The URL can be used to link to this page

10/17/2006 - Minutes (2) PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17 , 2006 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah met in Work Session on Tuesday, October 17, 2006, at 5 : 30 p.m. in Room 326, Committee Room, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Eric Jergensen, Nancy Saxton, Jill Remington Love, Dave Buhler and Soren Simonsen. Also In Attendance : Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Edwin Rutan, City Attorney; Boyd Ferguson, Senior City Attorney; Jennifer Bruno, Council Policy Analyst; Vicki Pacheco, Council Staff Assistant; Alexander Ikefuna, Planning Director; Orion Goff, Building Official; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; John Naser, Engineering Senior Project Manager; Daniel Mule, Treasurer; D. J. Baxter, Mayor' s Senior Advisor; Greg Johnson, Community Development Planner; LeRoy Hooton, Public Utilities Director; Rocky Fluhart, Management Services Chief Administrative Officer; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Alison McFarlane, Mayor' s Senior Advisor for Economic Development; Kay Christensen, Budget Analyst; Jeff Edwards, Economic Development Corporation of Utah President; Abby Vianes, Mayor' s Coordinator for Salt Lake City Alcohol, Tobacco and Other Drugs; and Scott Crandall, Deputy Recorder. Councilmember Buhler presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 5 : 32 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1 . INTERVIEW J. SHAWN FOSTER PRIOR TO CONSIDERATION OF HIS APPOINTMENT TO THE COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT ADVISORY COMMITTEE. View Attachments Interview was not held. #2 . 5:32:14PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY FOREIGN TRADE ZONE NO. 30 . View Attachments Alison McFarlane and Jeff Edwards briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Ms . McFarlane said the Council was invited to attend a seminar on November 7, 2006 to explore reactivation and potential users . Councilmember Christensen asked if Ms . McFarlane had enough expertise to handle the project or did the City need to hire a consultant. Ms . McFarlane said she felt a consultant needed to be hired early in the process . She said she had been in contact with someone from the Rockefeller Group who had been associated with the Foreign Trade Zone for ten years . 06 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17 , 2006 Councilmember Buhler said this was an informational item which did not require Council action. He asked Ms . McFarlane to keep the Council updated. #3 . 5:54:11 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING A PROPOSED ORDINANCE THAT WOULD PROHIBIT SMOKING TOBACCO PRODUCTS IN CITY-OWNED PARKS, PUBLIC SQUARES, BALL DIAMONDS, GOLF COURSES, SOCCER FIELDS, RECREATIONAL AREAS, LIBRARY SQUARE, CITY-OWNED CEMETERIES, TRAILS AND NEAR MASS GATHERINGS . (ITEM C-3) View Attachments Sam Guevara, Russell Weeks, Boyd Ferguson and Abby Vianes briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Council Members discussed various aspects of the proposal including secondhand smoke, littering, enforcement, definition of mass gatherings, expanded implementation, constitutional rights, public education, establishing/assessing fines, modifying behavior, safety/health issues, review time/manner issues and ordinance limitations . Council Members were in favor of reviewing the penalty structure and how fines would be determined and assessed. Councilmember Buhler said during the formal meeting he planned to make a motion to defer the issue for further review. He said Council Members could make other motions if they felt differently. #4 . 6:27:12PM HOLD A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION ON THE ISSUE OF BONDING FOR THE GRANT TOWER PROJECT. View Attachments Jennifer Bruno, D.J. Baxter and Dan Mule briefed the Council with the attached handouts . A straw poll was taken on Scenario 3 on Page 2 of the handout. Council Members Saxton, Love, Christensen and Simonsen were in favor. Mr. Mule said at a future meeting the Council would be asked to adopt a reimbursement resolution for Grant Tower and possibly the TRAX extension. #5 . 6:38:45PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE REQUIRING LEED COMPLIANCE FOR CITY FUNDED BUILDING PROJECTS PURSUANT TO PETITION 400-05-38 . View Attachments Orion Goff, Jennifer Bruno and Edwin Rutan briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Discussion was held on requiring Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and Library projects to comply with LEED standards . Mr. Rutan said the RDA was not as problematic as the Library which was impacted by State statue . Councilmember Simonsen asked if the Council could adopt a resolution encouraging Library and RDA Board compliance. A majority of the Council was in favor. Discussion was held on establishing an effective date . Councilmember Buhler said before a decision could be made, the Council 06 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 17 , 2006 needed to know how many projects were in the pipeline and how they would be impacted. Councilmember Simonsen said the $10, 000 deposit requirement needed to be addressed if a retroactive date was considered. Mr. Goff said he would get the information. Councilmember Buhler asked Ms . Bruno to prepare several motions for Council consideration regarding the effective date. Ms . Gust-Jenson said Council staff would work with the Administration to prepare the information. #6. 6:49:10PM REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. View Attachments Ms . Gust-Jenson said the Council was given revised ordinances regarding downtown construction and Lighting District No. 2 . She said the number of properties in the lighting district changed from 2, 882 to 2, 875 . She said the ordinance also contained a clarification regarding the Board of Equalization process . See file M 06-5 for announcements . The meeting adjourned at 6 : 52 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 October 17, 2006 . sc 06 - 3 co e s_m_ ir r A\ yr coLzg�A `T' I; ��.. i .� � Ni OFFICE OF THE CITY COUNCIL Salt Lake City Council AGENDA City Council Chambers City & County Building 451 South State Street,Room 315 Salt Lake City,Utah Tuesday, October 17, 2006 7:00 p.m. 5:00 p.m., some Council Members may dine together in Room 125 at the City & County Building. (The room is open to the public.) A. WORK SESSION: 5:30 p.m., Room 326, City& County Building, 451 South State Street (Items from the following list that Council is unable to complete in Work Session from 5:30-6:55 p.m.will be addressed in a Work Session setting following the Consent Agenda.) 1. The Council will interview J. Shawn Foster prior to consideration of his appointment to the Community Development Advisory Committee. 2. The Council will receive a briefing regarding Salt Lake City Foreign Trade Zone#30. 3. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing regarding a proposed ordinance that would prohibit smoking tobacco products in City-owned parks, public squares, ball diamonds, golf courses, soccer fields, recreational areas, Library Square city-owned cemeteries, trails and near mass gatherings. (Item C-3) • 4. The Council will hold a follow-up discussion on the issue of bonding for the Grant Tower Project. 5. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing regarding an ordinance requiring LEED compliance for City funded building projects (Petition No. 400-05-38). 6. Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. B. OPENING CEREMONY: Council Member Nancy Saxton will conduct the Formal Council Meetings during the month of October. 1. Pledge of Allegiance. 2. The Council will approve the minutes of October 10, 2006. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 1 1 TELEPHONE: B01-535.7600 FAX: 801-535-7651 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/COUNCIL EMAIL: COUNCIL.COMMENTS@SLCGOV.COM A Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday October 17,2006 C. PUBLIC HEARINGS: 1. Resolution—Adopt Pilot Heat Pump Project Accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution relating to a study performed in compliance with Utah Code Section 10-8-2 in connection with a Pilot Heat Pump Project to be undertaken by Salt Lake City and Lear Holdings,LLC, and authorizing the use of public resources in connection with such pilot project. (R 06-24) Staff Recommendation: Close and consider options. 2. Ordinance—Adopt an expedited approval process and authorize City administrative staff to modify City regulations for temporary construction-related activities in the Downtown Area bounded by North Temple; 600 South; Interstate 15; and 200 East Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance enacting expedited approval processes for temporary construction-related activities in a portion of the Downtown Area, which is bounded by North Temple; 600 South; Interstate 15; and 200 East, and granting the authority to City administrative staff to modify certain City regulations for construction-related activities (Petition No. 400-06-32). (0 06-33) Staff Recommendation: Close and consider options. 3. Ordinance—Adopt regulations prohibiting smoking tobacco products in City-owned parks, public squares. ball diamonds, golf courses, soccer fields, recreational areas, Library Square city-owned cemeteries.trails and near mass gatherings Accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance enacting Chapter 15.30 of the Salt Lake City Code,prohibiting smoking in City parks,recreational areas,cemeteries, and near mass gatherings. (0 06-34) Staff Recommendation: Close and consider options. D. COMMENTS: 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) E. NEW BUSINESS: (None) 2 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday October 17,2006 F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: (None) G. CONSENT: 1. Ordinance—Annual Assessment for Special Lighting District L02 Consider adopting an ordinance (The"2006 Assessment Ordinance") approving the assessment list and levying an annual assessment upon property in Salt Lake City, Lighting District No. 2, now known as L02 (The "District L02"); establishing the effective date of the 2006 assessment ordinance; providing for a procedure to contest an assessment; and related matters. (Q 06-11) Staff Recommendation: Adopt. 2. Board Re-appointment—James Jenkin. Transportation Advisory Board Consider approving the re-appointment of James Jenkin to the Transportation Advisory Board for a term extending through September 28, 2009. (I 06-27) Staff Recommendation: Approve. 3 Salt Lake City Council Agenda Tuesday October 17,2006 H. ADJOURNMENT: Dated: October 13, 2006 By: iwu-ekik Deputy City Weto er STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) On the 13t1i day of October, I personally delivered a copy of the foregoing notice to the Mayor and City Council and posted copies of the same in conspicuous view, at the following times and locations within the City& County Building, 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City,Utah: 1. At 5:00 p.m. in the City Recorder's Office, Room 415; and 2. At 5:00 p.m. in the Newsroom,Room 315. Deputy City ec der Subscribed and sworn to before me this 13t1' day of October, 2006. / ,/ii JANYCE FOWLES «otar• 'ublic residing in the State of Utah z_ e NOTARY PUBLIC-STATE OF UTAH I. 451 UTH STATEY Slit R841 M#41511 SALT SOLAKE CIT . U — My Comm.Exp.09/08/2009 Approval: (!, Executive irector Access agendas at http://www.slcgov.com/council/agendas/default.htm. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation no later than 48 hours in advance of council meetings. We make every effort to honor these requests, and they should be made as early as possible. Accommodations may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids. The City and County Building is an accessible facility. For questions or additional information,please contact the City Council Office at 535-7600,or TDD 535-6021. Assistive listening devices are available on Channel I; upon four hours advance notice. Please allow 72 hours advance notice for sign language interpreters; large type and #2 Braille agendas. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the City & County Building through the east entrance. Accessible route is located on the east side of the building. In accordance with State Statute, City Ordinance and Council Policy, one or more Council Members may be connected via speakerphone. 4 Board Appointment: Community Development Advisory Committee J. Shawn Foster INTRODUCTION: Mayor Anderson is recommending that J. Shawn Foster, resident of District 5 be appointed to the Community Development Advisory Committee. If elected, Mr. Foster would serve a term extending through July 6, 2009 and will be replacing Jim Fisher whose term has expired. Mr. Fisher who is now the Liberty Wells Community Chair has recommended Mr. Foster for his replacement along with Council Member Jill Love. APPLICANT INFORMATION: J. Shawn Foster works as an attorney for the Law Offices of J. Shawn Foster and he believes that Community Development Block Grant's are a benefit to communities and enhances the quality of life. RESPONSE DEADLINE: If you have any objections to this appointment, please let Vicki know by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, October 5, 2006. CURRENT COMPOSITION: The Salt Lake City Code requires at least one member to be appointed from each Council district. The Code states that "although members of the committee serve only in an advisory role, their involvement is necessary in order to obtain the opinions of those people who live and work in various neighborhoods to aid the city in identifying the needs within those areas, and projects to be completed with the city's community development funds." Current members are: Robert "Toby" Alires, District 2; Ronald Lee Bartee, District 7; Joana "Joey" Behrens, District 1; Michael Bettin, District 4; Elmer Bullock, District 2; Arturo Gamonal, District 6; Ellie Muth, District 3, Samuel Straight, District 7; Gregory J. Valdez, District 7. BOARD STRUCTURE: CDAC, which can have a maximum of fifteen members, provides citizens an opportunity to participate in the City's planning and assessment of its community development program. CDAC makes recommendations to the Mayor regarding projects that should be completed with Community Development Block Grant funds, evaluates the effectiveness of CDBG program activities, and assures that CDBG goals are consistent with the housing assistance goals of the City. OOT I 2006 SALT LAKE CITY Communication to Salt Lake City Council To: Rocky Fluhart, Chief Administrative Officer From: Alison McFarlane, Senior Advisor for Economic Development Date: October 9, 2006 CC: Mayor Ross C. Anderson, Cindy Gust-Jensen, Sam Guevara, Roy Williams, Ed Butterfield Re: Salt Lake City—Foreign Trade Zone #30 SALT LAKE CITY FOREIGN TRADE ZONE #30 ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OBJECTIVE An FTZ designation for Salt Lake City can help create sustainable economic opportunities through: • Retention and expansion of existing businesses • New business recruitment • Diversification of the local economy OVERVIEW: The Foreign Trade Zone Program (FTZ) is a long-standing federal program that provides many little-known import/export benefits for a wide range of business applications. Since an FTZ is considered outside the United States for Customs purposes, qualified importers can defer, reduce or eliminate Customs duties on product stored in their facilities, thereby improving cash flow, lowering inventory cost, and improving bottom lines. Merchandise or materials that enter an FTZ may be assembled, manufactured, processed, mixed, stored, relabeled or repackaged, tested, manipulated, cleaned, sampled, destroyed or salvaged. FTZs also offer logistics and administrative benefits to qualified companies through procedures such as weekly Customs entry summaries and their associated reduced transaction costs. Salt Lake currently has an FTZ site located in the International Business Center (410 N. Wright Brothers Avenue, Salt Lake City, UT 84116). Salt Lake City's FTZ#30 operated from 1977 until 1996. The FTZ was deactivated in 1996 due to inefficient operation and an apparent lack of use. The new Union Pacific transloading facility, located at 5600 West and 900 South, has initiated a surge in requests for the reactivation of FTZ #30. Salt Lake City is the first major destination and interchange point for Union Pacific Railroad from Seattle, Portland, Oakland and Los Angeles/Long Beach. A high volume of merchandise and materials and trade congestion at the port cities offers an opportunity for Salt Lake City to attract new businesses with a FTZ designation. Salt Lake City's Economic Development Department is analyzing the reactivation of the FTZ and the expansion of the General Purpose Zone, which is established for multiple activities and multiple users. There is also the potential of expanding Zone #30 by adding numerous subzones. Salt Lake City Corporation is in charge of the FTZ as its official Grantee. ADVANTAGES: An FTZ enables companies to import products and save on the payment of duties and federal, state, and local taxes. These companies can then either store the products indefinitely (as opposed to the 5 year limit within US Customs) or manipulate/manufacture the merchandise into a finished product. The product can then be re-exported out of the US without the payment of the duties or taxes. Duties are only due upon entry into US territory. In this way companies that locate their operations within General Purpose FTZs or Subzones are able to more effectively compete with their overseas counterparts. The cities that sponsor these zones benefit by having companies locate their operations and manufacturing sectors within their area thereby creating new jobs. Tax revenue is generated by the products that leave the FTZ for any NAFTA country. The closest FTZ's to Salt Lake City are Phoenix, Arizona and Reno, Nevada. REACTIVATION PROCEDURE 1. Conduct a FTZ seminar to gauge business users and begin education and information process for the business community. The first seminar has been set for November 7, 2006 from 7:30 am to 12:00 noon. The seminar will be held at the Salt Lake City Marriott (State Street property). Foreign Trade Zones: An Overview and Benefits to Your Company is sponsored by Salt Lake City Corporation. Co- sponsors include EDCUtah, the Governor's of Office of Economic Development, Salt Lake County, Commerce CRG and Sahara Construction. 2. Request for Qualifications to identify an FTZ operator. The RFQ will call for the operator to foster the application process, research all necessary feasibility studies, coordinate impact analysis, and operate FTZ #30. 3. Apply to reactivate FTZ#30 as an expanded General Purpose Zone (GPZ). The zone could include: a. The entire International Business Center (I-80 West, Exit 114, Wright Brothers Drive, Salt Lake City, UT 84116) b. Salt Lake International Airport c. Ninigret Park (Four properties: 1717 South 4800 West; 1857 South 4650 West; 1435 South 4800 West; 1831 South 4800 West, Salt Lake City, UT 84104) d. Union-Pacific Trans-loading facility located at 900 South 5600 West. 4. Market the FTZ to former and prospective users (post application, but during the approval process). Marketing would include the production of a marketing plan including an introductory letter from the Mayor, PowerPoint presentation, and cooperative communication tools with the Utah Manufacturers Association and other trade organizations. 5. Foreign Trade Zone Association membership allows Grantees to keep updated on FTZ regulations and new information that relates to operating an FTZ. Salt Lake City has joined the NAFTZ Assocation at a cost of$100 annual membership fee. FTZ COSTS 1. Reactivation is free. a. Foreign Trade Zone account presently has $300,890 that has accumulated from an ongoing lease on the warehouse building. This account would cover the General Purpose Expansion application fee as well as initial marketing fees, feasibility study and impact analysis. 2. General Purpose Expansion: a. $1600 application fee b. Cost of feasibility study and impact analysis. c. Costs are usually recouped by the Grantee from prospective FTZ users. 3. Subzone Application Fees (Subzones can be created at any time and are established for a limited purpose that cannot be accommodated within an existing General Purpose Zone) a. $4,000-$6,500 (depending on how many "classes" of merchandise are produced): However, this fee is paid by the specific company seeking subzone status. They must, however, go through the Grantee for application purposes. 4. Marketing Fees. Exact figures for marketing fees will depend on the selected methods of marketing. b. The Operator should be qualified to market the zone to companies in the area. The Operator should be making astute decisions to build occupancy in the zone. c. The Grantee/Operator agreement may include a provision that the Operator is responsible for marketing including costs. ACTION STEPS: 1. Activation: Notify John Glaitti, Port Director at US Customs in Salt Lake City, via letter, that we are reactivating the FTZ#30 and outline reasons for activation. Send a copy of letter to the Foreign Trade Zone Board in Washington, DC. 2. Expansion: Contact the FTZ Board a. Download and complete the Application for Expansion b. Complete the feasibility and economic impact study 3. Subzones: Determine which businesses require subzone status and geographic area a. Notify the Board of intent to apply for subzone status b. Begin application process 4. Marketing: Responsibility of Salt Lake City and FTZ operator 5. TIMELINE: 1. Activation letter is sent. (Operator must be decided upon prior to activation.) 2. Activation letter is accepted. 3. Federal process and approvals takesl0-12 months. 4. Marketing for the FTZ should take place during the year of the application process. In this way, Salt Lake City Corporation will have companies in place to utilize the FTZ when it is officially activated. 5. Timeline also depends on when operator is chosen and how soon independent groups can provide an accurate and acceptable proposal. POTENTIAL FTZ USERS: A. General: Importers, importers that re-export, manufacturers that import certain parts of a finished product B. Semi-specific: automotive, textile,metals, pharmaceuticals, high-tech companies, aerospace, chemicals, defense, fuel propellants. C. Specific: 1. Chemical a. Huntsman International Holdings b. Headwaters, Inc 2. Automotive a. Autoliv b. Detroit Diesel (Tooele, subzone) 3. Aerospace a. ATK (defense, aeronautics, fuel propellants) b. Boeing (defense, aeronautics) c. Northrop Grumman Corp (defense) 4. High Tech a. Helius b. Micron (Lehi, subzone) c. Linux Networxs d. Tyco Electronics (Logan, Subzone) e. Compeq International Corp f. Modus Media International 5. Industrial Machinery a. SK Daifuku Corp b. Weir Specialty Pumps 6. Product Based/Miscellaneous a. International Liquor b. Nu Skin (Provo, subzone) c. Abbott Labs d. PETsMART CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATION A Foreign Trade Zone is an economic development tool not only for Salt Lake City Corporation, but for Salt Lake County, the State of Utah and the Intermountain region. When functioning well it will help attract new businesses/employees primarily in the manufacturing/industrial areas of Salt Lake City. Thorough planning and effective management are necessary for a successful FTZ operation. The seminar scheduled for November 7, 2006 is the first step to survey the feasibility of FTZ activation. More seminars dealing with specific industries and aspects of the FTZ will be conducted to market FTZ #30 to the local business community. Following formal application, the project can be approved within 10-12 months by US Customs and Border Protection. Finally, the Zone can begin significant operation within 18 months. MEMORANDUM DATE: October 13,2006 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Proposed Ordinance: Prohibiting Smoking Tobacco Products in City Parks, Recreational Areas, Cemeteries and Near Mass Gatherings CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara,Ed Rutan, Chris Burbank,Gary Mumford,Boyd Ferguson,Abbie Vianes,Thomas Guinney This memorandum addresses items pertaining to a proposed ordinance that would prohibit smoking tobacco products in city parks,public squares, Library Square,recreational areas, cemeteries and near mass gatherings.The City Council is scheduled to hold a public hearing on the proposed ordinance Tuesday, October 17. The Council also will hold a briefing in the work session before the public hearing. NEW INFORMATION There is a variety of new information pertaining to this issue. Council staff has broken the information into sections with a series of subheads. Staff put the new information before the Options and Potential Motions sections of this memorandum because the information may pertain to options and motions the City Council may consider. CHANGES TO PROPOSED ORDINANCE Since the October 10 briefing,the Administration has made a limited number of changes in the proposed ordinance to clarify it.The changes are: • Under the Definitions section,adding golf courses to the umbrella term"city park,"and deleting"pocket parks"and"linear parks"because the two categories are not used as legal terms to describe public park property in Salt Lake City. Mini-parks fall under city- owned parks, and the Park Blocks linear parks on 500 West Street already are defined as public squares. It probably also should be noted that this version and earlier versions of the proposed ordinance exempts "designated smoking areas"from the term"city park." Finally, other City sites that may be considered recreation areas are the Sunday Anderson Westside Senior Citizen Center,the Unity and Sorensen centers,Raging Waters, the Northwest Multipurpose Center, the Dee Smith Tennis Facility, and Wasatch Springs (the former site of the Children's Museum of Utah), according to the Administration. • The definition of"mass gathering"has been changed to read: "Mass gathering means an outdoor assembly of 500 or more people on city-owned property that reasonably can be expected to continue for two or more hours."The words"city-owned property"have 1 been added to differentiate between events on public property and events on private property. COMMENTS BY THOMAS GUINNEY,SALT LAKE VALLEY BOARD OF HEALTH Staff contacted Mr. Guinney to discuss items he mentioned at the City Council briefing on October 10. Mr. Guinney is working with others to prepare potential legislation to bring to the Legislature. The potential bill would address prohibiting smoking tobacco products in parks and other outdoor venues. During the telephone discussion with City Council staff Mr. Guinney made several observations about what might be an effective law: • Municipalities adopting ordinances that prohibit tobacco smoking in public outdoor venues lay a foundation of showing a need for statewide legislation. • The goal of the potential legislation would be to"institute cultural change"in which people of their own volition would not smoke in outdoor public venues. Mr. Guinney estimated that attaining the goal would take about three years. • The most effective law is one that the public enforces by itself. Given those,Mr. Guinney suggested some potential changes to the proposed ordinance: • Prohibitions against smoking tobacco products on sidewalks, in the Salt Lake City Cemetery, and on golf courses should be eliminated. The suggestions are based in part on the experience of the group Mr. Guinney is working with to prepare legislation and in part on the functions of sidewalks, cemeteries and golf courses. It should be noted that the current ordinance would prohibit smoking only on sidewalks in the interiors and the perimeters of parks, according to the City Attorney's Office. • The infraction fine of$299 is too high because instituting social change should not be punitive.Potential enforcement of an ordinance could be an ascending scale of oral warning, written warning and a fine at a minimal cost,possibly$25. It should be noted that the $299 fine in the ordinance is a not-to-exceed cap and could be less. It also should be noted that the fine is the same as the fines for a variety of other proscribed conduct in City parks. An ordinance"should be something that tells the smoking community, `We're going to work with you,"'Mr. Guinney said. COMMENTS BY POLICE CHIEF CHRIS BURBANK The following comments by Chief Chris Burbank were made based on a City Council request during the October 10 briefing: Any ordinance banning smoking in certain areas will be challenging for the Police Department to enforce. Although smoking is a considerable health problem,we believe this is not necessarily a law enforcement issue that should compete for already scarce resources,especially in light of the demands placed upon the Police Department by serious crime incidents such as narcotics and part one crime. Enforcement of any version of the ordinance would solely be based on encounters that occur while officers are going about their daily routines. 2 We would not anticipate or desire calls coming into the Police Department regarding individuals smoking in banned areas. This certainly has the potential to overwhelm our dispatch center. Sincerely, Chris Burbank Chief of Police ESTIMATED COST OF INSTALLING NO-SMOKING SIGNS In response to a City Council question, the Administration estimates that the total cost to the City to install signs informing the public that smoking is prohibited under the ordinance is$11,244.The Administration estimates that about 400 signs would be necessary to inform the public at all locations addressed in the ordinance—except for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail.According to the Administration,the Salt Lake Valley Health Department would pay for the actual signs.The City would pay for 400 sign posts at$15 each,nuts and bolts, and labor. ADDITIONAL COUNCIL STAFF RESEARCH During the October 10 briefing some questions were raised about levels of concentration of tobacco smoke in an outdoor area. Council staff obtained a copy of Measurements of Outdoor Air Pollution from Secondhand Smoke on the UMBC(University of Maryland at Baltimore's Catonsville) Campus. The item is a study of outdoor smoke concentration at that campus, particularly around building entrances.'The study was done by James Repace, a research physicist and former senior policy analyst and scientist with the Environmental Protection Agency and a consultant for the Occupational Health and Safety Administration. A summary of the study: • Very few published data are available on outdoor levels of SHS (secondhand smoke). • A 2004 pilot study by another researcher indicated that secondhand tobacco smoke concentrations at outdoor patios, airport sidewalks, parks and public sidewalks ... at times where tobacco smokers were intermittently active ... in some cases could be comparable to concentrations in indoor settings. • Secondhand smoke concentrations are more variable outdoors than indoors because outdoor secondhand smoke did not accumulate, and outdoor transient peaks were more sensitive to distances between someone smoking tobacco and people near the person smoking and to wind conditions. • The 2004 pilot study indicated that at distances of 1 meter to 2 meters(1.1 yards to 2.2 yards) from a tobacco source,mean outdoor secondhand smoke-particle concentrations declined by about 75 percent. • The 2004 pilot study indicated that for each point source(number of tobacco smokers) tobacco plume concentration will increase in strength and decrease with distance from the source and higher wind speeds. • Mr. Repace's own study indicated that secondhand smoke odor can be smelled from as far away as 7 meters (23 feet), and irritation to people's tissues from secondhand smoke could start at 4 meters(13 feet) from the source of the secondhand smoke. 3 • It is only after 7 meters(23 feet)that particulate matter and other items connected to smoking fall to"background levels." • The larger the number of smokers,the greater the concentration of secondhand smoke, and the greater the potential for secondhand smoke concentration to dissipate at distances greater than 7 meters. The study concluded that the university should place ashtrays and signs warning smokers to refrain from smoking at least 20 feet away from building entrances. OPTIONS • Close the public hearing and consider adopting the proposed ordinance. • Close the public hearing and do not adopt the proposed ordinance. • Close the public hearing and adopt the proposed ordinance with amendments. • Close the public hearing and refer the proposed ordinance to a future meeting for further discussion and consideration. • Continue the public hearing to a future meeting for more comment. POTENTIAL MOTIONS PERTAINING TO THE PUBLIC HEARING • I move that the City Council close the public hearing. • I move that the City Council close the public hearing and refer this matter to(a future meeting) for further consideration. • I move that the City Council continue the public hearing to(a future date), and consider the next item on the agenda. PERTAINING TO THE ISSUE • I move that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance. • I move that the City Council move to the next item on the agenda. • I move that the City Council adopt the proposed ordinance with the following amendments: • That sidewalks on the perimeters of parks and recreation areas be exempted from the ordinance. (This amendment would allow people smoking tobacco to continue walking along sidewalks on the edges of parks instead of crossing the street.) • That sidewalks, the Salt Lake City Cemetery, and golf courses should be eliminated as areas where smoking tobacco products would be prohibited. (Suggestion by Tom Guinney.) • That the Director of Parks shall have the authority to designate areas where smoking tobacco products is permitted within the public property affected by the ordinance. (This amendment is based on issues of proximity between people who do not smoke and those who do at the October 10 briefing. It should be noted 4 that the Administration holds that the Director of Parks already has the authority to designate smoking areas.) • That smoking tobacco be prohibited within(25, 30, 35, 40) feet of areas where people congregate within the boundaries of parks, including areas such as playgrounds, ,eater features, bowers, picnic areas, concession stands and sporting courts, and in the Salt Lake City Cemetery, and recreational areas. (Again, this potential motion deals with people's proximity to each other in places of activity in outdoor public facilities. Also, please see Bullet No. 3 under Issues/Questions for Consideration.) • That smoking tobacco products be prohibited within(25, 30, 35, 40) feet of all publicly-owned places where people congregate including sidewalks, streets, bus stops, and other outdoor facilities and venues. (This proposed amendment stems from the City Council briefing on October 10.) • That the $299 infraction fine be omitted from the ordinance and replaced with the following enforcement—Oral warning for first offense, written warning for second offense, $25 citation for third offense. (Suggestion by Tom Guinney.) KEY POINTS • The proposed ordinance would prohibit smoking tobacco in all"city-owned parks,public squares,ball diamonds, golf courses, soccer fields, and other recreation areas, Library Square, city-owned cemeteries, and trails,but not designated smoking areas."It also would prohibit smoking tobacco products within 50 feet of all mass gatherings—defined as an"outdoor assembly of 500 or more people on city-owned property that reasonably can be expected to continue for two or more hours." • Salt Lake City has 72 public parks and recreation areas, one public cemetery, and two areas designated as"public squares,malls and pleasure grounds,"golf courses, and a variety of trails where the ordinance would appear to apply." • The proposed ordinance would create a separate chapter in the City Code to prohibit smoking tobacco in City-owned outdoor facilities. The penalty for violating the proposed ordinance would be an infraction punishable by a fine"not to exceed ... $299."The fine would be the same as the penalty for all other violations of park and playground rules include drinking alcoholic beverages, injuring animals and destroying public property. • The proposed ordinance may be viewed as a step in concert with a Salt Lake Valley Board of Health resolution adopted February 3, 2006 in which the Board found it "prudent,reasonable and necessary"to urge municipal legislative bodies in Salt Lake County to adopt an ordinance that would"protect the public health and welfare by prohibiting smoking in public parks, gathering places,recreational areas, and plazas."' • Salt Lake City has amended rules and regulations for public parks several times to proscribe activities and conduct that may have been allowed previously. 5 • Police Chief Chris Burbank said that the Police Department probably would not add personnel to enforce the ordinance when violations occur as officers encounter them on their daily routines. • The proposed ordinance exempts Native Americans using a"traditional pipe"as part of a native tribal religious ceremony and'people"smoking or using smoking materials to exercise protected First Amendment activity, such as smoking or use of materials for bona fide religious purposes." Issues/Questions for Consideration • Is it in the public interest to prohibit smoking tobacco in Salt Lake City public parks? • Should sidewalks on the perimeters of parks and other public facilities be included in the proposed prohibition? • Although the proposed ordinance has been described as a public health issue, and others have spoken of prohibiting smoking in public parks as a way to initiate cultural change, the proposed ordinance also represents a change in the social compact that will have an effect on a sizeable minority--nonetheless a minority--of Salt Lake City residents. Under the social compact,the issue may not be a right to smoke tobacco or a right to be free from tobacco smoke,but the right of the majority and a minority to enjoy public facilities without intruding on each other. Given that, is there a way to address the concerns of both groups?Given that, do the public health benefits of prohibiting smoking tobacco outweigh the rights of tobacco smokers to enjoy public facilities? Discussion/Background The Administration transmittal includes the executive summary of a report of the United States Surgeon General titled The Health Consequences of Involuntary Exposure to Tobacco Smoke. The summary contains a variety of conclusions starting on Page 9 and ending on Page 14 that City Council members may wish to review. However,the major conclusion cited by the Administration is found on Page 9 and says, "The scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke."The report appears to focus mostly on the effects of secondhand smoke in homes and in workplaces. A document attached to this memorandum and titled Tobacco Prevention and Control in Utah provides the following statistics: • Although adult tobacco smoking in Utah since 1999 has declined at twice the rate of the rest of the United States,and tobacco smoking by youths has decreased significantly, more than 200,000 people in Utah continue to use tobacco.I ' • The figure translates into an overall rate of 11.2 percent of Utah's population. Broken down further the rate is 13.4 percent among men; 9.4 percent among women; 4.8 percent for people with college degrees; and 30.2 percent for people with less than a high-school education. The report also indicates that people"among some racial and ethnic communities"also have a higher rate of smoking tobacco than the overall percentage.v • More than 1,100 adults in Utah die each year as a result of their own smoking, and an estimated 140 to 250 deaths among adults, children and babies are caused by secondhand smoke exposure.v' 6 Given similar national and statewide figures,the Salt Lake Valley Board of Health on February 3, 2005 adopted a resolution in which the Board"hereby supports advocates and urges the various municipal legislative bodies in Salt Lake County to enact ordinances within their jurisdictions establishing all public parks, gathering places,recreational areas and plazas as smoke free."vn The Board of Health resolution cited a variety of findings about the effects of secondhand smoke, including the potential of children to model their behavior after adults. The resolution also noted that city councils in Clinton, Sandy and West Jordan had adopted ordinances restricting smoking tobacco in outdoor public places. It should be noted that at the February 3,2005 meeting the Board adopted the resolution instead of an outright regulatory ban"at this time."According to minutes of the meeting: The staffs research has shown that although a number of communities have found it prudent for the health of their citizens to ban smoking in parks and on beaches, so far these communities have all done so by ordinances enacted by their municipal legislative bodies. Further,given the Board of Health's narrow authority specifically designated by the State Legislature to adopt measures that promote and protect public health,regulations the Board adopts must be supported by sound scientific evidence demonstrating a rational relationship between the regulated behavior and its threat to the public's health. Currently,staff believes that preliminary research is promising,but does not meet this standard.Therefore,until more conclusive scientific research can demonstrate a stronger relationship between outdoor tobacco smoke and negative health effects,they recommend that instead of adopting a regulation,the Board adopt a resolution encouraging the local legislative bodies of Salt Lake County to adopt"smoke-free venues"ordinances.vm It should be noted that cities in the nation have adopted ordinances prohibiting smoking tobacco in public outdoor areas.The Administration transmittal indicates that communities in 28 of the 50 United States have ordinances/regulations or policies that prohibit smoking at parks, zoos, and youth sports,trails and beaches. City Council staff found one site on the Internet with a link to an article in the Chicago Tribune that estimated the number of cities nationwide that have restricted outdoor smoking at 400. Council staff could not find the article in the Chicago Tribune archives to determine the date of article. According to the California Clean Air Project,57 cities in that state— including San Diego,Los Angeles, Sacramento,and San Francisco—restrict or prohibit tobacco smoking in at least some outdoor venues.'x Here is a list of Utah cities that have restricted or prohibited smoking tobacco in public outdoor venues: • Clinton—adopted an ordinance in 2003 that restricted smoking in public parks. • Sandy—in 2004 restricted smoking in public parks and baseball fields. • West Jordan—adopted an ordinance in 2004 restricting smoking in public parks and the rodeo arena. • Logan—adopted an ordinance in 2005 prohibiting smoking in public parks. • Hyde Park—adopted an ordinance in 2005 prohibiting smoking in public parks. • Midvale—adopted an ordinance in 2006 prohibiting smoking in parks and outdoor areas. 7 • Riverton—adopted an ordinance in 2006 prohibiting smoking at playgrounds, and sports fields. • Spanish Fork—adopted an ordinance in 2006 prohibiting tobacco use in outdoor recreation facilities. • South Jordan—adopted an ordinance prohibiting tobacco use in parks, recreational areas and the city cemetery on September 5,2006. In addition,the Utah State Fair has designated smoke free zones since 2004. Cache County prohibited smoking tobacco on the first night of its 2006 county fair. Summit County created smoke free areas at its fairgrounds in 2006, and Tooele County restricted smoking in county-owned places in 2006.x As noted in the Key Points section,the proposed ordinance would prohibit smoking in about 80 to 85 public parks or areas and within 50 feet of an event on city-owned property that drew 500 or more people for two or more hours. Public squares such as Washington Square and the 500 West Park blocks would be included in that number because City Code 15.12.020 which establishes public squares says in part,restrictions relating to public parks and playgrounds under this code, as amended, shall be fully applicable to the public properties designated in section 15.12.030 of this chapter." Tobacco smoking still would be permitted on City streets, sidewalks and designated smoking areas. However,the smoking prohibition would include sidewalks within City parks, public squares, Library Square,recreational areas and cemeteries and extend to sidewalks around the perimeter of those facilities. It probably should be noted again that the penalty for violating the proposed ordinance is an infraction with a fine not to exceed$299,but police officers will have the discretion to issue a warning for a first offense if they deem it is in the best interest of the city. Clearly, Salt Lake City government has proscribed activity and conduct in public parks. A copy of City regulations from 1920 includes a prohibition of unleashed dogs and a requirement that dogs be on a six-foot leash.The prohibition was unaltered until fairly recently. It appears that the City prohibited the consumption and possession of alcoholic beverages in 1965,according to City records. Please see Attachment No. 6. II Please see Attachment No. 1. III Please see Attachment No.2. Iv Tobacco Prevention and Control in Utah,Page 2. v Ibid,Pages 2 and 6. vI Ibid,Page 7. vII Please see Attachment No.2. vIII Please see Attachment No.4. Ix Please see Attachment No. 5. x All statistics from Tobacco Prevention and Control in Utah, Page 17. 8 900Z J l�3 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (No Smoking in City Parks, Recreational Areas, and Cemeteries, and Near Mass Gatherings) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING CHAPTER 15.30 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PROHIBITING SMOKING IN CITY PARKS, RECREATIONAL AREAS, AND CEMETERIES, AND NEAR MASS GATHERINGS. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (the "City") has authority to protect the public health, welfare, and sanitation; and WHEREAS, based on the findings of the Utah Legislature in Utah Code Section 78-38- .5, the City hereby finds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)has determined that environmental tobacco smoke is a Group A carcinogen, in the same category as other cancer causing chemicals such as asbestos; and WHEREAS, the EPA has determined that there is no acceptable level of exposure to Class A carcinogens; and WHEREAS, the EPA has determined that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke also causes an increase in respiratory diseases and disorders among exposed persons; and WHEREAS, the United States Surgeon General has determined that secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke; and WHEREAS, the United States Surgeon General has determined that children exposed to secondhand smoke have an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, ear problems, bronchitis,pneumonia, and more severe asthma; and WHEREAS, the United States Surgeon General has determined that exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer; and WHEREAS, the United States Surgeon General has determined that the scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke; and WHEREAS, reliable studies have shown that breathing side stream or secondhand smoke is a significant health hazard, in particular for elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease; and WHEREAS, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute have reported that that between 35,000 to 40,000 nonsmokers, including 6,000 children, die each year from diseases caused by secondhand smoke; and WHEREAS, the Americans with Disabilities Act„which i equires that disabled persons have access to public places and work places, deems impaired respiratory function to be a disability; and WHEREAS, the health care costs and lost productivity incurred by smoking-related disease and death represent a heavy and avoidable financial drain on our community; and WHEREAS, the United States Surgeon General has determined that concentrations of cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are potentially higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers; and WHEREAS, the 2004 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey indicates that 87% of Salt Lake County residents would support smoking restrictions at parks; and WHEREAS, cigarette butts are not biodegradable and discarding cigarette butts and tobacco onto the ground in places such as city parks, recreational areas, and cemeteries, and at the locations of mass gatherings is unsightly, unclean. and particularly hazardous to small children and animals who handle and sometimes ingest them, which can lead to serious health effects; and WHEREAS, smoke free parks are important for the health of children and adults; and WHEREAS, because children imitate adult behavior, the elimination of smoking in places such as city parks, recreational areas, and cemeteries, and near mass gatherings furthers the goal of reducing youth smoking; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake Valley Board of Health Department, as a policy-making body designated by statute to protect the public's health, has deemed it prudent, reasonable, and necessary to support, advocate, and urge that municipal legislative bodies in Salt Lake County adopt an ordinance: (1) protecting the public health and welfare by prohibiting smoking in public parks, gathering places, recreational areas, and plazas; and, (2) guaranteeing the right of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free air, and to recognize that the need to breathe smoke free air shall have priority over the desire to smoke; and WHEREAS, the City finds that the prohibition of smoking in the City's parks, recreational facilities, and cemeteries, and near mass gatherings serves to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons in the City. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Chapter 15.30, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, enacted to read as follows: Chapter 15.30 Smoking Prohibited in City Parks, Recreational Areas, and Cemeteries, and Near Mass Gatherings 15.30.010. Definitions A. "City park"means and includes city-owned parks, public squares, Library Square, ball diamonds, golf courses,pocky paw soccer fields, and other recreation areas, Library Square, city-owned cemeteries, linear parks, and trails, but not designated smoking areas. B. "Mass gathering"means an outdoor assembly of 500 or more people on city-owned property that reasonably can be expected to continue for two or more hours. C. "Smoke"or"smoking"means and includes: possession, carrying, or holding a lighted pipe, cigar, or cigarette of any kind, or any other lighted smoking equipment, or the lighting or emitting or exhaling of smoke of a pipe, cigar, or cigarette or any kind, or of any other lighted smoking equipment. 15.30.020. Prohibitions Smoking is hereby prohibited in all city parks and within fifty(50) feet of all mass gatherings. A violation of this ordinance is an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed two hundred ninety-nine dollars ($299.00) but not by imprisonment. Police officers shall have the discretion to issue a "warning" if they deem it is in the best interests of the city for the first offense. 15.30.030. Exceptions A. American Indian/Alaska Native Ceremonies 1. A person is exempt from the restrictions of this chapter if the person: a. Is a member of an American Indian/Alaska Native tribe whose members are recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to American Indians/Alaska Natives who are members of those tribes; b. Is an American Indian/Alaska Native who actively practices an American Indian/Alaska Native religion, the origin and interpretation of which is from a traditional American Indian/Alaska Native culture; c. Is smoking tobacco using the traditional pipe of an American Indian/Alaska 3 Native tribal religious ceremony, of which tribe the person is a member, and is smoking the pipe as part of that ceremony; and d. The ceremony is conducted by a pipe carrier, American Indian/Alaska Native spiritual person, or medicine person recognized by the tribe of which the person is a member and by the American Indian/Alaska Native community. 2. A religious ceremony using a traditional pipe under this section is subject to any applicable state or local law, except as provided in this section. B. First Amendment Activities A person is exempt from the restrictions of this chapter if the person is smoking or using smoking materials to exercise protected First Amendment activity, such as smoking or use of materials for bona fide religious purposes. 15.30.040. Posting of Signs "No smoking" signs or the international "No Smoking" symbol (consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it) shall be clearly and conspicuously posted in every city park. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the date of its first publication. 4 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2006. •7 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006 Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Enacting 15.30 re smoking in public parks I0-12-06.doc 5 Zoos SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (No Smoking in City Parks, Recreational Areas, and Cemeteries, and Near Mass Gatherings) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING CHAPTER 15.30 OF THE SALT LAKE CITY CODE, PROHIBITING SMOKING IN CITY PARKS, RECREATIONAL AREAS, AND CEMETERIES, AND NEAR MASS GATHERINGS. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (the "City")has authority to protect the public health, welfare, and sanitation; and WHEREAS, based on the findings of the Utah Legislature in Utah Code Section 78-38- .5, the City hereby finds that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency(EPA) has determined that environmental tobacco smoke is a Group A carcinogen, in the same category as other cancer causing chemicals such as asbestos; and WHEREAS, the EPA has determined that there is no acceptable level of exposure to Class A carcinogens; and WHEREAS, the EPA has determined that exposure to environmental tobacco smoke also causes an increase in respiratory diseases and disorders among exposed persons; and WHEREAS, the United States Surgeon General has determined that secondhand smoke exposure causes disease and premature death in children and adults who do not smoke; and WHEREAS, the United States Surgeon General has determined that children exposed to secondhand smoke have an increased risk of sudden infant death syndrome, acute respiratory infections, ear problems, bronchitis, pneumonia, and more severe asthma; and WHEREAS, the United States Surgeon General has determined that exposure of adults to secondhand smoke has immediate adverse effects on the cardiovascular system and causes coronary heart disease and lung cancer; and WHEREAS, the United States Surgeon General has determined that the scientific evidence indicates that there is no risk-free level of exposure to secondhand smoke; and WHEREAS, reliable studies have shown that breathing side stream or secondhand smoke is a significant health hazard, in particular for elderly people, individuals with cardiovascular disease, and individuals with impaired respiratory function, including asthmatics and those with obstructive airway disease; and WHEREAS, the American Cancer Society and the National Cancer Institute have reported that that between 35,000 to 40,000 nonsmokers, including 6,000 children, die each year from diseases caused by secondhand smoke; and WHEREAS, the Americars with Disabilities Act, which requires that disabled persovis have access to public places and work places, deems impaired respiratory function to be a disability; and WHEREAS, the health care costs and lost productivity incurred by smoking-related disease and death represent a heavy and avoidable financial drain on our community; and WHEREAS, the United States Surgeon General has determined that concentrations of cancer-causing and toxic chemicals are potentially higher in secondhand smoke than in the smoke inhaled by smokers; and WHEREAS, the 2004 Behavioral Risk Factor Surveillance Survey indicates that 87% of Salt Lake County residents would support smoking restrictions at parks; and WHEREAS, cigarette butts are not biodegradable and discarding cigarette butts and tobacco onto the ground in places such as city parks, recreational areas, and cemeteries, and at the locations of mass gatherings is unsightly, unclean, and particularly hazardous to small children and animals who handle and sometimes ingest them, which can lead to serious health effects; and WHEREAS, smoke free parks are important for the health of children and adults; and WHEREAS, because children imitate adult behavior, the elimination of smoking in places such as city parks, recreational areas, and cemeteries, and near mass gatherings furthers the goal of reducing youth smoking; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake Valley Board of Health, as a policy-making body designated by statute to protect the public's health, has deemed it prudent, reasonable, and necessary to support, advocate, and urge that municipal legislative bodies in Salt Lake County adopt an ordinance: (1)protecting the public health and welfare by prohibiting smoking in public parks, gathering places, recreational areas, and plazas; and, (2) guaranteeing the right of nonsmokers to breathe smoke-free air, and to recognize that the need to breathe smoke free air shall have priority over the desire to smoke; and WHEREAS, the City finds that the prohibition of smoking in the City's parks, recreational facilities, and cemeteries, and near mass gatherings serves to protect the health, safety, and welfare of persons in the City. 2 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. That Chapter 15.30, Salt Lake City Code, be, and the same hereby is, enacted to r„ad as follows: Chapter 15.30 Smoking Prohibited in City Parks, Recreational Areas, and Cemeteries, and Near Mass Gatherings 15.30.010. Definitions A. "City park" means and includes city-owned parks,public squares,ball diamonds, golf courses, soccer fields, and other recreation areas, Library Square, city-owned cemeteries and trails, but not designated smoking areas. B. "Mass gathering"means an outdoor assembly of 500 or more people on city-owned property that reasonably can be expected to continue for two or more hours. C. "Smoke" or"smoking" means and includes: possession, carrying, or holding a lighted pipe, cigar, or cigarette of any kind, or any other lighted smoking equipment, or the lighting or emitting or exhaling of smoke of a pipe, cigar, or cigarette or any kind, or of any other lighted smoking equipment. 15.30.020. Prohibitions Smoking is hereby prohibited in all city parks and within fifty(50) feet of all mass gatherings. A violation of this ordinance is an infraction punishable by a fine not to exceed two hundred ninety-nine dollars ($299.00)but not by imprisonment. Police officers shall have the discretion to issue a"warning" if they deem it is in the best interests of the city for the first offense. 15.30.030. Exceptions A. American Indian/Alaska Native Ceremonies 1. A person is exempt from the restrictions of this chapter if the person: a. Is a member of an American Indian/Alaska Native tribe whose members are recognized as eligible for the special programs and services provided by the United States to American Indians/Alaska Natives who are members of those tribes; b. Is an American Indian/Alaska Native who actively practices an American Indian/Alaska Native religion, the origin and interpretation of which is from a traditional American Indian/Alaska Native culture; c. Is smoking tobacco using the traditional pipe of an American Indian/Alaska 3 Native tribal religious ceremony, of which tribe the person is a member, and is smoking the pipe as part of that ceremony; and d. The ceremony is conducted by a pipe carrier, American Indian/Alaska Native. spiritual person, or medicine person recognized by the tribe of which the person is a member and by the American Indian/Alaska Native community. 2. A religious ceremony using a traditional pipe under this section is subject to any applicable state or local law, except as provided in this section. B. First Amendment Activities A person is exempt from the restrictions of this chapter if the person is smoking or using smoking materials to exercise protected First Amendment activity, such as smoking or use of materials for bona fide religious purposes. 15.30.040. Posting of Signs "No smoking" signs or the international "No Smoking" symbol (consisting of a pictorial representation of a burning cigarette enclosed in a red circle with a red bar across it) shall be clearly and conspicuously posted in every city park. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. That this Ordinance shall take effect on the date of its first publication. 4 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Office Date 10—lz-o�--- Bill No. of 2006 By Published: • I:\Ordinance 06\Enacting 15.30 re smoking in public parks 10-12-06 clean.doc 5 ATTACHMENT 6 MEASUREMENTS OF OUTDOOR AIR POLLUTION FROM SECONDHAND SMOKE ON THE UMBC CAMPUS James Repace,MSc. Repace Associates,Inc. 101 Felicia Lane Bowie,MD 20720 www.repace.com June 1,2005 Introduction. Individual cigarettes are point sources of air pollution; smoking in groups becomes an area source. Outdoor air pollutants from individual point sources are subject to plume rise if the temperature of the smoke plume is hotter than the surrounding air; however if the plume has a small cross-section, as for a cigarette, it will rapidly cool and lose its upward momentum, and then will subside as the combustion particles and gases are heavier than air. Thus, in the case of no wind, the cigarette plume will rise to a certain height and then descend, and for a group of smokers, for example sitting in an outdoor cafe, on a hospital patio, or in stadium seats, their smoke will tend to saturate the local area with secondhand smoke (SHS). In the case where there is wind, the amount of thermally-induced plume rise is inversely proportional to the wind velocity -- doubling the wind velocity will halve the plume rise. In this case, the cigarette plume will resemble a cone tilted at an angle to the vertical. The width of the cone and its angle with the ground will depend upon the wind velocity: a higher wind will create a more horizontal but wider cone (due to increased turbulence), with uncertain impact on exposure to SHS for downwind nonsmokers. If there are multiple cigarette sources, the downwind concentrations will consist of multiple intersecting cones, i.e., overlapping plumes. As the wind direction changes, SHS pollution will be spread in various directions, fumigating downwind nonsmokers. SHS contains a large quantity of respirable particles, which can cause breathing difficulty for those with chronic respiratory diseases or trigger an asthmatic attack in those with disabling asthma. For the remainder of nonsmokers, Junker et al. report eye, nasal and throat irritation thresholds for 24 healthy young adult females for repeated exposures over the course of 2 hours, corresponding to an SHS-PM2.5 concentration of about 4.4 micrograms per cubic meter(µg/m3) (Junker,2001). Very few published data are available on outdoor levels of SHS. A California Air Resources Board study (CARB, 2003), measured 1 and 8 hour time-weighted average nicotine concentrations outside an airport, college, government center, office complex, and amusement park, found that at these typical outdoor locations, Californians may be exposed to SHS levels previously associated only with indoor SHS concentrations. Concentrations were strongly affected by counts of the number of smokers and moderately affected by the size of the smoking area and the measured wind speed. The CARB study indicated that outdoor SHS concentrations are detectable and sometimes comparable to indoor concentrations, and demonstrates that the number of cigarettes being smoked (i.e., total source strength), the position of smokers relative to the receptor, and atmospheric conditions can lead to substantial variation in average exposures. A more recent pilot study by Klepeis, et al. (2004) reported that mean outdoor SHS concentrations determined from field surveys of particle concentrations measured in buildings, at outdoor patios, on airport sidewalks, and in parks and public sidewalks during time periods spent in locations where smokers were intermittently active that mean SHS particle concentrations in outdoor settings in some cases can be comparable to those in indoor settings. However, mean outdoor SHS concentrations appear more variable than indoors, because outdoor SHS does not accumulate and outdoor transient peaks are more sensitive to source-receptor proximity and wind conditions. Long-term means for outdoor SHS concentrations are averaged over a large number of transient peaks, which only occur when smokers are active, whereas indoor concentrations remain high long after cigarettes have ended, and the total dose to a person indoors from each cigarette will be greater than for a cigarette smoked outdoors. Klepeis, et al. (2004) found from controlled experiments that, during periods of smoking activity outdoor SHS levels can reach mean concentrations measured indoors, using either burning cigarettes or CO tracer gas release, and reported a decrease in mean pollutant concentrations as a function of distance such that a doubling of distance could result in a concentration reduction of up to 50% or more. At distances of 1-2 m from the source, mean outdoor SHS particle concentrations declined by about 75%. Klepeis et al. found that changing wind directions can have a large impact on outdoor SHS exposure as demonstrated by the differences between concentrations monitored on opposite sides of an active point source. The plume is driven in the longitudinal direction by the wind, and in the transverse directions by diffusion. A highly simplified expression which illustrates the physics for the downwind concentration C on the plume line for a point source pollutant emitted at ground level is given by: C= Q/k ykZx, where Q is the pollutant mass emission rate, x is the longitudinal distance from the source to the receptor, and where the product k ykZ represents the diffusion constants in the transverse vertical and horizontal planes which describe the increasing lateral spread of the pollutant concentration as it proceeds downwind in the longitudinal direction. There are four key features of most models which describe the dispersal of emissions from a point source at ground level: 1. The downwind concentration at any location is directly proportional to the mass emission rate of the source. 2. The more turbulent the atmosphere, the more rapid the spread of the plume in the direction transverse to the direction of propagation of the plume. 3. The maximum concentration at ground level is directly downwind on the plume line, and is inversely proportional to the downwind distance from the source. 4. The maximum concentration decreases for higher wind speeds, even though on the plume line there is no explicit dependence on wind speed, because the diffusion constants k ykZ are inversely proportional to wind speed, due to mechanical turbulence. These empirically-determined constants also depend on the vertical temperature gradient of the atmosphere, which determines the -2- temperature difference between a rising parcel of plume air and the surrounding air. (Williamson, 1973) • Thus, for each point source, the plume concentration will increase with source strength, and decrease with increasing distance from the source and with increasing wind speed. However, for a very large area source, while the pollutant concentration downwind will still decrease inversely as the wind speed, it will increase with downwind distance from the source as the square root of distance, or if there is an atmospheric inversion, with increase linearly with distance. With these considerations in mind, a field study and two controlled experiments were designed and implemented on the campus of the University of Maryland at Baltimore's (UMBC) Catonsville, MD campus, at the request of UMBC's University Health Services, to perform experiments designed to quantify secondhand smoke levels outdoors in the vicinity of building entrances, in order to provide scientific data relating to whether limitations on smoking in proximity to campus building entrances were justified. Biographical Sketch of the Principal Investigator. I am a biophysicist and an international secondhand smoke consultant with more than 60 scientific papers published on the hazard, exposure, dose, risk, and control of secondhand smoke. I have received the Flight Attendant Medical Research Institute Distinguished Professor Award, the Robert Wood Johnson Foundation Innovator Award, the Surgeon General's Medallion, and a Lifetime Achievement Award from the American Public Health Association. I am a Visiting Assistant Clinical Professor at the Tufts University School of Medicine. I was a senior policy analyst and scientist with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. I served as a consultant to the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, U.S. Department of Labor, on its proposed rule to regulate secondhand smoke and indoor air quality. I was also a research physicist at the Naval Research Laboratory in the Ocean Sciences and Electronics Divisions. My full CV may be viewed at www.repace.com. The UMBC Outdoor Secondhand Smoke Studies. Equipment and Methodology. I deployed continuous real-time monitors for respirable particles (RSP), i.e., airborne particulate matter in the combustion size range below 3.5 microns in diameter (PM3.5), and carcinogenic particulate polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PPAH), which are appropriate markers for secondhand smoke and its toxicity. In addition I monitored carbon dioxide (CO2), carbon monoxide, temperature, and relative humidity. For SHS tracer monitoring, I used real-time battery-powered instruments, including the active- mode MIE personalDataRAM (pDR-1200) and the EcoChem PAS 2000CE, a real-time respirable PPAH monitor. Outdoors, the major sources of PPAH particles are diesel exhaust and cars with defective catalytic converters. PPAH particles are submicron in size, or "nanoparticles." The calibration and deployment of these instruments is described in Repace (2004). The monitoring instruments were synchronized to each other and to a wrist watch. A time-activity diary was used to record location and clock- -3- time from the watch at that location for comparison to the RSP and PPAH data measured at various locations on the UMBC campus in the studies described below. Results. On April 5th and 14th, I performed one field study and two sets of controlled experiments, as summarized in the figures below. Figure 1 illustrates the effect of a light and heavy breeze on a cigarette smoke plume. Figure 2 illustrates the effect of no breeze on the cigarette plume, which rises and disperses until it cools and subsides (Repace, 2000). Outdoor Smoking, No Wind:of increased wind is to blow - the plume to a more horizontal Lighter breeze I.. Cool Smoke Subsides position,and narrow the cone angle. Increased wind also increases turbulence which widens r:��,/ the cone pe Plume 6gata / cigarette plume I I r Heavier 1 i breeze • Effect of wind on a smoke plume p , !L Repare,2001 Figure 1.Plume cones in light&heavy breezes. Figure 2.Plume rises&falls with no breeze. Figure 3 shows a plot of the real-time data measured on the UMBC campus for RSP (PM3.5) in units of micrograms per cubic meter (µg/ m3) on the left axis, and PPAH concentrations in nanograms per cubic meter (ng/m3) on the right axis, as a function of elapsed time in minutes (lower horizontal axis) and clock time (upper horizontal axis). The PPAH monitor was housed in a camera bag mounted on top of a small wheeled suitcase which housed the RSP monitor. The intakes and exhausts of the concealed monitors were connected to the outdoor environment. The monitors were deployed about the UMBC campus in a variety of locations on Tuesday, April 5th, 2005, including indoors in the Health Services conference room, outdoors where smokers were briefly encountered between the Mathematics and Psychology Buildings between 12:45 and 1:00 PM, on the Commons Building Plaza near the cafeteria entrance, and at various distances in the Plaza. A controlled experiment using 5 smoldered cigarettes was conducted between 2:20 and 2:40, to simulate the effect of smokers outside the cafeteria entrance to the Commons building. The smoldered cigarettes each emit about 90% of the smoke a smoked cigarette. In all cases, the point sources of smoking were subject to breezes blowing in various directions from West- Southwest to North-Northwest from 3 to 7 mph. The study ended at about 3:10 PM. It is seen that in the proximity of smokers,both RSP and PPAH peaks are elevated well above background concentrations. -4- UMBC RESPIRABLE PARTICLE(RSP)AND CARCINOGEN(PPAH)TIME SERIES: OUTDOOR SMOKING 12'.15 12:30 12:45 1:00 1:15 1:30 1:45 2:00 2:15 2:30 2:45 3:00 3'.15 5 10 15 20 25 10 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 1001051101I5 120 125 130 135 140I45 150 155 160 165 170 175 180 I III) ....1....I,,,.1,...I,...I....I,..,I,...I....I....I....I,,..I.,.,1....I..,.I....I....I....I..,.1.,..1...,I....I....I....I,...I,...I....I....I....1....I....I....I...J....I....I.... lull 4 SMOKERS WITHIN 4-6 0 if 90- TUESDAY, •OUTSIDE CAFETERIA APRIL 5,2005 • RSP 90 ENTRANCE • PPAH RIP=20%(SD 8%) 80 7"C-24.7°C(SD 4°C) -80 COMMONS BUILDING PLAZA OUTDOORS 70- CONTROLLED -70 EXPERIMENTS 5 CAMELS SMOLDERED to, 60- FOR-17 AllN. -60 # WITHIN 6 s m • x 1 50- p 1-3 50 SMOKERS PV OUTSIDE 40- MATH/PSYC -40 BUILDING WITHIN 10-30 R 30- =30 • • • INDOORS ♦ ON CLOSEST I-2 SMOKERS CAMPUS . 20- SMOKERS WITHIN • 0-2 REIIRN -20 HEALTH 50 TO 75 It 15 TO 25 R SMOKERS 30 SERVICES 9 ft HEALTH 10- CONE.ROOM • • • - 10 • • ♦ •1�♦ ♦ ♦ • ♦ ♦ •• • u : i »� � ♦•~•.•• i • ;1'•3 . Ir.Y 0 0 5 IS 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50 55 60 65 70 75 80 85 90 95 100 105 110 115 120125 130135 140 145 150155 160 165 170175 180 ELAPSED TIME,minutes Repace Associates,Inc.2005 Figure 3. April 51h field study. Winds were light 3-7 mph,blowing WSW-NNW.One indoor location and several outdoor locations were sampled with smokers in close and distant proximity. A controlled experiment with cigarettes located at a point source was conducted for comparison. April 15th Controlled Experiments. A series of experiments were conducted on Thursday, April 14th to measure the concentration of SHS as a function of distance from the source. Based on the results of the controlled experiment of April 5th, to eliminate variation in concentration due to changes in wind direction during the time it takes to smoke a cigarette, the source was arrayed in a ring at 8 -10 points around the compass, so that no matter which way the wind blew, the monitors would pick up the smoke-plume. Up to 10 smokers were recruited by UMBC Health Services, and they smoked at 3 distances as shown in Experiments I(1-2 smokers only), III(9-10 smokers), and IV (10 smokers). Experiments II, V, and VI were conducted with smoldered Marlboro Medium Cigarettes only for comparison. Initially (Experiment I) 2 smokers were set up upwind of the monitors at 2 compass points. The levels are little different from 8 smoldered cigarettes at the same distance (Experiment II). Similarly, there is little difference between 8 smoldered cigarettes at 1.5 meters and 9.4 smokers at 2 meters. Figure 4 shows the experimental design overlaid on the smokers sitting in chairs around the centrally-located monitor. -5- f , .Slfx """" ., Ty r `' HID o'.o Q 0 0 . � NW RESPIRABLE PARTICLE R CARCINOGEN ,adios: I, , ;" " MONITORS 1 5,2,3, ' Q 0 t `Ji,J and 5 meters E o 0 0 it + (5 to 16 It) i. 4 t wane SE SW SE boo .. i April 14th Controlled Experiment Figure 4.Controlled experiment of April 14th involved simulating an area source,~by locating smokers or smoldered cigarettes on chairs in a ring around the PAH and RSP monitors. The ring radius was started at 1.5 meters,and increased in steps to 2,3,and 5 meters. A meter represents 3.28 feet. No matter which direction the wind blows from,the receptor will always be downwind. UMBC OUTDOOR SMOKING EXPERIMENT:APRIL 14,2005- COMMONS BUILDING PLAZA 12:00 PM 1230 PM 1:00 PM 1:30 PM 1:55 PM Zoo .. .. ... '.. .... '. . ..t.... '. .. ' ...I,.. ,I, ,. I....'....I ....'.. .. 200 Peso • Expt.I Expt.11 Expt.III use • 1.8 8 smoldered 13 n smokers eigare[[es UMBC Physics Dept.Webslte; D tsa_ @ LS @ 1.5 • 62°F,30%RH;Wind 11 mph(NE); -I 50 A Oi meters meters • Gusts ENE @ 1:04 PM 23 mph - 5S C cn9A smokers - D re @ 2 meters -1 • • Expt.IV m Illj t $ to ,maker, Expt.V y U Inn- • • @ meters 8 smoldered X -too I= cigarates re Z • • @ 3 Expt.VI Z a • • • meters 8 smemered 0 w • • cigarettes m • @5 Z • • • $ • meters . ,02 • 0 • • • • i E ,r Aer, • ♦ • t • e 50- 06'n K tip t♦• •• • reN•0 • •t» •( •• ers.. I •• • ••' - o •':`F ,/: �•w •4,4 '' e •• ~•M • • £ a • . •t • ±h • j • ,} • II 0 50 Ioo I50 200 250 300 15n Y00 0.50 Soo 550 Eno 650 gnu ELAPSED TIME,10 second intervals Repee Assnclates,Inc.2005 Figure 5. April 14th field study. The diamonds represent the PPAH data in ng/m3,and the circles represent the RSP data in µg/m3.One indoor location and several outdoor locations were sampled with smokers in close and distant proximity. A controlled experiment with cigarettes located at a point source was conducted for comparison. -6- Figure 5 shows the data for RSP and PPAH for each of the experiments as the ring diameter is increased. Figure 5 shows the data for each of the experiments as a function of time, numbers of smokers or cigarettes, and ring diameter. RSP is shown on the right- hand vertical axis, P?'AH on the left-hand vertical axis, and the ring-radius (i.e., the smoker-to-monitor distance) is shown on the horizontal axis. Figure 6 shows a plot of the 3 smoldered cigarette experiments (II, V, and VI); an approximately inverse dependence of SHS-RSP concentration with source-receptor distance is displayed, while the PPAH concentration decays approximately as the square of the distance. In controlled experiments indoors, Repace (2004) observed that PPAH concentrations decreased approximately twice as fast as SHS-RSP. Figure 7 plots all of the experiments (I-VI) together, adding the smokers to the smoldered cigarettes. There is considerably more scatter in the data, likely due to the more erratic pattern of smoking by real smokers than for smoldered cigarettes. Nevertheless the same dependence with distance emerges from the curve fits. Neither concentration appears to get close to background until a distance of greater than 7 meters is reached. UMBC2 8-SMOLDERED CIGARETTE CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT (background-subtracted data) E i _ _ _ y=861001 *x^(-2.42r5) R2=0.99977 - _N 0 30-- -- 1 - 4 - } - - 30 = _ -y= 131127*x^(-1.11i159) R2=0.88I 75 I _ 7.3 ca p f —�—PPAH smolder _ ..C.2s- j - 25 V >. - j i ! -El -RSP smolder - s I - I - o - - V ca 20-------_ r I f -- j - 20 to E - I I I - 3 2 - 1 i _ 0 Q i I - :- V 15- - I ! I CO -C- - -J -------- - '- 15 a V 71 i I co a - o 10--` ° jj __I — -i---- - 10 n. —I i C _ \ I I co - .0 5- �� - - I 5 I i __ ___F I W a i I ' r 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Monitor-to-Cigarette Radius, meters Figure 6. April 15`h Experiment. Smoldered cigarettes(Marlboro Medium 100s,filtered)located at 8 equally spaced compass positions at ring radii 1.5,3,and 5 meters. Curve fits to the PPAH and RSP curves are shown,and extrapolated to 7 meters(23 feet). PPAH declines as the inverse square of the source-receptor distance x,whereas RSP declines inversely as the distance,as expected. -7- UMBC2 SMOKED & SMOLDERED CIGARETTE CONTROLLED EXPERIMENT (background-subtracted data) 35 35 E C - ♦ 1 ly= 101.67*xis(-2.3883) R6 0.76007 — C 30 {I 0 o -222 _ • — -ly=23.394 *). (-1.1624) FtE 0.10124 - 3 0 R cts l L o - I j _ a) '- 25 2 5 �. ---{— i = I I A ! - - 15 20 a) —f— I ----- 20 o — —•PPAH v Q i i I —9 -RSP is \ j - co 15 t-- --7 - a' .3 - \ i --- - a) I i - ❑ I i i 2 a10 — I — 10 0- a - I I i - co o - . 5 _ — L. � — T — s co CO 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Monitor-to-Cigarette Radius, meters Figure 7.Smoked cigarettes at 1.5,2,and 3 meters overlayed on the smoldered cigarette plot of figure 5 with curve fits to the combined PPAH and RSP data,extrapolated to 7 meters(23 feet). Although there is more scatter in the data when the smokers are added,approximately the same dependence of PPAH and RSP with distance is seen. Discussion. What levels of SHS constitute clean air? PM2.5 is the RSP size range that encompasses combustion-related fine particulate by-products such as tobacco smoke, chimney smoke, and diesel exhaust. PM2.5 is legally regulated in the outdoor air. In 1997, the EPA promulgated a 24-hour U.S. Annual National Ambient Air Quality Standard (NAAQS) for RSP for particulate matter PM2.5. The NAAQS for PM2.5 of 65 µg/m3, also limited by an annually averaged NAAQS for PM2.5 of 15 µg/m3, based on protecting human health. The NAAQS for PM2.5 is designed to protect against such respirable particle health effects as premature death, increased hospital admissions, and emergency room visits (primarily the elderly and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); increased respiratory symptoms and disease (children and individuals with cardiopulmonary disease); decreased lung function (particularly in children and individuals with asthma); and against alterations in lung tissue and structure and in respiratory tract defense mechanisms in all persons. PM2.5 and PM3,5 (measured in this study) are closely-related RSP fractions, especially for the submicron SHS aerosol. Table I shows the federal Air Quality Index and the associated color-coded advisories. -8- While these have averaging times associated with them, the levels may be used to infer whether a given peak in figures 2 and 4 represent high or low levels of pollution. Each of these figures shows levels as high as 100 to 150 µg/m3 outdoors in proximity to smokers, indicating that the air is in the unhealthy or Code Red range. Moreover, „ secondhand smoke causes a number of acute symptoms (eye, nose, and throat irritation, headaches, dizziness, and nausea) and chronic diseases (lung and nasal sinus cancer and heart disease) (CARB, 2003). Levels of irritation begin as low as 4 µg/m3 SHS-RSP and levels of odor detection are as low as 1 µg/m3 (Junker et al. 2001). Thus SHS odor would be detectable in our experiments as far as 7 meters from the source, and levels of irritation would begin at 4 meters from the source. As for the PPAH carcinogens, Figures 2 through 6 show clearly that for this pollutant, levels close to smokers are elevated above background by up to 2 orders of magnitude (a factor of 100), relative to distances beyond 7 meters. Thus, it is clear that tobacco smoke pollution outdoors at significant distances from smokers must be considered as significantly unhealthy. Thus, while students or faculty asthmatics pass through a cloud of smoke, levels might be sufficient to trigger an attack, and certainly are high enough to pose a nuisance to all. Moreover, smoking in proximity to doorways or air intakes might easily be inducted into the building through posing both acute and chronic threats to building occupants. Table 1. Levels of fine particulate (PM2.5) air pollution and corresponding federal health advisory descriptors with accompanying simplified color code(US EPA, 1999). PM2.5 (11g/m3) AQI Air Quality Index Category Color Code Break-points 0.0- 15.4 0 -50 Good 15.5-40.4 51 - 100 Moderate Yellow 40.5 - 65.4 101 -150 Unhealthy SG* ` , 65.5 - 150.4 151 - 200 Unhealthy 150.5 - 250.4 201 - 300 Very unhealthy 250.5 - 350.4 301 -400 Hazardous 350.5 - 500.4 401- 500 Very Hazardous >505 500 (Significant Harm)** *SG=sensitive groups; **exists,but is not a part of the AQI. Source U.S.EPA, 1999. [GUIDELINE FOR REPORTING OF DAILY AIR QUALITY-AIR QUALITY INDEX(AQI)United States Office of Air Quality EPA-454/R-99-010 Environmental Protection Planning and Standards July 1999 Agency Research Triangle Park,NC 27711]. Conclusions. These experiments dispel the common misconception that smoking outdoors can be ignored because smoke plumes immediately dissipate into the environment. These controlled experiments with and without smokers show similar results: if a receptor such as a doorway, air intake, or an individual is surrounded by an area source — and this would include an entranceway with a group of smokers standing nearby—then regardless of which way the wind blows, the receptor is always downwind from the source. Cigarette smoke RSP concentrations decline approximately inversely with distance downwind from the point source, as expected, whereas cigarette smoke PPAH concentrations decline faster, at approximately inversely as the square of this distance. -9- Based on these measurements, which involve a single ring of cigarettes or smokers, the smoke levels do not approach background levels for fine particles or carcinogens until about 7 meters or 23 feet from the source, which is likely to be the smoke from no more than 1 or 2 smokers. Greater numbers of smokers in the area could lead to higher concentrations. because a crowd of smokers constitute an area source, whose plumes may overlap downwind, potentially causing smoke concentrations to increase locally before dissipating at greater distances. Secondhand smoke causes a number of acute symptoms (eye, nose, and throat irritation, headaches, dizziness, and nausea) and chronic diseases (lung and nasal sinus cancer and heart disease). Students or faculty passing through the cloud of smoke would encounter detectable levels at about 7 meters (23 feet) from a smoker, and irritating levels at 4 meters (13 feet). Moreover, smokers in proximity to a doorway as persons enter or depart, may result in smoke being inducted into the building, posing a chronic threat as well as an acute one, to building occupants. Therefore it makes sense to post signs warning smokers not to smoke closer than about 20 feet from building entrances, and to place ashtrays at that distance and no closer. Moreover, because some persons suffer from severe asthma, and secondhand smoke is a known asthmatic trigger, this is another good reason to keep smokers from congregating closer to building entrances than 20 feet. References. CARB (2003) "Technical Support Document for the Proposed Identification of Environmental Tobacco Smoke as a Toxic Air Contaminant: Part A," Technical Report. California Environmental Protection Agency, California Air Resources Board, Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment, Chapter 5, pp. V6-V19. Junker MH, Danuser B, Monn C, Koller T. Acute sensory responses of nonsmokers at very low environmental tobacco smoke concentrations in controlled laboratory settings. Environ Health Perspect 2001 Oct;109(10):1045-52. Klepeis NE, Ott WR, Switzer P. Real-Time Monitoring of Outdoor Environmental Tobacco Smoke Concentrations: A Pilot Study. Stanford University Department of Statistics, Sequoia Hall, Stanford, California 94305-4065. University of California, San Francisco Contract Number 3317SC, March 1, 2004 Repace JL. Banning outdoor smoking is scientifically justifiable. (Invited review) Tobacco Control 9:98 (2000). Repace JL. Respirable Particles and Carcinogens in the Air of Delaware Hospitality Venues Before and After a Smoking Ban. Journal of Occupational and Environmental Medicine, 46:887-905 (2004). Williamson SJ. Fundamentals of Air Pollution. Addison-Wesley, Reading MA, 1973. -10- ORIGINAL PAPERWORK FOR ITEM A3C3 WAS IN THE PACKET ON OCT. 10, 2006 ( ITEM A3) SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 17,2006 SUBJECT: Follow-up Discussion Regarding Funding Options for the remainder of the Grant Tower Railroad Re-alignment project STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno, Policy Analyst AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 1,2,3, and 4 ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: Office of the Mayor AND CONTACT PERSON: DJ Baxter KEY ELEMENTS: A. During Budget Amendment#4 of FY 2006,the Council approved a draw of$4 million from general fund balance to pay for property acquisition and other start up costs related to the Grant Tower railroad realignment. B. In order to keep the project on schedule,the Council also approved$400,000 on October 3rd,as a part of the annual CIP budget process. C. The purpose of this discussion is to clarify the Council's intent with regard to the funding source for the remainder of the Grant Tower project. This will give direction to the Administration as to what portions to include in the bond issue for January (the RDA portion will be included at a minimum),and how much,if anything,to include in Budget Amendment #2(fund balance portion,if any-briefing scheduled for November 14th). D. There was some concern raised during CIP discussions in September,that drawing the remainder of the City's share of the Grant Tower funding(estimated at$2.22 million)from fund balance,would drop it to below the Council's unofficial policy of 10%,and thereby raise the concern of one or more of the rating agencies. E. Since those discussions,preliminary numbers have been reported in terms of actual City revenues from the previous year. Although the financial audit has not been completed,council staff ran an accounting report that shows fund balance to be approximately$22.8. This figure does take into account an estimated$1.5 million of adjustments that may still need to be recorded. • Ten percent of general fund revenue is$18.3 million. • Therefore,projected fund balance is about 12.46% or$4.5 million in excess of 10%. • It is important to note that this does not take into account future budget amendments this year that may require the use of fund balance. It is also important to note that these are Council Staff estimates and do not represent the official numbers that will be transmitted to the Council sometime in December. F. Council staff has detailed the following scenarios(see table below),and the affect that each of these scenarios would have on the remaining fund balance and/or debt service responsibilities: • Remaining Fund Cash Payment(budget Fund Balance %of General Balance in excess of amendment#2) Remaining Fund Revenue 10% Scenario 1 pay for full City share($2.5 m)with fund balance-bond only for the RDA portion in January $ • 2,220,000 $ 20,580,000 11.2% $ 2,280,000 Scenario 2 pay for half of the City's share with fund balance and half with the bond in January(city share of the debt service would be approximately $85,000*per year) $ 1,110,000 $ 21,690,000 11.9% $ 3,390,000 Scenario 3 pay for all of the City's share of the project through the bond(city share of the debt service would be approximately$170,000 per year) $ - $ 22,800,000 12.5% $ 4,500,000 *council staff estimate G. The Council may wish to discuss these various scenarios or other options at this time. Bond Counsel and the City Treasurer will be available for any questions that may arise. The following information was provided previously for the Council Work Session on September 5,2006. It is provided again for your reference. It is background primarily on the previous Council discussion on the bond issue for January. tee, .401 UPDATE ON PREVIOUS COUNCIL DECISION The Council held a briefing on June 1,2006 to tentatively decide how to proceed with regard to the Mayor's proposal for issuing a sales tax bond for various projects. The following are what the Council tentatively decided: • Fleet Facility-Bond for the full cost of the construction of the new Fleet Facility, but do not bond for the original land cost. The surplus land account will not be paid back out of bond proceeds. Therefore the total amount to be bonded for this project is$21.6 Million. • Grant Tower - Bond only for RDA portion (assuming RDA does not receive a Federal Railroad Administration loan). Council Staff paperwork indicates this amount is$3.1 Million. • Daylighting City Creek @ Folsom Street Corridor and 900 South Rail line right-of-way improvements -The Council tentatively decided to bond for$300,000 worth of soil improvement/erosion control, to qualify the project for bonding as a part of the Grant Tower Railroad Realignment bond. Some Council Members expressed an interest in this project in the future, with continued planning and community involvement. The Euclid Small Area Master Plan (currently under way in the Planning Division),addresses this corridor,and has involved community members and property owners along the corridor. Staff note:At this point these decisions can still be revised as actual bond proceeds are not yet needed. The following information was provided previously for the Council Work Session on March 7, 2006. It is provided again for your reference. It is background primarily on the Grant Tower project in general. 2 P. BUDGET RELATED FACTS: A. The Administration has presented 10 funding scenarios for the Council's consideration, examined in detail in the attached transmittal. There is no formal recommendation about which to pursue. While impact on the budget will depend on which option the Council decides to pursue,the Administration is proposing to draw from fund balance now in order to begin property acquisition and design immediately. This funding request is part of Budget Amendment#4 for a total amount of$4 million. 1. There is an estimated$6,525,955 requested from fund balance in Budget Amendment#4. If every request in the Budget Amendment were to be granted,that would leave approximately$19.1 million in fund balance or 11.12%. This level does not address any requests associated with TRAX. 2. If the Council wishes to discuss specific property acquisition further,an executive session has been tentatively scheduled. B. While the funding options presented in the Administration's transmittal are summarized further in the Key Elements section(see item I)the following summarizes the pros and cons of each general idea: 1. Paying for Grant Tower out of the general fund or fund balance: i. Pros- • Avoids obligating future budget years to debt service payments, • Would complete the project in a timely manner,ensuring completion in coordination with commuter rail ii. Cons- C • Could draw down fund balance to a point below 10% (if all requests in Budget Amendment#4 are granted,there would be approximately$1.9 million"left" above the 10% level), • Could mean sacrifice of a significant amount of other"regular" general fund expenditures, • Could still be left with the dilemma of how to fund other projects mentioned below (TRAX extension, Fleet Facility if the Council decides to pursue, 500 West 200 South intersection if the Council decides to pursue, "Enhanced"parks along 900 South and Folsom corridors) 2. Bonding for only Grant Tower (or combining bonding with some general fund offset): i. Pros- • Would take care of funding the project in a timely manner,ensuring • completion in coordination with commuter rail • Could minimize the amount of additional debt service burden on CIP to free money for other projects ii. Cons- • Would obligate the CIP with additional debt service payments resulting in less money available for other community projects (see table below), • Would not pay for any project other than Grant Tower,and would leave even less general fund money after debt service to complete these other projects, • Bonding in and of itself could be complicated due to tax-exempt eligible and ineligible components of the project(explained in detail below-item I-2a), • Would not be cost effective if the Council were to eventually decide to bond for the fleet facility ($32,000 savings in bond issuance cost,$417,000 3 I savings in overall bond issued,$30,000 yearly savings in debt service payments-see table below) 3. Bonding for Grant Tower and the Fleet Facility together i. Pros- • Would take care of funding the project in a timely manner,ensuring completion in coordination with commuter rail, • Would fund the Fleet Facility in a timely manner,freeing up current fleet site for redevelopment, • Would save in cost of issuance, total bond amount,and debt service payments, as shown in the following table (estimates provided by the City's financial advisor): Cost of Debt Service Project Total Bond Issuance (avg) Grant Tower Tax Exempt Portion Only (includes only "basic" parks) $ 6,665,000 $ 63,331 $ 490,000 Fleet Facility Only $ 24,300,000 $ 103,020 $ 1,840,000 Both Fleet Facility and Grant Bonded Seperately $ 30,965,000 $ 166,351 $ 2,330,000 Both Fleet Facility and Grant Tower Bonded Together $ 30,548,000 $ 134,302 $ 2,300,000 Difference between bonding "4 separatly and bonding together $ 417,000 $ 32,049 $ 30,000 Bonding for all of the Grant Tower project (still includes only "basic" parks, but would re-imburse the general fund for any up-front expenses) $ 11,100,000 $ 84,505 $ 817,000 ii. Cons- • Would obligate the CIP with even greater additional debt service payments resulting in less money available for other community projects, • Bonding in and of itself would still be complicated due to tax-exempt eligible and ineligible components of the project (explained in detail below) 4. Pursuing a Federal Railroad Loan to pay for all or part of the project i. Pros- • Could assist in funding the project,possibly up to 100%, • Would ensure project completion ii. Cons- • Application process could take longer than expected-a City government has never pursued this kind of loan, • The issue of collateral and loan guarantee could be complicated-usually the FRA takes a lien on the actual tracks that are being built. The City would have to find some comparable way to guarantee the loan with property that the FRA would desire. 4 • Interest rate is higher than if the City were to bond (4.75% as compared to 3.3%) 5. Pursuing Class C Road funds to pay for all or part of the project i. Pros- • Could assist in funding the project to help ensure completion • • The City already receives this money-no need to bond or pursue outside agencies ii. Cons- • The money would not be sufficient to pay for 100% of the project • This money is already being slated for other City road projects according to the 10 Year CIP-including the TRAX extension in FY 2009. These projects would have to be deferred to a future date which could lead to further road deterioration KEY ELEMENTS: A. The Administration's transmittal includes a breakdown of the various funding components and funding options for the Grant Tower Railroad re-alignment project. Members of the Administration as well as bond counsel will be at the Council Briefing to answer any questions Council Members may have. B. The transmittal does not include a funding recommendation from the Administration,but the budget opening does include a request for fund balance. Some of the funding sources and approaches raised in this memorandum for funding Grant Tower have also been raised in the initial conversations on funding for the TRAX stations. C. The Grant Tower rail line curves that are at issue in this project are located between the intersection of North Temple and 500 West and Folsom Avenue and 700 West. 1. This grouping of rail lines is where interstate freight trains make the directional change from southbound to westbound,or from eastbound to northbound. 2. Because the current curves are so tight,trains have to slow down significantly in order to navigate,causing delays of up to 40 minutes. 3. Reconfiguring these curves so that trains can move through the area more quickly involves the following,while maintaining railroad service through the area: a. removal of tracks from Folsom Avenue; b. construction of new tracks on South Temple; c. relocation of underground utilities; d. installation of new traffic and railroad signals; e. land acquisition D. The overall project cost is estimated at$50 million. The City's estimated share of the overall project cost is approximately$11 million. The Council will determine what,if any,portion of that cost should come from the General Fund and what option is ideal to fund the remainder. The following is a breakdown of the estimated$50 million project: • $5 million-Federal appropriation to Salt Lake City and Union Pacific through the SAFETEA-LU transportation spending bill • $15 million-UTA contribution for work that must also be completed to accommodate commuter rail • $15 million-Union Pacific's agreed contribution • $11 million-City share • $3.5 million-Legislature authorized use of the transportation sales tax collected by Salt Lake County(one-time allowance) 5 • E. Salt Lake City's contribution would go up even more if the costs of planting the Folsom Avenue and 9th South park areas are included. The Parks Division estimates these costs to be$300,000 (for basic erosion control seeding-more advanced park development would be more costly), bringing the City's total closer to$11.3 million. If the Council is interested in the bonding approach,bond counsel recommends this park project be included in order to have a City asset at the project's conclusion and make the total Grant Tower project"bondable." Property acquisition will ideally begin immediately,and is projected to cost between$3.5 and S4 million. This figure is included in the$11 million"City contribution" number. F. Previous attempts have been made to reach an agreement on how to fund this project,but only recently,with the construction of UTA Commuter rail,the support of UDOT and the Wasatch Front Regional Council(WFRC), and an agreement reached by Union Pacific and Salt Lake City, has an agreement been within reach. 1. The involvement of commuter rail, while providing the benefit of doing both projects simultaneously, does place certain time constraints on the rest of the project with respect to construction timelines and completion. 2. Commuter rail construction is expected to begin in the summer of 2006 and conclude in late 2007 or early 2008. 3. Therefore, the window of opportunity for Grant Tower construction and completion is the 2007 construction season. The cost and complexity of the project would increase dramatically if construction were to occur after commuter rail is operational in early 2008. G. The City will have to acquire land from private property owners in order to accommodate the realignment. 1. There are approximately 40 parcels to be purchased,but fewer than 10 are"entire parcels" (for some parcels only 10 to 15 feet of the parcel is needed for the realignment). Ask 2. The land necessary for the re-alignment will be deeded to Union Pacific for the rail construction. Any excess land not needed for re-alignment could be resold at a later date. This strategy could complicate matters regarding issuance of bonds, as the City must retain ownership of all land purchased with bond proceeds. One option could be to fund everything but land acquisition with bond proceeds. 3. As a part of the exchange, once the Grant Tower realignment is completed,Union Pacific will abandon the 900 South rail line and deed that property to the City, along with property in the Folsom Avenue corridor. a. The Folsom Avenue corridor land is approximately 100 feet in width and stretches from 700 to 1200 West. b. The US Army Corps of Engineers and the City have both identified this corridor as an ideal location to bring some of the flow of City Creek back to the surface, and in the process add a natural amenity to the Euclid neighborhood (the Euclid Area Master Plan,currently under development,not yet adopted, contemplates this scenario). c. The 900 South Rail line land is approximately 50 to 60 feet in width and runs from 700 West to Redwood Road. H. The following table shows a breakdown by month of the City's expenditures: 6 P. Salt Lake City Expenditure Timeline (Approximate) -Separated by Fiscal Years ♦^` Fiscal Year 2006 Description �+ February 2006 $ 50,000 Property Appraiser $ 50,000 Consultant-Utility Relocation Design $ 50,000 Boundary Survey and Description March 2006 $ 200,000 Environmental Assessment(all properties) April 2006 $ 70,000 Finalize utility design $ 200,000 Retain project management and street design $ 2,830,805 Right-of-way Acquisition $ 650,000 700 South property acquisition for quite zone $ 250,000 Relocation and Demolition June 2006 $ 900,000 Utility Relocation $ 126,000 City creek conduit February -June 2006 Total $ 5,376,805 Fiscal Year 2007 August 2006 $ 165,000 Continue consultant for street design Consultant program management and Project $ 418,000 Construction Engineer and Overview December 2006 $ 1,930,000 Roadway improvements $ 880,000 Gate and signals for quiet zone July -December 2006 Total $ 3,393,000 Sub-total February- December 2006 $ 8,769,805 Applied to everything but property acquisition and appraiser, which already has contingency built in, and environmental assessment which has no 20%contingency $ 1,147,800 contingency applied 10%for inflation $ 991,760 Grand Total $ 10,909,365 I. The following are funding options for covering this City contribution. Please see the Administration's transmittal for comprehensive information on each option: 1. General Fund Revenue/Fund Balance/RDA (no bonding) -The RDA Board could elect to use Depot District funds for a portion of the costs,reducing the remainder to a level that could be borne by the General Fund. The Administration's paperwork indicates that if the board were to pay for all eligible project elements (quiet zone design, engineering and construction,City Creek conduit,quiet zone work at 300 and 400 North,other discrete items in the Depot District),the total RDA expenditure could be up to$3.3 million,leaving$7.6 million to come from the General Fund. The Administration's application to the RDA board for FY 2006-2007 is for$4.4 million. This could obviously have a significant impact on the Redevelopment Agency. a. The Administration's paperwork indicates that the RDA has already allocated $1.4 million for the quiet zone and City Creek culvert issue. RDA records indicate that$1.8 million has already been allocated. b. The increment projected to be available in the Depot District in FY 2006-2007 is approximately$1 million,with approximately$1.6 million available in FY 2007-2008 (These figures do not include any RDA contributions towards TRAX or Grant Tower projects). The spreadsheets at the end of this staff report were 7 a provided to Council Staff by the RDA(see attached). The impact of funding , both Grant Tower and the TRAX extension proposal is shown,as well as the previous 7 years of funding for quiet zones, transmission line burial (related to the 500 West 200 South intersection), and the TRAX extension. c. RDA staff has previously communicated to Council Staff that City-Wide housing funds could also be available, as ensuring the quiet zones would be in order to protect housing city-wide (particularly at the 800, 900 and 1000 West crossings). The City-Wide Housing Fund is projected to have roughly$721,000 available. d. While these available funds ensure that previous commitments are paid for,if 100% of the available funds are used to pay for Grant Tower,there will be no remaining funds for other RDA projects in these areas. OPTION 1A- RDA cover quiet zone work and street improvements already allocated in Depot District,plus the cost of the City Creek conduit, for a total of$1.8 million,leaving$9.1 million to be covered by the General Fund. OPTION 1B-RDA covers items in la,in addition to Quiet Zone work at 300/400 North, and other Depot District items,for a total of$3.3 million, leaving$7.6 million to be covered by the general fund. 2. Sales Tax Revenue Bonds-Current tax policy will not allow the City to use tax exempt bonds to pay for land that will be turned over to Union Pacific,even if the City receives an equal-value land exchange. It is estimated that$4.6 million of the total project cost is related to items ineligible for tax-exempt bonding (page 7 of the Administration's memo breaks down the components of the project by"eligibility"),leaving$6.4 million that is "bondable". a. The City's bond counsel has suggested using taxable bonds for the ineligible portion of the project,until the project is complete and the 900 South and Folsom land has been turned over to the City. Once this happens the taxable bonds can then be converted back to tax-exempt bonds. This would save money in interest payments over the life of the bond. b. It should be noted that the figures above do not include the Folsom or 900 South Corridor parks,which bond counsel is recommending the project include if the City were to pursue Sales Tax revenue bonds. 1. The base cost for doing the"bare minimum" of native erosion control seeding is estimated to cost$300,000. 2. Plans exist to do much more in both corridors as funds permit. Council Staff note: In the 10 Year CIP, there is a placeholder for$1 million in Fiscal Year 2010 for"Daylighting City Creek." The total cost for this project is listed in the 10 Year CIP at$5 million. The$4 million gap is listed as "other funding" and is not contemplated to come from the general fund, nor is it specified where it would come from. c. Payment for these bonds are historically allocated within the City's Capital Improvement Program budget. 8 i' d. It should also be noted that if RDA funds are also used in combination with this bonding option,they can be used to offset the amount to be bonded for,or pay for debt service of the bonds. e. It should be noted that out of Fiscal Year 2006's$19.5 million Capital Improvement Program budget,$13.9 million was slated for debt,leaving$5.7 million for other projects. The following is a schedule of when outstanding bonds will expire and how much debt will be"freed": Bond Expiration Date Bond Amount Annual Debt Service Street improvement projects (Motor Fuel February 1,2009 $2,580,000 $733,000 Excise Tax) City&County Building June 15,2011 $14,975,000 $2,956,000 Baseball Stadium,Fire Stations, October 1,2015 $14,767,000 $2,290,000 Cemetery,Wasatch Hollow Park,Forest Dale,400 West Library June 15,2019 $65,965,000 $6,912,000 Zoo/Aviary June 15,2024 $10,930,000 $881,000 f. It should be noted that a$7 million bond for Grant Tower is contemplated in the adopted 10 Year Capital Improvement Program,as well as a$22.1 million Fleet Facility Bond. The debt service payments for the Grant Tower bond are listed to be around$560,000 per year,and the debt service payments for the �^ Fleet Facility Bond are estimated to be around$1.2 million per year. OPTION 2A- The City could use fund balance to pay for the project costs through May ($4.6 million) and bond for the remainder of the cost($6.4 million),or for that portion eligible for tax-exempt bonding. Council Staff note:The Council may wish to clarify that the$300,000 for the"basic park" at 900 South and Folsom would be require to go forward with this option. This amount is not included in the above estimates. OPTION 2B-The City could use fund balance up front as in Option 2a,but • bond for the full amount($10.9 million) and reimburse the General Fund with bond proceeds,assuming the City Council was willing to support a taxable bond for part of the$10.9 million in the short term(see explanation item #2a). A taxable bond would be a higher interest rate,but could be shifted to a lower interest rate tax-exempt bond once the project is finished and the City has ownership of the Folsom and 900 South Rail line land. Council Staff note:The Council may wish to clarify that the$300,000 for the "basic park" at 900 South and Folsom would be require to go forward with this option. This amount is not included in the above estimates. OPTION 2c-Using option 2a or 2b,the City could choose to do a combined bond issue to include the Fleet Facility($24 million). The City's financial advisor estimates that the City could save$750,000 in principal 9 and interest payments and bonding costs over the life of the bond by ' combining these projects into one bond issue. Council Staff note: The Council may wish to clarify if the$24 million figure for the Fleet Facility includes the$3.1 million to be"reimbursed" to the surplus land account for land acquisition. OPTION 2D-Because portions of the Grant Tower project are not eligible for Tax-exempt financing,the City could bond for eligible CIP projects that (parks,roads, etc.),and use the"freed up" general fund money to pay for the ineligible parts of Grant Tower. The Administration compiled a list of already approved CIP projects (approved in previous fiscal years)with remaining"cash on hand" (see Attachment 2 in the Administration's transmittal). These are eligible projects that have not used 100% of the cash that has already been allocated to them from the Capital Improvement Fund. The total amount that could be"freed up" is$5.9 million(sufficient to pay for the estimated$4.6 million in ineligible Grant Tower costs). If the City were to pursue this route,the debt service on both bonds (for the CIP projects and for the eligible part of Grant Tower projects) would be rolled in to the yearly CIP,thereby reducing the amount of money available for yearly,pay-as-you-go projects. OPTION 2E-Grant tower will be paid for by"freed up" money from . "�,, bonding for other projects. The Administration is proposing that if the Council bonded for the TRAX Connection and the 500 W 200S park blocks that money would be"freed" to fund Grant Tower. It is not clear how much funding is'available' or'appropriated' that could be'freed' to fund Grant Tower. The Administration indicates that the Council could review bonding options for the TRAX Connection and/or the 500 West/200 South Park Block intersection widening. The Administration estimates savings of $1 million if work on the 500 West Park Blocks is done in conjunction with the TRAX extension project. The bond for both projects would be$10.1 million ($8.5 for TRAX-$2.4 from RDA for TRAX+$4 million for the park blocks), and the$5.2 million loan"repayment" for the Hub would then be "freed" to be used for the Grant Tower project. This assumes that the general fund loan to the Hub is forgiven, and that the in-coming federal appropriations are used for the Grant Tower project instead of repayment to the general fund. While the Administration's transmittal indicated a$1 million savings for doing the intersection project now, the'savings' is would only be realized if the Council decided to fund this project now versus later. Funding for this project has not been allocated and it is not included in the 10-year CIP plan,nor have the project's costs been fully explained to the Council. Details relating to the interplay between TRAX funding and this project funding are not readily available. 14, 3. Federal Railroad Loan-The Federal Railroad Administration (FRA) has a Railroad Rehabilitation and Improvement Financing (RRIF) program,which provides direct loans 10 to improve railroad facilities including tracks. The terms,generally,would involve current treasury interest rates (4.7%),10-30 year term,and a .5% application fee depending on the complexity of the deal. There are NEPA requirements,but it is possible that the City could use the environmental report conducted by UTA. Typically collateral is the trackage or underlying right of way,but the•City could take a lien on its property (this could raise issues depending on the source of loan repayment). This kind of loan is typically only issued to railroad carriers. Salt Lake City is still eligible,but would be the first governmental entity to go through this process. OPTION 3- Pursue a Federal Railroad Loan. This process would take much longer than a typical bond issue (30 days for the FRA to respond and confirm application fee,90 days after application is received to accept or reject the application). The City would not be able to use an FRA loan to pay for 100% of the project,but only for the track,quiet zone improvements,and infrastructure related to the reconfiguration. An additional source of funding would likely need to be identified for property acquisition. 4. Class C Road Funds-An additional source of funds for at least part of the City's commitment to Grant Tower could be Class C Road Funds. The City Receives about$6 million per year in Class C Road Funds. By state law they must be expended on the maintenance and construction of City streets. Approximately$2 million of the City's contribution could be considered"Class C" eligible (actual road work and track crossings of City streets). a. According to the Administration,of the$6 million the City receives,$3 million goes to the Streets Division operating budget to patch,snow plow,and resurface streets. The remaining$3 million goes to CIP,where half of that($1.5 million)typically goes to an annual contract to overlay City streets. The remaining$1.5 goes to arterial and collector street reconstruction projects or towards local match for federally funded street projects. There are projects scheduled in the 10 Year CIP for FY 2007 and FY 2008,which use this remainder,that would have to be delayed,which would in turn delay other projects (examples:900 South reconstruction,between State Street and 700 East, 1300 East reconstruction,between South Temple and 500 South,1300 South Viaduct,500 East reconstruction,between 900 and 1300 South). b. A total of$4.5 million in Class C funds are committed(to the projects listed above),but are not yet encumbered. c. Administrative staff working on the TRAX extension project have communicated that they are expecting to use approximately$1.8 million in Class C funds in Fiscal Year 2009,for Street improvements on 200 South in relation to the extension(this project is included in the CIP 10 Year Plan). OPTION 4- Pursue Class C funds as a means to offset the total amount. Fund total amount with one of the other options. 11 5. Additional Bonding consideration-Expanded Grant Tower Project(including full park % development)- a. Though there is a$300,000 minimum requirement for pursuing a bonding option, the Administration has submitted a variety of options for phased development of parks at 900 South and the Folsom Corridor (see Attachment 1 in the Administration's transmittal). The following summarizes the additional costs if the Council were to pursue this option: 1. 900 South from 700 West to Redwood Road (10 blocks) a. Phase 1 -$1.9 million (includes 2 street crossings,trail development,benches and drinking fountains,native erosion control seeding,and design and administrative costs) b. Phase 2-$6.7 million(includes security lighting,landscaping and irrigation,Peace Garden Expansion,900 South Jordan River Park Expansion, and design and administrative costs) c. Total cost Phase 1 &Phase 2-$8.6 million 2. Folsom Trailway from I-15 to Jordon River (5 blocks) a. Phase 1 -$3 million (includes 3 street crossings, trail development, stream opening and development,native erosion control seeding, benches and drinking fountains, and design and administrative costs) b. Phase 2-$2.8 million (includes security lighting, landscaping and irrigation,and design and administrative costs) c. Total cost Phase 1 &Phase 2-$5.9 million 3. Total costs for both parks a. Phase 1 (both parks)-$4.9 million b. Phase 2(both parks)-$9.5 million c. Total Phase 1 &Phase 2 (both parks)-$14.4 million OPTION 5- Decide which,if any,park development scenarios to pursue, and fund with Options 2a -2e (note: at a minimum, approximately $300,000 must be spent on native erosion control seeding in order to qualify for bonding). POTENTIAL MATTERS AT ISSUE A. The Council may wish to ask the Administration what contingencies have been put in place to ensure that our estimate of$11 million is correct. The Council may also wish to ask the Administration how they would fund any cost overruns from this$11 million figure. B. The Council may wish to ask the Administration how this project,and the associated costs,will affect City's fund balance level,in light of the recent Administration budget amendment and the TRAX extension project. Is the level of fund balance high enough to cover all of these costs? C. The Council may wish to consider the general policy of bonding for all major capital projects, and at what level of debt is the City Council comfortable with. D. The Council may wish to have a discussion as the RDA board to discuss the implications of any of the options listed above which may affect RDA funds, and how best to manage any impacts to minimize loss of other RDA project opportunities. 12 E. The Council may wish to confirm with bond counsel that the bonding plan detailed in item#2a above (converting taxable bonds to tax-exempt bonds once the City owns the 900 South and Folsom land) is possible,and what the costs are,if any,for converting these bonds. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. The Council's street closure policy includes the following: B. The Gateway Specific Plan (adopted 1998) states the following as policy objectives: 1. Encourage high density residential uses 2. Ensure that adequate infrastructure and community facilities are developed to support the proposed mixture of existing,continuing and new uses. 3. Locate housing where there are opportunities to establish a"critical mass" of residential use and a strong sense of neighborhood. 4. Bring City Creek and other water features to the surface in the Gateway District. 5. Develop a City Creek open space corridor that is an integral and identifiable element in the Gateway District. C. The West Salt Lake Master Plan(adopted1995) expresses that Union Pacific Railroad should be encouraged to vacate the 900 South right-of-way,and that the City should acquire the land once abandoned. The right-of-way should then be developed as a pedestrian-bicycle trail and incorporated into the Transvalley Corridor proposed in the Open Space Master Plan. cc: Rocky Fluhart, Sam Guevara,DJ Baxter,Mary Guy-Sell, Steve Fawcett,Gordon Hoskins, Dan Mule, �✓ Rick Graham,Tim Harpst,Louis Zunguze, Brent Wilde,Doug Wheelwright,Doug Dansie,Kurt Larson, Barry Esham, Marge Harvey,Janice Jardine,Russell Weeks, Dave Oka,Valda Tarbet 13 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 17,2006 SUBJECT: Petition No.400-05-38—Initiated by the Salt Lake City Mayor to approve an Ordinance Adopting Title 18, Chapter 95 of the Salt Lake City Code requiring Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED)Compliance and Certification for City-funded building projects of 10,000 square feet or larger STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Policy Analyst AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: City-wide ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT: Mayor's Office AND CONTACT PERSON: Orion Goff,City Building Official FOLLOW-UP ITEMS The Attorney's Office in conjunction with the Community Development Department has crafted an amended ordinance for Council consideration that makes the following changes, based on the previous Council discussions: 1. The section creating the High Performance Building Board is eliminated. The Definitions section now defines"Board" as the Board of Appeals and Examiners. '�✓ Currently there is one vacancy on that board. The Council recommended that this vacancy be filled with a LEED Accredited professional. The Council also recommended that the by-laws of this board be examined and amended to require at least one of the five members be LEED Accredited professional. • The Administration has indicated that a LEED Accredited professional will be sought after to fill the existing vacancy,and will work on amending the by-laws for the Board of Appeals and Examiners to officially require at least one LEED Accredited professional be a member of the board. 2. The$10,000"good faith" deposit is no longer required for non-profit developers. Administratively,the$10,000 for private sector developers will be handled alongside the existing requirement for any City-funded project to have a performance bond. 3. Language has been added to the "exemption" section to further the intent of the ordinance in the event that an exemption is granted due to one of the listed factors. The language is as follows: • "If an exception is granted,the developer must agree to integrate green building practices into the design and construction of the project to the maximum extent possible and feasible." The Council tabled the following items pending further information(bullet points below the numbers contain follow-up information gathered by the Administration and Council Staff): 1. Consider adding specific time or construction cost thresholds for exemption/waiver factors. • Administrative staff communicated that the Attorney's office advised against specific time/percentage thresholds due to the varying scopes of projects. 1 • Council Staff and Administrative Staff agreed to investigate experiences in other municipalities. • After investigating multiple municipalities and their ordinances,particularly in cities where these ordinances have been successful (Seattle, Portland,San Francisco, etc) - universally there are no specific time or financial"thresholds" that justify an exemption or a waiver. The most common reason cited for this is the multitude of types and scopes of projects that municipalities are involved in. In almost every case,exceptions are dealt with by involving a city building official or some other city staff member familiar with building design and LEED, to decide whether or not a given project has exhausted all avenues in attempting to obtain LEED certification. • The Administration has communicated that they feel confident that guidelines are specific enough for staff to work within and make those judgments. • As such,this language has not been altered in the amended ordinance. • As mentioned above,language was added to the"exemptions" section that requires the developer to agree to integrate green building practices into the design and construction of the project to the maximum extent possible. 2. Consider whether to have two separate levels of LEED for City-owned projects and city- funded private projects ("Silver" for City, "Certified" for private), or require the same level for both. • Administrative staff indicated that the existing state building code results in a building almost attaining the LEED "certified" level. • The Administration has communicated that if the City is to be a leader in sustainable building design it should take "extra" steps with its own development projects. ? 3. Establish LEED incentives for non-City-funded projects- • The Administration has indicated support of this idea in general. However, budget and staffing constraints would need to be considered. • Many cities that have incentives (such as expedited permitting) for non-City funded projects have a dedicated staff to handle the workload associated with LEED projects. Seattle has a dedicated staff of 5 people to handle expedited permits for LEED certified projects (both residential and commercial). • Given the relative size of the Salt Lake City market, the Engineering Division estimates that it would take at least 1.5 FTE,for a total personnel cost of $102,000 ($68,000 each) to have a dedicated staff that could offer expedited permitting for LEED certified projects. There may also be an increased need in the permits office, due to increased workload. These costs have not been estimated. 4. Establish LEED incentives for residential construction-make it a priority to be adopted before the master plan for the Northwest Quadrant. • The Planning Division has agreed that this concept should be included and considered in conversations and plans for the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan. • The Council may wish to adopt a Legislative Action Item requesting that the Administration specifically include LEED or green building practices in the drafting of the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan. 2 5. Establish an effective date-considering current projects that may have already been through the design process. • The Council may wish to consider that the costs associated with incorporating LEED are significantly lower the earlier in the design process that it can be considered. • Currently the ordinance has a blank space for the Councii'to decide on an effective date. 6. Encourage the Library and RDA to follow the City's lead • The Council may wish to formally encourage the Library board to adopt similar standards for LEED certified buildings. • The Council may wish to express their intent to consider and adopt similar standards as the Redevelopment Agency board. Additional information requested by the Council: A. Salt Lake City project"LEED" experience 1. Intermodal Hub-Of the approximate$9.5 million construction budget,the"upcharge" for building the Intermodal Hub to LEED Certified standards was$215,000 (approximately 2%). The Administration notes in the transmittal that in the case of the Intermodal Hub,saves 20-25% per year in energy costs. The engineers of the Hub estimated a 10 year payback for the extra cost of construction using the LEED rating system. It should be noted that the Utah Transit Authority,pursuant to the City's interlocal agreement signed earlier this year,will be the owner/operator of the Intermodal Hub. 2. Unity Center-Currently the Unity Center is budgeted and planned to be built to LEED "Certified" standards. The City's consultants have communicated that it would cost an additional$100,000 to$200,000 to achieve LEED"Silver" rating,depending on which points the City would pursue. This represents a premium of 1.9-3.8% over the estimated $5.2 million budget. The following information was provided previously for the Council Work Session on September 12, 2006. It is provided again for your reference. FOLLOW-UP ITEMS The Council discussed the proposed ordinance at the September 7,2006 work session. The following items were raised by the Council that could potentially alter the language of the ordinance and/or affect the policy direction for the City in conjunction with the proposed ordinance: 1. Consider removing the RDA and Library Fund exemption,requesting that they also comply with the proposed ordinance. 2. Consider eliminating the creation of the High Performance Building Board,and specify that an existing City board would address LEED issues. 3 • Note:In the work session discussion,Administrative staff indicated that they have had preliminary discussion with the Board of Appeals and Examiners,which contains architects and construction professionals and meets a couple of times per year,and that this board is willing to act in the capacity that the ordinance sets forth for the High Performance Building Board. 3. Consider adding specific time or construction cost thresholds for exemption/waiver factors • Note:Administrative staff communicated that the Attorney's office advised against specific time/percentage thresholds due to the varying scopes of projects. • Council Staff suggested specific thresholds (can be altered) ➢ Construction cost threshold-costs increase by 30% ➢ Time delay threshold-construction is delayed by 6 months 4. Consider reducing/altering the$10,000 deposit requirement for non-profit developers 5. Establish LEED incentives for non-City-funded projects 6. Establish LEED incentives for residential construction-make it a priority to be adopted before the master plan for the Northwest Quadrant 7. Establish an effective date-considering current projects that may have already been through the design process Council Staff recommends that the Council review and straw poll the above items so that alterations can be made to the ordinance,if necessary. The following information was provided previously for the Council Work Session on September 7, 2006. It is provided again for your reference. C, KEY ELEMENTS: A. The Administration's transmittal contains an ordinance for Council consideration to amend the Zoning Ordinance to require certain City-funded building projects to comply with and be certified within the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) rating system prepared by the United Stated Green Building Council(USGBC). B. The stated purpose of the proposed ordinance"...is to promote development consistent with sound environmental practices..." The proposed ordinance: 1. Requires all commercial or multi-family residential buildings,new construction or major renovation, that receive City funds, that are more than 10,000 square feet to be designated as"Certified" according to the USGBC's LEED standards. 2. Requires all municipal buildings,new construction or major renovation, to be designated"Silver" according to the USGBC's LEED standards. • "Major Renovation" is defined as affecting more than 25% of a building's square footage,and/or demolishing the space down to the shell of the structure. 3. Excludes Library and Redevelopment Agency-funded projects from the"Applicable building project" definition. Projects funded by the Library or the Redevelopment Agency are not subject to the proposed ordinance. 4. Creates a "High Performance Building Board" consisting of five members,appointed by advice of the Mayor and consent by the Council,serving two years each,that will hear appeals and approve exceptions or findings of"substantial compliance." Each 4 • member shall either be a LEED certified professional,or shall have substantial knowledge of other,related fields. 5. Creates the following"outs" for a City-funded project-the Building Official (Director of the Building Services Division or designee),and either the Chief Procurement Officer or the City Engineer jointly determine,in writing, that any of the following circumstances exist: a) The project will serve a specialized,limited function(such as a pump station, garage, storage building,equipment area,etc); b) The project is intended to be"temporary" (defined in the ordinance as intended to be in existence for 5 years or less,or any existing building that was,at the time of construction,intended to be in existence for 5 years or less); c) The useful life of the project or other factors do not justify whatever additional expense would be incurred to increase the long-term efficiency; d) The application of LEED standard factors will increase construction costs beyond the funding capacity for the project,or will require that the project's scope of work or programmatic needs be diminished to meet budget constraints; e) The use of LEED standard factors will create an impediment to construction because of conflicts of laws,building code requirements, federal or state grant funding requirements,or other similar requirements; f) LEED factors are not reasonably attainable due to the nature of facilities or the schedule for construction; g) LEED certification will violate any other federal,state or local law. 6. Provides for an appeal of the Building Official's decision to not grant an exception. An applicant may submit an appeal in writing to the board within 30 days of the Building Official's written determinations. 7. Provides for the option of a waiver (similar to an exception). The High Performance Building Board will have the authority to grant a waiver from the proposed LEED requirements,to any project if it makes any of the following findings in writing: a) Literal enforcement of the requirements will create an unnecessary hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of the ordinance; b) There are special circumstances attached to the project that do not generally apply to other projects subject to this chapter; c) The waiver would not have a substantially negative affect on the Master Plans,policies,and resolutions of the City; d) Any asserted economic hardship is not self-imposed; e) The spirit of the ordinance will be observed. 8. Allows for the High Performance Building Board's decisions to be appealed,in writing,to the Mayor or the Mayor's designee,within 30 days of the decision. 9. Requires that all private sector developers who receive City funds for these applicable building projects submit a$10,000"good faith" deposit to the City,to be refunded upon the building project receiving the applicable level of LEED certification. 10. Requires that within 30 days from receiving notice that the City will fund an applicable building project,the private sector developer will submit written proof that said project is registered with the USGBC. City funds will not be dispersed until the required deposit and proof of registration are received by the City. (Council Staff note: Basic project information is needed to complete the USGBC registration process, 5 • but not detailed building plans. There is a$600 non-refundable charge for registration-$450 for members of the USGBC. Salt Lake City Corporation is currently a member of the USGBC. Please see attached LEED Registration form for further details on what kind of information is required).• 11. Provides for an option if the USGBC does not issue the certified level required for this chapter. A private sector developer may request that the City issue a determination of"substantial compliance." The Building Official,and either the Chief Procurement Officer or the City Engineer must jointly determine that the developer has established the following: a) That reasonable, appropriate, and on-going efforts to comply with this chapter were taken; b) That compliance would otherwise have been obtained but for the practical or economic infeasibility of the LEED standards or construction techniques; • The ordinance notes that cost increases due solely to aesthetic elements shall not constitute"unreasonable burden." 12. Provides that if a private sector developer does not receive the required LEED certification, and does not receive the finding of"substantial compliance" described above, the developer than forfeits their$10,000 good faith deposit,and may be assessed a penalty,up to the original amount loaned by the City. The penalty may be assessed based on a direct analysis of the 26 possible LEED design credits,on the following schedule: Design credits the City determines the Percentage of original City project"could have reasonable received" funds to be paid back (up to) , 21 -25 credits 25% 16-20 credits 50% 6-15 credits 75% 0-5 credits 100% 13. The ordinance is effective 90 days after the date of its publication. However the ordinance leaves the Council the option of filling in a "start date" for a defined "applicable building project." C. Key points from the Administration's transmittal are as follows: 1. The petition was initiated by Mayor Anderson following his signing of an Executive Order (issued July 8,2005, amended January 19, 2006) requiring that City-owned new buildings and major renovation projects be built using LEED standards. (Council Staff note: the original Executive Order required that City-owned buildings be built to the"Certified" standard. On January 19,2006, the Executive Order was amended to increase the requirement to the"Silver" standard). 2. The primary purpose is to ensure that projects utilizing City funds are built to high performance building standards with respect to energy,water, and material resource conservation. 3. The LEED rating system is a point-based certification process for high-performance, environmentally responsible building design and operation. Points are awarded by the USGBC,based on various factors, such as proximity to public transportation, energy efficiency, erosion control,building innovation and design,indoor ,i` environmental quality,reducing construction waste,water efficiency and use of 6 recycled materials. The number of points awarded determine the level of LEED achieved,as follows: LEED Level Points Needed Certified 26-32 Silver 33-38 Gold 39-51 Platinum 52-69 4. There are separate LEED certification standards for new construction(LEED-NC), commercial interiors (LEED-CI),and existing building upgrades (LEED-EB). 5. As of May 2005,2,000 buildings have been registered with the USGBC for certification. An additional 216 buildings have completed certification and are rated as Platinum,Gold,Silver,or Certified. 6. The following are select LEED Certified or registered buildings in Utah: • Olympic Speed Skating Oval-Kearns(LEED,Certified) • OSHA Salt Lake Technical Center-Sandy(LEED,Silver) • Scowcroft Building-Ogden(LEED,Silver) • Big-D Construction corporate office-Salt Lake City (LEED,registered) • Intermodal Hub-Salt Lake City(LEED,registered) • Broadway Office Building-Salt Lake City(LEED,registered) • University of Utah Health Sciences Education Building-Salt Lake City (LEED,registered) 7. Exhibit#2 in the Administration's Transmittal(in the Planning Commission's packet section), details the technical review of costs of LEED certification. It notes that upfront costs can vary depending on the project and the site (with some aspects achieved at no cost-solar orientation,south facing windows,etc). It also notes that the stage at which the LEED concepts are introduced into the design can drastically affect costs (if LEED is considered at the outset,re-design costs are minimized). "The Cost and Financial Benefits of Green Buildings:A Report to California's Sustainable Building Task Force" (Exhibit 3)issued in October 2003 provided a now nationally- recognized cost analysis: Level of LEED Certification No. of Buildings Average Premium Platinum 1 6.50% Gold 6 1.82% Silver 18 2.11% Certified 8 0.66% Average 33 1.84% • Council Staff Note: in the recent discussions involving the costs of a proposed Public Safety Building,the consultants estimated a premium of 13% to build to a"Gold" Standard of LEED. Admittedly the consultants were cautious in their estimate,and have communicated to the Police Department that the premium will likely be much lower. No cost premium analysis has been done for other City buildings proposed in the next few years (Fleet Facility,Fire Stations,etc). • The Administration notes that in the case of the Intermodal Hub,which will eventually be a LEED Certified building,saves 20-25% per year in 7 energy costs. The engineers of the Hub estimated a 10 year payback for the extra cost of construction using the LEED rating system. It should be noted that the Utah Transit Authority,pursuant to the recent Council decision,will be the owner/operator of the Intermodal Hub. D. The following chart shows the various costs,charged to a developer by the USGBC, associated with LEED project certification: Less than 50,000 50,000 500,000 ` More than 500,000 y ' S are Feet Square Feet w uare Feet Design Review Members $1,250.00 $0.025/Square Ft. $12,500.00 Non-Members $1,500.00 $0.03/Square Ft. $15,000.00 Construction Review Members $500.00 $0.01/Square Ft. $5,000.00 Non-Members $750.00 $0.015/ s uare Ft. $7,500.00 q ; Combined Design&Construction Review Members $1,750.00 $0.035/Square Ft. $17,500.00 Non-Members $2,250.00 $0.045/Square Ft. $22,500.00 Initial Certification Review Members $1,250.00 $0.025/Square Ft. $12,500.00 Non-Members $1,500.00 $0.030/Square Ft. $15,000.00 Source:www.usgbc.org ,r E. City Departments and Divisions provided comments: 1. Building Services-identified the need for staff training in order to provide specialized plan reviews associated with LEED certification. 2. Management Services-would need to include the LEED certification fee and additional building costs as a line item. 3. Economic Development-small business owners applying for the Revolving Loan Fund would need to identify the benefits of LEED and would likely need assistance with the certification process. 4. Airport-The Department of Airports supports the general ordinance and the importance of sustainability,but encourages exceptions to allow for flexibility, should the situation arise that additional expense and time for construction are not in the best interest of the City. The Airport is concerned that LEED certification may be very difficult to obtain for airport buildings because of the unique nature of airports. The costs of certification seem to be prohibitive as well. Based on the Airport's current master plan,it would cost in excess of$40,000 in fees to the USGBC to pursue the certification process, and the upfront development costs would be$59 to$109 million more than the previously planned costs. The Airport contacted the project manager for the new Delta terminal and concourse in Boston, which was constructed with the sole intent of having a LEED"Certified" rating(and has received much national and international media attention as the first LEED certified airport terminal). As of July, the project manager indicated that they had still not received certifications,and because of the criteria are geared towards standard. commercial buildings. Because the certification committee adheres to a strict 8 interpretation of these criteria,it has been difficult to convey to them the unique aspects related to airport facilities. • Note: The Administration responded to the Airport's response, err indicating that the USGBC is now working on guidelines specific to airport construction,and that will ideally address these concerns. 5. Fire-The Fire Department supports this ordinance and communicates that it will be a positive fe'ature of the City. 6. Transportation-The Transportation Division supports the ordinance. 7. Public Services F. On November 16,2005 the petition was presented at an open house. 19 people attended, with limited representation from Community Councils and non-profit groups (the majority of attendees were architects and engineers). Twelve were in support of the ordinance,one inquired about alternatives,and six left no comments. G. The Planning Commission discussed the petition on two occasions. 1. On December 14,2005,the Planning Commission voted unanimously to transmit a favorable recommendation with the following modifications: • Add a requirement for a$10,000 good faith deposit • Add standards for review of requests for exceptions • Determine whether exceptions should be decided and granted by the Procurement Officer or the Board • Require City buildings to be"Silver" rather than"Certified" • Develop incentives for the private sector to obtain LEED certification,such as an expedited permitting process a) Discussions included a desire to see incentives for the private sector to building LEED Certified buildings (expedited permitting),public education and awareness of LEED. 2. On January 25,2006,the Planning Commission discussed the Administration's revisions as a result of the original Commission meeting. The Administration included all of the above revisions with the exception of creating incentives for private sector developers to obtain LEED certification. • Staff clarified that incentives were not included as a part of the ordinance because of the comprehensive budget and staffing considerations that need to be addressed. Administration Staff notes in the transmittal memo to the City Council that this will be addressed as a separate but related issue. • The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation regarding the revised ordinance,but also voted to reaffirm that incentives for private sector LEED certification should be developed by the City. a) Discussions included concern that incentives for the private sector were not included as a part of the ordinance. b) The Planning Director informed the Planning Commission that an incentive program would be worked on, and the Commission would be informed of the City's progress. MATTERS AT ISSUE: A. The Council may wish to re-visit two of the factors that can be used as a justification for an exemption from the proposed ordinance (B.5.d and f,above,and re-listed below). While it is prudent for the City to give the option of exemption for developers facing funding or construction challenges,the language in the proposed ordinance is fairly vague. The 9 Council may wish to ask the Administration if there is any more specific and objective way to judge these factors (possibly a percentage threshold-if construction costs increase beyond 25%,than the exemption is granted; or a time threshold-if construction would need to be delayed for more than 6 months to attain LEED certification, than the exemption is granted). It should be noted that Administrative Staff contacted the Attorney's Office regarding specific number thresholds. The Attorney's Office advised against specific numbers because projects vary soiconsiderably. The following are the factors that the Council may wish to revisit,that can be used to grant an exemption: • The application of LEED standard factors will increase construction costs beyond the funding capacity for the project,or will require that the project's scope of work or programmatic needs be diminished to meet budget constraints; • LEED factors are not reasonably attainable due to the nature of facilities or the schedule for construction; B. The Council may wish to consider if and how the$10,000"good faith" deposit may negatively impact non-profit developers,who routinely seek City funding,and who generally do not have additional working capital available. The Council may wish to clarify with the Administration if the intent of the ordinance was to include non-profit developers as a"private sector" developer. C. The Council may wish to ask the administration if any financial analysis has been conducted to determine the additional costs/benefits to build the recently-approved new Fleet Facility, to Silver LEED standard. D. The Council may wish to revisit the policy basis for exempting Redevelopment Agency and Library Fund projects from the LEED Certification requirement. While there may need to be more specific exemption procedures, due to the number and various scales of Redevelopment Agency projects, the Council may wish to ask that these be revisited. MASTER PLAN AND POLICY CONSIDERATIONS: A. On May 8,2001, the Council adopted a Resolution entitled"Regarding Reducing the Demand for Electrical Power and other Forms of Energy." The resolution states: "NOW BE IT THERFORE RESOLVED,that it is the policy of the City Council that Salt Lake City Corporation should set an example to the residents and businesses it represents to conserve electrical power and other forms of energy. BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED,that the City Council requests that the City Administration review its current policies and implement additional policies as necessary to conserve all forms of energy within its departments, divisions,and agencies,particularly during peak hours of energy use and to schedule an update for the City Council by July 1,2001." B. While no adopted City Master Plans address LEED certification specifically, the following details references to energy efficiency in the various plans: 1. East Bench Master Plan (1987) - "Advertise and support energy conservation techniques such as car-pooling,home insulation,site design, etc...Require energy efficiency in new and rehabilitated housing which employs public funds...Work , ) with residents interested in constructing greenhouses, solar panels, and other energy i4 efficiency systems." (p. 7) 10 2. Northwest Jordan River/Airport Master Plan(1992) -"Many energy saving techniques have been published in recent years identifying ways to improve energy efficiency,but they have not been widely applied to existing structures. The perceived cost/benefit for retrofitting for energy conservation limits its application. The City should investigate strategies supporting increased use of energy conservation techniques on a citywide basis...Energy conservation should be addressed comprehensively as a city-wide issue." (p. 8) 3. West Salt Lake Community Master Plan(1995) -"Provide for energy efficiency and conservation within the existing infrastructure of the community. Encourage energy efficiency improvements in existing structures;promote the use of energy conservation techniques in all new construction..." (p. 15) 4. Capitol Hill Master Plan(1999) -"Improve transportation circulation and encourage transportation alternatives that reduce vehicle emissions,such as mass transit, flexible work schedules,and telecommuting." (p. 22) 5. Sugar House Master Plan(2001) -"Reducing urban heat is of particular importance because of it affects the overall health,comfort and livability for citizens within every community. Urban heating has a direct affect on energy consumption, regional climate,air and water quality,storm water management and urban wildlife. Cool communities strategies should be incorporated into the design of new development wherever possible." (p. 65) C. The Salt Lake City Vision and Strategic Plan states the following goal relating to the proposed amendment: "Develop'business friendly' licensing and regulatory practices." D. The City's 1990 Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City's image,neighborhood character and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. CHRONOLOGY: Please refer to the Administration's transmittal for a complete chronology of events relating to the proposed text amendment. • July 8,2005 Mayor issues Executive Order relating to City buildings. • October 17,2005 Petition received in the Community Development Dept. • November 16,2005 Open House • December 14,2005 Planning Commission public hearing • December 21,2005 Revised Ordinance request from the City Attorney • January 25,2006 Planning Commission considers revised ordinance • January 26,2006 Transmittal completed by project planner • April 27,2006 Transmittal received in Council Office cc: Rocky Fluhart,Sam Guevara,Jordan Gates,Rick Graham,Kevin Bergstrom,Tim Harpst, Louis Zunguze,LuAnn Clark,Alexander Ikefuna,Brent Wilde, Doug Wheelwright, Cheri Coffey,Kurt Larson,Val Pope,Barry Esham,Marge Harvey,Janice Jardine,Dave Oka,Valda Tarbet File Location: Community Development Dept.,Requiring LEED Compliance and Certification for City-funded building projects of 10,000 Square Feet or larger,Mayor initiated request 11 2uu oci. M/ 1p I Fp SALT No. LAKE CITY ORDINANCE puy`/` of (Enacting Chapter 18.95 of the Salt Lake City Code Requiring that City Funded Construction obtain a"Certified" or "Silver" Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Designation from the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) under Certain Conditions) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING TITLE 18, CHAPTER 95, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, REQUIRING LEED CERTIFICATION FOR CERTAIN CITY-FUNDED CONSTRUCTION. WHEREAS, the City desires to promote sound environmental practices in construction work that is funded by the City w ' de s bo ordal to ch w ork; and WHEREAS, various local stakeholders, including architects, planners, environmental consultants, professors, political leaders, energy experts, health officials, and City staff members have worked with the City extensively to review the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, which is a system created by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) to provide a national standard for healthy environmental and energy efficient design; and WHEREAS, many professionals in our region are familiar with the LEED process, whicha is considered to be a voluntary, consensus-based national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings; and WHEREAS, at this time, the USGBC has formally adopted and promulgated three alternative certification standards, being the LEED Green Building Rating System for New Construction and Major Renovations (LEED-NC) as adopted in November 2002 and revised in November 2005, the LEED Green Building Rating System for Commercial Interiors (LEED-CI) as adopted in November 2002, and the LEED Green Building Rating System for Existing Buildings Upgrades, Operations and Maintenance (LEED-EB) as adopted in October 2004 and updated in July 2005; and WHEREAS, the foregoing alternative standards provide for various certifications designated as "Certified," "Silver," "Gold," or"Platinum," based on the number of specified environmental practices incorporated into a project, with "Certified" being the lowest level of certification; and WHEREAS, LEED standards are considered to promote a healthy environment, provide long-term cost benefits through the efficient use of energy, optimize building performance, and create healthier workplaces for employees and visitors; and WHEREAS, the City has determined to join other cities in requireing the use of LEED standards under certain circumstances to obtain the benefits promoted by those standards. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Title 18, Chapter 95 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: Chapter 18.95 USE OF LEED STANDARDS IN CITY-FUNDED CONSTRUCTION 18.95.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to promote development consistent with sound environmental practices by requiring, subject to Sections 18.95.040050, 18.95.0500€j0, and 18.95.120080, that applicable building projects constructed with City construction funds obtain, at a minimum,c1) "Silver" for City owned and operated buildings, or (2) a-"Certified" or"Silver" designation from the USGBC as defined herein for private building projects that receive City funds. These designations shall be from the USGBC as defined herein. 2 18.95.020 DEFINITIONS. As used in this Chapter: A. "Applicable building project"means the construction or major renovation of a commercial, multi-family residential.,or municipal building that will contain more than 10,000 square feet of occupied space when the design contract for such project commences on or after f to be determined at time of Council consideration], 2006. B. "Board" means the Board of Appeals and ExaminersHigh Performance Building Board created under this chapter created under Chapter 18.12 of this Code, hereinafter called "board." C. "Building Official" means the director of the division of building services or the designee of the director. D. "Certified"means the level of compliance with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design(LEED) standards designated as "Certified" by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC). E. "Chief Procurement Officer" means the City employee designated pursuant to Subsection 3.24.040A of this Code, or any successor to that Section. F. "City construction funds" means funds that are authorized to be used for construction by the City Council for use by any person or City department in order to construct an applicable building project, including, without limitation, loans, grants, and tax rebates. However, this term shall not apply to the funds of the Library or Redevelopment Agency. G. "City Engineer"means the City employee designated pursuant to Subsection 2.08.080B of this Code, or any successor to that Section. 3 H. "LEED standard" means the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System for New Construction and Major Renovations (LEED- NC) as adopted in November 2002 and revised in November 2005, the LEED Green Building Rating System for Commercial Interiors (LEED-CI) as adopted in November 2002, or the LEED Green Building Rating System for Existing Buildings Upgrades, Operations and Maintenance (LEED-EB) as adopted in October 2004 and updated in July 2005. I. "Major renovation" means work that demolishes space down to the shell structure and rebuilds it with new walls, ceilings, floors and systems, when such work affects more than twenty five percent (25%) of the building's square footage, and the affected space is at least 10,000 square feet or larger. J. "Silver" means the level of compliance with LEED standards designated as "Silver" by the USGBC. K. "Substantial compliance" means a determination of good faith efforts to comply as further described in Section 18.95.110 of this Code. LK. "Temporary structure" means any proposed building that is intended to be in existence for five (5) years or less or any existing building that at the time it was constructed was intended to be in existence for five (5) years or less. ML. "USGBC" means the organization known as the United States Green Building Council. 18.95.030 a five(5) year term, and no member may serve more than two (2)consecutive terms. All appointments of members of the board shall be-made by the Mayor with the advice and consent 4 • • five (5) years to provide that one (1) to two (2) terms expire after two (2) years. Each member • fields, such as architecture, construction management, engineering, finance, real estate or planning. Members of the board shall receive no compensation for their services, but may be members. No member of the board shall participate in the consideration of any matter in which that member has a conflict of interest prohibited-by-Chapter--2,44-ef-this-eede,---No-business-shall required for any action by the board. Decisions of the board shall become effective on the date that the vote is taken. The prec_ .dings f each meeting of the boar shall be recorded c-- audio adopt a system of rules of procedure under •hic" its eetirgs e t„ be held. 18.95.040 APPLICATION. Whenever City construction funds are used for an applicable building project, such project shall at a minimum obtain a Silver certification by the USGBC in the case of a City-owned building project ardor Certified certification in the case of all other projects, subject to the exceptions, waivers and determinations of substantial compliance provided for in this Chapter. 18.95.0450 EXCEPTIONS. The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply if the Building Official and either the Chief Procurement Officer or the City Engineer jointly determine in writing that any of the following circumstances exist: 5 A. The applicable building project will serve a specialized, limited function, such as a pump station, garage, storage building, equipment area, or other similar area, or a single family residence; B. The applicable building project is intended to be a temporary structure; C. The useful life of the applicable building project or other factors does not justify whatever additional expense would be incurred to increase the building's long-term efficiency; D. The application of LEED standard factors will increase construction costs beyond the funding capacity for the project, or will require that the project's scope of work or programmatic needs be diminished to meet budget constraints; E. The use of LEED standard factors will create an impediment to construction due to conflicts of laws, building code requirements, federal or state grant funding requirements, or other similar requirements; F. LEED factors are not reasonably attainable due to the nature of the facilities or the schedule for construction; or G. LEED certification will violate any other federal, state or local law, including, without limitation, other sections of this Code. If an exception is granted, the developer must agree to integrate green building practices into the design and construction of the project to the maximum extent possible and feasible. A determination that an exception does not apply may be appealed to the board. Such appeal must be submitted in writing to the board within thirty(30) days of the determination. 6 18.95.0560 WAIVERS. The denial of an exception pursuant to Section 18.95.040 does not preclude an application for waiver pursuant to this Section. The board shall have the authority to grant a waiver from the requirements of this Chapter only if it makes the following findings in writing: A. Literal enforcement of this Chapter would cause unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of this Chapter; B. There are special circumstances attached to the project that do not generally apply to other projects that are subject to this Chapter; C. The waiver would not have a substantially negative affect on the Master Plans, policies, and resolutions of the City and would not be contrary to the purposes of this Chapter; D. Any asserted economic hardship is not self-imposed; and E. The spirit of this Chapter will be observed and substantial justice done. 18.95.0670 APPEAL OF CITY DECISIONS. Any private sector developer who is denied an exception, or a determination of substantial compliance, or who is assessed a penalty by the Building Official and either the Chief Procurement Officer or the City Engineer, may appeal such decision in writing to the board within thirty(30) days of the decision and shall state the basis to support the relief sought. The board shall review the circumstances of the appeal and shall issue a written determination of the receipt of the appeal within thirty(30) days consistent with the requirements of this Section. 18.95.070 APPEAL OF BOARD DECISIONS. Any private sector developer denied a waiver or determination of substantial compliance or has had financial penalties imposed by the board or denied an exception, or determination of substantial compliance, or has had financial 7 penalties imposed on appeal to the board under this Chapter may appeal such decision by the board in writing to the Mayor or the Mayor's designee within thirty (30) days of the decision and shall state the basis to support the relief sought. The Mayor or the Mayor's designee shall review the circumstances of the appeal and shall issue a written determination within thirty(30) days of the receipt of the appeal consistent with the requirements of this Section. 18.95.0890 REQUIRED DEPOSIT. All private sector developers, excluding non-profit developers,who receive City funds for applicable building projects as defined in this section shall submit a ten thousand dollar ($10,000) "good faith" deposit with the City which shall be refunded upon the building project receiving the applicable level of LEED certification or after a determination of substantial compliance. 18.95.090400 PROOF OF REGISTRATION. Within thirty(30) days from receiving notice that the City will fund an applicable building project, all private sector developers shall submit written proof that said project is registered with the USGBC. City funds will not be dispersed until the required deposit under Section 18.95.0SO and the proof of registration under this Section are received by the City. 18.95.1004-0 PENALTYREQUEST FOR EXTENSION. If a project is not LEED certified or has not been granted a determination of substantial compliance within one (1) year after a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued by the City, then a private sector developer must file a written application with the City for an extension to obtain LEED certification. Said application must be filed with the City no later than three hundred and ninety five (395) days after the date on which the certificate of occupancy was issued by the City. The City may grant a one (1) year extension pursuant to this Section and any additional extensions as may be necessary 8 so long as a private sector developer is actively pursuing LEED certification. Extensions pursuant to this Section shall begin on the date granted by the City. 18.95.110088 REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE. Receipt of LEED certification from the USGBC shall be conclusive evidence of the level of certification stated therein. If certification is not received from the USGBC or is not at the level required by this Chapter, a private sector developer may request that the Citythe beard-ffley-be requested to issue a determination that the project has substantially complied with this Chapter upon a reasonable demonstration that such project as constructed is consistent with the intent of this Chapter and that strict enforcement of this Chapter would create an unreasonable burden in light of the needs of such project, the ability of the project owner to control cost increases, and other relevant circumstances. The request for determination of substantial compliance must contain the following information: A. Final LEED certification application, documentation, and response from the USGBC; B. An explanation of the efforts and accomplishments made by the private sector developer to achieve compliance with this Chapter, C. An explanation of the practical or economic infeasibility of implementing certain high performance building design or construction techniques that, if implemented, would otherwise have likely resulted in certification; and D. Any other supporting documents the private sector developer wishes to submit. 18.95.120 DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE The Building Official and either the Chief Procurement Officer or the City Engineer shall review within sixty(60) days of receipt of a request for determination of substantial compliance and 9 • shall approve or deny the request based on the good faith efforts of the private sector developer to comply with this Chapter. In making a determination of the good faith efforts, review of the request shall include whether the private sector developer has established the following: A. That reasonable, appropriate, and on-going efforts to comply with this Chapter were taken; and B. That compliance would otherwise have been obtained but for the practical or economic infeasibility of implementing high performance building design or construction techniques. In making any such determination, cost increases due solely to aesthetic elements shall not constitute any part of a demonstration of unreasonable burden. The board may impose reasonable requirements to provide for partial compliance with this chapter as part of any such determination. A determination of substantial compliance pursuant to this Section shall satisfy Section 18.95.0340. If the request for determination of substantial compliance is denied, the private sector developer will be deemed to have not satisfied Section 18.95.030 and shall forfeit the "good faith" deposit under Section 18.95.080 and may be assessed an additional penalty up to the amount originally funded by the City. Any penalty assessed shall be offset by the "good faith" deposit. 18.95.130 PENALTY. Any private sector developer who fails to (1) comply with this Chapter, (2) apply for an timely extension pursuant to Section 18.95.100,pursuant to this section or(3) receive a determination of substantial compliance, shall forfeit the "good faith" 10 to the applicable level of LEED certification shall forfeit said_deposit to the City to cover the cost and inconvenience to the City. An additional penalty may be assessed based on a direct analysis of possible LEED design credits. Given that a total of twenty-six (26) LEED design credits are required for certification, the additional penalty shall be based on the following considerations: A. If the City determines that a project could have reasonably received 21-25 LEED credits, then the private sector developer shall pay the City up to 25% of the amount originally funded. B. If the City determines that a project could have reasonably received 16-20 LEED credits, then the private sector developer shall pay the City up to 50%of the amount originally funded. C. If the City determines that a project could have reasonably received 6-15 LEED credits, then the private sector developer shall pay the City up to 75% of the amount originally funded. D. If the City determines that a project could have reasonably received 0-5 LEED credits, then the private sector developer shall pay the City up to 100%of the amount originally funded. Failure to pay a penalty within ninety(90) days of written notice from the City shall result in a lien against the project. this section because they have been denied certification by the USGBC may appeal such decision 11 designee. B. The Building Official-and either the Chief Procurement Officer or the City Engineer originally funded by the City. 18.95.14000 RULEMAKING AUTHORIZATION. The Building Official and either the Chief Procurement Officer or the City Engineer are authorized to issue administrative rules under this Chapter. 18.95.1501-30 ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS. Pursuant to the authority granted under Section 18.50.040B, the Building Official may render interpretations of this Chapter. Such interpretations shall conform with the intent and purpose of this Chapter, and shall be made available in writing for public inspection upon request. 18.95.160440 LIMITATIONS. Nothing required under this Chapter shall supersede any federal, state or local law, including, without limitation, other provisions of this Code; or any contract, grants or other funding requirement; or other standards or restrictions that may otherwise apply to an applicable building project. This Chapter shall not apply whenever its application would disadvantage the City in obtaining federal funds. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective ninety(90) days after the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. 12 CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: 1:\Ordinance 06\LEED-10-11-06 draft.doc 13 OCT 12 T�4N5 2006 ocT �/T rF.. to l � C' 'Ty 00 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE C2 J/1/y No. of 2006 (Enacting Chapter 18.95 of the Salt Lake City Code Requiring that City Funded Construction obtain a "Certified" or"Silver" Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Designation from the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) under Certain Conditions) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING TITLE 18, CHAPTER 95, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, REQUIRING LEED CERTIFICATION FOR CERTAIN CITY-FUNDED CONSTRUCTION. WHEREAS, the City desires to promote sound environmental practices in construction work that is funded by the City; and WHEREAS, various local stakeholders, including architects, planners, environmental consultants, professors, political leaders, energy experts, health officials, and City staff members have worked with the City extensively to review the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) rating system, which is a system created by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC) to provide a national standard for healthy environmental and energy efficient . design; and WHEREAS, many professionals in our region are familiar with the LEED process, which is considered to be a consensus-based national standard for developing high-performance, sustainable buildings; and WHEREAS, at this time, the USGBC has formally adopted and promulgated three alternative certification standards, being the LEED Green Building Rating System for New Construction and Major Renovations (LEED-NC) as adopted in November 2002 and revised in November 2005, the LEED Green Building Rating System for Commercial Interiors (LEED-CI) as adopted in November 2002, and the LEED Green Building Rating System for Existing ti Buildings Upgrades, Operations and Maintenance (LEED-EB) as adopted in October 2004 and updated in July 2005; and WHEREAS, the foregoing alternative standards provide for various certifications designated as "Certified," "Silver," "Gold," or"Platinum," based on the number of specified environmental practices incorporated into a project, with "Certified" being the lowest level of certification; and WHEREAS, LEED standards are considered to promote a healthy environment, provide long-term cost benefits through the efficient use of energy, optimize building performance, and create healthier workplaces for employees and visitors; and WHEREAS, the City has determined to require the use of LEED standards under certain circumstances to obtain the benefits promoted by those standards. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Title 18, Chapter 95 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be and hereby is enacted to read as follows: Chapter 18.95 USE OF LEED STANDARDS IN CITY-FUNDED CONSTRUCTION 18.95.010 PURPOSE. The purpose of this ordinance is to promote development consistent with sound environmental practices by requiring, subject to Sections 18.95.040, 18.95.050, and 18.95.120, that applicable building projects constructed with City construction funds obtain, at a minimum, (1) "Silver" for City owned and operated buildings, or(2) "Certified" for private building projects that receive City funds. These designations shall be from the USGBC as defined herein. 2 18.95.020 DEFINITIONS. As used in this Chapter: A. "Applicable building project"means the construction or major renovation of a commercial, multi-family residential, or municipal building that will contain more than 10,000 square feet of occupied space when the design contract for such project commences on or after [to be determined at time of Council consideration], 2006. B. "Board" means the Board of Appeals and Examiners created under Chapter 18.12 of this Code, hereinafter called "board." C. "Building Official" means the director of the division of building services or the designee of the director. D. "Certified" means the level of compliance with the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards designated as "Certified" by the United States Green Building Council (USGBC). E. "Chief Procurement Officer" means the City employee designated pursuant to Subsection 3.24.040A of this Code, or any successor to that Section. F. "City construction funds"means funds that are authorized to be used for construction by the City Council for use by any person or City department in order to construct an applicable building project, including, without limitation, loans, grants, and tax rebates. However, this term shall not apply to the funds of the Library or Redevelopment Agency. G. "City Engineer"means the City employee designated pursuant to Subsection 2.08.080B of this Code, or any successor to that Section. H. "LEED standard"means the Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Green Building Rating System for New Construction and Major Renovations (LEED- 3 NC) as adopted in November 2002 and revised in November 2005, the LEED Green Building Rating System for Commercial Interiors (LEED-CI) as adopted in November 2002, or the LEED Green Building Rating System for Existing Buildings Upgrades, Operations and Maintenance (LEED-EB) as adopted in October 2004 and updated in July 2005. I. "Major renovation" means work that demolishes space down to the shell structure and rebuilds it with new walls, ceilings, floors and systems, when such work affects more than twenty five percent (25%) of the building's square footage, and the affected space is at least 10,000 square feet or larger. J. "Silver" means the level of compliance with LEED standards designated as "Silver" by the USGBC. K. "Substantial compliance" means a determination of good faith efforts to comply as further described in Section 18.95.110 of this Code. L. "Temporary structure"means any proposed building that is intended to be in existence for five (5) years or less or any existing building that at the time it was constructed was intended to be in existence for five (5) years or less. M. "USGBC" means the organization known as the United States Green Building Council. 18.95.030 APPLICATION. Whenever City construction funds are used for an applicable building project, such project shall at a minimum obtain a Silver certification by the USGBC in the case of a City-owned building project or Certified certification in the case of all other projects, subject to the exceptions, waivers, and determinations of substantial compliance provided for in this Chapter. 4 18.95.040 EXCEPTIONS. The provisions of this Chapter shall not apply if the Building Official and either the Chief Procurement Officer or the City Engineer jointly determine in writing that any of the following circumstances exist: A. The applicable building project will serve a specialized, limited function, such as a pump station, garage, storage building, equipment area, or other similar area, or a single family residence; B. The applicable building project is intended to be a temporary structure; C. The useful life of the applicable building project does not justify whatever additional expense would be incurred to increase the building's long-term efficiency; D. The application of LEED standard factors will increase construction costs beyond the funding capacity for the project, or will require that the project's scope of work or programmatic needs be diminished to meet budget constraints; E. The use of LEED standard factors will create an impediment to construction due to conflicts of laws, building code requirements, federal or state grant funding requirements, or other similar requirements; F. LEED factors are not reasonably attainable due to the nature of the facilities or the schedule for construction; or G. LEED certification will violate any other federal, state or local law, including, without limitation, other sections of this Code. If an exception is granted, the developer must agree to integrate green building practices into the design and construction of the project to the maximum extent possible and feasible. A 5 determination that an exception does not apply may be appealed to the board. Such appeal must be submitted in writing to the board within thirty(30) days of the determination. 18.95.050 WAIVERS. The denial of an exception pursuant to Section 18.95.040 does not preclude an application for waiver pursuant to this Section. The board shall have the authority to grant a waiver from the requirements of this Chapter only if it makes the following findings in writing: A. Literal enforcement of this Chapter would cause unreasonable hardship for the applicant that is not necessary to carry out the general purpose of this Chapter; B. There are special circumstances attached to the project that do not generally apply to other projects that are subject to this Chapter; C. The waiver would not have a substantially negative affect on the Master Plans, policies, and resolutions of the City and would not be contrary to the purposes of this Chapter; D. Any asserted economic hardship is not self-imposed; and E. The spirit of this Chapter will be observed and substantial justice done. 18.95.060 APPEAL OF CITY DECISIONS. Any private sector developer who is denied an exception, or a determination of substantial compliance, or who is assessed a penalty by the Building Official and either the Chief Procurement Officer or the City Engineer, may appeal such decision in writing to the board within thirty(30) days of the decision and shall state the basis to support the relief sought. The board shall review the circumstances of the appeal and shall issue a written determination of the receipt of the appeal within thirty(30) days consistent with the requirements of this Section. 6 18.95.070 APPEAL OF BOARD DECISIONS. Any private sector developer denied a waiver by the board or denied an exception, or determination of substantial compliance, or has had financial penalties imposed on appeal to the board under this Chapter may appeal such decision by the board in writing to the Mayor or the Mayor's designee within thirty(30) days of the decision and shall state the basis to support the relief sought. The Mayor or the Mayor's designee shall review the circumstances of the appeal and shall issue a written determination within thirty(30) days of the receipt of the appeal consistent with the requirements of this Section. 18.95.080 REQUIRED DEPOSIT. All private sector developers, excluding non-profit developers, who receive City funds for applicable building projects shall submit a ten thousand dollar($10,000) "good faith" deposit with the City which shall be refunded upon the building project receiving the applicable level of LEED certification or after a determination of substantial compliance. 18.95.090 PROOF OF REGISTRATION. Within thirty(30) days from receiving notice that the City will fund an applicable building project, all private sector developers shall submit written proof that said project is registered with the USGBC. City funds will not be dispersed until the required deposit under Section 18.95.080 and the proof of registration under this Section are received by the City. 18.95.100 REQUEST FOR EXTENSION. If a project is not LEED certified or has not been granted a determination of substantial compliance within one (1) year after a temporary certificate of occupancy is issued by the City, then a private sector developer must file a written application with the City for an extension to obtain LEED certification. Said application must be 7 filed with the City no later than three hundred and ninety five (395) days after the date on which the certificate of occupancy was issued by the City. The City may grant a one (1) year extension pursuant to this Section and any additional extensions as may be necessary so long as a private sector developer is actively pursuing LEED certification. Extensions pursuant to this Section shall begin on the date granted by the City. 18.95.110 REQUEST FOR SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE. Receipt of LEED certification from the USGBC shall be conclusive evidence of the level of certification stated therein. If certification is not received from the USGBC or is not at the level required by this Chapter, a private sector developer may request that the City issue a determination that the project has substantially complied with this Chapter upon a reasonable demonstration that such project as constructed is consistent with the intent of this Chapter and that strict enforcement of this Chapter would create an unreasonable burden in light of the needs of such project, the ability of the project owner to control cost increases, and other relevant circumstances. The request for determination of substantial compliance must contain the following information: A. Final LEED certification application, documentation, and response from the USGBC; B. An explanation of the efforts and accomplishments made by the private sector developer to achieve compliance with this Chapter; C. An explanation of the practical or economic infeasibility of implementing certain high performance building design or construction techniques that, if implemented, would otherwise have likely resulted in certification; and D. Any other supporting documents the private sector developer wishes to submit. 18.95.120 DETERMINATION OF SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE 8 The Building Official and either the Chief Procurement Officer or the City Engineer shall review within sixty(60) days of receipt of a request for determination of substantial compliance and shall approve or deny the request based on the good faith efforts of the private sector developer to comply with this Chapter. In making a determination of the good faith efforts, review of the request shall include whether the private sector developer has established the following: A. That reasonable, appropriate, and on-going efforts to comply with this Chapter were taken; and B. That compliance would otherwise have been obtained but for the practical or economic infeasibility of implementing high performance building design or construction techniques. In making any such determination, cost increases due solely to aesthetic elements shall not constitute any part of a demonstration of unreasonable burden. A determination of substantial compliance pursuant to this Section shall satisfy Section 18.95.030. If the request for determination of substantial compliance is denied, the private sector developer will be deemed to have not satisfied Section 18.95.030 and shall forfeit the"good faith" deposit under Section 18.95.080 and may be assessed an additional penalty up to the amount originally funded by the City. Any penalty assessed shall be offset by the "good faith"deposit. 18.95.130 PENALTY. Any private sector developer who fails to (1) comply with this Chapter, (2) apply for an extension pursuant to Section 18.95.100, or(3) receive a determination of substantial compliance, shall forfeit the "good faith" deposit to the City to cover the cost and inconvenience to the City. An additional penalty may be assessed based on a direct analysis of possible LEED 9 design credits. Given that a total of twenty-six (26) LEED design credits are required for certification, the additional penalty shall be based on the following considerations: A. If the City determines that a project could have reasonably received 21-25 LEED credits, then the private sector developer shall pay the City up to 25% of the amount originally funded. B. If the City determines that a project could have reasonably received 16-20 LEED credits, then the private sector developer shall pay the City up to 50% of the amount originally funded. C. If the City determines that a project could have reasonably received 6-15 LEED credits, then the private sector developer shall pay the City up to 75% of the amount originally funded. D. If the City determines that a project could have reasonably received 0-5 LEED credits, then the private sector developer shall pay the City up to 100% of the amount originally funded. Failure to pay a penalty within ninety(90) days of written notice from the City shall result in a lien against the project. 18.95.140 RULEMAKING AUTHORIZATION. The Building Official and either the Chief Procurement Officer or the City Engineer are authorized to issue administrative rules under this Chapter. 18.95.150 ADMINISTRATIVE INTERPRETATIONS. Pursuant to the authority granted under Section 18.50.040B, the Building Official may render interpretations of this Chapter. Such interpretations shall conform with the intent and purpose of this Chapter, and shall be made available in writing for public inspection upon request. 10 18.95.160 LIMITATIONS. Nothing required under this Chapter shall supersede any federal, state or local law, including, without limitation, other provisions of this Code; or any contract, grant, or other funding requirement; or other standards or restrictions that may otherwise apply to an applicable building project. This Chapter shall not apply whenever its application would disadvantage the City in obtaining federal funds. SECTION 2. EFFECTIVE DATE. This Ordinance shall become effective ninety(90) days after the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on 11 Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: 1\Ordinance 06\LEED-10-11-06 clean.doc - APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt ce Attor ys ce� By 12 ' TRANSMITTED O C T 1 6 2006 TO CITY COUNCIL SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Expedited Approval Processes for Downtown Reconstruction Projects and Grant of Authority to City Administrative Staff to Modify Certain City Regulations Related to Construction Activities) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING EXPEDITED APPROVAL PROCESSES FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES IN A PORTION OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA, WHICH IS BOUNDED BY NORTH TEMPLE STREET; 600 SOUTH; INTERSTATE 15 AND 200 EAST, AND GRANTING THE AUTHORITY TO . CITY ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF TO MODIFY CERTAIN CITY REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-06-32. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and the local master plan as part of their deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed ordinance is in the best interest of the City; WHEREAS, during the next two (2) to five (5) years more than one and a half billion dollars ($1,500,000,000.00) in public and private funds will be invested in the City's downtown, making it one of the most significant periods of redevelopment in the City's history; WHEREAS, the City finds that taking a proactive approach to address construction needs and impacts that will likely result from major construction activities in the downtown area is in the best interest of the City; and WHEREAS, the City finds that facilitating expedited approval processes for temporary construction-related activities in the downtown area is in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Application for Expedited Process: Notwithstanding other provisions in the Salt Lake City Code, any person may request an expedited approval process, which may include a request for a change, alteration, modification or waiver of any one or more of the regulations set forth in Section 2 of this ordinance. Such request shall be in writing, addressed to the Community Development Director, shall describe the anticipated construction related activity and any modifications requested with reasonable specificity, and shall be accompanied by a$300.00 application fee. This provision shall apply to only those projects which are located between North Temple Street; 600 South; Interstate 15 and 200 East. SECTION 2. Authority to Modify Regulations: Upon receipt of a written application for an expedited approval process for a project which is located in the area referred to in the foregoing section, the Community Development Director, after consultation with the Planning Director, Transportation Engineer and/or City Engineer, as appropriate, has the authority to change, alter, modify or waive any one or more of the regulations set forth herein. A. For the regulations listed below, any request for a change, alteration, modification or waiver shall be evaluated upon consideration of the standards for either a Special Exception set forth in Chapter 21A.52 of the Salt Lake City Code, or the 2 standards for a Planned Development set forth in Chapter 21A.54 of the Salt Lake City Code. 1. Sign regulations, as set forth in Section 21A.46.110 of the Salt Lake City Code; 2. General off street parking requirements, as set forth in Section 21A.44.020 of the Salt Lake City Code; 3. Landscaping and buffering requirements, as set forth in Chapter 21A.48 of the Salt Lake City Code; 4. Permitted temporary uses of construction trailers and temporary contractor's storage yards, as set forth in Section 21A.42.070(G) of the Salt Lake City Code,provided that the Zoning Administrator first finds that the project meets the standards set forth in Section 21A.42.070 of the Salt Lake City Code; 5. Setback regulations as set forth in Title 21A; and 6. Other land use regulations for temporary construction related activities. B. For the additional regulations set forth below, any request for a change, alteration, modification or waiver shall be evaluated based on the standards referenced below. 1. Driveway construction, as set forth in Section 14.32.350 of the Salt Lake City Code, provided that the Transportation Engineer, to the extent required under Section 14.32.350, first issues a favorable recommendation; 2. Driveway restrictions, as set forth in Section 18.80.040 of the Salt Lake City Code; 3 3. Construction, excavation and obstruction in the pubic right of way, as set forth in Chapter 14.32 of the Salt Lake City Code, subject to the approval of the City Engineer; and 4. Regulations for controlling construction in the City's public way, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Any decision issued by the Community Development Director pursuant to the authority granted herein shall be in writing, delivered to the applicant and to the community council and abutting property owners, and a copy shall be kept in the Community Development Department files. SECTION 3. Notice to City Council: The Community Development Director shall notify the City Council, in writing, within five (5) days of receipt of an application for expedited process, and the City Council shall have five (5) days thereafter to provide comment on the pending application. SECTION 4. Appeals: Appeals shall be filed with the Planning Division, in writing, within ten (10) days following the Community Development Director's decision, addressed to the Planning Commission, and shall be accompanied by a$200.00 appeal fee. SECTION 5. Sunset Provision: This ordinance, and all permits and approvals granted pursuant to this ordinance, shall expire twenty-four (24) months from the effective date of this ordinance, unless earlier amended, modified or repealed. SECTION 6. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. 4 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Expedited Permitting Processes for Downtown Reconstruction Projects-10-16-06 clean.doc r-,—APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Ci Att•rneys Off*. Date � r I , 5 TRt NSMITTED O C T 1 6 2006 TO CITY C D V N C I L SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2006 (Expedited Approval Processes for Downtown Reconstruction Projects and Grant of Authority to City Administrative Staff to Modify Certain City Regulations Related to Construction Activities) AN ORDINANCE ENACTING EXPEDITED APPROVAL PROCESSES FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION-RELATED ACTIVITIES IN A PORTION OF THE DOWNTOWN AREA, WHICH IS BOUNDED BY NORTH TEMPLE STREET; 600 SOUTH; INTERSTATE 15 AND 200 EAST, AND GRANTING THE AUTHORITY TO CITY ADMINISTRATIVE STAFF TO MODIFY CERTAIN CITY REGULATIONS FOR CONSTRUCTION ACTIVITIES, PURSUANT TO PETITION NO. 400-06-32. WHEREAS, the Planning Commission and the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, have held public hearings and have taken into consideration citizen testimony, filing, and demographic details of the area, the long range general plans of the City, and the local master plan as part of their deliberation. Pursuant to these deliberations, the City Council has concluded that the proposed ordinance is in the best interest of the City; WHEREAS, during the next two (2) to five (5) years more than one and a half billion dollars ($1,500,000,000.00) in public and private funds will be invested in the City's downtown, making it one of the most significant periods of redevelopment in the City's history; WHEREAS, the City finds that taking a proactive approach to address construction needs and impacts that will likely result from major construction activities in the downtown area is in the best interest of the City; and WHEREAS, the City finds that facilitating expedited approval processes for temporary construction-related activities in the downtown area is in the best interest of the City. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Application for Expedited Process: Notwithstanding other provisions in the Salt Lake City Code, any person may request an expedited approval process, which may include a request for a change, alteration, modification or waiver of any one or more of the regulations set forth in Section 2 of this ordinance. Such request shall be in writing, addressed to the Community Development Director, shall describe the anticipated construction related activity and any modifications requested with reasonable specificity, and shall be accompanied by a $300.00 application fee. This provision shall apply to only those projects which are located between North Temple Street; 600 South; Interstate 15 and 200 East. SECTION 2. Authority to Modify Regulations: Upon receipt of a written application for an expedited approval process for a project which is located in the area referred to in the foregoing section, the Community Development Director, after consultation with the Planning Director, Transportation Engineer and/or City Engineer, as appropriate, has the authority to change, alter, modify or waive any one or more of the regulations set forth herein. A. For the regulations listed below, any request for a change, alteration, modification or waiver shall be evaluated upon consideration of the standards for either a Special Exception set forth in Chapter 21A.52 of the Salt Lake City Code, or the 2 standards for a Planned Development set forth in Chapter 21A.54 of the Salt Lake City Code. 1. Sign regulations, as set forth in Section 21A.46.110 of the Salt Lake City Code; 2. General off street parking requirements, as set forth in Section 21A.44.020 of the Salt Lake City Code; 3. Landscaping and buffering requirements, as set forth in Chapter 21A.48 of the Salt Lake City Code; 4. Permitted temporary uses of construction trailers and temporary contractor's storage yards, as set forth in Section 21A.42.070(G) of the Salt Lake City Code, provided that the Zoning Administrator first finds that the project meets the standards set forth in Section 21A.42.070 of the Salt Lake City Code; 5. Setback regulations as set forth in Title 21A; and 6. Other land use regulations for temporary construction related activities. B. For the additional regulations set forth below, any request for a change, alteration, modification or waiver shall be evaluated based on the standards referenced below. 1. Driveway construction, as set forth in Section 14.32.350 of the Salt Lake City Code,provided that the Transportation Engineer, to the extent required under Section 14.32.350, first issues a favorable recommendation; 2. Driveway restrictions, as set forth in Section 18.80.040 of the Salt Lake City Code; 3 3. Parking meters special use conditions and fees, as set forth in Section • 12.56.210 of the Salt Lake Cit , Engineer; 4. Loading zones and restricted parking special use conditions and fees, as set 5 325 fi t C It T ake City f ode; 5. Removal of parking meters, as set forth in Section 1-4.12.130 of the Salt Lake City Code, subject to the approval 6. Noise control, as set forth in Chapter 9.28 of the Salt Lake City Code, provided that the requirements in Sections 9.28.050(E) and 9.28.070 arc satisfied when the application requests an exe Chapter 9.28; 3q. Construction, excavation and obstruction in the pubic right of way, as set forth in Chapter 14.32 of the Salt Lake City Code, subject to the approval of the City Engineer; and 48. Regulations for controlling construction in the City's public way, subject to the approval of the City Engineer. Any decision issued by the Community Development Director pursuant to the authority granted herein shall be in writing, delivered to the applicant and to the community council and abutting property owners, and a copy shall be kept in the Community Development Department files. SECTION 3. Notice to City Council: The Community Development Director shall notify the City Council, in writing, within five (5) days of receipt of an application 4 for expedited process, and the City Council shall have five (5) days thereafter to provide comment on the pending application. SECTION 4a. Appeals: Appeals shall be filed with the Planning Division, in writing, within ten (10) days following the Community Development Director's decision, addressed to the Planning Commission, and shall be accompanied by a$200.00 appeal fee. SECTION 54. Sunset Provision: This ordinance, and all permits and approvals granted pursuant to this ordinance, shall expire twenty-four(24) months from the effective date of this ordinance, unless earlier amended, modified or repealed. SECTION 65. Effective Date: This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2006. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR 5 CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. of 2006. Published: I:\Ordinance 06\Expedited Permitting Processes for Downtown Reconstruction Projects-10-16-06 draft.doc 6 (e, 0 — ORDINANCE NO. of 2006 AN ORDINANCE (THE "2006 ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE") „ APPROVING THE ASSESSMENT LIST AND LEVYING AN ANNUAL ASSESSMENT UPON PROPERTY IN SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH LIGHTING DISTRICT NO. 2, NOW KNOWN AS L02 (THE "DISTRICT L02"); ESTABLISHING THE EFFECTIVE DATE OF THE 2006 ASSESSMENT ORDINANCE; PROVIDING FOR A PROCEDURE TO CONTEST AN ASSESSMENT; AND RELATED MATTERS. BE IT ORDAINED BY THE CITY COUNCIL (THE "COUNCIL") OF SALT LAKE CITY (THE "CITY"), SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH: Section 1. Determination of Costs. All costs and expenses for providing street lighting within the District and the reasonable cost of any work to be done have been determined. Section 2. Approval of Assessment List; Findings. The Council confirms and adopts the District L02 assessment list, a copy of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and incorporated herein by reference (the "Assessment List"). The Assessment List has been adjusted to comport with the previous year's experience for the District and it includes estimated operation and maintenance expenses for the coming year. The Council has determined that the Assessment List is just and equitable; that each piece of property to be assessed within the District will be benefited in an amount not less than the assessment to be levied against said property; and that no piece of property listed in the assessment list will bear more than its proportionate share of the cost of such improvements or services. Section 3. Levy of Assessments. The Council hereby levies an assessment upon the real property identified in the Assessment List. The assessments levied upon each parcel of property therein described shall be in the amount set forth in the Assessment List as adjusted. The assessments hereby levied are for the purpose of paying the costs of providing for the operation, maintenance, and patrolling of incandescent, fluorescent, metal halide, and sodium vapor lamps and the furnishing of electrical energy. It is hereby determined and established that the property being assessed will be specifically benefited to the full amount of the assessment hereby levied to cover the cost of operating, maintaining, patrolling, and furnishing electrical energy. The properties benefited are within the boundaries of the lots, blocks, and streets as set forth in the Assessment List. Unless future modifications revise the purposes and plans of the District, future assessments will continue to be levied annually based upon applicable rates established by the energy contract with the City. Future non-energy costs of operation and maintenance relating to the providing of lighting benefits will also be a factor in determining future rates. The City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to notify DMWEST#6448979 v1 3 property owners of this assessment and to collect assessments in accordance with the provisions of this 2006 Assessment Ordinance for the purposes herein provided. Section 4. Cost of Services Improvements; Amount of Total Assessments. As determined by the office of the City Engineer, the total actual and estimated costs of all services and improvements for this fiscal year of the District is $183,760, of which the City's portion is approximately $45,940. The remainder of$137,820 is to be paid from assessments levied upon property within the District as set forth in the Assessment List. Section 5. Method, Rate and Payment of Assessment. The total assessment for the District is levied in accordance with the method set out in the Notice of Intention pertaining to the District as adopted by the City Council on the 8th day of August, 1995. The applicable rate for each property was determined based on the costs of street lighting services, together with other related factors, the totals of which are set out in the preceding Section. Assessments shall be payable on the 15th day of December, 2006 (the "Due Date"). Interest on assessments shall accrue only after passage of the Due Date set out in the Special Assessment Notice to be mailed by the Treasurer to property owners. The rate of interest accruing on any delinquent assessment shall be the rate allowed by Utah statute (the "Delinquent Rate"). The whole or any part of the assessment may be paid without interest on or prior to the Due Date. Future annual assessments may include adjustments to reflect changes in operation and maintenance costs and any balances or deficits resulting from the previous year's operations. Section 6. Default in Payment. The assessment installment shall be delinquent if it remains unpaid after the Due Date. Any delinquency shall constitute a default of the payment of the assessment. If a default occurs in the payment of any installment when due, the City may file for recording a notice (the "Notice of Delinquency") with the Salt Lake County Recorder. The resulting recording fees for both the filing and the release, shall be added to the assessment together with accrued interest due and owing. In addition, costs of collection as determined by the City Treasurer or required by law shall be charged and paid on all delinquent amounts. If the delinquency continues after the filing of the Notice of Delinquency, the City Treasurer may determine that additional enforcement action may be appropriate. Prior to commencement of such enforcement action the City shall give an additional notice (the "Notice of Default"), in writing, of the default to the owner of the property in default. Notice of Default shall be effective upon deposit of the notice in the U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, and addressed to the owner as shown on the last equalized assessment rolls for the City or on the official ownership records of the City. The Notice of Default may provide for a period of thirty (30) days in which the owner shall pay the assessment balance then due and owing together with accrued interest at the Delinquent Rate plus recording costs and other costs as determined by the City Treasurer. The Notice of Default may also declare that after the thirty (30) day period the City may bring suit for the total amount due plus costs of the enforcement action remedy, or the City may elect to commence foreclosure proceedings in the manner provided for actions to foreclose DMWEST#6448979 v1 4 mortgage liens or trust deeds. In the event the City elects to foreclose using trust deed procedures, a trustee shall be designated by the City to serve as trust deed trustee for purposes of the enforcement proceedings. If at the sale no person or entity shall bid and pay the City the amount due on the assessment plus interest and costs, the property shal be deemed sold to the City for these amounts. The City shall be permitted to bid at the sale. The election by the City to use or not to use a Notice of Delinquency and a Notice of Default shall have no effect on the perfecting of the lien resulting from a delinquency in the payment of any assessment after publication of the applicable assessment ordinance. The remedies provided herein for the collection of assessments and the enforcement of liens shall be deemed and construed to be cumulative and the use of any one method or means of collection or enforcement shall not deprive the City of the use of any other method or means. The amounts of accrued interest and all costs of collection shall be added to the amount of the assessment up to the date of judgment or, in the case of foreclosure action, the date of the foreclosure sale. Section 7. Remedy of Default. If prior to the final date payment may be legally made under a final sale or foreclosure of property to collect delinquent assessment installments, the property owner pays the full amount of the unpaid assessment balance with interest at the Delinquent Rate, plus all approved or required costs, the owner will have the right to make payment in full and receive a release of the assessment lien. Section 8. Lien of Assessment. An assessment levied by the 2006 Assessment Ordinance or any unpaid portion of an earlier assessment, any interest accruing and the costs of recording and collection shall constitute a lien against the property upon which the assessment is levied as of the 1st day of December, 2006, the effective date of the 2006 Assessment Ordinance (the "Effective Date"), or as of the effective date of any earlier applicable assessment ordinance. Unless the assessment becomes delinquent, no notice of lien may be recorded and no release of lien will be recorded at the time of payment. When a delinquency occurs, a notice of lien setting out the assessment balance due may be incorporated into a Notice of Delinquency which will be recorded. The assessment lien based on the 2006 Assessment Ordinance, or on an earlier assessment ordinance, if the delinquency predates the effective date of the 2006 Assessment Ordinance, shall be superior to the lien of any trust deed, mortgage, mechanic's or materialman's lien or other encumbrance and shall be equal to and on a parity with the lien for general property taxes. The lien shall continue until the assessment and any interest, penalties and costs on it are paid, notwithstanding any sale of the property for or on account of a delinquent general property tax, special tax, or other assessment or the issuance of a tax deed, an assignment of interest by the governing entity or a sheriff's certificate of sale or deed. Section 9. Appeal of Assessment. An owner of property assessed within the District may, within fifteen (15) days from the Effective Date, file a written appeal with the City Engineer contesting the equity or justice of his/her assessment. The City Engineer's office will first attempt to resolve the appeal, but if the appeal can only be resolved by an adjustment in the amount to be assessed against the property owner, the City shall convene a Board of Equalization and Review to consider the appeal and, where DMWEST#6448979 v1 5 appropriate, make adjustments to said assessment, provided however, that no adjustment may be made which would result in an increase in said assessment. The City shall report to the property owner the determination of the Board of Equalization and Review within five (5) days after its recommendation is made. If an adjustment is recommended, the City Treasurer shall note said adjustment on the Assessment List attached hereto. If no adjustment is made, the property owner may take such additional legal action as provided in Section 10. Section 10. Contestability. No assessment shall be declared void or set aside in whole or in part in consequence of any error or irregularity which does not go to the equity or justice of the assessment or proceeding. Any party who has not waived his or her objections to the assessment may commence a civil action against the City to enjoin the levy or collection of the assessment or to set aside and declare unlawful the 2006 Assessment Ordinance. Such action must be commenced and summons must be served on the City not later than 30 days after the Due Date of the 2006 Assessment Ordinance. This action shall be the exclusive remedy of any aggrieved party. No court shall entertain any complaint which the party was authorized to make by statute but did not timely make or any complaint that does not go to the equity or justice of the assessment or proceeding. After the expiration of the 30-day period provided in this section, the assessments levied in the District shall become incontestable as to all persons who have not commenced the action provided for in this section; and no suit to enjoin the levy, collection or enforcement of the assessments, or in any other manner attacking or questioning the legality of the assessments may be instituted in this state, and no court shall have authority to inquire into these matters. Section 11. Notice to Property Owners. The City Treasurer is hereby authorized and directed to give notice of assessment by mail to the property owners in the District. Said notice shall, among other things, state the amount of the assessment and the date for payment. A copy of the form of notice of assessment is available for examination upon request at the office of the Deputy City Recorder. Section 12. All Necessary Action Approved. The officials of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take all action necessary and appropriate to effectuate the provisions of the 2006 Assessment Ordinance. Section 13. Repeal of Conflicting Provisions. All ordinances or parts thereof in conflict with the 2006 Assessment Ordinance are hereby repealed. Section 14. Publication of Ordinances. An emergency is hereby declared, the preservation of peace, health and safety of the City and the inhabitants thereof so requiring. Immediately after its adoption, the 2006 Assessment Ordinance shall be signed by the Mayor and City Recorder and shall be recorded in the ordinance book kept for that purpose. The 2006 Assessment Ordinance shall be published once in the Deseret Morning News, a newspaper published and having general circulation in the City, and shall take effect immediately upon its Effective Date. DMWEST#6448979 v1 6 PASSED AND APPROVED by the City Council of the City, this 17th day of October, 2006. (SEAL) By: Chair ATTEST: By: Deputy City Recorder DMWEST#6448979 v1 7