditions 365 days per year and 24 hours per day. E. Describe your processes for keeping up with advanced technologies in tracking, deploying, and managing the ambulance fleet and delivering the services. F. The City will expect the selected contractor to actively develop and deliver illness and injury prevention programs to the community and to create and promote an on-going community education program that improves community health. Explain how you propose to do this and how your organization addresses its responsibilities to the public and practices good citizenship. Page 11 of 58 G. The contractor will be expected to have in place or to develop and implement periodic customer satisfaction surveys that are intended to measure the satisfaction and effectiveness that the community and its users have with the EMS system, with the results of such surveys to be shared with the City. If you are using an existing survey, explain how you intend to develop or adapt it for use in Salt Lake City. If you conducted such a survey for another city or local government that is not proprietary, please furnish a sample. H. The contractor will be expected to adhere to and help develop District IIB and City protocols and policies, including those dealing with on-line medical control, and shall be expected to attend regularly scheduled District IIB protocol review meetings and Salt Lake Valley Interhospital Committee meetings and, when invited, the SLCFD Medical Division meetings. The selected contractor will be expected to contract with a Utah-certified medical director for oversight of its EMS operations in Salt Lake City. Explain how you propose to meet these expectations. I. The selected contractor is expected to provide expertise and support in the continual review and update of the prioritized medical dispatch protocols and the dispatch policies and procedures used by SLCFD's Dispatch Center. Explain your experience in providing this service and your proposed method for doing this in Salt Lake City. J. The contractor is expected to create and adhere to infectious control procedures that meet NFPA and OSHA requirements, as well as local, district, and state rules, laws, and reporting procedures. Provide your infectious disease control procedures or protocols; explain how you propose to address the foregoing; and describe how your planned decontamination facilities and equipment will be located so that emergency vehicles, ambulances, and EMS crews are back in service as soon as possible. K. The contractor shall adhere to SLCFD Incident Command Policy. Describe how you will adhere to the Incident Command Policy of the SLCFD. L. The contractor must ensure that its employees are trained and equipped to perform the services in a safe and effective manner and that each employee has all of the protective safety clothing, equipment, and devices to act in such a manner. Explain how you would train and equip your employees to provide the services. M. The City currently expects that the contractor will be required to provide a minimum of seven(7) fully-equipped and staffed ambulances within the Geographic Service Area. Describe how and when you will provide such ambulances and where they would be stationed within Salt Lake City. If you believe that a different minimum number of ambulances would adequately cover the City's needs, explain how you could guarantee the response times and other performance requirements of this agreement with a different number of ambulances. N. The contractor is expected to provide a facility or facilities for housing emergency response vehicles, ambulances, and EMS personnel. In addition to a facility or facilities located by the contractor and at the contractor's convenience, the contractor may also establish staging locations for ambulances and personnel. These facilities should provide protection to Page 12 of 58 vehicles, personnel, and equipment from the elements and should he secured, temperature controlled, clean, well lit, and appropriate for EMS response in Salt Lake City. Describe how and where vehicles, equipment, and personnel will be staged and/or housed. The City believes that it would be possible to co-locate facilities, through a lease arrangement, at the City's existing and future fire stations. Explain where and when you would locate your facilities to meet the needs of the City and whether you will consider co-locating and housing your equipment and personnel at the City's fire stations. O. Describe your policies regarding scheduled replacement and anticipated safe and useful life expectations of vehicles. Describe your fleet maintenance program. Do you keep vehicle maintenance logs, damage repair reports, and replacement schedules? P. Describe your proposed overall program for facilities and equipment maintenance and medical supply inventory and indicate how this comports with any applicable laws, regulations, and standards for licensed emergency response providers. In addition to your ambulance fleet, please address the following facility components: food storage and preparation areas; training rooms; exercise equipment; clean restrooms; break room; and decontamination equipment, including washing machine, sink, shower, and soap. Q. Indicate whether your organization partners with equipment and/or medical supply companies to keep costs down and improve performance. R. Describe your communication system management (i.e. computerized dispatch system, radio frequencies, 24/7 staffed dispatched, recorded, etc). Describe how information would be received from and transmitted to the City. S. The contractor will be required to have signed written mutual aid and automatic aid agreements with all surrounding EMS agencies, including West Valley City, South Salt Lake, the Unified Fire Authority, and the South Davis Metro Fire Agency. These agreements will outline the dispatch, response, and operational procedures that must be followed. The agreements must also outline the Incident Command procedures to be used by each agency. Explain how you intend to put these agreements in place and provide an estimated timeline for doing so. T. Provide a timeline of how long it would take to have your organization up and running pursuant to the terms of the Agreement if you are awarded the agreement. U. Document any national, state, or local ambulance or industry awards received by your organization or key personnel. V. In addition to the specific service proposals specified above, identify and/or recommend any additional or innovative services and products provided by your firm that may be related to or helpful to a comprehensive 911 BLS Ambulance Service program. If there is a better way for the City to package or define the services that it has requested herein in order to obtain better pricing and/or service by making it easier for the selected contractor, please explain what modifications would be necessary to achieve better pricing and/or service. Page 13 of 58 W. Since the personnel of the SLCFD and the contractor will interact on a regular basis, explain how you will staff and rotate personnel to maintain continuity and coordination with SLCFD personnel. X. Describe your hack-up communication system for situations when the primary two-way radio communication system fails. Y. The City will expect the selected contractor to develop and implement a complete and comprehensive quality improvement process that monitors and evaluates every aspect and level of the EMS system on an on-going basis, including: communications; concurrent field care review by the SLCFD's medical director during ride-alongs; post incident review; response time criteria; adherence to established treatment and transport protocols; appropriate scene release; and accuracy and completeness of patient care reports. Explain how you propose to do this. IV. CURRENT RATES Pursuant to Utah Code Annotated 26-8a-403 Administrative Rule R426-16, the Utah Department of Health sets the maximum allowable base ambulance rates. The rates are evaluated and new rates are approved every year with a July 1 effective date. For reference, the following is the current State-approved rate structure for the period of July 1, 2004 through June 30, 2205: Maximum Base Rates Basic Life Support- $315.45 per call Advanced Life Support - Intermediate - $374.58 per call Advanced Life Support - Paramedic Ambulance Transfer Service inter-facility transports, and paramedic ambulance transports that provide basic life support - $473.18 Advanced Life Support - Paramedic ambulance transports that, under physician medical direction, provide basic or intermediate ambulance transports that have paramedics on board to continue advanced life support initiated by a paramedic rescue service - Basic ambulance service $567.82 per transport, Intermediate ambulance service - $626.97 per transport. Any ambulance service that interfaces with a paramedic rescue service must have an inter-local or equivalent agreement in place, dealing with reimbursing the paramedic agency for services provided up to the maximum of$197.17 per transport. Mileage Rate Mileage Rate - $13.82 per mile or fraction thereof. The mileage rate for Gold Cross Services Inc. is $21.75 per mile or fraction thereof. The mileage rate for Daggett County Ambulance is $15.82 per mile or fraction thereof. In all cases mileage shall be computed from the point of pickup to the point of delivery. Surcharges Page 14 of 58 Emergency- A surcharge of$31.30 per transport may be assessed for emergency responses. Night - A surcharge of$31.30 per transport may be assessed for ambulance service between the hours of 8:00 p.m. and 8:00 a.m. Off-Road - Where the ambulance is required to travel for ten miles or more on unpaved roads, a surcharge of$26.06 may be assessed. Special Provisions Waiting time - An ambulance shall provide 15 minutes of time at no charge at both point of pickup and point of delivery, and may charge $17.39 per quarter hour or fraction thereof thereafter. On round trips, 30 minutes at no charge will be allowed from the time the ambulance reaches the point of delivery until starting the return trip. At the expiration of the 30 minutes, the ambulance service may charge $17.39 per quarter hour or fraction thereof thereafter. Non-transport rate - Where an ambulance is summoned to a medical emergency by a dispatch agency, but does not transport, a charge of$260.84 may be assessed. Please furnish: A. Complete and furnish a four-year financial pro forma indicating revenues and expenses for the 911 ambulance service proposed to meet the terms of the Sample Agreement included in this RFP. Proposed rates shall not exceed the maximum rates described above. B. Provide a statement that your rates are based on full cost accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. If the bidder/offeror is a non-governmental entity, the rates offered must be based on full cost accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. If the bidder/offeror is a governmental entity, the rates offered must also be in accordance with generally accepted government auditing standards and in compliance with the State of Utah Legal Compliance Audit Guide. (Note: This is required by Utah Code 26-8a-405.2) V. OTHER REQUIRED INFORMATION & MATERIALS A. Exceptions. If you have any exceptions to this Request for Proposal and/or the attached Sample Agreement they must be included as specified in Paragraph IV of Attachment 2, General Proposal Instructions &Information. B. Interest in alternate fuel use and other environmental matters. The City has an interest in measures used by service and product providers to ensure minimal adverse impact on the environment. Please list measures such as alternative fuel vehicles, recycling measures, and energy reduction measures used by your firm. Page 15 of 58 C. Electronic payment. The City is encouraging offerors to accept and make electronic payments using a process whereby vendors can receive payments and remittance advises electronically. Please provide information relating to: (1) offeror's ability to accept electronic payments and remittance advises; (2) offeror's policy, if any, regarding electronic payments and (3) offeror's discount, if any, for electronic payments. ORAL INTERVIEWS MAY BE CONDUCTED WITH ONE OR MORE PROSPECTIVE CONTRACTORS. THE DECISION OF THE CITY'S SELECTION COMMITTEE SHALL BE FINAL AND CONCLUSIVE. PURSUANT TO REQUIREMENTS OF PARAGRAPH VI OF ATTACHMENT 2 BELOW, PLEASE DO NOT SUBMIT ANY GIFTS OR PROMOTIONAL ITEMS WITH YOUR PROPOSAL. CITY EMPLOYEES ARE NOT ALLOWED TO ACCEPT SUCH ITEMS REGARDLESS OF THEIR VALUE. Page 16 of 58 ATTACHMENT 2 General Proposal Instructions & Information SALT LAKC;S Ulf1 Electronic version of this document including all attachments and exhibits are mailable for download in electronic format from the Salt Lake City Purchasing, Contracts and Property Management Division website: http://www.slcpurchasing.com I. AWARD BY WRITTEN AGREEMENT The offeror selected to provide the services/products shall enter into a written agreement in substantially the form as shown in the attached SAMPLE AGREEMENT (ATTACHMENT 4). • Signature on the Proposal Cover Sheet acknowledges that the offeror is willing to enter into the agreement if awarded the agreement. Offerors are advised to read thoroughly the Sample Agreement as the selected offeror will be required to comply with its requirements. • If offeror has any exceptions to the Sample Agreement, the procedures stated under Paragraph IV, EXCEPTIONS, of this section must be followed. II. PREPARATION OF PROPOSALS A. Failure to Read. Failure to read the Request for Proposal and these instructions will be at the offeror's own risk. B. Cost of Developing Proposals. All costs related to the preparation of the proposals and any related activities are the sole responsibility of the offeror. The City assumes no liability for any costs incurred by offerors throughout the entire selection process. III. PROPOSAL INFORMATION A. Discussions with Offerors. The City reserves the right to enter into discussions with the offeror(s) determined to be reasonably susceptible of being selected for award, or to enter into exclusive discussions with the offeror whose proposal is deemed most advantageous, whichever is in the City's best interest, for the purpose of negotiation. In the event that exclusive negotiations are conducted and an agreement is not reached, the City reserves the right to enter into negotiations with the next highest ranked offeror without the need to repeat the formal solicitation process. B. Equal Opportunity. The City will seek to ensure that all offerors are treated fairly and equally throughout the entire advertisement, review, and selection process. The procedures established herein are designed to give all parties reasonable access to the same basic information. Page 17 of 58 C. Proposal Ownership. All proposals, including attachments, supplementary materials, addenda, etc., shall become the property of the City and will not be returned to the offeror. D. Rejection of Proposals. • The City reserves the right to reject any or all proposals received. Furthermore, the City shall have the right to waive any informality or technicality in proposals received when in the best interest of the City. • No proposal shall be accepted from, or agreement awarded to, any person, firm or corporation that is in arrears to the City, upon debt or agreement or that is a defaulter, as surety or otherwise, upon any obligation to the City, or that may be deemed irresponsible or unreliable by the Purchasing, Contracts &Property Management Division. Offerors may be required to submit satisfactory evidence that they have the necessary financial resources to perform and complete the work outlined in this RFP. E. Failure to Submit a Proposal. Failure to submit a proposal (or to advise the City Purchasing, Contracts & Property Management Division that future Requests for Proposal are desired) may result in the removal of your firm from the prospective offerors list. IV. EXCEPTIONS TO PROPOSAL & SAMPLE AGREEMENT If offeror takes exception to any term or condition set forth in this proposal and/or the Sample Agreement and any of its Exhibits and Attachments, said exceptions must be clearly identified in the response to this RFP. Exceptions or deviations to any of the terms and conditions must not be added to the proposal pages but must be submitted in a separate document accompanying offeror's proposal identified as "Exceptions." Such exceptions shall be considered in the evaluation and the award processes. The City shall be the sole determiner of the acceptability of any exception. Should the City omit anything from this Request for Proposal which is necessary for a clear understanding of the work, or should it appear that instructions are in conflict, then the offeror shall secure written instructions from the Purchasing, Contracts &Property Management Division at least forty-eight(48) hours prior to the time and date of the proposal opening shown above. V. CONFIDENTIALITY All responses, inquiries, and correspondence relating to this RFP and all reports, charts, displays, schedules, exhibits, and other documentation produced by the offeror that are submitted to the City, as part of the proposal or otherwise, shall become the property of the City when received by the City and may be considered public information under applicable law. The City is subject to the disclosure requirements of the Government Records Access and Page 18 of 58 Management Act, Title 63, Chapter 2, Utah Code Annotated. The City generally considers proposals and all accompanying material to be public and subject to disclosure. Any material considered by the offeror to be proprietary must be accompanied by a written claim of confidentiality and a concise written statement of reasons supporting the claim. Blanket claims that the entire RFP is confidential will be denied. The City cannot guarantee that ally information will be held confidential. Under Section 63-2-304 of the Government Records Access and Management Act, if the offeror makes a claim of confidentiality, the City, upon receipt of a request for disclosure, will determine whether the material should be classified as public or protected, and will notify the offeror of such determination. The offeror is entitled under the Government Records Access and Management Act to appeal an adverse determination. The City is not obligated to notify the offeror of a request, and will not consider a claim of confidentiality, unless the offeror's claim of confidentiality is made in a timely basis and in accordance with the Government Records Access and Management Act. VI. REPRESENTATION REGARDING ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FORMER CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES The offeror represents that it has not: (1) provided an illegal gift or payoff to a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity; (2) retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona tide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2,44, Salt Lake City Code; or (4) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code. Page 19 of 58 ATTACHMENT 3 RESPONSE TIME MINIMUM tiALr AKE K:17Y REQUIREMENTS NOTICE TO OFFERORS: Offerors will be expected to meet the minimum response times for ambulance set forth below, or shall be subject to liquidated damages as set forth in the Attachment 4 Sample Agreement. Such minimum response times shall be made a part of the final Agreement. A B C D Response Time Response Time Response Time ls`Responders Ambulance Paramedics Omega Calls <7:59 Minutes 90% When requested, <7:59 Minutes 90% <12:59 Minutes 90% Response Mode No lights or sirens As requested Lights and sirens Alpha Calls <7:59 Minutes 90% <12:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% Response Mode No lights or sirens No lights or sirens Lights and sirens Bravo Calls <7:59 Minutes 90% <12:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% Response Mode No lights or sirens No lights or sirens Lights and sirens Charlie Calls <4:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% Response Mode Lights and sirens Lights and sirens Lights and sirens Delta Calls <4:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% Response Mode Lights and sirens Lights and sirens Lights and sirens Echo Calls <4:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% Response Mode Lights and sirens Lights and sirens Lights and sirens The definitions of Omega, Alpha, Bravo, Charlie,Delta, and Echo responses can be found on page 32, Section D, subsection 1 of the contract. These terms are widely used and recognized by users of the Medical Priority Dispatch System, which is the dispatch protocol system used by Salt Lake City Fire 911. Additional information can be found in a current copy of the protocols and in the EMD textbook Principles of EMD, Edition 2. Page 20 of 58 A TTA CHMENT 4 SAMPLE AGREEMENT SAI"1 IAKh CITY The Sample Agreement will be subject to review and modification by the City Attorney's Office. CONTRACT NO. 12-1-04-0575 Rev. January 3, 2005/ds SAMPLE AGREEMENT 911 BLS AMBULANCE SERVICE FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of the date of last execution hereof by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah, (hereinafter the "City"), and 0, a I, (hereinafter the "Contractor"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Fire Department ("SLCFD"), a division of the City, provides licensed rescue paramedic and designated quick response services for the City but does not provide licensed ambulance transport services; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to enter into an exclusive agreement with the Contractor to provide a fully integrated 911 basic life support ambulance transport service ("911 BLS Ambulance Service") system which meets or exceeds all legal requirements including but not limited to (1) City ordinances; (2) Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (`GEMS") Emergency Medical Services ("EMS") Act, rules, and regulations; and(3) other relevant Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and rules; and WHEREAS, Contractor is a highly qualified provider of 911 BLS Ambulance Services and has the capability to meet or exceed the City's specifications, standards and requirements set forth in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City finds that such regulations and this Agreement are necessary for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and general welfare of the community by providing a 911 BLS Ambulance Service that can provide quality care, with reasonable, reliable response time standards; Page 21 of 58 NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and covenants hereinafter contained, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. TERM. The Contractor agrees to provide for the City certain 911 BLS Ambulance Service as described in Exhibit "A". attached hereto and incorporated by this reference. for a period of four (4) years commencing as of the date of execution of this Agreement. The City may extend this Agreement for two (2) additional four (4) year time periods under the same terms and conditions and in compliance with Utah Code 26-8a-413 or relevant Utah law. Notice of time extensions shall be in writing served upon the Contractor by regular mail at least thirty(30) calendar days prior to the expiration of the original term of this Agreement, or any renewal term, in order for such extension to be effective. Notwithstanding the expiration of the term of this Agreement, including any term extension(s), the parties agree that Contractor shall remain obligated to continue to remit PMA and any other required fees to the City in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph "0" of Section II of Exhibit "A" hereof. All financial commitments by the City shall be subject to the appropriation of funds by the City Council and the limitations on future budget commitments provided under applicable Utah law, including the Utah Constitution. 2. RENEWAL. A. Term Extensions. The Contractor may request and the City may grant up to two, four(4) year term extensions to this Agreement. The Contractor must provide its written request for a term extension prior to expiration of the initial term, or any subsequent term extension that was properly accepted by the City. Requests for extensions shall include all documentation supporting such extension. B. Evaluation Period. Twelve (12) months prior to expiration of the initial term, or any subsequent term extension thereof, the parties shall convene a joint committee to review agreement terms, performance, fees, and other factors to detelinine the desirability of continuing this Agreement and whether an amendment of any of its terms is desirable. Actual term extension and any amendment of terms shall be subject to mutual agreement of the parties. C. Denial. For any term or term extension in which the Contractor fails to request a term extension or in which the City takes no action, then this Agreement shall, subject to the other terms hereof, terminate upon the expiration of its then current term. D. Term Extension Evaluation. In determining whether the City will extend the term of this Agreement, the City shall evaluate the Contractor on the basis of the following requirements: a. Performance Meeting Requirements. The City must make a specific finding that the Contractor's response time performance during the current contract period met or exceeded standards and that the Contractor met its other requirements under this Agreement. b. Maximum Fees. Contractor's rate must not exceed those allowed by the Utah Department of Health ("UDOH"). c. Medical Performance. The City's Medical Director("Medical Director") must find that Contractor has met all medical standards. Page 22 of 58 3. ADMINISTRATION. Unless specified otherwise in this Agreement, all services provided under this Agreement shall be coordinated under, and performed to the satisfaction of the City's Fire Chief or his designated representative, hereinafter referred to as "Contract Administrator'. 4. CONTRACTOR WARRANTY. Contractor represents and warrants to the City that each of the following statements is true and correct. A. Existing Entities. Contractor has been registered and licensed as necessary in the State of Utah to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement and under each instrument described herein to which it is or will be a party. B. Due Authorization. This Agreement has been duly authorized by all necessary actions, and has been duly executed by Contractor. Neither the execution of this Agreement nor compliance with its terms and provisions by Contractor (i) requires the approval and consent of any other party, except such as have been duly obtained; (ii) contravenes any existing law,judgment, governmental rule, regulation, or order applicable to or binding on Contractor; or(iii) contravenes the corporate charter or bylaws of Contractor or any other contract or instrument in existence on the date of this Agreement to which Contractor is a party. C. Enforceability. This Agreement constitutes a legal, valid, and binding obligation of Contractor enforceable against Contractor in accordance with the terms of this Agreement. D. No Claims or Litigation. There are no pending, or to the knowledge of Contractor, threatened actions or proceedings before any court or administrative agency to which Contractor is a party, questioning the validity of this Agreement or any document or action contemplated in this Agreement. E. Financial Capability. Contractor is fully capable, financially and otherwise, to perform its obligations hereunder. 5. FEES & PAYMENT. For the ambulance services supplied by the Contractor hereunder, the Contractor shall bill and be paid by the person(s)receiving the ambulance service, not the City. The Contractor shall also bill, collect, and pay to the City the fees for paramedic services provided by the City when the City's paramedics ride in the ambulance in order to continue emergency medical service commenced at the initial pick-up site in accordance with applicable protocols and as further described in Exhibit"B" hereof. The maximum fees that may be charged by the Contractor for ambulance and paramedic services shall be as set by the UDOH, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services ("BEMS") from time to time for 911 Basic Life Support("BLS") ambulance service and, when applicable, 911 BLS and paramedic service. For such consideration, the Contractor shall furnish all materials, supervision, labor, and equipment to complete the requirements of this Agreement. The services and fees for any services provided by the City for the Contractor shall be set forth in Exhibits "A" and "B"hereof. 6. The following insurance requirements apply to this Agreement: A. GENERAL INSURANCE REQUIREMENTS FOR ALL POLICIES. Page 23 of 58 1. Any insurance coverage required herein that is written on a "claims made" form rather than on an `'occurrence" form shall (i) provide full prior acts coverage or have a retroactive date effective before the date of this Agreement, and(ii) be maintained for a period of at least three (3) years following the end of the term of this Agreement or contain a comparable "extended discovery" clause. Evidence of current extended discovery coverage and the purchase options available upon policy termination shall be provided to the City. 2. All policies of insurance shall be issued by insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of Utah and either: (a) Currently rated A- or better by A.M. Best Company; —OR— (b) Listed in the United States Treasury Department's current Listing of Approved Sureties (Department Circular 570), as amended. 3. The Contractor shall furnish certificates of insurance, acceptable to the City, verifying the foregoing matters concurrent with the execution hereof and thereafter as required. 4. In the event any work is subcontracted, the Contractor shall require its subcontractor, at no cost to the City, to secure and maintain all minimum insurance coverages required of the Contractor hereunder. 5. In the event that governmental immunity limits are subsequently altered by legislation or judicial opinion, the Contractor shall provide a new certificate of insurance within thirty(30) calendar days after being notified thereof in writing by the City, certifying coverage in compliance with the modified limits or, if no new limits are specified, in an amount acceptable to the City. 6. All required certificates and policies shall provide that coverage thereunder shall not be canceled or modified without providing 30 days prior written notice to the City in a manner approved by the City Attorney. B. REQUIRED INSURANCE POLICIES. The Contractor, at its own cost, shall secure and maintain during the term of this Agreement, including all renewal terms, the following minimum insurance coverage: 1. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance sufficient to cover all of the Contractor's employees pursuant to Utah law. This requirement includes those who are doing business as an individual and/or as a sole proprietor as well as corporations and partnerships. In the event any work is subcontracted, the Contractor shall require its subcontractor(s) similarly to provide worker's compensation insurance for all of the latter's employees, unless a waiver of coverage is allowed and acquired pursuant to Utah law. Page 24 of 58 2. Commercial general liability insurance with the City as an additional insured, in the minimum amount of$1,000,000 per occurrence with a$2,000,000 general aggregate and $2,000,000 products completed operations aggregate. The policy shall protect the City, the Contractor, and any subcontractor from claims for damages for personal injury, including accidental death, and from claims for property damage that may arise from the Contractor's operations under this Agreement, whether performed by the Contractor itself, any subcontractor, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them. Such insurance shall provide coverage for premises operations, acts of independent contractors, and completed operations. The policy shall be amended to waive any right to recovery or subrogation from the City for any and all losses. 3. Professional liability insurance in an amount of not less than $5,000,000, with specific endorsements for ambulance and EMT services. 4. Commercial automobile liability insurance that provides coverage for owned, hired and non-owned automobiles and that has an endorsement adding coverage for ambulance services and activities, with the City listed as an additional insured, in the minimum amount of$2,000,000 per occurrence with a$5,000,000 general aggregate. The policy shall be amended to waive any right to recovery or subrogation from the City for any and all losses. 7. RULES &REGULATIONS. The Contractor shall obey all laws, ordinances, regulations, and rules of the federal, state (including but not limited to Utah State Code, §26-8a), county, and municipal governments that are applicable to its operations. Said laws include, but are not limited to, the Equal Employment Opportunity laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) laws, Family Medical Leave Act(FMLA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Any violation of applicable law shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and the Contractor shall hold the City harmless from any and all liability arising out of, or in connection with, said violations including any attorney's fees and costs incurred by the City as a result of such violation. 8. FORCE MAJEURE. Any prevention, delay, or stoppage of performance of Contractor's obligations hereunder due to acts of God, government regulations, threat or acts of terrorism, disaster, strikes, or any other cause beyond the Contractor's control shall not be deemed to be a breach of this Agreement or a violation of or failure to perform hereof. 9. NONDISCRIMINATION. The Contractor, for itself, its successors and assigns, as part of the consideration herefore, covenants that no person, solely on the grounds of race, color, national origin, age, sex, religion, or non job related disability, shall be excluded from participation in, denied the benefits of, or be otherwise subject to discrimination in the furnishing of services hereunder, unless the characteristic is a bona fide occupational qualification. 10. INDEMNIFICATION. The Contractor agrees to indemnify, save harmless, and defend the City, its officers and employees, from and against all losses, claims, demands, actions, damages,costs, charges, and causes of action of every kind or character, including attorney's fees, arising out of the Contractor's intentionally wrongful, reckless, or negligent performance hereunder. If the City's tender of defense, based upon this indemnity provision, is rejected by the Contractor, and the Contractor is later found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been required to indemnify the City, then in addition to any other remedies the City may have, the Contractor shall pay the City's Page 25 of 58 reasonable costs, expenses, and attorney's fees incurred in proving such indemnification, defending itself or enforcing this provision. Nothing herein shall be construed to require the Contractor to indemnify the indemnitee against the indemnitee's own negligence. 11. REPRESENTATION REGARDING ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FORMER City OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. The Contractor represents that it has not: (1)provided an illegal gift or payoff to a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity; (2) retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or(4) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code. 12. REFERENCE TO GAMES. The Contractor shall not publicize or refer to the 2002 Winter Olympic Games, the year 2002 or Salt Lake City in an Olympic context, or imply any connection between itself and the Olympic Games, in any advertising, marketing, and other materials. 13. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The Contractor is not an employee of the City for any purpose whatsoever. The Contractor is an independent contractor at all times during the performance of the services specified herein. 14. NOTICES. All notices shall be directed to the following addresses: The City: Salt Lake City Corporation Fire Department Attention: Fire Chief 315 East 200 South Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 The Contractor: 0 Attention: 15. ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement shall not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. 16. NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. The Contractor's obligations are solely to the City and the City's obligations are solely to the Contractor. This Agreement shall confer no third party rights whatsoever. 17. GENERAL TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. Page 26 of 58 A. This Agreement embodies the entire Agreement between the parties and shall not be altered except in writing signed by both an authorized representative of the Contractor and by the City's Mayor or Mayor's designee. The terms of this Agreement shall supersede any additional or conflicting terms or provisions that may be set forth or printed on the Contractor's work plans, cost estimate forms, receiving tickets, invoices, or any other related standard forms or documents of the Contractor that may subsequently be used to implement, record, or invoice services hereunder from time to time, even if such standard forms or documents have been signed or initialed by a representative of the City. The intent of the parties is that the terms of this Agreement shall prevail in any dispute between the terms of this Agreement and the terms printed on any such standard forms or documents, and such standard forms or documents shall not be considered written amendments of this Agreement. B. Any ambiguity in this Agreement shall be construed in favor of the City. 18. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be enforced in the State of Utah and governed by Utah law. 19. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES NOT WAIVED. The Contractor contracts and guarantees that the work herein specified shall be completed without further consideration than that provided for in this Agreement; and that the acceptance of work herein and the consideration therefore shall not be held to prevent maintenance of an action for failure to perform such work in accordance with this Agreement. In no event shall any action by the City constitute or be construed to be a waiver by the City of any breach or default and shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to the City with respect to such breach or default. A. It is further agreed that no right or remedy granted herein or reserved to the City is exclusive of any right or remedy herein by law or equity provided or permitted; but each shall be cumulative of every right or remedy given hereunder. No covenant or condition of this Agreement may be waived without consent of the City. B. Forbearance or indulgence by the City shall not constitute a waiver of any covenant or condition to be performed pursuant to this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have affixed their hands and seals the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE City CORPORATION By Title ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: Deputy City Recorder Date Page 27 of 58 APPROVED AS TO FORM: Senior City Attorney Date 0 By Title ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE of ) :ss County of ) The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this day of , 200 , by , the (Name of person signing Agreement) of 0, a (state) (type of entity). (Title of person signing Agreement) NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in County My Commission Expires: Page 28 of 58 CONTRACT NO. 12-1-04-0575 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF WORK 911 BLS AMBULANCE SERVICE I. GENERAL A. The Contractor, if doing business under an assumed name, i.e. an individual, association, partnership, corporation, or otherwise, shall be registered with the Utah State Division of Corporations and Commercial Code. NOTE: Forms and information on how to get registered may be obtained by calling (801) 530-4849 or by accessing www.commerce.state.ut.us . B. The Contractor shall assume full responsibility for damage to City property caused by the Contractor's employees or equipment as determined by designated City personnel. C. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for the safety and conduct of the Contractor's employees and others relative to the Contractor's work, work procedures, material, equipment, transportation, signage, and related activities and equipment. D. The Contractor shall possess and keep in force all licenses and permits required to perform the services of this Agreement. E. Contractor's employees providing service under this Agreement shall be certified by the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services; Utah State Code §26-8a-101 et seq. The City may ask for proof of such certification at anytime during the term of this Agreement. F. No guarantee of the actual service requirement is implied or expressed by this Agreement. Service requirements shall be determined by actual need. G. Prior to notice to proceed, the Contractor shall submit its company safety program to the SLCFD addressing specific work activities and associated hazards. The safety program shall be in compliance with Utah Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("UOSHA") regulations, Environmental Protection Agency ("EPA") regulations, National Fire Protection Association("NFPA") regulations, Utah Department of Transportation("UDOT") regulations, and any other federal, state, or local regulations. The safety program shall include requirements applicable to the scope of its work, the protection of its employees and the patient. The safety program shall include the operations of the Contractor's subcontractors, if any. Page 29 of 58 • II. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONTRACTOR Note: This section may be revised upon award of agreement The responsibilities of the Contractor include, but shall not be limited to, the following: A. Contractor shall provide emergency 911 BLS Ambulance Service seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day as necessary to meet the emergency medical transport needs of the inhabitants within the entire geographic area of Salt Lake City, Utah, sometimes referred to herein as the "Geographic Service Area." No areas of Salt Lake City shall be excluded or orphaned from the Geographic Service Area which is to be covered by this Agreement. B. Communication System. All ambulances shall be equipped with instant two-way transmission and receiving communication equipment. The system shall be licensed by the Federal Communications Commission("FCC") or any successor entity of the FCC. In order to achieve integration of their respective radio equipment, the parties agree that the City has obtained or shall obtain the necessary licenses for radio frequencies to be used jointly and cooperatively by the parties hereto for the purpose of dispatching and monitoring responses to 911 situations during the term of this Agreement. Ambulances dispatched on one of such frequencies shall remain on that frequency until the incident has been completed, except as necessary to contact Medical Control. Authority to utilize this frequency shall be contingent upon written approval from the FCC. The Contractor shall maintain and use the radio frequencies licensed by the City from the FCC from time to time. C. Dispatch. The Contractor shall furnish and manage ambulance dispatch and communication services or may contract with the City for such services. Such services shall include, but not be limited to, dispatch personnel, in-service training, quality improvement monitoring, and related support services. The Contractor shall operate or contract with an Accredited Center of Excellence through the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch("NAED") within one year from the date of execution of this Agreement. Contractor shall cooperate and participate with the City in obtaining City Communications Center accreditation by the NAED. 1. Location of Contractor's Dispatch Center. Contractor's ambulance dispatch personnel may be co-located in the City's Dispatch Services facility or other location chosen by Contractor. Contractor shall comply with existing and future City Communications Center Standard Operating Procedures or Center guidelines related to the conduct and appearance of personnel. 2. Interface. Contractor's communications system, including radios, computer software, and other future communications system components, shall fully interface with the City's radio system, the Computer Aided Dispatch(CAD) system, the telephone system, the enhanced 911 system, or other future similar systems or upgraded systems. In the event of future system enhancements, Contractor shall maintain at Contractor's expense, full interface with such future system as the City, at City's sole discretion, may institute. Page 30 of 58 3. Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) System. Contractor shall either have and use its own CAD system or may contract to use the City's CAD system to record dispatch information for all requests for service. Contractor shall fund any modifications, additions, or custom programming necessary for Contractor to use the CAD system to manage ambulance operations, either concurrently, or retrospectively. Contractor shall provide access to such CAD reporting functions in the offices of the Communication Center managers, License Officer, and Dispatch Quality Assurance officer. This shall include all computerized templates and user definable fields and other tools Contractor develops for use with the City CAD to produce response time compliance reports. 4. Automatic Vehicle Locations (-AVE") System. Contractor may provide and utilize an AVL system that is integrated with the City's CAD system. If the City • implements an AVL system, the Contractor shall also implement an AVL system that shall be integrated with the City's system. Contractor shall provide all radio frequencies necessary to fully support the AVL infrastructure. Contractor shall allow City to utilize the AVL infrastructure to add vehicles to the system so that all medical units, including Contractor's ambulances, supervisor and support vehicles, as well as City vehicles can be observed and tracked from the City Communications Center. Contractor shall provide access to CAD reporting functions and the AVL system in the office of the City's Communication Center. 5. City Medical Priority Dispatch System ("MPDS") and Fire Priority Dispatch System ("FPDS"). Contractor shall use the MPDS and FPDS protocols authorized by the SLCFD Dispatch Steering Committee. Contractor understands that changes to these MPDS and FPDS dispatch protocols may be necessary and that the Contractor, the City Dispatch Steering Committee, and the Medical Director may discuss such changes, but that the Dispatch Steering Committee shall have the ultimate authority to determine dispatch protocols which include dispatch priorities. Contractor understands that City 911 call takers shall initially process and prioritize EMS calls that originate through 911. 6. Emergency Medical Dispatch Certification, Training, and Continuing Education. Contractor shall provide at Contractor's expense, in cooperation with the SLCFD, initial and ongoing Emergency Medical Dispatch Certification training and all continuing education necessary for certification and recertification of Contractor's dispatch personnel. 7. Dispatch Center Personnel. The Contractor's dispatch office shall be staffed only by persons holding certification issued by the NAED and State Emergency Medical Dispatch ("EMD") certification. Contractor shall staff the dispatch center with sufficient personnel, but with a minimum of two (2)persons, to ensure that emergency lines are answered on the first ring. 8. Automated Emergency Medical Dispatch. Contractor agrees to provide technology necessary to automate the EMD process. Contractor shall provide ProQA or other comparable software that facilitates call prioritization, dispatch and pre-arrival instructions as approved by the Dispatch Steering Committee. Contractor shall also provide EMD cards for use in instances of CAD failure. Contractor agrees to fund updates to the EMD system. 9. Emergency Medical Dispatch Quality Assurance. a. Contractor agrees to provide a monthly report of compliance with dispatch protocols by Contractor's dispatch personnel. This report shall be due to the Medical Director and Contract Administrator in the format Page 31 of 58 specified by the Medical Director within thirty (30) calendar days following the month for which the report pertains. b. Contractor agrees to provide technology necessary to automate EMD quality assurance process. Contractor shall provide AQUA, the quality assurance computer software component for the ProQA program, or other comparable software that facilitates assessment of call takers' compliance with call taking standards, call prioritization, and pre-arrival instructions. The Contractor shall assign at least one person to participate in the joint Communications Center Quality Assurance/Improvement process. Contractor agrees to provide the necessary funding and training for the appropriate certification of Contractor's Communications Quality Assurance/Improvement personnel. 10. Contractor Ambulance Deployment. To achieve optimal deployment of ambulances, Contractor agrees to utilize computer software technology that will continuously monitor efficiency and compliance within the Salt Lake City ambulance system, both overall and within each Response District, and which allows for immediate Contractor adjustments in ambulance deployment. Contractor shall implement this software by the end of the first contract year and shall use it thereafter. Contractor shall provide reports to the Battalion Chief of the Medical Division and the Contract Administrator. 11. Standby Service. It is specifically agreed between the parties that should it be necessary for the Contractor to respond to an incident requiring a"standby" for any length of time (e.g.; a fire; a hazardous material spill or situation; or any other type of potential special rescue situation) there shall be no fee charged for the time the ambulance is standing by and only when the Contractor becomes actively involved in patient carriage shall any fees whatsoever be charged. A standby situation is when the Contractor is called out to an incident by the City's dispatcher where the primary purpose is for an ambulance to standby and be available in case a firefighter is injured. D. Response Times Requirements. 1. Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement, the following definitions of type of calls for 911 BLS Ambulance Service shall apply: a. Life-Threatening Emergency and/or Medical Priority Dispatch System ("MPDS") code with Charlie, Delta, Echo response: Situation determined by the dispatcher, in accordance with the Medical Director approved telephone protocols, which would likely result in the loss or quality of life without immediate intervention. b. Non-life Threatening Emergency or MPDS code with Omega, Alpha or Bravo response: Situation determined by the dispatcher, in accordance with Medical Director approved telephone protocols,which requires immediate medical attention but would not likely result in the loss or quality of life without immediate intervention. Page 32 of 58 2. City-wide Maximum Allowable Response Times. The Contractor shall operate the ambulance service so as to achieve compliance both city-wide and in each district, for each priority defined below for Contractor (Ambulance), each month. First responder and paramedic response times are shown for informational purposes only. A B C D Response Time Response Time Response Time 1st Responders Contractor(Ambulance) Paramedics 1 Omega Calls <7:59 Minutes 90% When requested, <7:59 Minutes 90% <12:59 Minutes 90% Response Mode No lights or sirens As requested Lights and sirens 2 Alpha Calls <7:59 Minutes 90% <12:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% Response Mode No lights or sirens No lights or sirens Lights and sirens 3 Bravo Calls <7:59 Minutes 90% <12:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% Response Mode No lights or sirens No lights or sirens Lights and sirens 4 Charlie Calls <4:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% Response Mode Lights and sirens Lights and sirens Lights and sirens 5 Delta Calls <4:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% Response Mode Lights and sirens Lights and sirens Lights and sirens 6 Echo Calls <4:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% Response Mode Lights and sirens Lights and sirens Lights and sirens a. Life Threatening Emergency or Charlie, Delta, Echo calls. On not less than ninety percent(90%) of all presumptively defined life-threatening emergency requests is determined by the dispatcher in accordance with Medical Director approved telephone protocols, and originating within the City, the Contractor shall produce an ambulance response time of seven minutes, fifty-nine seconds (479 seconds) or less. b. Non-life-Threatening Emergency or Omega, Alpha, Bravo calls. On not less than ninety percent(90%) of all presumptively defined non-life- threatening emergency requests, as determined by the dispatcher in accordance with Medical Director approved telephone protocols, and originating within the City, the Contractor shall produce an ambulance response time of twelve minutes, fifty-nine seconds (779 seconds) or less. 3. Response Time Calculations. a. For all ambulance response times described above, the response time calculation shall start at the time the ambulance is documented as assigned to a response in the City's CAD or time-stamped if using the manual system. The response time calculation shall stop by transmission from Contractor's ambulance or transmission from an authorized ground Page 33 of 58 mutual aid ambulance of the "ambulance arrived on scene" status signal to CAD. Such transmission shall not be made until the ambulance actually arrives at the specific address or location dispatched. In the instance of apartment or business complexes, the "ambulance arrived on scene" status signal transmission shall not be made until the ambulance actually arrives at the point closest to the specified apartment or business to which it can reasonably be driven. Arrival on the scene of a First Responder unit or supervisor's vehicle shall not stop the response time calculation. In instances when the ambulance fails to report "ambulance arrived on scene", the dispatch CAD time stamp of the next communication with the ambulance during which a statement is recorded in the CAD verifying that the ambulance is on scene, shall be used as the "ambulance arrived on scene" time. Only ambulance service requests originating in Salt Lake City, including transport, no-transport, and mutual aid received calls, shall be included in response time calculations and be subject to Late Response Liquidated Damages. When multiple ambulances are dispatched to a single incident, the arrival time of the first ambulance to arrive shall be the on scene time used in the response time calculation for that incident, and response times of additional units shall be excluded from compliance calculations. Responses originating outside of Salt Lake City shall be reported but are not subject to response time requirements. b. The response times described above shall be waived on calls where multiple ambulances are required on the same call, except for the first responding ambulance. However, Contractor shall endeavor to have all required ambulances on site as soon as is practical. The same applies where multiple ambulances are dispatched to different locations in and around the same time. The Contractor shall respond in order of priority per the City's Dispatch Center. c. In cases of Force Majeure, the response times shall be extended in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710. d. Upgrades, Downgrades, Reassignments, and Disregards i. Upgrades: If a response is upgraded prior to the first ambulance arriving on scene, compliance with response time requirements and liquidated damages shall be calculated based on the shorter of: • Time elapsed from dispatch time, as specified in this section time of upgrade plus the higher priority response time standard, or • The lower priority response time requirement. ii. Downgrades: Downgrades may be initiated by Emergency Medical Dispatchers when information not available when the Page 34 of 58 response was dispatched becomes available that indicates, in strict accordance with Medical Director approved telephone protocols, that the response should have been dispatched at a lower priority. Downgrades may also be initiated by the SLCFD Incident Commander arriving on scene prior to the ambulance. If a response is downgraded prior to the arrival on scene of the first ambulance, the Contractor's compliance with response time standards and liquidated damages shall be calculated based on: • The lower priority response time standard, if the ambulance is downgraded before it would have been judged "late" under the higher priority response time standard, or • The higher priority response time standard, if the ambulance is downgraded after it would have been judged "late" under the higher priority response time standard. iii. Reassignment Enroute: If an ambulance is removed from a response by the Contractor prior to arriving on scene and another assigned to the response, the elapsed response time shall not end until an ambulance arrives on the scene. Should the response exceed the maximum allowable response time standard, the Contractor's compliance and liquidated damages shall be calculated based on the response time standard applicable as specified above. iv. Disregarded Enroute: If an ambulance is cancelled (disregarded) enroute prior to an ambulance arriving on scene, and no ambulance is required at the location dispatched, the response shall end at the moment of cancellation. At the moment of cancellation, if the elapsed response time exceeds the response time requirement for the assigned priority of the call, the ambulance shall be determined to have exceeded the maximum allowable response time standard, the response shall be counted in the total number of responses used to determine compliance, and the appropriate Liquidated Damages shall be assessed. At the moment of cancellation, if the elapsed response time does not exceed the response time requirement for the assigned priority, the response shall not be counted in the total number of responses used to determine compliance. e. Response Times Outside of Salt Lake City Service Area. The Contractor shall not be held accountable for response time compliance for any response dispatched to a location outside of the City. Responses to requests for service outside the City shall not be counted in the total number of responses used to determine compliance. f. Each Incident A Single Response. Each incident shall be counted as a single response regardless of the number of ambulances that respond. The dispatch time of the first ambulance dispatched and the on scene time of the first arriving Contractor or authorized mutual aid ground ambulance shall be used to compute the response time for the incident. Page 35 of 58 4. Unusual Circumstances. In the event of unusual circumstances beyond the Contractor's reasonable control that affects response time compliance, the Contractor may request from the Contract Administrator an exemption from a response time standard. Unusual circumstances shall be limited to: (i) unusually severe weather conditions, (ii) declared disasters, or (iii) unforeseen periods of unusually high demand for ambulance services. Unusually high demand for ambulance services shall be defined as follows: For the hour of the week for which an exemption is requested, the Contractor must demonstrate that at the moment the call was received, that the number of emergency ambulance calls dispatched and being worked simultaneously exceeds the product of the following: Overload=( 1.5 X (1 standard deviation)) +The Mean rounded up to the nearest whole call For the entire population of emergency calls for that hour for the past twenty(20) weeks Equipment failures, traffic congestion, ambulance failures, inability to staff ambulances, and other similar causes shall not be grounds for granting an exception to compliance with response time standards. 5. Request for Exemption from Response Time Standards. Contractor must submit a written request for any response time exemption identifying the specific time period, the circumstances during the time period, and all late responses during the time period. Detailed documentation shall be provided to the Contract Administrator with the Monthly Report. If no request for exemption is made within thirty(30) calendar days following the month in which the responses in question occurred, the Contractor shall be ineligible to request exemption for those responses. The Contract Administrator shall review the request for exemption and issue a determination. In the event that the request is not granted, Contractor may appeal within ten (10)business days of the decision to the City's Fire Chief. The decision of the City's Fire Chief in these matters shall be final. Equipment failures, traffic congestion, ambulance failures, dispatch errors, inability to staff ambulances, and other similar causes will not be grounds for granting an exemption. 6. Request to Contest CAD Data. In any instance in which Contractor contends that data documented in the dispatch computer's (CAD) searchable fields, such as dispatch or on scene times, or response priority, are inaccurate, such as when a no "ambulance arrived on scene" status signal is received by CAD or is received after the actual on scene time, the Contractor may present evidence substantiating different data. Detailed documentation, including but not limited to CAD printouts and AVL data, shall be provided with the Monthly Report. If no request to contest data is received within thirty(30) calendar days following the month in which the responses in question occurred, the Contractor shall be ineligible to contest data. The Contract Administrator shall review the request for exemption and issue a determination. In the event that the request is not granted, Contractor may appeal within ten (10)business days of the decision to the City's Fire Chief. The decision of the City's Fire Chief in these matters shall be final. E. Liquidated Damages 1. Liquidated Damages Deemed Reasonable. Contractor understands and agrees that the failure to comply with any time, performance or other requirement or standard Page 36 of 58 in this Agreement will result in damage to the City and that it is and will be impracticable to determine the actual amount of such damage whether in the event of delay, nonperformance, failure to meet standards, or any other deviation. Therefore, Contractor and City contract and agree that the liquidated damages specified in this Agreement are reasonable. It is expressly understood and agreed that the liquidated damages amounts are not to be considered a penalty,but shall be deemed, taken and treated as reasonable liquidated damages. It is also expressly understood and agreed that the remedies of City in the event of Contractor's default or minor or major breach of any term of this Agreement are not limited to liquidated damages provisions. All liquidated damage amounts may be withdrawn from the irrevocable standby performance provided by Contractor in accordance with this Agreement if the liquidated damages are not received by City within thirty(30) calendar days after receipt by Contractor of notice of liquidated damages assessment. 2. Late Response Liquidated Damages. For each response which originates within the City for which the response time exceeds the response time standard specified in this agreement, City shall assess liquidated damages of twelve dollars ($12.00) per minute for each minute in excess of the required response time up to a maximum of five hundred dollars ($500.00) per occurrence. For purposes of calculating response time liquidated damages, a fraction of a minute is to be rounded up to the next minute. Late Response Liquidated Damages Assessment, if any, shall begin effective upon the commencement of service under this Agreement. 3. Non-Performance Liquidated Damages. a. City-Wide Non-Performance Liquidated Damages. In the event that city- wide response time compliance for life-threatening calls (designated as Echo, Delta, and Charlie) responses falls below ninety per cent (90%) for any month, the liquidated damages in the following chart shall be assessed in addition to any other liquidated damages. Compliance Month 1 2nd Continuous 3rd Continuous 4th Continuous 5th Continuous Month Month Month* Month* 89% $7,000 $14,000 $21,000 $42,000 $84,000 88% 9,000 18,000 27,000 54,000 108,000 87% 10,000 20,000 30,000 60,000 120,000 86% 11,000 22,000 33,000 66,000 132,000 85% 12,000 24,000 48,000 96,000 192,000 * After three continuous months of non-compliance, the Contractor is in major breach. Failure to meet response time requirements for at least ninety per cent (90%) of all life-threatening responses each month for three consecutive months or for any four months within any 12 consecutive months shall be a major breach. Liquidated Damages continuing after month 3 (Major Breach), if any, shall be calculated by using the amount in the Month 3 column as the base Liquidated Damages Page 37 of 58 so that Liquidated Damages increase by 100% of this base each month. For example, after three continuous months of non-compliance being 89%, 87% and 88%, non-compliance during Month 4 (Major Breach) is 89% and Month 5 (Major Breach) is 88%, respectively. Liquidated damages would be $42,000 for Month 4 and $108,000 for Month 5. b. Calculation. Response time compliance shall always be rounded down for purposes of response time reporting and liquidated damages calculation. For example, 89.9% shall he rounded down to 89%. Liquidated Damages for City-Wide Non-Performance Liquidated Damages continuing after Month 3 shall be calculated by using the amount in the Month 3 column as the base Liquidated Damages so that Liquidated Damages increase by 100% of this base each month. For example, after five continuous months of City-Wide non-compliance (Major Breach) being 89%, 87%, 88%, 89% and 88%, respectively, the corresponding Liquidated Damages would be $7,000, $20,000, $27,000, $42,000 and $108,000. 4. Non-compliance Liquidated Damages. a. Two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) for each business day that any monthly report required in this Agreement is not received by the Contract Administrator within thirty(30) calendar days following the month for which the report pertains. b. Two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) for each business day after two business days that a report(other than a monthly report) or task is not completed as directed by the Medical Director. c. Five hundred dollars ($500.00) for any occurrence of the failure to have equipment or supplies on any ambulance as directed or specified by the Medical Director. d. Two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) for failure to immediately contact the Battalion Chief of the Medical Division or Contract Administrator when any below standards equipment or staffing situation occurs which has the potential to affect the health and safety of the citizens of Salt Lake City including without limitation: (i) less than seven (7) ambulances being on-duty and in-service for emergency response (ii) any occurrence of a motor vehicle accident involving significant damage or injury in which an ambulance is involved. e. Fifty dollars ($50.00) for failure to remain on the same assigned radio frequency during any response situation involving a 911 call. f. Fifty dollars ($50.00) per day for any other performance failure or major breach of this Agreement until such failure or breach is cured. Page 38 of 58 5. Performance Incentive. For every quarter (defined as Oct.-Dec., Jan.-Mar., Apr.-June, and July-Sept.) during which the Contractor's verifiable system-wide response time performance exceeds 90% in all response time categories the City shall waive all per minute response time Liquidated Damages for all responses during that quarter. F. Reports. Contractor shall furnish the following reports to the City: 1. Monthly Reports. Monthly reports are due no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the final day of the month reported. a. Monthly Response Time Report. For each incident for which a response is dispatched, the monthly response time compliance report shall include, but not be limited to: a unique call number which shall be the call number generated by the City dispatch computer or another number that a City reviewer can easily link to the call number generated by the City dispatch computer; the dispatch date, dispatch time, on scene time, time transport is begun, time transport ends, identification number of the ambulance(s) that arrive on scene, response mode linked to the dispatch, and on scene or cancel/disregard times necessary to calculate the response time. For calls disregarded enroute, upgraded or downgraded, or reassigned enroute, the aforementioned items shall be reported in a format that clearly shows the unique measurements required in this Agreement. For calls on which multiple ambulances arrive on scene, although only the first ambulance to arrive is included in compliance calculations, the responses of all ambulances that arrive on scene shall be reported. This report shall not be merely a compiled statistical report. The Monthly Response Time Report shall include all mutual aid given and mutual aid received response, including the city or other entity giving or receiving aid. b. Response Time Exception Report. For calls which result in response times in excess of those specified in this agreement, the Monthly Response Time Report shall include the number of ambulances in- service at the time of the exception, the number of those ambulances dedicated to responses, and the incident numbers and priorities of those responses. c. Requests for Exemption from Response Time Standards. Any requests for exemption from response time standards shall be made with the Monthly Response Time Report. If no such request is received by the deadline required herein, no such request shall be considered in compliance calculations. d. Monthly Unit Hour Utilization Report. The monthly unit hour utilization compliance report shall include,but not be limited to, the number of unit hours produced during every hour of every day. To Page 39 of 58 calculate the unit hour utilization ratio, divide the total number of ambulance transports per month by the total number of unit hours in the same one-month period. A unit hour shall be defined as each hour that a fully staffed and equipped ambulance unit is on duty and available to respond to calls. e. Monthly Report of Public Education Activities and Community Service Standbys. This report shall include, but not be limited to the number of activities and the type of activity(e.g. CPR class, ambulance standby). Other information must be provided when necessary to prove fulfillment of contractual obligations, including but not limited to, the number of hours service was provided, or the number of public service announcements published. f. Patient care reports. The Medical Director has the right to inspect patient care reports for purposes of maintaining and ensuring quality of medical care in the Salt Lake City EMS system. To facilitate this review, Contractor's personnel shall complete a patient care report form as specified by the Medical Director for all patients for whom care is rendered, regardless of whether such patient is transported. Contractor shall make these records available to the Medical Director each month. 2. Other Reports. a. Below Standards Equipment/Staffing Report. This report of any below standards equipment or staffing situation which has the potential to affect the safety, health, and welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City shall be due immediately to the Battalion Chief of the Medical Division, and a written report is due no later than two business days after such below standards equipment or staffing situation occurs. b. Annual Report. The Annual Report shall meet requirements specified in this Agreement. c. Report of Employees' Certifications. Contractor shall ensure that all of Contractor's personnel are appropriately certified at both the State and local levels, and shall furnish to the Contract Administrator documentation of same as required by the Ambulance Ordinance. d. Report of Progress in Developing Electronic Patient Care Report Capability. This report shall be provided as often as is necessary for the Contract Administrator to be informed regarding this project or as requested by the Contract Administrator. e. Report of Compliance with Dispatch Protocols. This shall be a report of compliance with dispatch protocols by Contractor's dispatch personnel. This report is due upon the date specified by the Dispatch Steering Page 40 of 58 Committee, and shall have content and format specified by the Dispatch Steering Committee f. Report of Patient/Customer Satisfaction. This report shall be provided biannually to the Contract Administrator, and shall contain tabulated results of comments and opinions gathered through satisfaction surveys. g. Copies of Complete Patient Reports and/or State Medical Incident Reports ("Smirfs") shall be provided monthly. h. Copies of Quality Improvement (`QI") reports shall be provided monthly. There are two reports due: one for dispatch quality improvement as generated by the Aqua program and one operations quality improvement report. i. Copies of Vehicle Maintenance Logs and Damage Occurrence and Repair reports. These reports shall be furnished to the City upon request. J. Copies of monthly Safety Reports covering vehicle and other accidents, injuries, hazardous material exposures, and other safety related problems. 3. Written Requests. Written requests to change the Operations Response Plan are due to the Contract Administrator at thirty(30) calendar days prior to the desired implementation date. Actual implementation of any requested change shall be subject to the prior approval of the Contract Administrator. G. Major Breach. l. Definitions Of Major Breach. Conditions and circumstances which shall constitute a major breach of this agreement by the Contractor shall include but not be limited to the following: a. Failure of Contractor to meet the response time requirements set forth in Section II, Paragraph D of Exhibit"A" of this Agreement; b. Accumulation of Liquidated Damages that in the sole reasonable discretion of the Contract Administrator are excessive and represent a threat and danger to the safety, health, and welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City; c. Failure of Contractor to operate the ambulance service in a manner which enables the City and Contractor or the City or Contractor to maintain and remain in compliance with the requirements of applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations; Page 41 of 58 d. Failure to provide data or incorrect or falsification of data supplied during the course of operations, including by way of example but not by way of exclusion, dispatch data, patient report data, response time data, financial data, or altering response code designations to enhance Contractor's apparent performance, or falsification of any other data required under this Agreement; e. Excessive and unauthorized scaling down of operations to the detriment of performance during a "lame duck" period, where a "lame duck" period means any period during which this Agreement is active after either (1) notice of agreement termination has been provided, or(2) it is evident that the current term will not, or cannot, be extended pursuant to the terms of the Agreement; f. Excessive failure to maintain equipment in accordance with manufacturer recommended maintenance practices; g. Excessive failure of Contractor's employees to conduct themselves in a professional and courteous manner, and to present a professional appearance as determined in the sole reasonable discretion of the Contract Administrator; h. Failure to submit required financial or other reports to the UDOH or BEMS as required by applicable rules or laws; i. Failure to comply with approved rate setting, billing, or collection provisions of this Agreement; j. Failure to comply with Most Favored Customer provisions of this Agreement; k. Failure of Contractor to cooperate with and assist the City after a major breach has been declared as provided for herein, even if it is later determined that such breach never occurred or that the cause of such breach was beyond Contractor's reasonable control; 1. Acceptance by Contractor or any of Contractor's employees of any bribe, kick-back, or consideration of any kind in exchange for any consideration whatsoever,when such consideration or action on the part of Contractor or Contractor's employees could be reasonably construed to be a violation of federal, state, or local law; m. Payment by Contractor or any of Contractor's employees of any bribe, kick-back or consideration of any kind to any federal, state, or local public official in exchange for any consideration whatsoever, when such consideration could be reasonably construed to be a violation of any federal, state, or local law; Page 42 of 58 n. Failure to meet medical standards required in this Agreement or as reasonably required by the Medical Director; o. Failure of Contractor to maintain insurance in accordance with this Agreement; p. Failure to maintain a Performance Standby Letter of Credit with a federally insured banking institution with a debt rating of 1B or higher by the FDIC, BBB or higher by Standard& Poor's Corporation, Baa2 or higher by Moody's Investors Service, or a comparable rating issued by some other nationally recognized rating agency in the amount specified by the terms and conditions of this Agreement or as directed by the City Treasurer; q. Failure to submit audited financial statements prepared by a certified public accountant or public accounting firm for any parent company and Contractor within the specified time frame under the terms and conditions of this Agreement or as directed upon reasonable notice by the SLCFD's Financial Manager; r. Failure of the Dispatch Center to maintain accreditation through the NAED; s. Failure to comply with the Contractor's Safety Program and applicable UOSHA, EPA, NFPA, and UDOT regulations; and t. Any other failure of performance, medical or other standards, or violation of law, as required in this Agreement and which is determined in the reasonable discretion of the Contract Administrator to constitute a major breach. 2. Provisions for Curing Breach. a. In the event of major or minor breach, the City shall give the Contractor written notice, return receipt requested, setting forth with reasonable specificity the nature of the breach. Within five (5)business days of receipt of such notice, the Contractor shall deliver to the City, in writing, a plan to cure such breach. The plan shall be updated, in writing, every five (5) business days until the breach is cured. The Contractor shall have the right to cure such breach within thirty(30) calendar days of receipt of notice of breach. If the Contractor fails to cure such breach within the period allowed for cure (such failure to be determined by the sole and absolute discretion of the City), or the Contractor fails to timely deliver the cure plan, or updates to the City, the City may immediately terminate the Agreement. The Contractor shall cooperate completely and immediately with the City and the State BEMS to affect a prompt and Page 43 of 58 orderly transfer of all responsibilities to an approved licensed provider. Contractor shall be required to cooperate with the City and to continue to provide service until a replacement provider can assume service. b. The Contractor shall not be prohibited from disputing any findings of default through litigation, provided, however, that such litigation shall not have the effect of delaying, in any way, the transfer of operations to the replacement approved licensed provider. Such dispute by the Contractor shall not delay the City's access to funds made available by the Performance Standby Letter of Credit. These provisions shall be specifically stipulated and agreed to by both parties as being reasonable and necessary for the protection of public health and safety. Any legal dispute concerning the finding that a default has occurred shall be initiated and shall take place only after the transfer of operations to a replacement approved licensed provider has been completed, and shall not, under any circumstances delay the process of transferring operations to such provider or delay the City's access to performance security funds under the Performance Standby Letter of Credit as needed by the City to finance such transfer of operations. c. The Contractor's cooperation with and full support of the City's termination of the Agreement, as well as the Contractor's immediate release of performance security funds to the City shall not be construed as acceptance by the Contractor of the finding of default. However, failure on the part of the Contractor to cooperate fully with the City and the State BEMS to affect a smooth and safe transition shall itself constitute a breach of contract. 3. Provisions for Agreement Termination. a. In the event the Contract Administrator, with confirmation by the Salt Lake City Attorney's Office, determines that a major breach has occurred and the nature of the breach in the Contract Administrator's opinion is such that the public safety, health, and welfare are endangered, and after Contractor has been given written notice and a reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiency, not to exceed a thirty(30) calendar day time period except in the event of an emergency condition as determined by the Contract Administrator, the matter shall be presented to the City Attorney for review. If, after a review of the major breach, the City Attorney determines that a major breach has occurred and that the public safety, health, and welfare would be endangered by allowing Contractor to continue its operations, the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement and notify the UDOH of such termination so that a replacement provider can be licensed. Contractor shall cooperate completely and immediately with the City to effect the transition to a new provider. Page 44of58 b. These provisions are specifically stipulated and agreed to by both parties as being reasonable and necessary to the protection of public health and safety, and any legal dispute concerning the finding that a major breach has occurred shall be initiated and shall take place only after the agreement termination has been completed, and shall not under any circumstances delay the transition to a new provider or the City's access to performance guaranty funds as needed by the City to finance said transition of operations. c. Contractor's cooperation with and full support of such transition, as well as Contractor's immediate release of performance security funds to the City shall not be construed as acceptance by the Contractor of the finding of major breach, and shall not in any way jeopardize Contractor's right to recovery should a court later find that the declaration of major breach was made in error. However, failure on the part of the Contractor to cooperate fully with the City to effect a safe and smooth transition of operations shall itself constitute a major breach of this Agreement, even if it was later determined that the original declaration of major breach by the Contract Administrator was made in error. 4. Remedies. The existence of a major or minor breach by the Contractor, whether or not public safety and health is endangered, shall entitle the City to make a draw on the Performance Standby Letter of Credit upon written request of the Contract Administrator in the amount or amounts as determined by the Contract Administrator. Nothing in this section shall operate to limit the City's remedies under law, including those rights and remedies contained elsewhere in this Agreement. Notice of declaration of a major breach and/or termination shall be made in writing to the highest ranking Contractor employee at the Contractor's Salt Lake City operation. H. Performance Guaranty. 1. Contractor expressly contracts that, in the event of major breach by the Contractor, Contractor shall work with the City to ensure continuous and uninterrupted delivery of services, regardless of the nature or causes underlying the breach. Contractor agrees and contracts that there is an obligation to assist City in every effort to ensure uninterrupted and continuous service delivery in the event of major breach, even if Contractor disagrees with the determination of major breach. 2. Performance Standby Letter of Credit. Prior to the date of execution of this Agreement, Contractor shall provide the City Treasurer with an irrevocable Performance Standby Letter of Credit in a form satisfactory to the City Treasurer. The amount of the Performance Standby Letter of Credit shall be two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) issued by a federally insured (FDIC)banking institution with any one of the following debt ratings: 1B or higher by the FDIC; BBB or higher by Standard & Poor's Corporation; Baa2 or higher by Moody's Investors Service; or a comparable rating issued by some other nationally recognized rating agency. The federally insured banking institution on which the Performance Standby Letter of Credit is to be drawn Page 45 of 58 shall be acceptable as determined by the City Treasurer. The Performance Standby Letter of Credit shall be used: a. To ensure the payment by Contractor of(i) any Liquidated Damages in accordance with this Agreement, (ii) any expenses due to violations that result in a minor or major breach or agreement termination, and (iii) failure to make any payment owed by Contractor to City under this Agreement. At any time, the City may draw on the Performance Standby Letter of Credit to satisfy such amounts. Contractor shall structure the Performance Standby Letter of Credit so that at any time prior to an agreement termination by the City, if the City draws upon the Performance Standby Letter of Credit and reduces the amount below two hundred twenty five thousand dollars ($225,000.00) then the Contractor must restore the Performance Standby Letter of Credit to the level of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00)within ten (10) business days. In no event shall the Contractor be required to replenish the Performance Standby Letter of Credit after an agreement termination has been effectuated by the City unless the Performance Standby Letter of Credit is not at the amount of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) at the time of agreement termination. b. To ensure the operation of the ambulance service after an agreement termination has been effectuated by the City including but not limited to, the cost of any unpaid PMA fees, any necessary rebidding, renewal, and/or negotiations, or any related administrative expenses. 3. Notice of Change. The Performance Standby Letter of Credit shall contain the following endorsement: "At least sixty(60) calendar days prior written notice shall be given to the City by the financial institution that has provided the Performance Standby Letter of Credit of any intention to cancel, replace, fail to renew, or materially alter this Performance Standby Letter of Credit. Such notice shall be given by certified mail to the City Treasurer." 4. Contract Termination. In the event of an agreement termination by the City in accordance with this Agreement, the City may draw down the Performance Standby Letter of Credit from time to time in such amount or amounts as it may determine to cover any expenses or losses to the City due to the Agreement termination and as necessary to cover any fees due the City pursuant to the surviving provision of Paragraph 0 of this Section II. • 5. City Retention of Performance Standby Letter of Credit. The Performance Standby Letter of Credit shall become the property of the City in the event that this Agreement is canceled by reason of major breach, default of the Contractor, or any other reason. The Performance Standby Letter of Credit shall be retained by the City and returned to Contractor at the expiration of Contractor's continued obligation to pay fees Page 46 of 58 to the City pursuant to Paragraph 0 of this Section II after termination of this Agreement, provided there is no outstanding minor or major breach, default, unpaid Liquidated Damages, other Contractor payment deductions, adjustments, taxes due by Contractor, or any other debts due to the City or to other entities by Contractor. 6. Rights Reserved. The rights reserved to the City with respect to the Performance Standby Letter of Credit are in addition to all other rights of the City, whether reserved by this Agreement or otherwise authorized by law, and no action, proceeding or right with respect to the Perfomance Standby Letter of Credit shall affect any other right the City has or may have. Contractor Facilities and Resources. l. Offices. The City prefers that Contractor locate and maintain its maintenance facility and billing office within the city limits of City. However, if this is not cost effective, due to economies of scale, such facilities may be located outside the city limits. Contractor must, however, at least maintain a toll-free telephone number providing access to a Contractor representative who can answer citizen's questions regarding ambulance bills. The Contractor shall also provide the SLCFD with after- hours telephone numbers of Contractor's supervisory personnel so that they can be called at any time that an emergency occurs. 2. City Provided Resources. (Note: To be completed if an Offeror proposes and the City agrees to provide certain facilities or other resources for Contractor.) J. Minimum Standards for Contractor Vehicles, Equipment, and Coverage. 1. Contractor shall employ whatever level of effort is necessary to achieve the response time standards and other performance results required by the terms of this Agreement. Superior response time performance early in a month is not justification to allow inferior response time performance late in the month. Therefore, Contractor shall minimize variations or fluctuations in response time performance according to day of the week or week of the month. 2. Peak deployment is seven(7) ambulances. A total fleet size of not less than one hundred twenty-nine percent (129%) of peak deployment shall be maintained. At any moment Contractor shall have in the City and response ready, at least 129% of the ambulances required at that time by the Operations Plan. Contractor shall have at least seven(7) ambulances on duty and in service at all times, at least two of which shall be four-wheel drive. The SLCFD Dispatch Center shall be notified anytime less than seven (7) ambulances are on duty and in service. Of the ambulances on duty and in service at least four(4) must be available for emergency responses. To be on duty and in service for one (1) unit hour, an ambulance must be fully response ready, including being staffed by two persons as described herein who are properly listed in the City CAD as staffing the ambulance, for at least 30 minutes of any clock hour. Page 47 of 58 3. Ambulances shall be Type I or Type Ill and capable of carrying two (2) supine patients and meeting ambulance requirements for Utah State law. Other future, comparable vehicles conforming to the highest ambulance industry standards may only be substituted after approval by the Contract Administrator and Medical Director. All ambulances and other emergency response vehicles must display lettering which identifies them as serving Salt Lake City and identifies the Contractor's approved business name. The Contract Administrator must approve the use of Salt Lake City logos, trademarks, lettering or other commonly used City identification on ambulances. Ambulance numbers shall be displayed on the sides, front, and rear of ambulances. Exterior markings must be the same for all ambulances. Ambulances must be stocked with medical equipment and supplies according to the SLCFD's Medical Director's specifications and Utah State rules. These specifications may be modified from time to time with the Contractor having opportunity to provide input. 4. Only mechanically sound and serviceable vehicles may be used. No ambulance may have cumulative mileage of more than 175,000 miles. Contractor may request that the City inspect and approve vehicles for extended life beyond 175,000 miles based on superior maintenance and physical condition. The City shall not unreasonably withhold approval of extended vehicle use. In no event, shall any vehicle be permitted to remain in service after 200,000 miles. K. Most Favored Customer. All factors of production employed by the Contractor in the performance of this Agreement whether leased or otherwise provided by City or other sources shall be devoted to the work of this Agreement. These "factors of production" include equipment, supplies, facilities, locally assigned personnel, and other production factors utilized by the Contractor in the performance of services in accordance with this Agreement. The intent of this provision is to establish the Contractor's local operations as resources fully contracted to the service of the City. The City shall not object to Contractor's request to employ Contractor's local resources in the performance of other work so long as service under this Agreement is not impaired. The City does not intend that by allowing the Contractor to use City assets, that these assets may be used to provide services outside the City without reimbursement to the City. Instead, the City shall approve Contractor's requests to render such outside services only if Contractor provides a method whereby such other customers participate, along with the City, in covering a fair share of Contractor's fixed operating costs and overhead, thereby reducing accordingly and fairly the City's share of such fixed costs. L. Outside Work. Contractor shall not be prohibited from doing work outside the immediate scope of this Agreement either within or outside the City provided: (i) all such income shall be reflected in Contractor's financial documents and; (ii) Contractor's methods of producing such services are designed to enhance Contractor's peak load capacity in City, disaster readiness, and overall efficiency, in City; and do not detract from Contractor's ability to provide service in City. Contractor shall not utilize the factors of production used in the performance of this Agreement(e.g.,personnel, equipment, facilities, communications systems,billing staff, data processing equipment, medical direction, etc.) except as approved by the City. Approval for Contractor to do such other work may be granted by City if: Page 48of58 1. For ambulance service, the medical standards are the same as those required hereunder, including personnel standards, equipment standards, medical protocols, medications carried, and other standards of medical performance. 2. That a fair means of sharing in costs of medical control and regulation is established. 3. That the financial arrangements are such that revenues (i.e., subsidy payments or fees) derived from the work shall cover a fair share of system overhead, facility costs, communications system costs, and operating expenses. 4. That response time requirements for ambulance service are performance- oriented, and that no provision for "dedicated" unit coverage is contained in the service agreement which might restrict Contractor's deployment/redeployment options. M. On-Scene Medical Control. The SLCFD has ultimate responsibility for scene control and patient care. The Uniform Salt Lake City Incident Command System ("ICS") and protocols, SLCFD policies, procedures, practices, and medical control shall control management of the activities at the scene, enroute to the scene, and in transport to the hospital. l. Upon arrival at the scene where patient care is already in progress by a City paramedic, Contractor shall locate and make contact with the City Incident Commander for an information report on patient care. If requested, assist with such care under the direction of the Incident Commander until transfer of the patient to Contractor for transport unless City paramedic rides in the ambulance with the patient to the transport destination. 2. Upon arrival at the scene by a SLCFD Incident Commander, where patient care is already in progress by the Contractor, the Incident Commander shall assume command of the scene. Contractor shall provide to the Incident Commander an information report on the condition of the patient and any treatment that has been provided. If further assistance is required by the Contractor prior to transfer of the patient to Contractor for transport, such assistance shall be under the direction of the Incident Commander. Under the direction of the Incident Commander and following the SLCFD medical protocols, the highest medically certified person of either City or Contractor shall have responsibility for patient care. N. Private Transports. The terms of this Agreement do not apply to or affect or control seven digit telephone calls received directly by the licensed non-911 ambulance or paramedic service. The Utah Department of Health encourages all emergency medical transport providers to contact 911 when appropriate. For life threatening calls made directly to the Contractor, such calls shall be dispatched to the SLCFD to insure proper service to its citizens. Page 49 of 58 O. Billing Information. The Contractor shall be responsible for all billings and collections for ambulance service rendered under the terms of this Agreement, including the billing of fees allowed by the BEMS for the SLCFD's paramedics when they ride with the patient on one of Contractor's ambulances to a health care facility (PMA Fees). For each situation where the SLCFD's paramedics accompany the patient in Contractor's ambulance to a health care facility or when they provide on-scene treatment and release of the patient, Contractor shall pay all such PMA Fees to the City within 100 days after the end of the month for which such fees were invoiced. Contractor shall use all reasonable means, including the services of a collection agency, necessary to collect all bills. Contractor shall include on all bills for ambulance service, including emergency, non-emergency and treat-no-transports, a local or toll free telephone number through which Salt Lake City citizens may inquire about their bills. All PMA or other fees now or hereafter authorized that are billable on behalf of the City's paramedic or other SLCFD providers shall be subject to this provision and remitted to the City. The provisions of this paragraph and the requirement to provide and maintain a Performance Standby Letter of Credit shall survive the termination of this Agreement for a period of five (5) years. P. Public Relations and Education. In cooperation with and under the direction of the SLCFD, Contractor shall provide emergency medical information and education to citizens of Salt Lake City including but not limited to Contractor's and City's emergency medical services systems, first aid, CPR, injury prevention, and 911 system information for the duration of this Agreement and any extensions at no charge to City. Sufficient classes and events shall be provided to meet the public's demand. Fees charged citizens for classes shall be reasonable and competitive within the local market. Documentation of revenue from classes shall be provided to the City's Contract Administrator with each year's audited financial statements. 1. Public Relations Service Events Required. Contractor shall provide at least 100 hours of public relations service events per year. These hours shall not include paid standbys, but may include the events listed above. 2. Internet Web Site. In collaboration with the SLCFD, Contractor shall develop an internet web site that provides information about their organization. The web site shall be regularly updated and include a schedule of upcoming public education classes and other events of interest to the public. The web site shall allow persons to electronically register for those classes and events. Q. Statements and Audit Rights. Contractor shall provide audited financial information to the City that covers Contractor's operations in Salt Lake City under this Agreement and hereby grants the City the right to audit all applicable books and records maintained by or at the direction of Contractor,both physical and electronic, that are related to the services and terms of this agreement. 1. Financial Statements. Within one hundred twenty(120) days after the close of the Contractor's fiscal year, Contractor agrees to provide to the Contract Administrator annual audited financial statements prepared by an independent certified public Page 50 of 58 accountant or certified public accounting firm in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. Annual audited financial statements shall be submitted for Contractor's Salt Lake City operation and shall include a breakdown by service type, including all emergency and non-emergency transports, annual subscription program, public education activities, and any other operations. 2. Document Review. The City or its agent or designee shall have the right to access and inspect the books and records of Contractor's Salt Lake City operations without notice. The City or its agent or designee shall have the right to access and inspect any other books and records of Contractor, Contractor's parent corporation, or any other controlling or associated entity that maintains records applicable to the Salt Lake City operations of Contractor. R. Quality Control. Quality control inspections or quality improvement processes shall not relieve Contractor of the responsibility and duty to maintain the equipment, facilities, personnel, and operations strictly in accordance with this Agreement and in accordance with the highest standards in the ambulance industry. 1. Inspection of vehicles, equipment and facilities. In the interest of public safety and health and to review quality, the Medical Director or his/her designee, and/or the Contract Administrator or his/her designee shall have the right to inspect Contractor's vehicles, equipment, and facilities at any time to ensure that they are being properly stocked, equipped and maintained. 2. Patient care reports. The Medical Director has the right to inspect patient care reports for purposes of maintaining and ensuring quality of medical care in the Salt Lake City EMS system. To facilitate this review, Contractor's personnel shall complete a patient care report form as specified by the Medical Director for all patients for whom care is rendered, regardless of whether such patient is transported. Contractor shall make these records available to the Medical Director each month. 3. Customer satisfaction records and surveys shall be developed and maintained by- Contractor and shall be made available to the City. a. Inspection shall be provided for Contractor's records, including but not limited to complaint files. The Contract Administrator or his designee may request the content of information contained in Contractor's complaint files or other files or records maintained to determine customer satisfaction. b. Contractor shall regularly solicit patient/customer opinions regarding quality of service provided via customer surveys distributed to patients and other methods of collecting information. Contractor shall distribute surveys to also determine the level of satisfaction of patients and Page 51 of 58 customers. All surveys shall be tabulated and results presented semi- annually to the Contract Administrator. 4. PROCESS FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION. Conflicts shall be resolved at the lowest possible level. The following "Levels of Conflict Resolution" are given as a progressive guideline (from lowest level to highest level) for resolving personality conflicts. However, if the situation demands bypassing a lower level to a higher level, then this can be done at the discretion of the SLCFD Captain. a. 1st Level of Conflict Resolution. The two medics (and/or crew) discuss the conflict during(or immediately following) the call and resolve. This should only happen if the patient care and/or public perception would not be negatively affected. Contractor's Supervisor and the Salt Lake City Fire Medical Director may or may not be notified. b. 2nd Level of Conflict resolution. The ambulance provider and SLCFD meet after the call (usually informally at the station) and resolve. Only involved parties should participate. The goal is to resolve the situation at the lowest possible level; therefore, captains or higher-level supervisors should not be present unless directly involved in the original conflict. Contractor's Supervisor and the Medical Director may or may not be notified. c. 3rd Level of Conflict Resolution. A formal meeting is set up using Contractor's Supervisor and the Medical Director as conflict resolution facilitators. Only the involved parties should participate. Crews should be placed out of service. No higher-level supervisors should be present. However,the Fire Company's Battalion Chief and Contractor's management should be notified that the meeting is taking place. d. 4th Level of Conflict Resolution. Each agency's Director will be consulted as to appropriate resolution, up to and including involvement of the State EMS agency. Special Note: At any time if a clinical issue is discovered, each agency will utilize the appropriate COI process in place to resolve the situation. However, if a personality conflict is encountered, every reasonable effort will be made to encourage personnel to utilize the appropriate Level of Conflict Resolution process. If, for any reason, personnel choose not to utilize Levels 1 through 3, Level 4 shall be instituted using the chain-of-command. 5. The parties agree that there shall be established a Board of Review to investigate complaints received from any source with regard to ambulance service performed by the Contractor and to report the results of its investigation and recommendation to the Fire Chief within five (5)business days after receipt of said complaint. Said Board shall consist of the EMS Battalion Chief, the Emergency Medical Service Director, the SLCFD Medical director, and the Contract Administrator. On any complaint review, all Page 52 of 58 affected parties shall have the right to he present. Conversely, the Contractor shall have the right to request the Board of Review to investigate improper conduct by members of the SLCFD. S. Personnel Certifications. Contractor is responsible for ensuring that all of its personnel hold valid State, local, and other certifications and licenses at all times as required to meet the Contractor's responsibilities under this Agreement. When on duty and in- service, ambulances must be staffed by at least two (2) persons who must be certified by the Utah Department of Health ("UDOI I") Bureau of Emergency Medical Services ("BEMS"). All of Contractor's personnel who render patient care in any capacity as the Contractor's representative, must hold Utah State certification or license. In addition to these requirements, all personnel who provide patient care must hold other current and appropriate certifications, licenses, and permits as required by the Medical Director. T. Mutual Aid. Contractor shall establish reasonable and effective mutual aid agreements with surrounding municipalities, corporations, or other entities, provided, however, any mutual aid providers must provide substantially medically equivalent services and each agreement is approved by the City. Contractor shall call the mutual aid provider that can supply an ambulance to the necessary location in the least amount of time. Contractor's Salt Lake City ambulances shall not be dispatched on mutual aid responses if doing so would reasonably compromise the Contractor's ability to provide emergency services within Salt Lake City. U. Medical Direction. Contractor agrees to adhere to rules for operation; patient treatment protocols; telephone protocols, dispatch protocols; and other protocols, policies, and/or procedures both currently in force and subsequently promulgated by the Medical Director. V. Helicopter Rescue Unit Service. The City and Contractor recognize that helicopter air ambulances may provide services in the City at the request of a SLCFD Incident Commander. This Agreement shall not be construed to affect the rights of any entity to operate its air ambulance, provided such operations are within the requirements of the Inter-hospital District II-B protocols. W. Standby Coverage. Contractor shall provide the following standby coverage: 1. Upon request by City police, fire, or dispatch personnel, the Contractor shall furnish courtesy standby coverage at emergency incidents involving a potential danger to City personnel or the general public at no charge to the City. 2. This Agreement is for 911 BLS Ambulance Service and is not intended to regulate, control, influence, or obstruct non-911 licensure, service or business. This agreement does not encourage nor discourage a licensed 911 ambulance service from obtaining a non-911 ambulance service license for the purpose of providing non-911 service to the community. If the licensed and contracted 911 BLS ambulance provider also holds the non-911 ambulance license, the following provisions will apply: Page 53 of 58 a. Contractor may provide ambulance coverage for community events using one or more ambulances dedicated to those events. Documentation of revenue from these standby events shall be provided with the annual audited financial statements and shall be listed separately from other sources of revenue. Standbys for which revenue is received shall not be reported on the Monthly Report of Public Education Activities and Community Service Standbys. b. Contractor may not provide ambulance standby coverage for community events using ambulances listed in the CAD as being dedicated to covering the City. Using ambulances to provide standby coverage for special events so that less than seven (7) ambulances are on duty and in service as described in Minimum Standards for Contractor Vehicles, Equipment, and Coverage above shall result, at least but may not be limited to, Liquidated Damages being assessed for there being less than seven (7) ambulances on duty and in-service. c. Ambulances assigned to standby at community events shall be entered into the City CAD and assigned a CAD call number at the beginning of the assignment. Although response times shall not be considered for Agreement compliance, ambulances shall be dispatched to the event via the CAD and upon arrival shall report "ambulance arrived on scene". Upon conclusion of assignment to the event, the dispatcher shall denote such in the CAD, as for any other response. X. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA"). The Contractor shall meet all HIPAA requirements as applicable; including the execution of an agreement with the SLCFD providing for the exchange of protected health information. Y. Disaster Assistance and Response. Contractor shall be actively involved in planning for and responding to any declared disaster in the City. In the event a disaster within the City or a neighboring city is declared, normal operations shall be suspended and Contractor shall respond in accordance with the City's disaster plan. Contractor shall use best efforts to maintain primary emergency services and may suspend non- emergency service as required. During the period of declared disaster, the City shall not impose performance requirements and penalties for response times. The direct marginal costs resulting from the performance of disaster services that are non-recoverable from third parties shall be submitted to the appropriate state or federal agencies for cost recovery. Such marginal costs shall not include cost for maintaining normal levels of service during the disaster,but shall be limited to the reasonable and verifiable direct marginal cost of these additional services. City shall provide all reasonable assistance to the Contractor in recovering these costs, however, City shall not be responsible for payments to Contractor. Z. Supplies and Equipment. Contractor shall restock all disposable medical supplies used by all Salt Lake City EMS System personnel during patient care. Page 54 of 58 1. Subject to the terms of the Federal Safe Harbor Act, Title 42 CFR 1001.952, the Contractor shall rotate pharmaceuticals in the Salt Lake City EMS system by withdrawing all unadulterated pharmaceuticals held by City Fire units after the date that is three (3) months prior to the marked expiration date and placing them on ambulances. Contractor shall provide City Fire units with duplicate pharmaceuticals having a longer period before expiration. 2. Contractor shall sub-contract with an agency appropriately qualified to collect, transport and dispose of all medical waste generated by the Salt Lake City EMS system. Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to ensure that its sub-contractor follows all applicable rules and regulations pertaining to proper disposal of medical waste. III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY A. The City shall request ambulance service from Contractor for all 911 requests for emergency medical service through the City's dispatch system or electronically over a dedicated data line. B. Audit and Performance review. 1. The City reserves the right to audit all accounts of Contractor as it relates to this Agreement on an annual basis. City shall provide Contractor at least thirty(30) calendar days notice of said audit. 2. The City reserves the right to conduct a review of Contractor's performance utilizing criteria from this Agreement. This shall not be limited to mere compliance with the terms of the Agreement. Contractor shall have demonstrated performance above the minimum requirements of this Agreement. C. Contractor may request the consent of the Contract Administrator or his designee for use of City facilities to locate ambulances and crews. Such approval shall be subject to execution of appropriate use agreement(s) and the following conditions: 1. The Contract Administrator or his designee shall have the right to review and approve any location requested. 2. No modifications, changes or remodeling of any SLCFD facility shall occur without the Contract Administrator's approval. 3. All costs associated with location, accommodation, modifications, changes, remodeling, or any other expense shall be borne solely by Contractor. 4. Contractor agrees that its employees shall abide by all applicable City facility rules and regulations. D. The SLCFD is the licensed rescue paramedic provider and the designated quick response provider for Salt Lake City and shall provide all advanced life support and paramedic services and care. Page 55 of 58 Page 56 of 58 CONTRACT NO. 12-1-04-0575 EXHIBIT "B" FEE SCHEDULE 911 BLS AMBULANCE SERVICE GENERAL A. Rates and fees stated include all costs associated with the performance of the services specified, including materials, supervision, labor, insurance, transportation, delivery, fuel or other surcharges, demurrage, and related costs. No other charges shall be allowed. All prices and fees are stated in U.S. dollars. B. All rates and fees shall be based on full cost accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. II. COLLECTION AND PAYMENT OF PMA FEES Pursuant to Utah Code Annotated 26-8a-403 Administrative Rule R426-16, the Utah Department of Health sets the maximum allowable base ambulance rates that may be charged by Contractor for the services contemplated herein. The rates are evaluated and new rates are approved every year with a July 1 effective date and Contractor's rates may be changed in accordance with such changes. Contractor agrees that its ambulance transport fees shall not exceed the maximum base fees set by the Utah Department of Health. Contractor may, when applicable, charge up to the maximum mileage rates, surcharges, and special provisions fees set by the Utah Department of Health. The fees charged to patients shall be for actual services rendered, not license level. All fees shall be billed by Contractor to the patients, not to the City, and the Contractor shall have complete responsibility for collection of the amounts billed. The City shall have no responsibility for the payment of fees to the Contractor. The Utah Department of Health requires that any ambulance service that interfaces with a paramedic rescue service must have an inter-local or equivalent agreement in place, dealing with reimbursing the paramedic agency for services provided up to the maximum allowable rate per transport. This Agreement shall serve as such agreement and Contractor shall pay the City the maximum allowable PMA fee(s) for each transport where a City paramedic is on board. Page 57 of 58 ATTACHMENTS Geographic Service Area S,;,_K'LAKE CITY (Salt Lake City Boundary Map) See attached map (PDF file): b e6c fire stations& hospitals.pdf Page 58 of 58 \)SALT CITY O 1 O"� �� ROCKY J. FLUHART _ '1,� LAKE' ' ROSS C. -ROCKY' ANDERSON - -- neF�,o rn ni s��.�nvc.aF'.irer DEPARTMENT OF MANAGEMENT SERVICES ti+aYoa PURCHASING, CONTRACTS AND PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DIVISION December 16, 2005 SOUTHWEST AMBULANCE Barry Landon 222 E MAIN ST MESA, AZ 85201-7410 RE: Agreement with Salt Lake City Corporation to Provide: AMBULANCE SERVICE 12-1-04-0575- Barry Landon, Enclosed is your copy of the Agreement which has been signed, executed and activated by Salt Lake City Corporation. To coordinate the use of this contract you can contact the following person: SCOTT FREITAG @ 801- 799-4167 INSURANCE: Please work with your insurance company in providing updated insurance certificates throughout the term of your contract. They can fax them to my attention. Thank you for your participation in working with Salt Lake City Corporation. Sincerely, 6.4A4r)(c _ Cindy Hooker Contract Coordinator PH: 535-6450, Fax: 535-6213 Enclosure cc: SCOTT FREITAG 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 235, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1-3104 TELEPHONE: B01-535-7661 FAX: 801-535-6190 W WW.S LC PU RCH AS ING.0 OM ®aecrcceo vnvca CONTRACT No. 12-1-o4-c3575 RECORDED Rev. December 12, 2005/ds AGREEMENT DEC 1 5 2005 911 BLS AMBULANCE SER i RECORDER FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY FIRE DEPARTMENT THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into as of December 21, 2005 by and between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a municipal corporation of the State of Utah (hereinafter the "City"), and SW GENERAL, INC. \DBA\ SOUTHWEST AMBULANCE, an Arizona corporation (hereinafter the"Contractor"). WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Fire Department("SLCFD"), a division of the City, provides licensed rescue paramedic and designated quick response services for the City but does not provide licensed ambulance transport services; and WHEREAS, the City is willing to enter into an exclusive agreement with the Contractor to provide a fully integrated 911 basic life support ambulance transport service ("911 BLS Ambulance Service") system which meets or exceeds all legal requirements including but not limited to (1) City ordinances; (2) Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (`GEMS") Emergency Medical Services ("EMS") Act, rules, and regulations; and (3) other relevant Federal, State, and local laws, regulations, and rules; and WHEREAS, Contractor is a highly qualified provider of 911 BLS Ambulance Services and has the capability to meet or exceed the City's specifications, standards and requirements set forth in this Agreement; and WHEREAS, the City finds that such regulations and this Agreement are necessary for the purpose of promoting the health, safety and general welfare of the community by providing a 911 BLS Ambulance Service that can provide quality care, with reasonable, reliable response time standards; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the promises and covenants hereinafter contained, it is agreed by and between the parties hereto as follows: 1. TERM. The Contractor agrees to provide for the City certain 911 BLS Ambulance Services as described in Exhibit"A", attached hereto and incorporated by this reference, beginning at 0001 on Monday, 3 April 2006. This Agreement shall be for a term of four(4) years from the date of the execution of this Agreement. The City may extend this Agreement for two (2) additional four (4) year time periods under the same terms and conditions and in compliance with Utah Code 26- 8a-413 or relevant Utah law. Notice of time extensions shall be in writing served upon the Contractor by regular mail at least thirty(30) calendar days prior to the expiration of the original term of this Agreement, or any renewal teal!, in order for such extension to be effective. Notwithstanding the expiration of the teini of this Agreement, including any team extension(s), the parties agree that Contractor shall remain obligated to continue to remit PMA and any other required fees to the City in accordance with the provisions of Paragraph "0" of Section II of Exhibit"A" hereof. 2. RENEWAL. A. Term Extensions. The Contractor may request and the City may grant up to two, tour (4) year term extensions to this Agreement. The Contractor must provide its written request for a term extension ninety (90) calendar days prior to expiration of the initial term, or any subsequent term extension that was properly accepted by the City. Requests for extensions shall include any City-requested documentation supporting such extension. B. Evaluation Period. Twelve (12) months prior to expiration of the initial term, or any subsequent term extension thereof, the parties shall convene a joint committee to review agreement terms, perfoiniance, fees, and other factors to determine the desirability of continuing this Agreement and whether an amendment of any of its teinis is desirable. Actual term extension and any amendment of terms shall be subject to mutual agreement of the parties. C. Denial. For any term or term extension in which the Contractor fails to request a term extension or in which the City takes no action, then this Agreement shall, subject to the other terms hereof, terminate upon the expiration of its then current term. D. Term Extension Evaluation. In determining whether the City will extend the term of this Agreement, the City shall evaluate the Contractor on the basis of the following requirements: a. Performance Meeting Requirements. The City must make a specific finding that the Contractor's response time performance during the current contract period met or exceeded standards and that the Contractor met its other requirements under this Agreement. b. Maximum Fees. Contractor's rate must not exceed those allowed by the Utah Department of Health ("UDOH"). c. Medical Performance. The City's Medical Director("Medical Director") must find that Contractor has met all medical standards. 3. ADMINISTRATION. Unless specified otherwise in this Agreement, all services provided under this Agreement shall be coordinated under, and performed to the satisfaction of the City's Fire Chief or his designated representative,hereinafter referred to as "Contract Administrator." All financial commitments by the City shall be subject to the appropriation of funds by the City Council and the limitations on future budget commitments provided under applicable Utah law, including the Utah Constitution. If the Contractor needs clarification regarding any express provision of this Agreement, the Contractor may request from the Contract Administrator an interpretation of any express provision and the Contract Administrator will provide a written response to such request. The Contractor shall participate at the City's invitation in any processes, including committees,where the services arising from this Agreement are discussed, evaluated, or reviewed. Such services may include, but are not limited to, medical protocol, safety, dispatch services, and personnel standards of conduct. In the event the City receives from a third party a judicial or administrative claim for damages or claim for other relief arising from the services performed by the Contractor under this Agreement, the Contractor agrees to share equally with the City all legal costs associated with the response to such claim. The City and the Contractor agree that all reports and other information provided in writing to the City by the Contractor are subject to release to the public under the Utah Government Records Page 2 of 37 Access and Management Act (GRAMA). The Contractor is responsible to understand the application of GRAMA as it relates to the provisions of the Agreement. 4. CONTRACTOR WARRANTY. Contractor represents and warrants to the City that each of the following statements is true and correct. A. Existing Entities. Contractor has been registered and licensed as necessary in the State of Utah and Salt Lake City to enter into and perform its obligations under this Agreement and under each instrument described herein to which it is or will be a party. The Contractor agrees to obtain CASS accreditation for its 911 BLS operations under this Agreement on or near 1 November 2007. B. Due Authorization. This Agreement has been duly authorized by all necessary actions, and has been duly executed by Contractor. Neither the execution of this Agreement nor compliance with its terms and provisions by Contractor (i) requires the approval and consent of any other party, except such as have been duly obtained; (ii) contravenes any existing law,judgment, governmental rule, regulation, or order applicable to or binding on Contractor; or(iii) contravenes the corporate charter or bylaws of Contractor or any other contract or instrument in existence on the date of this Agreement to which Contractor is a party. C. Enforceability. This Agreement constitutes a legal, valid, and binding obligation of Contractor enforceable against Contractor in accordance with the terns of this Agreement. D. No Claims or Litigation. There are no pending, or to the knowledge of Contractor, threatened actions or proceedings before any court or administrative agency to which Contractor is a party, questioning the validity of this Agreement or any document or action contemplated in this Agreement. E. Financial Capability. Contractor is fully capable, financially and otherwise, to perform its obligations hereunder. 5. FEES &PAYMENT. For the ambulance services supplied by the Contractor hereunder, the Contractor shall bill and be paid by the person(s)receiving the ambulance service, not the City. The Contractor shall also bill and attempt to collect from such person(s) the maximum Paramedic Aboard("PMA") fees for paramedic services provided by the maximum PMA fees allowed by City when the City's paramedics ride in the ambulance in order to continue emergency medical service commenced at the initial pick-up site in accordance with applicable protocols and as further described in Exhibit"B"hereof. Regardless of the amounts actually collected for such PMA fees, the Contractor shall pay to the City the maximum PMA fees allowed to be charged for such services. The maximum fees that may be charged by the Contractor for ambulance and paramedic services shall be as set by the UDOH, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (`GEMS") from time to time for 911 Basic Life Support("BLS") ambulance service and, when applicable, 911 BLS and paramedic service. For such consideration, the Contractor shall furnish all materials, supervision, labor, and equipment to complete the requirements of this Agreement. The services and fees for any services provided by the City for the Contractor shall be set forth in Exhibits "A" and`B"hereof. With regard to the services provided by the Contractor hereunder, the Contractor shall only bill patients for the BLS ambulance transport service provided in accordance with this Agreement, and not any higher amount that might otherwise be allowed based solely on the Contractor's licensure level. 6. The following insurance requirements apply to this Agreement: Page 3 of 37 A. GENERAL INSUR_ANCEREQUIREMENTS FOR ALL POLICIES. I. Any insurance coverage required herein that is written on a "claims made" form rather than on an"occurrence" form shall (i) provide full prior acts coverage or have a retroactive date effective before the date of this Agreement, and(ii)be maintained for a period of at least three (3) years following the end of the term of this Agreement or contain a comparable "extended discovery" clause. Evidence of current extended discovery coverage and the purchase options available upon policy termination shall be provided to the City. 2. All policies of insurance shall be issued by insurance companies licensed to do business in the State of Utah and either: (a) Currently rated A- or better by A.M. Best Company; OR (b) Listed in the United States Treasury Department's current Listing of Approved Sureties (Department Circular 570), as amended. 3. The Contractor shall furnish certificates of insurance, acceptable to the City, verifying the foregoing matters concurrent with the execution hereof and thereafter as required. 4. In the event any work is subcontracted, the Contractor shall require its subcontractor, at no cost to the City, to secure and maintain all minimum insurance coverages required of the Contractor hereunder. 5. In the event that governmental immunity limits are subsequently altered by legislation or judicial opinion, the Contractor shall provide a new certificate of insurance within thirty(30) calendar days after being notified thereof in writing by the City, certifying coverage in compliance with the modified limits or, if no new limits are specified, in an amount acceptable to the City. 6. All required certificates and policies shall provide that coverage thereunder shall not be canceled or modified without providing 30 days prior written notice to the City in a manner approved by the City Attorney. B. REQUIRED INSURANCE POLICIES. The Contractor, at its own cost, shall secure and maintain during the term of this Agreement, including all renewal terms, the following minimum insurance coverage: 1. Worker's compensation and employer's liability insurance sufficient to cover all of the Contractor's employees pursuant to Utah law. This requirement includes those who are doing business as an individual and/or as a sole proprietor as well as corporations and partnerships. In the event any work is subcontracted, the Contractor shall require its subcontractor(s) similarly to provide worker's compensation insurance for all of the latter's employees, unless a waiver of coverage is allowed and acquired pursuant to Utah law. Page 4 of 37 2. Commercial general liability (CGL) insurance with the City as an additional insured, in the minimum amount of$2,000,000 per occurrence with a $3,000,000 general aggregate and $3,000,000 products completed operations aggregate. These limits can be covered either under a CGL insurance policy alone, or a combination of a CGL insurance policy and an umbrella insurance policy and/or a CGL insurance policy and an excess insurance policy. The policy shall protect the City, the Contractor, and any subcontractor from claims for damages for personal injury, including accidental death, and from claims for property damage that may arise from the Contractor's operations under this Agreement, whether performed by the Contractor itself, any subcontractor, or anyone directly or indirectly employed by either of them. Such insurance shall provide coverage for premises operations, acts of independent contractors, and completed operations. The policy shall be amended to waive any right to recovery or subrogation from the City for any and all losses. 3. Professional liability insurance in an amount of not less than $5,000,000 per occurrence and a $5,000,000 annual aggregate limit, with specific endorsements for ambulance and EMT services. 4. Commercial automobile liability insurance that provides coverage for owned, hired and non-owned automobiles and that has an endorsement adding coverage for ambulance services and activities, with the City listed as an additional insured, in the minimum amount of$2,000,000 per occurrence with a$5,000,000 general aggregate. The policy shall be amended to waive any right to recovery or subrogation from the City for any and all losses. These limits can be reached either with a commercial automobile liability insurance policy alone, or with a combination of a commercial automobile liability insurance policy and an umbrella insurance policy and/or a commercial automobile liability insurance policy and an excess insurance policy. 7. RULES & REGULATIONS. The Contractor shall obey all laws, ordinances, regulations, and rules of the federal, state (including but not limited to Utah State Code, §26-8a), county, and municipal governments that are applicable to its operations. Said laws include, but are not limited to, the Equal Employment Opportunity laws, the Fair Labor Standards Act, Occupational Safety &Health Administration (OSHA) laws, Family Medical Leave Act (FMLA), Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act (HIPAA), and the Americans with Disabilities Act(ADA). Any violation of applicable law shall constitute a breach of this Agreement and the Contractor shall hold the City harmless from any and all liability arising out of, or in connection with, said violations including any attorney's fees and costs incurred by the City as a result of such violation. 8. FORCE MAJEURE. Any prevention, delay, or stoppage of performance of Contractor's obligations hereunder due to acts of God, government regulations, threat or acts of terrorism, disaster, strikes, or any other cause beyond the Contractor's control shall not be deemed to be a breach of this Agreement or a violation of or failure to perform hereof. 9. INDEMNIFICATION. The parties hereby indemnify each other as follows: (a) The Contractor shall indemnify, save harmless, and defend the City,its officers and employees, from and against all losses, claims, demands, actions, damages, costs, charges, and causes of action of every kind or character, including attorney's fees, arising out of the Contractor's intentionally wrongful, reckless, or negligent performance hereunder. If the City's tender of defense, based upon this indemnity provision, is rejected by the Contractor, and the Contractor is later found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been required to indemnify the City, then in addition to any other remedies the City may have, the Contractor shall pay the City's reasonable costs, expenses, and attorney's fees incurred in proving such indemnification, defending itself or enforcing this provision. Page5of37 Nothing herein shall be construed to require the Contractor to indemnify the City against the City's own negligence. (b) The City shall indemnify, save harmless, and defend the Contractor, its officers and employees, horn and against all losses, claims, demands, actions, damages, costs, charges, and causes of action of every kind or character, including attorney's fees, arising out of the City's intentionally wrongful, reckless, or negligent performance hereunder. If the Contractor's tender of defense,based upon this indemnity provision, is rejected by the City, and the City is later found by a court of competent jurisdiction to have been required to indemnify the Contractor, then in addition to any other remedies the Contractor may have, the City shall pay the City's reasonable costs, expenses, and attorney's fees incurred in proving such indemnification, defending itself, or enforcing this provision. Nothing herein shall be construed to require the City to indemnify the Contractor against the Contractor's own negligence. 10. REPRESENTATION REGARDING ETHICAL STANDARDS FOR CITY OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES AND FORMER City OFFICERS AND EMPLOYEES. The Contractor represents that it has not: (1) provided an illegal gift or payoff to a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee, or his or her relative or business entity; (2) retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage, or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business; (3) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or(4) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code. 11. INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The Contractor is not an employee of the City for any purpose whatsoever. The Contractor is an independent contractor at all times during the performance of the services specified herein. 12. NOTICES. All notices shall be directed to the following addresses: The City: Salt Lake City Corporation Fire Depaituient Attention: Fire Chief 315 East 200 South Salt Lake City,UT 84111 The Contractor: SW General, Inc. \dba\ Southwest Ambulance Attention: Barry Landon 222 E. Main Mesa, AZ 85201 13. ASSIGNMENT. This Agreement shall not be assigned by either party without the prior written consent of the other party. 14. NO THIRD PARTY RIGHTS. The Contractor's obligations are solely to the City and the City's obligations are solely to the Contractor. This Agreement shall confer no third party rights whatsoever. Page 6 of 37 15. GENERAL TERMS OF THE AGREEMENT. A. This Agreement embodies the entire Agreement between the parties and shall not be altered except in writing signed by both an authorized representative of the Contractor and by the City's Mayor or Mayor's designee. The terms of this Agreement shall supersede any additional or conflicting terns or provisions that may be set forth or printed on the Contractor's work plans, cost estimate forms, receiving tickets, invoices, or any other related standard forms or documents of the Contractor that may subsequently be used to implement, record, or invoice services hereunder from time to time, even if such standard forms or documents have been signed or initialed by a representative of the City. The intent of the parties is that the terms of this Agreement shall prevail in any dispute between the terms of this Agreement and the terms printed on any such standard forms or documents, and such standard forms or documents shall not be considered written amendments of this Agreement. B. If any provision of this Agreement is found to be illegal, invalid, or unenforceable by a court having jurisdiction, all remaining provisions of this Agreement shall remain in full force and effect. 16. GOVERNING LAW. This Agreement shall be enforced in the State of Utah and governed by Utah law. 17. RIGHTS AND REMEDIES NOT WAIVED. The Contractor contracts and guarantees that the work herein specified shall be completed without further consideration than that provided for in this Agreement; and that the acceptance of work herein and the consideration therefore shall not be held to prevent maintenance of an action for failure to perform such work in accordance with this Agreement. In no event shall any action by the City constitute or be construed to be a waiver by the City of any breach or default and shall in no way impair or prejudice any right or remedy available to the City with respect to such breach or default. A. It is further agreed that no right or remedy granted herein or reserved to the City is exclusive of any right or remedy herein by law or equity provided or permitted;but each shall be cumulative of every right or remedy given hereunder. No covenant or condition of this Agreement may be waived without consent of the City. B. Forbearance or indulgence by the City shall not constitute a waiver of any covenant or condition to be performed pursuant to this agreement. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,the parties hereto have affixed their hands and seals the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATIO har es M. Qu Title: Fire Chief ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: Page 7 of 37 RECORDED EC 1 5 2005 I entity City Recorde Date , CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: \ice16,-c .,.„,,N Zoo.' Senior City Attorney Date SW GENERAL, INC. ADBA\ SOUTHWEST ' �' c t r y''; AMBULANCE 7 1 u. 4, , ,a By ;. Naive: Barry Lando t; , - ;Il: A. %- '' Title: President ACKNOWLEDGMENT STATE of A st ) :ss County of M rt,,,,c_0.Tet ) The foregoing Agreement was acknowledged before me this 1i-j day of -P- ,,, ,-1- , 2005;by Barry Landon, the President of SW GENERAL, INC.\DBA\ SOUTHWEST AMBULA!_ i ona corporation. - 6-FFICtAL SEAL" ti V,xnAA-i rA, &_p _ ,-1 '"' Patricia Lee Gaspar ti # - NOTARY PUBLIC, residing in T.:, Notary,Public-Arizona County ��z Mancopa County ti Man A f_o 111X, �� IA Commission i. 9 " My Commission Expires: c6-46'---2_..c>0;P The following persons participated in the development of this Agreement. S.----;:_t -.,.-..-4,i Scott D. Freitag Salt Lake City Fire Department ii /11) Michael D. Shabkie Southwest Ambulance Page 8 of 37 CONTRACT NO. 12-1-04-0575 EXHIBIT "A" SCOPE OF WORK 911 BLS AMBULANCE SERVICE I. GENERAL A. The Contractor, if doing business under an assumed name, i.e. an individual, association, partnership, corporation, or otherwise, shall be registered with the Utah State Division of Corporations and Commercial Code. The Contractor shall also obtain a Salt Lake City Business License prior to providing service hereunder. B. The Contractor shall assume full responsibility for damage to City property caused by the Contractor's employees or equipment as determined by designated City personnel. C. The Contractor shall be solely responsible for the safety and conduct of the Contractor's employees and others relative to the Contractor's work, work procedures, material, equipment, transportation, signage, and related activities and equipment. D. The Contractor shall possess and keep in force all licenses and permits required to perform the services of this Agreement. E. Contractor's employees providing service under this Agreement shall be certified by the Utah Depaitnient of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services; Utah State Code §26-8a-101 et seq. The City may ask for proof of such certification at anytime during the term of this Agreement. F. No guarantee of the actual service requirement is implied or expressed by this Agreement. Service requirements shall be determined by actual need. G. Prior to notice to proceed, the Contractor shall submit its company safety program to the SLCFD addressing specific work activities and associated hazards. The safety program shall be in compliance with Utah Occupational Safety and Health Administration ("UOSHA") regulations, Environmental Protection Agency("EPA")regulations, National Fire Protection Association("NFPA") regulations,Utah Department of Transportation ("UDOT") regulations, and any other federal, state, or local regulations. The safety program shall include requirements applicable to the scope of its work, the protection of its employees and the patient. The safety program shall include the operations of the Contractor's subcontractors, if any. H. The Contractor agrees to participate fully with the City in a range of joint training activities and events. The City and the Contractor shall regularly meet to develop joint training activities and events to achieve the purposes of this Agreement. Page 9 of 37 II. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CONTRACTOR The responsibilities of the Contractor include, but shall not be limited to, the following: A. Contractor shall provide emergency 911 BLS Ambulance Service seven days a week, twenty-four hours a day as necessary to meet the emergency medical transport needs within the entire geographic area of Salt Lake City, Utah, sometimes referred to herein as the "Geographic Service Area." No areas of Salt Lake City shall be excluded or orphaned from the Geographic Service Area which is to be covered by this Agreement. B. Communication System. All ambulances shall be equipped with instant two-way transmission and receiving communication equipment. The system shall be licensed by the Federal Communications Commission("FCC") or any successor entity of the FCC. In order to achieve integration of their respective radio equipment, the parties agree that the City has obtained or shall obtain the necessary licenses for radio frequencies to be used jointly and cooperatively by the parties hereto for the purpose of dispatching and monitoring responses to 911 situations during the term of this Agreement. Ambulances dispatched on one of such frequencies shall remain on that frequency until the incident has been completed, except as necessary to contact Medical Control. Authority to utilize this frequency shall be contingent upon written approval from the FCC. The Contractor shall maintain and use the radio frequencies licensed by the City from the FCC from time to time. C. Dispatch. The Contractor shall furnish and manage ambulance dispatch and communication services or may contract with the City for such services. Such services shall include,but not be limited to, dispatch personnel, in-service training, quality improvement monitoring, and related support services. The Contractor shall operate or contract with an Accredited Center of Excellence through the National Academies of Emergency Dispatch("NAED") within one year from the date of execution of this Agreement. Contractor shall cooperate and participate with the City in obtaining City Communications Center accreditation by the NAED. 1. Location of Contractor's Dispatch Center. Contractor's ambulance dispatch personnel may be co-located in the City's Dispatch Services facility or other location chosen by Contractor. Contractor shall comply with existing and future City Communications Center Standard Operating Procedures or Center guidelines related to the conduct and appearance of personnel. 2. Interface. Contractor's communications system, including radios, computer software, and other future communications system components, shall fully interface with the City's radio system, the Computer Aided Dispatch (CAD) system,the telephone system, the enhanced 911 system, or other future similar systems or upgraded systems. In the event of future system enhancements, Contractor shall maintain at Contractor's expense, full interface with such future system as the City, at City's sole discretion, may institute. 3. Computer Aided Dispatch(CAD) System. Contractor shall either have and use its own CAD system or may contract to use the City's CAD system to record dispatch infojnration for all requests for service. Contractor shall fund any modifications, additions, or custom programming necessary for Contractor to use the CAD system to manage ambulance operations, either concurrently, or retrospectively. Contractor shall Page 10 of 37 • provide access to such CAD reporting functions in the offices of the Communication Center managers, License Officer, and Dispatch Quality Assurance officer. This shall include all computerized templates and user definable fields and other tools Contractor develops for use with the City CAD to produce response time compliance reports. 4. Automatic Vehicle Locations ("AVL") System. Contractor may provide and utilize an AVL system that is integrated with the City's CAD system. if the City implements an AVL system, the Contractor shall also implement an AVL system that shall be integrated with the City's system. Contractor shall provide for itself all radio frequencies necessary to fully support the AVL infrastructure. Contractor shall allow City to utilize the AVL infrastructure to add vehicles to the system so that all medical units, including Contractor's ambulances, supervisor and support vehicles, as well as City vehicles can be observed and tracked from the City Communications Center. Contractor shall provide access to CAD reporting functions and the AVL system in the office of the City's Communication Center. 5. City Medical Priority Dispatch System ("MPDS") and Fire Priority Dispatch_ System ("FPDS"). Contractor shall use the MPDS and FPDS protocols authorized by the SLCFD Dispatch Steering Committee. Contractor understands that changes to these MPDS and FPDS dispatch protocols may be necessary and that the Contractor, the City Dispatch Steering Committee, and the Medical Director may discuss such changes, but that the Dispatch Steering Committee shall have the ultimate authority to determine dispatch protocols which include dispatch priorities. Contractor understands that City 911 call takers shall initially process and prioritize EMS calls that originate through 911. 6. Emergency Medical Dispatch Certification,Training, and Continuing Education. Contractor shall provide at Contractor's expense, in cooperation with the SLCFD, initial and ongoing Emergency Medical Dispatch Certification training and all continuing education necessary for certification and recertification of Contractor's dispatch personnel. 7. Dispatch Center Personnel. The Contractor's dispatch office shall be staffed only by persons holding certification issued by the NAED and State Emergency Medical Dispatch ("EMD") certification. Contractor shall staff the dispatch center with sufficient personnel,but with a minimum of two (2)persons. 8. Automated Emergency Medical Dispatch. Contractor agrees to provide technology necessary to automate the EMD process. Contractor shall provide ProQA or other comparable software that facilitates call prioritization, dispatch and pre-arrival instructions as approved by the Dispatch Steering Committee. Contractor shall also provide EMD cards for use in instances of CAD failure. Contractor agrees to fund updates to the EMD system. 9. Emergency Medical Dispatch Quality Assurance. a. Contractor agrees to provide a monthly report of compliance with dispatch protocols by Contractor's dispatch personnel. This report shall be due to the Medical Director and Contract Administrator in the format specified by the Medical Director within thirty(30) calendar days following the month for which the report pertains. b. Contractor agrees to provide technology necessary to automate EMD quality assurance process. Contractor shall provide AQUA, the quality assurance computer software component for the ProQA program, or Page 11 of 37 other comparable software that facilitates assessment of call takers' compliance with call taking standards, call prioritization, and pre-arrival instructions. The Contractor shall assign at least one person to participate in the joint Communications Center Quality Assurance/Improvement process. Contractor agrees to provide the necessary funding and training for the appropriate certification of Contractor's Communications Quality Assurance/Improvement personnel. 10. Contractor Ambulance Deployment. To achieve optimal deployment of ambulances, Contractor agrees to utilize computer software technology that will continuously monitor efficiency and compliance within the Salt Lake City ambulance system, both overall and within each Response District, and which allows for immediate Contractor adjustments in ambulance deployment. Contractor shall implement this software by the end of the first contract year and shall use it thereafter. Contractor shall provide reports to the Battalion Chief of the Medical Division and the Contract Administrator. 11. Standby Service. It is specifically agreed between the parties that should it be necessary for the Contractor to respond to an incident requiring a "standby" for any length of time (e.g.; a fire; a hazardous material spill or situation; or any other type of potential special rescue situation) there shall be no fee charged for the time the ambulance is standing by and only when the Contractor becomes actively involved in patient carriage shall any fees whatsoever be charged. A standby situation is when the Contractor is called out to an incident by the City's dispatcher where the primary purpose is for an ambulance to standby and be available in case a firefighter is injured. D. Response Times Requirements. 1. Definitions. For purposes of this Agreement, the following definitions of type of calls for 911 BLS Ambulance Service shall apply: a. Life-Threatening Emergency and/or Medical Priority Dispatch System ("MPDS") code with Charlie, Delta, Echo response: Situation determined by the dispatcher, in accordance with the Medical Director approved telephone protocols, which would likely result in the loss or quality of life without immediate intervention. b. Non-life Threatening Emergency or MPDS code with Omega, Alpha or Bravo response: Situation determined by the dispatcher, in accordance with Medical Director approved telephone protocols, which requires immediate medical attention but would not likely result in the loss or quality of life without immediate intervention. 2. City-wide Maximum Allowable Response Times. The Contractor shall operate the ambulance service so as to achieve compliance city-wide for each priority defined below for Contractor(Ambulance), each month. First responder and paramedic response times are shown for informational purposes only. A B C D Response Time Response Time Response Time 15`Responders Contractor(Ambulance) Paramedics Page 12 of 37 1 Omega Calls <7:59 Minutes 90°), ' When requested, <7:59 Minutes 90%b <12:59 Minutes 900o Response Mode No lights or sirens As requested Lights and sirens 2 Alpha Calls <7:59 Minutes 90°, <12:59 Minutes 90`0 <7:59 Minutes 90(l/0 Response Mode No lights or sirens No lights or sirens Lights and sirens 3 Bravo Calls <7:59 Minutes 90`)/0 <12:59 Minutes 90° <7:59 Minutes 90°i0 Response Mode No lights or sirens No lights or sirens Lights and sirens 4 Charlie Calls <4:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90°0 Response Mode Lights and sirens Lights and sirens Lights and sirens 5 Delta Calls <4:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% Response Mode Lights and sirens Lights and sirens Lights and sirens 6 Echo Calls <4:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% <7:59 Minutes 90% Response Mode Lights and sirens Lights and sirens Lights and sirens a. Life Threatening Emergency or Charlie, Delta, Echo calls. On not less than ninety percent (90%) of all presumptively defined life-threatening emergency requests is determined by the dispatcher in accordance with Medical Director approved telephone protocols, and originating within the City, the Contractor shall produce an ambulance response time of seven minutes, fifty-nine seconds (479 seconds) or less. b. Non-life-Threatening Emergency or Omega, Alpha, Bravo calls. On not less than ninety percent (90%) of all presumptively defined non-life- threatening emergency requests, as determined by the dispatcher in accordance with Medical Director approved telephone protocols, and originating within the City, the Contractor shall produce an ambulance response time of twelve minutes, fifty-nine seconds (779 seconds) or less. 3. Response Time Calculations. a. For all ambulance response times described above, the response time calculation shall start at the time the ambulance is documented as assigned to a response in the City's CAD or time-stamped if using the manual system. The response time calculation shall stop by transmission from Contractor's ambulance or transmission from an authorized ground mutual aid ambulance of the "ambulance arrived on scene" status signal to CAD. Such transmission shall not be made until the ambulance actually arrives at the specific address or location dispatched. In the instance of apartment or business complexes,the "ambulance arrived on scene" status signal transmission shall not be made until the ambulance actually arrives at the point closest to the specified apartment or business to which it can reasonably be driven. Arrival on the scene of a First Responder unit or supervisor's vehicle shall not stop the response time calculation. In instances when the ambulance fails to report "ambulance Page 13 of 37 arrived on scene", the dispatch CAD time stamp of the next communication with the ambulance during which a statement is recorded in the CAD verifying that the ambulance is on scene. shall be used as the "ambulance arrived on scene" time. Only ambulance service requests originating in Salt Lake City, including transport, no-transport, and mutual aid received calls, shall be included in response time calculations and be subject to Late Response Reasonable Penalties. When multiple ambulances are dispatched to a single incident, the arrival time of the first ambulance to arrive shall be the on scene time used in the response time calculation for that incident, and response times of additional units shall be excluded from compliance calculations. Responses originating outside of Salt Lake City shall be reported but are not subject to response time requirements. b. The maximum allowable response times described above shall be waived on calls where multiple ambulances are required on the same call, except for the first responding ambulance. However, Contractor shall endeavor to have all required ambulances on site as soon as is practical. The same applies where multiple ambulances are dispatched to different locations in and around the same time. The Contractor shall respond in order of priority per the City's Dispatch Center. c. In cases of Force Majeure, the response times shall be extended in accordance with the National Fire Protection Association Standard 1710. d. Upgrades, Downgrades,Reassignments, and Disregards i. Upgrades: If a response is upgraded prior to the first ambulance arriving on scene, compliance with response time requirements and reasonable penalties shall be calculated based on the shorter of: • Time elapsed from dispatch time, as specified in this section time of upgrade plus the higher priority response time standard, or • The lower priority response time requirement. ii. Downgrades: Downgrades may be initiated by Emergency Medical Dispatchers when infonmation not available when the response was dispatched becomes available that indicates, in strict accordance with Medical Director approved telephone protocols, that the response should have been dispatched at a lower priority. Downgrades may also be initiated by the SLCFD Incident Commander arriving on scene prior to the ambulance. If a response is downgraded prior to the arrival on scene of the first ambulance, the Contractor's compliance with response time standards and reasonable penalties shall be calculated based on: Page 14 of 37 • The lower priority response time standard, if the ambulance is downgraded before it would have been judged "late" under the higher priority response time standard, or • The higher priority response time standard, if the ambulance is downgraded after it would have been judged "late" under the higher priority response time standard. iii. Reassignment Enroute: If an ambulance is removed from a response by the Contractor prior to arriving on scene and another assigned to the response,the elapsed response time shall not end until an ambulance arrives on the scene. Should the response exceed the maximum allowable response time standard, the Contractor's compliance and reasonable penalties shall be calculated based on the response time standard applicable as specified above. iv. Disregarded Enroute: If an ambulance is cancelled (disregarded) enroute prior to an ambulance arriving on scene, and no ambulance is required at the location dispatched, the response shall end at the moment of cancellation. At the moment of cancellation, if the elapsed response time exceeds the response time requirement for the assigned priority of the call, the ambulance shall be determined to have exceeded the maximum allowable response time standard, the response shall be counted in the total number of responses used to determine compliance, and the appropriate reasonable penalties shall be assessed. At the moment of cancellation, if the elapsed response time does not exceed the maximum allowable response time requirement for the assigned priority, the response shall also be counted in the total number of responses used to determine compliance. e. Response Times Outside of Salt Lake City Service Area. The Contractor shall not be held accountable for response time compliance for any response dispatched to a location outside of the City. Responses to requests for service outside the City shall not be counted in the total number of responses used to determine compliance. f. Each Incident A Single Response. Each incident shall be counted as a single response regardless of the number of ambulances that respond. The dispatch time of the first ambulance dispatched and the on scene time of the first arriving Contractor or authorized mutual aid ground ambulance shall be used to compute the response time for the incident. 4. Unusual Circumstances. In the event of unusual circumstances beyond the Contractor's reasonable control that affects response time compliance, the Contractor may request from the Contract Administrator an exemption from a response time standard. Unusual circumstances shall be limited to: (i)unusually severe weather conditions, (ii) declared disasters, or(iii)unforeseen periods of unusually high demand for ambulance services. Unusually high demand for ambulance services shall be defined as follows: For the hour of the week for which an exemption is requested, the Contractor must demonstrate that at the moment the call was received, that the number of emergency ambulance calls dispatched and being worked simultaneously exceeds the product of the following: Page 15 of 37 Overload= any calls > 9 calls that occur within any one hour. Equipment failures, traffic congestion. ambulance failures, inability to staff ambulances, and other similar causes shall not be grounds for granting an exemption to compliance with response time standards. 5. Request for Exemption from Response Time Standards. Contractor must submit a written request for any response time exemption identifying the specific time period, the circumstances during the time period, and all late responses during the time period. Detailed documentation shall be provided to the Contract Administrator with the Monthly Report. If no request for exemption is made within thirty(30) calendar days following the month in which the responses in question occurred, the Contractor shall. be ineligible to request exemption for those responses. The Contract Administrator shall review the request for exemption and issue a determination. In the event that the request is not granted, Contractor may appeal within ten (10) business days of the decision to the City's Fire Chief. The decision of the City's Fire Chief in these matters shall be final. Equipment failures, traffic congestion, ambulance failures, inability to staff ambulances, and other similar causes will not be grounds for granting an exemption. 6. Request to Contest CAD Data. In any instance in which Contractor contends that data documented in the dispatch computer's (CAD) searchable fields, such as dispatch or on scene times, or response priority, are inaccurate, such as when a no "ambulance arrived on scene" status signal is received by CAD or is received after the actual on scene time, the Contractor may present evidence substantiating different data. Detailed documentation, including but not limited to CAD printouts and AVL data, shall be provided with the Monthly Report. If no request to contest data is received within thirty(30) calendar days following the month in which the responses in question occurred, the Contractor shall be ineligible to contest data. The Contract Administrator shall review the request for exemption and issue a deteiiuination. In the event that the request is not granted, Contractor may appeal within ten(10) business days of the decision to the City's Fire Chief. The decision of the City's Fire Chief in these matters shall be final. E. Reasonable Penalties. The City and the Contractor have agreed that the following penalties are reasonable and that the Contractor shall be subject to such reasonable penalties for the reasons or situations described herein. The City shall determine and notify the Contractor of any such reasonable penalties incurred within one hundred twenty(120) calendar days after the last day of the event(s) causing the incurrence of the reasonable penalties. 1. Penalties Deemed Reasonable. Contractor understands and agrees that the failure to comply with any time, performance or other requirement or standard in this Agreement will result in damage to the City and that it is and will be impracticable to determine the actual amount of such damage whether in the event of delay, nonperformance, failure to meet standards, or any other deviation. Therefore, Contractor and City contract and agree that the penalties specified in this Agreement are reasonable. It is also expressly understood and agreed that the remedies of City in the event of Contractor's default or minor or major breach of any term of this Agreement are not limited to reasonable penalties provisions. All reasonable penalty amounts may be withdrawn from the irrevocable standby performance letter of credit provided by Contractor in accordance with this Agreement if the reasonable penalties are not received by City within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt by Contractor of notice of the assessment of such reasonable penalties. Page 16 of 37 2 Late Response Reasonable Penalties. For each response which originates within the City for which the response time exceeds the response time standard specified in this agreement, City shall assess reasonable penalties of twelve dollars (.S12.00) per minute for each minute in excess of the required response time up to a maximum of five hundred dollars ($500.00) per occurrence. For purposes of calculating response time reasonable penalties, a fraction of a minute is to be rounded up to the next minute. Late Response Assessment, if any, shall begin effective upon the commencement of service under this Agreement. Such penalties shall not be assessed until after the end of each quarter. 3. Non-Performance Reasonable Penalties. a. City-Wide Non-Performance Penalties. In the event that city-wide response time compliance for life-threatening calls (designated as Echo, Delta, and Charlie) responses falls below ninety per cent (90%) for any month, the reasonable penalties in the following chart shall be assessed in addition to any other reasonable penalties. Compliance Month 1 2nd Continuous 3rd Continuous 4'h Continuous 5th Continuous Month Month Month* Month* 89% $ 7,000 $14,000 $21,000 $42,000 $84,000 88% $ 9,000 $18,000 $27,000 $54,000 $108,000 87% $10,000 $20,000 $30,000 $60,000 $120,000 86% $11,000 $22,000 $33,000 $66,000 $132,000 85% $12,000 $24,000 $48,000 $96,000 $192,000 * After three continuous months of non-compliance, the Contractor is in major breach. Failure to meet response time requirements for at least ninety per cent(90%) of all life-threatening responses each month for three consecutive months or for any four months within any 12 consecutive months shall be a major breach. Reasonable penalties continuing after month 3 (Major Breach), if any, shall be calculated by using the amount in the Month 3 column as the base reasonable penalties so that reasonable penalties increase by 100% of this base each month. For example, after three continuous months of non-compliance being 89%, 87% and 88%, non-compliance during Month 4 (Major Breach) is 89% and Month 5 (Major Breach) is 88%,respectively. Reasonable penalties would be $42,000 for Month 4 and $108,000 for Month 5. b. Calculation. Response time compliance shall always be rounded down for purposes of response time reporting and reasonable penalties calculation. For example, 89.9% shall be rounded down to 89%. Reasonable penalties for City-Wide Non-Performance Penalties continuing after Month 3 shall be calculated by using the amount in the Page 17 of 37 Month 3 column as the base reasonable penalties so that reasonable penalties increase by 100% of this base each month. For example, after five continuous months of City-Wide non-compliance (Major Breach) being 89(o, 87%, 88%, 89% and 88%, respectively, the corresponding reasonable penalties would be $7,000, $20,000, $27,000, $42,000 and $108,000. 4. Non-compliance Reasonable penalties. a. Two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) for each business day that any monthly report required in this Agreement is not received by the Contract Administrator within thirty (30) calendar days following the month for which the report pertains. b. Two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) for each business day after two business days that a report (other than a monthly report) or task is not completed as directed by the Medical Director. c. Five hundred dollars ($500.00) for any occurrence of the failure to have equipment or supplies on any ambulance as directed or specified by the UDOH/BEMS or by the Medical Director. d. Two hundred and fifty dollars ($250.00) for failure to immediately contact the Battalion Chief of the Medical Division or Contract Administrator when any below standards equipment or staffing situation occurs which has the potential to affect the health and safety of the citizens of Salt Lake City including without limitation: (i) less than seven (7) ambulances during peak periods being on-duty and in-service for emergency response, (ii) less than six (6) ambulances during non-peak periods being on-duty and in-service for emergency response, (iii) any occurrence of a motor vehicle accident involving significant damage to property or any personal injury in which an ambulance is involved. e. Fifty dollars($50.00) for failure to remain on the assigned radio frequency during any response situation involving a 911 call. f. Fifty dollars ($50.00) per day for any other performance failure or major breach of this Agreement until such failure or breach is cured. 5. Performance Incentive. For every quarter(defined as Oct.-Dec., Jan.-Mar., Apr.-June, and July-Sept.) during which the Contractor's verifiable system-wide response time performance exceeds 90% in all response time categories the City shall waive all per minute response time Reasonable penalties for all responses during that quarter. Such waiver does not apply to City-Wide Non- Performance Reasonable Penalties. F. Reports. Contractor shall furnish the following reports to the City. 1. Monthly Reports. Monthly reports are due no later than thirty (30) calendar days after the final day of the month reported. Page 18 of 37 a. Monthly Response Time Report. For each incident for which a response is dispatched, the monthly response time compliance report shall include,but not be limited to: a unique call number which shall be the call number generated by the City dispatch computer or another number that a City reviewer can easily link to the call number generated by the City dispatch computer; the dispatch date, dispatch time, on scene time, time transport is begun, time transport ends, identification number of the ambulance(s) that arrive on scene, response mode linked to the dispatch, and on scene or cancel/disregard times necessary to calculate the response time. For calls disregarded enroute, upgraded or downgraded, or reassigned enroute, the aforementioned items shall be reported in a format that clearly shows the unique measurements required in this Agreement. For calls on which multiple ambulances arrive on scene, although only the first ambulance to arrive is included in compliance calculations, the responses of all ambulances that arrive on scene shall be reported. This report shall not be merely a compiled statistical report. The Monthly Response Time Report shall include all mutual aid given and mutual aid received response, including the city or other entity giving or receiving aid. b. Excess Time Event. For calls which result in response times in excess of those specified in this Agreement,the Monthly Response Time Report shall include the number of ambulances in-service at the time of the excess time event, the number of those ambulances dedicated to responses, and the incident numbers and priorities of those responses. c. Requests for Exemption from Response Time Standards. Any requests for exemption from response time standards shall be made with the Monthly Response Time Report. If no such request is received by the deadline required herein, no such request shall be considered in compliance calculations. d. Monthly Unit Hour Utilization Report. The monthly unit hour utilization compliance report shall include,but not be limited to, the number of unit hours produced during every hour of every day. To calculate the unit hour utilization ratio, divide the total number of ambulance transports per month by the total number of unit hours in the same one-month period. A unit hour shall be defined as each hour that a fully staffed and equipped ambulance unit is on duty and available to respond to calls. e. Monthly Report of Public Education Activities and Community Service Standbys. This report shall include, but not be limited to the number of activities and the type of activity(e.g. CPR class, ambulance standby). Other information must be provided when necessary to prove fulfillment of contractual obligations, including but not limited to, the number of hours service was provided, or the number of public service announcements published. Page 19 of 37 f. Patient care reports. The Medical Director has the right to inspect patient care reports for purposes of maintaining and ensuring quality of medical care in the Salt Lake City EMS system. To'facilitate this review, Contractor's personnel shall complete a patient care report form as specified by the Medical Director for all patients for whom care is rendered,regardless of whether such patient is transported. Contractor shall make these records available to the Medical Director each month. 2. Other Reports. a. Below Standards Equipment/Staffing Report. This report of any below standards equipment or staffing situation which has the potential to affect the safety,health, and welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City shall be due immediately to the Battalion Chief of the Medical Division, and a written report is due no later than two business days after such below standards equipment or staffing situation occurs. b. Annual Report. The Annual Report shall meet requirements specified in this Agreement. c. Report of Employees' Certifications. Contractor shall ensure that all of Contractor's personnel are appropriately certified at both the State and local levels, and shall furnish to the Contract Administrator documentation of same. d. Report of Progress in Developing Electronic Patient Care Report Capability. This report shall be provided as often as is necessary for the Contract Administrator to be informed regarding this project or as requested by the Contract Administrator. e. Report of Compliance with Dispatch Protocols. In the event that the City does not provide dispatch services for the Contractor, this shall be a report of compliance with dispatch protocols by Contractor's dispatch personnel. This report is due upon the date specified by the Dispatch Steering Committee, and shall have content and format specified by the Dispatch Steering Committee. f. Report of Patient/Customer Satisfaction. This report shall be provided biannually to the Contract Administrator, and shall contain tabulated results of comments and opinions gathered through satisfaction surveys. g. Copies of Complete Patient Reports and/or State Medical Incident Reports ("Smirfs") shall be provided monthly. h. Copies of Quality Improvement("QI")reports shall be provided monthly. There are two reports due: one for dispatch quality improvement as generated by the Aqua program and one operations quality improvement report. Page 20 of 37 i. Copies of Vehicle Maintenance Logs and Damage Occurrence and Repair reports. These reports shall be furnished to the City upon request. j. Copies of monthly Safety Reports covering vehicle and other accidents, injuries, hazardous material exposures, and other safety related problems. These reports shall be furnished to the City upon request. 3. Written Changes. Written changes to the Operations Response Plan, including the Contractor's Safety Program, are due to the Contract Administrator within ten (10) business days after the implementation date. G. Major Breach. 1. Definitions Of Major Breach. Conditions and circumstances which shall constitute a major breach of this agreement by the Contractor shall include but not be limited to the following: a. Failure of Contractor to meet the response time requirements set forth in Section II, Paragraph E.3.a of Exhibit"A" of this Agreement; b. Accumulation of reasonable penalties that in the sole reasonable discretion of the Contract Administrator are excessive and represent a threat or danger to the safety,health, and welfare of the citizens of Salt Lake City; c. Failure of Contractor to operate the ambulance service in a manner which enables the City and Contractor or the City or Contractor to maintain and remain in compliance with the requirements of applicable federal, state, and local laws, rules and regulations; d. Failure to provide correct data or falsification of data supplied during the course of operations, including by way of example but not by way of exclusion, dispatch data, patient report data, response time data, financial data, or altering response code designations to enhance Contractor's apparent performance, or falsification of any other data required under this Agreement; e. Excessive and unauthorized scaling down of operations to the detriment of performance during a "lame duck" period, where a"lame duck"period means any period during which this Agreement is active after either(1) notice of agreement termination has been provided, or(2) it is evident to the City that the current term will not, or cannot,be extended pursuant to the terms of the Agreement; f. Excessive failure to maintain equipment in accordance with manufacturer recommended maintenance practices; g. Excessive failure of Contractor's employees to conduct themselves in a professional and courteous manner or to present a professional Page 21 of 37 appearance as determined in the sole reasonable discretion of the Contract Administrator; h. Failure to submit required financial or other reports to the UDOII or BEMS as required by applicable rules or laws; Failure to comply with approved rate setting, billing, or collection provisions of this Agreement; j. Failure to comply with Most Favored Customer provisions of this Agreement; k. Failure of Contractor to cooperate with and assist the City after a major breach has been declared as provided for herein, even if it is later determined that such breach never occurred or that the cause of such breach was beyond Contractor's reasonable control; 1. Acceptance by Contractor or any of Contractor's employees of any bribe, kick-back, or consideration of any kind in exchange for any consideration whatsoever, when such bribe, kick-back, or consideration of any kind on the part of Contractor or Contractor's employees could be reasonably construed by the City to be a violation of federal, state, or local law; m. Payment by Contractor or any of Contractor's employees of any bribe, kick-back or consideration of any kind to any federal, state, or local public official in exchange for any consideration whatsoever, when such consideration could be reasonably construed to be a violation of any federal, state, or local law; n. Failure to meet medical standards required in this Agreement or as reasonably required by the Medical Director; . . o. Failure of Contractor to maintain insurance in accordance with this Agreement; P. Failure to maintain a Performance Standby Letter of Credit with a federally insured banking institution with a debt rating of 1B or higher by the FDIC, BBB or higher by Standard &Poor's Corporation, Baa2 or higher by Moody's Investors Service, or a comparable rating issued by some other nationally recognized rating agency in the amount specified by the terms and conditions of this Agreement or as directed by the City Treasurer; q. Failure to submit audited financial statements prepared by a certified public accountant or public accounting firm for any parent company and Contractor within the specified time frame under the terms and conditions of this Agreement or as directed upon reasonable notice by the SLCFD's Financial Manager; Page 22 of 37 r. Failure of the Dispatch Center to maintain accreditation through the NAED or an equivalent organization; s. Failure to comply with the Contractor's Safety Program and applicable UOSHA, EPA, NFPA, and UDOT regulations, guidelines, or recommendations; and t. Any other failure of performance, medical or other standards, or violation of law, as required in this Agreement and which is determined in the reasonable discretion of the Contract Administrator to constitute a major breach. 2. Provisions for Curing Breach. a. In the event of major or minor breach, the City shall give the Contractor written notice, return receipt requested, setting forth with reasonable specificity the nature of the breach. Within five (5)business days of receipt of such notice, the Contractor shall deliver to the City, in writing, a plan to cure such breach. The plan shall be updated, in writing, every five (5)business days until the breach is cured. The Contractor shall have the right to cure such breach within thirty (30) calendar days of receipt of notice of breach. If the Contractor fails to cure such breach within the period allowed for cure (such failure to be determined by the sole and absolute discretion of the City), or the Contractor fails to timely deliver the cure plan, or updates to the City, the City may immediately terminate the Agreement. The Contractor shall cooperate completely and immediately with the City and the State BEMS to affect a prompt and orderly transfer of all responsibilities to an approved licensed provider. Contractor shall be required to cooperate with the City and to continue to provide service until a replacement provider can assume service. b. The Contractor shall not be prohibited from disputing any findings of default through litigation,provided, however, that such litigation shall not have the effect of delaying,in any way, the transfer of operations to the replacement approved licensed provider. Such dispute by the Contractor shall not delay the City's access to funds made available by the Performance Standby Letter of Credit. These provisions are specifically stipulated and agreed to by both parties as being reasonable and necessary for the protection of public health and safety. Any legal dispute concerning the finding that a default has occurred shall be initiated and shall take place only after the transfer of operations to a replacement approved licensed provider has been completed, and shall not, under any circumstances delay the process of transferring operations to such provider or delay the City's access to performance security funds under the Performance Standby Letter of Credit as needed by the City to finance such transfer of operations. c. The Contractor's cooperation with and full support of the City's termination of the Agreement, as well as the Contractor's immediate release of performance security funds to the City shall not be construed Page 23 of 37 as acceptance by the Contractor of the finding of default. However, failure on the part of the Contractor to cooperate fully with the City and the State BEMS to affect a smooth and safe transition shall itself constitute a breach of contract. 3. Provisions for Agreement Termination. a. In the event the Contract Administrator, with confirmation by the Salt Lake City Attorney's Office, determines that a major breach has occurred and the nature of the breach in the Contract Administrator's opinion is such that the public safety, health, and welfare are endangered, and after Contractor has been given written notice and a reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiency, not to exceed a thirty (30) calendar day time period except in the event of an emergency condition as determined by the Contract Administrator, the matter shall be presented to the City Attorney for review. If, after a review of the major breach, the City Attorney determines that a major breach has occurred, the City shall have the right to terminate this Agreement and notify the UDOH of such termination so that a replacement provider can be licensed. Contractor shall cooperate completely and immediately with the City to effect the transition to a new provider. b. These provisions are specifically stipulated and agreed to by both parties as being reasonable and necessary to the protection of public health and safety, and any legal dispute concerning the finding that a major breach has occurred shall be initiated and shall take place only after the agreement termination has been completed, and shall not under any circumstances delay the transition to a new provider or the City's access to performance guaranty funds as needed by the City to finance said transition of operations. c. Contractor's cooperation with and full support of such transition, as well as Contractor's immediate release of performance security funds to the City shall not be construed as acceptance by the Contractor of the finding of major breach, and shall not in any way jeopardize Contractor's right to recovery should a court later find that the declaration of major breach was made in error. However, failure on the part of the Contractor to cooperate fully with the City to effect a safe and smooth transition of operations shall itself constitute a major breach of this Agreement, even if it was later determined that the original declaration of major breach by the Contract Administrator was made in error. 4. Remedies. The existence of a major or minor breach by the Contractor, whether or not public safety and health is endangered, shall entitle the City to make a draw on the Performance Standby Letter of Credit upon written request of the Contract Administrator in the amount or amounts as determined by the Contract Administrator. Nothing in this section shall operate to limit the City's remedies under law, including those rights and remedies contained elsewhere in this Agreement. H. Performance Guaranty. Page 24 of 37 1. Contractor expressly contracts that, in the event of major breach by the Contractor, Contractor shall work with the City to ensure continuous and uninterrupted delivery of services, regardless of the nature or causes underlying the breach. Contractor agrees and contracts that there is an obligation to assist City in every effort to ensure uninterrupted and continuous service delivery in the event of major breach, even if Contractor disagrees with the determination of major breach. 2. Performance Standby Letter of Credit. At least thirty (30) calendar clays prior to the commencement of service, Contractor shall provide the City Treasurer with an irrevocable Performance Standby Letter of Credit in a form satisfactory to the City Treasurer. The amount of the Performance Standby Letter of Credit shall be two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) issued by a federally insured (FDIC) banking institution with any one of the following debt ratings: 1 B or higher by the FDIC; BBB or higher by Standard & Poor's Corporation; Baa2 or higher by Moody's Investors Service; or a comparable rating issued by some other nationally recognized rating agency. The federally insured banking institution on which the Performance Standby Letter of Credit is to be drawn shall be acceptable as determined by the City Treasurer. The Performance Standby Letter of Credit shall be used: a. To ensure the payment by Contractor of(i) any reasonable penalties in accordance with this Agreement, (ii) any expenses due to violations that result in a minor or major breach or agreement termination, and (iii) failure to make any payment owed by Contractor to City under this Agreement. At any time, the City may draw on the Performance Standby Letter of Credit to satisfy such amounts. Contractor shall structure the Performance Standby Letter of Credit so that at any time prior to an agreement termination by the City, if the City draws upon the Performance Standby Letter of Credit and reduces the amount below two hundred twenty five thousand dollars($225,000.00) then the Contractor must restore the Performance Standby Letter of Credit to the level of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) within ten (10)business days. In no event shall the Contractor be required to replenish the Performance Standby Letter of Credit after an agreement termination has been effectuated by the City unless the Performance Standby Letter of Credit is not at the amount of two hundred fifty thousand dollars ($250,000.00) at the time of agreement termination. b. To ensure the operation of the ambulance service after an agreement termination has been effectuated by the City including but not limited to, the cost of any unpaid PMA fees, any necessary rebidding, renewal, and/or negotiations, or any related administrative expenses. 3. Notice of Change. The Performance Standby Letter of Credit shall contain the following endorsement: "At least sixty (60) calendar days prior written notice shall be given to the City by the financial institution that has provided the Performance Standby Letter of Credit of any intention to cancel, replace, fail to renew, or materially alter this Page 25 of 37 Performance Standby Letter of Credit. Such notice shall be given by certified mail to the City Treasurer." 4. Contract Termination. In the event of an agreement termination by the City in accordance with this Agreement, the City may draw down the Performance Standby Letter of Credit from time to time in such amount or amounts as it may determine to cover any expenses or losses to the City due to the Agreement termination and as necessary to cover any fees due the City pursuant to the surviving provision of Paragraph 0 of this Section II. 5. City Retention of Performance Standby Letter of Credit. The Performance Standby Letter of Credit shall become the property of the City in the event that this Agreement is canceled by reason of major breach, default of the Contractor, or any other reason. The Perfoiniance Standby Letter of Credit shall be retained by the City and returned to Contractor at the expiration of Contractor's continued obligation to pay fees to the City pursuant to Paragraph 0 of this Section II after termination of this Agreement, provided there is no outstanding minor or major breach, default, unpaid reasonable penalties, other Contractor payment deductions, adjustments, taxes due by Contractor, or any other debts due to the City or to other entities by Contractor. 6. Rights Reserved. The rights reserved to the City with respect to the Performance Standby Letter of Credit are in addition to all other rights of the City, whether reserved by this Agreement or otherwise authorized by law, and no action, proceeding or right with respect to the Performance Standby Letter of Credit shall affect any other right the City has or may have. Contractor Facilities and Resources. The City prefers that Contractor locate and maintain its maintenance facility and billing office within the city limits of City. However, if this is not cost effective, due to economies of scale, such facilities may be located outside the city limits. Contractor must,however, at least maintain a toll-free telephone number providing access to a Contractor representative who can answer citizen's questions regarding ambulance bills. The Contractor shall also provide the SLCFD with after-hours telephone numbers of Contractor's supervisory personnel so that they can be called at any time that an emergency occurs. J. Minimum Standards for Contractor Vehicles, Equipment, and Coverage. 1. Contractor shall employ whatever level of effort is necessary to achieve the response time standards and other performance results required by the terms of this Agreement. Superior response time performance early in a month is not justification to allow inferior response time performance late in the month. Therefore, Contractor shall minimize variations or fluctuations in response time performance according to day of the week or week of the month. 2. Peak period deployment is seven(7) ambulances. Peak periods and non-peak periods shall be established by mutual agreement of the parties. A total fleet size of not less than one hundred twenty-nine percent (129%) of peak deployment shall be maintained and shall include one (1) bariatric unit. At any moment Contractor shall Page 26 of 37 have in the City and response ready, at least 129% of the ambulances required at that time by the Operations Plan. Such Operations Plan shall be developed and agreed upon by the parties. Contractor shall have at least seven (7) ambulances on duty and in service during peak periods, at least two of which shall be four-wheel drive. Contractor shall have at least six (6) ambulances on duty and in service during non-peak periods, at least two of which shall be four-wheel drive. The SLCFD Dispatch Center shall be notified anytime less than seven(7) ambulances are on duty and in service during peak periods. The SLCFD Dispatch Center shall be notified anytime less than six (6) ambulances are on duty and in service during non-peak periods. To be on duty and in service for one (1) unit hour, an ambulance must be fully response ready, including being staffed by two persons as described herein who are properly listed in the City CAD as staffing the ambulance, for at least 30 minutes of any clock hour. 3. Ambulances shall be Type I or Type III and capable of carrying two (2) supine patients and meeting ambulance requirements for Utah State law. Other future, comparable vehicles confoiiuing to the highest ambulance industry standards may only be substituted after approval by the Contract Administrator and Medical Director. All ambulances and other emergency response vehicles must display lettering which identifies them as serving Salt Lake City and identifies the Contractor's approved business name. The Contract Administrator must approve the use of Salt Lake City logos, trademarks, lettering or other commonly used City identification on ambulances. Ambulance numbers shall be displayed on the sides, front, and rear of ambulances. Exterior markings must be the same for all ambulances. Ambulances must be stocked with medical equipment and supplies according to the SLCFD's Medical Director's specifications and Utah State rules. These specifications may be modified from time to time with the Contractor having opportunity to provide input. 4. Only mechanically sound and serviceable vehicles may be used. No ambulance may have cumulative mileage of more than 175,000 miles. Contractor may request that the City inspect and approve vehicles for extended life beyond 175,000 miles based on superior maintenance and physical condition. The City shall not unreasonably withhold approval of extended vehicle use. In no event, shall any vehicle be permitted to remain in service after 200,000 miles. 5. The Contractor shall maintain all vehicles such that they appear clean and in well repair. K. Most Favored Customer. All factors of production employed by the Contractor in the performance of this Agreement whether leased or otherwise provided by City or other sources shall be devoted to the work of this Agreement. These "factors of production" include equipment, supplies, facilities, locally assigned personnel, and other production factors utilized by the Contractor in the performance of services in accordance with this Agreement. The intent of this provision is to establish the Contractor's local operations as resources fully contracted to the service of the City. The City shall not object to Contractor's request to employ Contractor's local resources in the performance of other work so long as service under this Agreement is not impaired. The City does not intend that by allowing the Contractor to use City assets,that these assets may be used to provide services outside the City without reimbursement to the City. Instead,the City shall approve Contractor's requests to render such outside services only if Contractor provides a method whereby such other customers participate, along with the City, in Page 27 of 37 covering a fair share of Contractor's fixed operating costs and overhead, thereby reducing accordingly and fairly the City's share of such fixed costs. L. Outside Work. Contractor shall not be prohibited from doing work outside the immediate scope of this Agreement either within or outside the City provided: (i) all such income shall be reflected in Contractor's financial documents and; (ii) Contractor's methods of producing such services are designed to enhance Contractor's peak load capacity in City, disaster readiness, and overall efficiency, in City; and do not detract from Contractor's ability to provide service in City. Contractor shall not utilize the factors of production used in the performance of this Agreement (e.g., personnel, equipment, facilities, communications systems, data processing equipment, medical direction, etc.) except as approved by the City. Approval for Contractor to do such other work may be granted by City if: 1. For ambulance service, the medical standards are the same as those required hereunder, including personnel standards, equipment standards, medical protocols, medications carried, and other standards of medical performance. 2. That a fair means of sharing in costs of medical control and regulation is established. 3. That the financial arrangements are such that revenues (i.e., subsidy payments or fees) derived from the work shall cover a fair share of system overhead, facility costs, communications system costs, and operating expenses. 4. That response time requirements for ambulance service are performance- oriented, and that no provision for"dedicated" unit coverage is contained in the service agreement which might restrict Contractor's deployment/redeployment options. M. On-Scene Medical Control. The SLCFD has ultimate responsibility for scene control and patient care. The Uniform Salt Lake City Incident Command System ("ICS") and protocols, SLCFD policies,procedures,practices, and medical control shall control management of the activities at the scene, enroute to the scene, and in transport to the hospital. 1. Upon arrival at the scene where patient care is already in progress by a City paramedic or EMT, Contractor shall locate and make contact with the City Incident Commander for an information report on patient care. If requested, assist with such care under the direction of the Incident Commander until transfer of the patient to Contractor for transport unless City paramedic or EMT rides in the ambulance with the patient to the transport destination. 2. Upon arrival at the scene by a SLCFD Incident Commander, where patient care is already in progress by the Contractor, the Incident Commander shall assume command of the scene and care of the patient. Contractor shall provide to the Incident Commander an information report on the condition of the patient and any treatment that has been provided. If further assistance is required by the Contractor prior to transfer of the patient to Contractor for transport, such assistance shall be under the direction of the Incident Commander. Under the direction of the Incident Commander and following the Page 28 of 37 SLCFD medical protocols, the highest medically certified person of either City or Contractor shall have responsibility for patient care. N. Private Transports. The terms of this Agreement do not apply to or affect or control seven digit telephone calls received directly by the licensed non-911 ambulance or paramedic service. The Utah Department of Health encourages all emergency medical transport providers to contact 911 when appropriate. For life threatening calls made directly to the Contractor, such calls shall be dispatched to the SLCFD to insure proper service to its citizens. O. Billing Information. The Contractor shall be responsible for all billings and collections for ambulance service rendered under the terms of this Agreement, including the billing of fees allowed by the BEMS for the SLCFD's paramedics when they ride with the patient on one of Contractor's ambulances to a health care facility (PMA Fees). For each situation where the SLCFD's paramedics accompany the patient in Contractor's ambulance to a health care facility or when they provide on-scene treatment and release of the patient, Contractor shall pay all such PMA Fees to the City within 100 days after the end of the month for which such fees were invoiced. Contractor shall use all reasonable means, including the services of a collection agency, necessary to collect all bills. Contractor shall include on all bills for ambulance service, including emergency, non-emergency and treat-no-transports, a local or toll free telephone number through which Salt Lake City citizens may inquire about their bills. All PMA or other fees now or hereafter authorized that are billable on behalf of the City's paramedic or other SLCFD providers shall be subject to this provision and remitted to the City. P. Public Relations and Education. In cooperation with and under the direction of the SLCFD, Contractor shall provide emergency medical information and education to citizens of Salt Lake City including but not limited to Contractor's and City's emergency medical services systems, first aid, CPR, injury prevention, and 911 system information for the duration of this Agreement and any extensions at no charge to City. Sufficient classes and events shall be provided to meet the public's demand. Fees charged citizens for classes shall be reasonable and competitive within the local market. Documentation of revenue from classes shall be provided to the City's Contract Administrator with each year's audited financial statements. Prior to providing any educational program or event or any public relations event, activity, or publication that addresses emergency medical system information or issues related to services addressed in this Agreement or emergency medical services for the Salt Lake City area, the Contractor shall first advise the City of its plans and shall seek the City's input regarding such educational program or event or such public relations event, activity, or publication. 1. Contractor's AED's Program. In an effort to increase access to lifesaving Automatic External Defibrillators (AED) throughout the City,the Contractor will develop and implement a public AED program that will include the direct donation of this advanced technology. Additionally, in collaboration with SLCFD, the Contractor will develop a community wide program that will coordinate education, quality assurance and charitable donation efforts that support this program throughout the contract term. Page 29 of 37 2. Internet Web Site. In collaboration with the SLOE D, Contractor shall develop an internet web site that provides information about their organization. The web site shall be regularly updated and include a schedule of upcoming public education classes and other events of interest to the public. The web site shall allow persons to electronically register for those classes and events. Q. Statements and Audit Rights. Contractor shall provide financial information to the City that covers Contractor's operations in Salt Lake City under this Agreement and hereby grants the City the right to audit all applicable books and records maintained by or at the direction of Contractor, both physical and electronic, that are related to the services and terms of this agreement. 1. Financial Reporting Guide. The Contractor shall provide the City annually the Financial Reporting Guide required by law to the Bureau of EMS or equivalent report. 2. Document Review. The City or its agent or designee shall have the right to access and inspect the non-privileged books and records of Contractor's Salt Lake City 911 operations without notice. The City or its agent or designee shall have the right to access and inspect any other non-privileged books and records of Contractor, Contractor's parent corporation, or any other controlling or associated entity that maintains records applicable to the Salt Lake City 911 operations of Contractor. R. Quality Control. Quality control inspections or quality improvement processes shall not relieve Contractor of the responsibility and duty to maintain the equipment, facilities, personnel, and operations strictly in accordance with this Agreement and in accordance with the highest standards in the ambulance industry. 1. Inspection of vehicles, equipment and facilities. In the interest of public safety and health and to review quality, the Medical Director or his/her designee, and/or the Contract Administrator or his/her designee shall have the right to inspect Contractor's vehicles, equipment, and facilities at any time to ensure that they are being properly stocked, equipped and maintained. 2. Patient care reports. The Medical Director has the right to inspect patient care reports for purposes of maintaining and ensuring quality of medical care in the Salt Lake City EMS system. To facilitate this review, Contractor's personnel shall complete a patient care report form as specified by the Medical Director for all patients for whom care is rendered, regardless of whether such patient is transported. Contractor shall make these records available to the Medical Director each month. 3. Customer satisfaction records and surveys shall be developed and maintained by Contractor and shall be made available to the City. a. Inspection shall be provided for Contractor's records, including but not limited to complaint files. The Contract Administrator or his designee may request the content of information contained in Contractor's complaint files or other files or records maintained to determine customer satisfaction. Page 30 of 37 b. Contractor shall regularly solicit patient/customer opinions regarding quality of service provided via customer surveys distributed to patients and other methods of collecting information. Contractor shall distribute surveys to also determine the level of satisfaction of patients and customers. All surveys shall be tabulated and results presented semi- annually to the Contract Administrator. 4. PROCESS FOR CONFLICT RESOLUTION. Conflicts between employees of the City and the Contractor shall be resolved at the lowest possible level. The following "Levels of Conflict Resolution" (from lowest level to highest level) are given as a guideline for resolving personality conflicts. However, if the situation demands bypassing a lower level to a higher level, then this can be done at the discretion of the SLCFD Captain or Battalion Chief. a. 1st Level of Conflict Resolution. The two employees (and/or crew) discuss the conflict during (or immediately following) the call and resolve. This should only happen if the patient care and/or public perception would not be negatively affected. Contractor's Supervisor and appropriate Salt Lake City Fire supervisor may or may not be notified. b. 2nd Level of Conflict resolution. The employees of the Contractor and SLCFD meet after the call (usually infoiivally at the station) and resolve. Only involved parties should participate. The goal is to resolve the situation at the lowest possible level. A Contractor supervisor and appropriate SLCFD supervisor may or may not be notified. c. 3rd Level of Conflict Resolution. A meeting is set up using a Contractor supervisor and a SLCFD supervisor as conflict resolution facilitators. Only the involved parties should participate. Crews may be placed out of service. No higher-level managers should be present. However, Contractor or SLCFD management should be notified that the meeting is taking place. d. 4th Level of Conflict Resolution. Each agency's management will be consulted as to appropriate resolution,up to and including involvement of the State EMS agency. 5. The parties agree that there shall be established a Board of Review to direct the investigation of complaints received from any source with regard to ambulance service performed by the Contractor and to report the results of its investigation and recommendation to the Fire Chief within thirty (30) calendar days after receipt of said complaint. Said Board shall consist of the EMS Battalion Chief,the Emergency Medical Service Director, the SLCFD Medical director, and the Contract Administrator. On any complaint review, all affected parties shall have the right to be present. Conversely, the Contractor shall have the right to request the Board of Review to investigate improper conduct by members of the SLCFD. S. Personnel Certifications. Contractor is responsible for ensuring that all of its personnel hold valid State, local, and other certifications and licenses at all times as required to Page 31 of 37 meet the Contractor's responsibilities under this Agreement. When on duty and in- service, ambulances must be staffed by at least two (2) persons who must be certified by the Utah Department of Health ("UDOH") Bureau of Emergency Medical Services ("BEMS"). All of Contractor's personnel who render patient care in any capacity as the Contractor's representative, must hold Utah State certification or license. In addition to these requirements, all personnel who provide patient care must hold other current and appropriate certifications, licenses, and permits as required by the Medical Director. T. Mutual Aid. Contractor shall establish reasonable and effective mutual aid agreements with surrounding municipalities, corporations, or other entities, provided, however, any mutual aid providers must provide substantially medically equivalent services and each agreement is approved by the City. Contractor shall call the mutual aid provider that can supply an ambulance to the necessary location in the least amount of time. Contractor's Salt Lake City ambulances shall not be dispatched on mutual aid responses if doing so would reasonably compromise the Contractor's ability to provide emergency services within Salt Lake City. U. Medical Direction. Contractor agrees to adhere to rules for operation; patient treatment protocols; telephone protocols, dispatch protocols; and other protocols, policies, and/or procedures both currently in force and subsequently promulgated by the Medical Director. V. Helicopter Rescue Unit Service. The City and Contractor recognize that helicopter air ambulances may provide services in the City at the request of a SLCFD Incident Commander. This Agreement shall not be construed to affect the rights of any entity to operate its air ambulance, provided such operations are within the requirements of the Inter-hospital District II-B protocols. W. Standby Coverage. Contractor shall provide the following standby coverage: 1. Upon request by City police, fire, or dispatch personnel, the Contractor shall furnish courtesy standby coverage at emergency incidents involving a potential danger to City personnel or the general public at no charge to the City. 2. This Agreement is for 911 BLS Ambulance Service and is not intended to regulate, control, influence, or obstruct non-911 licensure, service or business. This agreement does not encourage nor discourage a licensed 911 ambulance service from obtaining a non-911 ambulance service license for the purpose of providing non-911 service to the community. If the licensed and contracted 911 BLS ambulance provider also holds the non-911 ambulance license, the following provisions will apply: a. Contractor may provide ambulance coverage for community events using one or more ambulances dedicated to those events. Documentation of revenue from these standby events shall be provided with the annual audited financial statements and shall be listed separately from other sources of revenue. Standbys for which revenue is received shall not be reported on the Monthly Report of Public Education Activities and Community Service Standbys. Page 32 of 37 b. Contractor may not provide ambulance standby coverage for communi tv events using ambulances listed in the CAD as being dedicated to covering the City. c. Ambulances assigned to standby at community events shall be entered into the City CAD and assigned a CAD call number at the beginning of the assignment. Although response times shall not be considered for Agreement compliance, ambulances shall be dispatched to the event via the CAD and upon arrival shall report ambulance arrived on scene". Upon conclusion of assignment to the event, the dispatcher shall denote such in the CAD, as for any other response. X. Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act ("HIPAA'°),The Contractor shall meet all HIPAA requirements as applicable. The parties agree to follow the terms of Exhibit "C" attached hereto and incorporated by reference for the exchange of protected health information. Y. Disaster Assistance and Response. Contractor shall be actively involved in planning for and responding to any declared disaster in the City. In the event a disaster within the City or a neighboring city is declared, nouual operations shall be suspended and Contractor shall respond in accordance with the City's disaster plan. Contractor shall use best efforts to maintain primary emergency services and may suspend non- emergency service as required. During the period of declared disaster, the City shall not impose performance requirements and reasonable penalties for response times.The direct marginal costs resulting from the performance of disaster services that are non- recoverable from third parties shall be submitted to the appropriate state or federal agencies for cost recovery. Such marginal costs shall not include cost for maintaining normal levels of service during the disaster,but shall be limited to the reasonable and verifiable direct marginal cost of these additional services. City shall provide all reasonable assistance to the Contractor in recovering these costs, however, City shall not be responsible for payments to Contractor. Z. Supplies and Equipment. Contractor shall restock all disposable medical supplies used by all Salt Lake City EMS System personnel during patient care. 1. Subject to the terms of the Federal Safe Harbor Act, Title 42 CFR 1001.952, the Contractor shall rotate pharmaceuticals in the Salt Lake City EMS system by withdrawing all unadulterated pharmaceuticals held by City Fire units after the date that is three (3) months prior to the marked expiration date and placing them on ambulances. Contractor shall provide City Fire units with duplicate pharmaceuticals having a longer period before expiration. 2. Contractor shall sub-contract with an agency appropriately qualified to collect, transport and dispose of all medical waste generated by the Salt Lake City EMS system. Contractor shall take all necessary precautions to ensure that its sub-contractor follows all applicable rules and regulations pertaining to proper disposal of medical waste. III. RESPONSIBILITIES OF THE CITY Page 33 of 37 A. The City shall request ambulance service from Contractor for all 911 requests for emergency medical service through the City's dispatch system or electronically over a dedicated data line. B. Audit and Performance review. 1. The City reserves the right to audit all accounts of Contractor as it relates to this Agreement on an annual basis. City shall provide Contractor at least thirty (30) calendar days notice of said audit. 2. The City reserves the right to conduct a review of Contractor's performance utilizing criteria from this Agreement. This shall not be limited to mere compliance with the terms of the Agreement. Contractor shall have demonstrated performance above the minimum requirements of this Agreement. C. Contractor may request the consent of the Contract Administrator or his designee for use of City facilities to locate ambulances and crews. Such approval shall be subject to execution of appropriate use agreement(s) and the following conditions: 1. The Contract Administrator or his designee shall have the right to review and approve any location requested. 2. No modifications, changes or remodeling of any SLCFD facility shall occur without the Contract Administrator's approval. 3. All costs associated with location, accommodation, modifications, changes, remodeling, or any other expense shall be borne solely by Contractor. 4. Contractor agrees that its employees shall abide by all applicable City facility rules and regulations. D. The SLCFD is the licensed rescue paramedic provider and the designated quick response provider for Salt Lake City and shall provide all advanced and basic life support and paramedic services and care. Page 34 of 37 CONTRACT NO. 12-1-04-0575 EXHIBIT ►►WV FEE SCHEDULE 911 BLS AMBULANCE SERVICE GENERAL A. Rates and fees stated include all costs associated with the performance of the services specified, including materials, supervision, labor, insurance, transportation, delivery, fuel or other surcharges, demurrage, and related costs. No other charges shall be allowed. All prices and fees are stated in U.S. dollars. B. All rates and fees shall be based on full cost accounting in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles. II. COLLECTION AND PAYMENT OF PMA FEES Pursuant to Utah Code Annotated 26-8a-403 Administrative Rule R426-16, the Utah Depai tnient of Health sets the maximum allowable base ambulance rates that may be charged by Contractor for the services contemplated herein. The rates are evaluated and new rates are approved every year with a July 1 effective date and Contractor's rates may be changed in accordance with such changes. Contractor agrees that its ambulance transport fees shall not exceed the maximum base fees set by the Utah Department of Health. Contractor may, when applicable, charge up to the maximum mileage rates, surcharges, and special provisions fees set by the Utah Department of Health. The fees charged to patients shall be for actual services rendered, not license level. All fees shall be billed by Contractor to the patients, not to the City, and the Contractor shall have complete responsibility for collection of the amounts billed. The City shall have no responsibility for the payment of fees to the Contractor. The Utah Department of Health requires that any ambulance service that interfaces with a paramedic rescue service must have an inter-local or equivalent agreement in place, dealing with reimbursing the paramedic agency for services provided up to the maximum allowable rate per transport.This Agreement shall serve as such agreement and Contractor shall pay the City the maximum allowable PMA fee(s) for each transport where a City paramedic is on board. The Contractor shall pay the City the maximum allowable PMA fee(s) each time a City paramedic rides with the patient to the hospital,regardless of the amount of money collected by the Contractor. Any inability of the Contractor to collect full fees from the patient or the patient's insurance company, including fixed payers such as Medicaid and Medicare, shall not limit the Contractor's obligation to pay the City the full maximum allowable PMA fee(s) for the service provided by the City. CONTRACT NO. 12-1-04-0575 Page 35 of 37 EXHIBIT "C" HIPAA TERMS 911 BLS AMBULANCE SERVICE The parties agree to the following terms regarding the exchange of protected health information. 1. Background. Contractor is governed by broad and extensive privacy laws and regulations regarding patient information, its disclosure to anyone not specifically permitted is strictly prohibited by law. Under the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 and its related regulations, as amended ("HIPAA") and related laws and regulations, Contractor, as a"covered entity" is required to affirmatively and proactively protect any kind of disclosures of patient information (like patient care records, CAD records, dispatch communications involving patient inforiiration, etc.) that is defined as Protected Health Infoiination("PHI") under HIPAA and to request certain assurances from its business associates of their compliance with the law. Contractor provides emergency and non-emergency medical transportation, fire protection and other related services to the communities it serves. Patient information is exchanged between Contractor and the City pursuant to the parties' relationship. When PHI is provided to the City by Contractor in the course of the parties' relationship, PHI must be handled in accordance with this Agreement pursuant to HIPAA. 2. Definitions. Terms used, but not otherwise defined, in this Agreement shall have the same meaning as those terms in 45 CFR Sections 160.103 and 164.501. 3. Obligations and Activities of the City. In conformity therewith, the City agrees that it will: (a) Not use or further disclose PHI except as permitted under this Agreement or required by law; (b) Use appropriate safeguards to prevent use or disclosure of PHI except as permitted by the Agreement; (c) Mitigate, to the extent practicable, any harmful effect that is known to the City of a use or disclosure of PHI by the City in violation of this Agreement; (d) Report to the Contractor any use or disclosure of PHI not provided for by this Agreement of which the City becomes aware; (e) Ensure that any agents or subcontractors to whom the City provides PHI, or who have access to PHI, or whom the City receives PHI from, agree to the same restrictions and conditions that apply to the City with respect to such PHI; (f) Make PHI available to the Contractor and to the individual who has a right of access as required under HIPAA within thirty(30) days of the request by the Contractor or the individual; (g) Incorporate any amendments or changes to PHI and/or to this Agreement when directed by the Contractor; Page 36 of 37 (h) Provide an accounting of all uses or disclosures of PHI made by the City as required under the HIPAA privacy rule within sixty (60) days of a request,for such an accounting; and (i) Make its internal practices,books and records relating to the use and disclosure of PHI available to the Contractor or Secretary of the Department of Health and Human Services for purposes of determining the City's and the Contractor's compliance with HIPAA and/or as otherwise required by law. 4. Permitted Uses and Disclosures by the City. The specific uses and disclosures of PHI that may be made by the City on behalf of the Contractor include: (a) To perform functions, activities, or services for, or on behalf of, the Contractor as specified in the Agreement and in compliance with the HIPAA Privacy Rule; (b) For the proper management and administration of the City or to carry out the legal responsibilities of the City; (c) As required by law; (d) Other uses or disclosures of PHI as permitted by the HIPAA privacy rule. 5. Termination. (a) Notwithstanding any other agreement(s), this Agreement may be terminated by the Contractor, in its sole discretion, if the Contractor determines that the City has violated a teuir or provision of this Agreement, or if the City engages in conduct which would, if committed by the Contractor, result in a violation of the HIPAA privacy rule. (b) At the termination of this Agreement, the City agrees to return and/or destroy all PHI received from, or created, or received by the City on behalf of the Contractor, and if return is infeasible, the protections and requirements of this Agreement will survive such termination and extend to such PHI . Page 37 of 37 FIL FEE. 1: r 2006 THIRD DISTRICT COURT Alan L. Sullivan (3152) SALT LA SE DEp, T,, 7NT Bradley R. Cahoon (5925) Scott C. Rosevear (9953) Snell & Wilmer L.L.P. 15 West South Temple, Suite 1200 Gateway Tower West Salt Lake City, Utah 84101-1004 Telephone: (801) 257-1900 Facsimile: (801) 257-1800 Attorneys for Plaintiff Gold Cross Services, Inc. IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT IN AND FOR SALT LAKE COUNTY, STATE OF UTAH GOLD CROSS SERVICES, INC. dba GOLD CROSS AMBULANCE, a Utah corporation, COMPLAINT Plaintiff, vs. Case No. - SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation; SW Judge i GENERAL, INC./DBA/SOUTHWEST AMBULANCE, an Arizona corporation. Defendants. Plaintiff Gold Cross Services, Inc. dba Gold Cross Ambulance ("Gold Cross"), through its undersigned counsel, complains against defendants Salt Lake City Corporation (the "City") and SW General, Inc./DBA/Southwest Ambulance ("Southwest"), and alleges as follows: PARTIES,JURISDICTION & VENUE 1. Gold Cross is a Utah corporation organized in 1968. Its principal office is located at 1717 South Redwood Road, Salt Lake City, Utah. Gold Cross has a long and distinguished history 379227 3 of providing, among other things, both emergency ambulance services and non-emergency ambulance service to many political subdivisions in Utah, including Salt Lake City. 2. Defendant Salt Lake City Corporation is a municipal corporation located in Salt Lake County, Utah. 3. Defendant SW General, Inc./DBA/Southwest Ambulance is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Arizona. 4. Jurisdiction and venue are proper in this Court pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78-3-4; § 78-33-1, et seq.; and § 78-13-7. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 5. In this action, Gold Cross appeals from decisions of Salt Lake City's procurement officials holding that the City lawfully entered into a contract for emergency ambulance service despite having failed to obtain City Council approval of the City's request for proposal for such service, as required by statute. Persons purporting to act on the City's behalf ignored the requirements of legislation passed in early 2005. That legislation retroactively required the City's request for proposal to be approved by the City's "governing body," which is the City Council, before the City could enter into a contract on the basis of the request for proposal. In this action, Gold Cross challenges two rulings: (a) Gold Cross first challenges the City's determination that Gold Cross's protest was untimely. Although the City held that Gold Cross should have filed a protest before the closing date for proposals in May 2005, Gold Cross had no reason to know that the City 379227 3 2 would enter into a contract without obtaining City Council approval until it in fact entered into a contract for emergency ambulance service in December 2005. (b) Gold Cross also challenges the City's determination that the alleged approval by the Mayor constitutes approval by the City's "governing body." Under the law, either the City Council or the combination of the City Council and the Mayor constitute the City's "governing body." The City's failure to obtain City Council approval of the request for proposal process renders the process and the resulting contract unlawful and void. GOLD CROSS'S PROVISION OF AMBULANCE SERVICES 6. Before 2003, the Utah Department of Health ("Department of Health") was the sole governmental entity in Utah vested with authority to select ambulance service providers and to issue licenses to provide ambulance service. The Department of Health issued licenses to Gold Cross for ambulance services, including paramedic interfacility transfer and intermediate emergency ground transport services ("911 Ambulance Service"), within certain defined areas in the State of Utah. The Department of Health issued these licenses to Gold Cross under the Utah Emergency Medical Services System Act, Utah Code Ann. § 26-8a-401 et seq. (the "Act"). 7. The Department of Health issued Gold Cross License Number 1803L, which authorizes it to provide 911 Ambulance Service throughout Salt Lake County, including Salt Lake City. See License Number 1803L, attached as Exhibit A to this Complaint. The Department of Health recently renewed License 1803L for Gold Cross on December 31, 2005, and it expires on December 31, 2009. 379227 3 3 2003 AMENDMENTS TO THE ACT 8. In 2003, the Utah Legislature amended the Act to allow political subdivisions to issue requests for proposal from, and to select and contract with, 911 Ambulance Service providers for service within the political subdivision's boundaries. See Utah Code Ann. § 26-8a-405.2 et seq. (2004). 9. In order to issue a request for proposal for 911 Ambulance Service, a political subdivision is required by the amendments to the Act to submit the request to the Department of Health for approval. Id. § 26-8a-405.2(2)(a). Once the Department of Health approves the request for proposal, the political subdivision may issue it and award a contract to provide 911 Ambulance Service by following the specific requirements of the Act. Id. The Department of Health may then issue a license to the entity selected by the City under conditions specified in the Act. 10. The Act also requires that any entity wishing to respond to the political subdivision's request for proposal be pre-approved by the Department of Health as a qualified 911 Ambulance Service provider. See id. §§ 26-8a-405.3(3)(a)(i); 26-8a-404. CITY'S ISSUANCE OF A REQUEST FOR PROPOSAL 11. In 2004, persons employed by the City determined to issue a request for proposal to provide 911 Ambulance Service within the City. These persons, acting without the approval of the Salt Lake City Council, prepared and submitted a proposed request for proposal to the Department of Health. The Department of Health approved the request for proposal on January 4, 2005. 12. On January 14, 2005, persons purporting to act on the City's behalf issued a request for proposal to provide 911 Ambulance Service within the City (the "RFP"). See RFP, attached as 379227 3 4 Exhibit B to this Complaint. The original due date for submitting proposals to the RFP was March 16, 2005. See id. 13. At the time the RFP was issued, the Act did not explicitly require that the RFP be approved by the governing body of the City. See Utah Code Aim. § 26-8a-405.3 (2004). REQUIREMENT TO SEEK GOVERNING BODY'S APPROVAL 14. After the RFP was issued in January 2005, the Utah Legislature amended the Act in the 2005 General Session to require that "the governing body of the political subdivision shall approve the request for proposal prior to" issuing notice of the request for proposal. See Enrolled S.B. 216 (2005), attached as Exhibit C to this Complaint; see also Utah Code Ann. § 26a-8a- 405.3(b) (2005). 15. The 2005 amendments to the Act provided that "[t]he provisions of this bill apply to: (1) a request for proposal issued by a political subdivision after the effective date of this bill [March 17, 2005]; and (2) a request for proposal issued by a political subdivision prior to the effective date of this bill if the political subdivision requesting the proposals has not contracted with a proposer prior to the effective date of this bill." See Enrolled S.B. 216 (2005). Because the City had not contracted with a proposer under the RFP as of March 17, 2005, the 2005 amendments to the Act applied to the City's RFP. The 2005 amendments required the City to obtain the approval of the RFP by the City's governing body at some point before the City contracted with a proposer. 16. On April 1, 2005, in response to the 2005 amendments to the Act, persons purporting to act on behalf of the City issued amendments to its RFP. See April 1, 2005 Addendum to RFP, 3,9227 3 5 • attached as Exhibit D to this Complaint. The April 1, 2005 Addendum required that any interested and qualified offeror submit its proposal in response to the RFP on or before May 17, 2005. 17. Following the issuance of the April 1, 2005 Addendum, Gold Cross, which was pre- approved by the Department of Health as a qualified bidder for the RFP and that planned to submit a proposal to the RFP, sought assurance from the City that the City would seek approval of the RFP from the City's "governing body," that is, the Salt Lake City Council, as required by the 2005 amendments to the Act, before entering into a contract pursuant to the RFP. Although the City did not respond to Gold Cross's requests for assurance, Gold Cross had no reason to believe that the City would ignore the requirements of the 2005 amendments. 18. Prior to the May 17, 2005 deadline for submitting proposals to the RFP, Gold Cross submitted a complete proposal to the City in response to the RFP. Southwest, another ambulance service provider that had not previously operated in Utah, also submitted to the City a proposal to the RFP. THE CITY'S REVIEW AND SELECTION OF A BIDDER 19. After proposals to the RFP had been submitted to the City, persons purporting to act on behalf of the City convened a selection committee to review and evaluate the proposals responsive to the RFP. Gold Cross is informed and believes that members of the City Council were not involved in the selection of the committee or in the review and evaluation of proposals. 20. Because persons purporting to act on behalf of the City considered the RFP process to be a confidential proposal process, they kept confidential all information in the proposals. 379227.3 6 21. Over the course of the next several months, the City's selection committee continued with its process of selecting the winning bidder for the RFP. 22. On multiple occasions, the City's evaluation committee requested additional infoiination about Gold Cross's RFP from Gold Cross. Gold Cross diligently complied with every request for additional infouiiation from the City. Gold Cross also repeatedly advised members of the City Council that City Council approval would be required before any contract could be entered into pursuant to the RFP. 23. On December 15, 2005, almost seven months after the deadline to submit proposals to the RFP, and without ever obtaining City Council approval, the persons purporting to act on behalf of the City awarded the Contract under the RFP to Southwest. On the same day, the City entered into a contract to provide 911 Ambulance Service with Southwest (the "Contract"). GOLD CROSS'S PROTEST AND APPEAL 24. Under the Act, following the award of a 911 Ambulance Service contract under a request for proposal procedure, "[a)n offeror may appeal the solicitation or award as provided by the political subdivision's procedures." See Utah Code Ann. § 26-8a-405.3(5)(c)(i). 25. The City's rules for appealing an award of a contract under a request for proposal procedure provide: protests shall be submitted prior to the opening of bids or the closing date for proposals unless the protestor did not know and could not have known of the facts giving rise to the protest prior to such time. In such case, the protest shall be submitted within five working days after the protestor knows or should have known of the facts giving rise thereto. Salt Lake City Ord. § 3.24.210(C). 379227 3 7 26. Further, the time during which a protest must be submitted in order to be considered timely is clarified by the City's procurement rules: Protests will be timely if submitted before the time for submission of bids or the closing date for proposals. Any protest submitted thereafter may not be timely, and the protest must specify how and when the protestor determined that the protestor had reason to submit a protest so the Procurement Official can determine whether the protest is timely. City Procurement Administrative Rule 17.3(D) (emphasis added). 27. On December 22, 2005, which was five business days after the City entered into the Southwest Contract, Gold Cross filed an official protest to the Southwest Contract with the City. See December 22, 2005 Protest Letter, attached as Exhibit E to this Complaint. Gold Cross filed its protest pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 26-8a-405.3, City Ordinance § 3.24.210, and the City's procurement administrative rules. 28. In its December 22, 2005 protest, Gold Cross asserted that the City entered into the Contract without first submitting the RFP to the City Council for approval or disapproval, as required by the 2005 amendments to the Act. See id. 29. On December 30, 2005, the City issued a letter in which it found that Gold Cross's December 22, 2005 protest was untimely and without merit. See December 30, 2005 Letter, attached as Exhibit F to this Complaint. The City concluded that Gold Cross should have protested the RFP prior to the submission deadline for proposals to the RFP and that the Mayor of the City, as opposed to the City Council, was the governing body of the City. Because the Mayor,allegedly approved the RFP, the City concluded that it complied with the requirement for approval by the "governing body" of the City. 379227 3 8 30. On January 6, 2006, pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 26-8a-405.3, City Ordinance § 3.24.220 and the City's procurement administrative rules, Gold Cross filed an appeal of the City's December 30, 2005 letter within five business days of the issuance of the City's December 30, 2005 letter. See January 6, 2006 Appeal, attached as Exhibit G to this Complaint. According to the City's administrative rules, Gold Cross's appeal was to be reviewed and decided by the head of the City department that issued the request for proposal, i.e., the fire department. 31. By letter dated January 25, 2006, the City, through Fire Chief Charles Querry, rejected Gold Cross's January 6, 2006 appeal. See January 25, 2006 Letter, attached as Exhibit H to this Complaint. Chief Querry concluded that Gold Cross's protest of the award of the contract to Southwest was untimely and that the Mayor, as opposed to the City Council, was the governing body of the City. See January 25, 2006 Letter at pps.1-2. Mr. Querry's letter also stated that "[Allis letter is the final administrative action by Salt Lake City Corporation regarding the subject protest." See id. 32. Under Utah Code Ann. § 26-8a-405.3(5), a protestant may appeal the award of a contract under the provisions of Title 63, Chapter 56, Part 8 of the Utah Code (the "Procurement Statute"). Gold Cross has now exhausted its administrative remedies with the City. 33. Under the provisions of the Procurement Statute, a party aggrieved by a decision from a procurement officer may seek review in this Court. See Utah Code Ann. §§ 63-56-806, - 810, -815. FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION (Appeal from City's Denial of Gold Cross's Protest) 34. Gold Cross realleges and incorporates the above paragraphs. 3792273 9 35. On December 15, 2005, despite their failure to submit the RFP to the City Council for its approval or disapproval as required by the Act, persons purporting to act on behalf of the City entered into the Contract with Southwest to provide 911 Ambulance Service within the City. 36. Gold Cross did not know of the facts giving rise to its protest, that is, the award of the Contract to Southwest without City Council approval, until the Contract was awarded. Gold Cross had no reason to protest the award of the Contract without governing body approval until the Contract was, in fact, awarded. 37. On December 22, 2005, which was five business days following the City's entering the Contract with Southwest, Gold Cross protested the City's entering into the Contract with Southwest pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 26-8a-405.3, City Ordinance §3.24.210, and the City's procurement administrative rules. The grounds for Gold Cross's appeal were that the City failed to submit the RFP to the City's governing body, i.e., the City Council, for its approval or disapproval prior to issuing notice of the RFP. 38. Because Gold Cross submitted its protest to the City within five business days of the date by which it knew of the facts giving rise to the protest, i.e., the award of the Contract to Southwest without City Council approval, Gold Cross's December 22, 2005 protest was timely. 39. Moreover, because persons purporting to act on behalf of the City failed to obtain City Council approval before entering into a contract pursuant to the RFP, the City failed to comply with the express requirements of the Act, and the City's action in awarding the Contract to Southwest was unlawful. 40. Gold Cross is entitled to an order: (1) vacating the City's December 30, 2005 finding that Gold Cross's December 22, 2005 was untimely and without merit, and also vacating the 379227 3 10 City's January 25, 2006 denial of Gold Cross's appeal; (2) declaring the Southwest Contract unlawful and void; and (3) requiring the City to submit its RFP to the City Council for approval or disapproval before executing or implementing any contract pursuant to the RFP. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Action against the City and Southwest for Declaratory Judgment— Ultra Vires) 41. Gold Cross realleges and incorporates the above paragraphs. 42. The Act requires that the "governing body of the political subdivision shall approve the request for proposal prior to the notice of the request for proposal." See Utah Code Ann. § 26- 8a-405.3(1)(b). 43. The term "governing body" as used in the Act refers to the City Council. 44. The City failed to submit the RFP to the City Council for its approval or disapproval. 45. Because the City failed to submit the RFP to the City Council for its approval or disapproval, all actions purportedly taken by the City with respect to the RFP, including the selection of Southwest as the winning bidder under the RFP and the City's execution of the Southwest Contract were ultra vires acts that are null, void and unenforceable from their inception. 46. There is a present and justiciable case and controversy between Gold Cross on the one hand and the City and Southwest on the other hand as to whether the RFP should have been submitted to the City Council for its approval or disapproval. 47. Pursuant to Utah Code Aim. § 78-33-1 et seq., Gold Cross is entitled to an order: (1) declaring that the "governing body" of the City is the City Council; (2) declaring that the City should have submitted the RFP to the City Council for its approval or disapproval; (3) declaring that all actions taken by the City with respect to the RFP, including the award of the Contract to 379227.3 11 Southwest and the execution of the Contract by the City and Southwest, are null, void and unenforceable; and (4) ordering the City to submit the RFP to the City Council for its approval or disapproval as required by the Act before proceeding with the execution or implementation of any contract pursuant to the RFP. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION (Action against the City for Declaratory Judgment—Timely Protest) 48. Gold Cross realleges and incorporates the above paragraphs. 49. Under the Act, following the award of a 911 Ambulance Service contract under a request for proposal procedure, "[a]n offeror may appeal the solicitation or award as provided by the political subdivision's procedures." Utah Code Ann. § 26-8a-405.3(5)(c)(i). 50. The City's procedures for appealing an award of a contract under a request for proposal provide that protests shall be submitted prior to the opening of bids or the closing date for proposals unless the protestor did not know and could not have known of the facts giving rise to the protest prior to such time. In such case, the protest shall be submitted within five working days after the protestor knows or should have known of the facts giving rise thereto." Salt Lake City Ord. § 3.24.210(C). 51. Further, the time during which a protest must be submitted in order to be considered timely is clarified by the City's procurement rules: Protests will be timely if submitted before the time for submission of bids or the closing date for proposals. Any protest submitted thereafter may not be timely, and the protest must specify how and when the protestor determined that the protestor had reason to submit a protest so the Procurement Official can determine whether the protest is timely. 3792273 12 City Procurement Administrative Rule 17.3(D) (emphasis added). 52. Gold Cross reasonably believed that the City would not enter into a contract with any of the responding parties without first obtaining the approval of the RFP by the City Council, as required by the 2005 amendments to the Act. Because Gold Cross did not know of the facts giving rise to its protest, that is, that the City would award the Contract to Southwest without obtaining City Council approval of the RFP, and did not have reason to submit a protest before the award of the Contract to Southwest, Gold Cross was not required to file a protest until after the City entered into the Contract with Southwest. 53. Gold Cross timely submitted its protest to the City on December 22, 2005, within five working days of the date on which the City entered into the Contract with Southwest. 54. There is a present and justiciable case and controversy between Gold Cross on the one hand and the City on the other hand as to whether Gold Cross timely filed its protest to the Southwest Contract. 55. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. § 78-33-1 et seq., Gold Cross is entitled to an order: (1) declaring that its December 22, 2005 protest was timely filed with the City; and (2) vacating the City's December 30, 2005 decision that Gold Cross's December 22, 2005 protest was untimely. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION (Rule 65A Entry of Injunction Enjoining the City and Southwest's Implementation of the Southwest Contact) 56. Gold Cross realleges and incorporates the above paragraphs. 57. Unless the City and Southwest are enjoined from implementing the Contract, Gold Cross will suffer irreparable injury in the following respects, among others: 379227 3 13 (a) Gold Cross will lose a substantial number of highly trained and uniquely qualified 911 Ambulance Service employees, many of whom Gold Cross spent substantial amounts of time and money training, whose loss will be irreparable to Gold Cross's continued operations; (b) Gold Cross will lose a significant and unquantifiable amount of business and goodwill that it otherwise would have generated both within and outside Salt Lake City; and (c) Gold Cross will lose a significant amount of the revenue required to maintain the critical mass of infrastructure, including personnel, ambulances and other emergency response equipment, that is necessary to fully and efficiently respond to emergencies throughout Salt Lake County. 58. The issuance of an injunction in this case will not be adverse to the public interest, but will in fact further the public interest, because it will allow the City Council to evaluate the merits of an RFP that may result in the interruption and replacement of 911 Ambulance Service within the City. 59. The threatened injury to Gold Cross, that is, the loss of its right to provide 911 Ambulance Service in the City, outweighs whatever inconvenience the proposed injunction may cause to the City or to Southwest. 60. Gold Cross is entitled to entry of an injunction, to be effective during the pendency of this action, and thereafter permanently, prohibiting the City and Southwest from taking any further actions to implement the Southwest Contract. 379227 3 14 PRAYER FOR RELIEF Gold Cross prays for relief and demands judgment against the City as follows: 1. On the First Cause of Action, an order: (1) vacating the City's December 30, 2005 finding that Gold Cross's December 22, 2005 appeal was untimely and without merit and the City's January 25, 2006 denial of Gold Cross's appeal; and (2) declaring the Southwest Contract unlawful and void; and (3) requiring the City to submit its RFP to the.City Council for its approval or disapproval before executing or implementing any contract pursuant to the RFP. 2. On the Second Cause of Action, an order: (1)declaring that the "governing body" of the City is the City Council; (2) declaring that the City should have submitted the RFP to the City Council for its approval or disapproval; (3) declaring that all actions taken by the City with respect to the RFP after it failed to submit the RFP to the City Council for its approval, including the award of the Contract to Southwest and the execution of the Contract by the City and Southwest, are null, void and unenforceable; and (4) ordering the City to submit the RFP to the City Council for its approval or disapproval as required by the Act before proceeding with the execution or implementation of the Southwest Contract. 3. On the Third Cause of Action, an order: (I) declaring that its December 22, 2005 protest was timely filed with the City; and (2) vacating the City's December 30, 2005 decision that Gold Cross's December 22, 2005 protest was untimely. 4. On the Fourth Cause of Action, entry of an injunction against the City and Southwest prohibiting them from taking any further actions to implement the Southwest Contract until a final determination of the rights of the parties. 379227 3 15 5. For Gold Cross's attorney fees and costs incurred in this matter and for such other further legal and equitable relief as the Court deems appropriate. DATED this rls-day of February, 2006. SNELL & WILMER L.L.P. Alan L. Sullivan Bradley R. Cahoon Scott C. Rosevear Attorneys for Plaintiff Gold Cross Services, Inc. Plaintiffs Address: 1717 South Redwood Road Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 379227 3 16 MEMORANDUM DATE: February 14, 2006 TO: City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno,Policy Analyst RE: Adopting a resolution expressing strong opposition to Senate Bill 170,and other similar legislation On January 23rd,2006,Senate Bill 170 was introduced by Senator Alma Mansell. The bill proposed broad and sweeping changes that would dramatically alter the current system of planning and land use, going in the direction of taking away community and elected officials input,putting a developer's property rights above the property rights of the neighbors and the community as a whole. This legislation has been characterized as being written by a small group of developers,with no input at all from planners,local elected officials,city governments,or concerned citizens. Because of the strong opposition to the bill that was voiced from many different sides of the issue in many arenas,the bill appears to be less popular among state legislators. However,many of the issues that were the driving force behind the bill still exist,and the initial supporters of the bill would like these issues to be addressed. The backers of SB 170 are currently working on additional legislation that would propose changes that so far are less disruptive to the community-input process,but could still potentially alter the process of land use planning in a way that would adversely affect a municipality's local authority. The Salt Lake City Council has represented that they are willing to work with the backers of SB 170 through the Utah League of Cities and Towns,to alleviate some of the problems and concerns that developers have with the municipal planning process. The Council has indicated that it will only support legislation that has been written in a collaborative way,with the desire to fix the current problems with the system without destroying the system as a whole and eliminating the public process that is so important for an urban environment like Salt Lake City. The following is a resolution,based on a draft resolution crafted by the Utah League of Cities and Towns, outlining the Council's strong opposition to any legislation that would make such sweeping changes to the planning and land use system without the input of the municipal interest. It should be noted that communities across Utah have adopted similar resolutions: 1 RESOLUTION NO. A RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL EXPRESSING STRONG OPPOSITION TO SENATE BILL 170,LAND USE AMENDMENTS,AND REQUESTING THAT OUR SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES VOTE AGAINST THIS BILL,AND ANY OTHER LEGISLATION THAT HAS NOT BEEN WRITTEN WITH A CONSIDERATION OF THE MUNICIPALITIES' INTEREST WHEREAS,in the 2005 legislative session,the Cities joined efforts with a large consortium of stake holders to make significant changes to the State's municipal and county land use code,under the sponsorship of Senator Greg Bell;and WHEREAS,those who were represented in this undertaking,mutually agreed that any subsequent changes in the land use code should be made on a consensus basis,through an undertaking by these same stake holders;and WHEREAS,on the 23`d of January,of 2006, Senate Bill 170 Land Use Amendments,was proposed for passage in this years legislative session in contradiction of the intent of the stake holders involved in the drafting of last years Land Use Bill;and WHEREAS, Senate Bill 170 received no input in the drafting from the Cities or Counties of this State;and WHEREAS, among the many objections that may be raised the language of this bill,the following are issues in the bill,that are strongly opposed by this City and its Citizens. Senate Bill 170;and WHEREAS,the sponsor of this legislation has indicated that the bill goes too far and needs to be revised. In particular,the Salt Lake City Council raises the following concerns with the bill as introduced: 1. It takes away and disregards the opportunity for public input to the City's elected officials on a zone change, on an individual parcel of land,even though such a change may have significant effect on neighbors and adjacent landowners. Taking decision making away from elected officials and putting it in the hands of appointed staff significantly lessens accountability to the public. 2. It seriously compromises the ability of local elected officials to balance the interests of developers and neighbors in making essential land uses decisions. Since Salt Lake City is predominantly built out,infill development requires particular sensitivity for neighborhood compatibility. 3. It gives the development community virtually total control of the development process in our community and establishes intimidating penalties for officers and employees of the City,both criminal and civil,for failure to comply with that process. 4. It eliminates the City's ability to plan long term,through its General Plan,and amend this plan as the City continues to grow and evolve. 5. It eliminates the City's ability to provide for the protection of surrounding property values,by imposing conditions for such protection according to the development proposal. It is important for Salt Lake City to be able to continually assess the changing needs of our neighborhoods in order to preserve these property values and ensure that they grow,rather than decrease as a result of incompatible development. 2 6. It gives a complete presumption of validity to the decisions of so-called"experts"hired by the developer to validate a development request,unless rebutted by a City expert. 7. It would likely unnecessarily increase litigation,turning many decisions over to the judiciary and increasing costs to taxpayers. 8. It would eliminate a city's ability to protect surrounding foothills or to make any zoning decisions based on aesthetics. NOW THEREFORE be it resolved: 1. That the Salt Lake City Council hereby expresses in the strongest terms possible, its opposition to Senate Bill 170, Land Use Amendments,as introduced. 2. That the Salt Lake City Council respectfully requests that Senators and Representatives representing Salt Lake City oppose this piece of legislation,as well as any other such legislation that is drafted without some consideration and input of the municipalities,whose duty it is to protect the property rights of each of their citizens. 3. That the Salt Lake City Council encourages the supporters of Senate Bill 170 to work with the local governments to arrive at consensus-based legislation to solve the current problems that developers face when dealing with municipalities—whether they be related to timelines, development expectations, application of current zoning law,or impact fees. DATED this 14 day of February,2006. CHAIR ATTEST: CITY RECORDER 3