The URL can be used to link to this page

03/30/2006 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, MARCH 30 , 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Thursday, March 30, 2006, at 5 : 00 p.m. in Training Room A, Pioneer Precinct, 1040 West 700 South, Salt Lake City, Utah. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, and Dave Buhler. Absent: Councilmember Soren Simonsen. Also in Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Jan Aramaki, Council Constituent Liaison/Research and Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Marge Harvy, Council Constituent Liaison; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Charles Dinse, Police Chief; Chris Burbank, Assistant Police Chief; Scott Atkinson, Administrative Bureau Assistant Police Chief; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Max Peterson, City Engineer; Lynn Jarman, Engineering Planning/Programming Manager; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Mike Harmon, Poplar Grove Community Council; David Litvach, Utah House Representative; Tom DeVroom, Fair Park Community Council; Jay Ingleby, Glendale Community Council; Reed Riddle, City Resident; Randy Smith, Community Development Corporation; Darin Brush, Community Development Corporation; and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder. A bus tour of Council District 2 was held at 5 : 00 p.m. (See attached itinerary/map) . View Attachments 9 : 22 : 08 AM Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the Work Session meeting which was called to order at 7 : 05 p.m. OPENING CEREMONY: 9 : 22 : 21 AM Girl Scout Troop #524 presented the Pledge of Allegiance . WORK SESSION: #1 . 9 : 24 : 56 AM COMMENTS FROM DISTRICT 2 RESIDENTS . The following spoke or submitted written comments : Reed Riddle, Vicki Mori, Kent Bowman, Kate Diggins, Pam Sanders, Jena Burt, Janette Gonzales, Michael Clara, Shannon Jevez, John Renteria, Mike Harman, Wally Mills , Jay Ingleby, Richard Nelson, Edie Trimmer, John Ramos, Sue Stahle, Larry Fidler and Esther Hedrick. Comments included Real Salt Lake, Community Development Block Grant Funding (CDBG) , promoting success of Guadalupe Schools, early intervention, voluntary improvement programs, adult programs, diversity, Big Brothers/Big Sisters funding, potential impact of the Gigante proposal, train issues, quiet zones, 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, MARCH 30, 2006 quality of life, right to protest/petition government, auto theft/break-ins, limited police response, sidewalk funding, Sorensen Unity Center costs, Grant Tower project, assisting westside neighborhoods, renaming Modesto Avenue and Modesto Park to Gold Avenue/Gold Park, installing memorial, traffic accidents on 400 South, installing flags/signs, protecting small businesses, and relocating tire recycling business . #2 . 9 : 54 : 06 AM INTERVIEW CHRIS BURBANK PRIOR TO ADVICE AND CONSENT OF HIS APPOINTMENT AS POLICE CHIEF. (ITEM C -1) View Attachments The majority of the Council was in favor of the appointment. #3 . 10 : 12 : 06 AM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING ON THE SORENSON UNITY CENTER. View Attachments Rick Graham and Russell Weeks briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Mr. Graham said the design process was underway and construction should begin in August, 2006 . He said the anticipated date for opening the center was March, 2007 . Discussion was held on funding appropriations . Mr. Graham said funding had been appropriated for the design and bid process . He said additional appropriations would be included in the Mayor' s proposed budget. #4 . 10 : 39 : 13 AM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING ON THE LEGISLATIVE ACTION INITIATED BY COUNCILMEMBER BUHLER REQUESTING AN ORDINANCE AMENDMENT TO SECTION 15 . 08 . 020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE FOR MINI PARKS RELATING TO PARK CLOSURE HOURS . View Attachments Rick Graham and Jan Aramaki briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Discussion was held on modifying hours for City Creek Park and Gilgal Gardens and adding Wasatch Hollow Park to the list. The majority of the Council was in favor of advancing the issue for formal consideration. #5 . 10 : 55 : 13 AM RECEIVE A COMPREHENSIVE BRIEFING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION ON CITY PROGRAMS FOR DEFECTIVE CONCRETE REPLACEMENT IN THE PUBLIC WAY. View Attachments Rick Graham, Max Peterson, Lynn Jarman and Jan Aramaki briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Council Members wanted to explore bonding options, ADA issues, obtaining community council/public input and public education. Councilmember Christensen suggested using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) funding for ADA corners and extending the Special Improvement District (SID) program Citywide. 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION THURSDAY, MARCH 30 , 2006 A majority of the Council was in favor of establishing a subcommittee to review issues/options and prepare recommendations . Council Members Christensen, Turner, and Love or Simonsen were selected to serve on the subcommittee. The meeting adjourned at 9 : 35 p.m. Council Chair Chief Deputy City Recorder This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held March 30, 2006 . sc 06 - 3 0C00 _VQ, �lt � WN " O •V 0) Ut � Co) 1� - O • o N (/� NZZZO'702, '' vi S'a �` tp3 O ��t/1 p• ,* �,' ram.40 '�''+ � -, } � �p to ..� -O A.M. Q t!3 '0 " O ©y,.*� �„ , " �" rr ,3 Q 7 N ! y !} ' - ---- t,, {gypa ' i,,z4.,.‘ t .„ F . A! ' . i10 �A s. '� . im '' f a M d £RL ah fin.. "� t1 1?, -i >�Y �"' 3 ,: ,., , , : ,.. .. !7;3 ..: .i. i . M1r r ti ! ip- : --- : es : 'y. „oit .‘ii. s t ,,,,. ,cw .„ 7... , 1 .t , '. �... -," - '-:-..,',- '".'" A4 I:-, . f.,,,a..,,,,, ,i '•.' A;',.''''', -,' .t.'''' ''' .:` i i : , , . . I!) ' ',''''',' . ' ',i''',' ', -:. '-i&.,,,e its,,,-Tooticitio ,,,---,,‘„,4,vitet.--, -*-----i> '- --:""'i g l','' -a t,t,... ..,.;'t_i'.,'.','''t' t'-', ' ,,t,,,,,,tt,,t,,.,.,'.:.:,.•,,,,,,,'.0", • " t' ' ,1A.-t,k,,,', A t• • A,,, - •' ' max. A _ = , ...,.,..� 0� s"�. ,� .g.--,' i t 't 1 t E t ,IY - �• • R, aE ••t - �" •pt }per -. . : _., ir 143 �"� ;'.. ._.,'� { yp� ,:. .. : Wit.. .- it...) 8 i ',# %i� }... s ; *t , ._ , , 7_,i,„„,,„,„„,..„,„,.:,...,,,I,,,,,,),----4-7.-- -,.Git,',, k alh.,, PW.:,:l ', ID-P(0 "' f. - .1', 4 * '---Ft.AT �. tt ..010.... , . MODE »� • I, 'gj, L : -t..«. ;, +xMWIfW.q m rc- yr ..,.'4e.''l'4�%, w,rtnK+ ws-dry .�.�., m•{I. ,,�r+„»wr v ...wu.. _...-.w-s+w 'It` .a: F: 6 s ,.-..,�,o, Cry • .: . #�t� , �� lot � � % ,„..;-;•••,,.''•, '".",.0 ..! : 00 , „ *.:„:, 1-, tv------,'' " rirr"'''' '''MVOti S—i tiA -"'.b).V: :''''''S ! ' i 1. DI as at cap _ .�,_,� � `' t. c>., rilIMININIMIlli ',„ ,,,, ”, 14. . , _ ! in , __,,,,,. .....k III •. 'd of - i , ' ?Am, o' AL---,41 i tli 114�r Cottage Homes with Rear Loaded Two Car Garages I 1 f1111 1 uwJINU1 ; vimi--wp—ir I ME 1 1 1/ 0 . I 1:41 IIIIIII I Ii 4, Green �III�D-� ugN11 mmi.,,_ I I II Court i M. Community Green i I I illso K1 - O � ,i IOW I I i Private Drive , i0. m I o> I Scale:1"=50' Town Homes with Front Loaded Two Car Garages p r , I _ Y4' y t 1 C Concept Plan :7 1- CDC - Utah r 110 .0 "p Q I-' C „' 0 prj �D U c... S L. _qc *0 m .i O cc T 0 4u 6 0 0 a.) a) = t-9, ; '-C c17 i 03 "" Q C o 0 aq O E 3 W) a 0 L N Ct o = •5 C7 a cd o 0, f� 0 cU 09 -p ..- u cd $. O ct "C v • o- [� v o u � 3 �' aCiva) a �, "C � t cn H (0 L H C C cp Q -iiip S CD vZ Hup 2 w � Q �- L W tit 3 >'>' U) "-' r ..0 U 5 E C O Cn i L ..I ` , C. O O o f __ c3 2 L �,' ' �• � n aLL _,oal � ro > L Q : ' I x f fc. 32ma) m `- -ca 3 L - "lik Md N. \\\� N. O up Fflflj '-. cca / a) - 0o = a) a cY o k % _ :y O O Y ct r 0 > � � m� � � � J � � ,t o m ro c c ; cn ro m u) o)o m ` 2 ° 3-1 LiL y \ 1 iiilt., .1 / •� � Co th' caiU • l v a� �aa o ° oar a) v a) d Tic: Q E o � 3if 3 o 0 E12 < °- c U .. _ z c � a oaro o cis I U •IMr L C ct = t ti • y a) O O O O ` ` Mt cn ,yS� U U y = No G w , E. xct cC .D c,.., N d, C cV i- NO _c - N C c L. _ t0.. s- 0 p, a� y) c P o a) o E > c c c -g c 8 -o •� g on E t/� W Na, on w `° - mca� = ten EE � °' a"icbc «' � so � `° N z ` al - - x c 3 .o a) cc) a�i o c, 0 o 0 0 `� 'o u 0 a, > o L aa)i d a'N' o m 3 0) o o c a� o o ? Lv s o N a� n on c o c fl U a� o ° c I— u F, -c CG a� U n C c >,c o s ‘,.'3 C E- c� °� ' °q c 3 F- ccs o c > Y +- cog C7 c �° ° - 4 kn Zw 3 'U � n .� O -p > 0 c c n N N 10 N co bqO L y ,= -0 co c 41 ca oE . 174 .Eg `Eic oc u � � � oNti4 0v, icoa gwLE J H y w �. o L T c o � ._ ._ . - ,. c = o ro i •- a ` •c •+= c 0 L Y J `n �••' N N O C O U Cl.) O N �' 'a)' cC •3 C _ .D = U U ril C O , U 'CJ vi rn 6. O w cc' ai 3 O C X >, in N >,c. •b ti E •> �W a ro a) , E�- a a) u "c o , c � 3s ,9 E L a ^ � x `c° c . c 0 0 a �� L a x c -g -c `o � •ro , 2 • c, I, d o cca 0 � oo o 5, 0 E � v b U E O � a) , ._ 0 , 4. t 3 m I- o-...a E^ w -d Q cd n. c, F2 8 Q G 3 -o 5 3 • o H rilliiiiill..1111P " Jgr J I _____ Icl) 1 I 1491 I IICAI I S- -. ..,.s'::: �. J 1 • o _ t, 4 . . , i . b 1,..* ,Q) s, Q� . of $1C(/‘ '.e 1Z74. c� fit ,� O , e r -♦� . SALT LAKE CITY CouNca oaor ` `,', PUBLIC MEETING REGISTRATION FORM ` �)"(` t/ I 'T Ell r` 6/, Agenda Item 1 J I J , i /f � Phone i J ( / Name /\ 6- (i ,/ t 't l J (please print dearly) Address r ' 1 -, ( h, 1 y / (.. / / E-Mail Address Subjects r { ? A i 4 (, I wish to speak (O in support of) -or- (O in opposition to) the subject noted above. O I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? I would like to receive information about: 0 my community coundl D serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://wwwslc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-765M; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council.comments@ci.slc.utus Co • •• _ SALT Ciw COUNCIL pat,. . ` , � „ PUBUC MEETING REGISTRATION FORML 3 )(� U , ) �. , ,,r _'/� r Agenda Item ,,,7_,-,--77177. , e-DE 6' ) Name [JICI ma/e G Phone 3 /—6/00 LX 70 Z (please print dearly) r Address ..� `/O G-os Xe►�J S'�22e-'/— E-Mail Address (J/Ck c - NOR,OS l c . i6a . (mot �lS Subject o ,b c �-uada '<I wish to speak (0 in support of) -or- (0 in opposition to) the subject noted above. 0 I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? p, I would like to receive information about 0 my community council 0 serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://wwwslc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Coundl, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at coundl.comments@ci.slc.utus /1_ )C- -'-,•!,e. .. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL. i'.—ii.th , PUBLIC MEETING REGLSTRATZON FORM 3 — 3c.)- O Iftl .-14 ,41e.. Agenda Item >1.5_...las ow , ' i 111-4—:-.;..-----_-m---1 , ( C-08 6-) Name e►V sp.sco kJ phone (please print dearly) Address E-Mail Address Subject pi-) a E r- tyl wish to speak (0 in support of) -or- (O in opposition to) the subject noted above. 0 I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? I would like to receive information about: 0 my community council 0 serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://www.slc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council.comments@ci.slc.utus ♦_. C*5 `• I SALT LUCE CITY CouNQL 2 I , ' I PUBLIC MEETING REGISTRATION FORM 3 u A. rl ••�.,:•..41 '--6 Agenda Item glop' _ ilit.,I1- b i3 Name �P_ p1 i N& Phone ( ease print dearly) Address E-Mail Address Subject ( p & 6-- ( rUl4db-(u p? yI wish to speak (0 in support of) -or- (0 in opposition to) the subject noted above. 0 I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? I would like to receive information about: 0 my community council 0 serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://www.slc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Coundl Members at council.comments@d.slc.utus ,♦10 .! j SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL / Dab.- .0 141*11 PUBLIC M�rma RausTRATtoN Fo ,i .5/� 0 c9 I� TY�' �,,:•.•. 6 , Agenda Item t.7.r�7 �1 Name PA ". 1 S ,U E-n5 Phone 3/ 3 - 0 3 0 S >c i / z (please print dearly) 43!q 1 k e '1 s 13 1[1 S, u Address 151 . 6-to b o do, &A.,/"/r zoo E-Mail Address P a r►-,@ 6 b b s u . o c Subject C D C3 G - n 9 wish to speak m support of) -or- (O in opposition to) the subject noted above. 0 I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? e.m a. i I I would like to receive information about: 0 my community council O serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://www.slc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council.comments©ci.slc.utus /►_ ` Date •'" t SALT L UCE CITY CouNc . l I I c l PUBLIC MEETING REGISTRATION Fou' D/ f -T t. �,�:•.• `--6 Agenda Item Name U E 14 A )v Kl. Phone , - q 3 C (please print dearly) Address 6,53 3 ? : . „ ' E-Mail Address Subject 7 I wish to speak (0 in support of) -or- (0 in opposition to) the subject noted above. 0 I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? I would like to receive information about: 0 my community council 0 serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://wwwslc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council.comments@ci.slc.utus 11 '� i N.`I Date :x" SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL c MEETING REGISTRATION FORM !Atli�1�` Agenda Item Name ji t. 67 1 (`e s Phone 'f 7 3` ' F (please print dearly) Address 13 2 A4' E-Mail Address Subject 7 wish to speak (O in support of) -or- (0 in opposition to) the subject noted above. 0 I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? I would like to receive information about: 0 my community council l]serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://www.slc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council.comments@ci.slc.utus ♦' A!j j• SALT LAKE CITY COUNCILDatr I "� PUBLIC MEETING RF nsrn noN FORM x 7,1-1 r-- ��M,.Lb4/, Agenda Item a. ( Name IA ([. L'f � 14 rs,t Phone 5 Z./— 3 Z.-" :,,I (please print dearly) Address I b 4 Ll Lk). 300 5 , E-Mail Address ‘5A \ &4 i,,,,,?2,- V14 Ito ., (.°ram Subjest U �L� ^ G. t. I wish to speak (0 in support of) -or- (O in opposition to) the subject noted above. 0 I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? I would like to receive information about 0 my community council 0 serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://wwwslc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council.comments@d.slc.utus Date 0 -.---Fi i -41 tk SALT LUCE CM'COUPICIL ( MEETING REGLCIRATION FORM PUBLIC Ak .,......:,;.7:.-4---. Agenda Item _ I liFe___-,.. -,---77, I ) Name \i‘Cik.\A VI Oti 73CYCZ--- Phone Li So—C1 Li (please print dearly) Address IS S-4- LA). ;1- 3_.-) _. E-Mail Address , , _I Li , _ ,.. Subject (CI,\./ /)‘,.- cl \'')---‘ ci S ,,-: .: i',,,i if,,::: ,, ::1, 134wish to speak (Din support of) -or- (Din opposition to) the subject noted above. U I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). cr ,---- How did you learn about this meeting? ---t" ',(my community council 0 serving on a , • i I would like to receive information about: g city board.t To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://www.slc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at coundLcomments@d.slc.utus f►i SALT LAKE CITY Dab. _ COUNCIL � 1 I PUBLIC MEETING REGISTRATION FORM 1 /, Agenda Item Name v 4 /C.e '�,�,z Phone Z l 2 (please print dearly) Address / o 4 � � -t u E-Mail Address Pri r s 5 p 2c)/ , Subject G- O I wish to speak (0 in support of) -or- (0 in opposition to) the subject noted above. %I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? ( -��, � I would like to receive information about: 0 my community coundi 0 serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://wwwslc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at coundl.comments@ci.slc.utus nk rilli SALT LAKE Cmr CouNca Oatk " PUBUC MEETING REGISTRATION FORM )-,. =T • 111 fir� .�/� {_ Agenda Item 1, ) Name 1 ma r Yam,Vl phone 52 C q o Cr (please print dearly) Address lb! if W - 30° S . E-Mail Address horlAnun t) M r-f,>l Can - Cam., Subject -Fop 1 z r +ry L - Cre_AAA>ML,61 Luv1212 O' I wish to speak (0 in support of) -or- (0 in opposition to) the subject noted above. 0 I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? I would like to receive information about: 0 my community council 0 serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://wwwslc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council.comments@ci.slc.utus j• SALT LAKE CITY DAL,COUNCILi.,)•--.!. 61„-i _ PUSuc MEETING REGISTRATION FORDS 3/3 4+ / v C A. / O -..t, _ ,,:� ''�, Agenda Item Name L)A L L,// M ► L Ls Phone qo t" `r73- Z.c,Cz (please print dearly) Address k � 9-1 t.,). 4 Oo t , 4- y Li. la tc 2t i U4-, 74 1,00 E-Mail Address Subject 0.I wish to speak (0 in support of) -or- (0 in opposition to) the subject noted above. I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How di you learn about this meeting? 7C I would like to receive information about Amy community council Cr serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://www.slc.ut.us. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council.comments@d.sic.utus fl, t, SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Date ` l ( d "� PUBt1C MEETING REGISTRATION FORM `� „ r �^�.,.::' '1, Agenda Item T r V v Name_ _� -�°'. .-1h c Phone (please 'nt dearly) of Address f>' t E-Mail Address Subject G?�.r�l l ', : Cl I wish to speak (0 in support of) -or- (0 in opposition to) the subject noted above. 0 I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? I would like to receive information about: 0 my community council 0 serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://www.slc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Coundl Members at coundl.comments@ci.slc.utus sn•3n•ais•pOslu uo:T punoa 3e siagwaw Ipunop Ile Ilew-a Jo ails qai atp wa"",sJagwaW Ipuno3 Ienpinlpul Ilew-a :T59L a 03 Xe4 e puns ',59L-S£S 3e awl 3uaW WOa Jnoy-fZ (p Him no3 A ale131eS a43 W s3uawwoa 3lwgns of •009L-5s s!Jagwnu auoyd aawo Ipuno'J auf 'sn'lnnIr //'d334 3e a31s qaa mno 3!s!n Jo TL lauueya uolslnalaa algee Mal% '3uawwano6 3Ies lnoge avow weal of •pmeoq Alp e uo 6uwas a 1punoo,ylunwwoo Aim ❑ :anoge uogeuuaJul anlaaai (73 am pinoM I .6upaaw sap snoge weal not p!p MOH '(pie,do)peq asn aseald) ss$iewal ;lwgns at am PInoM I hanaMoy .Meads o;4slnn Sou op I o •anoge pa3ou 3aacgns eta (aq uonisoddo u!N Jo- (Jo iaoddns ui gj) Meads o3 4SIM IV( 3# 1Le4 .4. <,n c rapo� # v �,�, 3 e1gnS ✓ e.,.=f ; '‹)‹: 1 r."h (3 c,... cis pus tA 19.) SSauPPV IIeW-3 (*neap 3uud aseald) `))-i 4// — 9$g Boyd 0 r J-a N J e i y aweN _i, Eta wan epua6y likarrA NOLLIMS19311 914I133 W anand Y j� I_ wNno,�UriS II�.. ..F_411, si ......., f�i SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL Date m i4_ PUBLIC MEETING REGISTRATION FORM I1". ,, .. ,'_•`�1.•''►. Agenda Item ( ) ,-- \ , Namerkb f l Ili- . ..1 .. phone f a 4 (please pnnt dearly) Address E-Mail Address : 1/ '. f p I ') .. f 4 Subject wish to speak (0 in support of) -or- (O in opposition to) the subject noted above. 0 I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? I would like to receive information about: O my community council 0 serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://www.slc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council.comments@ci.slc.utus • Data • ,`,...it SALT LAB CITY COUNCIL ( • I IR"1 Pusuc MEETING REGISTRATION FORM - ;Iirli: '',. Agenda Item -7. 1,x147. II, _ !' 1 (11,174-i....-:-'.-_--'--,j7 ) Li .�1 Name 3-d\4',^-- K Q U5i Phone (please print dearly) Address 5 ., -SO zf�- o�l E-Mail Address 1 - Subject i P.,o►—a`o + -4 "�-'1-' i c t ' , -t t7A"''' Vi66 I wish to speak (0 in support of) -or- (0 in opposition to) the subject noted above. 0 I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? I would like to receive information about 4 my community council iserving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://wwwslc.ut.us. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council.comments@ci.sic.utus .1 !�i. ab,.,- Date- ' SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL `° "1 PUBLIC MEETING REGISTRATION FORM ( 3 i - C)j) Al:' ) - �- -±. 1,Tri."Th;' -- i Agenda Item �1I 4 Name c ) L) c ^ '' 'T A., \ l.. Phone c rt' s (please print dearly) Address [ -) _::t ' ."*. E-Mail Address _ �_r� < v` in su -or- (D in opposition to) the subject noted above. v , I would like to submit remarks (please use bade of card). How did you learn about this meeting? Vr':/ I ` ,. f p I would like to receive information about: 0 my community council =1: `senving axity.board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://wwwslc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at council.comments@d.slc.utus SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL A-r PUBLIC MEETING REGISTRATION Foos s , , - �� Agenda Item Name_ � [ , �a fl �' -- ' Phone (please print dewy) y Address fr' 6)If is ( E-Mail Address tarrii Subject At I wish to speak (0 in support of) -or- (0 in opposition to) the subject noted above. 0 I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? / vRo I would like to receive information about: q(my community council 0 serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://www.slc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at coundl.comments@ci.slc.utus Dat- '4•�j- SALT LAKE CITY CouNcu. Pusisc MEETZNa REGISTRATION FORM -V204 6 - ``- r Agenda Item Name F's tom,. C k phone f‘ - V 3' 5— (please print dearly) Address / s�/ Z-4, 47 JO - 5 = E-Mail Address Subject CI I wish/to speak (0 in support of) -or- (0 in opposition bo) the subject noted above. Rf I do not wish to speak; however, I would like to submit remarks (please use back of card). How did you learn about this meeting? 7/),= " I would like to receive information about /Kiy community council 0 serving on a city board. To learn more about Salt Lake City government, view cable television channel 71 or visit our web site at http://wwwslc.utus. The Council Office phone number is 535-7600. To submit comments to the Salt Lake City Council, call the 24-hour comment line at 535-7654; send a fax to 535-7651; e-mail individual Council Members from the web site or e-mail all Council Members at coundl.comments@ci.slc.utus C/, C , MAR `.f 2006 ROSS C. "ROCKY"ANDERSON 'A\ Th ^� Q r'4 TY Ct fI 1Pe °)A J I 1 l��.f �� I�..t r►��N ! SALT LAKE 2002 OFFICE OF THE MAYOR March 27, 2oo6 Chair Dave Buhler Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Dear Chair Buhler: I request the City Council's consent to the appointment of Chris Burbank to the position of Police Chief. Mr. Burbank has been employed by the Salt Lake City Police Department for fifteen years. His current position is Bureau Commander of Support Services. He has a Bachelor of Science Sociology from the University of Utah, and is a graduate of the West Point Leadership Course. Mr. Burbank's experience includes planning, organizing and implementing security for the Salt Lake Olympic Square during the zooz Salt Lake City Winter Games, serving as Executive Officer to Chief Rick Dinse, and serving as Division Commander of Internal Affairs and Training where he oversaw the development and implementation of the Department Electrical Energy Device Policy. Mr. Burbank has been awarded several citations for his service of the years, including a Meritorious Unit Citation, for his service to the downtown area, Distinguished Unit Citation, in recognition for service to the Police Department and the community, and Hero in the Community award by Whittier Elementary School. A copy of Mr. Burbank's resume is attached for your review. Sincerely, s C. nderson Mayor 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84111 TELEPHONE.801-535-7704 FAX.801-535-6331 fiA Confidential Resume' Assistant Chief Chris C. Burbank Bureau Commander Support Services 315 East 200 South Salt Lake City, UT 84111 chris.burbank@slcgov.com 801-799-3800 Education Bachelor of Science Sociology (BSS) University of Utah Salt Lake City Police Department 1991 to Present Bureau Commander Support Services 2005 to present Appointed to the position of Assistant Chief only recently with responsibilities for Internal Affairs, Training, Dispatch, Records and Personnel Services. Accountable for managing the operations of the Police Department, preparing the annual budget and ensuring the functionality of police services to the community. Serve as the acting Chief during the absence of the Chief. Provide leadership and direction for personnel, focusing the Police Department on service to the City of Salt Lake. Achievements: • Developing five-year departmental guidelines to ensure continuity of goals and to provide a strategic plan for the Police Department. • Designed and produced Interacting with the Police, a pamphlet outlining the rights of the public when encountering police officers. Division Commander Internal Affairs /Training 2005 Responsible for the oversight of complaints against personnel and direction of resulting investigations, including ensuring discipline and grievances are handled in accordance with applicable regulations, policies, laws and appropriate memoranda. Accountable for managing in-service training of sworn officers and civilian employees as well as recruit officer training. Participating in the development and preparation annually of the Police Department budget while maintaining the largest portion of the overall Department budget. Achievements: • Oversee the development, writing and implementation of Department Electrical Energy Device policy. • Participate as Chair of the Police Physical Fitness Committee with responsibility for the evaluation and potential implementation of department wide, mandatory officer fitness standards. Executive Officer to Chief Dinse 2002 - 2005 Represent the Chief of Police while functioning as a liaison with Salt Lake City Mayor Rocky Anderson, the Salt Lake City Council, the Civilian Review Board and the public. Prepare correspondence, presentations and speeches for Chief Dinse. Coordinate Department participation at Major Cities Chiefs' conferences. Consult with and advise Chief Dinse in matters of policy, procedure, discipline and personnel. Achievements: • Designed and facilitated implementation of Employee Management and Information Tracking System (EMITS), a system established to more efficiently monitor employee career progress. • Working in cooperation with the Salt Lake Police Association, drafted and instituted a new Police Department discipline policy. This new policy represents a dramatic and innovative shift in practice and approach to discipline management. • Facilitator of the West Point Leadership Program, a college level course established to enhance individual leader capability and provide insight into enlightened and proven supervisory techniques. Olympic Venue Commander 2000 - 2002 Plan, organize and implement the security plan for the Salt Lake Olympic Square, encompassing nine square blocks of downtown Salt Lake City and employing a staff of over one-thousand local, state and federal employees including Utah National Guard troops. Act as Police Department liaison with the United States Secret Service. Achievements: • Recognized by Director Brian Stafford, United States Secret Service, for outstanding cooperation in support of their protective mission. • Recognized by Governor Michael Leavitt, State of Utah, for contribution to the law enforcement volunteer program. • Recognized by Major General Brian L. Tarbet, Adjutant General Utah National Guard, for exceptional meritorious service in support of the games. Pioneer Bicycle Squad Sergeant 1999 - 2000 Daily supervision of ten bicycle officers and direction of squad's patrol functions in the downtown area. Coordinate in-service bicycle training as well as annual officer selection school. Participate in the planning and organization of"First Night" activities. Achievements: • Awarded Meritorious Unit Citation in recognition for outstanding service to the downtown area. • Regular guest of La Voz De La Gente, a local radio program designed to improve community/police relations. • Organized and instated Program Access within the community, with a goal of providing equal access to police resources and services to all members of the community regardless of ethnicity or socio-economic status. 2 S.W.A.T. Team Leader 1998 - 1999 Supervise the Sniper section including participating as an active member of the squad. Coordinate planning and deployment of a thirty person tactical unit during high hazard warrant service, barricaded subject incidents and hostage situations. Training Officer 1996 - 1998 Responsible for in-service and recruit training in all aspects of police work including firearms, ASP, aerosol defensive tools, defensive tactics and police policy and procedure. Coordinate and instruct civilian police academies designed to provide members of the public insight into police training and response. Achievements: • Awarded Distinguished Unit Citation in recognition for service to the Police Department and the community. • Managed Career Path Program as coordinator; responsible for scheduling, testing, policy and program maintenance, including record keeping and participant relations. • Developed and instituted Police Rifle Program. Drafted policy, instructional guidelines and instructed initial four classes. S.W.A.T. Team Member 1992 - 1998 Participated in the service of over 200 high hazard search warrants, numerous barricaded subject incidents and several high profile hostage incidents. Responsible for organizing weekly in-service training including scheduling, determining training topics, instructor coordination and class instruction as team training coordinator. Achievements: • Awarded Distinguished Unit Citation in recognition for service to the City during the Salt Lake City Public Library hostage incident. • Recognized as a Hero in the Community by Whittier Elementary School. Uniformed Gang Officer 1993 - 1996 At the specific request of the department, participated in a thirty-day pilot gang unit. The effectiveness of the unit and the increasing problem of gang violence necessitated the assignment be made permanent. Participated in daily enforcement activities designed to reduce violence and limit civilian exposure to harm. Achievements: • At the request of the Salt Lake Area Gang Project, instructed officer safety at sixth annual Utah Gang Conference, presented to individuals in attendance from throughout the western United States. • Developed Street Survival course for the Utah Gang Investigators' Association and instructed at numerous conferences held in the State. 3 Other Work Experience DG Pro Shop - Salt Lake City, UT 1989 - 1991 Owner/Manager Responsible for inventory, ordering, cash receipts, sales and customer relations as a partner in a small, retail sporting goods store. Managed between three to five part-time employees including payroll, taxes and social security. Professional Squash Player 1988 - 1991 Turned professional in the fall of 1988 and as a member of the World Professional Squash Association (WPSA), achieved a number 38 world ranking by 1990. Responsible for instruction of private and group squash lessons as well as clinics and exhibitions. Achievements: • 1st Place H. H. Bennett Cup, 1990 • 1st Place Utah State Open, 1990, 1989 and 1988 • 1st Place Intermountain Open, 1989 Deseret Gymnasium - Salt Lake City, UT 1984 - 1991 Assistant Athletic Director Supervise employees, organize and direct squash, racquetball and handball tournaments. Provide fitness consultation for members. Responsible for daily gym administration, personnel issues as well as maintaining member relations. Achievements: • Organized the Deseret Gym World Professional Squash Championship. Raising sponsorship money, organized promotion and advertising as well as handling player relations and ticket sales. Fin USA 1988 - 1989 Director of Squash Sales - Salt Lake City, UT Responsible for the advertising, promotion and sales of squash equipment nationally. Professional Organizations and Training International Association of Chiefs of Police Member National Association for the Advancement of Colored People Member Major Cities Chiefs 2002 —2005 Staff Assistant Police Executive Research Forum Electrical Conduction Devices 2005 Participant International Association of Chiefs of Police Summit on Leadership 2004 Presenter Police Executive Research Forum Summit on Racial Profiling 2003 Participant West Point Leadership Course 2001 Graduate 4 MEMORANDUM DATE: March 28,2006 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing: Unity Center Update CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Rocky Fluhart, Rick Graham, Sam Guevara, Kay Christensen, Gary Mumford,Jennifer Bruno This memorandum pertains to a progress update of the planned Unity Center in City Council District 2.The Administration is scheduled to present the update at the City Council work session on March 30. The Administration last updated the full City Council about the Unity Center in July and August 2005. The City Council is not scheduled to take formal action on the item at its March 30 work session. KEY POINTS • The Administration expects construction of the Unity Center to start in August 2006. The center would open in March 2007. • Based on that schedule the Public Services Department plans to include $90,000 to operate and maintain the center in the department's proposed budget for Fiscal Year 2006-2007. • The Administration has obtained two parcels of land that would have separated the planned Unity Center from the existing Sorensen Center and Steiner Aquatics swimming pool. • The City has received another$400,000 in total donations from the Alliance for Unity and philanthropist James Sorenson, according to the Administration transmittal. • The planned size of the Unity Center has diminished by about 4,900 square feet since the Administration presented a business plan, including a conceptual floor plan,to the City Council in July and August 2005. • The Administration appears closer than it did last summer in reaching agreement with Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City College, and Donated Dental of Utah to provide services in the Unity Center. ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION • What considerations led to the reduction of the center's total square footage since the Administration briefed the City Council in July and August 2005? • Is the City seeking additional revenue, such as an allocation of Salt Lake County Zoo, Arts and Parks tax revenue, for the center? 1 • According to the transmittal, the building will be built to meet Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design standards. City Council staff understands that the standards contain a spectrum of levels. To what level of standard is the building being designed? • There appears to be a reduction in the amount of square feet for the performing arts space in the building. Will the reduction change the character of that space from the space discussed in the 2005 business plan? If so, how will the character of the space change? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION After the LDS Church, Alliance for Unity and philanthropist James Sorenson donated property and money to Salt Lake City to resolve issues involving Main Street between North Temple and South Temple streets, Salt Lake City began to prepare to build what was termed the Unity Center near the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center at 855 West California Avenue (1280 South). In July and August 2005 the Administration discussed a business plan to build and operate the center. At the time one of the goals was to build the center close to the Sorenson Center. However,the City first had to acquire two parcels of land between the Sorenson Center and property for the center that the LDS Church had donated. Since the briefing the two properties have been acquired, according to the Administration. At the briefing last summer the Administration indicated that about$4.5 million was available to build the center. Since then the City has received another$400,000 in donations, and interest has accrued on some cash donations since December 2002. The following is a brief summary of revenue sources: Unity Center Revenues 2002: Alliance for Unity--$4,000,329 2002: James Sorenson-- $ 500,000 2006:Alliance for Unity--$ 200,000 2006:James Sorenson-- $ 200,000 Interest on Donations-- $ 290,563 It should be noted that the City Council in 2003 allocated about$290,563 of those revenues to design the center. It also should be noted that the business plan presented in 2005 indicated that the center would contain 28,260 square feet. According to the Administration,the business plan's estimate of floor space was conceptual. The Administration transmittal for the March 30 meeting indicates that the center will contain 23,361 square feet, a difference of 4,899 square feet. The chart below prepared by City Council staff shows a comparison of square footage in the most recent transmittal and the 2005 business plan: 2 Unity Center Square Footage—March 2006 Unity Center Square Footage—July 2005 Health&Fitness Facility—6,736 Sq. Ft. Health&Fitness Facility—7,000 Sq.Ft. Community College—2„649 Sq. Ft. Community College—2,565 Sq. Ft. Day Care Facility—764 Sq. Ft. Day Care—980 Sq. Ft. Donated Dental Services—3,195 Sq. Ft. Donated Dental Services—3,000 Sq. Ft. Performing Arts—3,134 Sq. Ft. Performing Arts—4,953 Sq.Ft. Lobby/Reception/Exhibit—3,591 Sq. Ft. Lobby/Reception/Exhibit—3,494 Sq. Ft. Remaining Common Area—3,292 Sq.Ft. Remaining Common Area—6,053 Sq.Ft. Applied Technology Center— 1,115 Sq.Ft. Total—23,361 Sq.Ft. Total—28,260 Sq.Ft. The three largest reductions in the most recent transmittal appear to involve the "Remaining Common Area"—a difference of 2,462 square feet; an area designated in the business plan for the Applied Technology Center—a difference of 1,115 square feet: and the performing arts area—a difference of 919 square feet.According to the Administration,the Applied Technology Center may share one of three classrooms that would be built for use by Salt Lake Community College. Any agreement involving sharing the three rooms will be between the Community College and the Technology Center. Two other computer laboratories and a connecting hallway making up 2,020 square feet—originally designated in the business plan to replace two portable classrooms at the Sorenson Center—have been omitted in the final construction drawings. The rooms will be added if construction bids come in lower than anticipated or if the City receives additional funds for the center. Bid documents will include the rooms as alternate designs to the final plans, so the City will not have to seek bids only to build the two rooms, according to the Administration. Other lessening of square footage in the final plans involves improvements in the building's efficiency, not a loss in program space, according to the Administration. Other areas common to the most recent transmittal and the 2005 business plan include the areas designated the Salt Lake Community College, a health and fitness facility operated by Salt Lake County, and operatory and office space for Donated Dental of Utah. According to the Administration, it has a written memorandum of understanding with Donated Dental and has reached oral agreements with Salt Lake County and Salt Lake Community College. According to the transmittal, the Administration projects that the center will cost about$343,000 annually to operate.The three groups operating programs in the center will pay about$135,000 a year to offset some of the annual expense. However, the Administration cautions that "the potential yearly operation and maintenance cost not covered by tenants is $208,000 a year."It should be noted that at the August 23, 2005, City Council briefing, the Administration estimated that the center would require a $230,000 a year allocation from the General Fund. The City Council acknowledged that the center probably would require annual General Fund allocations. According to the transmittal, the Administration plans to award contracts in June or July this year to build the center. Construction is projected to start in August, and the center would open for use in March 2007. 3 Planned services at the center stem from three meetings in the community where District 2 residents identified services they would like to have at the center. According to the 2005 business plan,the services residents wanted in order of priority were: • Activities and facilities that promote the health and fitness of the local community. • Facilities and programs that promote cultural exchange and increase understanding of, and participation in, the arts. • Programs to increase education levels,build work related skills, and enhance abilities to participate in civic life. • Services that address medical, dental, and mental health needs of the community. • Programs and services geared toward business and economic development. • Quality drop-in day care for users of the Unity Center. • A place for gathering together. 4 SALT CITY CORPORATION.'RICHARD GRAHAM ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON -- '�- - - PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky J. Fluhart DATE: March 23, 2006 Chief Administrative Officer FROM: Rick Graham, Director Public Services Departmen SUBJECT: Sorenson Unity Center Progress Update STAFF CONTACT: Rick Graham, Director 535-7774 Public Services Department or Kay Christensen 535-7677 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing RECOMMENDATION: None at this time BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: We last reported to you on Sorenson Unity Center progress in July 2005. As I told you at that time, the Mayor asked me to direct the Sorenson Unity Center Project. I have been assisted in this effort by Kay Christensen, Janet Wolf, Steve England, and Rosanita Cespedes and Boyd Ferguson, who is assisting us as we negotiate and sign Memorandums of Understanding with Center partners and make other decisions and agreements that require legal consultation. In December 2002, the Mayor announced a proposal to resolve the Main Street Plaza controversy. That proposal resulted in the donation by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints ("The Church") of 2.17 acres of land adjacent to the Sorenson Center and a commitment by the Alliance for Unity to donate $4 million in funds to build the Unity Center on the land. (James Sorenson also donated 2.37 acres of land near the existing Sorenson Center and $500,000 to assist with the building of the Unity Center.) In return, the City agreed to relinquish to the Church the easement over the Main Street Plaza. On June 10, 2003 the City Council voted to accept the proposal by abandoning the easement and the City received a donation of$4,500,329 to design,build and furnish the Unity Center. Those funds were placed in an interest bearing City trust account (interest earned to February 2006, $290,563.00). On September 16, 2003 the Council voted to 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 14B, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7775 FAX: 801-535-77E19 WWW.SLCGDV.COM wccvc Lco P.rea authorize the expenditure of$300,000 from the Fund for the purpose of beginning the planning and design of the project. After negotiating for a year, we have been successful in obtaining the two privately owned properties (1361 South 900West and 1367 South 900 West) totaling .92 acres that lie between the property donated by the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints and the existing Sorenson Center. The facility could have been constructed without these two properties but the design would have been compromised significantly and everyone working on this project believes the enhanced quality of the building and the site will be well worth the slight delay. Council member Van Turner was a great help in securing the property and I want to acknowledge his important role. Recently, we received additional contributions of$200,000 each from James Sorenson and the Alliance for Unity. Because of Mr. Sorenson's generosity and his commitment to the Glendale and Poplar Grove neighborhoods, the new facility will be known as the Sorenson Unity Center. The entire area bounded by 8th West on the east and 9th West on the west, by Lincoln Elementary on the South and California Avenue on the north will be known as the Sorenson Multi-Cultural Unity Campus. This includes the existing Sorenson Center. THE BUILDING The Sorenson Unity Center will be 23,361 square feet. Approximately 54% of the building (12,580 square feet) will be dedicated to three specific tenants: 1. Salt Lake County will operate a 6,736 square foot health and fitness facility with strength and conditioning equipment, an exercise studio, dressing areas with restrooms, showers and lockers. We are currently working out final details to a revision of our current Interlocal Agreement with the County to include their operation of this facility. The costs associated with the operation of the health and fitness facility will be paid for by the County, offset by user fees. 2. Salt Lake Community College will operate three classrooms at the Center. The College will offer skill training and adult basic education. They will also have office space, for a total of 2,649 square feet. An Agreement to Lease has been negotiated and approved by both the City and the College and will be signed within days. The cost to operate these classrooms will be the responsibility of the Community College, and their costs will be offset by the tuition charged. 3. Donated Dental Services of Utah currently operates a dental clinic in the same building as the 4th Street Clinic. They will be losing their lease at that location and will move to the Sorenson Unity Center. The 4th Street Clinic will begin to operate dental service for the homeless population that is currently approximately 20% of Donated Dental's patient load. Donated Dental will serve the low income residents of the Poplar 2 Grove and Glendale communities. The clinic will occupy 3,195 square feet to provide six full service dental chairs for diagnosis and treatment by volunteer dentists. This service is free,based on income level. Donated Dental Services of Utah has already signed a Memorandum of Understanding and they will bear all the costs of operating the clinic. As explained, these three tenants will pay 100% of the costs associated with their own space and a portion, based on square footage, of the costs of common area maintenance. The performing arts space will be 3,134 square feet. This space will be used for community theatre, dance, music, concerts and other gatherings and community meetings. It includes the performance space, reception area, dressing areas, storage and a sound booth. A portion of the cost of operating this space will be recovered through rental fees. The remaining space, 7,647 square feet is common area, some of which is also rentable. This space includes a lobby/general reception area (3,591 square feet) which includes exhibit space and space for private events and community meetings. This space also includes a drop-in day care facility(764 square feet) which will be available for those taking classes with the Community College and working out in the health and fitness facility. An hourly fee will be charges consistent with County rates at other facilities. There will also be a small prep kitchen, administrative offices, and restrooms. We also continue to seek additional funds for construction to allow us to add two additional classrooms to the facility. These classrooms could also be added if the construction bids come in lower than anticipated. The construction bid documents include the two additional classrooms as an alternate, so it will not be necessary to re-bid. If we can add the classroom space, it will be used to house the current computer clubhouse program and adult computer space and will be operated by the City. The building design is carefully planned to offer, within the limits of space and funding, everything identified as a priority in our extensive public process. It is designed to be open and welcoming. The lobby area will be a place where the rich and varied cultures represented in the community can be showcased and celebrated. The building will meet high performance standards and will be LEED certified (LEED stands for Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design, and it is a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings. The standard is set by the USGBC, the United States Green Building Council. A building is LEED certified when it meets certain standards in sustainable site development, water and energy conservation, material selection, and indoor environmental quality). The goal is to meet this standard without impacting comfort and productivity. 3 The design will have a CPTED study(Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design) and will comply with all ADA requirements. OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE The anticipated costs to operate and maintain the Unity Center facility are as follows: Expenditure Category Estimated Annual Cost Utilities $68,500 General Building Maintenance $89,560 Theater Maintenance $7,500 Security $51,620 Management $109,650 Programming $6,500 Capital Improvements $10,000 TOTAL $343,330 Expenses recovered from the three tenants will equal approximately $135,400 per year. It will cost an additional $208,000 a year to operate and maintain the remaining 38% of the total square footage of the facility. A portion of those costs may be offset with user and rental fees for the common area/exhibit space, the performing art space, the kitchen and the day care, but the potential yearly operation and maintenance cost not covered by tenants is $208,000 a year. This figure includes staffing expected to include a facility manager and a programming/marketing manager. We continue to seek additional funding sources to offset the costs of operation and maintenance, but it is possible we will need to request a substantial portion of this amount from the General Fund. TIMELINE Bidding and Awarding of Contracts: June, July, 2006 Construction: August-February, 2007 Grand Opening: March 2007 4 Memorandum Date: March 28, 2006 To: City Council Members CC: Rick Graham, Rocky Fluhart, Chief Rick Dinse, Cindy Gust-Jenson, Assistant Chief Chris Burbank, Ed Rutan, Val Pope, Lt. Melody Gray, Boyd Ferguson, Diana Karrenberg, Barry Esham, Annette Daley, Gwen Springmeyer, and Cory Young From: Jan Aramaki RE: Follow-up discussion regarding Legislative Action initiated by Council Member Dave Buhler to request an ordinance amendment to Section 15.08.020 of Salt Lake City Code for mini parks relating to park closure hours On September 20,2005,the City Council approved a Legislative Action initiated by Council Member Dave Buhler proposing a change to park hour closure times from 11 p.m. to 10 p.m.for mini parks(1/2 acre to 5 acres). Park hours would remain at 11:00 p.m. for all other parks. Attached is a list of all mini-parks within Salt Lake City(in order of Council district)that would be affected by the proposed ordinance. Section 15.08.020A of Salt Lake City Code currently states: "All public parks of the city shall be closed to the public between the hours of eleven o'clock(11:00)p.m. at night and five o'clock(5:00)a.m. the following morning." The Police Department supports the proposed change and does not perceive there will be any challenges with enforcement since the new park closure hours will be clearly posted on park signs (refer to attached letter). Also a copy of the draft ordinance was provided to all community councils for their input. Two community councils submitted comments: both in support of the proposed park hour change. According to Public Services, costs associated with having to update signs in each mini- park with the new closure time of 10:00 p.m. involves placing a decal with the new"10:00 p.m." park closure time over the previous 11:00 p.m. closure time. Costs are minimal for the decals as follows: $375 for material and $100 for installation—approximate total cost of$475. Previous Background: Mini parks are usually located in the midst of residential neighborhoods. Constituents who live near one such park have expressed concern that often times they experience disruptions to their peace and quiet due to activities and inappropriate behavior taking place in the park, commonly during late hours. Given the close proximity of numerous residential homes to mini parks in the City(refer to attached aerial maps for each park), Council Member Buhler expressed it is his belief that it is appropriate to have an earlier closure time of 10:00 p.m.to help alleviate the late hour disturbances that community members may be experiencing. Practically speaking, this means that park neighbors who are being disturbed may call the police at 10:00 p.m.rather than waiting until 11:00 p.m. Issues raised by the Department of Public Services include 1) clearly defining that the hours have changed for mini parks from other City designated parks (community, special use,or neighborhood parks)to avoid potential park hour closure confusion; 2)ensure the Police Department is fully aware of the proposed ordinance change to eliminate potential confusion relating to enforcement of park closure times; and 3)costs associated to replace park signs that list the 10 p.m.park closure time. 2 March 27, 2006 David Buhler City Council District 6 451 S. State St. Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Mr. Buhler; This letter is in response to your proposal to amend Section 15.08.020 of the Salt Lake City Code for mini parks relating hours of park closure. I am writing in support of your legislation to change the park hour closure times for mini-parks. A change in this ordinance would benefit our communities by giving them quiet hours and reducing the disturbances caused to neighbors. This change could also give our officers the ability to prevent other crime, by stopping those gathered in the parks after hours. The Police Officers could easily be informed of the ordinance change. This would occur by departmental memos and training. Our officers could be utilized in educating the public as well. This could happen by warnings being given during the first several months after the ordinance change. This would ensure that those who utilize the parks during the late hours would have the knowledge of the change in ordinance. The Police Department should not face any challenges in having different closing times for parks. The posting of park hours will help alleviate any confusion that this may have caused. We currently have parks within the City that have different closing times, such as Pioneer Park. The Police Department can easily adapt to the changes. Sincerely, Charles F. "Rick" Dinse Chief of Police CFD/mg DRAFT: 11-3-05 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2005 (Mini-Park Closing Hours) AN ORDINANCE AMENDING SECTION 15.08.020 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, RELATING TO PARK AND PLAYGROUND CLOSING HOURS. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Section 15.08.020 of the Salt Lake City Code, relating to park and playground closing hours be, and the same hereby is, amended as follows: 15.08.020 Park Hours-Designated: Except as provided for in sect' 4.15.08 025 ofthis code: A. All public parks and playgrounds of the city shall be closed to the public between the hours of eleven o'clock(11:00) P.M. at night and five o'clock(5:00) A.M. the following morning, with the exception of: 1. Charles Lee Miller park which shall be closed to the public between the hours of nine o'clock(9:00) P.M. at night and five o'clock(5:00)A.M. the following morning; and 2. Pioneer park which shall be closed to the public between one-half(1/2) hour after sunset to seven o'clock (7:00) A.M. the following morning. 3. All public parks and playgrounds of the city five acres or less in size, whether or not specifically named or described in this Title 15, shall be closed to the public between the hours of ten o'clock(10:00) P.M. and five o'clock (5:00) A.M. the following morning. B. The Memorial House in Memory Grove shall be closed to public use at twelve o'clock(12:00) midnight; outdoor activities on the leased south lawn shall be closed at eleven thirty o'clock(11:30) P.M.; and the,Memorial House shall be locked and vacant no later than two o'clock(2:00) A.M. Between twelve o'clock (12:00)midnight and two o'clock (2:00) A.M., use of the Memorial House shall be limited to employees cleaning the premises after an activity. C. No person or persons shall be permitted in said parks or playgrounds, either on foot or on or in any type of vehicle, during such hours unless for the express purpose of traveling directly through the park or playground on a public street which passes through the park or playground. SECTION 2. That this ordinance shall take effect immediately upon the date of its first publication. 2 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2005. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2005. Published: G:\Ordinance 05\Amending 15.08.020 Mini-park hours-11-3-05.doc 3 Mini Parks District Park Name Address D1 Redwood Meadows Park 1780 West 400 North D1 Steenblick Park 1069 West 800 North D1 Fire Station Tennis 1015 West 300 North D1 Miami Mini 1780 West 1565 north D2 Post Street Tot Lot 950 West 500 South D2 Nelli Jack Park 1500 West 1195 South D2 Weseman 1325 South 900 West D2 Sorenson Youth 855 West 1355 South D2 Ninth South Park 850 South 1000 West D2 Madsen Mini Chicago & South Temple D3 Silver Mini Park 500 North Center Street D3 Fourteenth Avenue Park 700 North 550 East D3 Swede Town Park 1500 North 800 West D3 Almond Park 100 West 350 North D3 Kletting Mini Park 170 North "B" Street D3 5th Ave & "C" Street 5th Ave & C D3 Ship Mini Park 579 4th Avenue D3 City Creek Park North Temple & State Street D3 Pugsley Ouray Mini 340 West 500 North D3 Jackson Park 500 North Grant Street D3 Guadalupe Park 619 West 500 North D3 Bonneville Park 635 N. Bonneville Blvd D4 Taufer Park 300 East 700 South D4 6th East Mini 600 East 215 South D4 Galagher Tot Lot 650 South 550 East D4 Faultline Park 1050 East 400 South D4 Artesian Well 500 East 800 South D4 Van Ness Tot Lot 430 East 860 South D4 Richmond Park 450 East 600 South D4 Roberta La Conia 740 South 240 East D4 Beldon Mini 359 East 560 South D4 Stanton Mini Park 360 East 560 South D4 Gilgal Gardens 749 East 500 South D4 Victory Park 250 South 1000 East D4 Dinwoody Park 45 West 100 South D5 Jefferson Park West Temple 1000 South D5 Inglewood Park 1040 East 1125 South D5 Cotton Park Downington & 3rd East D5 First Encampment 1700 South 500 East D5 Beatrice Evans 1217 East 10th South D5 People's Freeway 1534 S. West Temple D6 Curtis Park 2200 E. 1430 South D6 Davis Park 1980 East 950 South D6 Laird Park 1800 East 1200 South D6 Dilworth Park 2100 East 1900 South D6 Dee Glenn Smith Tennis 2425 East 1216 South D6 Oak Hills Ball Diamond Wasatch Blvd. &1220 South D6 Miller Park 1708 East 900 South D7 Hidden Hollow 2160 S.1255 E. D7 Parley Pratt Plaza 2100 South/2300 East-Parley's D7 Hillcrest Park 2000 East 2250 South D7 Stratford Park 2000 East 2600 South D7 Elizabeth Sherman 2400 South Highland Drive D7 Arcadia Park 1825 S. Lakeline Dr. (2950 E) D7 Parleys Way Green Belt 2810 East 2400 South D7 Westminster Park 1700 South/1000 East NEIGHBORHOOD PARKS District Park Name Address D1 North Gateway Park 900 North Beck Street D2 Sherwood Park 1500 West 400 South D2 Poplar Grove Park 800 South 1200 West D2 Glendale Park 1200 West 1700 South D2 Pioneer Park 300 West 350 South D3 Ensign Down Park 800 North 80 East D3 Popperton Park 1350 East 11th Avenue D3 Memory Grove 375 North Canyon Road D3 Warm Springs 840 North 300 West D4 Reservoir Park 1300 E. South Temple D4 Library Plaza/Commons 200 East 450 South D4 Washington Square State Street 449 South D5 Herman Franks Park 1700 South/700 East D6 Wasatch Hollow Park 1631 E. 1700 S. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: March 27, 2006 SUBJECT: Comprehensive Overview of the City's Programs for Concrete Replacement AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: City-wide STAFF REPORT BY: Jan Aramaki ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. AND CONTACT PERSON: Rick Graham,Max Peterson, and Lynn Jarman NOTICE REQUIREMENTS: Not applicable at this time KEY ELEMENTS: (no ordinance or resolution involved at this time) At the request of the City Council,the Administration has prepared a comprehensive report on the various concrete replacement programs for repairing and replacing defective areas in the public way. According to the Administration, although current sections of City Code "place the responsibility for replacement of defective public way concrete on the adjacent property owner, the ultimate responsibility falls on the City. . ." Although the Administration emphasizes defective sidewalk replacement in their report,other concrete related problems also pertain to defective curb, gutter and driveway approaches, as well as the need to complete public way accessibility ramp construction. The Administration has defined"defective concrete" according to Salt Lake City Code on page one of their report. The following current options have been established and are being utilized to accomplish the installation,replacement or repair of defective public way concrete within the City. Permit to Work in Adjacent property owner hires a contractor and is responsible for the Public Way construction costs with a requirement to obtain a"no fee" permit to work in the public way if for replacement of defective concrete. Prior to permit being issued, Engineering staff will check the location and identify any potential conflicts with upcoming scheduled proposed construction or asphalt overlay projects within the next two years. Page 1 • Sidewalk Horizontal Sidewalk horizontal sawcutting is utilized and preferred in Sawcutting circumstances to repair defective sidewalks when raised concrete is less than one and one-quarter inches-- no cost to the property owner. 50/50 Concrete Administered by Streets Division;cost shared 50/50 between Replacement residential property owner and the City for replacement of Program deteriorated sidewalk,curb and gutter, and drive approaches;cost estimates provided at no charge to property owner;costs paid by property owner prior to work performed;; scheduled on first come first served basis;horizontal sawcutting is used when vertical displacements are less than one and one-quarter inches; residents are discouraged from using this program if area is scheduled for upcoming street construction and asphalt overlay projects within the next two years. 100% of concrete replacement costs are paid by business property owners, includes: schools,churches, hospitals,non-profits and government. Identified conflict: a. Voluntary program therefore property owners can simply overlook their civic responsibility to replace defective public way concrete adjacent to their property. b. Insufficient funding is allocated each year for the 50/50 concrete replacement program therefore funds are quickly utilized in advance of the next fiscal year. This issue was previously raised in a legislative intent statement to explore potential loan programs to help residents with the costs of concrete replacement. The Administration's initial response does not support a loan program. c. In the past,several comments have been received in the Council Office regarding the high costs associated with the City's estimates even when the cost is only 50 percent to the property owner. Property owners have asserted that the 50 percent bid given by the City is comparable to a full price bid by a contractor. Council staff has not been able to document that assertion. Special Primary focus is the replacement of defective sidewalk; deteriorated Improvement sidewalks are identified within a defined district;costs shared on a District (SID) 50/50 basis between City and residential private property owners with option to pay in full concrete replacement assessment over a five-year period;horizontal sawcutting is used when vertical displacements are less than one and one-quarter inches; option provided to property owners to replace defective drive approaches, curb and gutter abutting their property. The exception is in areas where street conditions such as a "high crown,flat grades and old high back style curb and gutter which can only be improved through a street reconstruction or rehabilitation project. These conditions trigger a repair at no cost to property owner; and ADA Page 2 ramps are installed at the time of SID (costs paid by the City). 100% of replacement costs paid by business property owners,includes: schools,churches,hospitals,non-profits and government. Identified conflict: a. Districts are set up through a legal process and SID work cannot be done outside of the District. b. Property owners have the right to protest the creation which could result in some areas of the City not benefiting from needed public way concrete replacement. c. The Council has suggested establishing either larger districts or more districts to allow more participation. This would require additional funding. Community Defined CDBG areas qualify for federally funded CDBG funds to Development Block accomplish defective sidewalk replacement projects at no cost to Grant(CDBG) adjacent property owners. Identified conflict: Equity issue--areas that are eligible for CDBG funding cannot utilize an SID;50/50 program does not replace sidewalk in SID or CDBG areas;residential property owners in CDBG eligible areas benefit from defective replacement at no cost, while residential property owners participating in an SID pay 50 percent of the replacement cost. Capital All street improvement projects (asphalt overlays to total street Improvement reconstruction) must address sidewalk and accessibility ramps Program (CIP) Street according to ADA requirements;horizontal sawcutting is used Improvement when vertical displacements are less than one and one-quarter Projects inches;CIP funds are used to pay for ADA compliance repairs that occur in conjunction with CIP projects; and replacement of curb and gutter sections and drive approaches may be required as part of a street rehabilitation project. Identified conflict: Property owners in the SID and 50/50 Program pay 50 percent of cost. Property owners abutting a CIP street improvement receive the service free. This could be a disincentive for participation in the SID and 50/50 Programs. Streets Division's When critically deemed repair is required, such as extensive curb Repair/Replacement and gutter or sidewalk settlement due to an unknown source of of Damaged undermining,a hazardous situation exists for either vehicular or Concrete pedestrian use, or removal of an ADA sidewalk barrier to ensure safe access for an individual with a disability,and repairs are beyond replacement typically accomplished through the 50/50 Program or other concrete replacement programs,the City absorbs all costs associated with these repairs. The problem must be severe making passage extremely difficult or hazardous,the sidewalk Page 3 defect causes a hardship for the property owner, and individuals who use the sidewalk are in the vicinity of schools, government facilities, public buildings,commercial outlets, public transportation routes,high pedestrian volume areas, etc. Identified conflict: Complaints concerning safet"issues relating to sections of defective concrete are followed up by City officials to determine the level of impact of the defective concrete. Once a property owner is made aware that a complaint has been received regarding defective concrete adjacent to the property owner's property and if the property owner is aware that under certain circumstances the City will pay the cost of the repair as long as the property owner refuses to take responsibility for concrete replacement, this could set a precedence and serves as an incentive not to take responsibility. Private Costs associated with public way concrete (sidewalk, curb and Development and gutter,and drive approach) repairs or improvements as part of the Related Public Way development of private property, subdivisions, and permitted new Improvements building and facility rehabilitation projects,costs are the responsibility of the private property owner or developer. ADA Accessibility All public way locations in need of accessibility ramps are identified Ramp construction by the City's ADA public way accessibility ramps Transition Plan. In accordance with legal precedence that has been established requiring the installation of public way ramps in conjunction with all capital improvements streets projects that involve asphalt overlays and more extensive scopes of work, the City requires ramp installation for all street projects. Subdivision and other private developments are required to comply. City funds are budgeted each year for accessibility ramp installation projects. Based upon federal criteria,locations in need of ramp construction have been given a priority rating: high,medium or low-criterion includes proximity to government facilities,public buildings, schools,commercial outlets,public transportation routes,high pedestrian volume areas, scheduled CIP street improvement projects; and citizen requests. High priority rating is given to actual need citizen requests pending availability of funding and consideration of previous priority commitments. Any defective sidewalk within 25 feet of a new sidewalk access ramp is repaired or replaced in conjunction with ramp construction. Emergency repairs may be accomplished at no cost to the adjacent property owner when deemed necessary and approved by the Public Services Director. Identified conflict: Again, the no cost repair within 25 feet could be a disincentive for property owners to take responsibility for sidewalk repair. Page 4 MATTERS AT ISSUE/POTENTIAL QUESTIONS FOR ADMINISTRATION: POLICY CONSIDERATIONS The Administration recommends that a significant long-range financial commitment is needed to address the City's replacement of defective public way. Currently,present concrete replacement funding allocations cannot keep pace with the existing rate of concrete deterioration,especially in CDBG eligible areas. A public way concrete management program is needed to address the current backlog of concrete replacement needs. The Administration illustrates the need for the development and maintenance of a functional,safe, and accessible public way sidewalk network for the benefit of residents,businesses,and visitors by identifying the following policy considerations: 1. A majority of concerns expressed by residents regarding defective public way sidewalk involve public safety and/or cost of replacement. The Administration reports that it is common occurrence to encounter property owners who are unaware that City ordinance places the responsibility of sidewalk repairs/replacement on them. The Administration reports that often times when property owners are informed of their responsibility to replace defective concrete sections of sidewalk adjacent to their properties,responses from property owners include the following concerns: a. Property owners question as to why they are responsible when the damage is as a result of tree roots uplifting from a City tree in the park strip adjacent to their property. Root cutting cannot occur if structural stability is an issue or there is the chance of the health of the tree would be impacted. Although the City's urban forester has implemented a relatively new concept that places a restriction on the tree species that can be planted in park strips,many trees presently growing in park strips are not well suited for the confined space. Replacement of trees is a costly,long-range program. b. Property owners question as to why they are responsible for defective concrete replacement when the City owns the public way sidewalk. Public opinion expressed is that taxes should cover the cost of sidewalk and curb and gutter repair. c. Question of fairness: a resident in CDBG area or capital improvement area accomplishes concrete replacement adjacent to their property at no cost,while another resident pays 50 percent of construction to replace sidewalk. d. When public comment relates to concern for public safety issues in cases of defective public way;there are times when adjacent property owners resist taking responsibility to make repairs. Question arises as to why the City does not require property owners to make the necessary repairs to address the safety concern. City ordinance allows the City to include such needed repairs as part of a future SID;however,limited CIP funds and previous priority commitments have the potential to delay replacement of defective Page 5 sidewalk indefinitely. e. Residents recognize that the City installs accessibility ramps at street intersections,but is sometimes of the opinion that the City is not fully addressing all ADA needs--for example,when sections of sidewalk are uneven and create a challenge for a person in a wheelchair to safely travel along a sidewalk. Salt Lake City has the responsibility to maintain accessible sidewalk public way. In an effort to meet ADA requirements, emphasis has been placed on the installation of accessibility ramps,and to a lesser degree, the elimination of accessibility barriers created by defective sidewalk. 2. Defective curb and gutter replacement is an extensive citywide challenge with minimal City funding allocation. Although a significant volume of defective sidewalk has been replaced through the Streets Divisions' 50/50 and CIP programs,CDBG,and SID funds, overall need for defective concrete replacement exceeds the present funding level. Defective curb and gutter results in ponding issues,and$20 million is needed to address all defective curb and gutter problems. The City's inventory identifies only defective sections of curb and gutter, not the volume of curb and gutter replacement needed to resolve extensive drainage problems, therefore needed allocation could escalate. Also funding sources do not appear to be in correlation with each other to establish a fully- completed project,functioning project. For example,when a new storm drain is installed with allocated funds from the Drainage Utility Fee,because funds cannot be used to replace defective curb and gutter,ponding problems exist such as in the Rose Park and Glendale areas of the City where the initial curb and gutter occurred with minimal slope. Extensive street and storm drain reconstruction was needed at significantly higher costs rather than simply replacing isolated sections of curb and gutter. 3. An inventory of defective public way sidewalks (800 miles or 20 million square feet of public way sidewalk and 900 miles of curb and gutter) was completed in 2000,but Engineering proposes a follow-up inventory for 2007 requiring a budget approval of $60,000. The Administration has provided in their Appendix, Table 1, a detailed outline identifying public way concrete construction needs and associated costs. In order to illustrate for the City Council's consideration anticipated funds needed to complete defective concrete replacement in the City, the following is an inventory summary of defective concrete replacement needs as identified by the Administration,with the potential of having the replacement period be extended once additional concrete deterioration is taken into account. Page 6 Inventory Summary of Defective Concrete Replacement Needs Replacement cost for all $15,690,000 Considering an average rate defective public way sidewalk of expenditure of$1,650,000 in the City for 2003-2005,estimated time to complete is 10-12 years Cost to complete installation $13,000,000 Approximately 13-15 years to of accessibility ramps city- complete all remaining ramps, wide excluding locations with extensive site problems. Cost to replace all defective Approximately$7,845,000 to Considering a present annual sidewalk in CDBG eligible replace all defective sidewalk average expenditure of areas. in CDBG eligible areas. $320,000,approximately 25 years to complete replacement of all defective sidewalk. (Refer to the Administration's Appendix 1 for more and complete details.) 4. Funding eligibility is limited within certain designated areas of the City and poses a perception of an equity issue: Areas that are eligible for CDBG funding cannot utilize an SID;50/50 program does not replace sidewalk in SID or CDBG areas;residential property owners in CDBG eligible areas benefit from defective replacement at no cost,while residential property owners participating in an SID pay 50 percent of the replacement cost. 5. Defective sidewalks as well as defective curb and gutter have proven to be an extensive city- wide challenge due to limited funding resources allocated each year. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration proposed funding options that could help accelerate completing defective concrete within the City. The Administration has presented four options for the Council's discussion in accelerating the process to address the complex issue of concrete replacement/repair of defective public way sidewalks and management needs. Options address defective sidewalk replacement and installation of sidewalk in areas where sidewalks are lacking,and construction of accessibility ramps. Each option provides information on funding, advantages, and disadvantages (refer to Administration's paperwork for details): Option 1) Maintain the status quo: continue with the established concrete replacement program and funding levels (CIP,CDBG,SID and 50/50 Program). Option 2) Increase funding to the existing sidewalk replacement program to establish a ten year citywide replacement program. Administration reports a personnel increase in Engineering would be needed to handle the additional workload-request for one engineer, one engineering technician;and one SID coordinator-increased personnel costs would be charged through the CIP process. Option 3) Increase sidewalk replacement SID funding for use in both CDBG and Non-CDBG areas of the City. Page 7 Option 4) Defective public way concrete property owner fee. According to the Administration, Denver has established a program whereby property owners have an annual assessment for sidewalk replacement based on the square feet of public way concrete adjacent to their property- a viable program supported by a dedicated revenue source with results of a safer public way sidewalk and decreased liability regarding defective concrete in the public way. The Administration projects that to create a fee or tax for each parcel in the City, a projected annual assessment fee of$20 to 25 per property (64,000 parcels) would generate approximately$1,280,000 to $1,600,000 annually. CC: Rick Graham,Leroy Hooton, Max Peterson,John Naser, Luann Clark, Lynn Jarman, Dan Noziska, Barry Esham, Annette Daley,Gwen Springmeyer, Diana Karrenberg,Jennifer Bruno, Sylvia Jones,Marge Harvey, and Lehua Weaver. Page 8 SALT C 1\ CARPO °i1 iI(LN ROSS C. "ROCKY" ANDERSON RICHARD GRAHAM ....orr vosaar � _ '-••• ��"0. "'mamba PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES MAYOR COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL TO: Rocky Fluhart DATE: March 8, 2006 Chief Administrative Officer /11X FROM: Rick Graham Director of Public Services STAFF CONTACT: Rick Graham, Public Services Director 535-7774 Max Peterson, City Engineer 535-6231 Lynn Jarman, Engineering Planning & 535-6016 Programming Manager DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing paper prepared by the Public Services Depailnient regarding defective public way sidewalk replacement. RECOMMENDATION: Public Services is requesting the City Council schedule a briefing to discuss program options and funding impacts regarding revision of the City's defective sidewalk replacement program to expedite the elimination of accessibility barriers in the public way. BUDGET IMPACT: Budget impacts are contingent on the City Council's decisions regarding increased funding for sidewalk replacement. BACKGROUND and DISCUSSION: The City Council has requested Public Services provide information regarding impacts and resources required to hasten the replacement of defective public way sidewalk, including the creation of larger sidewalk replacement Special Improvement Districts(SID's). PUBLIC PROCESS: No public process has been pursued at this stage. SALT LAKE CITY ENGINEERING 349 SOUTH ZOO EAST, SUITE 100, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7961 FAX: 801-535-6093 ®necrceo P«eR Salt Lake City Public Services Replacement of Defective Public Way Sidewalk Briefing Paper March 2006 Salt Lake City Public Services Replacement of Defective Public Way Sidewalk ivplampwwwwouraprwitimxiavargoimpl Agpst7�.._..n s. .�...is., 5..,.a_�,.vR.. ' t's;.a....��t a"ease'��'�m"'�-�,'�...«,.a....�...�a��a aaw In 1989, the City Council adopted the present ordinance regarding the replacement of defective public way concrete. Defective concrete is defined by ordinance as: 1) The displacement of sidewalk, curb, gutter, and drive approach sections or appurtenances either horizontally or vertically to a point that one section or any part of a section is separated by at least one- half inch (1/2")from the other; or 2) The presence of a minimum of three (3) cracks of any length or width between score marks and/or expansion joints in any sidewalk,curb,gutter, and drive approach sections or appurtenances;or 3) The presence of spalling over more than twenty five percent (25%) of the surface area of any sidewalk, curb,gutter, and drive approach sections or appurtenances;or 4) The existence of settling, spalling or depressions in a sidewalk, curb, gutter, and drive approaches or appurtenances,which allows water to become entrapped or cause ice pockets; or 5) The existence of similar signs of deterioration in sections of sidewalk, curb, gutter, and drive approaches or appurtenances contiguous to sections which are in a condition as defined in subsections A through D of this definition to such an extent that they can reasonably be considered as part of the overall defective areas, or which must be replaced to effect a proper correction of the defective areas, or which must be replaced to effect a proper correction of the defective sections. Although City ordinance places the responsibility for replacement of defective public way concrete on the adjacent private property owner, the ultimate responsibility falls on the City; therefore, the following options have been established to facilitate the installation,replacement or repair of public way concrete: Permit to Work in the Public Way Property owners can hire a contractor to accomplish desired sidewalk, curb & gutter, and drive approach repairs abutting their property. This option requires a permit to work in the public way, which can be obtained through Salt Lake City Engineering. All construction costs are the responsibility of the adjacent private property owner. A"no fee" permit is issued for the replacement of defective concrete. Prior to issuing a permit, the engineering permit staff will check the location for any upcoming street construction projects, street asphalt overlays and concrete replacement special improvement districts (SID's)to determine any potential conflicts. A permit is not issued if the subject location falls within the boundary of a proposed street construction or asphalt overlay project scheduled to occur within the next two years, unless approval from the City Engineer or designee is first obtained and the permittee is informed of the proposed upcoming project. Streets Division 50/50 Concrete Replacement Program The Public Services/Streets Division offers this cost-sharing program to assist property owners in the replacement of deteriorated sidewalk,curb&gutter,and drive approaches. The cost of repair is shared on a 50/50 basis between the residential property owner and the City. Business property owners including schools, churches, hospitals, non-profits and government property owners pay 100% of the replacement cost. Property owners must pay for the work prior to the start of construction. Cost estimates are provided without charge and work is scheduled on a "first come first served" basis. Property owners are given the option of having sidewalk tripping hazards repaired by horizontal sawcutting at no cost, if the defective sidewalk meets the established horizontal sawcutting criteria. The Streets Division coordinates with the Engineering Division to determine proposed locations of City street construction and asphalt overlay projects scheduled within the next two years, and 50/50 concrete replacement work is discouraged at all such locations. If a property owner still requests repair of defective sidewalk, following notification of a proposed future city project, approval from the City Engineer or designee must be obtained prior to repair of the defective concrete. Special Improvement District (SID) The primary focus of special improvements districts (SID's) in Salt Lake City is the replacement of defective sidewalk. SID's are created to resolve all of the deteriorated sidewalk problems within a defined district. The City and the adjacent residential private property owners share the replacement costs on a 50/50 basis. Business property owners including schools, churches, hospitals, non-profits, and government property owners pay 100% of the cost. Property owners have the option of paying off the concrete replacement assessment over a five-year period. Sidewalk horizontal sawcutting is used to remove vertical displacements less than one and one-quarter inches in conjunction with the SID work. This is accomplished at no charge to the adjacent private property owner. If a property owner requests replacement of the defective concrete instead of addressing the displacement by horizontal sawcutting, the property owner must agree to pay for the sidewalk replacement at the established SID assessment rates. Engineering maintains a GIS map showing proposed SID locations for the next two years. As part of the sidewalk replacement SID, property owners are given the option of replacing defective drive approaches and curb and gutter abutting their property. Generally,the replacement of defective curb and gutter is not recommended due to such existing street conditions as high crown, flat grades, and old high back style curb and gutter. These conditions can only be corrected through a street reconstruction or rehabilitation project, which would occur at no additional cost to the property owner. Where technically feasible, ADA sidewalk access ramps are installed at all street corners in an SID area, during the same time frame as the SID. In most cases,the installation of the sidewalk access ramps is accomplished by Streets Division concrete crews or a City ADA ramp contractor. The City pays all the costs of constructing sidewalk access ramps. Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Sidewalk Replacement Federally funded CDBG defective sidewalk replacement projects are accomplished at no cost to the adjacent private property owners. CDBG funding is limited and work can only be accomplished in defined "target areas" based on restrictive federal guidelines. Sidewalk Horizontal Sawcutting Sidewalk sections with no defects other than a vertical displacement less than one and one-quarter inches are repaired through horizontal sawcutting. Sidewalk sawcutting is accomplished at no cost to the adjacent private property owner. Horizontal sawcutting to remove tripping hazards and ADA accessibility barriers is accomplished in conjunction with SID and CDBG funded sidewalk replacements, street reconstruction, and asphalt overlay projects. Prioritization for horizontal sawcutting involves maintaining accessibility within the bounds of previous sidewalk replacement projects, street construction and overlay projects, streets 50/50 concrete replacement locations and business districts beautification areas. Requests regarding actual ADA sidewalk accessibility needs are always given a high priority and accomplished as soon as possible. Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Street Improvement Projects All street improvement projects, ranging from asphalt overlays to total street reconstruction, address sidewalk and accessibility ramp needs as an ADA compliance issue. In accordance with ADA, the pedestrian access route must be firm, stable, slip resistant, and without changes in level that exceed one-quarter inch, and openings (cracks, grates, etc.) that exceed one-half inch. Sidewalk repair is first accomplished through horizontal sawcutting of vertical displacements less than one and one-quarter inches. Extensive deterioration may require replacement of sidewalk sections to provide an acceptable pedestrian access route. Project funds will be used to pay for ADA compliance repairs that occur in conjunction with CIP projects, except when horizontal sawcutting funds are available to remove tripping hazards. Existing street drainage and curb and gutter conditions may require replacement of curb and gutter sections and drive approaches as part of a street rehabilitation project. Streets Division's Repair/ Replacement of Damaged Concrete The Public Services/Streets Division may make repairs to public way sidewalk, curb and gutter, and drive approaches that are deemed to be a critical needed repair, concrete replacement related to an actual ADA identified need, and damage from the annual clean-up program or snow plowing. The City absorbs all costs related to such repairs. Critically needed repairs would be those beyond replacement typically accomplished through the 50/50 program or other concrete replacement programs. An example of critically needed work would be extensive curb and gutter or sidewalk settlement due to an unknown source of undermining, when existing conditions present a hazardous situation for either vehicular or pedestrian traffic,or to remove an ADA sidewalk barrier when an actual need exists for an individual with a disability. The Public Services Director or assigned designee must approve the removal of a sidewalk barrier before the Streets Division concrete crew can replace the defective section of sidewalk. Private Development and Related Public Way Improvements Public way concrete (sidewalk, curb and gutter, and drive approach) repairs or improvements are accomplished as part of the development of private property, subdivisions, and permitted new building and facility rehabilitation projects. Costs related to these public way improvements are the responsibility of the private property owner or developer. ADA Accessibility Ramp Construction Salt Lake City's ADA public way accessibility ramps Transition Plan identifies all public way locations in need of accessibility ramps. The plan has been created to meet federal rulemaking requirements regarding the installation of public rights-of-way accessibility ramps. Legal precedence has been established requiring the installation of public way ramps in conjunction with all capital improvements street projects that involve asphalt overlays and more extensive scopes of work. The City requires ramp installation in accordance with this precedence, and requires all subdivision and other private development to appropriately comply. City funds are budgeted each year for accessibility ramp installation projects to ensure compliance with federal requirements to remove all public way accessibility barriers. All locations in need of ramp construction have been given a high, medium, or low priority rating based on criteria established by the federal government. The rating criterion includes proximity to government facilities, public buildings, schools, commercial outlets, public transportation routes, high pedestrian volume areas, scheduled CIP street improvement projects, and citizen requests. Many of the ADA accessibility ramp installations are scheduled and programmed in response to citizen requests. Actual need citizen requests are always given a high priority rating and construction is scheduled as soon as possible, pending the availability of ramp construction funding and consideration of previous priority commitments. Sidewalk access ramps are not built on one corner of an intersection only. Ramp users cannot be directed into an intersection and not be provided a ramp on the other side of the street. Any defective sidewalk within 25 feet of a new sidewalk access ramp is repaired or replaced in conjunction with the ramp construction. a.xxxax�c,gp, " l.u,�.u� �1 ua¢att'w, ,.� .. .... .�. � .... The following statements are typical of concerns expressed by property owners when informed of their responsibility to replace defective sidewalk adjacent to their property: • Tree roots from a City tree in the park strip lifted the sidewalk (curb and gutter, drive approach) next to my property. Why should I pay for damage caused by the City's tree? • The City owns the sidewalk next to my property. Why should I pay to repair something I don't even own? The taxes I pay should cover the cost of sidewalk,and curb and gutter repair. • My neighbor is in a CDBG target area, so he did not pay anything for his/her new sidewalk. I have to pay 50%of the construction cost to replace my sidewalk. This is not fair. • My neighbor's sidewalk is a tripping hazard, but he/she refuses to do anything about it. Why doesn't the City force him/her to replace it or just replace it before someone gets hurt? • The City installed accessibility ramps at the street intersections, but the sidewalk in the middle of the block is so uneven I can't get my wheelchair to the ramps to use them. Why is the City not addressing all the ADA needs? Most citizen concerns regarding defective public way sidewalk fall into two main categories: public safety and cost of replacement. Property owners are very concerned about sidewalk conditions in their neighborhoods; however, they are generally unaware of the fact that City ordinance places the responsibility for repair of defective public way sidewalk on the adjacent private property owner. This unexpected responsibility does not generally elicit a favorable response. If property owners refuse to meet their civic responsibility regarding sidewalk replacement, City ordinance allows the City to include such properties in a future special improvement district and assess property owners at the approved assessment rates; however, the limited availability of CIP funding and previous priority commitments could delay replacement of the defective sidewalk indefinitely. The most common complaint regarding the responsibility of property owners to replace defective public way sidewalk relates to tree root uplifting. In general,property owners are not pleased with the concept of paying for the replacement of defective public way sidewalk adjacent to their property. This displeasure is compounded by the fact that a city-owned tree raised the city-owned sidewalk, and the uplifting will most likely re-occur within five years, if the tree roots cannot be removed. Root cutting cannot occur if structural stability is an issue or the health of the tree will be compromised. In many cases, horizontal sawcutting can be used to eliminate sidewalk displacements less than one and one-quarter inches. This maintenance strategy is generally well received, since property owners are not charged and replacement of the sidewalk is postponed for several years. Many trees presently growing in City park strips are not suited for this confined space. The City's urban forester has restricted the tree species that can be planted in park strips, but this is a relatively new concept and most park strip trees were planted long before the new guidelines were established. Replacement of trees not suited for the restrictive park strip locations will help,but this is a costly, long-range program. A recent United States Supreme Court decision, Barden v. Sacramento (See Appendix No. 2), states sidewalks are covered under the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA); accordingly, municipalities have the responsibility of maintaining an accessible sidewalk network. In an effort to meet ADA requirements, Salt Lake City has placed primary emphasis on the installation of accessibility ramps and to a lesser degree the elimination of accessibility barriers created by defective sidewalk. The Streets Division's 50/50 program and Capital Improvement Program (CIP) projects, using Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Special Improvement District (SD) funds, have been the major contributors to addressing sidewalk replacement needs. Although a significant volume of defective sidewalk has been replaced through these programs, the total need is beyond the present funding level. Emergency repairs regarding ADA accessibility may be accomplished by the City without cost to the adjacent property owner when deemed necessary and approved by the Public Services Director. Although the focus of this paper relates to defective sidewalks, it should be noted that defective curb and gutter is an extensive citywide problem as well. Very little funding has been allocated for the replacement of defective curb and gutter, which has resulted in considerable citizen concern regarding the growing problem of nuisance ponding. At this time, over $20,000,000 would be needed to address all defective curb and gutter problems in the City (see Appendix No.1, Table 2). This figure could easily escalate, since inventory statistics only identified defective sections of curb and gutter, not the total volume of curb and gutter replacement needed to resolve extensive drainage problems. Property owner frustration is often expressed when a new storm drain is installed, but curb and gutter ponding problems still exist because the Drainage Utility Fee could not be used to replace the defective curb and gutter. Although projects in recent years have helped to resolve some drainage issues, this problem is still readily evident in the Rose Park and Glendale areas of the City, where the initial installation of curb and gutter occurred with very little slope. Extensive street and storm drain reconstruction is needed in these areas at costs significantly greater than experienced by simply replacing isolated sections of curb and gutter. Deteriorated Fu i1wcNITifr Way Scdewa7k SSatt g s a , tr4 x �.�. �+..,..N......,�_.�...��.�._, .. __ .,�..�,.�.._, vN,.,.,.�.r..,M-.��a+:�e�.m..a>a< ,�..,�,..��.., ,..n bk��.�a�,..�.k..,��:,,S�h�.*�a�� ,�Ea �.�l'�';..F,"?�a.�. ..aa..�.a.3r.,,.."�,'�.,`k��..,.»m s 4 i 3a!F An inventory completed in the year 2000 established an asset management baseline for public way concrete(See Appendix No.1). Although completed over five years ago, the inventory statistics, including updates, provide a reasonable indicator regarding overall network value and projected defective concrete replacement costs. Engineering proposes a follow-up inventory be undertaken in 2007, which will require budget approval of $60,000. There are approximately 800 miles (20,000,000 Square feet) of public way sidewalk in Salt Lake City and 900 miles of curb and gutter. At this time, the approximate cost to replace all defective public way sidewalk in the City is $15,690,000 (see Appendix No. 1, Table 1). The average annual expenditure for replacement of defective public way sidewalk from 2003 to 2005 is approximately$1,650,000. This figure includes the average annual expenditure for sidewalk replacement SID's, sidewalk replaced through capital improvement projects, Streets Division 50/50 program, private development involving public way permit work, and CDBG sidewalk replacement projects. At the average rate of expenditure, it would take approximately 10 to 12 years to replace all defective sidewalk in Salt Lake City. This does not account for additional concrete deterioration occurring during this same time period, which could extend the replacement period. Approximately 80% of the $1,650,000 annual expenditure is allocated to non-CDBG eligible areas of the City, creating a significant defective sidewalk problem in a large portion of the City. This issue will be addressed in detail in the Sidewalk Replacement Discussion portion of this document. Approximately $13,000,000 would be needed to complete the installation of accessibility ramps throughout the City (see Appendix No. 1, Table 4). In recent years, funding for accessibility ramp construction has significantly increased; however, at the present funding level, approximately 13 to 15 years will pass before all the remaining ramps can be constructed, excluding locations with extensive site problems. Ramp construction costs escalate rapidly at locations where site conditions are extreme. It should be noted that ADA also addresses sidewalks, requiring an obstacle free, continuous passage with changes in level not to exceed one-quarter of an inch. In June of 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court rejected an appeal by Sacramento (Barden v. Sacramento) to overturn the Ninth Circuit Court ruling that city sidewalks were covered by ADA. This Supreme Court ruling clearly states the responsibility of municipalities to maintain pedestrian access routes, including barrier-free, compliant sidewalks (see Appendix No. 2). In addition to replacement of defective sidewalk, the initial installation of sidewalk in areas where such improvements have not previously existed would cost approximately $11,360,000 (See Appendix No. 1, Table 1). This figure does not include industrial areas where installation is not warranted at this time. Further evaluation is also needed in areas where construction feasibility is questionable due to existing site conditions, including steep grades and/or extensive landscaping in the public way. 4 de IM Re l XeMOJA ��CYS.VO g AAA ` Four City administered programs presently facilitate most of the sidewalk repair and replacement in Salt Lake City: 1) Sidewalk Replacement Special Improvement Districts (SID's), 2) Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) sidewalk replacement projects, 3) Streets Division's 50/50 program for public way concrete replacement, and 4) Sidewalk Horizontal Sawcutting. SID's are not used in areas eligible for CDBG funding, and the 50/50 program does not replace sidewalk in SID or CDBG areas. Residential property owners in CDBG eligible areas of the City are not charged for defective sidewalk replacement while residential property owners participating in an SID pay 50% of the replacement cost. Based on statistics from the last three years (2003 thru 2005), approximately $1,330,000 per year has been expended for the replacement of defective public way sidewalk in non-CDBG eligible areas of the City. This includes funding from sidewalk replacement SID's, CIP projects, Streets Division's 50/50 program, and private development permits to work in the public way. In contrast to the funds expended in non-CDBG areas of the City, approximately $320,000 per year has been expended in CDBG eligible areas of the City in the same three year period. Approximately 50% of all defective sidewalk is located in CDBG eligible areas of the City, but only 19% of the total annual sidewalk expenditure is used in this portion of the City. If future SID's were funded at approximately $1,400,000 ($700,000 General Fund and $700,000 SID Property Owner Portion)per year, it would take approximately 6 years to replace all defective sidewalk in the non-CDBG eligible areas of the City. If future SID's were funded at $2,800,000 ($1,400,000 General Fund and$1,400,000 SID per year), approximately 3 years would be required to replace all defective sidewalk in the non-CDBG areas of the City. Increasing the dollar volume for defective sidewalk replacement SID's would accelerate the defective sidewalk replacement timeline in non-CDBG eligible areas of the City; however, Engineering would require a personnel increase to handle the added workload, including one engineer, one engineering technician, and one SID coordinator. Increased personnel costs would be covered by the engineering fees charged through the CIP process. Approximately $7,845,000 would be needed to replace all defective sidewalk in CDBG eligible areas of the City. At the present average expenditure of approximately $320,000 per year, it will take approximately 25 years to replace all defective sidewalk in this portion of the City. $300,000 was approved through the CDBG program for sidewalk replacement in the 2005/2006 fiscal year. If$300,000 is projected as the future annual CDBG expenditure, and if the present average expenditure of $87,000 per year for additional CIP work and privately funded public way improvements in CDBG eligible areas continues, approximately 21 years would elapse before all defective sidewalk could be addressed in CDBG eligible areas of the City. If the present funding for CDBG sidewalk replacement projects is doubled from $300,000 to $600,000 per year, it will still take approximately 12 years to replace all defective sidewalk in CDBG areas of the City. Horizontal sawcutting would address ongoing sidewalk displacement problems, reducing long-range defective sidewalk replacement costs. Increased funding through the CDBG program or from other sources is needed to adequately address the extensive defective sidewalk problem in CDBG eligible areas of the City. Sidewalk replacement SID's are not presently used in CDBG eligible areas of the City. The use of SID's in CDBG areas could provide a means of funding the needed sidewalk improvements; however, the fairness of this action might be questioned, since property owners receiving improvements through CDBG funding would receive the improvements at no cost and residential property owners participating in an SID would be charged 50% of the construction cost. Another option for sidewalk replacement involves the creation of a fee or tax for each parcel in the City. A fee assessment of approximately $20 to $25 per year per property would generate approximately $1,280,000 to $1,600,000 annually, based on an estimated 64,000 parcels that presently exist within the City limits. A set fee per parcel could be established or fees could be determined by proportional benefit, according to lineal front footage or square foot unit costs with a set minimum and maximum fee per property. The set fee would be based on the desired annual allocation for sidewalk replacement, such as a ten-year program to replace all defective sidewalk. o nparison of aSidewalkrRepla ern jit Prog am Optians. .rc .. .. .. ..w..' ....4,}. A significant long-range financial commitment is needed to address the City's public way sidewalk management needs. Options discussed in this section are restricted to defective sidewalk replacement; installation of sidewalk where such improvements have not previously existed and construction of accessibility ramps, which are part of the citywide sidewalk network, are very costly and should be evaluated as separate issues. Various sidewalk replacement options exist that range from maintaining the status quo, recognizing that deterioration is ongoing and ADA issues present significant liabilities, to fully funding replacement of the present backlog and establishing an ongoing maintenance program for the entire sidewalk network. All options should involve the continuation of a horizontal sawcutting program to extend the time period between defective sidewalk replacement and lower overall sidewalk repair and replacement costs. The following options are presented as a decision-making tool regarding this complex issue,not as exact program recommendations: Program Option No. 1: Maintain the Status Quo: Continue with the Established Concrete Replacement Program and Funding Level (CIP, CDBG, SID, and Streets Division's Concrete Replacement Program) Funding: Maintain the current funding level. The average annual expenditure from 2003 to 2005: $1,540,000. Advantages: • Programs are established, including City ordinances. • No funding increases would be required until significant citizen concern is expressed regarding public way concrete deterioration(most likely from CDBG eligible areas of the City). Disadvantages: • Present concrete replacement funding level does not meet the existing rate of concrete deterioration in CDBG eligible areas of the City. • Fairness concerns expressed by property owners would still exist; property owners in qualifying CDBG areas would receive free sidewalk replacement while those outside the eligible areas would pay for like improvements. Program Option No. 2: Increase Funding to the Existing Sidewalk Replacement Program (CDBG, SID, and Streets Division's Concrete Replacement Program) to Establish a Ten-Year Citywide Replacement Plan Funding: Increase sidewalk replacement funding resulting in annual expenditure of approximately $1,569,000 apportioned to cover CDBG and non-CDBG eligible areas. Proportional increases to CDBG, SID, and Streets Division 50/50 would need to be determined. Advantages: • Programs are established, including City ordinances. • Increased funding would meet the estimated need of$1,569,000 per year for a ten-year total deteriorated sidewalk replacement schedule. Disadvantages: • A significant CDBG funding increase would be needed, which may not be feasible. Approximately $784,500 per year would be needed for CDBG eligible areas of the City based on the estimated need of$1,569,000 per year for a ten-year citywide replacement schedule. • Funding sources would need to be determined, which could impact other programs, unless a new funding source is established. • Fairness concerns expressed by property owners would still exist; property owners in qualifying CDBG areas would receive free sidewalk replacement while those outside CDBG eligible areas would pay for the same improvements. Program Option No. 3: Increase Sidewalk Replacement Special Improvement District (SID) Funding for Use in Both CDBG and Non-CDBG Areas of the City Funding: Increase sidewalk replacement SID funding to approximately$2,800,000 ($1,400,000 General Fund and $1,400,000 SID—Property Owner Portion)per year. (Note: Accessibility ramp construction funding would need to be increased by approximately$450,000 to address associated ramp construction required by ADA). Advantages: • Funding at the proposed level would replace all deteriorated public way sidewalk in both Non- CDBG and CDBG areas in approximately 6 years,based on an estimated total replacement need of $15,690,000 (See Discussion Section). • The Special Improvement District process is well established and generally well accepted by property owners. • SID's focus on specific areas with the objective of eliminating all deteriorated sidewalk within a defined district. • Adjacent residential private property owners and the city share the construction cost on a 50/50 basis. Disadvantages: • The formal SID approval process provides property owners with the right of protest, which could prevent some areas in the City from ever receiving needed concrete repairs, creating a liability for both the property owner and the City. • Fairness concerns regarding improvement costs would exist with this option, since residential property owners previously eligible for"no cost" CDBG sidewalk installation would now be paying 50% of the installation cost. Program Option No. 4: Defective Public Way Concrete Property Owner Fee Funding: A fee assessment of approximately$20 to $25 per year per property owner parcel would generate approximately$1,280,000 to $1,600,000 per year based on an estimated 64,000 parcels that presently exist within the City limits. Advantages: • Property owners would pay a small amount annually instead of paying the entire cost for reconstruction when the replacement occurs. The Streets Division's 50/50 program requires payment before construction starts, which can prohibit participation by those on fixed incomes. SID's have a five-year pay off period, but this can still place a financial burden on some property owners. • The City would be responsible for contracting the replacement of defective sidewalk. Property owner involvement would be minimized. • Property owners would have the option of hiring a contractor at their own cost to install the improvements prior to the scheduled replacements. A public way permit would be required. • CDBG funding would still facilitate sidewalk replacement in qualifying areas; however, the fairness issue would no longer exist regarding some property owners paying for improvements and others receiving the improvements without charge, since all property owners would pay the annual fee. Disadvantages: • Establishment of a fee program would require significant effort, including a public education and communication program. • The billing process could possibly be handled through Public Utilities; however,this would increase the volume of accounting transactions handled by this department. • City ordinance revisions would need to be developed,reviewed, and passed. • Property owner resistance may be encountered regarding increased costs for City services. The replacement of defective public way sidewalk is a major concern in cities all across the United States, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court decision that states city sidewalks are subject to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Concrete replacement is being addressed in a variety of ways. Some cities have accepted complete responsibility for replacement of defective public way concrete; whereas, other cities place the entire burden on the adjacent private property owner. In general, those cities accepting responsibility for concrete replacement generate funding through taxation or fees, and cities placing the responsibility on the adjacent private property owner have established programs similar to our CIP special improvement districts (SID) or the Streets Division's 50/50 concrete replacement program. Concrete replacement through an SID is restricted to the legally defined district, making it difficult to expeditiously respond to ADA sidewalk repair requests outside of the district. Also, property owners have the right to protest the creation of an SID, which means some areas of the City may never receive needed public way concrete replacement. Since the Streets Division's 50/50 program is voluntary, property owners can simply ignore their civic responsibility to replace defective public way concrete adjacent to their private property. In light of liability issues that may exist regarding defective concrete in the public way, programs that generate ongoing revenue should be of most interest in our effort to determine the best option for Salt Lake City. Denver has established a program that assesses property owners an annual sidewalk replacement fee based on the square feet of public way concrete adjacent to their property. This approach has provided a viable program, supported by a dedicated revenue source, resulting in a safer sidewalk network and decreased liability regarding defective concrete in the public way. Defective public way sidewalk in Salt Lake City is a significant concern, requiring further evaluation to determine a prudent and effective course of action. Approximately $15,690,000 worth of defective sidewalk exists in the City. The present rate of expenditure is not adequate to keep up with the rate of public way sidewalk deterioration, especially in the CDBG eligible areas of the City. A public way concrete management program should be established to address the current backlog and facilitate ongoing maintenance of this valuable City asset. Revision of the existing sidewalk repair and replacement program would of course involve changes to existing City ordinances that address public way concrete. The development and maintenance of a functional, safe, and accessible public way sidewalk network will provide a great benefit to residents, businesses, and visitors to Salt Lake City. APPENDICES Appendix No. 1: Public Way Concrete Construction Needs Appendix No. 2: Settlement of Sacramento Sidewalk Lawsuit (Barden v. Sacramento) APPENDIX NO. 1 Defective Public Way Concrete Construction Needs Table 1 Public Way Sidewalk Construction Need CATEGORY SQUARE FEET VALUE EXISTING SIDEWALK 20,000,000 $120,000,000 DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK Not Tree Root Related 1,868,000 $11,208,000 Tree Root Related 487,000 $ 2,922,000 Sidewalk Beautification Areas 39,000 $ 1,560,000 TOTAL DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK 2,394,000 $15,690,000 "NO SIDEWALK"LOCATIONS 1,623,000 $ 11,361,000 TOTAL SIDEWALK NEED 4,017,000 $27,051,000 ..,.u. iaa_..a��n a3.:» ..N_.n .aWdk e..E. iidi .^.uM� aa•�,SSK,,.idatiV ... •tea atzwlar"'• sBs�tza :Zamwo.=,;a,. NOTE: Values are based on$6.00/SF for Tree Root and Not Tree Root related,$40.00/SF for Beautification Areas,and$7.00/SF for"No Sidewalk"Locations. Existing Sidewalk is a GIS approximation. Table 2 Public Way Curb and Gutter Construction Need _ isno .i. •;<?' • l 9 r • ;c''is '1a• a i i Sw, rT,"�-vaiimi;Yi-3- ,s„ ."..stw Gwem w3 8„ •`--.,. 2-`'.'m. 7, 4 ;,: M •:v CATEGORY LINEAL FEET VALUE g'it...ikR tgaii'd-•:u riak.f..•.- .,,Y,»,..,_n.M..W.iai. .i.`. »iiag.:-'ari3:...N„...3,«.w,a.. filli EXISTING CURB&GUTTER 4,750,000 $133,000,000 :`3•vy a iL $-<`' 'mo t 3. t f m ;i w.'`, : F�; .`'.. 'a3. "'asa. R`*. s 3 r eC E Sr omm" x,' ,�`„^' DEFECTIVE CURB & GUTTER 713,000 $19,964,000 "NO CURB&GUTTER"LOCATION 1,109,000 $ 33,270,000 TOTAL CURB&GUTTER NEED 1,214,400 $ 53,234,000 ..:?.».. d... sA'a• ,Y.<r,F- a z.; ,.,� na r, ,.z.,.e.a,., x� % �f_ca.t"''.°_.'::. "f.:MaRSM '`..> v " _ :-:gt,'•�.c- w .',:""^,•o.. NOTE: Defective curb and gutter figures do not include additional concrete replacement that may be necessary to resolve drainage issues. Curb and gutter values are based on$28.00/LF for existing and replacement,and$30 for"No Curb and Gutter". Table 3 Public Way Drive Approach Construction Need CATEGORY SQUARE FEET VALUE ,.&.a;a�'aa lu •. w. ».a; a i". xzsaa.r s,.,;. 'is`a'3`s�.i;ttra�A,ti.=?� - t-A 4-��,.- w -_...... .v a s .a..I x . EXISTING DRIVE APPROACHES 7,680,000 $ 69,120,000 DEFECTIVE DRIVE APPROACHES 478,000 $4,302,000 NOTE: Drive approach values are based on$9.00/SF. Table 4 Public Way Accessibility Ram Construction Need CATEGORY RAMPS VALUE EXISTING ACCESSIBILITY RAMPS 10,000 $25,000,000 LOCATIONS NEEDING RAMPS 5,200 $13,000,000 'ARk:,+tea .>a; ;24'.Wk._-L to,._n-tEma:—agu'i... c•? 4%N., •,-A;kj,-e:,. " i !Waft" NOTE: Accessibility ramp values are based on$2500/ramp. APPENDIX NO. 2 Settlement on Sacramento Sidewalk Lawsuit (Barden v. Sacramento) United States Supreme Court denies the petition for a writ of certiorari—City of Sacramento v.Joan Barden,et al. (See complete US Supreme Court statement of petition denial at the following website: littp://www.usdoj.gov/osg/briefs/2002/2pet/6invit/2002-0815.pet.ami.inv.pdf) Reprint of Article Published in the Sacramento Bee,June 25,2003 DISABLED, CITY SETTLE SIDEWALK LAWSUIT Sacramento agrees to set funding and not push case to high court By Terri Hardy—Bee Staff Writer Published 2:15 a.m.PDT Wednesday,June 25,2003 Ending a bitter four-year legal battle,city officials and an attorney for disabled activists have reached an agreement on a lawsuit over sidewalk accessibility,they announced Tuesday. The tentative settlement calls for the city of Sacramento to drop its push to have the U.S.Supreme Court hear the case.In return,the city must dedicate 20 percent of designated transportation funds for the next 30 years to improve sidewalks,crosswalks and curb ramps. The Sacramento City Council unanimously approved the details in concept Tuesday. To be officially settled,the agreement must be approved in federal court. The apparent end to the rancorous lawsuit was hailed by city officials and the attorney representing the disabled residents. Some activists,however,said they were worried about whether the city would follow through with the settlement and if there would be enough money for planned improvements. City Councilman Dave Jones said settling was the right thing to do and an important step in mending relations with the disabled community. "There's been a lot of frustration in the community about whether the city is listening to their concerns," Jones said. "My hope is that our decision to settle this case and get about the business of making our city accessible will repair the lines of communications." In a written comment,Mayor Heather Fargo said she was optimistic the case would be settled. "I believe these negotiations continue to foster our relationship with the disabled community and the city's ADA Advisory Commission to ensure prioritizations of dollars and resources," she said. Melissa Kasnitz,an attorney for the disabled residents who brought the case,said she was pleased with Tuesday's agreement. "It's been a long road,but we've now ended up in a place where both the disabled community and the city will be well-served," she said. Disabled Sacramento residents sued the city in 1999,saying it was failing to comply with the federal Americans with Disabilities Act and must make all sidewalks accessible. The city's attorney fought the case,claiming it was not responsible for the sidewalks and that fixing them would be an undue financial burden. After losing an earlier legal round,the city agreed to install 1,500 curb ramps annually to make sidewalks more accessible,spending$11.5 million over the past three years. In November,the City Council urged the city attorney to settle the case,but negotiations were slowed over plaintiff's attorney fees. As part of the settlement,the city will pay as much as$795,000 toward those costs,as well as$10,000 to each of the eight named plaintiffs. Warren Cushman,president of the local chapter of Californians for Disability Rights,was relieved to see a settlement. Some from the disabled community were concerned that if the case went before the U.S.Supreme Court,the court might pare down the ADA law. "Given the direction of the court over the past few years,we had a legitimate fear that the case would be used to overturn a plank of the ADA," Cushman said. "We didn't want Sacramento to be the cornerstone in that." Some activists also were concerned that the agreement set no minimums for funding each year. Cushman was concerned at the funding sources targeted—the gasoline tax and Measure A funds,a half-cent sales tax approved by voters for transportation projects. Cushman,who sits on the Sacrament Transportation Authority's Measure A Steering Committee,said the funds will stop coming in 2008 unless voters give their approval to continue them—something far from certain. The settlement also calls for monitoring of the city's efforts and requires Sacramento's ADA Advisory Commission to make recommendations on planned projects. Ron Brown,the chairman of the commission,said he's pleased with his group's larger role. He believes the settlement makes it clear that the city is committed to providing access to the disabled. "The city never tried to ignore disabled issues,it's just something that happened,"Brown said. "I'm hoping the city's efforts to mitigate the situation will be seen as a positive step toward resolving some of these issues that have been building for quite some time, " he said.