The URL can be used to link to this page

10/04/2011 - Work Session - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2011 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, October 4 , 2011, at 3 : 00 p.m. in Room 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Jill Remington Love, Luke Garrott, JT Martin and Soren Simonsen. Absent : Councilmember Stan Penfold. Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director; Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Karen Halladay, Council Policy Analyst; Jan Aramaki, Council Constituent Liaison/Research & Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Research and Policy Analyst; Curtis Preece, Justice Court Administrator; Sara Hiatt, Community Development Promotions & Grant Specialist; Steven Akerlow, Housing Programs Specialist; David Everitt, Chief of Staff; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; Boyd Ferguson, Senior City Attorney; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Florence Reynolds, Water Quality Administrator; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; John Anderson, Principal Planner; Nick Norris, Planning Manager; Gina Chamness, Budget Director; Dan Mule, City Treasurer; Dale Okerland, Financial Advisory; Richard Scott, Bond Counsel; Russell Weeks, Council Senior Policy Analyst; Beth Elder, Library Director; John Naser, City Engineer; Kevin Young, Transportation Engineer; Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director; Cheri Coffey, Assistant Planning Director; Janice Jardine, Council Senior Policy Analyst; and Chris Meeker, City Recorder. Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting. The meeting was called to order at 3 : 06 p.m. AGENDA ITEMS #1. CONSIDER A MOTION TO ENTER INTO CLOSED SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-204, FOR ANY OF THE FOLLOWING PURPOSES: (a) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS COLLECTIVE BARGAINING PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §54-2-205 (1) (B) ; (b) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE PURCHASE, EXCHANGE, OR LEASE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER SHARES) WHEN PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE 11 - 1 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2011 TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §52-4-205 (1) (C) ; (c) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS PENDING OR REASONABLY IMMINENT LITIGATION PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 52-4-205 (1) (c) ; (d) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS THE SALE OF REAL PROPERTY (INCLUDING ANY FORM OF WATER RIGHT OR WATER SHARES) IF (1) PUBLIC DISCUSSION OF THE TRANSACTION WOULD DISCLOSE THE APPRAISAL OR ESTIMATED VALUE OF THE PROPERTY UNDER CONSIDERATION OR PREVENT THE CITY FROM COMPLETING THE TRANSACTION UNDER THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS, (2) THE CITY PREVIOUSLY GAVE NOTICE THAT THE PROPERTY WOULD BE OFFERED FOR SALE, AND (3) THE TERMS OF THE SALE ARE PUBLICLY DISCLOSED BEFORE THE CITY APPROVES THE SALE; (e) FOR ATTORNEY-CLIENT MATTERS THAT ARE PRIVILEGED PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE § 78b-1-137; AND (f) A STRATEGY SESSION TO DISCUSS SECURITY PERSONNEL, DEVICES OR SYSTEMS PURSUANT TO UTAH CODE §52-4-205 (1) (F) . This item was not addressed. #2 . REPORT OF THE EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, INCLUDING A REVIEW OF COUNCIL INFORMATION ITEMS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. See File M 11-5 for announcements . #3 . 3 : 12 : 16 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A JOINT RESOLUTION OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE MAYOR OF SALT LAKE CITY APPROVING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A SISTER-CITY RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN IZHEVSK, RUSSIA AND SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH. View Attachments Jan Aramaki, Sara Hiatt and Steven Akerlow briefed the Council with the attached handout . Ms . Hiatt said adopting Izhevsk as a Sister City would be the next step after being a Friendship City for eight years . Councilmember Martin asked Council Members if they would be open to discussing the Sister City policy. Councilmember Love said around budget time would be a good time to discuss this . Ms . Gust- Jenson said the Sister City program was a significant investment . #4 . 3 : 23 :49 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION REQUESTING THE RECERTIFICATION OF THE JUSTICE COURT OF SALT LAKE CITY. JUSTICE COURTS MUST BE RECERTIFIED EVERY FOUR YEARS BY THE UTAH JUDICIAL COUNCIL. View Attachments Lehua Weaver and Curtis Preece briefed the Council with the attached handout . Ms . Weaver said the process of dissolving the 11 - 2 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2011 Justice Court would be much harder than recertification. She said it would be a two year process . Mr. Preece said a new judicial review system was being set up by the State of Utah where a representative of the State formally goes into the courtroom and reviewed the judge. Councilmember Christensen asked for a representative to speak to the Council about concerns . Councilmember Love asked the Council to move forward on the recertification and then have a member of the State Judicial Review meet with Council . #5. 3 : 33 : 34 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN AGREEMENT WITH THE COUNTY TO SHARE COSTS FOR A STORM WATER POLLUTION AWARENESS CAMPAIGN. (THE CITY WILL PARTNER WITH THE COUNTY AND OTHER CITIES IN FUNDING EDUCATION TO INCREASE PUBLIC AWARENESS REGARDING THE PREVENTION OF POLLUTION IN THE STORM WATER SYSTEM, AND HELP REDUCE THE IMPACTS OF RUNOFF ON STREAMS AND ON THE JORDAN RIVER) View Attachments Florence Reynolds, Lehua Weaver and David Everitt briefed the Council with the attached handout . Ms . Reynolds said this was a renewal without a rate increase of the Storm Water Pollution Awareness Campaign with Salt Lake County for educational outreach. She said without the County Salt Lake would not be able to afford the program. Ms . Reynolds said Scouting Troops worked with signage on gutters for storm water going into streams . She said medal placards lasted longer than paint . Councilmember Garrott asked that Public Utilities come back to Council at budget with a plan for volunteers for signage. Councilmember Martin said he wanted to reach out to volunteers . #6. 3 :49 : 18 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING, ON TWO ISSUES REGARDING THE ESTABLISHMENT OF A LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY: a. A RESOLUTION ADOPTING THE TENTATIVE BUDGET FOR THE CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND OF THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011-2012 . (POTENTIAL FUNDING FOR THE GLENDALE BRANCH LIBRARY) b. A RESOLUTION APPROVING THE ORGANIZATION OF THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, AND THE FORMS OF ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION AND BYLAWS RELATING THERETO; AUTHORIZING THE APPROPRIATE OFFICERS OF THE CITY COUNCIL AND THE CITY TO TAKE ALL NECESSARY ACTIONS IN CONNECTION THEREWITH; DISSOLVING THE MUNICIPAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY. SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH AND PROVIDING FOR RELATED MATTERS. View Attachments 11 - 3 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2011 Gina Chamness, Dan Mule, Dale Okerland, Richard Scott; Russell Weeks and Beth Elder briefed the Council with the attached handout. Mr. Weeks said deciding on the establishment of a Local Building Authority to issue lease revenue bonds or funding through sales tax bonds was the issue regarding construction of the Glendale Branch Library. 7 . 4 : 07 : 53 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING FROM THE ADMINISTRATION REGARDING THE SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION MASTER PLAN PROGRAM. THE BRIEFING WILL OUTLINE WHAT HAS BEEN ACCOMPLISHED BY THE DIVISION RELATING TO DEVELOPING AND UPDATING THE CITY' S MASTER PLANS AND AN EXPLANATION OF HOW THE SENIOR PLANNER WILL FIT INTO THE DIVISION' S ORGANIZATION TO ACHIEVE THE GOALS OF THE MAYOR AND COUNCIL. THIS INCLUDES UPDATING THE EAST BENCH COMMUNITY PLAN EVERY SIX YEARS. See Attachments Wilf Sommerkorn, Cheri Coffey and Janice Jardine briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Mr. Sommerkorn said goals for the Planning Division were to ensure a focus on long range planning as well as ensuring professional development and well rounded planners . He said with the addition of a new Planner two long range community planning efforts could always be underway. All Council Members were in favor of the Planning Division' s management team handling the completion of long range planning. #8 . 4 : 55 : 35 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE CITY' S 10 YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN AND IMPACT FEES. CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVOLVE THE CONSTRUCTION, PURCHASE OR RENOVATION OF BUILDINGS, PARKS, STREET OR OTHER PHYSICAL STRUCTURES. GENERALLY, PROJECTS HAD A USEFUL LIFE OF FIVE YEARS AND COST $50, 000 OR MORE. View Attachments Karen Halladay, LuAnn Clark, Rick Graham, John Naser, Kevin Young and Police Chief Chris Burbank briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Ms . Halladay asked the Council if they still wanted "When possible, Capital Improvement projects are not delayed nor eliminated in order to balance the budget. The Council also avoids using one time revenues to balance the budget" as the General Budget Policy. Councilmember Christensen said he wanted to see the expectation of eight to nine percent being held back for Capital Improvement Projects (CIP) for the future. Ms . Gust-Jenson asked the Council if they wanted small deferred items to be bundled in the CIP. Most Council Members were not in favor. Ms . Halladay asked if those types of items, under $50, 000 should be pulled from the requests . Most Council Members were in favor. 11 - 4 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2011 Most Council Members were in favor of the March 1 date of each fiscal year for the Mayor' s recommended annual capital budget submittal . Councilmember Love asked Council staff to come back with other recommendations . Ms . Halladay asked if the current policy of the Administration preparing a multi-year revenue and expenditure forecast which corresponded to the capital program period as well as an analysis of the City' s financial condition and capacity to finance future capital projects was what the Council wanted. Most Council Members were in favor. Ms . Halladay asked the Council if they wanted to keep the intention of funding no less than nine percent of ongoing General Fund revenues to be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund. Councilmember Love said the Council should revisit the percentage in two years . Most Council Members were in favor. Ms . Halladay asked the Council if they wanted to keep the request that the Administration submit an updated proposed five-year capital improvement plan to the Council along with the Mayor' s Recommended Budget. Most Council Members were in favor of Council staff coming back with a two year proposal . Ms . Halladay asked the Council if they wanted to keep the intention that the City maintains its physical assets at a level adequate to protect the City' s capital investment and minimize future maintenance and replacement costs . Most Council Members were in favor. Ms . Halladay asked the Council if they wanted to keep the intention to give priority consideration to projects which preserve and protect the health and safety of the community are mandated by the state and/or federal government, provide for the renovation of existing facilities, resulting in a preservation of the community' s prior investment, result in decreased operating costs or other significant cost saving, or improve the environmental quality of the City and its neighborhoods . Most Council Members were in favor. Ms . Gust-Jenson suggested adding an Economic Development statement . Ms . Halladay asked the Council if they wanted to keep the intent to give fair consideration to projects where there was an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies, establish a public/private partnership, or secure grant funding, all other considerations being equal . Most Council Members were in favor. Ms . Halladay asked the Council if they wanted to keep the intent to follow the guideline of approving construction funding for a 11 - 5 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2011 capital project in the fiscal year immediately following the project' s design where possible . Most Council Members were in favor. Ms . Halladay asked the Council if they wanted to keep the intent that all capital projects be evaluated and prioritized by the CIP Citizen Advisory Board. Most Council Members were in favor. Ms . Halladay asked the Council if they wanted to keep the intent that Council does not intend to fund any project that has not been included in the Five-Year Capital Plan for at least one year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified. Councilmember Christensen suggested the Council discuss and determine what to remove from the plan. Ms . Halladay asked the Council if they wanted to keep the request that any change order to any capital improvement project which equals or exceeds twenty percent of the approved project budget be brought to the Council for review in a formal budget amendment . Most Council Members were in favor. Ms . Halladay asked the Council if they wanted to keep the request that the Administration submit a budget amendment request to the Council no later than September 1 each year identifying those Capital Improvement Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains . And the intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and placed in the CIP Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year, at which point any remaining amounts would be transferred to augment the following fiscal year' s General Fund ongoing allocation. Most Council Members were in favor. Councilmember Love said the date needed to be adjusted. 5 : 43 : 43 PM Recommendations by Department for the Capital Improvement Plan. #9 . 6 : 29 : 57 PM HOLD A FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION OF THE PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED AT THEIR SEPTEMBER RETREAT, INCLUDING REVIEW OF A PHILOSOPHY STATEMENT ON ARTS AND CULTURE. (THE OTHER PRIORITIES IDENTIFIED WILL BE DISCUSSED AT FUTURE COUNCIL MEETINGS AND INCLUDE ECONOMIC HEALTH OF THE CITY, NEIGHBORHOODS AND SCHOOLS, LOCAL/NEIGHBORHOOD BUSINESS, PARKS AND OPEN SPACE, SUSTAINABILITY, AND TRANSPORTATION AND MOBILITY. ) View Attachments #10 . 6 : 17 : 58 PM INTERVIEW POTENTIAL CANDIDATES FOR THE SALT LAKE CITY REDISTRICTING WORK GROUP PRIOR TO BEING APPOINTED. 11 - 6 PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH WORK SESSION TUESDAY, OCTOBER 4, 2011 MAYOR' S RECOMMENDATION: • MARIA TORRES, DISTRICT 4 • STEPHEN L. NELSON, DISTRICT 7 Maria Torres and Stephen L. Nelson were not present for the interview. SALT LAKE CITY SCHOOL BOARD' S RECOMMENDATION: • CRAIG RUESCH • JOHN BENNION Councilmember Love said Mr. Ruesch' s and Mr. Bennion' s names would be forwarded to the consent agenda for approval . The meeting adjourned at 6 : 31 p.m. cil hair ,-1 it Re or r; "'• PoRlso- This document along with the digital recording constitute the official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held October 4 , 2011 . cm 11 - 7 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 27,2011 SUBJECT: Resolution to establish a sister city relationship between Izhevsk, Russia and Salt Lake City STAFF REPORT BY: Jan Aramaki, Council Staff Member AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: ALL The Administration is requesting the City Council consider adopting a joint resolution with the Mayo to approve the establishment of a sister city relationship between Izhevsk,Russia and Salt Lake City. Izhevsk is the capital city of the Udmurt Republic in Russia and has been a Friendship City of Salt Lake City for the past six years. The six year relationship meets the Sister Cities Board's policy of a three year evaluation period. Salt Lake City provides staff to support the Sister Cities program along with an annual budget of $10,000 which is used mainly for hosting Sister City dignitaries and purchasing gifts to exchange at official events. According to the Administration,the City's relationship with Izhevsk also meets previously cited policy requiring that efforts,commitment, and financial resources needed for a successful Sister Cities program must come from the Board Members and the local community. The Administration reports there is significant interest and commitment from the local Russian community to continue their support in sustaining Izhevsk's relationship with Salt Lake City,and that financial resources are available. In past years,the Sister Cities Board establishes the budget and allocates equal portions to each active sister city relationship. Remaining funds are held in a miscellaneous fund and are used when the City hosts a special event for visiting Sister City dignitaries. The Sister Cities Board votes on how the miscellaneous funds shall be used. The Administration perceives the establishment of a sister city relationship with Izhevsk, Russia will not result in a budget impact. The Administration has received unanimous support from the Salt Lake City Sister Cities Board. There is also strong support from Mayor Alexander Ushakov of Izhevsk to establish a sister city relationship. If a sister city relationship with Izhevsk is approved,Mayor Ushakov—along with a delegation of government officials from Russia plans to visit Salt Lake City in the fall of 2011 to commemorate the sister city relationship. Background In 1956,President Dwight Eisenhower established the American"Sister Cities" program. Two years later Salt Lake City established its first Sister City relationship with Matsumoto,Japan. In 2008,Salt Lake City and Matsumoto celebrated their 50 year relationship. According to the Sister Cities International(SCI)website, "Membership with Sister Cities International is a great way for your community to establish meaningful and lasting global connections. These partnerships allow your community to creatively learn,work,and solve problems through cultural,educational,municipal, business, professional,and technical exchanges and projects." According to the Salt Lake City Sister Cities website,additional benefits of the relationships include respect,understanding,cooperation, 1 humanitarian aid,dignitary visits,economic opportunities,educational exchanges,and cultural understanding with various governments and people. The Sister Cities Board serves an advisory role to the Mayor regarding the Sister Cities Program. The Board's responsibility involves implementing the goals and objectives of the Sister Cities program. The Board is comprised of community members with strong ties and interest in the program. Each Sister City has one Board Member with voting rights. In addition,members-at-large,individuals previously involved with the Sister Cities program or with international relationships or responsibilities,are appointed by the Mayor with the advice and consent of the City Council. They,too,have voting rights. Representatives for Friendship Cities,which have not been adopted as an official Sister City,do not have voting rights but are welcome and encouraged to attend Board meetings. Typically,requests for a city to be considered for the Sister Cities program come from members of the public who have a personal connection to a particular city or its people. Salt Lake City receives a steady stream of requests from communities around the world who are interested in forming a Sister City elationship. In an effort to determine which requests have the greatest chance of success,the Board adopted a Friendship City policy. This policy is essentially a three year test or evaluation period to determine whether or not a City being considered should be promoted to a Sister City. Mutual benefits or the Sister Cities,a high level of personal and community interest,and financial resources are all considered in the determination of whether or not to promote a Friendship City to a Sister City. In order for a Sister City partnership to be officially recognized,Salt Lake City Council Members and Mayor sign a joint resolution and the appropriate action is completed by the other city's government officials. Salt Lake City currently has seven Sister Cities and two Friendship Cities,one being Izhevsk. Torino,Italy was promoted to a Sister City in 2006 after first being a Friendship City,and now the Administration is proposing to promote Izhevsk from being a Friendship City to a Sister City. The following table is a current list of Sister and Friendship Cities: Salt Lake City-Sister Cities City Population Date Relationship EstablishedAdditio2000nal InformInformationMatsumoto,Japan 210,000 1958 Quezon City,Philippine 2,200,000 1960 Inactivc since Onto,Bolivia 200,000 1977 Keelung Taiwan(China) 350,000 1979 Chernivtai,Ukraine 295,000 1989 Thanes Town,Ireland 8,000 2000 Torino,Italy 900,000 2006 Torino was initially adopted as a Friendship City Salt Lake City- Friendship Cities ILtevsk,Russia 650,000 2004 Trujillo,Pent 860,000 2005 2 Although each of the Sister and Friendship Cities share many common goals,the story of each City's establishment and evolution varies. The level of involvement may change due to shifting political priorities,changing of city administrations,and government instability. cc: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Frank Gray,Ed Rutan,Mary DeLaMare-Schaefer,Luann Clark, Sara Hiatt,Holly Hilton,Mayor Liaisons,Jaysen Oldroyd,Steven Akerlow,Sister Cities Board, City Council Staff FRANK B. GRAY S»..�`�F.l' L`aj yr�.��. oID iloD1 SCANNED TO Y4o"�.`." GANNEtt E DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT 6 AIOR Y DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR DATE:TE: 7/9/ , DEPUTY DIRECTOR �Jr[ [ G ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL REC VED II Date Received: SEP 19 2011 David veritt, Chief of Staff B Coatt Date Sent to City Council: 001 I2D' 20i( TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 24, 2011 Jill Remington-Love, Chair ---- -- --.- - t— FROM: Frank Gray, Director Community& Economic Devel ment SUBJECT: Izhevsk, Russia promotion from Friendship City status to Sister City status STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark, Housing & Neighborhood Development Director, at 535-6136 or luann.clark@slcgov.com Sara Hiatt, Sister Cities Coordinator, at 535-6035 or sara.hiatt@slcgov.com RECOMMENDATION: That the Salt Lake City Council approves the resolution making Izhevsk, Russia a Sister City. DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: Representatives from the Izhevsk, Russia Friendship City Committee have requested a promotion of the existing friendship city relationship between Izhevsk, Russia and Salt Lake City to that of a sister city status. Alexander Ushakov, the new Mayor of Izhevsk, is interested in pursuing a relationship with Salt Lake City beyond a friendship status. Izhevsk is the capitol city of the Udmurt Republic in Russia, which correlates to Salt Lake City as the capitol city of Utah. It is the City's policy to establish new relationships as friendship cities for a period of several years in order to evaluate the potential strength and vitality of the relationship. In January 2001, the City Council adopted a policy governing sister city relationships and this relationship meets 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 1454B6, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4114-5486 TELEPHONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 1301-535-6005 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CEO Is Cry nccrc[o vav[n all of the criteria contained in that policy. Izhevsk has been a very successful friendship city for . . the past six years. This relationship has been, and will continue to be, supported by a local Russian community that has demonstrated their dedication to this relationship and their ability to oversee and be responsible for its long-term success. A joint resolution by the Mayor and City Council is required to establish new sister cities. If the Mayor and the City Council approve the promotion of this relationship to that of a sister city, a delegation of government officials from Russia, including Mayor Ushakov, will come to Salt Lake City in the fall of 2011 to commemorate this event. Izhevsk is a highly industrialized city, with many manufacturing plants. It is the birthplace of the AK-47 assault rifle (and the birthplace of Andrei Kirilenko, resulting in his Jazz number as AK- 47). Arms production is a major industry in Izhevsk. The main purpose of one of their visiting delegations to SLC was to meet with the State of Utah and military personnel from the Tooele Army Depot to discuss the storage of arms. Tooele and West Jordan also have sister city relationships with Votkinsk and Kamabarka, Russia which should also help to retain the strength and vitality of this relationship. Recommendation: A. Sister Cities Board's Recommendation The Salt Lake City Sister Cities Board unanimously supports the promotion of Izhevsk, Russia to a Sister City relationship. B. Mayor's Recommendation Mayor Becker reviewed this issue on March 1, 2011 and granted his administrative approval on March 17, 2011. RE: State Street Plaza Page 2 of 2 JOINT RESOLUTION NO. OF 2011 (Sister-City relationship between Izhevsk, Russia and Salt Lake City, Utah). A joint resolution of the City Council and the Mayor of Salt Lake City approving the establishment of a Sister-City relationship between Izhevsk, Russia and Salt Lake City, Utah. WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation ("Salt Lake City") and Izhevsk, Russia ("Izhevsk") have maintained a Friendship City relationship for the past six (6) years; and WHEREAS, the Friendship City relationship between Salt Lake City and Izhevsk has been very successful and has received a significant amount of community support; and WHEREAS, Izhevsk has indicated its desire to promote the existing Friendship City relationship between the two cities to a Sister City relationship; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City likewise desires to establish a Sister City relationship with Izhevsk; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Sister Cities Board has recommended that Salt Lake City establish a Sister City relationship with Izhevsk; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council find that there is sufficient interest and support in the local community to accomplish the objectives of the proposed Sister City relationship; and WHEREAS, the Mayor and City Council find that there are sufficient assets, resources and human resource support available in the local community to effectively promote community building objectives between Salt Lake City and Izhevsk. THEREFORE, BE IT JOINTLY RESOLVED by the City Council and the Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: 1. The City Council hereby approves the establishment of a Sister City relationship between Izhevsk, Russia and Salt Lake City, Utah; and 2. Mayor Ralph Becker likewise approves the establishment of a Sister City relationship between Izhevsk, Russia and Salt Lake City, Utah; and 3. Pursuant to the foregoing approvals from the City Council and the Mayor, the relationship between Izhevsk, Russia and Salt Lake City, Utah will be promoted from a Friendship City relationship to a Sister City relationship. Passed and Adopted this day of Amok Ralph Becker, Mayor Jill Remington Love, Chair, District Five Stan Penfold, Vice Chair, District Three Carlton J. Christensen, District One Van Turner, District Two Luke Garrott, District Four JT Martin, District Six Soren D. Simonsen, District Seven Amok APPROVED AS TO FORM SALT LA CITY ATTORNE S OF ICE BY: ( 4' i DATE: l 3-1,2,q /// ATTEST: CITY RECORDER ADMINISTRATIVE APPROVAL TO: Ralph Becker, Mayor DATE: March 16, 2011 FROM: LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director SUBJECT: lzhevsk, Russia changing from Friendship City to a Sister City STAFF CONTACTS: LuAnn Clark at 801-535-6136 ACTION REQUIRED: Approval to promote lzhevsk, Russia to a Sister City status BUDGET IMPACT: None DISCUSSION: lzhesysk community representatives have requested to establishing a sister city relationship between Izhevsk, Russia and Salt Lake City. Currently a friendship city, lzhevsk has recently elected a new Mayor who is interested in pursuing a relationship with Salt Lake City beyond a friendship status. Before new sister city relationships are established, a friendship city relationship is created for a period of time in order to evaluate the potential strength and vitality of the relationship. In January 2001, the City Council adopted a policy governing sister city relationships and this relationship meets all of the criteria contained in that policy. This relationship will be supported primarily by the local Russian community who has clearly demonstrated, through numerous delegatory visits between both cities, through their community events, and their ability to be responsible for the long term success of this relationship. A joint resolution by the Mayor and City Council is required to establish new sister cities. Therefore, we are seeking your approval prior to a request that this matter be scheduled for the City Council's review and consideration. If the Mayor and the City Council approve the promotion of this relationship to that of a sister city, a delegation of government officials from Russia, including their new mayor, will come to Salt Lake City in the fall of 2011 to sign the official documents for this sister city relationship. SLC has a large population of immigrants from Russia, who can be a great resource of community support for this relationship. Izhevsk is a highly industrialized city, with many manufacturing plants. It is the birthplace of the AK-47 assault rifle (and the birthplace of Andrei Kirilenko, resulting in his JAll number as AK-47). Arms production is a large industry in Izhevsk. One of their visiting delegations to SLC met with the State of ogook Utah and military personnel from the Tooele Army Depot to discuss the storage of arms. Propaganda in Russia is very destructive to the U.S. Establishing a Sister City relationship with lzhevsk will help to share a more accurate image of Utah and the United States of America. Tooele and West Jordan also have sister city relationships with Votkinsk and Kamabarka, Russia. SISTER CITIES ADVISORY BOARD'S RECOMMENDATIONS: It has been recommended by the Sister Cities Board that lzhevsk, Russia be promoted from a Friendship City to a Sister City. APPROVAL OF IZHEVSK, RUSSIA BECOMING A SISTER CITY AS RECOMMENDED BY THE SALT LAKE CITY SISTER CITIES BOARD: By: I, . l v Date: 312-11 11 Ralph Becker, Mayor SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM DATE: October 4,2011 SUBJECT: Justice Court Recertification AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Justice Court AND CONTACT PERSON: Curtis Preece,Courts Administrator and Judge Jeanne Robison The Salt Lake City Justice Court is required to be certified every four years by the Utah Judicial Council in order to continue to operate. This is the process by which the Administrative Office of Courts determines that the City is continuing to meet the statutory and administrative performance standards for justice courts. KEY ELEMENTS: 1) The Court Certification process includes the following: a) The justice court judge must complete and sign a Court Certification Affidavit indicating that the court meets all minimum statutory and Judicial Council requirements. b) The City Attorney must submit an opinion notifying the City Council of the requirements for the operation of the justice court, that the court meets these requirements, and that it is legally feasible to continue operations. (See attached opinion from the Attorney's Office.) c) The Council must pass a resolution requesting recertification of the court, and affirming that the City is willing to meet all requirements for the operation of the court during the four year certification period. d) A copy of the City's court security plan is required. An updated version of the court security plan will be filed as part of the current Court Certification process and is included in the Administration's transmittal for the Council's review. 2) Budget Impact: The Court recertification has no additional implications to the existing budget of the Justice Court. 3) The Council may wish to note that the Administration's transmittal includes a memo from the City Attorney's office discussing the process for recertification and requirements to provide support and budget for reasonable operations of the Court. QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION: 1) The Justice Court recently implemented a new case management system, as required by the State by July 1, 2011. The Council may wish to ask about the implementation and how the Court is adjusting to the new system. f 2) The Council may wish to ask about the plans to implement the new audio recording system that was required by the State Legislature for implementation by next July 1, 1 2012. During the annual budget discussions this past June, the Administration reported that they would search for grant funds to help pay for the cost of the system. The Council 3 may also wish to ask about the status of grants or other funding sources. CC: David Everitt,Ed Rutan,Judge Jeanne Robison,Curtis Preece,Kay Christensen • SCANNEDy' 0 TO: SCANNED B11<:4 e--" RALPHr BECKERo .®` ,''11 a1 oat c•+►o� :til"'�.i=1,11/ j DATE: OFFICE OF THE MAYOR {f ( / COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL , 11 L..b 1.!-0i J` A RECEIVED Date Receive R: SEP 25 2011 I. •. Everitt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Coun i •► , SLC COUNCIL.OFFICE Oq 231Zolt TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 23, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Justice Court Recertification STAFF CONTACT: Curtis Preece 801-535-7173 Judge Jeanne Robison Presiding Judge DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Resolution BUDGET IMPACT: None, except continued funding of the Justice Court. BACKGROUND DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Justice Court began operating on July 1, 2002, having been certified by the Utah Judicial Council. By state statute, all justice courts must be recertified by the Utah Judicial Council every four years in order to continue operations. Salt Lake City has received notification from the Administrative Office of the Courts that the Salt Lake City Justice Court must submit a completed recertification packet to them by October 24, 2011. The packet must include the following: 1. Court Certification Affidavit completed and signed by a justice court judge. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 • P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5474 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com a.a.a 2. A copy of a written opinion from the City Attorney directed to the appropriate sponsoring .4040, governmental entity advising that entity of all requirements for the operation of the justice court and the feasibility of maintaining the court. 3. A copy of the duly passed resolution of the sponsoring governmental entity that a. requests recertification of the court, and b. affirms that the entity is willing to meet all requirements for the operation of the court during the period of recertification 4. A copy of the court security plan, as required by C.J.A. Rule 3-414, unless it has not changed since last submitted. A copy of the Court Certification Affidavit , completed and executed by Judge Jeanne Robison, Presiding Judge of the Salt Lake City Justice Court, is attached hereto. The written opinion of Jaysen Oldroyd, Senior Salt Lake City Attorney, is also attached. The final attachment is a copy of the court security plan required by C.J.A. 3-414. PUBLIC PROCESS: The attached resolution is being submitted to meet legal requirements. No process other than City Council passage of the Resolution is applicable. RESOLUTION NO. OF 2011 REQUESTING THE RECERTIFICATION OF THE JUSTICE COURT OF SALT LAKE CITY WHEREAS, the provisions of Utah Code Ann. § 78A-7-703 (2011), require that Justice Courts be recertified at the end of each four-year term by the Utah Judicial Council; and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation has received notification from the Administrative Office of the Courts that in order for the Salt Lake City Justice Court to be recertified, an application must be returned to that office by October 24, 2011; and WHEREAS, the members of the Salt Lake City Council have received an opinion letter from Senior City Attorney Jaysen R. Oldroyd which sets forth the requirements for the operation of a justice court, states that the Salt Lake City Justice Court meets such minimum requirements and opines that it is legally feasible for the City to maintain a justice court; and WHEREAS, the members of the Salt Lake City Council have determined that it is in the best interests of Salt Lake City to continue to maintain a justice court; NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah that: (1) The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah hereby requests recertification of the Justice Court of Salt Lake City by the Justice Courts Standards Committee and the Utah Judicial Council; and (2) The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah hereby affirms its willingness to continue to meet all requirements set forth by the Judicial Council for continued operation of the Justice Court of Salt Lake City for the next four-year term of court, except as to any requirements waived by the Utah Judicial Council. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of 2011. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIR ATTEST: Approved as to form: Salt Lake City Attorney By: CHIEF DEPUTY CITY RECORDER enior City Attorney Date: lyzv l l HB_ATTY-itI9688-vl-Resolution - Justice Court Recertification 2 LUI'. alt Lake City Attlf_,ey Ztbmini trattbe fftce of the CourticANkle o• ChiefJustice Christine M.Durham August 22,2011 • SL'a • Utah Supreme Court Chair,Utah Judicial Council • t J hi Mayor Ralph Becker rn City&County Bldg. II SEP 22 2011 451 S.State St. Salt Lake City,UT 84111 By Dear Mayor Becker, State statute requires that municipal justice courts be recertified by the Utah Judicial Council every four years,and the certification for your municipal justice court expires this coming February. Enclosed please find a recertification packet that includes an application for certification. Copies of this packet are also being sent to your justice court judge and city attorney. A copy is available for review on the courts'web site as well at: http://www.utcourts.gov/courts/just/resources.html. In order to be recertified,a municipality must submit a resolution adopted by your municipal legislative body that requests recertification and agrees to continue to comply with the operational standards for the term of recertification,an opinion letter from the city attorney,and a completed and signed affidavit submitted by the municipal justice court judge. All three items are described in more detail in the application for recertification. All three components of the recertification application are due at the Administrative Office of the Courts by October 24,2011. The completed packet should be mailed to: Justice Court Standards Committee,Attention: Richard Schwermer,Administrative Office of the Courts,P.O. Box 140241,Salt Lake City,UT 84114-0241. Thank you for your continued commitment to a quality local judiciary,and please call me if you have any questions about this recertification process. Si erel , Richard H.Schwermer Assistant State Court Administrator si Enclosure cc: Municipal Justice Court Judge City Attorney- The mission of the Utah judiciary is to provide the people an open,fair, efficient,and independent system for the advancement of justice under the law. 450 South State Street/P.O.Box 140241/Salt Lake City;UT 84114-0241/801-578-3800/FAX:801-578-3843 INSTRUCTIONS TO APPLICANT FOR RECERTIFICATION As part of the application process, each entity should carefully review all requirements for the operation of Justice Courts. In order to aid governing bodies in obtaining the necessary information regarding the continuing obligations of an entity with respect to the operations of the Court, the governing body of each entity must request and review a written opinion from its attorney advising the entity of all requirements for the operation of a Justice Court, and the feasibility of maintaining a Justice Court. In addition,prior to submission of this application,each entity must duly pass a resolution requesting recertification. The resolution must also affirm that the entity is willing to meet all requirements for the operation of the Court during the period of certification. A copy of the attorney's opinion and the resolution must accompany the application. Please use the checklist on page 21 of this packet. A representative of the entity may appear before the Committee to present the application and may present any additional information which the applicant desires to present to the Committee. In the event that additional information is deemed necessary,the Committee may request such additional information from the applicant. Certification will certify the court to process all cases which come within the jurisdiction of the court including criminal, civil and small claims cases. Statutes of the State of Utah require that certain standards be met in the operation of a Justice Court. These statutory requirements include: 1. All official court business shall be conducted in a courtroom or an office located in a public facility which is conducive and appropriate to the administration of justice(78A-7-213). 2. Each court shall be open and judicial business shall be transacted every day as provided by law(78A-7-213),although the judge is not required to be present during all hours that the court is open. 3. The hours that the court will be open shall be posted conspicuously at the court and in local public buildings (78A-7-213). 4. The judge and the clerk of the court shall attend the court at regularly scheduled times (78A-7-213). 5. The entity creating the Justice Court shall provide and compensate a judge and clerical personnel to conduct the business of the court (78A-7-207 and 78A-7-211). 6. The entity creating a Justice Court shall assume the expenses of travel,meals,and lodging for the judge of that court to attend required judicial education and training(78A-7-205). 7. The entity creating a Justice Court shall assume the cost of travel and training expenses of clerical personnel at training sessions conducted by the Judicial Council(78A-7-211). 1 8. The entity creating the Justice Court shall provide a sufficient staff of public prosecutors to attend the court and perform the duties of prosecution (78A-7-209). 9. The entity creating the court shall provide adequate funding for attorneys where persons are indigent as provided by law(78A-7-209). 10. The entity creating the court shall provide sufficient local law enforcement officers to attend court when required and provide security for the court(78A-7-209). 11. Witnesses and jury fees as required by law shall be paid by the entity which creates the court (10-7-76 and 17-50-319). 12. Any fine,surcharge,or assessment which is payable to the State shall be forwarded to the State as required by law(78A-7-120 and 78A-7-121). 13. Every entity creating a court shall pay the judge of that court a fixed compensation, within the range provided by statute (78A-7-206). 14. Court shall be held within the jurisdiction of the court, except as provided by law (78A-7-212). 15. The entity creating the court shall provide and keep current for the court a copy of the Motor Vehicle Laws of the State of Utah, appropriate copies of the Utah Code, the Justice Court Manual, state laws affecting local governments,local ordinances,and other necessary legal reference material (78A-7-214). 16. All required reports and audits shall be filed as required by law or by rule of the Judicial Council pursuant to Section 78A-7-215. 17. Effective July 1, 2011, all Justice Courts shall use a common case management system and disposition reporting system as specified by the Judicial Council (78A-7-213). 18. Effective July 1,2012,all Justice Courts shall record all proceedings with a digital audio recording device and maintain the audio recordings for one year. (78A-7-103) In addition to those requirements which are directly imposed by statute,section 78A-7-103 directs the Judicial Council to promulgate minimum requirements for the creation and certification of Justice Courts. Pursuant to statute, the Judicial Council has adopted the following minimum requirements: 1) That the Court be opened for at least one hour each day that the court is required to be open as provided by law. Additional hours of operation are specified in C.J.A. Rule 9-105. 2) That the judge be available to attend court and conduct court business as needed. 2 3) That the minimum furnishings for a courtroom include: a desk and chair for the judge(on a six inch riser),a desk and chair for the court clerk,chairs for witnesses, separate tables and appropriate chairs for plaintiffs and defendants, a Utah State flag, a United States flag, a separate area and chairs for at least four jurors, a separate area with appropriate seating for the public, an appropriate room for jury deliberations, and an appropriate area or room for victims and witnesses which is separate from the public. (A suggested courtroom configuration is available on the Justice Court web site at: http://www.utcourts.gov/intranet/just/docs/MasterPlan.pdf). 4) A judicial robe, a gavel, current bail schedules, a copy of the Code of Judicial Administration, and necessary forms and supplies. 5) Office space for the judge and clerk(under certain circumstances this space may be shared, but if shared, the judge and clerk must have priority to use the space whenever needed). The office space shall include a desk for the judge and a desk for the clerk, secure filing cabinets for the judge and the clerk, a telephone for the judge and a telephone for the clerk, appropriate office supplies to conduct court business, a cash register or secured cash box, a typewriter or word processor, and access to a copy machine. 6) A clerk must be present during the time the court is open each day and during court sessions, as required by the judge. 7) The entity must have at least one peace officer(which may be contracted). 8) A court security plan must be submitted consistent with C.J.A. Rule 3-414. 9) Each court must have at least one computer with access to the interne, and appropriate software and security/encryption technology to allow for electronic reporting and access to Driver License Division and the Bureau of Criminal Identification, as defined by the reporting and retrieval standards promulgated by the Department of Public Safety. Monthly reports must also be electronically submitted to the Administrative Office of the Courts monthly. Also note that effective July 1, 2011, all justice courts shall use a common case management system and disposition reporting system as specified by the Judicial Council(78A- 7-213). 10) Each court shall report required case disposition information to DLD,BCI and the Administrative Office of the Courts electronically,as described in number 9 above. In establishing minimum requirements, the Judicial Council has determined that Justice Courts with higher case filings require greater support services. To accommodate the great differences in judicial activity between Justice Courts within the state, the Council has divided 3 courts into four classes based upon the average monthly cases filed in that court. Minimum standards have been set for each classification. Courts which have an average of less than 61 cases filed each month are classified as Class IV Courts. The minimum requirements for a Class IV Court are stated above. (These requirements are also attached as Class IV minimum requirements). These requirements include both the statutory requirements and requirements promulgated by the Judicial Council, and are sometimes hereinafter referred to as "base requirements." Courts which have an average of more than 60 but less than 201 cases filed each month are classified as Class III Courts. In addition to the base requirements,a Class III Court must be open more hours each week(see attached Class III minimum requirements),and court must be scheduled at least every other week. Courts which have an average of more than 200 but less than 501 cases filed each month are classified as Class II Courts. In addition to the base requirements, Class II Courts are required to be open additional hours (see attached Class II minimum requirements), the courtroom configuration is required to be permanent(although the courtroom may be used by another entity when the court is not in session), court must be scheduled at least weekly, the judge must be provided an appropriate office (chambers) for his own use, clerical space may not be shared, at least one full-time clerk must be provided(see attached Class II minimum requirements),and the courtroom,judge's chamber and clerk's office must be in the same building. Courts which have an average monthly filing of more than 500 cases are classified as Class •+w. I Courts. Class I Courts are considered to be full-time courts. In addition to the base requirements, a Class I Court must have a full-time judge, at least three clerks, it must be open during regular business hours, it must have a courtroom which is dedicated for the exclusive use as a court and which meets the master plan guideline adopted by the Judicial Council, and the judge's chambers and clerk's office cannot be shared by another entity. The State Legislature has provided that any Justice Court which continues to meet the minimum requirements for its class is entitled to be recertified. However,the Judicial Council also has authority to waive any minimum requirement imposed by rule of the Council rather than by statute. Waiver is at the discretion of the Judicial Council and will be based upon a demonstrated need for a court to conduct judicial business and upon public convenience. Any waiver will generally be for the entire term of the certification. A waiver must be obtained through the Judicial Council each time a court is recertified,and the fact that a waiver has been previously granted will not be determinative on the issue of waiver for any successive application. There is a great diversity in the needs of the Justice Courts. The needs of a particular Court are affected by the type of cases filed(some courts have a high percentage of traffic matters,while others handle significant numbers of criminal and small claims matters),the location of the Court, the number of law enforcement agencies served, the policies and procedures followed by each judge with respect to the operation of the Court, and many other factors. Clerical resources and judicial time are particularly sensitive to local conditions. 4 In order to adequately function it is anticipated that some courts will exceed minimum requirements for clerical resources and judicial time. Similarly,the particular circumstances of a court may allow it to operate efficiently with less than the minimum requirements in the above areas; and in such circumstances waiver may be requested. The statute also provides that the Judicial Council may grant an extension of time for any requirement which is not specifically required by statute. An extension may be granted at the discretion of the Judicial Council where individual circumstances temporarily prevent the entity from meeting a minimum requirement. An extension will be for a specific period of time and the certification of the court will terminate at the end of the extension period. In order for the court to continue to operate beyond the extension period, the court must be certified as meeting all requirements, obtain an additional extension, or obtain a waiver as provided above. Applications for existing courts for recertification shall be accompanied by a affidavit of the judge,on a form approved by the Judicial Council,certifying that the operational standards for the court have been met. Any exceptions to compliance with the minimum requirements or operational standards shall be noted on the above form. In addition, individual Justice Court Judges must meet with the governing body of the entity which created the court at least once a year to review the budget of the court, review compliance with the requirements and operational standards of the court, and discuss other items of common concern and shall certify that this meeting has been held, and that the operational standards for the court have been met during the prior year. Upon submission of an application, the Justice Court Standards Committee will conduct an appropriate independent investigation and notify the entity of its initial recommendations, whether in favor or against certification. If the Committee intends to recommend against certification, it shall specify the minimum requirements that have not been met. The entity may then present additional information to the Committee, request an extension, or request a waiver. After making an appropriate investigation based upon any additional information or request made by the entity,the Committee will then submit its recommendations to the Judicial Council. The recommendations shall specify whether or not a waiver or extension should be granted, if either has been requested. If the recommendation is against recertification,or against waiver,or against extension, the entity may request that it be allowed to make an appearance before the Judicial Council. Any request to appear before the Judicial Council must be filed within 15 days of notification of the Committee's recommendations. If you have any questions concerning this application,please contact Richard Schwermer, staff to the Justice Court Standards Committee,at P. O.Box 140241, Salt Lake City,Utah 84114- 0241, telephone: (801)578-3816. 5 OPERATIONAL STANDARDS The following standards are intended to be applied in the recertification review by the Justice Court Standards Committee as operational standards. The justice courts are classified into four classes, based upon case filings. The case filing information is expressed in terms of filings per month,but courts will be classified on the basis of average monthly filings over a period of at least one year. The classification of a court is determined at creation and is subject to review and possible reclassification whenever the court is being recertified. While the standards for some areas of court operation are uniform for all levels of justice court, other standards are developed on a continuum, reflecting the difference in the time needed to competently manage caseloads of different levels. CLASS I MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS [Note that the following are minimum requirements. In order to adequately function as a Class I Court it may be necessary for your court to exceed the minimum requirements.] - FILINGS: 501 or more citations or cases filed per month - HOURS: Court Open: Full Time Judge: Full Time - FACILITY: Dedicated Courtroom (with juror deliberation room) Judge's Chambers Clerk Office Co-located in the same facility (Meet the Master Plan Guidelines adopted by the Judicial Council) - CLERICAL RESOURCES: At least three full time clerks - PROSECUTION: Prosecutor to screen cases and represent the county or municipality at trial. - INDIGENT DEFENSE: The municipality or county provides adequate funding to provide indigent defense counsel for any defendant who requests representation and qualifies. 6 - LEGAL RESOURCES: The following must be available and kept current: a. Utah Code b. Local ordinances c. Justice Court Manual d. Code of Judicial Administration e. Uniform Bail Schedule f. Other legal resources as required under §78A-7-214. - LAW ENFORCEMENT: The local government creating the court must have at least one employed or contracted peace officer. -BAILIFF: The local government creating the court must provide a sworn law enforcement officer to attend court when required and provide security for the court. - SECURITY PLAN: A court security plan must be submitted consistent with C.J.A. Rule 3-414. -JURY/WITNESS FEES: Local government is responsible for payment of statutory juror and witness fees. Amok -EDUCATION: Local government is responsible for costs of attendance at Judicial Council mandated training - at least 30 hours per year for the judge, and 10 hours for clerks. - REPORTING: All reports and audits shall be made and timely filed as provided by law or by rule of Judicial Council. Reports to the Driver License Division and the Bureau of Criminal Identification must be made electronically, via the internet. -AUDIO RECORDING: Effective July 1, 2012, all Justice Courts shall record all proceedings with a digital audio recording device and maintain the audio recordings for one year. (78A-7-103) CLASS II MINIMUM REOUIREMENTS [Note that the following are minimum requirements. In order to adequately function as a Class II Court it may be necessary for your court to exceed the minimum requirements.] 7 -FILINGS: 201 to 500 citations or cases a month. -HOURS: Court Open 201-300 filings At least 4 hours per day 301-400 filings At least 5 hours per day 401-500 filings At least 6 hours per day Judge available when needed. Trial calendar set at least weekly. - FACILITY: Courtroom (configuration is permanent but may be shared) Judge's Office Clerk Office (Courtroom and office must be co-located in the same building) - CLERICAL RESOURCES: 201-275 filings At least one full time clerk 276-350 filings 1.5 FTEs 351-425 filings 2.0 FTEs 426-500 filings 2.5 FTEs -PROSECUTION: Prosecutor to screen cases and represent the county or municipality at trial. -INDIGENT DEFENSE: The municipality or county provides adequate funding to provide indigent defense counsel for any defendant who requests representation and qualifies. - LEGAL RESOURCES: The following must be available and kept current: a. Utah Code b. Local ordinances c. Justice Court Manual d. Code of Judicial Administration e. Uniform Bail Schedule f. Other legal resources as required under §78A-7-214 -LAW ENFORCEMENT: The local government creating the court must have at least one employed or contracted peace officer. 8 -BAILIFF: The local government creating the court must provide a sworn law enforcement officer to attend court when required and provide security for the court. - SECURITY PLAN: A court security plan must be submitted consistent with C.J.A. Rule 3-414. -JURY/WITNESS FEES: Local government is responsible for payment of statutory juror and witness fees. - EDUCATION: Local government is responsible for costs of attendance at Judicial Council mandated training - at least 30 hours per year for the judge, and 10 hours for clerks.. -REPORTING: All reports and audits shall be made and timely filed as provided by law or by rule of Judicial Council. Reports to the Driver License Division and the Bureau of Criminal Identification must be made electronically,via the internet. -AUDIO RECORDING: Effective July 1, 2012, all Justice Courts shall record all proceedings with a digital audio recording device and maintain the audio recordings for one year. (78A-7-103) , CLASS III MINIMUM REQUIREMENTS [Note that the following are minimum requirements. In order to adequately function as a Class III Court it may be necessary for your court to exceed the minimum requirements.] -FILINGS: 61-200 citations or cases per month - HOURS: Court Open 61-150 filings At least 2 hours a day 151-200 filings At least 3 hours a day Judge available as needed. Trial calendar set at least every other week. -FACILITY: Courtroom (access to public facility for trials, arraignments, etc.) Judge's/clerk office (Meets minimum requirements) 9 - CLERICAL RESOURCES: At least one clerk required to be available daily during the scheduled hours of court operation and during court sessions as needed. -PROSECUTION: Prosecutor to screen cases and represent the county or municipality at trial. -INDIGENT DEFENSE: The municipality or county provides adequate funding to provide indigent defense counsel for any defendant who requests representation and qualifies. -LEGAL RESOURCES: The following must be available and kept current: a. Utah Code b. Local ordinances c. Justice Court Manual d. Code of Judicial Administration e. Uniform Bail Schedule f. Other legal resources as required under §78A-7-214 - LAW ENFORCEMENT: The local government creating the court must have at least one employed or contracted peace officer. - BAILIFF: The local government creating the court must provide a sworn law enforcement officer to attend court when required and provide security for the court. - SECURITY PLAN: A court security plan must be submitted consistent with C.J.A. Rule 3-414. -JURY/WITNESS FEES: Local government is responsible for payment of statutory juror and witness fees. -EDUCATION: Local government is responsible for costs of attendance at Judicial Council mandated training - at least 30 hours each year for the judge, and 10 hours for clerks. -REPORTING: All reports and audits shall be made and timely filed as provided by law or by rule of Judicial Council. Reports to the Driver License Division and the Bureau of Criminal Identification must be made electronically, via the internet. 10 -AUDIO RECORDING: Aglow Effective July 1, 2012, all Justice Courts shall record all proceedings with a digital audio recording device and maintain the audio recordings for one year. (78A-7-103) CLASS IV MINIMUM REOUIREMENTS [Note that the following are minimum requirements. In order to adequately function as a Class IV Court it may be necessary for your court to exceed the minimum requirements.] -FILINGS: 0-60 citations and/or cases per month -HOURS: Court open at least one hour per day. Judge available as needed and trial calendar set at least monthly. -FACILITY: Courtroom (access to public facility for trials, arraignments, etc.) Judge's/clerk office (can be a shared resource but court has priority when needed.) (Meets minimum requirements) — - CLERICAL RESOURCES: At least one clerk required to be available daily during the scheduled hours of court operation and during court sessions. - PROSECUTION: Prosecutor to screen cases and represent the county or municipality at trial. - INDIGENT DEFENSE: The municipality or county provides adequate funding to provide indigent defense counsel for any defendant who requests representation and qualifies. - LEGAL RESOURCES: The following must be available and kept current: a. Utah Code b. Local ordinances c. Justice Court Manual d. Code of Judicial Administration e. Uniform Bail Schedule f. Other legal resources as required under §78A-7-214 11 -LAW ENFORCEMENT: The local government creating the court must have at least one employed or contracted peace officer. -BAILIFF: The local government creating the court must provide a sworn law enforcement officer to attend court when required and provide security for the court. - SECURITY PLAN: A court security plan must be submitted consistent with C.J.A. Rule 3-414. -JURY/WITNESS FEES: Local government is responsible for payment of statutory juror and witness fees. -EDUCATION: Local government is responsible for costs of attendance at Judicial Council mandated training - at least 30 hours each year for the judge, and 10 hours for clerks. -REPORTING: All reports and audits shall be made and timely filed as provided by law or by rule of Judicial Council. Reports to the Driver License Division and the Bureau of Criminal Identification must be made electronically, via the internet. -AUDIO RECORDING: Effective July 1, 2012, all Justice Courts shall record all proceedings with a digital audio recording device and maintain the audio recordings for one year. (78A-7-103) 12 COURT CERTIFICATION AFFIDAVIT Court Location: Salt Lake City Justice Court Judge: Jeanne Robison, Presiding Judge Address: 333 South 200 East Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Telephone: (801) 535-6421 Level of Court(Circle one):( II III IV Average Case Filings Per Month: Traffic 4.500: Criminal 1,200; Parking 9,150. Daily Court Hours by Day: 7:30 - 5:00 Number of Full-time Clerks: 32 #Hours Worked Per Week Per Clerk: 40 Number of Part-time Clerks: 5 #Hours Worked Per Week Per Clerk: 20 This form is divided into two parts. Section I contains those requirements that are statutory and are not waivable. Section II contains minimum requirements established by the Judicial Council, and those requirements may be waived pursuant to the procedure set forth in the instructions to applicant included with the application for certification. Comes now Judge Justice Court Judge for and, except as specifically noted below, certifies as follows: 13 SECTION I THE FOLLOWING ITEMS ARE STATUTORY AND CANNOT BE WAIVED. CERTIFICATION WILL NOT BE GRANTED UNLESS EACH REQUIREMENT IS MET. Please indicate Yes or No to each of the following: 1. All official court business is conducted in a public facility. Yes 2. Court is open daily. Yes 3. The hours of court operation are posted conspicuously. Yes 4. The judge and the clerk attend court at regularly scheduled times based on the level of the court. Yes 5. The judge is compensated at a fixed rate, within the statutory range. Yes 6. The responsible governmental entity provides and compensates sufficient clerical personnel necessary to conduct the business of the court. Yes 7. The responsible governmental entity assumes the expenses of the travel of the judge for „ow purposes of required judicial education. Yes 8. The responsible governmental entity assumes the expenses of the travel of each clerk for the purposes of attending training sessions conducted by the Judicial Council. Yes 9. The responsible governmental entity provides the Court with: a. Sufficient prosecutorial support Yes b. Funding for attorneys for indigent defendants, as appropriate Yes c. Sufficient local law enforcement officers to attend court as provided by statute Yes d. Security for the court as provided by statute Yes e. Witness and juror fees Yes f. Copies of the motor vehicle laws of the State of Utah, appropriate copies of the Utah Code,the Justice Court Manual, state laws affecting local governments, local ordinances and other necessary legal reference materials Yes 14 10. Fines,surcharges and assessments which are payable to the state are forwarded as required by law. Yes 11. Court is held within the jurisdiction of the court,except as provided by law(78A-7-212). Yes 12. All required reports and audits are filed as required by law or Rule of the Judicial Council. Yes 13. Effective July 1,2012,the Court shall record all proceedings with a digital audio recording device and maintain the audio recordings for one year. (78A-7-103) Yes 15 SECTION II Section II contains minimum requirements established by the Judicial Council, and those requirements may be waived or an extension granted pursuant to the procedure set forth in the instructions to applicant included with this application for recertification. Please indicate YES or NO to each of the following: 1. Court is open each day as appropriate for the classification of the court. Yes 2. The judge is available to attend court and to conduct court business as needed. Yes 3. Minimum furnishings in the courtroom include: a. Desk and chair for the judge Yes b. A six inch riser Yes c. Desk and chair for the court clerk Yes d. Chairs for witnesses Yes 001144 e. Separate tables and appropriate chairs for plaintiffs and defendants Yes . f. A Utah State flag Yes g. A United States flag Yes h. A separate area and chairs for at least four jurors Yes i. A separate area with appropriate seating for the public Yes j. An appropriate room for jury deliberations Yes k. An appropriate area or room for victims and witnesses which is separate from the public Yes 1. A judicial robe Yes m. A gavel Yes n. Current bail schedules Yes o. A copy of the Code of Judicial Administration Yes 16 p. Necessary forms and supplies Yes q. Office space for the judge Yes r. Office space for the court clerk Yes s. Secure filing cabinets Yes t. Appropriate office supplies Yes u. A cash register or secured cash box Yes V. At least one computer with interne access Yes w. Access to a copy machine Yes 4. The appropriate number of clerks as required by the classification of the court are present during the time court is open each day and as needed during court sessions. Yes 5. Does the applicant have a law enforcement department? No 6. If the applicant does not have a law enforcement department,identify the law enforcement agency which will provide law enforcement services for the applicant: Security provided by Bringhurst. 7. A security plan has been filed consistent with C.J.A. Rule 3-414. Yes 8. The court electronically reports to the Driver License Division, the Bureau of Criminal Identification and the Administrative Office of the Courts as required. Yes 9. If the court is a Class I court: a. Judge is employed on a full-time basis Yes b. Dedicated courtroom which meets the master plan guidelines adopted by the Judicial Council Yes c. Court has a jury deliberation room Yes d. Judge's chambers, clerk's office, and courtroom are in the same building Yes e. Judge has his or her own private chambers Yes f. Clerk's office is separate from any other entity Yes 17 g. Court is open during normal business hours Yes 10. If the court is a Class II court: a. Court is open(check one) 1. 201-300 average monthly filings: at least 4 hrs./day 2. 301-400 average monthly filings: at least 5 hrs./day 3. 401-500 average monthly filings: at least 6 hrs./day b. Trial calendar is set at least weekly c. Courtroom configuration is permanent d. Courtroom,judge's chambers, and clerk's office are within the same building_ e. Judge has his or her own private chambers 11. If the court is a Class III court: a. Trial calendar is set at least every other week b. Court is opened (check one): r 1. 61-150 average monthly filings: at least 2 hrs./day 2. 151-200 average monthly filings: at least 3 hrs./day 12. If the court is a Class IV court: a. Trial calendar is set at least monthly b. Court is open at least 1 hour per day 13. If you have responded with a "no" to any item in Section II above,yoq must request a waiver or extension below and justify that request. If waiver or extension of any requirement is requested, please specify each requirement and indicate factors which demonstrate a need for the waiver or extension. For any requested extension, please include the requested extension period. (To receive a waiver or extension of any requirement,the information requested in this section must be provided. Remember that • statutory requirements cannot be waived or extended). 18 19 I am familiar with the minimum operational standards for this court, and except as noted above,those standards are currently met or exceeded. During the current term of the court,I have met with the appropriate governing body of the City to review the budget of the court, review compliance with the minimum requirements and operational standards,and discuss other items of common concern. DATED this 1 day of SCP/--V`' � , 20 1 . Justice C Judge SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this 'at y of 'S • , 20 NOTA ``('i,� •< l GI.F�/; t `�`, . Residing at:'` 'F•'i[ Ia ,767:°` :61:;to et Utah Z __alai 3-L So s 2©o SLC_ $ \\ Commission Expires: 20 CHECKLIST Please be sure that your application for recertification includes each of the following: 1. I Court Certification Affidavit completed and signed by the judge. 2. 7-A copy of a written opinion from the city or county attorney (as appropriate), directed to the appropriate sponsoring governmental entity,advising that entity of all requirements for the operation of the justice court and the feasibility of maintaining the court. 3. A copy of a duly passed resolution of the sponsoring governmental entity that a. requests recertification of the court, and b. affirms that the entity is willing to meet all requirements for the operation of the court during the period of certification. 4. ✓A copy of your court security plan, as required by C.J.A. Rule 3-414, unless it has not changed since last submitted. ALL FOUR OF THESE DOCUMENTS MUST BE RECEIVED BY THE JUSTICE COURT STANDARDS COMMITTEE AT THE ADDRESS BELOW BY: OCTOBER 24,2011. Justice Court Standards Committee Attention: Richard Schwermer Administrative Office of the Courts P. O. Box 140241 Salt Lake City,Utah 84114-0241 • 21 S_� \ � rl`it �4i, LLtr _Iil �( RALPH BECKER MAYOR JAYSEN R.OLDROYD LAW DEPARTMENT EDWIN P.RUTAN,II SENIOR CITY ATTORNEY CITY ATTORNEY September 22, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street, Room 304 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Re: Recertification of Salt Lake City Justice Court Dear Council Chair Love and Council Members, Every four years, the Salt Lake City Justice Court must be recertified by the Utah Judicial Council in order to continue operations pursuant to §78A-7-103, Utah Code Ann. (2011). As part of that recertification process, I have been asked to provide an opinion letter addressing whether all requirements for the operation of a justice court have been met by Salt Lake City and whether it remains legally feasible to maintain a justice court. Statutory Requirements The Utah Code requires that certain standards be met in the operation of a justice court. These statutory requirements include: 1. All official court business shall be conducted in a courtroom or an office located in a public facility which is conducive and appropriate to the administration of justice (§78A-7-213). 2. Each court shall be open and judicial business shall be transacted every day as provided by law (§78A-7-213), although the judge is not required to be present during all hours that the court is open. 3. The hours that the court will be open shall be posted conspicuously at the court and in local public buildings (§78A-7213). 4. The judge and the clerk of the court shall attend the court at regularly scheduled times (§78A-7-213). 5. The entity creating the justice court shall provide and compensate a judge and clerical personnel to conduct the business of the court (§78A-7-207 and §78A-7-211). 6. The entity creating the justice court shall assume the expenses of travel, meals, and lodging for the judge of that court to attend required judicial education and training (§78A-7- 205). 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 505,P.O.BOX 145478,SALT LAKE CITY,UT 84114.5478 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7788 FAX: 801-535-7640 e✓RECYCLED PAPER 7. The entity creating the justice court shall assume the cost of travel and training expenses of clerical personnel at training sessions conducted by the Judicial Council (§78A-7- 205). 8. The entity creating the justice court shall provide a sufficient staff of public prosecutors to attend the court and perform the duties of prosecution (§78A-7-209). 9. The entity creating the justice court shall provide adequate funding for attorneys where persons are indigent as provided by law(§78A-7-209). 10. The entity creating the justice court shall provide sufficient local law enforcement officers to attend court when required and provide security for the court (§78A-7-209). 11. Witnesses and jury fees as required by law shall be paid by the entity which creates the justice court (§10-7-79 and §17-50-319). 12. Any fine, surcharge, or assessment which is payable to the State shall be forwarded to the State as required by law(§78A-7-120 and §78A-7-121). 13. Every entity creating a justice court shall pay the judge of that court a fixed compensation, within the range provided by statute (§78A-7-206). 14. Court shall be held within the jurisdiction of the court, except as provided by law (§78A-7-212). 15. The entity creating the court shall provide and keep current for the court a copy of the Motor Vehicle Laws of the State of Utah, appropriate copies of the Utah Code, the Justice Court Manual, state laws affecting local governments, local ordinances, and other necessary legal reference material (§78A-7-214). 16. All required reports and audits shall be filed as required by law or by rule of the Judicial Council pursuant to Section §78A-7-215. 17. Effective July 1, 2011, all justice courts shall use a common case management system and disposition reporting system as specified by the Judicial Council (§78A-7-213). 18. Effective July 1, 2012, all Justice Courts shall record all proceedings with a digital audio recording device and maintain the audio recordings for one year. (§78A-7-103). Judicial Council Requirements In addition to those requirements directly imposed by statute, §78A-7-103 directs the Judicial Council to promulgate minimum requirements for the creation and certification of justice courts. Pursuant to statute, the Judicial Council has adopted the following minimum requirements: 1. That the Court be opened for at least one hour each day that the court is required to be open as provided by law. Additional hours of operation are specified in C.J.A. Rule 9-105. 2. The judge must be available to attend court and conduct court business as needed. 3. The minimum furnishings for a courtroom must include: a desk and chair for the judge (on a six inch riser), a desk and chair for the court clerk, chairs for witnesses, separate tables and appropriate chairs for plaintiffs and defendants, a Utah State flag, a United States flag, a separate area and chairs for at least four jurors, a separate area with appropriate seating for the public, an appropriate room for jury deliberations, and an appropriate area or room for victims and witnesses which is separate from the public. 4. The judge shall be provided a judicial robe, a gavel, current bail schedules, a copy of the Code of Judicial Administration, and necessary forms and supplies. 5. Office space must be provided for the judge and clerk(under certain circumstances this space may be shared, but if shared, the judge and clerk must have priority to use the space whenever needed). The office space shall include a desk for the judge and a desk for the clerk, secure filing cabinets for the judge and the clerk, a telephone for the judge and a telephone for the clerk, appropriate office supplies to conduct court business, a cash register or secured cash box, a typewriter or word processor, and access to a copy machine. 6. A clerk must be present during the time the court is open each day and during court sessions, as required by the judge. 7. The entity must have at least one peace officer(which may be contracted). 8. A court security plan must be submitted consistent with Code of Judicial Administration Rule 3-414. 9. Each court must have at least one computer with access to the internet, and appropriate software and security/encryption technology to allow for electronic reporting and access to Driver License Division ("DLD") and the Bureau of Criminal Identification ("BCI"), as defined by the reporting and retrieval standards'promulgated by the Department of Public Safety. Monthly reports must also be electronically submitted to the Administrative Office of the Courts monthly. Also, effective July 1, 2011, all justice courts shall use a common case management system and disposition reporting systems as specified by the Judicial Council. 10. Each court shall report required case disposition information to DLD, BCI and the Administrative Office of the Courts electronically, as described in the foregoing Subparagraph 9 above. In establishing minimum requirements, the Judicial Council has determined that justice courts with higher case filings require greater support services. The Salt Lake City Justice Court is a Class I Court, which designation applies to courts having an average monthly filing of 500 or more cases. According to Curtis Preece, the court administrator, the average monthly filing for the Salt Lake City Justice Court for fiscal year 2010-2011 was 14,850 cases. In addition to the minimum requirements set forth above, a Class I Court must have at least one full-time judge and at least three clerks; it must be open full time during regular business hours; it must have a courtroom exclusively dedicated for the exclusive use as a court that meets the master plan guidelines adopted by the Judicial Council; and the judge's chambers and clerk's office cannot be shared by another entity. The State Legislature has provided that any justice court which continues to meet the minimum requirement for its class is entitled to be recertified. However, the Judicial Council also has authority to waive any minimum recertification requirement imposed by rule of the Council rather than by statute. Waiver is at the discretion of the Judicial Council and will be based upon a demonstrated need for a court to conduct judicial business and upon public convenience. Any waiver will generally be for the entire term of the certification. A waiver must be obtained through the Judicial Council each time a court is recertified and, the fact that a waiver has been previously granted, will not be determinative on the issue of waiver for any successive application. As part of the recertification process established by the Judicial Council, the city must also submit a sworn court certification affidavit from the judge of the justice court. Judge Jeanne Robison, who is presiding judge of the Salt Lake City Justice Court, has prepared this affidavit indicating that the court meets the minimum statutory and Judicial Council recertification requirements. It is the opinion of this office, based upon Judge Robison's affidavit and our familiarity with the operations of the Salt Lake City Justice Court, that the court continues to meet or exceed the minimum requirements for a Class I justice court and is entitled to recertification, and that it is legally feasible for Salt Lake City to continue operating a justice court. If you have any questions or if I can provide you with any additional assistance, please let me know. Sincerely, $(.7.- 471) aysen R. Oldroyd Senior City Attorney SALT LAKE CITY JUSTICE COURT COURT SECURITY PLAN Salt Lake City Justice Court, 333 South 200 East, Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Salt Lake City Justice Court Amended September 13, 2011 C:\Users\oj7934\AppData\Local\Microsoft\Windows\Temporary Internet Files\Content.Outlook\TT591LE1\Court Security Plan(2).doc Table of Contents INTRODUCTION 3 EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBERS 4 COURT BAILIFF 5 CONDUCT 5 DRESS 5 RESPONSIBILITIES 5 WEAPONS POLICY 6 JURY SECURITY 6 HIGH PROFILE CASES 7 COURT ACCESS 7 MAGNETOMETERS AND X-RAY: 7 EMERGENCY SITUATIONS 8 EVACUATION PROCEDURES: 8 HOSTILE INDIVIDUAL: 8 HOSTAGE SITUATION: 9 ESCAPING PRISONER• 9 BOMB THREAT: 10 FIRE: 11 EARTHQUAKE: 11 COURT RECORDS 12 EVIDENCE 12 FUNDS 13 HOMELESS COURT 13 BAILIFF POLICY AND PROCEDURE 14 MAP OF BUILDING 178 2 INTRODUCTION The court security plan of the Salt Lake City Justice Court is established in accordance with Rule 3-414 of the code of Judicial Administration and for the protection of the court, staff,public, and the judicial process. Each member of the Salt Lake Justice Court Staff, including bailiffs, should be familiar with this plan. Training will be conducted on a yearly basis for all court staff and bailiffs to ensure proper understanding of the courts security procedures and policies. Certification will be made by the City Court Director that all staff members have been properly trained in the Salt Lake City Justice Court security procedures. Court Transportation and Bailiff Services (CTB) will perform bailiff duties in the Salt Lake City Justice Court according to Utah Code Annotated(U.C.A.) 53-10-105. Employees of CTB are designated as special function officers and have been sworn in as a Salt Lake County Deputy Constable under the direction of Constable Larry Bringhurst. Each bailiff that has been designated as a special function officer will have a copy of his/her certificate of completion of a basic course at a certified peace officer training academy(POST) on file in Constable Larry Bringhurst's office. Transport of in-custody defendants will be done by CTB in compliance with rule 3-414 (9) (A) (transportation of persons in custody). The transport officer or bailiff shall remain present at all times with in-custody person to ensure compliance with all County Sheriff policies and regulations regarding in-custody persons being seen in court. Transport of forthwith defendants or any other individual being detained will be done by CTB. 3 4.0410, EMERGENCY PHONE NUMBERS Life Threatening Emergency ..911 Salt Lake City Police ..799-3000 Security Office 535-6640 Security Office Emergency Line' ... ..535-8888 Salt Lake County Sheriff's Office .743-7000 Salt Lake City Fire and Paramedics ..799-4231 Salt Lake County Sheriff 535-5441 Utah Power .888-221-7070 Salt Lake City Public Utilities (water company) 483-6700 Queststar .800-541-2824 Building Maintenance 535-7605 or 535-6482 Court Management Staff Curtis Preece.. 535-7173 Tammy Shelton.. 535-6337 Claudia Sundbeck ..535-6314 Any outside calls made from a city phone must be made by first dialing"9" and then the number. ram. Emergency line(extension 8888 from with the courthouse)should only be used in life threatening situations as determined by Judge or court staff. 4 COURT BAILIFF CONDUCT Court appointed special function officers (bailiffs) will be present in every courtroom while court is in session. Court Bailiffs will also be present in the lobby of the courthouse during hours of operation. While in the courtroom,bailiffs will remain attentive to the direction of the judge and be observant of their surroundings. Lobby/screening officers will remain alert as to individuals who are interacting with the clerks at the front counter and will check persons and items brought into the courthouse for potential weapons and contraband2 as they enter the courthouse. DRESS While on duty Court Security Officers will be dressed in a clean and well maintained uniform. The official uniform will be that designated by CTB. (Rule 3-414(6) (F) (IV)) RESPONSIBILITIES3 In accordance with rule 3-414(6) (F) the duties and responsibilities of Court Security Officers will include but not be limited to: • Preventing a person in custody from having physical contact with anyone other than his or her own defense counsel team. Visitation shall be in accordance with jail and prison policies and be restricted to those facilities. • Observing all persons entering the courtroom, their movement and their activities including the lobby and front counter areas. The bailiff shall control access to the "bench"and other restricted areas. • Searching the interior of the courtroom and restricted areas prior to the arrival of any other court participants. Similar searches shall be conducted following recesses to ensure the room is clear of weapons, explosives or contraband. • Wearing the official uniform of the law enforcement agency by which they are employed. • Complying with the directives of Judges with respect to security related activities and shall perform other duties incidental to the efficient functioning.of the court, which do not otherwise detract from security functions. Activities wholly unrelated to security or function of the court, (including personal errands), shall not be requested or performed. 2 Contraband: any illegal item,article or substance that could be used to harm an individual,patrons or staff of the Salt Lake City Justice Court. 3 See Bailiff Policy and Procedures attached. 5 Other duties related specifically to the Salt Lake City Justice Court include: • Monitoring of all cameras inside the courthouse and the grounds, including the entrance and secure parking area. • Conduct a visual audit of all courtrooms and the grounds outside the courthouse to check for dangerous situations. • Keep an activity log of all incidents that occur in the courthouse or on the grounds of the courthouse. • Make a report of all serious incidents to the presiding judge and court management staff on a monthly basis. WEAPONS POLICY According to rule 3-414(B)the following individuals are permitted to carry weapons and ammunition in the Salt Lake City Justice Court: • Law enforcement officer as defined in Section 53-13-103 • Correctional officer as defined in Section 53-13-104 • Special function officer as defined in Section 53-13-105 • Federal Officer as defined in Section 53-13-106 A Judge may possess a firearm and ammunition in the Salt Lake City Justice Court for which the judge has a valid certificate of qualification issued under Section 53-5-711 (rule 3-414(B) (ii)). A person permitted to possess a firearm as defined above shall not possess that firearm in any part of the Salt Lake City Justice Court if they are appearing as a party to litigation. Any person attempting to enter the Salt Lake City Justice Court who is carrying a firearm and does not meet the criteria defined in Section 53-10-103 thru 53-10-106 will be asked to return the firearm to their vehicle. Failure to remove the weapon from the premises will result in non-admittance to the Salt Lake City Justice Court. JURY SECURITY The assigned court bailiff will remain with the jury for the duration of the case. The bailiff will escort them from the courtroom to the jury deliberation room during recesses and for their final deliberation. During the deliberation process the bailiff will remain outside the room to ensure that the jury is not disturbed. The bailiff will also ensure that jurors have no contact with parties to the case. • Juror's personal information will be maintained in the jury management system, which will be treated as confidential information and will not be released to the public. Once the case is resolved and the jury has returned a verdict, a list of only juror names will be available as public record by request only. 6 When situations merit, a second bailiff will be with the Judge and Clerk in the courtroom when the Jury bailiff is outside of the courtroom with the Jury. Jurors will be given a parking permit that will enable them to park in the Salt Lake City Library underground parking. Court Security Officers will escort any juror to their vehicle at the juror's request and ensure their safety upon leaving the building. In the case of an emergency the bailiff will remain with the jury and ensure their safety leaving the building. The bailiff charged with the jury will ensure that the jurors have no contact with parties to the case during the evacuation process. HIGH PROFILE CASES When a hearing is scheduled that may attract public attention court staff should notify Court Security Officers as soon as possible so that security staff can plan on extra officers for potential crowd control. The Salt Lake City Police department should be notified as soon as possible and be made aware of the date and time the hearing is scheduled. Security staff should evaluate the need for added security in the courtroom and in public areas of the courthouse. Extra security efforts should be coordinated with court management staff and the presiding judge. No member of court staff or security officer should answer, or speculate as to subject matter or the status of the case to the media or any other interested party. Any media inquiries should be directed to Nancy Volmer, Public Information Officer with the Administrative Office of the Courts (AOC), court management staff or the presiding judge. COURT ACCESS MAGNETOMETERS AND X-RAY: Every member of the public, including attorneys and city employees not working as court staff seeking access to the Salt Lake City Justice Court, will be subject to a search. Persons entering the building will have to pass through the court's magnetometers and place all bags and/or packages they are bringing with them on the courts X-ray machine for inspection by Court Security Officers. Court staff and other designated city employees will be allowed to pass through the magnetometers without placing their bags on the X-ray machine or being searched by showing the court security officer a valid city I.D. Any member of the court staff who does not have in their possession a valid city I.D. will be subject to the same access restrictions as members of the public. Any individuals bringing contraband into the Salt Lake City Justice Court will be detained by Court Security Officers and will be denied access to the Courthouse. Individuals detained for possession of contraband will be subject to prosecution by Salt Lake City. Contraband has been defined by the Salt Lake City Justice Court as anything illegal or that could cause harm or serious danger to the public, the judges or court staff. 7 EMERGENCY SITUATIONS EVACUATION PROCEDURES: In the event the building needs to be evacuated all court staff working on the first floor should leave the building through the main entrance of the lobby. Staff and Judges working on the second floor of the building should exit through one of the East exits. Prisoners exiting the building will be escorted down the stairs and through the secure hallway to the sally port entrance. Court staff and Judges,upon evacuation of the building, should proceed to the Northeast corner of the City and County Building grounds located at 400 South and 200 East. Court Staff should remain on the grounds of the City and County Building until they receive information from Court Management, Judges or law enforcement. Court Security Officers will ensure that all in-custody defendants housed on the second floor of the building are escorted out one of the East exits and taken to the East side of the public parking lot in the rear of the building. In-custody defendants that are housed on the first floor should be taken out the sally port exit and proceed to the east side of the public parking lot in the rear of the building. Court Security officers will inform the Salt Lake County Sheriffs Office that in-custody defendants have been evacuated. Auk HOSTILE INDIVIDUAL: ` Clerk's Office/lobby: If any individual becomes hostile at the front counter, or anywhere in the lobby of the courthouse, the clerk or employee witnessing the conduct should immediately contact a court security officer by calling the security office at extension 6640 or push the panic alarm at any station at the front counter. Hostile conduct consists of words or actions used to scare, intimidate, force or manipulate others into believing violence will be used. Court security officers should detain the individual(s) involved in the hostile conduct and notify the Salt Lake City Police Department to cite the individual(s). Courtroom: If an individual at anytime becomes hostile in any courtroom court security officers, by the direction of the Judge, shall remove the individual(s) and notify Salt Lake City Police department to cite the individual(s). Hostile conduct is defined as the same behavior described above. In a potential life threatening situation court staff should call extension 8888 which is the courts emergency line to the Court Security Office. 8 HOSTAGE SITUATION: Upon observing or receiving information about a person being taken hostage, immediately notify the Salt Lake City Police Department by calling"911" or 799-3000 and Court Security Officers by calling or pushing the panic alarms located at any station at the front counter. If you are taken hostage: • Be cautious of heroics. • Be cooperative without action;be submissive and non-confrontational. • Keep your cool and try to relax by thinking of other things. • Avoid eye contact and the appearance of observing your captors while trying to observe all you can for later identification and prosecution. • Don't make threats or arouse the hostility of your captors. • Be reluctant to give up your identification or clothes. • Try to drink water and eat to maintain your strength. • Look for protective cover in the event an attempt is made to rescue you. • If a rescue attempt occurs and shots are fired: Drop to your knees and keep your hands on your head Don't stand up or try to help Fully cooperate with authorities until you can be properly identified If you are not taken hostage leave the building immediately and notify the police or court security officers. Calmly exit the building and help any members of the public exit the building. When safely out of the building proceed to the Northeast corner of the City and County Building grounds to meet other members of court staff. ESCAPING PRISONER: If an escape is attempted in the courtroom or anywhere in the building by an in- custody defendant the Judge or Clerk should push the panic alarm located under the counter of the workstation in the courtroom or at any workstation at the front counter of the clerk's office. The courtroom Bailiff or the Court Security Officer should notify the court security supervisor and begin securing the building by blocking off every possible exit. The officer in the control room should begin monitoring the video cameras and record in real-time the actions of the escapee if witnessed. The officer in the control room should contact the Salt Lake City Police by calling "911"or 799-3000 and the Salt Lake County Sheriff at 743-7000. Exits that must be secured include: 1. Main exit located on the first floor 2. Prisoner entrance from sally port on the first floor 9 3. Second floor exit on the Northeast of building 4. Second floor exit on the Southeast of building The court's judicial staff should be alerted and escorted to their chambers by a Court Security Officer where they should remain with an officer posted until the situation is resolved. Court employees should return to their workstation unless otherwise directed by law enforcement officers or court management staff. If other in-custody defendants are in the building they should be taken back the holding area and secured until the situation is resolved. The Judge, Clerk and Bailiff upon witnessing the attempted escape of an in- custody defendant should quickly try to recall and make a note of the following things: 1. Prisoner's means of escape 2. If prisoner was alone or assisted 3. General direction of escape 4. Was the prisoner armed 5. Physical description of escaping person This information should be relayed as soon as possible to any law enforcement officer responding to the scene. If phone calls are made into the court regarding the attempted escape the clerk answering the call should try to determine who the caller is and if they are connected in any way to the escaping defendant. Any information that is obtained should be written down and passed on to law ink enforcement officers investigating the situation. BOMB THREAT: If a bomb threat is received be calm, courteous and listen carefully. Take notes if possible without becoming distracted from what the caller is saying. Do not interrupt,place caller on hold or attempt to transfer the call. If possible quietly attract the attention of someone nearby. Indicate to him or her the nature of the call and have that person first call 911 and then notify court security officers and court management staff. During the call the employee should take careful notes and learn all he or she can about the alleged bomb; its location, when it is going to go off, what kind of bomb it is and what it looks like. Court Security Officers, upon receiving notice of a bomb threat, should begin a search of public areas of the courthouse. All court staff should quickly begin a search of their personal area looking for things that are out of place or that are unfamiliar. In the event the building is evacuated court staff should exit the clerk's office and the courthouse through the main entrance of the building and proceed to the Northeast corner of the City and County Building grounds. Court staff should 10 remain there and await instructions from court management staff and/or law enforcement officers. Upon leaving the building the designated lifeguards should ensure that all members of the public have safely exited the building. Court Security Officers should ensure that all in-custody defendants housed on the second floor of the building are escorted out one of the East exits (preferable the door no the north-east side of the building) and taken to the East side of the public parking lot in the rear of the building. In-custody defendants that are housed on the first floor should taken out the sally port exit and proceed to the east side of the public parking lot in the rear of the building. Salt Lake City Police and the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Department should be notified that in-custody defendants have been evacuated. FIRE: In the event of a fire or fire alarm all court employees will evacuate the building through the nearest and safest exit in the building. For employees located on the first floor the nearest exit will be the main exit in the lobby of the first floor. For employees working on the second floor the nearest exit would be one of two exits located in the Northeast or Southeast corners of the building. Once all employees have evacuated the building they should precede to the Northeast corner of the City and County Building grounds. Court employees should remain there and await instructions from court management staff and/or law enforcement officers. Upon leaving the building the designated lifeguards should ensure that all members of the public have safely exited the building. Court Security Officers should ensure that all in-custody defendants housed on the second floor of the building are escorted out one of the East exits (preferably the door on the north-east side of the building) and taken to the East side of the public parking lot in the rear of the building. In-custody defendants that are housed on the first floor should taken out the sally port exit and proceed to the east side of the public parking lot in the rear of the building. Salt Lake City Police and the Salt Lake County Sheriff's Department should be notified that in-custody defendants have been evacuated. EARTHQUAKE: If an earthquake occurs during working hours staff should stay inside and get underneath a desk, a table,permanent doorway or against an inside wall. Stay away from windows and outside walls. After the earthquake, remain in the building until instructed to evacuate the building. Once employees have been instructed evacuate the building they should precede to the Northeast corner of the City and County Building grounds. Court employees should remain there and await instructions from court management staff and/or law enforcement officers. Upon leaving the building the designated lifeguards should ensure that all members of the public have safely exited the building. Court Security Officers should ensure that all in-custody defendants housed on the second floor of the building are escorted out one of the East exits and taken to the East side of the 11 public parking lot in the rear of the building. In-custody defendants that are Amok housed on the first floor should taken out the sally port exit and proceed to the east side of the public parking lot in the rear of the building. Salt Lake City Police and the Salt Lake County Sheriffs Department should be notified that in- custody defendants have been evacuated. COURT RECORDS Court records are a matter of public record and anyone seeking information from a file that has not been sealed by court order is able to do so. The public may check out a court file but will not be allowed to remove it from the counter area of the first floor lobby. Upon checking out a file the public will need to provide the court with their name and address validated by a driver's license or state issued I.D. and a current phone number. If any member of the public leaves, or tries to leave the building with a court file, Court Security Officers will be notified to stop and detain that individual while the Salt Lake City Police Department is notified to cite the individual for prosecution. EVIDENCE All evidence that is collected by the court at trial will be returned at the conclusion of trial. If a trial lasts for more than one day it is the duty of the clerk in the courtroom to ensure that all evidence is securely locked in the court's evidence closet, located, on the first floor hallway leading to courtroom number two. In accordance with Rule 4-206(9) disposal and destruction of evidence and exhibits will be after three(3)months have expired from final disposition of the case. Clerks shall make sure that no appeals have been filed or request for new trials or rehearing have been made. The clerk shall send a notice of intent to dispose of exhibits to counsel. Unless counsel withdraws the exhibits or unless a written objection is filed within 30 days from the date of notice, the clerk shall dispose of evidence or exhibits as follows. • Contraband and weapons will be given to the law enforcement agency that confiscated them to be disposed of. The agency receiving the items shall furnish the court with a receipt to be maintained with the exhibit custody tracking record (Rule 4-206(9) (A-B). • Property having value shall be returned to its owner or if unclaimed, shall be given to the law enforcement agency to be sold. The agency receiving the items shall furnish the court with a receipt to be maintained with the exhibit custody tracking record (Rule 4-206(9) (C)). • Property having no value shall be destroyed by the clerk of the court who shall furnish the court with a certificate of destruction, which shall be maintained with the exhibit custody tracking record. 12 FUNDS All court funds will be stored in the vault area of the courthouse. Cashiers will retrieve their till money each morning from the lead cashier. At the close of business the cashiers' tills will be locked back in the vault. In the event the building is evacuated, the cashiers should ensure that their funds are locked in their cash drawer before leaving the building. HOMELESS COURT In an effort to reduce the number of active cases within the Salt Lake City Justice Court resulting from warrants that are issued against individuals that are homeless or give an address of"transient", the court will conduct a bench warrant recall proceeding to be held at the St. Vincent De Paul Weigand homeless day center. Time and Place: Proceedings will be conducted every other Friday from 1:00 p.m.—4:00 p.m. on the second floor of the Weigand center. The area in which the proceedings will take place will be open to the general public. Staff: Court personnel will include: Judge, Clerk and Bailiff. It is anticipated that St. Vincent's will provide a Program Coordinator and Case Manager to be present during the court proceedings. Security: The room in which the proceedings will be conducted can be sealed off from the general public in case of emergency; each court proceedings will have a bailiff present who will be a court appointed special function officer that has completed a minimum of category 1 of the Police Officers Standards and Training(P.O.S.T.). In the event of an emergency the bailiff will secure the room closing the secure door to the room not allowing anyone else to enter. The bailiff will then subdue any threat within the courtroom and detain any individual until Salt Lake City Police can arrive. Court and Weigand center staff in the event of an emergency should move to an adjoining office within the courtroom and secure the door until the situation has been resolved by the bailiff or other law enforcement officers. Activity: Warrants that have been issued by a Salt Lake City Justice Court Judge will be recalled and a new date will be set for the individual to appear in the Justice Court. Dates will be set not more than 10 days from the date the warrant is recalled for a pre-trial conference (PTC) and not more than 5 days from the date of recall for an arraignment. Any warrant that has been issued for failure to appear for a bench trial or jury trial will be set for a 13 review hearing in front of the judge assigned to the trial not more than 10 days from the date of recall. Individuals wishing to plead guilty as charged to any infraction or class C misdemeanor not including traffic offense will be able to enter that guilty plea and be sentenced immediately. Individuals who enter into a guilty plea with the court will be required to submit all appropriate waiver forms and will be sentenced to 10 hours community service for infractions and 15 hours community services for class C misdemeanors. Community service is valued at $10.00 per hour. It is anticipated that community service will be conducted under the supervision of the case manager employed by Catholic Community Services at St. Vincent De Paul's. No defendant will be taken in to custody and booked during proceedings at the Weigand Center. Failure to appear for the new date that is given will result in a new bench warrant being issued. Technology: Salt Lake City Justice Court will provide a notebook computer,printer and a virtual private network (VPN). The clerk will be able to log onto the City's network and access CORIS, all updates to the case(s)will be performed on site through the VPN. The VPN will allow the clerks to print all necessary forms to be given to the defendant. BAILIFF POLICY AND PROCEDURE 1. Check courtroom schedule you are assigned to. Make sure you know these things date, time, number of hearings and if you have any custodial defendants. 2. Be sure to let defendants know of courtroom rules. This includes all physical information such as pictures,real evidence, and notes. The Bailiff should intercept anything handed to judge, unless judge says otherwise. 3. Protection of judge and clerk is pertinent. Anyone that makes verbal threats should be approached with immediate show of force and will be placed in custody and prosecuted. Verbal threats or misconduct should be stopped immediately. Observe all persons entering the court, their movements, and their activities. Bailiffs should NEVER leave the Judge unprotected in the courtroom. When necessary, another bailiff must be called to be present in the courtroom during a jury trial when the jury must leave the room. 4. Witnesses when ready for examination should go to witness stand, unless judge says differently. Witnesses may be asked to leave the room while defendants give their testimony, and be called back in when judge is ready for them. (This is a good time to ask the judge where he would like the witness). 5. Report to supervisors when court begins and when you are done, either on the radio or in person at security office. 6. If any other issues come up contact a supervisor immediately and we will come in and help. Any questions see your supervisor. There is no such thing as a dumb 4,4*. question. 14 7. Position in courtroom will be between the judge and the audience off to either side of the room, you may sit down 8. Bailiffs shall wear the official uniform and equipment. 9. During a jury trial, the judge will instruct the Bailiff to call for the jury. Upon the jury entering and leaving the courtroom, the Bailiff will instruct everyone to stand. 10. The jury is not allowed to see an in-custody defendant in handcuffs or being escorted by an officer. The jury is always the last to enter the courtroom and the first to leave the courtroom. 11. Bailiff's taking a cell phone or pager into the courtroom will make sure it is turned OFF prior before court proceedings begin. Closing Policy and Procedure (Subject to change) 1. Make sure front doors are locked and secure. 2. Janitors should arrive around 1900 hours (7:00 p.m.). The cleaning crew has their own keys and has been given security clearance through Facilities. 3. After janitors are done, they, the cleaning crew employees are responsible to lock all doors and entrances to the Courthouse. 4. Lock all other applicable doors. (Currently these are judge's chambers, court directors office, double check sally port doors and North and South rear exit doors) 5. Turn off two camera monitors in security office, log off computer, and throw out all trash. (This would be good to do when janitors are here) 6. Walk around building after leaving and look for any suspicious activity. 7. If there are not two officers to close, clear inside then proceed with outside rounds Make sure building is secure before going on to outside rounds. 8. Any questions call supervisor emergency numbers if not on site. Corrections Call Control for Lock Down 1. Prisoner entrance will come through sally port door accompanied by transporting agency. 2. The officers will escort prisoner(s) down secured corridor to holding cell downstairs where and officer will assist in pat down search with prisoner facing North wall prior to segregation of male and female inmates. 3. All persons in-custody shall be kept in holding cell, restrained by restraining devices. They will be monitored on camera at all times. 4. Downstairs cells will be South"A" and North"B"upstairs will be South"C" and North"D". 5. No less than two officers will accompany each prisoner from holding cell to courtroom. If feasible. 6. During a jury trial with an in-custody defendant the counsel will bring clothes for the in-custody defendant to change into after being searched (usually this will be 15 an attorney form the Legal Defenders Association LDA). He/she will be allowed to change and be taken out of handcuffs. The in-custody defendant will be placed in the courtroom. At no time is the jury to see the in-custody defendant being escorted by an officer. 7. Corrections officers in the court should be in plain clothes. (unless otherwise requested by the judge). Mag and Bag Officers 1. Check-in with supervisor and get equipment. Do equipment check (test and see if working properly) 2. Position at front doors. Watch for all bags or concealed cases of any kind. Watch for baggy or bulging clothing. Look for anything that could be used as a weapon. No Weapons allowed! No mace allowed. 3. X-ray machine, lay items as flat as possible on the conveyor belt. Push the "GO" button. Watch items come across screen, any item containing a suspicious item or an item that cannot be identified by the officer should be hand searched. Further hands on training will be provided. 4. Metal detector: all visitors should walk through after removing all metal objects from their person. If it sounds ask them if they still have any metal on them. Have them step to the side and wand them, identify any metal objects before granting them entry to the facility. Further hands on training will be provided. 5. When you"wand" a person have them stand with their legs separated and their 4044) arms extended out with their palms facing up. Turn the wand on hold the sensitivity button in and about 5-6 inches away form the body. Identify all metal items on the person before granting them entry to the facility. Further hands on training will be provided. 6. Watch for suspicious,peculiar,nervous behavior and address it appropriately. Call supervisor for any questionable situation. 7. Help direct visitors to their appropriate destination. 8. Any illegal items (contraband, drug paraphernalia, such as pipes, syringes, etc...) contact supervisor, for detention of suspect. 9. Illegally carried weapons are to be confiscated immediately. Supervisor should be notified immediately. 10. Out of uniform officers need to show departmental identification. 11. Physical search. Searches of persons in or out about courthouse or courtroom shall be conducted at the discretion of the security officer responsible for security. When the security officer has reason to believe that the person to be searched is carrying a weapon or contraband into or out the courthouse or when the court so orders. No other person is authorized to conduct such searches. Written notice of the policy shall be posted in a conspicuous place at the entrance to all court facilities. 16 NOTES Rule 3-414 (2) (c) The local security plan shall provide for the presence of a law enforcement officer or constable in court during court sessions. Rule 3-414 (4) (g) The clerk of the court shall establish certain days of the week and times of the day for court appearances of persons in custody in order to permit transportation officers reasonable preparation and planning time. The court shall give priority to cases in which a person in custody appears in order to prevent increased security risk resulting from lengthy waiting periods. MAP OF BUILDING See Pages 18 and 19 17 1. A Atm, ______7____;5__Li__i_j______Li___i_j__i_i_________ri___ ___________________, +' 1 13-1 II la ' AIN - I I Li LIT i l . �* al. :isit ME nun , 14 1 il lest �,,:::: - � m L I 'I I f , —I— ix NE �I�i��t� , , I..,__.„, I II �•1N Wow I' "I4 i 0, i _ li=10. .�# a 1,ICI • Q , 11111 1 IIIII /II � _ : t #� IIIIIIIIII ' n „,„„„ Ip,„, � 4i#4 IF ' 6C11 ill Justice # ,f�,iT1 1 ,i la �_>>- ( Court ,rilr 3 3 1111 11 !1��,..__ n Q �� 441 Building 1 COURTWAITNG 9 HOLDING CELL 3538200E 2 SERVICE/MECHANICAL 10 ADl4INISTRATIYE CLERKS VT 3 RESTROOMS 11 CASHIERS I•I First Floor I Site Plan 4 ATIORNEY/CUENT 5 COURT ROOM 12 CLERKS 13 RECORDS to /// I) 01214 a 16 6 ARRAIGNMENT COURT ROOM 14 BREAK 7 TRAFFIC HEARING 15 STORAGE _. B SECURE HALLWAY 16 SALLY PORT .>^-- ,,. 17 SECURITY OFFICE A a C H r E C-$. 00 2 f=3h3 lI I [ 'lir ,. i 13 II is IllI ' sp _ e ___,1 13 Ell ■n.MI 111 AEI 1---+ ■I I. 141111 ■II. AU _ 73 •' S II III la 1 .I,.al: I i liij: ,3 Is 5 (1q n i au 11 12 `I' Justice w 3�. II COUrt Budding 1 COURT WAITING 8 SECURE HALLWAY 2 SERVICE/MECHANICAL 9 HOLDING CELL 3 RESTROOMS 10 ADMINISTRATIVE CLERKS Pd Second Floor Plan 4 ATTORNEY/CLIENT 11 SMALL JURY ROOM ;I► :..;, • 5 COURT ROOM 12 LARGE JURY ROOM CE) rns• . '11...IIMIrMIIMMIII132 6 COURT STORAGE 13 JUDGE 7 HEAD CLERIC i5 ,ARCH TEC'i Evacuation Meeting Location I � I , ciq mot I I Cowry I I Complex CONVO S Soo wi(4 g i I • � � I I H I I I � . y,� Vasa 34 Coos s LiGts� I rsar�7Cltd Office P413 I I I I I I 1 I 20 SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT DATE: October 4,2011 SUBJECT: Interlocal Agreement for Joint Funding of Stormwater Education Media Campaign AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: Citywide STAFF REPORT BY: Lehua Weaver ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT. Department of Public Utilities AND CONTACT PERSON: Florence Reynolds,Water Quality Administrator KEY ELEMENTS: Salt Lake City has contributed$13,000 during each of the past twelve years toward a joint storm water pollution awareness campaign,through the Salt Lake County Storm Water Coalition. The Administration is requesting that the City renew the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement to continue the campaign and cost sharing arrangement for the next five years. In addition to Salt Lake City,members of the coalition include West Valley,Sandy,Murray, Bluffdale,Riverton,Draper,Midvale,Holladay,Herriman,South Jordan,West Jordan,Taylorsville and South Salt Lake Cities,Salt Lake Valley Health Department and the Utah Department of Transportation. MATTERS AT ISSUE: Education of the public regarding the prevention of pollution in the stormwater system may help reduce the impacts of runoff on streams and on the Jordan River. Residents may unknowingly contribute to stormwater pollution. For example,a resident may use excessive amounts of fertilizer or weed spray,or may spread used oil along a fence line or bury oil not realizing that some of these pollutants may eventually make it into the stormwater system. Participation by Salt Lake City in the media campaign also helps the City maintain its permit for discharging storm water. The City's UPDES(Utah Pollution Discharge Elimination System) Municipal Storm Water Permit requires public education and outreach and the coalition efforts contribute to that goal. The fiscal year 2011-12 budget for the City's Storm Water Fund includes the budget for Salt Lake City's portion of the campaign. Approving this resolution will not require any amendment to the Utility's budget. cc: Jeff Niermeyer,Tom Ward,David Everitt,Randy Hillier mum gay/commigi JEFFRY T. NIERMEYER r�p� DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES L'`C Nk.1E11MQ�t/; / 4 WATER SUPPLY AND WATERWORKS V rS 1� 1.� L.t I' WATER RECLAMATION AND STORMWATER DATE: 9/? • // CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL [ ( Q �1 RECEIVED , • - ' -SEP - 9 2011 El - Date Received: a ,, a ' veritt, Chief of Staff SLC COUNCIL Cf fe sent to Council: t=rf/',ti TO: Salt Lake City Council August 25, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Department of Public Utilities . •ermeyer, Director SUBJECT: Interlocal Cooperation Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County for Cost Sharing on the 2011-2016 UPDES Media Campaign STAFF CONTACT: Florence Reynolds, Water Quality Administrator, (801) 483-6864 DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council approve the attached agreement and forward to the Mayor for execution in behalf of the City. BUDGET IMPACT: The proposed budget for the campaign is $178,000 per year. The City will pay the County the sum of$13,000 per year as the City's share of the cost of funding the campaign. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This agreement is for joint funding of the County's 2011- 2016 storm water education media campaign. The purpose of the campaign is to educate the public and increase their awareness about storm water pollution and prevention. This agreement will remain in force for 5 years from the date of execution, renewable yearly, provided funding and budgets allow. 1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 841 15 TELEPHONE: 801-483-6900 FAX: 801-483-681 8 WWW.SLCGOV.COM RECvc L''PNVCF RESOLUTION OF 2011 AUTHORIZING THE APPROVAL OF THE INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND SALT COUNTY FOR COST SHARING 2011-2016 UPDES MEDIA CAMPAIGN WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, U.C.A., 1953, as amended, allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreements to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. It does hereby approve the form and substance of the attached agreement as follows: Joint funding of the County's 2001-16 storm water education media campaign. The purpose of the campaign is to educate the public and increase their awareness about storm water pollution and prevention. 2. Ralph Becker, Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby authorized to approve said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, subject to any any minor changes which do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City thereunder. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 2011. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER County Contract No. D.A.No.2011-5509 INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY AND SALT LAKE COUNTY FOR COST SHARING 2011-2016 UPDES MEDIA CAMPAIGN THIS AGREEMENT is made this day of ,2011,by and between Salt Lake City,a municipal corporation of the State of Utah,hereinafter"City,"and SALT LAKE COUNTY,a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah,hereinafter"County." WITNESSETH: WHEREAS.the parties are public agencies and are therefore authorized by the Utah Interlocal Cooperation Act,section 11-13-101,et seq.,U.C.A.,to enter into agreements with each other which will enable them to make the most efficient use of their powers;and, WHEREAS,in connection with the Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System, hereinafter"UPDES",permitting process,the parties desire to cooperate with each other in funding a 2011 through 2016 multi-media public information and education campaign, hereinafter"campaign,"for the purpose of increasing public awareness about storm water pollution and educating the public about the prevention of storm water pollution in the City and the County;and, WHEREAS,the parties desire to enter into an agreement whereby their respective responsibilities concerning the campaign are specifically set forth; NOW,THEREFORE,in consideration of the mutual promises set forth herein,the parties agree as follows: 1 d 1. Media Campaign Services. The County has obtained the services of a consultant and has developed a plan for the public education and awareness campaign, which will consist of many phases of development for the benefit of all coalition participants. 2. Budget. The proposed budget for the campaign is $178,000 per year, and includes the components and funding shown on Appendix A which is incorporated as part of this agreement. 3. County Responsibilities. The County shall be responsible for all matters pertaining to administering the campaign and the consultant's contract, and shall further be responsible for providing all funds necessary to complete the campaign over and above the sum to be provided by the City as set forth in paragraph 5 below. 4. City Responsibilities. The City shall pay to the County the sum of$13,000 per year as the City's share of the costs of funding of the campaign. The first payment shall be made within thirty (30) days after execution of this agreement by the parties. Subsequent annual payments will be made by June 30 for each of the next four years. 5. No Interlocal Entity. Pursuant to Utah Code Annotated 11-13-206(b), the parties agree that they do not by this agreement create an interlocal entity. 6. Joint Board. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. 11-13-207, the parties agree that the cooperative undertakings under this agreement shall be administered by a joint board, the "Board" consisting of the City's Public Utilities Director (or designee) and the County's Public Works Director(or designee). No real or personal property shall be acquired, held and disposed of by this agreement. 7. Termination. Pursuant to Utah Code Ann. 11-13-206(a), the parties agree that this agreement may be terminated (with or without cause) by either party upon at least thirty (30) 2 c days prior written notice to the other party,in which event an accounting shall be made of all funds not spent or encumbered as of the date of termination. 8. Term. This agreement shall be effective on the date hereof and unless terminated as provided herein shall terminate 5 years from the date of execution,renewable yearly,provided funding and budgets allow. 9. Applicable Law. The provisions of this agreement shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Utah. 10. Integration. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between the parties pertaining to the subject matter hereof,and supersedes all prior agreements and understandings pertaining thereto. 11. Amendment. The parties may amend this agreement by a writing signed by the parties. The amendment shall not be effective if it is not in writing or if it is not signed by all the parties. 12. No Agency. Agents,employees or representatives of each party shall not he deemed to be agents,employees or representatives of the other. 13. Representation Regarding Ethical Standards for City and County Officers and Employees and Former City and County Officers and Employees. A. Salt Lake County represents that it has not: (1)provided an illegal gift or payoff to a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee,or his or her relative or business entity:(2)retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission,percentage,or brokerage or contingent fee,other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of securing business;(3) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest 3 I ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or(4) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, a City officer or employee or former City officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in the City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code. B. Salt Lake City represents that it has not: (a) provided an illegal gift to any County officer or employee, or former County officer or employee, or to any relative or business entity of a County officer or employee, or relative or business entity of a former County officer or employee; (b) retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees of bona fide commercial agencies established for the purpose of securing business; (c) breached any of the ethical standards set forth in State statute or Salt Lake County Code of Ordinances § 2.07 (2011); or(d) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, any County officer or employee or former County officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in State statute or Salt Lake County ordinances. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties execute this agreement on the day and year first set forth above. SALT LAKE COUNTY By Mayor Peter Corroon or Designee Approved as to form and legality 1 eputy Distri t Att mey Date: ( frvy 4 STATE OF UTAH ) : ss. County of Salt Lake ) On this day of , 2011, personally appeared before me , who being duly sworn, did say that (s)he is the of Salt Lake County, Office of Mayor, and that the foregoing instrument was signed on behalf of Salt Lake County, by authority of law. NOTARY PUBLIC Residing in Salt Lake County,Utah SALT LAKE CITY By ATTEST: Mayor City Recorder Approved as to form and legality City Attorney Date: g1Q/r GANDERSO\Agreements\L DES SLCMedia 18Aue11 docx 5 MEMORANDUM DATE: September 28,2011 TO: City Council Members FROM: Russell Weeks RE: Briefing:Proposed Resolutions Pertaining to the Establishment of a Local Building Authority to Issue Bonds for the Glendale Branch Library CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Beth Elder,Dan Mul€,Ed Rutan,Neil Lindberg,Gina Chamnes Jennifer Bruno,Gordon Hoskins,Marina Scott,Boyd Ferguson,Karen Halladay This memorandum pertains to a briefing before the City Council of two things.One is a proposed resolution that would adopt a tentative budget for a Capital Projects Fund of a"Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City"for Fiscal Year 2011-2012.The resolution would be the first step in creating a conduit of funds to build the Glendale Branch Library.The other is a series of steps—including a draft resolution and draft articles of incorporation—that would establish a Local Building Authority.The Authority would be a mechanism to issue lease revenue bonds for public projects.A Local Building Authority is the successor to a Municipal Building Authority. The briefing is scheduled for the City Council work session October 4.The session is scheduled to start at 3 p.m.in Room 326 of the City&County Building,451 South State Street. KEY POINTS o The proposed Local Building Authority would be a conduit for financing construction of the Glendale Branch Library.If the Authority were established,it also could function as a tool to finance other public projects. o One reason for the establishment of a Local Building Authority is it would preserve the City's capacity for issuing sales tax bonds.It should be noted that interest on repaying bonds issued by a Local Building Authority would be higher than interest charged on sales tax bonds.As a result,the City Council may have to determine whether financial flexibility available to the City by having both tools available is in the greater public interest than paying a lower interest rate. o Based on the transmittal from the Administration,it appears that a 2009 property tax increase the City Council adopted for the Salt Lake City Library Fund—the main revenue source for the Salt Lake City Public Library System—is sufficient to repay Local Building Authority lease revenue bonds or sales tax bonds issued by the City.' o If established,the Local Building Authority would receive an appropriation for initial amount of$615,000.The amount would reflect the cost of buying land for the Glendale Branch Library. 1 o Before Local Building Authority bonds could be issued,the City Council would have to follow a five-step process between October 25 and December 6 to establish the Local Building Authority,according to the Administration.' o While establishing a Local Building Authority would protect Salt Lake City's capacity to issue sales tax bonds for projects,including potentially a new performing arts center downtown,the City's residents and businesses ultimately would pay for both kinds of bonds. OPTIONS • Establish a Local Building Authority. • Do not establish a Local Building Authority. POTENTIAL MOTIONS City Council staff will prepare motions after the October 4 briefing. ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION o The City's financial advisor recommends that the City Council consider a Local Building Authority to finance the Glendale Branch Library because"the LBA structure is most useful for`essential purpose,'stand alone facilities while sales tax bonds are useful without regard to the nature of the project.i3 o Lease-revenue bonds carry a higher interest rate than sales tax revenue bonds. o What other facilities might be financed through a Local Building Authority? o Does Salt Lake City have the financial capacity to address all pending projects? o What is in the best interest of Salt Lake City residents and businesses? BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION BRANCH LIBRARIES The City Council in June 2009 adopted a motion to increase property tax revenue by$560,000 a year for the Salt Lake City Library Fund to pay for: • General operations of the Salt Lake City Public Library System. • Building one new branch library with a sales tax bond. • Funding planning for the Glendale Branch Library. • Funding a planning process for the Marmalade Branch Library. The motion included a legislative intent statement indicating the City Council's intention to fund, plan and build the Glendale and Marmalade branch libraries. 2 The City Council in June 2011 adopted a budget for the Library Fund that also included a property tax increase that was projected to raise$645,000 a year.The increase was targeted to be used to pay annual debt service for bonds issued to build the Marmalade Branch Library.The City Council deferred a decision for a year on increasing property taxes again to pay the operating costs for the Glendale and Marmalade branch libraries. The property tax increases in 2009 and 2011 were adopted based on a projected estimate that it would cost about$8.2 million to build and stock the Glendale Branch Library and about$8.9 million to build and stock the Marmalade Branch Library. The projected cost of the Glendale Branch Library was lower because in June 2009 it was assumed that the branch library would be built on a site on California Avenue that the Salt Lake City Public Library System had bought a few years earlier.However,after an extensive public process a larger site south of California Avenue was chosen for the branch library.If a Local Building Authority is established,the$615,000 recommended by the Administration would be used to purchase the site for the Glendale Branch Library. In terms of the overall budget for the Glendale Branch Library,the$615,000 recommended for purchasing the site for the branch brings the total cost of the branch library to roughly the same as the projected cost of the Marmalade Branch Library. According to the Administration transmittal,the total estimated cost of the Glendale Branch Library project is$8.951 million.Since the 2009-2010 fiscal year the Library System has set aside$1.5 million of its reserves for the Glendale Branch.In addition,total property tax collected and projected to be collected by the end of the current fiscal year equals$1,380,460.That plus the reserve fund equals about$2.88 million earmarked for the Glendale project.4 The sum leaves a difference of$6,070,540 for which bonds could be issued. It should be noted that the Administration transmittal has included placeholders—but left them blank—for unknown potential revenue from the sale of the Library System's property parcel on California Avenue,potential donations,and potential income from renting space in the library.'The Administration notes that revenue from any of the three items,if they occur,might be used for the project's capital expenses or future operating expenses. The Administration projects that the tax increase the City Council adopted in 2009 is enough to repay about$6 million in bonds issued to pay for the Glendale project.According to projections,if the City issued sales tax bonds,the annual debt service payments would equal about$400,000.If the City created a Local Building Authority and issued lease-revenue bonds,the annual debt service payments would equal about$430,000 a year—a difference of about$30,000 a year.The Administration projects that repaying Local Building Authority Bonds would cost about$400,000 more in total debt service on the Glendale project than repaying sales tax bonds would cost. LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY/SALES TAX BONDS A key element in establishing a Local Building Authority to issue lease revenue bonds involves Salt Lake City's credit rating. Generally,under bond indentures,a municipality issuing sales tax bonds is required to have revenue sources equal to twice the amount of money the municipality pledges for a year's debt service.In practice,Salt Lake City retains revenue sources equal to three times the amount of money it pledges to pay debt service on 3 municipal sales tax bonds.The practice preserves the City's AAA bond rating and allows the city to borrow at lower interest rates. The following projects either are using or have been considered as potential projects that could be financed by sales tax bonds:North Temple Viaduct,North Temple Boulevard,Glendale Library,Marmalade Library,Sugar House/South Salt Lake streetcar,1300 South Street Viaduct,downtown streetcar,the proposed Utah Performing Arts Center.If all the projects were financed by issuing sales tax bonds,Salt Lake City could meet the Utah state requirement of having access to twice the amount of money pledged,but it would have to pledge at least some revenue from franchise taxes to maintain having available three times the amount of money pledged to repay municipal bonds. One way to avoid reaching the three-times-amount-of-money-pledged threshold is to issue another kind of municipal bond—the reason creating a Local Building Authority is before the City Council.Because bonds issued by a Local Building Authority are a different kind of municipal bond,they are not counted in calculating the capacity threshold for sales tax bonds. Lease-revenue bonds are described by the City's financial advisor as"best suited for essential purpose facilities and best used for stand-alone real estate projects."However,another purpose is"primarily useful to `save'sales-tax bond capacity."6 Sales tax revenue bonds are a"default mechanism of choice for general purpose financing"in part because they carry low interest and transaction costs.However,sales tax revenue bond capacity limits are more likely to be reached than general obligation bonds issued with a pledge of a municipality's"full faith and credit" and repaid with property tax revenue. It should be noted that capacity to preserve credit ratings or meet state laws is not the same as an ability to pay.Both kinds of bonds require a municipality to find money"in a budget or a revenue increase to pay debt service,"according to the City's financial advisor.' Authorized by the Legislature for a decade,sales tax revenue bonds are relatively new tools to finance municipal projects.In previous years Salt Lake City issued lease revenue bonds through its Municipal Building Authority for a variety of projects including building the Spring Mobile baseball stadium,two golf courses,the Justice Court Building at 333 South 200 East,Plaza 349,the Steiner Aquatic Center and Steiner Ice Sheet on Guardsman Way,the Park Blocks project in the Gateway,fire stations,a fire training tower and several other projects.'The City refunded outstanding bonds authorized under the Municipal Building Authority,and the Authority's registration with the state lapsed.In the meantime,the Legislature amended the state law to create Local Building Authorities for use by municipalities. LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY TIMELINE If the City Council determines that establishing a Local Building Authority is in the best interests of the City,it must meet the following five-step timetable: o October 25—Adopt a resolution approving the organization of the Authority,its articles of incorporation and bylaws,and the dissolution of the defunct Municipal Building Authority. o November 1—Convene as the Authority's board of directors and proceed through an organizational meeting. o November 1—Adopt a tentative budget for the Authority(initially$615,000)and set a date for a public hearing on the budget. o November 22—Convene as the Authority board of directors and hold a public hearing on the tentative budget. 4 o December 6—Convene as the Authority board of directors and consider adopting the tentative budget. Transmittal Letter,David Everitt and Gina Chamness,September 21,2011,page 2. 2 Transmittal Letter,Dan Mule,September 21,2011,page 1. 3 Transmittal Letter,David Everitt and Gina Chamness,September 21,2011,page 2. 4Ibid.Page 3. 5Ibid.Footnotes 11-13.page 4 6 Salt Lake City Debt Coverage and Analysis,Dale M.Okerlund,June 14,2011. Salt Lake City Debt Coverage and Analysis,Dale M.Okerlund,June 14,2011. Transmittal Letter,Dan Mule,September 21,2011,page 1. 5 1 ) 1 nr RALPHBoERCKER ` , ^" lFJVEI) OFFICE OF THE MAYOR SEP 2 1 2011 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL RECEIVED Salt Lake City Mayor Date Received: SCANNED TO: ctalii David E ' , Chief Staff SLC COUNCIL OFFflj to sent t Council: B t. og zspze11 DATE:. A/ 1/ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 21, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff SUBJECT: Local Building Authority: Summary of Recommended Actions Regarding the Creation of a Local Building Authority to Issue Bonds for Library Construction STAFF CONTACT: Gina Chamness, Budget Director (801) 535-7766 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing and Resolution RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that the City Council consider dissolving the existing Municipal Building Authority and creating a local building authority for the purpose of issuing bonds for a previously approved library location in the Glendale neighborhood. Since the City last used the Municipal Building Authority, Utah state statute has changed and this authority is now a local building authority. The Administration further recommends that, once created, the local building authority adopt a tentative budget and set the date for a public hearing regarding that tentative budget. BUDGET IMPACT: The Administration anticipates that this action will have no impact on the City's General Fund and will not require an amendment to the budget of the Library Fund. Once created, we recommend the Local Building Authority adopt an initial budget of$615,000. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Local Building Authority vs. Sales Tax Bonds for Glendale Library In June of 2009, the City Council approved the increase of the City Library's property tax rate to fund the construction of a Glendale library in order to service debt on planned sales tax bonds to be issued by the City for this purpose. The City's library system is funded almost entirely by property taxes. In this scenario envisioned by the City Council 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 306 P.O.BOX 145474,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 841 1 4-5 4 74 TELEPHONE:801-535-7704 FAX:801-535-6331 www.slcgov.com !.D► in 2009,although the property tax increase increment would be available to make debt service payments,the sales tax bonds would count toward the overall sales tax debt capacity of the City. At the same time,the City is considering a number of other major capital projects that may ultimately lead to a decision to issue sales tax bonds for one or all of these projects. The City's financial advisor,Dale Okerlund of Lewis,Young Robertson and Bumingham has recommended to both the Administration and the City Council that the City consider issuing bonds through a local building authority(LBA),a tool that is outlined in state statute. Lewis Young recommends the City consider an LBA bond structure rather than the sales tax bond mechanism in order to preserve sales tax bond capacity for transactions which either cannot be done using the other methods or which could only be done by other methods at a substantially greater interest expense. According to Lewis Young,the LBA structure is most useful for"essential purpose" stand alone facilities,such as the libraries,while sales tax bonds are useful without regard to the nature of the project. Consequently,projects suitable for LBA financing(all of which could be done with sales tax bonds)should be considered for that type of financing in order to decrease the overall demands on the City's"go to"mechanism of sales tax bonds. LBA bonds are slightly more costly than sales tax bonds. The additional cost in interest is expected to be approximately 20-25 basis points in the shorter maturities,rising to 30 -40 basis points for longer maturities.In August,assuming a bond issuance of approximately$6,000,000,the difference between issuing lease revenue or LBA bonds and sales tax bonds was calculated at approximately$30,000 annually and about $400,000 over an estimated life of 20 years. This option would leave the City greater borrowing flexibility for the future. Both annual estimated debt service amounts for the LBA and sales tax bonds are well within the property tax increment amount of approximately$556,000 approved by the City Council in 2009. To preserve borrowing flexibility,the Administration recommends dissolving the existing Municipal Building Authority,creating a Local Building Authority,and then,acting as the Local Building Authority,creating a budget for the project to spend bond proceeds on the Glendale Library project. A separate transmittal addresses steps necessary to create the LBA. A possible proposed timeline is also included in that transmittal. Glendale Library Project and Budget As originally approved by the City Council,the Glendale Library was estimated to cost approximately$8.2 million. This is a very general estimate,and at the time,didn't include either bond issuance costs or the cost of land for the project. The Library previously purchased a lot that has not been selected as the location for the Glendale branch. The budget for the project presented below represents current estimates for the project, adjusted for both anticipated property purchase and issuance costs,adds approximately $715,000 to the overall cost of the project. Glendale Library Project Budget Uses: Land purchase 615,000 ' Construction 4,700,000 2 Collection 2,000,000 3 Furnishings 700,000 Consulting 376,000 Technology 250,000 6 Cost of Issuance 100,000 Art,Landscaping,Misc. 210,000 s 8,951,000 Sources: Property Tax collected to date dedicated to Glendale 823,994 9 Glendale property tax to be collected in CY 2011 556,466 9 Designated Reserve Fund Balance 1,500,000 10 Rental Income - Donations - 12 Existing Land Sales - 13 2,880,460 Difference (6,070,540) 'Anticipated sales price of North property. Property will be purchased by the Local Building Authority. 'Assumes construction cost @$235 for a 20,000 sf library. 20,000 sf is current industry standard,and many SLC library locations are smaller. Includes standard construction items including lighting,electrical,HVAC,etc. Additional detail on construction costs is not currently available and will be developed once a project manager is hired for the project. 'Assumes collection of 100,000 items @ S20 per item. Depending on programming,collection could he smaller,requiring less square footage for the collection. °Assumes furnishing cost @$35 for a 20,000 sf library. This cost includes chairs,desks,tables,movable fixtures, shelving,service desks,seating and employee cubicles, Maximum life-span for many furnishings is 7-10 years,with some items having a considerably shorter life span. 'Assumes consulting services,including project manager and architectural services, rt 8'i of construction line item. 'Includes cost or hardware and software in the building.as well as the cost of connecting to 1 iber network to connect to existing librar network. 'Costs associated with issuing bonds. Includes 1%for Art,landscaping costs for new building and some contingency. Y Includes property tax collected in CY 09,10,and 11 for Glendale library project. 1D Assumes use of$1.5 million of dedicated reserve fund balance,as previously directed by City Council. °Placeholder for potential rental income at Glendale Library. Current programming suggests that some portion of library may include modular spaces that can be utilized by non-profits or retail,generating income. Community has also expressed interest in kitchen space,which may produce income. Rental income may be used for capital project, or may be used for operations. Placeholder for potential revenue from donations,including potential naming rights donations. Income may be used for capital project,or may be used for operations. °Placeholder for potential revenue for existing land sale. Income may be used for capital project,or may be used for operations. Several policy questions related to the budget remain,including whether the sale of the existing property in Glendale should be used for this or another capital project,whether potential donations,including naming rights,should be pursued for the capital project, and whether any potential rental income from the completed project should be included in the overall budget of the capital project or for branch operations. For these reasons, the Administration proposes a budget amendment that would include the purchase price of the land. Once more detail is available on the project,we recommend that the LBA Board convene again and approve the overall Library project and bond proceeds budget. As part of that approval,the LBA Board and the City Council will likely need to consider combining the project into one entity,rather than reflecting some expenses in the budget of the Library and the majority in the LBA. For financial reporting and budgeting,we will likely need to reflect all transactions in one entity,and because the Local Building Authority will be the bond issuer,this may be the LBA. If the Council chooses to issue sales tax bonds rather than bonds through the LBA,the need to combine transactions into one entity would remain,and a budget for sales tax bond proceeds may need to be created in the City's CIP fund. City and Library staff will continue to explore bond proceed and financial reporting requirements to ensure the Authority or the City complies with all pertinent rules. This technical adjustment does not affect the expectation that this project will be managed entirely by Library staff. Based on property taxes collected to date,as well as the use of the previously recommended$1.5 million from the Library's designated reserve fund balance,we estimate that the LBA would issue bonds for approximately$6,070,000. Due to tax restrictions,we currently anticipate property taxes already collected for this project and the designated reserve fund balance amount totaling approximately$2.9 million would be used to fund the purchase of the collection as well as the furnishings, and bond proceeds would be used to fund the remainder of the project. The Administration recommends that,once created,the LBA purchase the North property for the Glendale Library. The LBA will lease the property for the term of the bonds. Resolution No. of 2011 (Adopting the Tentative Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City,Utah for Fiscal Year 2011-2012) A Resolution Adopting the Tentative Budget for the Capital Projects Fund of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City,Utah,for remainder of the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1,2011 and Ending June 30,2012. PREAMBLE WHEREAS,the Salt Lake City Council has created the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City,Utah(the"Building Authority"),and has appointed as the Budget Officer of the Building Authority(the'Budget Officer"); WHEREAS,the Budget Officer has filed with the Board of Directors(the 'Board")of the Building Authority a tentative budget for the capital projects fund of the Building Authority;and WHEREAS,the Board is required to review,consider and tentatively adopt the tentative budget in a regular or special meeting called for that purpose;and WHEREAS,the tentative budget adopted by the Board and all supporting schedules and data shall be a public record in the office of the Secretary of the Building Authority,available for public inspection for a period of at least ten days before the adoption of the final budget;and WHEREAS,at the meeting in which the tentative budget for the capital projects fund is adopted,the Board shall establish the time and place of a public hearing to consider the adoption and shall order that notice thereof he published at least seven days before the hearing(a)in at least one issue of a newspaper of general circulation published in Salt Lake County,Utah and(b)on the Utah Public Notice Website created in Utah Code Section 63F-1-701. NOW,THEREFORE,be it resolved by the Board of Directors of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City,Utah,as follows: 1. The tentative budget for the capital projects fund of the Building Authority for remainder of the fiscal year 2011-2012,filed by the Budget Officer with the Board,is hereby adopted as the Building Authority's tentative budget for the capital projects fund and is ordered to be filed and maintained as a public record,available for public inspection in the office of the Secretary of the Building Authority,City and County Building,451 South State Street,Room ,Salt Lake City,Utah,until adoption of the final budget. 2. The Board shall hold a public hearing on the budget tentatively adopted. The public hearing shall be held at 7:00 p.m.on ,2011 at the City Council Chambers,City&County Building,451 South State Street,Room 315,Salt Lake City, Utah. Notice of the public hearing shall be published at least seven days before the hearing(a)in at least one issue of a newspaper of general circulation published in Salt Lake County,Utah and(b)on the Utah Public Notice Website created in Utah Code Section 63F-1-701. At the public hearing the Board shall give all interested persons in attendance an opportunity to be heard on the estimates of revenues and expenditures or any item in the tentative budget of the capital projects fund. 3. This Resolution shall take effect immediately upon its approval and adoption. 2 Passed by the Board of Directors of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of ,2011. PRESIDENT ATTEST: SECRETARY H B_ATTY-k 19922-v I-Local_bu i ldi ng_authority_budgetestabl ishment_201 I.DOC APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorneys Office Date 9 —t 3 SCANNED OCI• ok3a SCANNED BY: Kt. iiii DATE: .1-�I II DAIVIEL A. MULE SiA I ,2 U Celpit I i j[ RALPH BECKER RE' CE CITY TREASURER DEPARTMENT OF ADMINISTRATIVE SERVICES , 7411 D TREASURER'S DIVISION 4!!!! �i SEP 2 1 2011 CITY C_O � NSMITTAL g1\____s,. Salt Lake City Mayor Date Received: Dq/Z1(?i,I C Davi veritt, Chief of Staff �C COUNCIL OFFICE Date sent to Council: ryq I tri ZA11 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 21, 2011 Jill Remington Love, Chair FROM: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer 11r. ---- SUBJECT: Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City—Creation and Organization STAFF CONTACT: Daniel A. Mule, City Treasurer 801-535-6411 DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing/Discussion RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council hold a discussion on October 4, 2011 to address the possible creation and organization of a Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City (the "LBA"). BUDGET IMPACT: Minimal state filing fees to incorporate the LBA. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Due to a lapse in the registration of and the administrative dissolution of the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City (the "MBA") following the refunding of all of the outstanding lease revenue bonds of the Municipal Building Authority, it is necessary for the City Council to consider the organization of a new Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City if it wishes to fund additional projects using lease revenue bonds. This alternative financing approach would enable the City to preserve bonding capacity in the sales tax revenue bond arena. In 2001 the legislature allowed the use of sales tax revenue bonds as an acceptable financing mechanism for governments. Prior to this legislative action, the City used lease revenue bonds issued through the MBA extensively. The City financed the baseball stadium, the current public safety building, Wingpointe Golf Course and an additional 18 holes at Mountain Dell Golf Course, the Justice Court, Plaza 349, Steiner Aquatic Center, Steiner • - Ice Sheet, the Parks Block project at Gateway, fire stations, the fire training tower, and numerous other smaller projects all with lease revenue bonds issued through the MBA. LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 228, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4111 MAILING ADDRESS: P.O. BOX 145462, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B4114-5462 TELEPHONE: 801-535-7946 FAX: 801-535-6082 WWW.SLCGOV.COM Page 2 of 3 As part of the organization of the new Local Building Authority, the City Council would need to, among other things, approve the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws for the Local Building Authority. Additionally, the City Council would be asked to take formal action to dissolve the Municipal Building Authority. In order to create the new Local Building Authority, the following are the steps that need to be taken by the City Council and/or the Board of Directors of the Local Building Authority and the suggested dates when these steps should occur: STEP 1. October 25, 2011: Resolution Creating Local Building Authority — ATTACHMENT No. 1 City Council considers and adopts the resolution approving the organization of the LBA and the Articles of Incorporation and the Bylaws (which are attached as EXHIBIT B and EXHIBIT C respectively to the resolution). The resolution also contains the City's direction to dissolve the MBA. While dissolution of the MBA is not critical to the creation of the LBA, Bond Counsel thought it easier to include that provision in the resolution. Bond Counsel is reviewing the dissolution procedures, and the City Council may need to meet at some point as the Board of Directors of the MBA to also direct the dissolution of the MBA, but that does not need to be done prior to the creation of the LBA. Once the Articles of Incorporation are signed by the City Council Members, as incorporators, Bond Counsel will file this document with the state, thus officially incorporating the LBA. STEP 2. November 1, 2011: Organizational Meeting of the Local Building Authority—ATTACHMENT No. 2 The City Council would need to convene as the Board of Directors of the LBA and proceed through an organizational meeting. The Minutes of Organizational Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Local Building Authority (ATTACHMENT No. 2) contain several small resolutions that need to be adopted during the Organizational Meeting. The first suspends the normal rules of order and elects the officers of the LBA. The second approves the Bylaws of the LBA (EXHIBIT B). The third authorizes various officers to sign certain documents on behalf of the LBA. The fourth establishes that the Board of Directors of the LBA will hold regular meetings for the balance of the 2011-2.012 fiscal year and future years as deemed necessary. The fifth directs the Secretary to give notice of the annual meeting schedule. The sixth resolution ratifies actions taken by the officers of the LBA prior to the organizational meeting. There may be additional resolutions, including resolutions concerning officers and the budget. STEP 3. November 1,2011: LBA Board of Directors adopts tentative budget and sets the date for the public hearing for the budget. H:\Treas\DansDocs\Council Cover Letters\Local Building Authority Creation.doc Page 3 of 3 STEP 4. November 22,2011: LBA Board of Directors holds public hearing for the budget. STEP 5. December 6,2011: LBA Board of Directors adopts the budget. Attachments cc:Gina Chamness,Boyd Ferguson,Gordon Hoskins,Marina Scott, H itreas\DansDocs\Council Cover Letters\Local Building Authority Creation.dot 4TTACHMNT N0. Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 09/12/11 Amok Salt Lake City,Utah September_, 2011 The City Council (the "City Council") of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City") met in regular public session on September _, 2011, at its regular meeting place at 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, at 7:00 p.m., Utah time, due, legal and timely notice of the meeting having been given to all members as required by law and the rules of the City Council. The meeting was called to order by the Chair, and on roll call the following members, constituting a quorum,were determined present: Chair Jill Remington Love Vice Chair Stan Penfold Member Carlton Christensen .mow, Member Van Turner Member Luke Garrott Member JT Martin Member Siren Simonsen ABSENT: There were also present Ralph Becker, Mayor, Edwin P. Rutan, II, City Attorney, and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder. After the minutes of the preceding meeting had been read and approved, the Deputy City Recorder presented to the City Council an affidavit evidencing the giving of not less than twenty-four (24) hours' public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the September _, 2011 regular public meeting of the City Council in compliance with the requirements of 3062733.02.03.doc 8704082/RDB/mo Resolution Creating Local Building Authority Section 52-4-202, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, by (1) posting written notice of the meeting at the principal office of the City Council, (2) providing notice to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of the City or to a local media correspondent and (3) causing a Notice of Public Meeting to be posted at the Utah Public Notice Website. The affidavit was ordered recorded in the minutes of the meeting and is as follows: - 2 - Resolution Creating Local Building Authority STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) 1,the undersigned, the duly qualified and acting Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), do hereby certify, according to the records of the Salt Lake City Council (the "City Council") in my official possession and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-202, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours' public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the September_,2011,regular public meeting held by the City Council by: (a) causing a Notice of Public Meeting in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A to be posted at the principal office of the City Council at 451 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah, on September _, 2011, at least twenty-four (24) hours before the convening of the meeting,the Notice of Public Meeting having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection during the regular office hours of the City Council until the convening of the meeting; (b) causing a copy of the Notice of Public Meeting in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A to be provided on September_, 2011, at least twenty-four(24) hours before the convening of the meeting, to The Salt Lake Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of the City, and to each local media correspondent, newspaper, radio station or television station that has requested notification of meetings of the City Council; and (c) causing a Notice of Public Meeting to be posted on September_, 2011, at the Utah Public Notice Website at least twenty-four (24) hours before the convening of the meeting. - 3 - Resolution Creating Local Building Authority Thereupon, after the conduct of other business not pertinent to the following, the Chair presented to the City Council copies of forms of Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws for the proposed Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah, and introduced a resolution in written form (a) approving the organization of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Authority"), (b) approving the forms of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws for the Authority as so presented, (c) authorizing the appropriate officers of the City Council and the City to take all necessary or appropriate action in connection with the organization of the Authority, (d) authorizing the publication of such resolution and (e) dissolving the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County,Utah. The resolution and the forms of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws were thereupon reviewed and discussed and, after all interested persons were given opportunity to express their views to the City Council, thereupon moved, and seconded the motion, for the adoption of the following resolution. On being put to a vote, the City Council adopted the resolution upon the following vote: AYE: NAY: - 5 - Resolution Creating.Local Building Authority Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 09/12/11 ., RESOLUTION A RESOLUTION approving the organization of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah, and the forms of Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws relating thereto; authorizing the appropriate officers of the City Council and the City to take all necessary actions in connection therewith; dissolving the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah and providing for related matters. WHEREAS, pursuant to the provisions of the Utah Local Building Authority Act, Title 17D, Chapter 2, of the Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Act"), the City Council (the "City Council") of Salt Lake City,Utah (the "City"),is authorized to create a local building authority solely for the purpose of accomplishing the public purposes for which the City exists by acquiring, improving,or extending any improvement,facility,property or appurtenance to property that the City is permitted under law to own or acquire,including,but not limited to, a public building or other structure of any kind or a joint or partial interest in the same, which improvement, facility, property or appurtenance may be located inside or outside the boundaries of the City; WHEREAS, the City Council considers it necessary and desirable for the City to organize a nonprofit corporation as the local building authority (the "Corporation") solely for the purpose Amok of accomplishing thepublic purposes for which the Cityexists by acquiring, P b PrP constructing, q b, improving or extending such improvements, facilities, properties or appurtenances to property and financing their costs on behalf of the City, all in accordance with the procedures and subject to the limitations of the Act; WHEREAS, Section 17D-2-201(2) of the Act provides that the articles of incorporation and bylaws of a local building authority, such as the Corporation, are to be approved by the City Council; WHEREAS, there have been presented to and reviewed by the City Council proposed Articles of Incorporation (a copy of the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit B and which by this reference is incorporated herein) and proposed Bylaws (a copy of the form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit C and which by this reference is incorporated herein) for the Corporation, and the City Council desires to create the Corporation and approve such proposed documents and to authorize the appropriate officers of the City Council and the City to take all necessary or desirable actions in connection with the organization of the Corporation as required by law; Whereas, the Municipal Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the "Municipal Building Authority"), has been administratively dissolved and the City Council desires now to take the actions relating to such dissolution required by the Act and the Bylaws of the Municipal Building Authority; Resolution Creating,Local Building Authority Whereas, all bonds and other obligations of the Municipal Building Authority have been paid in full; and NOW, THEREFORE, Be it Resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as follows: Section 1. The City Council hereby creates the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City,Utah (the "Corporation"),to function on behalf of the City as its local building authority in accordance with the provisions of the Act, as the same now exists or as it may be from time to time amended. In connection with the creation of the Corporation, the City Council hereby approves (a) the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation in the form presented to and reviewed by the City Council that is attached hereto as Exhibit B and (b) the Bylaws of the Corporation in the form presented to and reviewed by the City Council that is attached hereto as Exhibit C. Section 2. The members of the City Council are hereby authorized and directed as incorporators to execute the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation in the form hereby approved, the City Attorney shall cause such executed Articles of Incorporation to be filed with the Division of Corporations and Commercial Code of the State of Utah, and the Chair, the City Recorder, the City Attorney, the City Treasurer and other officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take all necessary or desirable actions to cause the creation of the Corporation in accordance with the Act and the Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act, Title 16,Chapter 6a,Utah Code Annotated 1953,as amended. Section 3. The City Council, acting on its own behalf and as Board of Directors of the Municipal Building Authority and acting pursuant to Section _ of the Bylaws of the Municipal Building Authority and Section 17D-2-701 of the Act, hereby authorizes the dissolution of the Municipal Building Authority. Title to any property currently held by the Municipal Building Authority shall vest in the City and all assets of the Municipal Building Authority shall be transferred to the City. The officers of the City are hereby authorized and directed to take all actions necessary and make all necessary filings to dissolve the Municipal Building Authority under the Act and the Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act,Title 16, Chapter 6a,Utah Code Annotated 1953,as amended. Section 4. The City Council hereby ratifies, confirms and approves all actions heretofore taken by the officers of the City Council to arrange for the creation of the Corporation and the financing of certain projects on behalf of the City by the Corporation as authorized by the Act. Section 5. It is hereby declared that all parts of this resolution are severable, and if any section, paragraph, clause or provision of this resolution shall, for any reason, be held to be invalid or unenforceable,the invalidity or unenforceability of any such section,paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect the remaining sections, paragraphs, clauses or provisions of this resolution. - 2 - Resolution Creating Local Building Authority Section 6. All resolutions or parts thereof in conflict herewith are, to the extent of such conflict,hereby repealed and this resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately upon its adoption. APPROVED AND ADOPTED this day of September, 2011. Chair, City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah COUNTERSIGN AND ATTEST: By Deputy City Recorder [SEAL] Amok - 3 - Resolution Creating Local Building Authority 40404., STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I. Scott Crandall, the duly chosen, qualified and acting Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"),do hereby certify that the foregoing is a full, true and correct copy of excerpts from the minutes of a regular public meeting of the City Council of Salt Lake City (the "City Council") held at 451 South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, within the City, on September _, 2011, including a resolution adopted at the meeting, as recorded in the regular official book of minutes of the proceedings of the City Council kept in my office, that all members of the City Council were given due, legal and timely notice of the meeting, that the meeting therein shown was in all respects called,held and conducted in accordance with law and in full conformity therewith and that the persons therein named were present at the meeting as therein shown. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and affixed the official seal of Salt Lake City,Utah,at Salt Lake City,Utah,this day of September,2011. Deputy City Recorder [SEAL] - 7 - Resolution Creating Local Building Authority EXHIBIT t3 Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 09/12/1] Amok ARTICLES OF INCORPORATION OF LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH We, the undersigned persons, acting as incorporators of a corporation under the Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act, adopt the following articles of incorporation for such corporation: ARTICLE I NAME The name of the corporation shall be: LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH. ARTICLE II 140110, DURATION The period of duration of the corporation shall be perpetual unless and until dissolved according to Article XIV hereof or by operation of law. ARTICLE III ORGANIZATION AS NONPROFIT CORPORATION The corporation is organized as a nonprofit corporation pursuant to the provisions of the Local Building Authority Act, Title 17D, Chapter 2, of the Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Building Authority Act"), and in accordance with the procedures set forth in the Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act, Title 16, Chapter 6a, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Nonprofit Corporation Act"). The corporation does not contemplate pecuniary gain or profit to the directors or officers thereof and shall so conduct its affairs so that no profit or income from the operation thereof shall inure to any director or officer of the corporation or to 3062728.01.05.doc 8704082/RDB/mo any private person or private corporation. No distribution shall ever be made of any of the properties, assets or income of the corporation to any director or officer thereof or to any private person or private corporation. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, the corporation may be dissolved as provided in Article XIV hereof. ARTICLE IV PURPOSES AND POWERS The purposes of organizing the corporation are: (a) To accomplish the public purposes for which Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City") exists by acquiring, improving, or extending one or more projects consisting of any improvement,facility,property or appurtenance to property that the City is permitted under law to own or acquire, including, but not limited to, public buildings or other structures of any kind or any joint or partial interest in the same, which improvement, facility, property or appurtenance may be located inside or outside the boundaries of the City. (b) To finance on behalf of the City the costs of acquiring, improving, or extending such projects by issuing the corporation's bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness (collectively,the "Obligations") pursuant to the Building Authority Act at any time. (c) To conduct its business and affairs so as to tender by gift, or otherwise to transfer, as provided by law, to the City or its successors after all of the corporation's indebtedness has been paid or provision therefor has been made, all rights, title and interest of the corporation in and to all of its properties,assets, and net earnings. - 2 - (d) Without limiting the generality of the foregoing, but subject to the limitations set forth in Article VIII hereof, the corporation shall have all the powers, privileges and rights necessary or convenient for carrying out the purposes for which the corporation is organized, and the incorporators hereby claim for the corporation all the benefits, privileges, rights and powers created, given, extended or conferred by the provisions of all applicable laws of the State of Utah, including, without limitation, the Building Authority Act and the Nonprofit Corporation Act, and any additions, amendments or supplements thereto. ARTICLE V MEMBERS The corporation shall have no members and shall issue no shares of stock evidencing membership. ARTICLE VI BYLAWS After approval of the form of Bylaws by the City Council of the City (the "City Council"), the Board of Directors of the corporation (the "Board of Directors") shall have the power to adopt Bylaws (the "Bylaws") for the regulation and management of the affairs of the corporation not inconsistent with law or these Articles of Incorporation, and to amend or repeal any or all of such Bylaws, by the vote of a majority of the directors present at any regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors, as provided and subject to the limitations in the Bylaws; provided that no such amendment or repeal shall take effect until a certified copy of a resolution or other proceeding of the City Council approving such amendment or repeal shall have been filed with the Secretary of the corporation. - 3 - ARTICLE VII AMENDMENT TO ARTICLES These Articles of Incorporation may be amended or repealed in the manner provided by law;provided, however, that to the extent permitted by applicable law, after the issuance of any Obligations of the corporation and while any such Obligations may be outstanding, the provisions of Article III and Article IV(c) hereof may not be amended or repealed unless necessary to comply with the requirements of applicable law, and no articles of amendment shall be delivered to the Utah Division of Corporations and Commercial Code (and no amendment shall become effective) until a certified copy of a resolution or other proceeding of the City Council approving such amendment shall have been filed with the Secretary of the corporation. ARTICLE VIII ISSUANCE OF OBLIGATIONS TO BE APPROVED No Obligations of the corporation shall be issued until a certified copy of a resolution or other proceeding of the City Council approving the issuance of such Obligations and their terms shall have been filed with the Secretary of the corporation. ARTICLE IX DIRECTORS The corporation shall be administered and under the responsibility of a Board of Directors subject to the following: (a) The number of directors who shall constitute the Board of Directors shall be seven (7) or such other number as provided in the Bylaws. (b) The Board of Directors shall be composed of the members of the City Council and any change in the membership of the City Council shall automatically and -4 - without any action required hereunder operate to change the composition of the membership of the Board of Directors in the manner provided in the Bylaws and in accordance with law. (c) Members of the Board of Directors may be removed and replaced by the City Council at any time in its discretion to the extent provided by law. ARTICLE X INITIAL BOARD OF DIRECTORS The number of directors who shall constitute the initial Board of Directors shall be seven (7). The names and street addresses of the persons who are to serve as the initial directors until their successors are appointed and qualified are: NAME STREET ADDRESS Jill Remington Love Suite 304 in the City Hall 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Stan Penfold Suite 304 in the City Hall 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Carlton Christensen Suite 304 in the City Hall 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Van Turner Suite 304 in the City Hall 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Luke Garrott Suite 304 in the City Hall 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 JT Martin Suite 304 in the City Hall 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 - 5 - NAME STREET ADDRESS Soren Simonsen Suite 304 in the City Hall 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 ARTICLE XI INCORPORATORS The name and street address of each incorporator are as follows: NAME STREET ADDRESS Jill Remington Love Suite 304 in the City Hall 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Stan Penfold Suite 304 in the City Hall 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Carlton Christensen Suite 304 in the City Hall 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Van Turner Suite 304 in the City Hall 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Luke Garrott Suite 304 in the City Hall 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 JT Martin Suite 304 in the City Hall 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 Soren Simonsen Suite 304 in the City Hall 451 South State Street Salt Lake City,UT 84111 - 6 - ARTICLE XII INITIAL PRINCIPAL OFFICE AND REGISTERED OFFICE The location and street address of the initial principal office and registered office of the corporation are as follows: Suite 304 in the City Hall 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 ARTICLE XIII REGISTERED AGENT The corporation hereby appoints as its initial registered agent Edwin P. Rutan, II, an individual resident in the State of Utah. The location and street address of the registered office of such registered agent are as follows: IMillik City Attorney's Office Suite 505A of the City Hall 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 ARTICLE XIV DISSOLUTION The corporation may be dissolved in the manner provided in the Bylaws and as provided by law, including, without limitation, Section 17D-2-701 of the Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. - 7 - STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, , a notary public,do hereby certify that on this day of , 2011, personally appeared Jill Remington Love, Stan Penfold, Carlton Christensen, Van Turner, Luke Garrott, JT Martin, and Soren Simonsen, who, being by me first duly sworn, severally declared that they are the persons who signed the within and foregoing Articles of Incorporation as incorporators and that the statements therein contained are true. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand and seal this day of September,2011. 00100 NOTARY PUBLIC Residing at: , Utah [SEAL] - 9 - ACKNOWLEDGMENT OF REGISTERED AGENT The undersigned hereby acknowledges and accepts appointment as the initial registered agent of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah, the Utah nonprofit corporation organized pursuant to the Articles of Incorporation to which this acknowledgment is attached. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the undersigned registered agent has hereunto set his hand this day of September,2011. [Edwin P.Rutan,II] - 10 - EX1-116IT C, Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 09/13/11 BYLAWS OF THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH THESE BYLAWS have been adopted for the regulation and management of the affairs of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Corporation"), subject to the provisions of its Articles of Incorporation and the laws of the State of Utah, at a meeting of the Board of Directors (the "Board of Directors") of the Corporation held in Salt Lake City, Utah, on September_,2011,duly called for that purpose. ARTICLE I PROPERTY INTEREST AND NON-LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS Section 1.1. Nonprofit Character and Property Interest. The Corporation is organized and shall operate as a nonprofit corporation that does not distribute any part of its income to its directors or officers. No director or officer of the Corporation shall have any right, title or interest in or to any property, assets or income of the Corporation either prior to or at the time of the dissolution of the Corporation, all of which properties, assets and income shall at the time of dissolution be transferred to Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), as provided in the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation. The property, assets and income of the Corporation shall not inure to the benefit of any private person or private corporation. No earnings of the Corporation — may inure to the benefit of anyone other than the City. Section 1.2. Non-Liability. No member of the Board of Directors or officer of the Corporation shall be individually liable upon any indebtedness or liability incurred by the Corporation. Section 1.3. Activities. The Corporation shall engage only in activities that are essentially public in character and that are consistent with the purposes for which the Corporation was organized as provided in its Articles of Incorporation. ARTICLE II MEETINGS Section 2.1. Regular Meetings. The Board of Directors may provide for the holding of regular meetings of the Board of Directors, following such notice to the directors and to the public as may be required by Section 2.3 hereof, at the regular meeting place of the City Council of the City (the "City Council") as shall be designated in the notice of the meeting. Any regular meeting of the Board of Directors may be held on the same or a different day as the day on which regular meetings of the City Council are held. Section 2.2. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called upon a written order signed by any four directors or by the President of the Corporation, and it 3062730.01.06.doc 8704082/RDB/mo shall thereupon be the duty of the Secretary of the Corporation to cause notice of such meeting to be given as provided in Section 2.3 hereof. Any special meeting of the Board of Directors may be held at any place specified in the notice of such special meeting that is lawful for the holding of special meetings of the City Council. Section 2.3. Notice. Notice to the directors of any regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation shall be given by the Secretary in the same manner and at the same time as notice of any regular or special meeting, respectively, of the City Council is required by law to be given to members of the City Council. The Secretary of the Corporation shall cause notice to be given to the public of any such meeting as required by law,including, but not limited to, any such notice as may be required by the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act (Title 52, Chapter 4, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended), as amended or supplemented from time to time. Section 2.4. Waiver of Notice. By signing a written waiver, any director may waive any notice of a meeting required to be given by these Bylaws or any other notices required to be given to such director under the provisions of the Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act or under the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation or these Bylaws. Neither the business to be transacted at, nor the purpose of, any regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors need be specified in the waiver of notice of such meeting. The attendance of a director at any meeting shall constitute a waiver of notice of such meeting by such director, except where such director attends a meeting for the express purpose of objecting to the transaction of any business because the meeting has not been lawfully called or convened. Section 2.5. Quorum. Four directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting of the Board of Directors; provided, however, that in the event of the increase or decrease in the number of directors pursuant to Section 3.2 hereof, a majority of the number of directors so determined shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting of the Board of Directors held thereafter. The act of a majority of the directors present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of the Board of Directors; provided, however, that the minimum number of yes votes required to pass any resolution or to take any action by the Board of Directors shall never be less than two. If less than a quorum is present at a meeting, a majority of the directors present may adjourn the meeting from time to time without further notice. Section 2.6. Voting. Each director shall be entitled to only one vote upon each matter submitted to a vote at a meeting of the Board of Directors. ARTICLE III DIRECTORS Section 3.1. General Powers. The affairs of the Corporation shall be managed by its Board of Directors, which shall exercise all of the powers of the Corporation. - 2 - p Section 3.2. Number, Appointment, Tenure of Office and Removal. The number of directors of the Corporation shall be seven (7); provided that the number of directors of the Corporation shall be increased or decreased automatically and without any further action of the Board of Directors of the Corporation or of the City Council (including, but not limited to, any action to amend these Bylaws or the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation) to equal the number of members of the City Council at any time as the number of the members of the City Council shall be increased or decreased as provided by law. The members of the City Council shall act as the members of the Board of Directors of the Corporation and, upon taking office as members of the City Council, shall be considered as appointed to the Board of Directors of the Corporation. The term of office of each director shall be the period during which such director serves as a member of the City Council. Each director shall hold office for the term for which he or she is appointed and until his or her successor shall have been appointed and qualified or until his or her earlier death, resignation or removal from office. No director shall take office unless and until he or she is a duly elected or appointed member of the City Council. Any director who ceases to be a member of the City Council shall simultaneously cease to be a director. To the extent provided by law, members of the Board of Directors may be removed and replaced by the City Council at any time in its discretion,upon the filing with the Secretary of the Corporation of a certified copy of a resolution directing such removal and replacement adopted by the City Council, a copy of which resolution shall be recorded in the corporate records of the Corporation; provided, however, that only a member of the City Council may be appointed to replace any director so removed. Section 3.3. Vacancies. Any vacancy occurring in the Board of Directors,including any "' directorship to be filled by reason of an increase in the number of directors as provided in Section 3.2 hereof, shall be filled by the member of the City Council who has succeeded or been appointed to a position as a member of the City Council as a result of a vacancy on the City Council or as a result of the increase in the number of members of the City Council, such appointment as a director to be effective upon such successor taking office as a member of the City Council. Any such vacancy in the Board of Directors shall remain unfilled until the election or appointment of a new member to the City Council who shall be considered as appointed to the Board of Directors in the manner provided in Section 3.2 hereof. Section 3.4. Compensation. Neither directors nor officers shall receive any salary for their services rendered to the Corporation except that, by resolution of the Board of Directors, actual expenses of attendance, if any, may be allowed for attendance at meetings of the Board of Directors. No director or officer shall receive compensation for serving the Corporation in any other capacity, nor shall any close relative (as hereinafter defined) of a director or officer receive compensation for serving the Corporation. The term "close relative" as used herein shall mean any brother or sister of any director or officer, the forebears and descendants of a director or officer or of any such brother or sister, and any spouse of a director or officer or any aforesaid person. Section 3.5. Accounting and Audits. The Board of Directors shall establish and maintain an appropriate accounting system. A complete audit shall be made of the Corporation's accounts, books and financial condition after the close of each fiscal year, and a report thereon shall be submitted to the City Council. tea, - 3 - ARTICLE IV OFFICERS Section 4.1. Number. The officers of the Corporation shall be a President, Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and such other officers as may be determined by the Board of Directors from time to time to perform such duties as may be designated by resolution of the Board of Directors. Any two or more offices may be held by the same person, except the offices of President and Secretary and the offices of President and Vice President. The President and Vice President shall be members of the Board of Directors,but none of the other officers need be members of the Board of Directors unless otherwise required by law. Section 4.2 Selection of Officers and Term of Office. (a) The Chair and Vice Chair of the City Council shall act as the President and Vice President of the Board of Directors and, without any further action of the Board of Directors, upon taking office as Chair and Vice Chair of the City Council shall be considered as elected as President and Vice President, respectively, of the Board of Directors. (b) The City Treasurer of the City shall act as the Treasurer of the Corporation and, without any further action of the Board of Directors, upon being appointed as City Treasurer of the City, shall be considered as elected as Treasurer of the Corporation. (c) The of the City shall act as the Secretary of the Corporation and, without any further action of the Board of Directors,upon being appointed as of the City,shall be considered as elected as Secretary of the Corporation. (d) All other officers, if any, shall be elected by the Board of Directors at a meeting called for such purpose from time to time as a vacancy occurs in any office. (e) Each officer shall, so long as he or she qualifies for such position, hold office until his or her successor shall have been duly elected and qualified or until he or she is removed as provided in Section 4.3 hereof. Section 4.3. Removal of Officers and Agents by Board of Directors. Any officer or agent of the Corporation may be removed by the Board of Directors whenever in its judgment the best interests of the Corporation will be served thereby. Section 4.4. President. The President: (a) shall be the principal executive officer of the Corporation and, unless otherwise determined by the Board of Directors, shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Directors: (b) may sign any deeds, mortgages, deeds of trust, notes, bonds, contracts, leases, assignments or other instruments authorized by the Board of Directors to be executed, except in cases in which the signing and execution thereof shall be expressly - 4 - delegated by the Board of Directors or by these Bylaws to some other officer or agent of the Corporation,or shall be required by law to be otherwise signed or executed; and (c) shall in general perform all duties incident to the office of President and such other duties as from time to time may be assigned to him or her by the Board of Directors. Section 4.5. Vice President. In the absence of the President,or in the event of his or her inability or refusal to act, the Vice President shall perform the duties of the President, and, when so acting, shall have all the powers of, and be subject to all the restrictions upon, the President. The Vice President shall also perform such other duties as from time to time may be assigned to him or her by the Board of Directors. Section 4.6. Secretary. The Secretary shall: (a) keep the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors in one or more books provided for that purpose; (b) see that all notices are duly given in accordance with these Bylaws or as required by law; (c) be custodian of the corporate records and of the seal of the Corporation and affix the seal of the Corporation to documents, the execution of which on behalf of the Corporation under its seal is duly authorized in accordance with the provisions of these Bylaws; (d) keep a register of the names and post office addresses of all members of the Board of Directors; (e) have general charge of the books of the Corporation; (f) keep on file at all times a complete copy of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Corporation containing all amendments thereto (which copy shall always be open to the inspection of any director) and, at the expense of the Corporation, forward a copy of the Bylaws and of all amendments thereto to each member of the Board of Directors upon request; (g) keep as permanent records any records so required to be kept by Section 16-6a-160, Utah Code Annotated 1953,as amended; and (h) in general perform all duties incident to the office of Secretary and such other duties as from time to time may be assigned to him or her by the Board of Directors. Section 4.7. Treasurer. The Treasurer shall (except to the extent that the Corporation may have assigned its receivables or securities): - 5 - (a) have charge and custody of and be responsible for all funds and securities of the Corporation; (b) be responsible for the receipt of, and the issuance of receipts for, all moneys due and payable to the Corporation and for the deposit of all such moneys in the name of the Corporation in such banks, trust companies or depositaries as shall be selected in accordance with the provisions of these Bylaws; and (c) in general perform all duties incident to the office of Treasurer and such other duties as from time to time may be assigned to him or her by the Board of Directors. Section 4.8. Powers, Duties and Compensation. The powers, duties and compensation of officers, agents and employees (other than those expressly hereinabove provided for the officers of the Corporation in this Article IV) shall be fixed by resolution of the Board of Directors, subject to the provisions of these Bylaws with respect to compensation for directors and officers and close relatives of directors and officers as provided in Section 3.4 hereof. Section 4.9. Bonds of Officers. The Treasurer and any other officer or agent of the Corporation charged with responsibility for the custody of any of its funds or property shall give bond in such sum and with such surety as the Board of Directors shall determine or as may otherwise be required by law; provided that the requirement for such bond may be satisfied under any existing fidelity bond carried by the City that would apply to the Treasurer or any other such officer or agent of the Corporation. The Board of Directors in its discretion may also require any other officer, agent or employee of the Corporation to give bond in such amount and with such surety as the Board of Directors shall determine. ARTICLE V NONPROFIT OPERATION The Corporation shall at all times be operated on a nonprofit basis. No dividend shall be paid or payable by the Corporation, and no part of the income of the Corporation shall be distributed by the Corporation,to any director or officer of the Corporation. ARTICLE VI ACCOMPLISHMENT OF PURPOSE The Corporation is a public entity and an instrumentality of the State of Utah performing essential governmental functions on behalf of the City, and has been organized solely for the purpose of accomplishing the public purposes for which the City exists by acquiring, improving or extending any improvement, facility, property or appurtenance to property that the City is permitted under law to own or acquire, including, but not limited to, a public building or other structure of any kind or a joint or partial interest in the same, which improvement, facility, - 6 - property or appurtenance may be located inside or outside the boundaries of the City, and financing the costs of any such improvement, facility, property or appurtenance on behalf of the City. To fulfill its purpose, the Corporation intends to issue its bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness (collectively, the "Bonds") to acquire funds to pay the costs of acquiring, improving or extending any such improvement, facility, property or appurtenance to property and to pay all costs incidental thereto to the extent permitted by law. Upon payment in full of all Bonds issued to acquire, improve or extend a particular project, title to such project shall vest in the City as provided by law, and the Corporation shall forthwith tender by gift, or otherwise transfer, as provided by law,all of the Corporation's right,title and interest in and to such project to the City. ARTICLE VII DISSOLUTION Section 7.1. Voluntary Dissolution. (a) Subject to the limitations hereinafter provided, the Corporation shall be dissolved upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Board of Directors voting upon a motion to dissolve, at a regular or special meeting of the Board ' of Directors, in the manner provided by law; provided, however, that no such vote shall take effect, and no dissolution of the Corporation shall occur, until the filing with the Secretary of the Corporation of a certified copy of a resolution ordering such dissolution adopted by the City Council, a copy of which resolution shall be recorded in the corporate records of the Amok Corporation. The dissolution must be done in accordance with applicable law, including the Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act,as amended. (b) The Corporation may not be dissolved unless all outstanding Bonds and other obligations of the Corporation are paid in full as to principal, interest and redemption premiums, if any,or unless provision for the payment of the same when due has been made. Section 7.2. Distribution of Assets. Upon the dissolution of the Corporation,title to each "project" (as such term is defined in Section 1 7D-2-102(9), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended) of the Corporation shall vest in the City, and all assets and net earnings of the Corporation remaining after payment or provision has been made for the payment of all outstanding Bonds and obligations of the Corporation, shall be transferred to the City. ARTICLE VIII FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS Section 8.1. Contracts. Except as otherwise provided by these Bylaws, the Board of Directors may authorize any officer or officers or agent or agents of the Corporation to enter into any contract or execute and deliver any instrument in the name and on behalf of the Corporation, and such authority may be general or confined to specific instances. - 7 - Section 8.2. Checks, Drafts, Etc. All checks, drafts or other orders for the payment of money and all notes, bonds or other evidences of indebtedness issued in the name of the Corporation shall be signed by such officer or officers or agent or agents of the Corporation and in such manner as shall from time to time be determined by resolution of the Board of Directors. Section 8.3. Deposits. All funds of the Corporation not otherwise employed shall be deposited from time to time to the credit of the Corporation in such banks, trust companies or other depositaries as the Board of Directors may select or as may otherwise be required by law. Section 8.4. Form and Execution of Bonds. The Bonds issued by the Corporation shall be in such form as may be approved by the Board of Directors,shall be executed in the name and on behalf of the Corporation by such officer or officers of the Corporation as shall be designated by the Board of Directors and under the corporate seal of the Corporation, and shall be issued in compliance with the terms and conditions, and subject to the limitations, provided in the Local Building Authority Act, as amended from time to time, including, but not limited to, the requirement that no Bonds may be issued by the Corporation unless the issuance of the Bonds and the terms of the Bonds have been approved by the City Council, and in compliance with the terms and conditions provided in the proceedings authorizing the issuance of the Bonds. ARTICLE IX INDEMNIFICATION OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS To the extent allowed by the Articles of Incorporation and law, each director and officer of the Corporation, whether or not then in office, and his or her personal representatives, shall be indemnified by the Corporation against all expenses actually and necessarily incurred by him or her in connection with the defense of any action, suit or proceeding in which he or she was made a party by reason of being or having been such director or officer, if a) the director or officer's conduct was in good faith; b) the director or officer reasonably believed that his or her conduct was in, or not opposed to, the Corporation's best interests; and c) in the case of any criminal proceeding, the director or officer had no reasonable cause to believe his or her conduct was unlawful. The termination of a proceeding by judgment,order, settlement, conviction, or upon a plea of nolo contendere or its equivalent is not,of itself,determinative that the director or officer did not meet the standard of conduct described above. To the extent permitted by law, each director, officer, employee or agent of the Corporation shall have all rights provided to employees in the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah, Title 63G, Chapter 7, Utah Code Annotated 1953. as amended, and in Title 63G, Chapter 8, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. - 8 - ARTICLE X AMENDMENT These Bylaws may be altered, amended or repealed by the affirmative vote of a majority of the directors present at any regular or special meeting,provided a quorum as provided in these Bylaws be present and provided the waiver or notice of such meeting shall have contained a copy of the proposed alteration, amendment or repeal. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no such alteration, amendment or repeal of any or all of these Bylaws shall take effect until a certified copy of a resolution or other proceeding approving such alteration, amendment or repeal adopted by the City shall have been filed with the Secretary of the Corporation. ARTICLE XI MISCELLANEOUS Section 11.1. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the Corporation shall be the same as the annual accounting period of the City as from time to time in effect, being initially a period commencing on July 1 of each calendar year and ending on the next succeeding June 30. Section 11.2. Rules and Regulations. The Board of Directors shall have the power to make and adopt such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with law, the Articles of owes Incorporation of the Corporation or these Bylaws, as it may deem advisable for the regulation and management of the affairs of the Corporation. Section 11.3. Office and Principal Place of Business. The office and principal place of business of the Corporation shall be located at Suite 304 in the City Hall, 451 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah, unless and until changed by the Board of Directors with the appropriate written notices being given. • 0,404. - 9 - A4TTACHM& NT a, Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 09/12/11 "mow MINUTES OF ORGANIZATIONAL MEETING OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY Salt Lake City,Utah September_,2011 The Organizational Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah,a Utah nonprofit corporation (hereinafter the "Authority"), was held at 451 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, at a meeting that began at 7:00 p.m., on September _, 2011. Each of the Directors, by affixing his or her signature to the minutes of this meeting, hereby waives any and all notice of the time, place and purpose of this meeting to which he or she may be entitled and hereby consents to the transaction of all items of business set forth herein. The following Directors were determined present: Director Jill Remington Love Director Stan Penfold Director Carlton Christensen Director Van Turner Director Luke Garrott Director JT Martin Director Soren Simonsen ABSENT: constituting all of the Directors of the Authority. Also present were Ralph Becker, Mayor, Edwin P. Rutan, II, City Attorney, and Scott Crandall, Deputy City Recorder of Salt 3062737.02.03.doc 8704082/RDB/mo LBA Organizing Resolution Lake City, Utah (the "City"). [Jill Remington Love] presided as Chair of the meeting, and [Scott Crandall]' acted as Secretary of the meeting and recorded the proceedings. The Chair stated that this was the Organizational Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Authority (the "Board of Directors") and presented to the Board of Directors an affidavit evidencing the giving of not less than twenty-four (24) hours' public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the meeting in compliance with the requirements of Section 52-4-202, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, by (1) posting written notice of the meeting at the principal office of the Board of Directors, (2) providing notice to at least one newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of the City and the Authority or to a local media correspondent and (3) causing a Notice of Public Meeting to be posted on the Utah Public Notice Website. The affidavit was ordered recorded in the minutes of the meeting and is as follows: Question: Is this the person who will act as Secretary for the meeting? _ 2 _ LBA Organizing Resolution Amok STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, the undersigned Deputy City Recorder of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), do hereby certify, according to the records of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Authority"), in my official possession until the Board of Directors (the "Board") has appointed a Secretary for the Authority, and upon my own knowledge and belief, that in accordance with the requirements of Section 52-4-202, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, I gave not less than twenty-four (24) hours' public notice of the agenda, date, time and place of the September _,2011 Organizational Meeting held by the Board by: (a) causing a Notice of Public Meeting in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A to be posted at the principal office of the Board at 451 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah, on September _, 2011, at least twenty-four (24) hours before the convening of the meeting,the Notice of Public Meeting having continuously remained so posted and available for public inspection during the regular office hours of the Board until the convening of the meeting; (b) causing a copy of the Notice of Public Meeting in the form attached hereto as Exhibit A to be provided on September_, 2011, at least twenty-four(24) hours before the convening of the meeting, to The Salt Lake Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of the City and the Authority, and to each local media correspondent, newspaper, radio station or television station that has requested notification of meetings of the Board; and (c) causing a Notice of Public Meeting to be posted on September_, 2011, on the Utah Public Notice Website at least twenty-four (24) hours before the convening of the meeting. ,,,t,,, - 3 - LBA Organizing Resolution The Chair stated that the first item of business involved the election of officers of the Authority. After due consideration of the resolution by the Board, thereupon moved, and seconded the motion, and the Board unanimously approved and adopted the following resolution: RESOLVED: That the normal rules of order be, and the same hereby are, waived and that the following persons be, and they hereby are, elected to serve as officers of this Authority until their successors are duly elected and qualified: Jill Remington Love President Stan Penfold Vice President Daniel Mule Treasurer Secretary The Chair stated that the next item of business to be transacted involved the adoption by the Board of Directors of a proposed set of Bylaws for the regulation and management of the affairs of the Authority. The Chair explained that these Bylaws had been reviewed and approved by the City Council of Salt Lake City at its meeting held on September 2011, and have previously been reviewed by each of the Directors prior to this meeting. After due consideration of the resolution by the Board, thereupon moved, and seconded the motion, and the Board unanimously approved and adopted the following resolution: RESOLVED: That the form of Bylaws submitted at this meeting, a copy of which is annexed hereto as Exhibit B, be and hereby is adopted as the official Bylaws of this Authority. It was then deemed advisable to give general authority to the President, any Vice President, the Secretary and the Treasurer to execute all necessary instruments or documents on behalf of the Authority required for the conduct of its affairs in the State of Utah. - 5 — LBA Organizing.Resolution After due consideration of the resolution by the Board, thereupon moved, and seconded the motion, and the Board unanimously approved and adopted the following resolution: RESOLVED: That the President, any Vice President, the Secretary and the Treasurer be, and they are hereby, authorized to execute on behalf of the Authority any and all employment agreements, deeds, leases, contracts, purchase orders, assignments, notes, bonds, mortgages, deeds of trust and other instruments or documents that may be necessary or desirable in connection with the conduct of the affairs of the Authority. The Chair then stated that the next item of business was the establishing of the annual meeting schedule of the Board of Directors for the balance of the 2011-2012 fiscal year and for all future years. After due consideration of the resolution by the Board, thereupon moved, and seconded the motion, and the Board unanimously approved and adopted the following resolution: RESOLVED: That the Board of Directors of the Authority will hold regular meetings for the balance of the 2011-2012 fiscal year and for all future years from time to time as the Board of Directors shall deem necessary. When held, regular meetings of the Board of Directors will be on the same dates and at the same times and places as regular meetings of the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah. Notice of the annual meeting schedule for the Board of Directors for each year specifying the date, time and place of regular meetings of the Authority shall be given as required by Chapter 4 of Title 52, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, or such successor provisions thereto as may be enacted by the Utah Legislature from time to time. - 6 - LBA Organizing Resolution RESOLVED FURTHER: That the Secretary of the Authority is hereby directed to give public notice of the annual meeting schedule of the Board of Directors for the balance of the 2011-2012 fiscal year by: (a) causing a notice of the annual meeting schedule for the Board of Directors to be posted at the principal office of the Board of Directors at 324 South State Street, Salt Lake City, Utah, as soon as reasonably practicable hereafter, that notice to remain so posted and available for public inspection during the regular office hours of the Board of Directors until at least June 30,2011; (b) causing a copy of the notice of annual meeting schedule for the Board of Directors to be provided as soon as reasonably practicable hereafter to The Salt Lake Tribune, a newspaper of general circulation within the geographic jurisdiction of Salt Lake City, Utah, and the Authority, and to each local media correspondent, newspaper, radio station or television station that has requested notification of meetings of the Board of Directors; and (c) causing a copy of the notice of annual meeting schedule to be posted on the Utah Public Notice Website. opok The Chair then stated that the next item of business was the ratification of any and all actions heretofore taken by the officers of the Authority on behalf of the Authority with respect to its organization. After due consideration of the resolution by the Board, thereupon moved, and seconded the motion, and the Board unanimously approved and adopted the following resolution: RESOLVED: That any and all actions taken by the officers of the Authority prior to the date of this Organizational Meeting that are within the authority conferred in this Organizational Meeting are hereby ratified, confirmed, and approved as the act and deed of the Authority, including but not limited to all actions as have heretofore been taken in connection with the organization of the Authority. AMOK - 7 - LBA Organizing Resolution There being no further business to come before the Board of Directors,the meeting, upon motion being duly seconded and unanimously carried,was adjourned. Jill Remington Love Stan Penfold Carlton Christensen Van Turner Luke Garrott JT Martin Soren Simonsen - 8 — LBA Organizing Resolution STATE OF UTAH ) COUNTY OF SALT LAKE ) I, , do hereby certify that I am the duly qualified and acting Secretary of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City,Utah (the "Authority"). I further certify that the foregoing constitutes a true and correct copy of the minutes of the Organizational Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Authority held on 2011,at 451 South State Street,Salt Lake City,Utah, at p.m. IN WITNESS WHEREOF,I have hereunto set my hand this day of , 2011. Secretary of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City,Utah Amoitk - 9 - LBA Organizing Resolution EXH IB a -r B Chapman and Cutler LLP Draft of 09/13/1 1 BYLAWS OF THE LOCAL BUILDING AUTHORITY OF SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH THESE BYLAWS have been adopted for the regulation and management of the affairs of the Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Corporation"), subject to the provisions of its Articles of Incorporation and the laws of the State of Utah, at a meeting of the Board of Directors (the "Board of Directors") of the Corporation held in Salt Lake City. Utah, on September_. 201 1,duly called for that purpose. ARTICLE I PROPERTY INTEREST AND NON-LIABILITY OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS Section 1.1. Nonprofit Character and Property Interest. The Corporation is organized and shall operate as a nonprofit corporation that does not distribute any part of its income to its directors or officers. No director or officer of the Corporation shall have any right, title or interest in or to any property, assets or income of the Corporation either prior to or at the time of the dissolution of the Corporation. all of which properties. assets and income shall at the time of dissolution be transferred to Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"). as provided in the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation. The property, assets and income of the Corporation shall not inure to the benefit of any private person or private corporation. No earnings of the Corporation may inure to the benefit of anyone other than the City. Section 1.2. Non-Liability. No member of the Board of Directors or officer of the Corporation shall be individually liable upon any indebtedness or liability incurred by the Corporation. Section 1.3. Activities. The Corporation shall engage only in activities that are essentially public in character and that are consistent with the purposes for which the Corporation was organized as provided in its Articles of Incorporation. ARTICLE II MEET INGS Section 2.1. Regular Meetings. The Board of Directors may provide for the holding of regular meetings of the Board of Directors. following. such notice to the directors and to the public as may be required by Section 2.3 hereof. at the regular meeting place of the City Council of the City (the "City Council") as shall be designated in the notice of the meeting. Any regular meeting of the Board of Directors may be held on the same or a different day as the day on which regular meetings of the City Council are held. Section 2.2. Special Meetings. Special meetings of the Board of Directors may be called upon a w ritten order signed by any four director, or by the President of the Corporation, and it 306„ o.m Ob d 37()408:RDB ma shall thereupon he the duty of the Secretary of the Corporation to cause notice of such meeting to be given as provided in Section 2.3 hereof. Any special meeting of the Board of Directors may be held at any place specified in the notice of such special meeting that is lawful for the holding of special meetings of the City Council. Section ?.S. Notice. Notice to the directors of any regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors of the Corporation shall be given by the Secretary in the same manner and at the same time as notice of any regular or special meetin`_, respectively, of the City' Council is required by law to be given to members of the City Council. The Secretary' of the Corporation shall cause notice to be given to the public of any such meeting as required by law, including, but not limited to. any such notice as may be required by the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act (Title 52. Chapter 4. Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended), as amended or supplemented from time to time. Section 2.4. Waiver of Notice. By signing a written waiver, any director may waive any notice of a meeting required to be given by these Bylaws or any other notices required to he given to such director under the provisions of the Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act or under the provisions of the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation or these Bylaws. Neither the business to be transacted at, nor the purpose of. any regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors need be specified in the waiver of notice of such meeting. The attendance of a director at any meeting shall constitute a waiver of notice of such meeting by such director, except where such director attends a meeting for the express purpose of objecting to the transaction of any business because the meeting has not been lawfully called or convened. Section ?.?. Quorum. Four directors shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting of the Board of Directors; provided, however, that in the event of the increase or decrease in the number of directors pursuant to Section 3.2 hereof, a majority of the number of directors so determined shall constitute a quorum for the transaction of business at any meeting of the Board of Directors held thereafter. The act of a majority of the directors present at a meeting at which a quorum is present shall be the act of the Board of Directors; provided, however, that the minimum number of yes votes required to pass any resolution or to take any action by the Board of Directors shall never be less than two. If less than a quorum is present at a meeting, a majority of the directors present may adjourn the meeting from time to time w ithout further notice. Section 2.6. Voting. Each director shall be entitled to only one vote upon each matter submitted to a vote at a meeting of the Board of Directors. ARTICLE III DIRECTORS Section 3.1. General Powers. The affairs of the Corporation shall he managed by its Board of Directors. which shall exercise all of the powers of the Corporation. Section 3.2. Number, Appointment, Tenure of Office and Removal. The number of directors of the Corporation shall be seven (7); provided that the number of directors of the Corporation shall be increased or decreased automatically and without any further action of the Board of Directors of the Corporation or of the City Council (including, but not limited to, any action to amend these Bylaws or the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation) to equal the number of members of the City Council at any time as the number of the members of the City Council shall be increased or decreased as provided by law. The members of the City Council shall act as the members of the Board of Directors of the Corporation and, upon taking office as members of the City Council, shall be considered as appointed to the Board of Directors of the Corporation. The term of office of each director shall be the period during which such director serves as a member of the City' Council. Each director shall hold office for the term for which he or she is appointed and until his or her successor shall have been appointed and qualified or until his or her earlier death, resignation or removal from office. No director shall take office unless and until he or she is a duly elected or appointed member of the City Council. Any director who ceases to be a member of the City Council shall simultaneously cease to be a director. To the extent provided by law, members of the Board of Directors may be removed and replaced by the City Council at any time in its discretion. upon the filing with the Secretary of the Corporation of a certified copy of a resolution directing such removal and replacement adopted by the City Council, a copy of which resolution shall be recorded in the corporate records of the Corporation: provided, however, that only' a member of the City' Council may be appointed to replace any' director so removed. Section 3.3. Vacancies. Any vacancy occurring in the Board of Directors, including any directorship to be filled by reason of an increase in the number of directors as provided in Section 3.2 hereof, shall be filled by the member of the City Council who has succeeded or been appointed to a position as a member of the City Council as a result of a vacancy on the City Council or as a result of the increase in the number of members of the City Council, such appointment as a director to be effective upon such successor taking office as a member of the City' Council. Any such vacancy in the Board of Directors shall remain unfilled until the election or appointment of a new member to the City Council who shall be considered as appointed to the Board of Directors in the manner provided in Section 3.2 hereof. Section 3.4. Compensation. Neither directors nor officers shall receive any salary for their services rendered to the Corporation except that, by resolution of the Board of Directors. actual expenses of attendance, if any. may be allowed for attendance at meetings of the Board of Directors. No director or officer shall receive compensation for serving the Corporation in any other capacity. nor shall any close relative (as hereinafter defined) of a director or officer receive compensation for serving the Corporation. The term "close relative" as used herein shall mean any brother or sister of any director or officer, the forebears and descendants of a director or officer or of any such brother or sister, and any spouse of a director or officer or any aforesaid person. Section 3.5. Accounting and Audits. The Board of Directors shall establish and maintain an appropriate accounting system. A complete audit shall be made of the Corporation's accounts. books and financial condition after the close of each fiscal sear. and a report thereon shall be submitted to the City Council. ARTICLE IV OFFICERS Section 4.1. Number. The officers of the Corporation shall be a President. Vice President, Secretary, Treasurer and such other officers as may be determined by the Board of Directors from time to time to perform such duties as may be designated by resolution of the Board of Directors. Any two or more offices may be held by the same person, except the offices of President and Secretary and the offices of President and Vice President. The President and Vice President shall be members of the Board of Directors,but none of the other officers need be members of the Board of Directors unless otherwise required by law. Section 4.2 Selection of Officers and Term of Office. (a) The Chair and Vice Chair of the City Council shall act as the President and Vice President of the Board of Directors and, without any further action of the Board of Directors, upon taking office as Chair and Vice Chair of the City Council shall be considered as elected as President and Vice President, respectively, of the Board of Directors. (b) The City Treasurer of the City shall act as the Treasurer of the Corporation and. without any further action of the Board of Directors, upon being appointed as City Treasurer of the City, shall be considered as elected as Treasurer of the Corporation. (c) The of the City shall act as the Secretary of the Corporation and, """ without any further action of the Board of Directors, upon being appointed as of the City, shall be considered as elected as Secretary of the Corporation. (d) All other officers, if any, shall be elected by the Board of Directors at a meeting called for such purpose from time to time as a vacancy occurs in any office. (e) Each officer shall, so long as he or she qualifies for such position, hold office until his or her successor shall have been duly elected and qualified or until he or she is removed as provided in Section 4.3 hereof. Section 4.3. Removal of Officers and Agents by Board of Directors. Any officer or agent of the Corporation may be removed by the Board of Directors whenever in its judgment the best interests of the Corporation will be served thereby. Section 4.4. President. The President: (a) shall be the principal executive officer of the Corporation and, unless otherwise determined by the Board of Directors, shall preside at all meetings of the Board of Directors: (b) may sign any deeds, mortgages, deeds of trust, notes. bonds, contracts. leases. assignments or other instruments authorized by the Board of Directors to be executed, except in cases in which the signing and execution thereof shall be expressly - 4 - delegated by the Board of Directors or by these Bylaws to some other officer or agent of the Corporation.or shall be required by lays to be otherwise signed or executed: and (c) shall in general perform all duties incident to the office of President and such other duties as from time to time may be assigned to him or her by the Board of Directors. Section 4.5. Vice President. In the absence of the President, or in the event of his or her inability or refusal to act, the Vice President shall perform the duties of the President, and, when so acting, shall have all the powers of. and be subject to all the restrictions upon, the President. The Vice President shall also perform such other duties as from time to time may be assigned to him or her by the Board of Directors. Section 4.6. Secretary. The Secretary shall: (a) keep the minutes of the meetings of the Board of Directors in one or more books provided for that purpose; (b) see that all notices are duly given in accordance with these Bylaws or as required by law: (c) be custodian of the corporate records and of the seal of the Corporation and affix the seal of the Corporation to documents, the execution of which on behalf of the Corporation under its seal is duly authorized in accordance with the provisions of these Bylaws: (d) keep a register of the names and post office addresses of all members of the Board of Directors; (e) have general charge of the books of the Corporation; (f) keep on file at all times a complete copy of the Articles of Incorporation and Bylaws of the Corporation containing all amendments thereto (which copy shall always be open to the inspection of any director) and. at the expense of the Corporation, forward a copy of the Bylaws and of all amendments thereto to each member of the Board of Directors upon request: (g) keep as permanent records any records so required to be kept by Section 16-6a-160, Utah Code Annotated 1953. as amended: and (h) in general perform all duties incident to the office of Secretary and such other duties as from time to time may be assigned to him or her by the Board of Directors. Section 4.7. Treasurer. The Treasurer shall (except to the extent that the Corporation may hay e assigned its receivables or securities): (a) have charge and custody of and be responsible for all funds and securities of the Corporation; (b) be responsible for the receipt of, and the issuance of receipts for, all moneys due and payable to the Corporation and for the deposit of all such moneys in the name of the Corporation in such banks, trust companies or depositaries as shall be selected in accordance with the provisions of these Bylaws: and (c) in general perform all duties incident to the office of Treasurer and such other duties as from time to time may be assigned to him or her by the Board of Directors. Section 4.8. Powers, Ditties and Compensation. The powers. duties and compensation of officers, agents and employees (other than those expressly hereinabove provided for the officers of the Corporation in this Article IV) shall be fixed by resolution of the Board of Directors. subject to the provisions of these Bylaws with respect to compensation for directors and officers and close relatives of directors and officers as provided in Section 3.4 hereof. Section 4.9. Bonds of Officers. The Treasurer and any other officer or agent of the Corporation charged with responsibility for the custody of any of its funds or property shall give bond in such sum and with such surety as the Board of Directors shall determine or as may otherwise he required by law; provided that the requirement for such bond may be satisfied under any existing fidelity bond carried by the City that would apply to the Treasurer or any "w"`' other such officer or agent of the Corporation. The Board of Directors in its discretion may also require any other officer, agent or employee of the Corporation to give bond in such amount and with such surety as the Board of Directors shall determine. ARTICLE V NONPROFIT OPERATION The Corporation shall at all times be operated on a nonprofit basis. No dividend shall be paid or payable by the Corporation, and no part of the income of the Corporation shall be distributed by the Corporation, to any director or officer of the Corporation. ARTICLE VI ACCOMPLISHMENT OF PURPOSE The Corporation is a public entity and an instrumentality of the State of Utah performing essential governmental functions on behalf of the City, and has been organized solely for the purpose of accomplishing the public purposes for which the City exists by acquiring. improving or extending any improvement, facility, property or appurtenance to property that the City is permitted under law to own or acquire. including, but not limited to. a public building or other structure of any kind or a joint or partial interest in the same, which improvement. facility. - 6 - property or appurtenance may be located inside or outside the boundaries of the City, and financing the costs of any such improvement. facility, property or appurtenance on behalf of the City. To fulfill its purpose. the Corporation intends to issue its bonds, notes or other evidences of indebtedness (collectively, the "Bonds") to acquire funds to pay the costs of acquiring. improving or extending any such improvement. facility. property or appurtenance to property and to pay all costs incidental thereto to the extent permitted by law. Upon payment in full of all Bonds issued to acquire. improve or extend a particular project, title to such project shall vest in the City as provided by law, and the Corporation shall forthwith tender by gift. or otherwise transfer, as provided by law. all of the Corporation's right, title and interest in and to such project to the City. ARTICLE VII DISSOLUTION Section 7.1. Voluntary Dissolution. (a) Subject to the limitations hereinafter provided, the Corporation shall be dissolved upon the affirmative vote of a majority of the members of the Board of Directors voting upon a motion to dissolve, at a regular or special meeting of the Board of Directors. in the manner provided by law; provided, however, that no such vote shall take effect, and no dissolution of the Corporation shall occur. until the filing with the Secretary of the Corporation of a certified copy of a resolution ordering such dissolution adopted by the City Council, a copy of which resolution shall be recorded in the corporate records of the Corporation. The dissolution must be done in accordance with applicable law, including the Utah Revised Nonprofit Corporation Act, as amended. (b) The Corporation may not be dissolved unless all outstanding Bonds and other obligations of the Corporation are paid in full as to principal, interest and redemption premiums. if any,or unless provision for the payment of the same when due has been made. Section 7.2. Distribution of Assets. Upon the dissolution of the Corporation, title to each "project" (as such term is defined in Section 17D-2-102(9), Utah Code Annotated 1953. as amended) of the Corporation shall vest in the City, and all assets and net earnings of the Corporation remaining. after payment or provision has been made for the payment of all outstanding Bonds and obligations of the Corporation. shall be transferred to the City. ARTICLE VIII FINANCIAL TRANSACTIONS Section 8.1. Contracts. Except as otherwise provided by these Bylaws, the Board of Directors may authorize any officer or officers or agent or agents of the Corporation to enter into any contract or execute and deliver any instrument in the name and on behalf of the Corporation. and such authority may be general or confined to specific instances. - 7 - Amok Section 8.2. Checks, Drafts, Etc. All checks, drafts or other orders for the payment of money and all notes, bonds or other evidences of indebtedness issued in the name of the Corporation shall be signed by such officer or officers or agent or agents of the Corporation and in such manner as shall from time to time be determined by resolution of the Board of Directors. Section 82. Deposits. All funds of the Corporation not otherwise employed shall he deposited from time to time to the credit of the Corporation in such banks, trust companies or other depositaries as the Board of Directors may select or as may otherwise be required by law. Section 8.4. Form and Execution of Bonds. The Bonds issued by the Corporation shall be in such form as may be approved by the Board of Directors,shall be executed in the name and on behalf of the Corporation by such officer or officers of the Corporation as shall be designated by the Board of Directors and under the corporate seal of the Corporation, and shall be issued in compliance with the terms and conditions, and subject to the limitations, provided in the Local Building Authority Act, as amended from time to time, including, but not limited to, the requirement that no Bonds may be issued by the Corporation unless the issuance of the Bonds and the terms of the Bonds have been approved by the City Council, and in compliance with the terms and conditions provided in the proceedings authorizing the issuance of the Bonds. ARTICLE IX INDEMNIFICATION OF DIRECTORS AND OFFICERS omit, To the extent allowed by the Articles of Incorporation and law, each director and officer of the Corporation, whether or not then in office, and his or her personal representatives, shall be indemnified by the Corporation against all expenses actually and necessarily incurred by him or her in connection with the defense of any action, suit or proceeding in which he or she was made a party by reason of being or having been such director or officer, if a) the director or officer's conduct was in good faith: b) the director or officer reasonably believed that his or her conduct was in. or not opposed to. the Corporation's best interests; and c) in the case of any criminal proceeding, the director or officer had no reasonable cause to believe his or her conduct was unlawful. The termination of a proceeding by judgment. order, settlement, conviction, or upon a plea of nolo contendere or its equivalent is not,of itself, determinative that the director or officer did not meet the standard of conduct described above. To the extent permitted by law. each director, officer, employee or agent of the Corporation shall have all rights provided to employees in the GovernmentalImmunity Act of Utah, Title 63G, Chapter 7, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, and in Title 63G, Chapter 8, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. - 8 - ARTICLE X AMEND MIENNT These Bylaws may be altered. amended or repealed by the affirmative vote of a majority of the directors present at any regular or special meeting.,provided a quorum as provided in these Bylaws be present and provided the waiver or notice of such meeting shall have contained a copy of the proposed alteration. amendment or repeal. Notwithstanding the foregoing, no such alteration, amendment or repeal of any or all of these Bylaws shall take effect until a certified copy' of a resolution or other proceeding approving such alteration. amendment or repeal adopted by the City shall have been filed with the Secretary of the Corporation. ARTICLE XI MISCELLANEOUS Section 11.1. Fiscal Year. The fiscal year of the Corporation shall be the same as the annual accounting period of the City as from time to time in effect, being. initially a period commencing on July I of each calendar year and ending, on the next succeeding June 30. Section 11.2. Rules and Regulations. The Board of Directors shall have the power to make and adopt such rules and regulations, not inconsistent with lays, the Articles of Incorporation of the Corporation or these Bylaws, as it may deem advisable for the regulation and management of the affairs of the Corporation. Section 11.3. Office and Principal Place of Business. The office and principal place of business of the Corporation shall be located at Suite 304 in the City Hall,451 South State Street in Salt Lake City, Utah. unless and until changed by the Board of Directors with the appropriate written notices being, given. - 9 - SOMNED TO: - cr..�,�,�,, SCAN N ` °a 0,- i �� a arty ITJ�Q 1� R LJ1DATEI $93/ I) BECKER FRANK B. GRAY •i /) DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY 8, ECONOMIC DEVERET - MAVOR OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR Ed-4 Y DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER DEPUTY DIRECTOR ROBERT FARRINGTON, JR. CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL AL13 13 1011 DEPUTY DIRECTOR RJR ��a ^yy [y}. Salt Lake City Mayor GDate Received: 1 David E eritt,Chief of aff SLC COUNCIL OFFICE Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 22,2011 Jill Remington-Love FROM: Frank Gray, CED irector SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Planning ' ' ion Master P1 rogram STAFF CONTACT: Wilf Sommerkorn,Planning Director 801-535-7226 or wilf.sommerkorn@slcgov.com Cheri Coffey,Assistant Planning Director 801-535-6188 or cheri.coffey@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing-Information only RECOMMENDATION: No action necessary BACKGROUND In February 2011,CED Director,Frank Gray,and Planning Director,Wilf Sommerkorn,attended a briefing with the City Council to discuss master plan development for the City. The City Council requested that the Administration return to the Council with information on previous actions taken by the Council and Planning Commission relating to the document adopted in 2005 relating to master plan makeup. The City Council also requested the Administration prepare an outline and work plan identifying what resources would be needed to implement the outline and to address other relevant Council concerns/issues. For Fiscal Year 2012,the City Council allocated funds to hire an additional Senior Planner for master plan development with the priority to update the East Bench Community Master Plan and the Foothill/ Parley's Way gateway corridor. In addition,Mayor Becker has identified a goal of updating each community plan within six years. The purpose of this memorandum is to provide information to the City Council about the Planning Division's Master Plan Program and how the Division proposes to use the allocation of a new Senior Planner. With the funding allocation provided by the City Council,the Division intends to hire a Senior Planner who has a variety of planning skills,including master plan development. However,we do not propose this person will only work on master plans. This 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 Planning Division Master Plan PrraONE: 801-535-6230 FAX: 801-535.6005 August 19, 2011 WWW.SLCGOV.COM/CED ca AE . Eo P.PEa document outlines what has been accomplished by the Division in terms of master plan development,the current priorities of the Division relating to developing and updating the City's master plans and an explanation of how the new Senior Planner will fit into the Division's organization to achieve the goals of the Mayor and City Council relating to master plan development. PREVIOUS DOCUMENTS RELATING TO MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT In April 2005,the City Council,in conversation with the Planning Commission adopted a Policy Statement relating to the Community Land Use Master Plan format Information relating to those discussions is included in Exhibit 1. CURRENT PLANNING VS LONG RANGE PLANNING The Planning Division handles both Current Planning(such as subdivisions,conditional uses and certificates of appropriateness) and Long Range Planning(such as master plans and zoning changes). Current Planning is generally administrative in nature,whereas,Long Range Planning is more legislative in nature. Although it is expected that Long Range Planning projects will take sufficient time,in Salt Lake City,the processes for administrative matters have also become very complex and time consuming. In many instances,public hearings are held, and very little if any public comment is received. Theoretically,administrative matters should be permitted as long as specific qualifying provisions or criteria are met Some jurisdictions do not hold public hearings for administrative matters. The Planning Division is working on proposed amendments which will decrease processing timeframes,while still notifying the ^� public of projects and providing opportunities for input (Please see Exhibit 2). Since 2008,the Planning Division Staff has been working to clarify regulations and streamline processes to make the decision making process for Current Planning projects more efficient which will free up the time of the Planning Division and address concerns the development community raised during the 2008 Citygate Associates Planning Process evaluation. The Planning Division is of the opinion that creating less process for administrative matters,will free up the time of Division Staff to work on more Long Range projects including creating and updating master plans in a timely and regular manner,as well as shorten the length of time for applicants to get through the city's approval process. The philosophy that the Planning Division embraces is that the better a project meets the goals of the City,identified by the vision statements in applicable master plans and through the qualifying provisions of an ordinance;the less process there should be. This philosophy was included in the Transit Station Area Zoning that was adopted for North Temple by the City Council in August 2010 and is being included as we update the Land Use Tables of the Zoning Ordinance. ORGANIZATION OF PLANNING DIVISION As part of the 2008 Citygate Associates Planning Process evaluation,it was identified that one of the goals for the City's Planning Division was to ensure a focus on Long Range Planning as well as ensuring professional development and well rounded planners. In addition,the Planning Planning Division Master Plan Program August 19,2011 Division Management Team adopted a Strategic Plan for the Division to provide vision and direction for the Division. Through these efforts,several goals were identified: 1. Goal: Organize the Division to be dynamic and responsive to the needs of the City, community and customers and to promote teamwork. 2. Goal: Create a work environment that motives staff and promotes professional development. 3. Goal: Develop a team approach to create an inspired working environment that encourages and rewards progressive and creative solutions. It is the opinion of the Planning Division Management Team that the appropriate way for the Division to achieve these goals in general,and for master plans specifically, is through a flexible organization. The Planning Division's Organization Chart identifies large teams of planners divided geographically. The purpose of these geographic divisions is for Current Planning assignments, which are generally analyzed and processed by one project planner. Long Range Planning is done through a team approach and is not subject to the geographic area. This allows teams to be created to work on various long range projects,including master plan and progressive zoning approaches,while still meeting the Current Planning needs of planners familiar with the land uses,layout, common issues and stakeholders of a geographic area. (Please see Exhibit 3) MASTER PLAN DEVELOPMENT In 2005,the City Council adopted the Central Community Master Plan (November 2005) and the Sugar House Community Master Plan (December 2005) which had been in process for many years prior to their adoption. Since 2008, the Planning Division has worked on various master planning projects. These include the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan,the Historic Preservation Plan and the North Temple Corridor Plan. Of those, only the North Temple Corridor Plan,which included planning policies for the Euclid Neighborhood and updated the Northwest,West Salt Lake and Capitol Hill Community Plans, has been adopted. The Planning Division is currently working on addressing issues with both the Northwest Quadrant Master Plan and the Historic Preservation Plan before resubmitting them to the City Council for its consideration and adoption. Besides the continued work on the Northwest Quadrant and Historic Preservation Plan, the Planning Staff is currently working on the following Master Plan projects: 1. West Salt Lake Community update 2. 400 South Transit Station Area Planning and Zoning 3. Sugarhouse Street Car Line Land Use Analysis. P1l?Ililim, Division N1a stet ['Ian Program Anaust 19, 2011 These projects are targeted to be submitted to the Planning Commission by the end of 2011. In addition to finalizing those plans noted above, in Fiscal Year 2012, the Planning Division has targeted completion of the following: 4. East Bench Master Plan Update 5. Vision and City-wide Consolidated Policy Document. The purpose of this document is to identify a city-wide Vision and overarching "Umbrella' policies relating to managing growth and change which more specific community master plans and element or thematic plans (such as a Housing Plan) would be required to address. It is also anticipated that this process will identify which areas of policy still need to be developed and formally adopted by the City (such as Economic Development and Sustainability policies). 6. 900 South Trail Corridor Plan The Planning Management Team is in the process of creating a team to work on the East Bench Master Plan update. The Project Manager will be Wayne Mills, Senior Planner. The Planning Division is currently working to formalize a work plan for the project and identifying other planners to work on the team. As part of the work-program, information on how the $75,000 for Foothill Corridor / Parley's Way gateway planning will be spent will be included. Once completed, the work program for the East Bench Master Plan Update will be shared with the City Council. It is the intent of the Planning Division that as one master plan project is generally completed, a new team of planners will be organized to begin work on the next master plan development or update project. The Planning Division Management Team has identified a prioritization of master plan development/ update as noted in Exhibit 4. Given the Planning Division's current organization structure, workload for current planning applications, and new long-range planning resources provided by the Council, we anticipate that the Planning Division will always have at least two community plan updates underway. The Planning Management Team looks forward to discussing these ideas with you in an upcoming work session. Planning Division Nlaster Plan Program August 19.2011 S : a2Cc�IrT,�YI%© W1lo . OFFICE or THE CITY COUNCIL April 20, 2005 Mr.Tim Chambless, Chair Salt Lake City Planning Commission 451 South State Street,Room 404 Salt Lake City,Utah 84111 Dear Chairman Chambless, On behalf of the Salt Lake City Council,I would like to thank you and the Planning Commission Members for meeting with us in March. We especially thought that the discussion regarding master plans was helpful. The Council encourages the Planning Commission and the Planning Division to develop a general uniform land use master plan format. We believe that such a format should include an assessment, goals and resources,and implementation plans. Louis Zunguze's excellent recent memorandum regarding a standardized community master plan format is a very constructive starting place. Although we view the development of a uniform format for the community and citywide plans as a responsibility of the Commission and Division,we do have a few recommendations set forth in the attached Salt Lake City Council Community Master Plan Policy Statement. The Council has expressed interest in a citywide master plan,but would like to understand more about the organization and shape of such a proposed plan including some examples from other cities. We would suggest an effort be made to draw together information from the existing adopted plans to be used as a basis for the plan. Our reasoning for this approach is that those adopted plans have already been through a great deal of public process and in many cases the city-wide policy statements may still be relevant. In order to provide the Commission and Planning staff some general direction, Council Members have indicated an interest in a document that: ■ Is short, concise, general in nature and easily understandable. • Provides a broad vision or overview and future direction for the City. • Refers to the community plans for detail. Council Members Carlton Christensen-District One;Van Turner-District Two;K.Eric Jergensen-District Three Nancy Saxton-District Four,Council Vice-Chair 2005;Jill Remington Love-District Five David L.Butler-District Six;Dale Lambert-District Seven,Council Chair 2005 451 SOUTH STATE STREEE, ROOM 304, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH S41 1 1 TELEPHONE:CO1•535•600, FAX:CO i•sOE-7EQ1 Amok At this time,the Council is not inclined to establish a joint City Council/Planning Commission committee. Council Members felt that it is important to preserve the independence of the Planning Commission in providing unbiased recommendations to the Council. After a review of the existing master plans is completed and the Commission has identified a general outline for the citywide plan,the Council and Planning Commission can further evaluate whether additional effort is needed to complete a citywide policy document. We look forward to a further constructive relationship with the Commission. Sinc e y, Dale Lambert, Chair Salt Lake City Council oink, enclosure DL/jj cc: Salt Lake City Planning Commission Louis Zunguze, Community Development I Council Member Policy Statement Community Land Use Master Plans It is the intent of the Council that the subjects to be addressed in Master Plans include some or all,but not more than the following: • Land Use and Zoning • Open Space and Parks • Housing • Transportation—automobile,parking,bicycle,pedestrian,and mass transit • Commercial,Retail,Institutional, and Industrial • Historic,Architectural,and Landscape Resources • Arts and Culture • Sports,Recreation, and Leisure It is further the intent of the Council that community land use Master Plans will not purport to bind the City for future significant financial expenditures. • It is further the intent of the Council that, given community land use Master Plans arc developed based on specific geographic areas within the City,the community plans would not purport to adopt Citywide policy. PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH .olok WORK SESSION TUESDAY, MARCH 15, 2005 The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on Tuesday, March 15, 2005, at 5: 15 p.m. in Room. 326, City Council Office, City County Building, 451 South State Street. In Attendance : Council Members Carlton Christensen, Eric Jergensen, Van Turner, Nancy Saxton_, Dave Buhler, and Dale Lambert. Absent : Councilmember Jill Remington Love Planning Commission Members In Attendance: Tim Chambless, Chair, Laurie Noda, Vice Chair, Babs DeLay, John Diamond, Craig Galli, Peggy McDonough, Prescott Muir, Kathy Scott, and Jennifer Seelig. Also in Attendance: Cindy-Gust Jenson, Council Executive Director; Sam Guevara, Mayor' s Chief of Staff; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; Lynn Pace, Deputy City Attorney; Gary Mumford, Council Deputy Director/Senior Legislative Auditor; Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Russell Weeks, Council Policy Analyst; Jennifer Bruno, Council Policy Analyst; Vicki Pacheco, Council Staff Assistant; Louis Zunguzi, Director of Community and Economic Development; Brent Wilde, Planning Deputy Director; Doug Wheelwright, Planning Land Use and Transportation/Subdivisions; Everett Joyce, Community Planning/Land Use and Transportation; Cheri Coffey, Deputy Director/Zoning Administration/Preservation and Urban Design/Housing and Zoning Enforcement; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development Director; Sandi Marler, Community Development Program Specialist; and Peter Corroon, EGM Properties; Kevin Keating, HGM Properties and Chris Meeker, Chief Deputy City Recorder. Council Chair Lambert presided at and conducted the meeting . The meeting was called to order at 5: 16 D.M. #1 . 5:16:32 PM HOLD A JOINT MEETING WITH THE PLANNING COMMISSION. Discussions were held regarding improving communication between the City Council and the Planning Commission, community master plans, and a comprehensive City wide master plan. View Attachments Councilmember Lambert said some concerns regarding the Central City Master Plan were that master plans should deal Primarily with land use, zoning issues and housing elements . He said City wide issues and. financial commitments should not be in neighborhood Master plans . He said the discussion would move the Council toward a policy statement for future development and standardization of master plans . Amok 05 - 1 • oraNIIIrk (l 1 A. LOUIS ZUNGUZE " ffit��)a�at:),K•4 �•,ION RDSS C.ANDERSON PLANNING DIR<CTOR COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT MAYOR SRENT S.WILDE PLANNING AND ZONING DIVISION DEPUTY PLANNING DIRECTOR bt7UGLAS L. WHEELWRIGHT,AMP DEPUTT PLANNING DIRECTOR MEMORANDUM TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission • FROM: Louis Zunguze, Salt Lake City Community Development Dire• or DATE: March 11, 2005 RE: City-Wide Policies I Goals and Standardized Community Master Plan Format Why The City Should Adopt Broad Based City-Wide Policies/Goals Local governments have a great deal of influence on the way in which a community develops. The primary goal for us is to build and promote the City as an exceptional place to live, learn and do business. To that end, as Salt Lake City's population grows,we need to strive to establish broad based policies that will guide the physical development of the City in a coordinated and unified manner. The following are examples of broad based policies that could be considered, for adoption, to clearly indicate, in a general way,how the City should develop. • I. Manage growth and change through effective land use policies to sustain Salt Lake City's quality of life. 2. Preserve and enhance Salt Lake City's natural environment. 3. Expand housing options for the City's changing populations. 4, Create a sustainable economy that provides opportunities for all. Anticipate and meet the expanding mobility needs of the City's residents, businesses and visitors. 6. Build on the assets of every neighborhood and foster a City wide sense of Community. 1 4E1 GLLJTH STATE STREET, ROOM 4D6, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAFI 54111 TELEYIIONE:6D1.535.7757 rAx, 5O1-S:3E-6174 WWW.5 LC CT DV.CDF1 • C� �.mac•_,cc•n•c+ \��..✓ll .yoy�.mr.,,.tl • 7. Integrate arts and culture into the social and economic fabric of the City. 8. Use the best of Salt Lake City's historic, architectural, and landscape legacies to guide the future. 9. Foster cooperation and share leadership on regional issues. Why The City Should Establish A Standardized Format For Community Master Plans There are four(4)key benefits for having a standardized format for developing Community Master Plans. First, citizens and staff time will be better utilized. Second, a predictable format assures broader citizen participation,more timely completion and fast response to changing conditions/issues. Third, the content of each plan is improved because time saved can be spent on evaluating citizen input through technical analysis and clearly articulated implementation strategies. Fourth,implementing completed Community Master Plans would be easier because plans would be in similar format that is easily understood. The following is a recommended format for community plans: 1. Background and Introduction Define planning area Define purpose of plan 2. PIanning Context Outline the planning process Identify stake holders and partners and define a public involvement strategy 3. Vision Statement A concise description of how the area is to develop (There may be an articulation of guiding policies/goals to further inform the planning process and recommendations). 4. Assessment An inventory and analyses of existing conditions and emerging issues in the following areas: a) Demographic Trends: -Analyses of demographic trends to include past and future trends. b) Environmental attributes: - Wetlands, flood plans, and critical lands. c) Land Use and Zoning: -Analyses of land uses and zoning classification must be conducted and mapped. This will indicate areas of stability, areas of change, transitions, densities, and identification of I. discrepancies between land use and zoning. Another component to define are likely change agents,such as significant land assemblages, opportunity sites, and major proposed projects d) Housing: -Analyses of housing should include housing characteristics and change over time. An inventory of housing type,home ownership and tenancy trends and housing cost. Opportunities to meet a broader range of housing type and prices should also be identified, e) Transportation/Mobility: -Identification of mobility should include the street(overall street pattern,street clarification,street type),traffic patterns and volumes,parking issues,and inventory;transit routes, bike routes and pedestrian connections and safety issues. In some areas attention may be given to identifying existing or potential transit priority areas and to neighborhood traffic management issues f) Economic Activity: -This will vary from one area to another.Need for information about existing businesses and employment, retail and industrial areas is essential. Other information may include estimates of employment of other economic generators, significant retail shopping patterns in and out of the area and development trends. g) Historic,Architectural and landscape Resources: -Inventory of historic resources and districts. Mapping residential types and discussing types of architecture and aspects of urban fo,ui is a key component. Review of landscape elements such as significant views. focal points, and gateways, is also needed. h) Arts and Culture: -Arts and culture is sometimes an important component for an area. An inventory of large and small arts and cultural facilities often is the best way to depict this characteristic. 5. Plan Recommendations The community's plan recommendations should include: 1) a Concept land use plan for the area;2)Plan recommendations in the form of goals and objectives, issue identification and resolution; 3) civic responsibilities—(a clear understanding that one Community Master Plan cannot solve problems at the expense of their neighbors or the City as a whole). Each plan should address a set of civic responsibilities that will improve the City's livability. For example,it is a civic responsibility to provide many different housing types to accommodate people of different ages, and income levels. By addressing this responsibility; Salt Lake City can be an accessible place for many different types of individuals and families. Another example is accepting and reinforcing areas of stability and areas of change. This assures . the City's ability to channeling growth to appropriate areas in order to increase benefits and minimize burdens. 6. Plan Implementation Program The plan must have or create an implementation program to achieve plan recommendations. The program should include priorities and suggested regulatory changes,public infrastructure, and public—private partnership that need to be considered and used to achieve plan recommendations. Should you have questions or comments please feel free to contact me. Thank you. Cc: Brent Wilde, Community Development Deputy Director File • ,0111116,. • OPTIONS TOR CITY-WIDE.POILTCY.APPROACH . . The Planning Commission and Planning staff has indicated it desire for the Council to provide • • feedback relating to the creation of a citywide land use policy document and a standard format for future master plans. . After the joint Council/Plannutg•Commission discussion scheduled for the Council Work Session • on March 15`h, the Council could consider providing this feedback through a Legislate intent statement or • Legislative Action, A key question is whether the City should launch•a public process to create a comprehensive • . City-wide plan, or whether it would be appropriate for the City to gather the city-wide policy statements . • that currently exist in the plans that have been previously adopted by the City Council. . Council staffs observation is that a great deal of time and effort has been invested in the current • • adopted plans and that an obvious first step would be to inventory those plans for all City-wide statements and determine whether there is still support from both the Planning Commission and the City Council for . those statements. After review and refinement,the statements could then be compiled in to one City-wide policy• document. 1. A condensed document that includes City-wide policies would be more convenient • and user-friendly than having City-wide policies contained in several different ,— documents. 2. The Planning Commission and the City Council would have the opportunity to refine statements to reduce the potential for conflict between adopted plans. 3. All staff, developers,property owners;neighborhood advocacy groups and boatds and commissions would he working from the same document and would have complete information prior to starting a process. The document could serve as a guide to the City Administration,Planning • Commission,City Council and others. 5. Such a document would provide a comprehensive context and enhance consistent • . interpretation. 6: . Such a document would provide.a link among existing City plans, and would set-ve as • an over-arching document to which community master plans can tie. Options fot Council consideration could include: A. Create a Council subcommittee to further refine or identify options. • B. Create a joint CounciVPlanning Commission subcommittee to further refine or identify options. C. After the Council and Planning Commission discussion and review of information provided for the joint meeting,the Council may wish to identify specific steps and items that would provide feedback for the Planning Commission and Planning staff. D. Other options identified at the Couneil/Planning Commission joint meeting. • 3.05 Changes to help clarify and / or streamline processes since 2008 Project Describe How Improved Status Regulatory Changes Noticing Changes Change noticing 1. Makes the noticing requirements similar for different Adopted requirement from 14 processes, days to 12 days 2. Makes the requirement more consistent with state law requirements, and 3. Shortens the process time by decreasing the legal noticing requirements. - North Temple Zoning Form based zoning 1. Identifies desirable development and creates a quicker review Adopted approach process for it. 2. Eliminates the conditional use process for this area of the City. 3. Puts the development review process in the hands of the applicant so they can determine the review process that is most appropriate for them based on how compatible it is with the vision for the area. 4. Puts the public participation process up front and makes it proactive, instead of at the end where it is reactionary and confrontational 5. Incorporates design standards and images into the ordinance to improve understanding. 6. Establishes development guidelines to further implement overall city goals. 1 Project Describe How Improved Status Condo Conversion Amendments of 1. Clarified the definition of continuous use to decrease need for Adopted Regulations regulations of interpretation. residential 2. Updated application requirements to ensure compliance with condominium various adopted building, fire and housing codes. conversions to address the quality and long term management of residential conversions Zoning Amendment Criteria for Text vs. Map 1. Creates specific standards of review to clarify the decision Adopted Criteria Amendments making process. Purpose Statements Clarify the specific 1. Improves the administration of the zoning ordinance by Adopted purposes of the various clarifying what each zoning district is supposed to be, zoning districts 2. Establishes the basis on which to determine what uses should be allowed in each zoning district; 3. Establishes the basis for the future creation or modification of design standards. 4. And ties zoning to the master plan policies, which aids in interpretations and determining which uses are appropriate in the district. Planned Development- Removed from the 1. Clarifies the planned development process; Adopted Part I Conditional use 2. Removes the implications that state law has on conditional chapter. uses in terms of planned developments being types of special exceptions that must be approved unless there is some adverse impact that cannot be mitigated; 3. Allows the Planning Commission to focus on the issue of whether a planned development is generally beneficial to the City versus the conditional use standards, many of which were not applicable to planned developments. 4. Eliminates standards that are not related to site design. 2 Project Describe How Improved Status Appeals Process Change from 30 days to 1. Streamlines the appeal process to make it consistent for the Adopted 10 days types of approval (administrative, legislative, quasi-judicial). Utility Box Regulations Revised the process and 1. Shortens the approval process for less impactful boxes. Adopted criteria for location of boxes on private vs. public property Conditional Use Includes various 1. Clarifies and simplifies the existing standards of review of Waiting for Standards changes to the conditional uses. Council Action Conditional Use Chapter 2. Reflects State Law Provisions Cell Tower Revise criteria and 1. Updates city regulation of cell towers. Waiting for process for cell tower 2. Eliminates Conditional Use process for co-location on Council action installation. previously approved sites. Alcohol Regulations Conform to State Law, 1. Proposed to update city regulations and terminology in light of Waiting for clarify provisions as well state law changes. Designed to take alcohol regulation out of Council action as provide additional licensing and put under land use regulations. Zoning areas where regulations proposed to be changed to allow alcohol serving establishments can be establishments where appropriate. located. Noticing Changes Standardizes noticing 1. Clarifies the requirements for applicants, the public and the Planning requirements for all administration in terms of how public hearings are advertised. Commission public hearings. 2. Allows electronic notification where possible (such as with recommended Community Council Chairs). approval. Transmittal in process. 3 Project Describe How Improved Status Routine and The City to send out 1. Simplifies the process based on experience with R&U matters; Planning Uncontested matters- notice rather than 2. Provides a way for the City to verify if neighbors have been Commission having the applicant noticed of a proposal. recommended gather signatures. 3. Creates a tiered approval process that uses less staff resources approval. for review of simple items and more scrutiny and a public hearing for more controversial items. Transmittal in 4. Clarifies that all special exceptions may be approved as a process. routine and uncontested matter unless there is a rational reason to refer an item to a public hearing. Special Exceptions Change ultimate 1. Puts the review authority in the hands of a body that is more Planning approval authority from accustomed to reviewing design and use issues. Commission the Board of 2. See also the comments listed under routing and uncontested recommended Adjustment to the items. approval. Planning Commission 3. Allows HLC to make some special exception approvals— (or HLC in some cases) eliminates the need for a 2-track approval process. (HLC and Transmittal in PC) process. • Grade Changes Provides definitions and 1. Clarifies the definitions to improve the administration of the Working with visuals for grade ordinance and the review of building permits (decreasing Planning changes. issues with interpretations). Commission 2. Streamlines the standards so it follows building code requirements. Hearing Officer rather Designate a contracted 1. Allows the meetings to be held on an as needed basis; In public review than LUAB or BOA Hearing officer as the 2. Eliminates the issue of trying to fill vacancies on the Boards. and input phase Appeal Authority of the 3. Focuses the role of the hearing officer on quasi judicial matters, City for Land Use instead of the various roles that the BOA plays now. Matters 4. Eliminates the LUAB which seldom meets. Parking Chapter Reorganize chapter and 1. Updates the parking ordinance to address all aspects of In public review clarify regulations current mobility trends, not just parking and loading. and input phase 2. Simplifies the processes for reducing parking requirements. 4 Project Describe How Improved Status Conditional Building Clarify process and 1. Refocuses the chapter as a process chapter instead of a design Working on draft Site Design Review criteria standard chapter to more closely follow the intent of the chapter. 2. Relocates design standards to other, more appropriate locations within the zoning ordinance. 3. Simplifies staff reports by focusing on standards for review instead of redundant or in some cases, conflicting design standards often found in the base zoning districts. Land Use Table Reformat and Update 1. Simplifies the process of reviewing business licensing for Working on draft Amendments Land Use Tables in the specific uses; Zoning Ordinance. 2. Simplifies the process for uses that are now listed as conditional but are routinely approved with similar conditions of approval or no conditions of approval. 3. Reduces the amount of staff time dedicated to reviewing simple conditional uses so that staff time can be reallocated to more complex issues and programs. 4. Updates the use tables to incorporate progressive planning concepts and City policies such as walkability and sustain ability. 5. Defines all uses to decrease interpretation requests. 6. Puts all Land Use Tables in one place in the Zoning Ordinance for ease in use. 7. Ensures consistency with State Law. Commercial Historic Create guidelines for 1. Provides clarity and visuals to help users of the document Working on draft Design Guidelines commercial structures understand and comply with standards of the ordinance. in historic districts 2. Uses as standard format consistent with other preservation guidelines. 5 Project Describe How Improved Status Residential historic Create guidelines for 1. Provides clarity and visuals to help users of the document Working on draft Design Guidelines commercial structures understand and comply with standards of the ordinance. in historic districts 2. Streamlines the document and makes it more user friendly. 3. Uses as standard format consistent with other preservation guidelines. Sign Historic Design Create guidelines for 1. Provides clarity and visuals to help users of the document Working on draft Guidelines signs in historic districts understand and comply with standards of the ordinance. 2. Uses as standard format consistent with other preservation guidelines. Subdivision /Site Revise Subdivision and 1. Clarifies and simplifies ordinance and Working on draft Development Site Development 2. Streamlines various subdivision processes. Ordinance ordinance. 3. Brings ordinance into conformance with State law 4. Incorporates sustainability goals into the subdivision ordinance. Unit Legalization Clarify process and 1. Addresses the lack of definitions for continuous use and Working on draft criteria preponderance of the evidence; 2. Clarifies what types of evidence may be used to determine continuous use; 3. Incorporates the good landlord program into the review • process. 4. Reduces staff time allocated by incorporating"self check lists" and the need to verify certain evidence that is often submitted. Non-Regulatory Changes Postcards for Notices Send case specific 1. Eliminates confusion as to what the purpose of the notice is. Complete postcards for notices 2. Decreases cost of notice (paper and postage) rather than full meeting 3. Decreases staff time preparing notice (all done through agenda. mechanization) 6 Project Describe Flow Improved Status Planning Counter at Have staff planners 1. Improves customer service. Complete and Permits Office located in Permits office 2. Provides consistent answers to questions. ongoing to answer questions of 3. Decreases interruptions in daily work of other planners who are discussions to public. working on current and long-range planning projects. improve customer service and meet expectations Preservation program Formalize team 1. Increases the number of planners working on preservation Complete Formalization structure of planners projects and improves/reduces review and approval process who work on historic timeframes. preservation issues/ 2. Provides time for long-range planning projects relating to projects historic preservation. Preservation Weekly meeting to 3.. Ensure consistency in interpretations On-going interpretation Review review preservation 2. Ensure management is aware of final recommendations prior Team projects to finalizing staff report. Interpretation Review Weekly meeting to 1. Ensure consistency in interpretations On-going Team review zoning/ 2. Ensure management is aware of final recommendations prior development projects to finalizing staff report or interpretation letters. 3. Tracking of decisions to identify patters and needs for text amendments. Accela Automation, Electronic tracking 1. Documents petition history and maintains consistent On-going system for review and workflow/processes view of projects 2. Allows public view of information 3. Allows reports for tracking progress and identifying processing problems for improvement. 7 Project Describe How Improved Status Outlines of expectations Documenting processes 1. Provides a consistent reference to the goals and objectives of Developed. the task Updates on-going 2. Ensure thoroughness of reviews to improve 3. Ensures consistency of similar projects processes. 4. Documents working relationships and expectations between divisions of City to ensure there are no holes in the system and things don't get missed or dropped. Project review meetings Initial discuss ion of 1. Identifies past history the site may have On-going for planning staff planning projects and 2. Identifies past community feedback or information about the petitions. area 3. Allows Senior planners to mentor newer planners with various aspects of planning and progressive planning approaches. 4. Allows planners to learn from each other by identifying issues and brainstorming solutions. 5. Ensures all aspects of the project are identified early to ensure full analysis of project Public involvement; Create ongoing 1. Establishes consistent monthly open house times, On-going improvements to 2. Regular e-newsletters to provide information to public provide information 3. Use of Open City Hall and other electronic input formats and obtain comments people can rely on to submit comments in an easy to use on various planning format. projects. 4. Use of focus groups on major projects to ensure feedback from a broad and diverse stakeholder group. 5. Improved websites to provide information 0 Salt Lake City Planning Division Organization Chart August 2011 Plann'uig Direct& Wilf Somr»erkom Support Staff Assistant Director a �—Leri;___,(P) / / ..r . _ '. Administrative Secretary Deb Severson Yn Planning Planning Team Planning Team Commission Downtown,Gateway,West Salt Lake, 1 Sugarhouse,East Bench South Central ce;a Haser,bera Northwest Community,Northwest Quadrant) I Avenues,Capitol Hill,East Central Senior Planner ; Senior Planner Senior Planner Senior Planner Historic Landmark Doug Dangle I Everett Joyce i Lex Traughber (P) Casey Stewart Commission _ Cec;ly Zuck (P) i Senior Planner 1 Senior Planner 1 Senior Planner Senior Planner (vacant) 1 Wayne Mills ! Carl Leith (P) Janice Lew(P) 1 Board o` j ! Principal Planner j Adjustment RDA Planner. i Urban Designer Principal PlannerMaryann Pickering Michelle Moeller (vacant) ' (vacant) Michael Maloy (P) I — 1 Principal Planner Principal Planner Principal Planner Principal Planner , Nick Britton Ana Valdemoros J 1 Ray Milliner (P) Katia Pace (P) i I Principal Planner ,I ..- Liz Reining (P) age - _j ':,7 ra< .:, _may<, *2 as d. "arec > • t:s ,F fd. .r1i.. at'S.A. '-' I j i 1 Principal Planner Principal Planner I I Principal Planner j Principal Planner Michae Oktay Thomas Irvin (P) Anna Anglin 1 John Anderson (P) r � (P)= Historic Preservation Team ... Current Long Range Planning Projects Master Plans August 2011 West 400 South TSA , ,b -.jai j Maser t an Master Plan and Historic Northwest City-wide Zoning Preservation Plan Quadrant Master `-- Consolidated A)Pdate Amendments i Oct.201 i Plan - -1 :Policy Plan (Dec 2011) (Dec 2011) I w ! -.q'. it I -- Nick Britton, Maryann Pickering; Everett Joyce Wayne Mills Project Manager Project Manager Cheri Coffey Project Manger Project Manager Liz Reining L — — Michael Maloy Liz Reining Doug Dansie Joel Paterson I TBD TBD i — i Ana Valdemoros Ray Milliner Envision Utah TBD TBD (public outreach) Specialists for Michaela Oktay I Peer Review of TBD Science John Anderson Daunte Rushton i i Long Range Planning Projects Major Zoning Text / Rezoning Projects August 2011 • • Sustainable City Land Use Table Open Space Preservation Code initiative Amendments I Definnitions Program Tools 4 Nole Walkingshaw Cheri Coffey Lex Traughber i Everett Joyce Joel Paterson Project Manger Project Manager j Project Manager Project Manager Ray Milliner Doug Dansie Carl Leith (Landscaping) Katia Pace Ray Milliner Residential Design, Guidelines Janice Lew Daunte Rushton Nick Britton Emy Maloutas Commercial (Intern) (Parking and TDM) Parks Director Design Guidelines Daniel Echeverria I Michaela Oktay Brandon Fleming Ray Milliner (Intern) (Outdoor Lighting) Parks Sign Guidelines Ana Valdemoros Maryann Pickering (Recycling) Conservation District j Casey Stewart Connectivity Michaela Oktay (Subdivision Ord. Ordinance Fine Rewrite) Tuning Michelle Moeller Secretary Seth Wright Intern SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION PROPOSE) MASTER PLAN ADOPTION AND UPDATE SCHEDULE Master Plan Title Date Planning Team Status Timcframe for Initially Adoption Adopted Historic NA Cheri Coffey Planning Stall will revise to ensure plan provides more policy End of 2011 Preservation Plan Joel Paterson direction as well as actions. Northwest NA Everett Joyce Have contracted with Envision Utah to obtain additional public TBD Quadrant Master Michael Maloy input. Plan Will contract with experts to review the environmental aspects of draft plan. West Salt Lake 1995 Nick I3ritton Began working with community in January 2011. Currently Planning Community Plan (never Liz Reining working on 900 South trail corridor planning to incorporate into Commission published) Ana Valdemoros the land use plan. discussion by end of 2011 400 South Transit NA Maryann I leld first public meeting in May 2011. Additional meetings to Planning Station Area Pickering be held in late summer. Commission Planning Doug Dansie discussion by Ray Milliner end of 2011 Michaela Oktay John Anderson Daunte Rushton East Bench April, Wayne Mills (4 Basic Work program complete. Public Process will start To be Community 1987 total staff Sept/Oct 2011 and last approx. 6-8 months depending on determined but Master Plan members on outcome of Yalecrest related issues before the State Legislature. no sooner than team) Total time to create draft plan approximately 9-12 months. June 2012 1 Revised Master Plan Matrix August 10, 2011 Master Plan Title Date Planning Team Status Timeframe for Initially Adoption Adopted City-wide Vision NA Liz Reining Began reviewing adopted policies and other information Summary of and Consolidated (additional team previously gathered to determine how to move forward. (In existing policies Policy Document members to be process of forming team.) complete by Policy Plan added as the December 2011. project Public outreach progresses and to begin in needed resources January 2011. assessed) 900 South Corridor NA Nick Britton Plan preparation work through August 2011. Public June 2012 Plan 80/o' I ( ° ) participation phase through Oct. 2011 . Plan Development Sept 20% of work 2011-Jan. 2012. Planning Commission process Spring 2012. done by 2 other staff members Downtown Master 1 995 Begin work after other plans arc completed. Plan Update Avenues July 1987 Begin work after other plans are completed. Community Master Plan Update Northwest April Begin work after other plans are completed. Community 1990 Master Plan Update 2 Revised Master Plan Matrix ) August 10, " Master Plan Title Date Planning Team Status Timeframe for Initially Adoption Adopted Capitol Hill 2001 Begin work after other plans arc completed. Community Master Plan Update Central Nov. 2005 Begin work after other plans arc completed. Community Master Plan Update Sugar I louse Plan Dec. 2005 Anticipate some amendments required to implement street car update. studies. 3 Revised Master Plan Matrix August l 0, 2011 AFL'I' Qr T Ci✓rrrS��/RPcOIiIO1/ SCANNED TO/ FRANK B.GRAY 1�� +-ateI a��-wi? SCANNED S/(A,6 C R oiRcc*ow DEPARTMENT OF OFFICE O COMMUNITY IIF THE DIRECTOR DEVELOPMENT DATE: .7,4, ,,,w MARY OE LA MARE-SCHAEFER L:Lpu-ry DIRECTOR ROBERT FARRINGTON,JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL �, U ggJ� SEP192011 Date Receivcdy I Day' Everitt, hief of Staff Date sent to Council: pq 'j o11. j11 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: September 19.2011 Jill Remington-Love - ._ FROM: Frank Gray,CED Director - SUBJECT: 10-Year Capital Faciliti STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark,Director Housing and Neighborhood Development (801)535-6136,luann.clark(a slcgov.com Mike Akerlow,Deputy Director Housing and Neighborhood Development (801)535-7966,mike.akerlow@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Additional Briefing Materials RECOMMENDATION: That the Salt Lake City Council considers adopting a new 10-year capital facilities plan(CFP). BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City has hired Anne Westcott of Galena Consulting to update the 10-year fiscally constrained capital facilities plan and the impact fee program. During the briefing held on September 6,2011 the City Council asked for some additional information to be provided. Attached please find the following documents provided by our Consultant—Anne Westcott: • Narrative identifying the process used for development and constraining the 10-Year CFP and Exhibit A comparing the articulated needs,constrained list prepared by Departments and the Consultant during April,2011 and the Mayor's recommended constrained list submitted with the budget. The narrative section also includes a copy of Public Services Public Way Asset Management Plan for sidewalks,curb and gutter.and drive approaches. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 404 P.O.BOX 145486,SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH 841 1 4-5 48 6 TELEPHONE:BPI-535-6,230 FAX:BO1-535-6005 www.sLCGOV.cOM/cER • Exhibit B - Parks Division Inventory • Exhibit C - Summary of the Park Priorities • Exhibit D - 50 Highest Priority Streets • Exhibit E - Ten-Year Priority Plan for Capital Facility Repair and Replacement Needs • Exhibit F — Projects Identified as Priorities based on Available Funding for Parks The inventory lists provided to the City Council for review have been updated to reflect the projects that were awarded funding in the adopted 2011/2012 capital improvement logs. Those projects are highlighted in yellow and were left on the lists so the Council could see the entire list of project priorities submitted by the Departments. The costs for improvements were based on current costs and specifications. The Public Service Department is working on providing additional information on alternative specifications and costs for restrooms and will report on their finding at the briefing. Process for Developing and Constraining 10-Year CIP, 2012-2021 February-March 2011 The first step in identifying the capital projects to be included in the 10-Year CIP was the articulation of departmental capital needs. Departments were asked to identify what capital investments needed to be made over the next 10 years to continue current service levels, meet the needs of growth, and ensure the integrity of current assets. This list was considered "unrestricted" by available revenues in order to get a sense of the total capital need. This unrestricted list is reflected in Column D of the attached Exhibit A —Process for Constraining Project List under the heading Articulated Needs March 2011. A brief explanation of these needs is as follows: • The Fire Department identified facilities and apparatus needed to continue current service levels, respond to growth, and address training needs. Projects included the relocation of Fire Station#3, the construction of Fire Station #14, the construction of the Fire Training Facility, and the acquisition of a truck for Fire station #14. These projects were estimated to cost $20,250,000. • The Police Department identified facilities and apparatus needed to continue current service levels, respond to growth, and complete the public safety facility plan. The only project on this list was the Evidence and Crime Lab Facility which is inadequate in size currently, will eventually lost its home in the old Public Safety Building, and was not planned into the new Public Safety Building. The cost of this project was estimated at $9,080,000. • The Parks and Public Lands Division identified the number of acres of new parks and open space that would need to be acquired to support new growth. The Department also inventoried every park in the City, identifying capital improvements needed to complete park master plans, replace aging infrastructure, improve existing amenities, and accommodate user demand. Costs for each item were based on current costs and current specifications. This entire inventory is outlined in the attached Exhibit B. A summary of the Department's park priorities by improvement type is outlined in the attached Exhibit C. As these priorities are subject to Mayor and Council adoption on an annual basis, Exhibit A shows these improvements at a summary level by improvement type. Costs to address capital needs at the Cemetery, as well as funds for four master/management plans were included in the unrestricted CIP. The total cost estimated to fund these comprehensive needs of the Parks and Public Lands Division over the next 10 years was approximately $71 million. • The Streets Division identified the 1300 South Viaduct deck rehabilitation as a priority need, to be funded primarily with Federal funds. The current estimated cost is $10 million. The design consultant is presently evaluating whether the reconstruction of the viaduct is viable and cost effective. Four specific street projects were identified as needed to serve future growth (500/700 South; Indiana; Gladiola; and 4400 West), eligible for Class C and Impact Fee funding. The total estimated cost of these four projects is $24 million. The rest of the Street projects on the unrestricted list were identified under the headings ADA Accessibility Ramps; Sidewalk Rehabilitation/Sawcutting; Deteriorated Sidewalk Replacement; Street Pavement Overlay and Preservation; Local Street Reconstruction; Major Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of City Streets; Concrete Street Rehabilitation; and Bridge Rehabilitation. The amount necessary to address any deferred capital backlog, and meet best practices was identified for each category as follows: ADA Accessibility Ramps - Construct ADA accessibility ramps to meet guidelines established by the Americans with Disabilities Act. Approximately 11,800 ramps have been constructed; over$10 million is needed to complete the installation of approximately 3,300 ramps citywide. Sidewalk Rehabilitation/Sawcutting/Deteriorated Sidewalk Replacement— Rehabilitate and replace deteriorated sidewalks to provide ADA compliance and safer pedestrian access routes, improving appearance and functionality. Over 2,000,000 square feet of defective sidewalk exists throughout the City. Approximately $22 million is needed to replace defective sidewalk that presently exists in the City. Street Pavement Overlay and Preservation- Street pavement management activities are necessary to preserve a rapidly deteriorating street network. Pavement strategies and priorities are based on condition assessments of the total street network. Street network data is available in a CarteGraph database regarding the 1,843 lane miles of roadway in Salt Lake City. Approximately 32% of the street network falls into the unsatisfactory condition category. A sound pavement management program requires asphalt pavement to be overlayed every 20 years. Approximately 40 lane miles should receive an asphalt overlay each year to adequately maintain the street network. Approximately $49 million is needed to address pavement overlay and preservation needs. Local Street Reconstruction—In order to address requests for local street reconstruction, also identified in the priority list, $10 million was estimated to be needed over a ten year period. Major Rehabilitation or Reconstruction of City Streets - Rehabilitate/Reconstruct asphalt and concrete streets exhibiting significant deterioration. Approximately 32% of the 1,843 lane miles in the City's street network is in unsatisfactory condition. Approximately 18 lane miles should be reconstructed each year to adequately maintain the street network. Approximately $114 million is needed to address pavement overlay and preservation needs. Concrete Streets Rehabilitation - Provide rehabilitation to existing deteriorated concrete streets to restore quality and preserve useful life. There are 147 lane miles of concrete streets in the City. Approximately $2 million is needed to address concrete streets rehabilitation. Bridge Rehabilitation- Perform necessary bridge repairs to existing structures, including deck resurfacing and structural integrity rehabilitation. There are 27 bridges in Salt Lake City. Approximately $1 million is needed to address bridge rehabilitation needs. Additional explanation of the current condition of the City's streets infrastructure is attached at the end of this report. These reports were previously submitted to Mayor and Council in 2010 and 2011. The report is entitled Public Way Asset Management Briefing Paper. The attached Exhibit D identifies the Street's Division's 50 highest priority streets for rehabilitation and reconstruction. The streets listed are not in priority order, as this would be determined on an annual basis based on Mayor and Council priorities. The following projects, which have been identified as Council Member priorities, are included in this list: • 1300 East from South Temple to 500 South—This project was previously funded, but funding was reallocated to the North Temple project • 500 East from 1700 South to 2100 South—Class C funding for this project was previously "banked", but was reallocated for other priorities. The Division plans to bank future Class C funding so this project can be addressed within the next 4-5 years. • 300 West—This project is identified as a priority need. • 1300 East (North and South)—Federal funding was previously requested for the southern portion of this project, but was not received and is not anticipated to be available in the near future. • Complete Streets—The complete streets requirements will be integrated into the scope of future street rehabilitation and reconstruction projects. The total amount of articulated needs from the Streets Division was $242 million. This would address specific needs for growth, and address deferred maintenance concerns. Funding sources for Streets improvement include the General Fund, Class C, CDBG, Impact Fees, and Federal grants. ■ The Transportation Division included in their unrestricted list eight bike/pathway projects that are a priority of the Administration, including Bike Lanes on 200 South, general bike lane installations, the 900 South Rail Corridor, Parley's Shared Use Pathway, the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal Shared Use Pathway, City Creek Trail, the Surplus Canal Shared Use Pathway, and the Jordan River Trail and 100 South Railroad Crossing. The total estimated cost of these improvements was approximately $22.7 million. Also included in the unrestricted list was the second phase of the 1300 East Traffic Safety project, estimated to cost approximately $1 million. The Division's priorities for addressing ongoing replacement of existing transportation infrastructure assets included the following: Traffic Signal Replacement- $8 million to replace approximately 50 existing signals over the next ten years. Actual priorities are determined on an annual basis. Street Lighting Replacement—Prior to direction regarding potential alternate funding structures for street light replacement, the Division identified a need for $5 million in replacement funding over the next ten years. TCC Cameras—Replacing/adding one camera per year was estimated to cost $240,000 over ten years. To respond to increased congestion and new growth, the Division included $1.6 million for New Traffic Signals over ten years, $750,000 for new pedestrian safety devices at locations determine based on need, as well $200,000 to fund a Transportation Master Plan to guide future improvements. These items are all impact fee eligible. The total ten year unrestricted needs of the Transportation Division were estimated to cost $39.5 million. • The Facilities Division developed an inventory of every capital facility repair and replacement needed over the next ten years to protect current assets. These specific projects are identified in Exhibit E. The total estimated cost of these needed repair and replacements was estimated at $30.8 million. • Placeholders were also made for the cost to update the CIP/Impact Fees in 2016, Percent for Art, and Cost Overruns. These three categories were estimated to cost approximately $1.9 million. The total cost of the needs articulated in Exhibit A was approximately $414 million. No costs were included for major capital items identified in the Capital Asset Management List such as the Streetcars, Parking Pay Stations, Performing arts Center, Public Market, Convention Hotel, Central Plant Upgrade/Hydrogen Cell Co-Generation, or the 2nd Phase of the Regional Sports Complex. The total cost and funding sources of these projects was undetermined at the time. April 2011 The estimated $414 million in unrestricted needs far exceeded total available revenues, which were estimated to be approximately $242.5 million as follows: General Fund Transfer of 7% $152.7 million Impact Fees $32.4 million Class C $24.0 million CDBG CIP $11.0 million Facilities —Fleet Bond Revenue $1.9 million 1300 South Viaduct Match $.2 million 1300 South Federal Grant $9.3 million Sale of Public Safety/Evidence $11.0 million Departments were asked to prioritize the needs identified in the unrestricted list to balance to the available revenues of$242.5 million. This first constrained list is reflected in Column E of the attached Exhibit A —Process for Constraining Project List under the heading Constrained List April 2011. Column F of this Exhibit identifies the changes that were made by project line to constrain the list. As evidenced within this Exhibit, no changes were made to Fire, Police, or Parks projects. The majority of the budgetary constraint was made to major category streets improvements (ADA, Sidewalks, Pavement, and Major Rehabilitation) to bring these budgets more in line with the historical levels of investment made by the Mayor and Council. These budgets were reduced by an average of 80% from unrestrained needs. Sidewalk funding is undergoing a discussion regarding alternative funding methods. No specific streets were eliminated from these major categories; this constraint would simply mean it would take longer to address the total needs. No changes were made to the 1300 South Viaduct or growth related streets as these projects were essentially already funded or significantly matched. Finally, in order to balance the list to the desired $242 million, traffic signal replacement in Transportation was reduced by 40%, in alignment with historical investment levels. May 2011 The final constraining process was needed to reflect the amount of total available revenues that were already committed to debt service. Although the bonds on the City and County Building were being retired, the City had made a previous agreement with the RDA to take on the debt service for the Steiner Ice Sheet beginning in FY17. This resulted in a sales tax revenue bond debt service obligation of almost $60 million over the ten year period. Because the CIP did not factor in the cost and funding source of the projects being considered in the Capital Asset Management (CAM) plan, a placeholder of$2.5 million was established under debt service to address some portion of these needs. This $25 million, in addition to the sales tax revenue bond debt service of almost $60 million, resulted in a requirement that the Department project lists be constrained by an additional $82.5 million to approximately $150 million. While the first constraining process was limited to necessary replacement of existing Streets and Transportation infrastructure, resulting in a continuation of historical investment levels and longer time frame to address current needs, the process to cut $82.5 million significantly impacted Departmental needs and priorities. Priorities of Mayor and Council were also eliminated as a means of last resort. This second constrained list is reflected in Column G of the attached Exhibit A —Process for Constraining Project List under the heading Constrained List Mayor's Recommendations. Column H of this Exhibit identifies the changes that were made by project line to constrain the list. The following is a high-level summary of the cuts that were made in order to balance sources and uses: • Fire—Fire Training Facility was cut, resulting in an amended total CIP of$12.4 million. • Police —no changes; CIP value remains at $9.1 million. ■ Parks —No changes were made to impact fee funded acquisition of additional parks and open space acreage; the Jordan/Salt Lake Canal Shared Use Pathway and City Creek Trail were moved from Transportation to Parks as partially eligible for impact fees; and improvements to existing parks were cut by approximately 50%. Exhibit F identifies which projects remain priorities of the Department for available funding. These projects are anticipated to be reviewed annually by Mayor and Council, however. • Streets—the 1300 South Viaduct and all four growth-related project were unchanged; Major Rehabilitation and Concrete Rehabilitation were unchanged from the April constraint; ADA Ramps were cut another 12%; Sidewalk Rehabilitation/Sawcutting was cut by 65% (had not been constrained previously); Deteriorated Sidewalk Replacement was cut another 7%; Pavement Management was cut another 30%; Local Street Reconstruction was cut by 30% ((had not been constrained previously); and Bridge Rehabilitation was cut by 80% (had not been constrained previously). While unrestricted needs were approximately $242 million, constrained in April to $74.3 million,the May process cut the total amount for Streets to $61.8 million. ■ Transportation—The Transportation budget was reduced from $33.3 million to $12.9 million by eliminating the Parley's and Surplus Canal Shared Use Pathways and Jordan River Trail and 100 South Railroad Crossing (with an intention to seek other funding sources); moved the Jordan/Salt Lake Canal Shared Use Pathway and City Creek Trail projects to Parks to utilize some impact fee funding; cut 50% from New Bike Land Installation; cut 50% from the 1330 East Traffic Safety project(a remaining phase would need to be scheduled after 2021); cut replacement traffic signals by another 30%; cut pedestrian safety devices by 33%; cut street lighting replacement by another 63% (with the expectation these needs would be funded under an alternate funding structure); the 200 South Bike Lane Project, 900 South Rail Corridor,New Traffic Signals, TCC Cameras, and Transportation Master Plan were unchanged from the April funding levels. • Facilities—Facilities was allotted a designated amount of$3.9 million ($390,000 per year) "off the top" of available General Fund revenues. The remaining $27.2 million in needs were reduced by 80%to $5.3 million, to be addressed according to priorities determined on an annual basis with the Mayor and Council. • Cost Overruns—Cost Overruns were cut by 25%to balance to final draft CIP to available revenues. In total, Department needs were reduced within the May constraining process by $82.5 million to balance to the available revenues of$150 million, after debt service. EXHIBIT A Salt Lake City -Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 Process for Constraining Project List Capital Projects by Department Articulated Needs Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List Mayor's Recommendations March 2011 Flre Fire Station#3-Relocation and Expansion;Land Acquisition $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 unchanged $ 1,250,000 $50k increase in cost Fire Station#3-Relocation and Expansion;Construction $ 5,100,000 $ 5,100,000 unchanged $ 5,100,000 unchanged Fire Station#14 $ 5,100,000 $ 5,100,000 unchanged $ 5,100,000 unchanged Training Facility $ 7,900,000 $ 7,900,000 unchanged $ - cut training facility Truck for Fire Station#14 $ 950,000 $ 950,000 unchanged $ 950,000 unchanged $ 20,250,000 $ 20,250,000 $ 12,400,000 Police Evidence and Crime Lab Facility Study $ 80,000 $ 80,000 unchanged $ 140,000 $60k increase in cost Evidence and Crime Lab Facility $ 9,000,000 $ 9,000,000 unchanged $ 9,000,000 unchanged $ 9,080,000 $ 9,080,000 $ 9,140,000 Parks and Open Space(see list for prioritization and unit costs within each category) New park acquisition to serve growth-45 acres $ 4,457,634 $ 4,457,634 unchanged $ 6,740,000 unchanged New open space acquisition $ 1,217,327 $ 1,217,327 unchanged $ 2,100,000 balance of open space bond Jordan and Salt Lake Canal Shared Use Pathway $ 4,000,000 moved from Transportation City Creek Trail $ 1,200,000 moved from Transportation Playground Improvements $ 5,050,000 $ 5,050,000 unchanged $ 1,700,000 cut 10 out of 30 playgrounds Restroom Improvements $ 7,200,000 $ 7,200,000 unchanged $ 3,300,000 cut 13 out of 24 restrooms Multipurpose Field Improvements $ 1,650,000 $ 1,650,000 unchanged $ 950,000 cut 6 out of 13 fields Basketball Improvements $ 230,000 $ 230,000 unchanged $ 150,000 cut 2 out of 4 courts Tennis Court Improvements $ 7,525,000 $ 7,525,000 unchanged 0 ) $ 4,725,000 unchanged Volleyball Court Improvements $ 105,000 $ 105,000 unchanged $ 70,000 cut 1 out of 3 courts Softball Field Improvements $ 600,000 $ 600,000 unchanged $ 400,000 cut 1 out of 3 fields Baseball Field Improvements $ 2,200,000 $ 2,200,000 unchanged $ 1,400,000 cut 4 out of 11 fields Jogging/Walking Path Improvements $ 464,000 $ 464,000 unchanged $ 291,000 cut 4 out of 9 paths Pavilion Improvements $ 3,200,000 $ 3,200,000 unchanged $ 1,200,000 cut 5 out of 8 pavilions _ Plaza Improvements $ 1,325,000 $ 1,325,000 unchanged $ 1,200,000 cut 3 out of 5 plazas Off-Leash Dog Park Improvements $ 1,650,000 $ 1,650,000 unchanged $ 750,000 cut 2 out of 6 parks Skate Park Improvements $ 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000 unchanged $ 700,000 cut 1 out of 2 parks BMX/Bike Park Improvements $ 300,000 $ 300,000 unchanged $ 300,000 unchanged Drinking Fountains $ 140,000 $ 140,000 unchanged $ 70,000 cut 20 out of 40 fountains Picnic Tables $ 476,000 $ 476,000 unchanged $ 240,000 cut 119 out of 238 tables Horseshoes $ 30,000 $ 30,000 unchanged $ 15,000 cut1 out oft horseshoes Water Features $ 800,000 $ 800,000 unchanged $ 250,000 cut 2 out of 3 features Bridges $ 1,260,000 $ 1,260,000 unchanged $ 250,000 cut 3 out of 5 bridges Bleachers $ 224,000 $ 224,000 unchanged $ 112,000 cut 14 of 28 bleachers Benches $ 174,000 $ 174,000 unchanged $ 90,000 cut 29 of 58 benches Earthen Trails $ 382,000 $ 382,000 unchanged $ 369,000 unchanged Concessions $ 1,625,000 $ 1,625,000 unchanged $ 500,000 cut 3 out of 6 concessions Landscaping $ 3,582,500 $ 3,582,500 unchanged $ 2,305,000 cut 25%;not project specific Lighting $ 1,105,000 $ 1,105,000 unchanged $ 720,000 cut 30%;not project specific Irrigation $ 6,039,100 $ 6,039,100 unchanged $ 2,719,050 unchanged Fencing $ 1,213,500 $ 1,213,500 unchanged $ 805,000 cut 7 out of 15 projects Asphalt $ 1,794,000 $ 1,794,000 unchanged $ 1,243,000 unchanged Signage $ 254,750 $ 254,750 unchanged $ 192,150 unchanged Cemetery $ 12,800,000 $ 12,800,000 unchanged $ 2,000,000 cut 85%;not project specific Parks Recovery Plan $ 50,000 $ 50,000 unchanged $ 50,000 unchanged Parks,Open Space,and Trails Master Plan $ 75,000 $ 75,000 unchanged $ 75,000 unchanged (J Jordan River Master Plan $ 100,000 $ 100,000 unchanged $ 100,000 unchanged Foothills Recreation and Management Plan $ 75,000 $ 75,000 unchanged $ 75,000 unchanged $ 70,773,811 $ 70,773,811 $ 43,356,200 EXHIBIT A I it,. Capital Projects by Department Articulated Needs Constrained List April 2011 I ': Constrained List Mayor's Recommendations March 2011 111 1� Lai L Streets(see list for prioritization of projects within each category) 1300 South Viaduct Rehabilitation $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000 unchanged A n $ 10,000,000 unchanged /1 500/700 South-2800 West to 5600 West $ 14,760,000 $ 14,760,000 unchanged $ 14,760,000 unchanged 1 J ADA Accessibility Ramps $ 10,000,000 $ 3,500,000 cut 65%;not project specific $ 1,300,000 cut another 12%;not project specific Sidewalk Rehabilitation/Sawcutting $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 unchanged $ 700,000 cut 65%;not project specific Deteriorated Sidewalk Replacement $ 20,000,000 $ 3,500,000 cut 83%;not project specific $ 1,300,000 cut another 7%;not project specific Indiana Avenue/900 South from Redwood to 3600 West $ 3,640,000 $ 3,640,000 unchanged $ 3,640,000 unchanged Gladiola Street-1650 South to 2100 South $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 unchanged $ 4,000,000 unchanged 4400 West from 700 South to 850 South $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 unchanged $ 1,600,000 unchanged Street Pavement Overlay and Preservation $ 49,000,000 $ 10,000,000 cut 80%;not project specific $ 7,000,000 cut another 30%;not project specific Local Street Reconstruction $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000 unchanged $ 7,000,000 cut 30%;not project specific Major Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of City Streets $ 114,000,000 $ 8,360,000 cut 93%;not project specific $ 8,360,000 unchanged Concrete Street Rehabilitation $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 unchanged $ 2,000,000 unchanged Bridge Rehabilitation $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 unchanged $ 200,000 cut 80%;not project specific $ 242,000,000 $ 74,360,000 $ 61,860,000 Transportation Replacement Traffic Signals $ 8,000,000 $ 4,800,000 cut 40%;not project specific $ 2,400,000 cut another 30%;not project specific Pedestrian Safety Devices $ 750,000 $ 750,000 unchanged $ 250,000 cut 33%;not project specific New Bike Lane Installations $ 500,000 $ 500,000 unchanged $ 250,000 cut 50%-slower phasing Bike Lanes-200 South $ 6,520,000 $ 6,520,000 unchanged $ 6,520,000 unchanged 900 South Rail Corridor $ 700,000 $ 700,000 unchanged $ 700,000 unchanged New Traffic Signals $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 unchanged $ 1,600,000 unchanged 1300 East Traffic Safety-Phase 2 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 unchanged $ 500,000 cut 50%-slower phasing Parley's Shared Use Pathway $ 3,000,000 $ 3,000,000 unchanged $ - seek other sources Jordan and Salt Lake Canal Shared Use Pathway $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 unchanged $ - seek other sources City Creek Trail $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 unchanged $ - moved to Parks Surplus Canal Shared Use Pathway $ 2,750,000 $ 2,750,000 unchanged $ - seek other sources Jordan River Trail and 100 South Railroad Crossing $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 unchanged y 0 $ - moved to Parks Street Lighting Replacement $ 5,000,000 $ 2,000,000 cut 33%;not project specific $ 200,000 cut another 63%;funded elsewhere TCC Cameras $ 240,000 $ 240,000 unchanged $ 240,000 unchanged Transportation Master Plan $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 unchanged $ 39,460,000 $ 33,260,000 $ 12,860,000 Facilities-ongoing ongoing $ 30,835,971 $ 3,600,000 unchanged $ 3,900,000 increased to$3.9 M per year discretionary $ - $ 27,235,971 unchanged $ 5,298,504 cut 80%;not project specific $ 30,835,971 $ 30,835,971 $ 9,198,504 CIP/Impact Fee Study $ 44,600 $ 44,600 $ 44,600 unchanged Percent for Art $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 unchanged Cost Overruns $ 800,000 $ 800,000 $ 600,000 cut by 25% Ongoing General Fund Expenditures $ 414,244,382 $ 240,404,382 $ 150,459,304 Potential CAM Bond Issuance Projects-in priority order Parking Pay Station SugarHouse Streetcar Utah Performing Arts Center Salt Lake City Public Market Salt Lake City Convention Hotel Downtown Streetcar Central Plant Upgrade/Hydrogen Cell Co-Generation Regional Sports Complex-Phase 2 kjProjects Deferred until other revenue sources available Jordan River Trail and 100 South Railroad Crossing Parleys(PRATT)Shared Use Pathway Surplus Canal Shared Use Pathway Salt Lake City Public Services Capital Improvement Program Long Range Planning: Street Improvements Street Pavements •1,843 lane miles of pavement exist in Salt Lake City. 1,696 lane miles are asphalt and 147 are concrete. Every street pavement is evaluated and programmed for future maintenance strategies. •32%(approximately 600 lane miles)of the street network is presently in the"Unsatisfactory Condition"category. •Approximately 18 Lane Miles should be reconstructed per year to maintain integrity of the street network; recent statistics indicate the average number of lane miles reconstructed per year is approximately 1.86. (2004 thru 2009 statistics) *Approximately 40 lane miles should receive an asphalt overlay per year;the average number of lane miles presently receiving an asphalt overlay per year is 10.34. (2004 thru 2009 statistics) *Approximately 232 lane miles of asphalt pavement should receive some type of surface treatment per year to adequately maintain the network;the average number of surface treatments presently placed per year is approximately 138 lane miles(approximately 60%of the actual need). *Typical CIP Street Projects: •Major Street Reconstruction(Funding Sources: GF,Federal, Class C,Impact Fees, SAA) •Local Street Reconstruction(General Fund) •Asphalt Overlay and Pavement Preservation(Class C) •Concrete Street Rehabilitation(Class C) *Approximately$19,000,000 per year is needed to maintain the City's street network. The City's present funding level through CIP and Streets Division's maintenance program is approximately $7,200,000 per year. Federal funding assists in addressing major street reconstruction,which adds another$2,000,000 per year on average. The funding shortfall per year is approximately $10,000,000. Bridges •23 bridges in Salt Lake City—most cross the Jordan River or the Surplus Canal. •UDOT provides a condition report every two years—Salt Lake City is responsible for maintenance. *Public Services is presently developing a City Bridge Maintenance Program with the objective of extending the functional life of all bridge structures. $50,000 has been requested in the 2010/2011 CIP for program development and evaluation of various bridge maintenance strategies. •1300 South Viaduct is scheduled for reconstruction in 2012/2013. (Federal funding) •North Temple viaduct is scheduled for reconstruction in 2010/2011. (GF,Bond, State, SAA funding) Curb and Gutter *Approximately 4,750,000 lineal feet of curb and gutter exists in Salt Lake City—approximately 754,000 lineal feet of curb and gutter shows significant deterioration. *No curb and gutter maintenance program exists;repair or replacement is accomplished in conjunction with other street improvement projects or through property owner participation in the 50/50 concrete replacement program administered by the Streets Division. *Approximately$23,000,000 in defective curb and gutter exists. This figure could easily double to address drainage problems in conjunction with defective curb and gutter repair. Sidewalks *Approximately 20,000,000 square feet of sidewalk exists in the City; approximately 10%needs to be repaired or replaced. •Based on a 100-year life projection, which exceeds industry standards for public way sidewalk, approximately 200,000 square feet of defective sidewalk should be replaced per year to maintain the network. Presently,the City is replacing approximately one-half of the 200,000 square foot recommendation. *City Council has requested information regarding a possible new sidewalk program to address this extensive need. •Over$17,000,000 is presently needed to replace all defective sidewalks in the City. *Approximately$2,000,000 per year is needed to facilitate a viable sidewalk replacement program that could address the presently defined defective sidewalk through a ten year program. This represents approximately a 25%increase over the previous highest funding level for sidewalk replacement. Accessibility Ramps •Accessibility ramp installation is a federal ADA requirement.Approximately 12,000 ramps have been installed. *Approximately$11,000,000 is needed to complete the installation of approximately 3100 public way accessibility ramps. *At the present funding rate, over 20 years will pass before all remaining ramps can be installed. *Approximately$1,000,000 per year is needed to facilitate a viable accessibility ramp construction program, which involves an increase of approximately 40%over the present funding level. Salt Lake City Public Services Public Way Asset Management: Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter, and Drive Approaches • is % x Discussion Paper March 2010 Revision No. 1: November 2010 Salt Lake City Public Services Public Way Asset Management Briefing Paper: Sidewalks, Curb and Gutter, Street Pavements and Bridges The purpose of this document is to provide information regarding the current condition of Salt Lake City's public way concrete, discuss funding issues, and present funding options regarding the management of these critical public way assets. This discussion paper is presented in 4 major sections: 1) Public Way Concrete Condition Statement and Funding Issues, 2) Deteriorated Public Way Concrete Funding Options, 3) Summary and Recommendations, and 4) Appendices. Funding for the replacement of deteriorated public way sidewalk is the main focus of this paper, since decisions regarding this program will impact all other public way concrete program decisions. PUBLIC WAY CONCRETE Condition Statement: In 1989, the City Council adopted the present ordinance regarding the replacement of defective public way concrete. The definition of defective concrete is provided in this ordinance (see Appendix No.1). Although the ordinance places responsibility for replacement of defective public way concrete on the adjacent private property owner, the ultimate responsibility falls on the City; therefore, the following programs have been established and utilized to facilitate the installation, replacement or repair of defective public way concrete (see Appendix No.2 for detailed discussion): 1) Permit to Work in the Public Way — Adjacent Private Property Owner Hires a Contractor 2) Street Maintenance Division's 50/50 Public Way Concrete Replacement Program 3) Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Projects: •Street Rehabilitation/Reconstruction ■Defective Sidewalk Special Assessment Areas (SAA) •Sidewalk Horizontal Sawcutting ■ADA Accessibility Ramp Installation and Repair 4) Community Development Block Grant Projects (CDBG): • Street Rehabilitation/Reconstruction • Defective Sidewalk Replacement • ADA Accessibility Ramp Installation and Repair 5) Street Maintenance Division's Repair and Replacement of Damaged Concrete (Not 50/50 Eligible) 6) Public Way Improvements Required in Conjunction with Private Development Most citizen concerns regarding defective concrete fall into two main categories: public safety and cost of replacement. Property owners are very concerned about the deterioration of public way concrete in their neighborhoods; however, they are generally unaware of the fact that City ordinance places the responsibility for repair on the adjacent private property owner. Asset management data indicates Salt Lake City has approximately 20,000,000 square feet of sidewalk; 4,750,000 lineal feet of curb and gutter; 7,680,000 square feet of concrete drive approaches; and over 11,800 public way accessibility ramps. Over 2,000,000 square feet of defective sidewalk exists and approximately 3,350 accessibility ramps still need to be constructed. Approximately 754,000 lineal feet of defective curb and gutter exists and approximately 500,000 square feet of defective concrete exists in drive approaches. Appendix 3 provides a summary of the City's public way concrete assets and construction needs. The City's major focus regarding public way concrete maintenance relates to defective sidewalk repair and accessibility ramp construction to ensure a safe and barrier free environment for pedestrians. The driving force behind this focus on accessibility comes from the City's strong commitment to meeting federal ADA requirements. At the funding level that existed prior to the recent decisions not to fund the 2008 and 2009 sidewalk special assessment area (SAA) projects, approximately 100,000 to 112,000 square feet of defective sidewalk was replaced each year. A comparison of previous and recent defective concrete survey statistics indicates the volume of sidewalk falling into the defective category increases by 3% to 4% per year. Based on this deterioration rate and the existence of approximately 2,051,000 square feet of defective sidewalk, the actual annual reduction in deteriorated public way sidewalk is 2% at best. At this replacement rate and at the funding level that existed prior to the recent sidewalk SAA cancellations, more than 30 years will pass before all defective sidewalk can be addressed. This timeline estimate does not take into consideration the general rule that deterioration rates tend to accelerate over time. The City has implemented a horizontal sawcutting program that addresses sidewalk displacements less than one and one-half inches. This maintenance strategy extends the functional life of individual sidewalk sections; however, in most cases, specifically regarding tree root uplifting, displacement re-occurs within 2 to 5 years. Continued uplifting eventually requires replacement of the defective sidewalk section. Approximately 10,000 sidewalk tripping hazards can be mitigated each year through horizontal sawcutting projects. Over 11,800 accessibility ramps have been installed in the public way, representing 78% of the City's total ramp construction need. Approximately 3,350 ramps still need to be constructed, which will require a financial commitment of approximately $12,700,000. At the present rate of expenditure, over 20 years will pass before all of the remaining ramps can be constructed. Since federal requirements regarding ramp design have changed in recent years, long range planning will also need to include replacement of non-compliant ramps, and replacement or repair of ramps exhibiting deterioration through the natural aging process. Curb and gutter deterioration is a citywide problem. Very little funding has been allocated for the replacement of defective curb and gutter, which has resulted in considerable citizen concern, especially at locations where conveyance of runoff is impeded by defective concrete. Deteriorated curb and gutter results in ponding problems that range in severity from nuisance to extreme. Approximately 754,000 lineal feet of curb and gutter is defective; however, this figure does not address the additional curb and gutter replacement needed to alleviate drainage issues. Resolving drainage issues in conjunction with defective curb and gutter replacement could possibly double the stated figure. At this time, replacing the existing 754,000 lineal feet of defective curb and gutter would cost well over $23,000,000. The City does not have a program that specifically addresses defective curb and gutter; repair and replacement of this public way asset occurs mainly in conjunction with CIP street improvement projects and through the Streets Division's 50/50 program. 8,000 to 9,000 lineal feet of defective curb and gutter are currently being replaced each year. The majority of this work does not address the overall drainage issues on an entire block face. In many cases, resolution of a drainage problem at one location results in an aggravated problem for a neighboring property. At the present level of replacement, over 90 years will pass before all defective curb and gutter could be replaced, not including additional replacement needed to resolve drainage issues. Addressing drainage issues will extend this time frame significantly. Replacement of defective drive approaches is accomplished for the most part in conjunction with sidewalk replacement special assessment areas (SAA's) and through the Streets Division's 50/50 concrete replacement program. Although sidewalk replacement SAA's are primarily established to eliminate pedestrian accessibility barriers and tripping hazards, the City has included funding in these projects to provide property owners the option of replacing defective drive approaches. Due to limited funding, defective curb and gutter replacement and resolution of associated drainage problems cannot be accomplished through SAA sidewalk replacement projects. Funding Issues: Replacement of Defective Sidewalk and Installation of Accessibility Ramps In the last five years the average square foot cost for sidewalk replacement has increased 80%, despite the fact that present economic conditions resulted in favorable bid prices at the end of the five year evaluation period. In 2004, the City general fund budget for the Sidewalk Replacement SID was $400,000. $720,000 would be needed to accomplish the same volume of work at today's construction costs. The budget approval for the 2007/2008 Sidewalk Replacement Special Assessment Area (SAA), formerly referred to as a Special Improvement District (SID), was $550,000 from the general fund and $550,000 from property owners. Funding for sidewalk replacement SAA's was not approved in the 2008/2009 and 2009/2010 fiscal years. CDBG funding for sidewalk replacement in 2004 was $200,000. Replacement of an equivalent amount of defective sidewalk today would require CDBG funding approval of $360,000. Approved CDBG funding in 2008/2009 grant was approximately $309,000, and $47,700 was approved in 2009/2010. Sidewalk replacement funding in 2009/2010 also included $243,281 in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funding. Assuming a 100 year life for public way sidewalk, which far exceeds industry standards, a viable sidewalk replacement program would require replacement of 1/100 of the total sidewalk network per year. A 100-year program would involve replacement of approximately 200,000 square feet of defective sidewalk per year, representing approximately 10% of the existing defective sidewalk. Presently, the City replaces approximately 108,000 square feet of defective sidewalk per year. Based on a 3% annual defective concrete increase and the present average sidewalk replacement rate of 100,000 square feet per year, over 30 years will pass before all defective sidewalk will be replaced. The average cost for constructing an access ramp has increased approximately 60% over the last five years. Approximately $12,700,000 is needed to complete the installation of approximately 3,350 accessibility ramps. The City's public way accessibility ramp transition plan defines all locations needing ramp construction, including a prioritization rating. The 3,350 ramp figure does not include replacement of older, non-compliant ramps as determined by the most recent federal guidelines. Eventually, the City's non- compliant ramps will need to be replaced to meet current standards. In the 2008/2009 fiscal year, CDBG funding of $400,000 was approved and $225,000 was approved through the CIP general fund for ramp construction. In 2009/2010, $300,000 was approved through the CIP general fund, $32, 435 was approved through CDBG, and ARRA provided an additional $252,000 for ramp construction. Based on recent funding levels for ramp construction, over 20 years will pass before the remaining ramps can be installed. The City's public way accessibility program will require funding on an ongoing basis to complete new ramp installations, replace ramps that no longer meet federal guidelines, and repair ramps as the network ages. Replacement of Defective Curb and Gutter Replacement of approximately 754,000 lineal feet of defective curb and gutter could cost the City over $23,000,000. This figure could easily double to cover additional curb and gutter replacement needed to resolve drainage problems. The City does not have an effective deteriorated curb and gutter replacement program, nor has a formal inventory been made to define drainage issues that may be related to the existing defective curb and gutter. At this time, defective curb and gutter locations are being identified through the Street Pavement Management program. This program inventories 1/7 of the total street network per year. The primary focus of the inventory is to collect street pavement distress information; therefore, the curb and gutter inventory data is not at the level needed to perform a true condition and cost analysis of this public way asset. A citywide curb and gutter inventory is needed to better define replacement costs. DETERIORATED PUBLIC WAY CONCRETE FUNDING OPTIONS A significant long-range financial commitment is needed to address the City's public way concrete asset management needs. Options discussed in this section are focused on defective sidewalk replacement, since decisions regarding funding for this program will impact funding decisions for all other public way concrete. The installation of curb and gutter, sidewalk, and accessibility ramps where such public way improvements have not previously existed is not addressed in this document. This issue warrants a separate evaluation. At the present time, sidewalk replacement occurs mainly through Sidewalk Replacement Special Assessment Areas (SAA), CDBG funded sidewalk replacement projects (restricted to CDBG eligible areas), and the Streets Division's 50/50 Concrete Replacement Program. The Streets Division's program is voluntary and non-contiguous regarding replacement locations, which means only one property owner on a block face containing several defective sidewalk locations could request sidewalk repair, leaving several potential tripping hazards and barriers to accessibility. CDBG funding is limited and inadequate to address all the defective concrete in CDBG eligible areas of the City. SAA's can be protested by property owners, bonding and administrative costs are high, and SAA funding has not been consistent in recent years. The present sidewalk replacement program makes expeditious response to ADA requests difficult, creating a liability issue for the City. Also, fairness concerns are often expressed by property owners who pay for sidewalk improvements in contrast to property owners living in CDBG eligible areas that receive the same public way improvements for free. Significant concerns exist regarding the present funding mechanism for deteriorated sidewalk replacement. The following discussion presents possible funding options regarding revision or replacement of the existing sidewalk replacement program. Three basic approaches are presented: 1) City and property owners share the replacement costs (SAA's, Streets Division's 50/50 program), 2) Property owners pay 100% of replacement cost, 3) Property owners pay a public way concrete replacement fee or tax to cover replacement costs. Various combinations of these basic funding concepts could occur to address overall defective concrete funding needs, Funding options are presented as a decision-making tool, not as exact program recommendations, in the evaluation of this complex issue. Deteriorated Sidewalk Replacement Options Sidewalk Program Option No. 1: Increase Special Assessment Area(SAA)Funding to Meet Actual Need (Streets Division's 50/50 Program and CDBG Sidewalk Replacement Continue without Revision): Funding: Increase SAA funding to address actual sidewalk replacement need(consider addressing all deteriorated sidewalk within a 10 year period) Advantages: •The Special Assessment Area process is well established and generally well accepted by property owners. •SAA's focus on specific areas with the objective of eliminating all deteriorated sidewalk within a defined area. 'Streets Division's 50/50 Program would allow property owners outside defined SAA's to request replacement of defective sidewalk. Disadvantages: •The formal SAA approval process provides property owners with the right of protest, which could prevent some areas in the City from ever receiving needed concrete repairs,creating a liability for both the property owner and the City. •Fairness concerns regarding improvement costs would exist with this option, since CDBG sidewalk installation would be accomplished without property owner cost participation. •Increased funding for the City portion of the SAA would be significant,which could impact other CIP program needs. •The Streets Division's 50/50 program is voluntary,which makes it subject to the general economic conditions of the time. •Administrative and bonding costs significantly increase the sidewalk replacement assessment to property owners. Sidewalk Program Option No. 2: 100% Property Owner Responsibility for Sidewalk and Drive Approach Replacement Costs,and 100% City Responsibility for Curb and Gutter Replacement Costs Funding: Property owners could meet their civic responsibility by hiring a contractor to replace the defective concrete or request the City's concrete crews perform the work. The Streets Division's concrete crews would continue their voluntary concrete replacement program only at 100% residential property owner cost instead of a 50/50 split(business property owners already pay 100%of the replacement cost). City funds presently allocated to sidewalk replacement could be applied to curb and gutter work. Additional funding for curb and gutter replacement could come from SAA's or through an increase to Public Utilities drainage utility fee. Obtaining curb and gutter funds through the drainage utility fee would require an ordinance and policy change. Advantages: •Property owners would pay for public way sidewalk and drive approach replacement adjacent to their property,allowing City funds presently used for this work to be reallocated to other public way improvement needs. In general,property owners are more receptive to paying for sidewalk and drive approach improvements than curb and gutter. •A coordinated program, including a new fee for curb and gutter improvements,could be established with Public Utilities to generate additional funding. Disadvantages: •50/50 concrete replacement cost sharing has been available to residential property owners for many years. The increased cost to property owners could result in less deteriorated concrete replacement, increasing tripping hazards and associated City liability. •Property owner notification regarding their responsibility to replace defective public way sidewalk and drive approaches would be a significant cost. •State statute places the responsibility for defective public way concrete replacement on the local municipality, not the adjacent private property owner. This option could require a revision to State statute. Sidewalk Program Option No. 3: Deteriorated Public Way Sidewalk Property Owner Fee Funding: A fee assessment of approximately$30 per year per property would generate approximately $1,920,000 per year based on an estimated 64,000 parcels that presently exist within the City limits. A set fee per parcel could be established or fees could be determined by proportional benefit, according to either lineal or square front footage of public way sidewalk adjacent to the property. A set minimum and maximum fee per parcel could also be established. The set fee would be based on the desired annual allocation for sidewalk replacement, such as a ten-year program to replace all deteriorated concrete. The maximum and minimum fees for commercial properties could be at a higher level than residential properties. Appendix 4 provides examples of possible fees based on square foot, lineal foot,and per parcel options. Advantages: *Property owners would pay a small amount annually instead of paying what could possibly be a significant cost at the time of construction. •The Streets Division's 50/50 program requires payment before construction starts,which can prohibit participation by those on fixed incomes. SAA's have a five-year pay off period at very reasonable interest rates;however this can still place a financial burden on some property owners. •The City would be responsible for contracting the replacement of defective concrete;property owner involvement would be minimized. •Property owners would have the option of hiring a contractor at their own cost to install the improvements prior to the scheduled replacement(public way permit required). •CDBG funding would still facilitate sidewalk replacement in qualifying areas;however,the fairness issue would no longer exist regarding some property owners paying for improvements and others receiving the improvements without charge,since all property owners would pay the public way sidewalk assessment. Disadvantages: •Establishment of a fee program would require significant effort, including a public education and communication program. •A billing process would need to be established. This could possibly be handled through Public Utilities;however, accounting transactions handled by this department would increase significantly,possibly requiring personnel and budgeting adjustments. •City ordinance revisions would need to be developed,reviewed, and passed. *Property owner resistance may be encountered regarding increased costs for City services. •Property owners that have recently replaced defective sidewalk would not want to pay a fee without some adjustment. A credit program regarding recently replaced sidewalk would need to be established. Appendix 4 provides an example of a possible 5 Year Exemption Plan. Deteriorated Curb and Gutter and Drive Approaches The City does not have a viable funding program to address defective curb and gutter and drive approaches. Replacement presently occurs in conjunction with CIP street projects and through the Streets Division's 50/50 program. Over $23,000,000 is presently needed to replace the existing defective curb and gutter. This figure could easily double if additional curb and gutter replacement is required to resolve drainage problems. The city could fund a new curb and gutter program with funding that was previously budgeted for sidewalk replacement, if a fee or tax is established to address defective sidewalk replacement. All costs of the new curb and gutter program could be absorbed by the City or shared with property owners through a 50/50 type program. Deteriorated curb and gutter replacement could also be included in a fee program with sidewalk. The increased fee could cover all public way concrete. For example, a residential property that has a 50 foot frontage would pay a sidewalk fee of approximately $40 per year at $0.20 a square foot, and a viable program that would also include curb and gutter would double this amount to $80 per year. This would not totally fund a curb and gutter program due to the extensive costs associated with resolving drainage problems; however, this amount would fund a viable ongoing program. The replacement of deteriorated drive approaches could also be included in the above stated sidewalk replacement options or the combined program involving sidewalk and curb and gutter. Drive approaches could also be viewed as convenience providing access to private property with all costs related to the approach being the responsibility of the property owner. SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS The replacement of defective public way concrete is a major concern in cities all across the United States, especially in light of the recent Supreme Court decision that states city sidewalks are subject to Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act. Concrete replacement is being addressed in a variety of ways. Some cities have accepted complete responsibility for replacement of defective public way concrete; whereas, other cities place the entire burden on the adjacent private property owner. In general, those cities accepting responsibility for concrete replacement generate funding through taxation or fees, and cities placing the responsibility on the adjacent private property owner have established programs similar to our CIP special assessment area (SAA) or the Streets Division's 50/50 concrete replacement program. Concrete replacement through an SAA is restricted to the legally defined district, making it difficult to expeditiously respond to ADA sidewalk repair requests outside of the district. Also,property owners have the right to protest the creation of an SAA, which means some areas of the City may never receive needed public way concrete replacement. Since the Streets Division's 50/50 program is voluntary,property owners can simply ignore their civic responsibility to replace defective public way concrete adjacent to their private property. In light of liability issues that may exist regarding defective concrete in the public way, programs that generate ongoing revenue should be of most interest in our effort to determine the best option for Salt Lake City. Denver has established a program that assesses property owners an annual sidewalk replacement fee based on the square feet of public way concrete adjacent to their property. This approach has provided a viable program, supported by a dedicated revenue source that has decreased city liability regarding defective concrete in the public way. Of the various defective public way concrete replacement options presented in this document, the most beneficial to the City from the viewpoint of establishing a fiscally sound, ongoing program is the establishment of a FEE to facilitate the replacement of deteriorated public way concrete. This option provides greater assurance than any of the other options that all deteriorated public way concrete will eventually be addressed. The established funding source would provide a high degree of confidence regarding the planning, programming, and scheduling of projects. An alternate approach to establishing a property owner fee would be a tax increase. Implementation of the property owner concrete replacement fee or tax would also provide an opportunity to more effectively coordinate Public Utilities' storm drain projects with curb and gutter replacements. Defective public way concrete in Salt Lake City is a significant concern, requiring further evaluation to determine a prudent and effective course of action. The present rate of expenditure is not adequate to keep up with the rate of public way concrete deterioration. A public way concrete management program should be established to address the current backlog and facilitate ongoing maintenance of this valuable City asset. The development and maintenance of a functional, safe and accessible public way will provide a great benefit to residents,businesses,and visitors to Salt Lake City. APPENDIX NO. 1 8 -g ,t4141 'i�oo�U ia°n spa 5� r dx 4I1 b rdlil6lr?i.." ...nk: 1 41J w nui. ."AIL Defective Public Way Concrete 1)The displacement of sidewalk,curb,gutter,and drive approach sections or appurtenances either horizontally or vertically to a point that one section or any part of a section is separated by at least one-half inch(1!2")from the other;or 2)The presence of a minimum of three(3)cracks of any length or width between score marks and/or expansion joints in any sidewalk, curb, gutter, and drive approach sections or appurtenances;or 3)The presence of spalling over more than twenty five percent (25%) of the surface area of any sidewalk, curb, gutter, and drive approach sections or appurtenances;or 4)The existence of settling, spalling or depressions in a sidewalk, curb, gutter, and drive approaches or appurtenances, which allows water to become entrapped or cause ice pockets;or 5)The existence of similar signs of deterioration in sections of sidewalk, curb, gutter, and drive approaches or appurtenances contiguous to sections which are in a condition as defined in subsections A through D of this definition to such an extent that they can reasonably be considered as part of the overall defective areas, or which must be replaced to effect a proper correction of the defective areas,or which must be replaced to effect a proper correction of the defective sections. APPENDIX NO. 2 Although City ordinance places the responsibility for replacement of defective public way concrete on the adjacent private property owner, the ultimate responsibility falls on the City; therefore, the following options have been established to facilitate the installation, replacement or repair of public way concrete: • Permit to Work in the Public Way Property owners can hire a contractor to accomplish desired sidewalk, curb& gutter, and drive approach repairs abutting their property. This option requires a permit to work in the public way, which can be obtained through Salt Lake City Engineering. All construction costs are the responsibility of the adjacent private property owner. A"no fee"permit is issued for the replacement of defective concrete.Prior to issuing a permit,the engineering staff will check the location for any upcoming street construction projects, street overlays and sidewalk replacement projects to determine any potential conflicts. A permit is not issued if the subject location falls within the boundary of a proposed street construction or asphalt overlay project scheduled to occur within the next two years,unless approval from the City Engineer or designee is first obtained and the permittee is informed of the proposed upcoming project. Streets Division 50/50 Concrete Replacement Program The Public Services/Streets Division offers this cost-sharing program to assist property owners in the replacement of deteriorated sidewalk,curb&gutter,and drive approaches. The cost of repair is shared on a 50/50 basis between the residential property owner and the City. Business property owners including schools, churches, hospitals, non-profits and government property owners pay 100% of the replacement cost. Property owners must pay for the work prior to the start of construction. Cost estimates are provided without charge and work is scheduled on a"first come first served"basis. Property owners are given the option of having sidewalk tripping hazards repaired by horizontal sawcutting at no cost,if the defective sidewalk meets the established horizontal sawcutting criteria. The Streets Division coordinates with the Engineering Division to determine proposed locations of City street construction and asphalt overlay projects scheduled within the next two years, and 50/50 concrete replacement work is discouraged at all such locations. If a property owner still requests repair of defective sidewalk,following notification of a proposed future city project,approval from the City Engineer or designee must be obtained prior to repair of the defective concrete. Special Assessment Areas(SAA) The primary focus of special assessment areas(SAA's)is the replacement of defective sidewalk. SAA's are created to resolve all of the deteriorated sidewalk problems within a defined area. The City and the adjacent residential private property owners share the replacement costs on a 50/50 basis. Business property owners including schools, churches, hospitals, non-profits, and government property owners pay 100%of the cost. Property owners have the option of paying off the concrete replacement assessment over a five-year period. Sidewalk horizontal sawcutting is used to remove vertical displacements less than one and one- quarter inches in conjunction with the SAA work. This is accomplished at no charge to the adjacent private property owner. If a property owner requests replacement of the defective concrete instead of addressing the displacement by horizontal sawcutting,the property owner must agree to pay for the sidewalk replacement at the established SAA assessment rates. As part of the sidewalk replacement SAA,property owners are given the option of replacing defective drive approaches and curb and gutter abutting their property. Generally,the replacement of defective curb and gutter is not recommended due to such existing street conditions as high crown,flat grades, and old high back style curb and gutter. These conditions can only be corrected through a street reconstruction or rehabilitation project,which would occur at no additional cost to the property owner. Where technically feasible,ADA sidewalk access ramps are installed at all street corners in an SAA, during the same construction time frame as the SAA. In most cases,the installation of the sidewalk access ramps is accomplished by Streets Division concrete crews or a City ADA ramp contractor. The City absorbs all costs related to the construction of sidewalk access ramps. Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)Sidewalk Replacement Federally funded CDBG defective sidewalk replacement projects are accomplished at no cost to the adjacent private property owners. CDBG funding is limited and work can only be accomplished in defined"target areas"based on restrictive federal guidelines. Sidewalk Horizontal Sawcutting Sidewalk sections with no defects other than a vertical displacement less than one and one-quarter inches are repaired through horizontal sawcutting. Sidewalk sawcutting is accomplished at no cost to the adjacent private property owner. Horizontal sawcutting to remove tripping hazards and ADA accessibility barriers is accomplished in conjunction with SAA and CDBG funded sidewalk replacements, street reconstruction, and asphalt overlay projects. Prioritization for horizontal sawcutting involves maintaining accessibility within the bounds of previous capital improvement projects. Requests regarding actual ADA sidewalk accessibility needs are always given a high priority and accomplished as soon as possible. Capital Improvement Program(CIP)Street Improvement Projects All street improvement projects,ranging from asphalt overlays to total street reconstruction,address sidewalk and accessibility ramp needs as an ADA compliance issue. In accordance with ADA,the pedestrian access route must be firm,stable,slip resistant,and without changes in level that exceed one-quarter inch,and openings(cracks,grates,etc.)that exceed one-half inch. Sidewalk repair is first accomplished through horizontal sawcutting of vertical displacements less than one and one- quarter inches. Extensive deterioration may require replacement of some sidewalk sections to provide an acceptable pedestrian access route. Street improvement project funds are used to pay for ADA compliance repairs that occur in conjunction with CIP projects. Horizontal sawcutting projects may be used to eliminate tripping hazards within the established limits of another CIP street improvement project. Existing street drainage and curb and gutter conditions may warrant replacement of curb and gutter sections and drive approaches as part of a street rehabilitation project. Streets Division's Repair 1 Replacement of Damaged Concrete The Public Services/Streets Division may make repairs to public way sidewalk,curb and gutter,and drive approaches that are deemed to be a critical needed repair,concrete replacement related to an actual ADA identified need,and damage from the annual clean-up program or snow plowing. The City absorbs all costs related to such repairs. Critically needed repairs would be those beyond replacement typically accomplished through the 50/50 program or other concrete replacement programs. An example of critically needed work would be extensive curb and gutter or sidewalk settlement due to an unknown source of undermining,when existing conditions present a hazardous situation for either vehicular or pedestrian traffic,or to remove an ADA sidewalk barrier when an actual need exists for an individual with a disability. The Public Services Director or assigned designee must approve the removal of a sidewalk barrier before the Streets Division concrete crew can replace the defective concrete. Private Development and Related Public Way Improvements Public way concrete(sidewalk,curb and gutter,and drive approach)repairs or improvements are accomplished as part of the development of private property, subdivisions, and permitted new building and facility rehabilitation projects. Costs related to these public way improvements are the responsibility of the private property owner or developer. ADA Accessibility Ramp Construction Salt Lake City's ADA public way accessibility ramps Transition Plan identifies all public way locations in need of accessibility ramps.The plan has been created to meet federal rulemaking requirements regarding the installation of public rights-of-way accessibility ramps. Legal precedence has been established requiring the installation of public way ramps in conjunction with all capital improvements street projects. This includes all projects with scopes of work at the level of an asphalt overlay or more extensive. The City requires ramp installation in accordance with this precedence,and requires all subdivision and other private development to appropriately comply. City funds are budgeted each year for accessibility ramp installation projects to ensure compliance with federal requirements to remove all public way accessibility barriers. All locations in need of ramp construction have been given a high, medium, or low priority rating based on criteria established by the federal government. The rating criterion includes proximity to government facilities,public buildings,schools,commercial outlets,public transportation routes,high pedestrian volume areas,scheduled CIP street improvement projects,and citizen requests.Many of the ADA accessibility ramp installations are scheduled and programmed in response to citizen requests. Actual need citizen requests are always given a high priority rating and construction is scheduled as soon as possible, pending the availability of ramp construction funding and consideration of previous priority commitments. Sidewalk access ramps are not built on one corner of an intersection only. Ramp users cannot be directed into an intersection and not be provided a ramp on the other side of the street. Any defective sidewalk within 25 feet of a new sidewalk access ramp is repaired or replaced in conjunction with new ramp construction. APPENDIX NO. 3 Defective Public Way Concrete Construction Needs Table 1 Public.I,N Wayr Sidewalk Construction Need -,!Oi'-r'fQA-v'a�`d63�"Iu". uklu h4 .71;61,,:. CATEGORY SQUARE FEET VALUE le-;gil'!9@SWrf�F<"NrA�. ^.gunKR'.E�YIY rf.d45F "E4s J^:_<e,!. I.,a rla ,..O`FFriat'4'iM/fi.,.14,11{44:4a:.; EXISTING SIDEWALK 20,000,000 S200,000,000 [VAtur.Y :mlININ INIISA 6:04,B .l'vt .�,P' ( , vg,Y, .�.va sl-s R+ ,A..1,01m,,rtuts DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK Not Tree Root Related 1,627,000 $16,270,000 Tree Root Related 385,000 $3,850,000 Sidewalk Beautification Areas 39,000 $ 1,950,000 TOTAL DEFECTIVE SIDEWALK 2,051,000 $22,070,000 "NO SIDEWALK"LOCATIONS 1,475,000 $16,230,000 p;wv#'..1O11m0,11M '9rKAR:.'.:"m, <•<,n:",+.gN,-.• nl .,.::di"'t ,••'.➢R�r'i aP 3,"s:Frk'�kiT 7:Hrd KwAr3.:KA;TOTAL SIDEWALK NEED 3,526,000 $38300000 40; 0r..1!Ei 3 ,4. s ^I:a NOTE:Values are based on$10.00/SF for Tree Root and Not Tree Root related,$50.00/SF for Beautification Areas, and$11.00/SF for"No Sidewalk"Locations. Existing Sidewalk is a GIS approximation. Table 2: Public Way Curb and Gutter Construction Need «Iqx47 I pr . ", , F 441t I ll''flllR I"'4V,Ii al tr pC➢S I fl'sast lx R.,k4:itd d`'; CATEGORY LINEAL FEET VALUE !ii,V1..G419,:111!JeVoifidelm ..ccsav s,, -4isst xfssctao w.... EXISTING CURB&GUTTER 4,750,000 $199,500,000 DEFECTIVE CURB&GUTTER 754,000 $22,620,000 "NO CURB&CUTTER"LOCATION 1,109,000 $38,815,000 0,,,titiatq 16430uc+a . tvatotuti5at vurkvtex,a,a.c44,0'e.c =.µsat TOTAL CURB&GUTTER NEED 1,863,000 $61,435,000 '<2A;siraivainwasmiswitievetiil:AkiP;tkow,k,--iMarir ax. i a.Pwi rrr7 6. NOTE:Defective curb and gutter figures do not include additional concrete replacement that may be necessary to resolve drainage issues. Curb and gutter values are based on$30.00/LF for existing and replacement,and$35 for"No Curb and Gutter". Table 3:Public Way Drive Approach Construction Need i Mi P,!I`ailnVe ? '' !oW,Ar._ itt 1157'nit{nfr"Ylui" ➢ loilleZ,Verilio41E :,,'0,f CATEGORY SQUARE FEET VALUE xY''. ,Zlix'.`6,, b.Ri3','+! .Okwinud x 1 F,WW.7..... .Wa ..I;;JIMN.,.W. EXISTING DRIVE APPROACHES 7,680,000 $99,840,000 DEFECTIVE DRIVE APPROACHES 500,000 $6,500,000 74i111,amear.Rmar.caos,<!. NOTE Drive approach values are based on$13.00/SF. Table 4:Public Way Accessibility Ramp Construction Need volettgliMMICANkrtowlkeittitomatv.14',t'w'mtmtqlon*:41Mr 031,4Air:VAR:44WAG :k CATEGORY RAMPS VALUE ccc i.41fik,a51••••.'1Q.,•10,!,c 1. 'ilLi,ildi,Manal.4406.14,i4OgiV,a• EXISTING ACCESSIBILITY RAMPS 11,825 $44,935,000 •1r4,,,,Mr2r11/0111%iitIVIMONMUNAPKI'i•,r1rFONVIRIIP'";4,:-",. LOCATIONS NEEDING RAMPS 3,351 $12,734,000 .'5,,,5itCl•-q5,450:1raa=g NOTE:Accessibility ramp values are based on$3800/ramp. APPENDIX NO. 4 Sidewalk Replacement Fee Examples The following examples are illustrative only;actual program fees and exemptions will need to be evaluated and established prior to implementation of a fee program. EXAMPLE 1:$0.20 PER SQUARE FOOT UNIT COST WITH SET MAXIMUM FEE • Unit Cost:$0.20 per Square Foot • New Construction Exemption:5 Year Fee Exemption from Year of Construction for Sidewalks Constructed Prior to Instigation of Fee Program • Maximum Annual Fee:$100 Example of property with sidewalk constructed in May 2008 that qualifies for 5 year exemption: Square Feet Unit Cost Credit for New Construction Total Annual Fee Fee Start Date 200 $0.20 May 2008 to May 2013 $40.00 June 2013 EXAMPLE 2:$0.80 PER LINEAL FOOT UNIT COST WITH SET MAXIMUM FEE • Unit Cost:$0.80 per Lineal Foot • New Construction Exemption:5 Year Fee Exemption from Year of Construction for Sidewalks Constructed Prior to Instigation of Fee Program • Maximum Annual Fee:$100 Example of property with sidewalk constructed in May 2008 that qualifies for 5 year exemption: Lineal Feet Unit Cost Credit for New Construction Total Annual Fee Fee Start Date 80 $.80 May 2008 to May 2013 $64.00 .June 2013 EXAMPLE 3:$30 PER PARCEL • Unit Cost:$30.00 per Parcel(No Square Footage or Lineal Footage measurement is needed) • New Construction Exemption:5 Year Fee Exemption from Year of Construction for Sidewalks Constructed Prior to Instigation of Fee Program Example of property with sidewalk constructed in May 2008 that qualifies for 5 year exemption: Lineal Feet Unit Cost Credit for New Construction Total Annual Fee Fee Start Date N/A $30 per Parcel May 2008 to May 2013 $30.00 June 2013 EXHIBIT B Salt Lake City Parks Department et Capital Improvement Plan,2012-2021 as of 911111 New Parks Project Scope Estimated Cost of Improvements o, g 'g l If ` n E -at a a? v g o 8 r a i E o - w E u - o m n m `m m p in Y rn rr33- « d o m - v" m ¢ i g n � - � � rn m $� 0 3 j a ° rn E in c u. a m - c ro � m E ¢ a `c in m m a a a I gm d ` o ,,. ....,�....._. O a r3 x ° z ° w U vel of service for growth I t I t i i . Project Scope Estimated Cost of Improvements rn g �'al Y `c x N d rn c- m o o 2:.,' -E 8 o z d ` u - a 1 - -. � N m ¢ - m r m m 3,1 a'o > a i g m E 1O o m E a ° Q - `o m 5 m _ .v a c in m i m a a 2 � 8 a w x z 0 - w ci c a rn m _ c Liberty Park I. Regional Athletic Complex $ 17,400,000 Washington Park M . _ Mountain Dell Sugar House Park _ 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 40 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t South River Perk .icwismilzr Cottonwood onwood Park Dee Glen Smith Tennis I. Fairmont • Herman Franks Park ., - Hillcrest Park International Peace Gardens Jordan Park Library Sq uare e I . G Memory Grove _ _ Memory Grove Pavilion _ North Gateway Park ME Riverside Park -. Rosewood Park Sorenson Center Sunnyside Park _ - Unity Center Warm Springs Park Wasatch Hollow Park Washington Square 10 13 9 0 17 1 5 3 12 1 7 4 113 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 3 0 0 0 4 32 9 2 10 4 4 0 0 14 5 0 Project Scope Estimated o E e n - - c i., C iN y,,... e ° m c n c o m % _ .a ° ° m.. r. 1 P Cost of Improvements rn Sall x o c > $ - B E 8 4 2 E `� o, m - • m m -, w _ m v> m $s o 0 o a 2 rn E m ° c _ m ° Y m LL a m c > �' ° m J m °' t ¢ LL w in m E a a 3 3 z v c4 11th Ave _ 9th South River Park MI _ City - 5thAve. "C"Street .Creekk Park Constitution Park Dilworth Park . Donner Trail Park Ensign Downs ParkIN% �- - Glendale Park . &teal Garden • Jefferson Park - Jordan Meadows Park Kay Rees Park - Laird Parkre _ Lindsey Gardens - Madsen Park Oak Hills Ball Diamonds _ _ _ EXHIBIT B Parley's Way Park Pioneer Park M lei Li in , • ell PpoopplpearriGornovpeam,Park E. MIE Reservoir Park MI Fin Richmond Park _ Rotary Glen Park == n _ Sherwood Park L I i Stratford Park Victory Park MA= _ _ Westpante Park II , ma 0104 3 24 2 6 2 19 2 1 1 76 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 0 0 0 0 12 14 7 0 16 7 3 0 0 14 2 0 , . - , . ., .... - , ...- . .., .. . •. , • 2 E I -7, ' _ . -t c,c' .i, c i. f . i• ' -1 — ' ' — 1 §.-e• i . 0, ,-2 -13g2221a5,T5g, g =. 1 8 g 2 = 3 _§ m li, < 'n, 2,d ,- 2 °,3, 27•5s0R .6 ., CO,'' g ' _, :.:o, ... ,;...:f.'. ,,,;-^--',:•",_ Estimated Cost of Improvements 'g,i , 11 - ,73 ,1, g,E fr -..,1 3 E E ' § on I z,. , ., 44, • _ 10th E Senior Citizens Franklin Covey Liberty Senior Center Raging Waters Westside Senior Citizens - 111.... . Steiner Aquatics Ma 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 01 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 E 1 1 ' = 71 1 '''' ' '''' 1' 8" 1 1 1 CornelunkTdSirde"ns - - - - Project Scope 1300 South Community Garden 400 East Community Garden 600 South Community Garden 900 South Native Garden i Eco Garden Fairpark Community Garden - Rose Park Community Garden 0. 0- 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 2 k , r,, T .,. ,....,, . ,...:- . .. -.......-...... Project Scope Estimated Cost of Improvements a ',., .g..fi 15 „t 2 1 „,g,s'A S i 2? t...,' 72.. 57. .1 - 2 •'-' r ,:: ‘53c24-ie,f2c,° ,,3 1E TIgmL25-- I < - 2 ,83' w E d'. on , , • • , . . .., . _.•. 8 ti: on-. •- .• ,, • ,....... :, . ......- .. _... . . Pt Oth East Park - , 1 , Artesian Well = ilik I mi , Beatrice Evans Park Cotton Park In I M, II Curtis Park Davis Park i i Faultline M i I. Fire Station Tennis n _ First Encampment U Galagher Tot Lot - n I I ' i Guadalupe Park = _. n ' . Inglewood Park Jackson Park _ Jake Gam Park Kletting Miami Park Peoples Freeway Park I Post Street Tot Lot Puqsley Ouray Park Redwood Meadows Shipp Park - Silver Park :tweedenebITikoPanrk 0 I Van Ness Tot Lot I— Westminster Park - , . IML , • _ _ 1= IM MI n i :II , _ _ , 1 , , - -0 - in, 0 9 0 0 0 9 0 0 0 0 0 0: 2 i, 0 0 , 2 0 0 0 0 0 6 10 14 0 15 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 EXHIBIT B e 15th East Alan Parsons-BST _ Alzheimer's Park Arcadia Trailhead Bend-In-The-River 1 Bonneville Shoreline Preserve _ _ 1 City Creek _ _ — _ Columbus Court Open Space _ . Ensign Peak - i 1 Ensign Peak Nature Park and Trailhead II ' Federal Heights Basin Foothills _ Foothills _ . _ J Foothills — _ . Foothills _ . Foothills _ Foothills - Garfield Riparian Area Hidden Hollow Natural Area = _ 1 1 .i Jordan River Parkway Miller Bird Refuge Modesto Park 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park M i 11111 Popperton Park Regional Athletic Complex Riverview ' I 1 1 I 1 11111 Rotary Park _ 1 I 44 Twin Peaks i 1 I 1 1 1 1 1 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 00 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1a 1 0 3 14 0 10 11 20 0 0 1 Bonneville Shoreline Trail Ensign Peak Nature Trail 1 Jordan River Parkway Trail 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 0 0 1 I1 13th East 2 West(6N-Wall) _ _ 7th8Ast 7th East(13S-21S( 8th West(6-95) Elizabeth Sherman Park _ H Jefferson Circle — Yalecrest Island 00 0 0 0 0 f 0 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 O r o [0 0 0 1 0 1 0 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 _ p F S d D .pp d 5 J m t ti E C o m oo X °' h x Project Scope Estimated Cost of Improvements rn n m m g,, o o w a 4 g $ .� 14 < o ; l m u o a 0. �- m ° z o 1 10th E.Islands _ — - — - f 12 East(5 Temple-5S) - - - ' i 1300 East Parking _ _ 1300 South 1500 East Island 0 13th Ave.8 J EXHIBIT B Eff_ 13th South Island 2nd South Islands 200 West(N Temple-4N) 400 North Stairs 4th Ave.Stairs/EastNVest EN 6th E.Island 6th East(s Temple-4th S) IN _ 7th East Parking 8th E.Island , .. . 8th South Islands 8th West Islands(1s-3 n) . 11 9th South Islands . . Burgess Island _ Country Club Island Federal Heights Islands(5) Foothill Islands IR II Glendale Circle Guardsman Way Islands _ Harvard Island 11 Herbert Island Hollywood Islands Laird Circle II Normandy North Temple Islands Oneida Island ' 111. Parley Pratt Plaza Pork Chop Island Prison Island Research Park Islands Il Skyline Island SR 201 Bangerter Sr 201 Redwood Tray Island Virginia Street Islands Waters Island Weseman Park 11. 00 0 0000 0 0 00 0 0 0 0 00000000 0 600020000000 0 •. ' '. I, , I il . .•1 I I ' ! ,. ; :. ',. :.. ;.". ,. ' 1 . . • . ''' ,`; ,•• 17th South Retention 5 349 Plaza 5 Almond Park I 1 Beldon Park Court Building _ $ _ 20,250,000 II Fleet Nelli Jack Park .. ri 1111 Pioneer Precinct Police-Facilities Roberta LaConia _ li Stanton Park I/ 0 0 0 , 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 7 1 0 0 0 0 0 1 $ c 2 F E o = F a-§' "?' ?, '5'a' . e 8? s 2 = = it El S t° .F "a °7,' :4 77, I ,_'ic, . •, g, > -, u) 30 24 13 4 43 3 11 9 40 3 8 ima 238 0 0 2 2 0 0 5 3 0 0 0 44 59 32 5 92 15 17 11 23 28 7 3 Ig11,1 CORepair/Replace New Existing e Exhibit C — Summary of the Park Priorities • EXHi,..r C • Summary of the Park Priorities __ placement/ Impact Fee Other Growth Growth Co Repair R&R Cost % Fun., ' Playgrounds 30 1 Lindsey Gardens 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 2 Fairmont 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 3 Swede Town 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 4 Poplar Grove 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 5 Popperton 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 6 Cotton 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 7 Stratford 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 8 Sunnyside 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 9 Jordan 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 10 Riverside 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 11 Jefferson 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 12 Pugsley Ouray 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 13 Jordan 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 14 Wasatch Hollow 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 15 Fairmont 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 16 Taufer 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 17 Jordan 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 18 Laird Park 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 19 Liberty 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 20 6th East 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 21 Sorenson 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 22 Post Street Tot Lot 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 23 Redwood Meadows 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 24 Richmond 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 25 Inglewood 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 26 Herman Franks 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 27 Westpointe 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 28 Galagher Tot Lot 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 29 Peoples Freeway Park 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 30 Kletting 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 $ 5,050,000 $ - 30 $ 5,050,000 0% 100% Restrooms 24 1 Rotary Glen 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 2 Warm Springs 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 3 Parley's Historic Nature 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 4 Glendale Park 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 5 Poplar Grove 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 6 Wasatch Hollow 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 7 Cottonwood 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 8 Pioneer 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 9 Herman Franks 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 10 Fairmont 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 11 Jordan 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 12 Lindsey Garden 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 13 9th South River 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 14 Sherwood Park 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 15 Riverside 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 16 Herman Franks 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 0 EXHIL.1 C 0 wth Growth C Replacement/ R&R Cost Impact Fee Other 17 Westpointe 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 18 Jordan 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 19 Riverside 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 20 Fairmont 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 21 Rotary Glen 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 22 Pioneer 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 23 Riverside 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 24 Memory Grove Pavillion 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 $ 7,200,000 1 $ 300,000 23 $ 6,900,000 4% 96% Multipurpose Fields 13 1 Fairmont 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 2 Fairmont 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 3 Fairmont 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 4 Fairmont 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 5 Jordan 2 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 2 $ 200,000 6 Rosewood 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 7 Sorenson 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 1 $ 100,000 8 Laird 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 1 $ 100,000 9 Stratford 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 1 $ 100,000 10 Westpointe 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 11 Riverside 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 12 Dilworth 1 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 1 $ 100,000 $ 1,650,000 $ - $ 1,650,000 0% 100% Basketball Courts 4 1 Swede Town 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 2 Madsen 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 3 Pioneer 1 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 1 $ 40,000 4 Poplar Grove 1 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 1 $ 40,000 $ 230,000 $ - $ 230,000 0% 100% Tennis Courts 43 1 5th Ave&C Street 1 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 1 $ 175,000 2 Lindsey Gardens 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 3 Fairmont 5 $ 175,000 $ 875,000 5 $ 875,000 4 Dee Glen Smith 4 $ 175,000 $ 700,000 4 $ 700,000 5 Fire Station 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 6 Pioneer 1 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 1 $ 175,000 7 Warm Springs 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 8 11th Avenue 8 $ 175,000 $ 1,400,000 8 $ 1,400,000 9 Victory Park 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 10 Riverside 4 $ 175,000 $ 700,000 4 $ 700,000 11 Jordan 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 12 Reservoir 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 13 Poplar Grove 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 14 Westpointe 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 15 Ensign Downs 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 16 Dilworth 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 $ 7,525,000 $ - 43 $ 7,525,000 0% 100% Softball Fields 3 1 Lindsey Gardens 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 i i EXHI�.r C 2 Ensign Downs 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200.000 3 Riverside 1 $ 200,000 $ 200.000 1 $ 200,000 $ 600.000 $ - $ 600,000 0% 100% 'Baseball Fields 11" 1 Lindsey Gardens 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200.000 2 Herman Franks 3 $ 200,000 $ 600,000 3 $ 600.000 3 Glendale 2 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 2 $ 400,000 4 Rosewood 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 5 Sorenson 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 6 Poplar Grove 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 7 Westpointe 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 8 Dilworth 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 $ 2,200,000 $ - $ 2,200,000 0% 100% IJoggingtWalking Paths 91 1 Memory Grove 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 2 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 IMII 3 Riverview 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 4 17th S RiverPark 1 $ 16,000 $ 16,000 1 $ 16,000 5 City Creek Park 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 1 $ 50,000 6 Cottonwood 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 1 $ 4,000 7 11th Avenue 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 1 $ 4,000 8 Hidden Hollow 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 9 Ensign Peak 1 $ 464,000 $ 16,000 $ 448,000 3% 97% (Drinking Fountains-no priority order 40I Cottonwood 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Fairmont 2 $ 3,500 $ 7,000 2 $ 7,000 Herman Franks 2 $ 3,500 $ 7,000 2 $ 7,000 Intl Peace Gardens 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Jordan 2 $ 3,500 $ 7,000 2 $ 7,000 Riverside 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Warm Springs 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Washington Square 2 $ 3,500 $ 7,000 2 $ 7,000 11th Avenue 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 9th South 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 City Creek 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Donner Trail 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Ensign Downs 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Lindsey Gardens 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Pioneer Park 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Poplar Grove 2 $ 3,500 $ 7,000 2 $ 7,000 Popperton 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Reservoir 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Richmond 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Rotary Glen 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Stratford 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 Victory 1 $ 3.500 $ 3.500 $ 3,500 Westpointe 2 $ 3,500 $ 7,000 2 $ 7,000 Artesian Well 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Cotton 1 $ 3,500 $ 3.500 1 $ 3,500 EXHI.,r C 0 Replacement/ Impact Fee Other = uat#i growth Cost Repair R&R Cost ... . - ..- Curtis 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Davis 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Faultline 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Inglewood 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Post Street Tot Lot 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Puglsey Ouray 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Taufer 1 $ 3,500 $ 3,500 1 $ 3,500 Glendale 2 $ 3,500 $ 7,000 2 $ 7,000 $ 140,000 $ - $ 140,000 0% 100% Volleyball Courts 3 1 Sherwood 1 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 1 $ 35,000 2 Richmond 1 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 1 $ 35,000 3 Jordan 1 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 1 $ 35,000 $ 105,000 $ - $ 105,000 0% 100% Pavilions 8 1 Rotary Glen 1 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 1 $ 400,000 2 Jordan 2 $ 400,000 $ 800,000 2 $ 800,000 3 Riverside 1 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 1 $ 400,000 4 Cottonwood 4 $ 400,000 $ 1,600,000 4 $ 1,600,000 $ 3,200,000 $ - $ 3,200,000 0% 100% Off-Leash Dog Area 6 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 25,000 $ 225,000 2 Memory Grove 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 250,000 3 Lindsey Gardens 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 25,000 $ 225,000 4 Herman Franks 1 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 1 $ 400,000 5 Jordan 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 25,000 $ 225,000 6 Rosewood 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 25,000 $ 225,000 $ 1,650,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,550,000 6% 94% Picnic Tables-no priority order 238 Liberty 12 $ 2,000 $ 24,000 12 $ 24,000 Washington Park 28 $ 2,000 $ 56,000 28 $ 56,000 Cottonwood 4 $ 2,000 $ 8,000 4 $ 8,000 Fairmont 36 $ 2,000 $ 72,000 36 $ 72,000 Jordan 30 $ 2,000 $ 60,000 30 $ 60,000 Memory Grove 4 $ 2,000 $ 8,000 4 $ 8,000 Riverside 25 $ 2,000 $ 50,000 25 $ 50,000 Rosewood 2 $ 2,000 $ 4,000 2 $ 4,000 Sunnyside 10 $ 2,000 $ 20,000 10 $ 20,000 Warm Springs 2 $ 2,000 $ 4,000 2 $ 4,000 11th Avenue 2 $ 2,000 $ 4,000 2 $ 4,000 9th South 4 $ 2,000 $ 8,000 4 $ 8,000 Donner Trail 2 $ 2,000 $ 4,000 2 $ 4,000 Laird 4 $ 2,000 $ 8,000 4 $ 8,000 Lindsey Gardens 12 $ 2,000 $ 24,000 12 $ 24,000 Madsen 2 $ 2,000 $ 4,000 2 $ 4,000 Poplar Grove 14 $ 2,000 $ 28,000 14 $ 28,000 Popperton 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 Reservoir 4 $ 2,000 $ 8,000 4 $ 8,000 Rotary Glen 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 EXHIbr It 1 Impact Fee sr F ndd / Richmond 8 $ 2,000 $ 16,000 8 $ 16,000 Sherwood 15 $ 2,000 $ 30,000 15 $ 30,000 Stratford 1 $ 2,000 5 2.000 1 $ 2,000 Westpointe 6 $ 2,000 5 12,000 6 $ 12,000 Cotton 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 1 $ 2,000 Faultline 1 $ 2.000 $ 2.000 1 $ 2,000 Guadalupe 3 $ 2,000 $ 6.000 3 $ 6,000 Jackson 1 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 1 $ 2.000 Taufer 3 $ 2,000 $ 6,000 3 $ 6,000 $ 476,000 $ - $ 476.000 0% 100% [Skate Park-no priority order 21 • Fairmont 1 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 1 $ 700,000 Jordan 1 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 1 $ 700,000 $ 1,400,000 $ - $ 1,400,000 0% 100% I Horseshoes-no priority order 21 Jordan 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Rlverslde 1 $ 15.000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 $ 30,000 $ - $ 30,000 0% 100% Plaza 51 1 Pioneer 1 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 1 $ 50,000 $ 950,000 2 Artesian Well 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 3 City Creek 1 $ 50,000 S 50,000 1 $ 50,000 4 Nelli Jack 1 $ 25.000 $ 25,000 1 $ 25,000 5 First Encampment 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 1 $ 50,000 $ 1,325,000 $ 50,000 $ 1,275,000 4% 96% (Water Feature-no priority order 31 Fairmont 1 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 1 $ 400,000 Library Square 1 $ 250,000 S 250,000 1 $ 250,000 Memory Grove 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150.000 $ 800,000 $ - $ 800,000 0% 100% I Landscaping 421 1 11th Avenue $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 2 Wasatch Hollow Open Space $ 675,000 $ 675,000 $ 675,000 3 Parley's Historic Nature Park $ 1,275,000 $ 1,275,000 $ 1,275,000 4 Faultline $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 5 Miller Bird Refuge $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Fairmont $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Sorenson $ 7.000 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 Sunnyside $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Wasatch Hollow Park $ 8,000 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 City Creek $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 Dilworth $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Gilgal $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 Oak Hills Ball Diamonds $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 Poplar Grove $ 2,000 $ 2,000 $ 2,000 Reservoir $ 5,000 $ 5.000 $ 5,000 Richmond $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 Rotary Glen $ 150,000 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 EXHIer t C• Stratford $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 Victory Park $ 3,000 $ 3.000 $ 3,000 10th E Senior $ 5,000 $ 5.000 $ 5,000 6th East $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Artesian Well $ 5.000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Curtis $ 2,000 $ 2000 $ 2,000 Davis $ 1.000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 First Encampment $ 1,000 $ 1.000 $ 1,000 10th East Islands $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 12th East/South Temple $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 13th Avenue and J $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 4th Avenue Stairs $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Foothill Islands $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 Glendale $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Research Parks Islands $ 500 $ 500 $ 500 8th West $ 500 $ 500 S 500 Bend-In-The-River $ 1,000 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 Bonneville Shoreline Preserve $ 20,000 $ 20.000 $ 20,000 Ensign Peak Nature Park $ 10,000 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 Ensign Peak Nature Park and Trailhead $ 3,000 $ 3,000 $ 3.000 Hidden Hollow Natural Area $ 5,000 $ 5.000 $ 5,000 H-Rock $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Jordan River Parkway $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 Modesto Park $ 5,000 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 Riverview $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 3,582,500 $ - $ 3,582,500 0% 100% Benches-no priority order sal Sorenson 4 $ 3,000 $ 12,000 4 $ 12,000 Wasatch Hollow 3 $ 3,000 $ 9,000 3 $ 9,000 Washington Square 25 $ 3,000 $ 75,000 25 $ 75,000 Dilworth 2 $ 3,000 $ 6,000 2 $ 6,000 Jefferson 2 $ 3,000 $ 6,000 2 $ 6.000 Madsen 3 $ 3,000 $ 9,000 3 $ 9,000 Pioneer 2 $ 3,000 $ 6,000 2 $ 6,000 Richmond 5 $ 3,000 $ 15,000 5 $ 15,000 Galagher Tot Lot 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000 Post Street Tot Lot 3 $ 3,000 $ 9,000 3 $ 9,000 Redwood Meadows 3 $ 3,000 $ 9,000 3 $ 9,000 Swede Town 3 $ 3,000 $ 9,000 3 $ 9,000 Nelli Jack 2 $ 3,000 $ 6,000 2 $ 6.000 • $ 174,000 $ - $ 174,000 0% 100% 'Lighting 311 1 Fairmont 1 $ 100,000 S 100,000 $ 100,000 2 First Encampment 1 $ 20,000 S 20,000 $ 20,000 3 Donner Trail 1 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 4 Artesian Well 1 $ 20.000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 5 Elizabeth Sherman 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 Jordan Park 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 Library Square 1 $ 145.000 $ 145,000 $ 145,000 North Gateway Park 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 Riverside Park 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 EXHIL.i C Replacement/ Impact Fee Other Repair R&R Cost % Funds Rosewood Park 1 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 1 $ 60,000 Warm Springs Park 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 1 $ 50,000 Wasatch Hollow Park 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 9th South 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 1 $ 50,000 Madsen 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Richmond 1 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 1 $ 30,000 Stratford 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Westpointe 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 Cotton 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Faultline 1 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 1 $ 60,000 Galagher Tot Lot 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Jackson 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 Miami 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Pugsley Ouray 1 $ 10,000 $ 10,000 1 $ 10,000 Redwood 1 $ 40,000 $ 40,000 1 $ 40,000 Silver 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 Steenblik 1 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 1 $ 30,000 Swede Town 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 Taufer 1 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 1 $ 25,000 Westminster 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Glendale 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Roberta Laconia 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 $ 1,105,000 $ - $ 1,105,000 0% 100% Bridges 5 1 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 250,000 2 Riverview 1 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 1 $ 750,000 3 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 250,000 4 Fairmont 2 $ 5,000 $ 10,000 2 $ 10,000 $ 1,260,000 $ - $ 1,260,000 0% 100% Irrigation-number of acres per park 750.63 1 Cottonwood 25.00 $ 7,500 $ 187,500 1 $ 187,500 2 Parley's Historic Nature Park 86.83 $ 7,500 $ 651,225 1 $ 651,225 3 12 East(S Temple-5S) 2.46 $ 7,500 $ 18,450 1 $ 18,450 4 Rosewood 22.25 $ 7,500 $ 166,875 1 $ 166,875 5 Popperton 29.16 $ 7,500 $ 218,700 1 $ 218,700 6 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 10.00 $ 7,500 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 7 Jordan 33.50 $ 7,500 $ 251,250 1 $ 251,250 8 Pioneer 10.00 $ 7,500 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 9 Washington Square 11.00 $ 7,500 $ 82,500 1 $ 82,500 10 Bend-In-The-River 4.25 $ 7,500 $ 31,875 1 $ 31,875 Dee Glen Smith 2.75 $ 7,500 $ 20,625 1 $ 20,625 Hillcrest 0.75 $ 20,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Memory Grove 8.75 $ 7,500 $ 65,625 1 $ 65,625 Sunnyside 25.50 $ 7,500 $ 191,250 1 $ 191,250 Warm Springs 9.00 $ 7,500 $ 67,500 1 $ 67,500 Wasatch Hollow 3.55 $ 7,500 $ 26,625 1 $ 26,625 11th Avenue 25.00 $ 7,500 $ 187,500 1 $ 187,500 5th Ave.&"C"Street 0.37 $ 7,500 $ 2,775 1 $ 2,775 City Creek 4.00 $ 7,500 $ 30,000 1 $ 30,000 Dilworth 4.50 $ 7,500 $ 33,750 1 $ 33,750 Donner Trail 17.00 $ 7,500 $ 127,500 1 $ 127,500 0 EXHIb,i C Replacement/ Impact Fee Other owth Growth Co , Repair R&R Cost % Funds% Glendale Park 0.75 $ 7,500 $ 5,625 1 $ 5,625 Gilgal 0.95 $ 7,500 $ 7,125 1 $ 7,125 Kay Rees Park 5.35 $ 7,500 $ 40,125 1 $ 40,125 Madsen 2.00 $ 7,500 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Parleys Way 3.37 $ 7,500 $ 25,275 1 $ 25,275 Poplar Grove 6.75 $ 7,500 $ 50,625 1 $ 50,625 Reservoir 6.50 $ 7,500 $ 48,750 1 $ 48,750 Rotary Glen 24.50 $ 7,500 $ 183,750 1 $ 183,750 Stratford 2.00 $ 7,500 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 10th E Senior 2.80 $ 7,500 $ 21,000 1 $ 21,000 Westside Senior 2.00 $ 7,500 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 6th East Park 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 Artesian Well 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 Beatrice Evans Park 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 Cotton Park 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 Curtis Park 1.25 $ 7,500 $ 9,375 1 $ 9,375 Davis Park 0.50 $ 7,500 $ 3,750 1 $ 3,750 Faultline 1.00 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 1 $ 7,500 Guadalupe Park 1.00 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 1 $ 7,500 Jackson Park 1.00 $ 7,500 $ 7,500 1 $ 7,500 Kletting 0.50 $ 7,500 $ 3,750 1 $ 3,750 Post Street Tot Lot 0.50 $ 7,500 $ 3,750 1 $ 3,750 Redwood Meadows 1.25 $ 7,500 $ 9,375 1 $ 9,375 Silver Park 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 Steenblik Park 2.00 $ 7,500 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Swede Town 0.75 $ 7,500 $ 5,625 1 $ 5,625 City Creek 5.00 $ 7,500 $ 37,500 1 $ 37,500 Ensign Peak Nature Park 126.99 $ 7,500 $ 952,425 1 $ 952,425 Ensign Peak Nature Park and Trailhead 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 Hidden Hollow Natural Area 3.19 $ 7,500 $ 23,925 1 $ 23,925 H-Rock 50.20 $ 7,500 $ 376,500 1 $ 376,500 Jordan River Parkway 74.44 $ 7,500 $ 558,300 1 $ 558,300 Miller Bird Refuge 8.68 $ 7,500 $ 65,100 1 $ 65,100 Modesto Park 4.70 $ 7,500 $ 35,250 1 $ 35,250 Regional Athletic Complex 26.85 $ 7,500 $ 201,375 1 $ 201,375 Riverview 10.51 $ 7,500 $ 78,825 1 $ 78,825 10th E.Islands 0.86 $ 7,500 $ 6,450 1 $ 6,450 1300 East Parking 1.75 $ 7,500 $ 13,125 1 $ 13,125 1300 South 1500 East 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 13th Ave.&J 0.06 $ 7,500 $ 450 1 $ 450 13th East 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 1 $ 1,875 13th South Island 1.03 $ 7,500 $ 7,725 1 $ 7,725 2 West(6N-Wall) 1.60 $ 7,500 $ 12,000 1 $ 12,000 2nd South Islands 0.18 $ 7,500 $ 1,350 1 $ 1,350 200 West(N Temple-4N) 0.17 $ 7,500 $ 1,275 1 $ 1,275 6th East(s Temple-4th S) 2.80 $ 7,500 $ 21,000 1 $ 21,000 8th West Islands(100 S-300 N) 1.50 $ 7,500 $ 11,250 1 $ 11,250 7th East (13S-21S) 3.50 $ 7,500 $ 26,250 1 $ 26,250 8th West(6-9s) 4.50 $ 7,500 $ 33,750 1 $ 33,750 Elizabeth Sherman 1.50 $ 7,500 $ 11,250 1 $ 11,250 Federal Heights Islands 0.63 $ 7,500 $ 4,725 1 $ 4,725 Foothills Islands 0.67 $ 7,500 $ 5,025 1 $ 5,025 Harvard Islands 0.37 $ 7,500 $ 2,775 1 $ 2,775 EXHI,., C 1 Jefferson Circle 2.00 $ 7,500 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 Laird Circle 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 $ 1,875 Normandy 0.04 $ 7,500 $ 300 S 300 Oneida 0.75 $ 7,500 $ 5,625 $ 5,625 Prison Island 0.50 $ 7,500 S 3,750 $ 3,750 Research Park Islands 8.47 $ 7,500 $ 63,525 $ 63,525 Skyline Island 025 $ 7,500 S 1,875 S 1,875 17th South Retention 0.75 S 7,500 S 5,625 $ 5,625 349 Plaza 0.25 S 7,500 $ 1,875 $ 1,875 Almond Park 0.10 S 7,500 $ 750 $ 750 Court Building 0.25 5 7,500 $ 1,875 $ 1,875 Weseman 0.25 S 7,500 $ 1,875 $ 1,875 Nelli Jack Park 0.25 S 7,500 $ 1,875 $ 1,875 Roberta LaConia 0.25 S 7,500 $ 1,875 $ 1,875 Stanton 0.25 $ 7,500 $ 1,875 $ 1,875 Washington Park Parleys 10.00 $ 20,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 Mountain Dell 10.00 $ 20,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 $ 6,039,100 $ 415,000 $ 5,624,100 7% 93% 'Asphalt --IN 1 Rosewood $ 91,000 $ 91,000 $ 91,000 2 Lindsey Gardens $ 52,000 $ 52,000 $ 52,000 3 Rotary Glen $ 76,000 $ 76,000 $ 76,000 4 10th E Senior $ 105,000 $ 105,000 $ 105,000 5 Sunnyside S 183,000 $ 183,000 5 183,000 6 Memory Grove S 380,000 $ 380,000 5 380.000 7 Jordan 5 356,000 $ 356,000 $ 356,000 8 Sherwood 5 94,000 $ 94,000 $ 94,000 9 Silver 5 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 10 Almond 5 11,000 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 r 11 11th Avenue $ 35,000 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 12 9th South $ 26,000 $ 26,000 $ 26,000 13 Popperton $ 22,000 $ 22,000 $ 22,000 14 Steiner Aquatics $ 352,000 $ 352,000 $ 352,000 $ 1,794,000 $ - $ 1,794,000 0% 100% (Fencing-- 10I 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park $ 265,000 $ 265,000 1 $ 265,000 2 Ensign Peak Nature Park $ 20,000 $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 3 Wasatch Hollow Open Space $ 25,000 $ 25,000 1 $ 25,000 4 Miller Bird Refuge $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 5 Riverview $ 25,000 $ 25,000 1 $ 25,000 6 Jordan River Parkway S 800,000 $ 800,000 1 $ 800,000 Riverside S 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Sorensen S 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Sunnyside S 10,000 $ 10,000 1 $ 10,000 Rotary Glen S 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Sherwood $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 Victory S 2,500 $ 2,500 1 $ 2,500 Hidden Hollow Natural Area S 8,000 $ 8,000 1 $ 8,000 H-Rock $ 8.000 $ 8,000 1 $ 8,000 Modesto Park $ 5.000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 $ 863,500 S 15,000 $ 848,500 2% 98% EXHIi . i C Replacement/ Impact Fee Other Growth Growth Cost Repair R&R Cost % Funds Earthen Trail 10 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 $ 140,000 $ 140,000 1 $ 140,000 2 Ensign Peak 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 3 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 4 Miller Bird Refuge 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 5 Bonneville Shoreline Preserve 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 1 $ 4,000 6 H-Rock 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 1 $ 4,000 7 Riverview 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 8 Rotary Park 1 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 1 $ 1,500 9 Bend-In-The-River 1 $ 1,000 $ 1,000 1 $ 1,000 10 Twin Peaks 1 $ 1,500 $ 1,500 1 $ 1,500 $ 382,000 $ - $ 382,000 0% 100% Signage 21 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 $ 31,000 $ 31,000 1 $ 31,000 2 Ensign Peak Nature Park and Trailhead 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000 3 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 $ 31,000 $ 31,000 1 $ 31,000 4 Jordan River Parkway 1 $ 68,000 $ 68,000 1 $ 68,000 5 Miller Bird Refuge 1 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 1 $ 11,000 6 Modesto Park 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000 7 Bend-In-The-River 4 $ 3,000 $ 12,000 1 $ 12,000 8 Bonneville Shoreline Trail 1 $ 26,000 $ 26,000 1 $ 26,000 9 H-Rock 1 $ 4,150 $ 4,150 1 $ 4,150 10 Alan Parsons-BST 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000 Bonneville Shoreline Preserve 1 $ 8,600 $ 8,600 1 $ 8,600 City Creek 1 $ 11,000 $ 11,000 1 $ 11,000 Ensign Peak 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000 Hidden Hollow Natural Area 1 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 1 $ 25,000 Popperton Park 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000 Riverview 1 $ 6,000 $ 6,000 1 $ 6,000 Rotary Park 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000 Twin Peaks 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000 $ 254,750 $ - $ 254,750 0% 100% Bleachers 28 1 Oak Hills Ball Diamonds 2 $ 8,000 $ 16,000 2 $ 16,000 2 Sunnyside 2 $ 8,000 $ 16,000 2 $ 16,000 3 Sherwood 6 $ 8,000 $ 48,000 6 $ 48,000 4 Herman Franks 4 $ 8,000 $ 32,000 4 $ 32,000 5 Lindsey Gardens 2 $ 8,000 $ 16,000 2 $ 16,000 6 Riverside 4 $ 8,000 $ 32,000 4 $ 32,000 7 Rosewood 4 $ 8,000 $ 32,000 4 $ 32,000 8 Ensign Downs 1 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 1 $ 8,000 9 Westpointe 3 $ 8,000 $ 24,000 3 $ 24,000 $ 224,000 $ - $ 224,000 0% 100% Concessions 7 1 Riverside 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 250,000 2 Poplar Grove 1 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 1 $ 125,000 3 Oak Hills Ball Diamonds 1 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 1 $ 125,000 4 Sunnyside 1 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 1 $ 125,000 5 Herman Franks 2 $ 250,000 $ 500,000 2 $ 500,000 EXHIbr 1 C ( ) 6 Dee Glen Smith Tennis 1 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 1 $ 500,000 $ 1.625,000 $ - $ 1,625.000 0% 100% IBM and Bike Parks 11 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 15,000 $ _ 285,000 $ 300,000 $ 15.000 $ 285,000 5% 95% irrigation 60 acres $5,000,000 $5.000,000 $5,000,000 restrooms 2 $800,000 $600,000 $600,000 facilities 3 $2,200,000 $2,200,000 $2,200,000 roads,curb and gutter $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 $12,800,000 $12,800,000 $ - $12,800,000 0% 100% $ 64,448,850 $ 911,000 $ 63,537,850 1% 99% • Exhibit D — 50 Highest Priority Streets • 0 EXHIBIT D C High Priority Street Rehabilitation Candidates STREET FROM TO OVERLAY RECON 100 South 900 East 1300 East X 100 South 1300 East North Campus Drive X 1000 North 900 West Redwood Road X 1100 East 1700 South Ramona Avenue X 1100 East Ramona Avenue 2100 South X 1300 East/Richmond 2100 South 3300 South X 1300 East South Temple 400 South X 1300 East 400 South 500 South X 1300 East 1300 South 2100 South X 1700 South State Street 1300 East X 1700 South State Street 300 West X 1700 South 900 West Redwood Road X 200 South 300 West 400 West X 200 South 650 West 900 West X 2100 South 700 West 900 West X 2100 South State Street 700 East X 2100 South 700 East 1300 East X 2200 West North Temple 700 North X 2200 West 700 North 1200 North X 2200 West 1200 North 2200 North X 2700 South 500 East 700 East X 300 West 400 South 600 South X 300 West 600 South 1300 South X 300 West 1300 South 2100 South X 3800 West California Avenue 600 Ft.North X 400 West North Temple South Temple X 400 West 200 South 600 South X 400 West 600 South 900 South X 500 East 1700 South 2100 South X 500 South 700 East State Street X 500 South/700 South Surplus Canal 5600 West X 600 North 800 West Redwood Road X 600 North Redwood Road 2200 West X 600 South 900 East State Street X 800 South 700 East 1300 East X 900 East South Temple 900 South X 900 East 2100 South South City Limits X 900 South Redwood Road Pioneer Road X 900 South Pioneer Road 3550 West X 900 West North Temple 300 South X 900 West 300 South 500 South X CI 900 West 500 South 900 South X Amelia Earhart Drive West of 5600 West X EXHIBIT D Cur High Priority Street Rehabilitation Candidates STREET FROM TO OVERLAY RECON California Avenue I-15 State Street X Gladiola Street Decade Drive 2100 South X Highland Drive 2100 South Richmond Street X Highland Drive 2100 South South City Limits X North Temple 300 West West Temple X North Temple West Temple State Street X Parley's Way 2300 East Freeway On Ramp X Sunnyside Avenue Guardsman Way Foothill Drive X Sunnyside Avenue 2300 East Wasatch X • 0 Exhibit E - Ten-Year Priority Plan for Capital Facility Repair and Replacement Needs 0 EXHIBIT E FACILITIES Salt Lake City Facilities Division Capital Facilities Plan 2011-2021 As of 9/1/11 This list does not reflect the amount of funding available each year. Instead,it prioritizes projects for application within each funding year See Sources and Uses Priority Building Project Estimated Project FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13.14 FY14.15 FY16-16 FY16.17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 Cost 1 Pioneer Precinct HVAC System and Lighting Energy Conservation Energy/HVAC $493,790 FY2012 $493,790 2 Justice Courts HVAC System Upgrade and Energy Conservation Energy/HVAC $377,100 FY2012 $377,100 3 CBD-Area 4 Downtown Irrigation Water Conservation and Asset Renewal pavers/Irrigation St 35 586 FY2012 $t 35.586 Project-Design,Engineering and Development. 4 Central Plant Centerel Plant Heating,cooling system and structural study Energy/HVAC $233,783 FY2012 $233,783 5 Westside Senior Center Building Shell Retrofit including roofing,siding and gutters. Building Shell $110.093 FY2012 $110,093 6 SBD Sugarhouse Business District Irrigation Water Conservation and pavers/Irrigation $281,928 FY2012 5291,928 Asset Renewal Project-Design,Engineering and Development. 7 Spring Mobile Field Lightin Energyg effisyciestncy project replacing HVAC,Controls,and Energy/HVAC $663.518 FY2012 $663.518 ems 8 6th South Properties Replace single pane window with Thermal double pane Windows $60,119 FY2012 $60,119 Wintlaws 9 City&County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 1st Floor South Half Energy/HVAC $170,292 FY2012 $170,292 Washington Square Event Power,which provides in ground Admin Req City 8 County Building distributed connection points to elminate the need for portable Electrical $499,996 FY2012 $499,996 generators on the East side of the Square. Admin Req City&County Building Fifth Floor Renovation to office space Remodel $884,301 FY2012 $884,301 10 City&County Building Exterior Painting and Repair work at all wood window frames, Painting $190,000 FY2013 $190,000 City&County Building,Stone Repairs,this is needed work to 11 CiryBCounry Building restoresculptures.damConsuage orlta brokeningwork p Kyuneending sandfor stonefinal sco and stonepeof Building Shell $200,000 FY2013 $200,000 restorative and protective work 12 City 8 County Bldg City 8 County Building,Stone Upkeep including testing, Building Shell $1 400,000 FY2013 $1,400,000 cleaning,stone hardner and water proofing 13 CBD-Area 4 Downtown Irrigation Water Conservation and Asset Renewal Pavers/Irrigation $800,000 FY2013 $800.000 Project-Construction Work Replace single-pane window with Thermal double pane CIO 14 Fire Station 5 and 2 Windows $73,200 FY2013 $73,200 Windows 15 Flre Stations 1 4,6,7 Upgrade Fire station with full DDC controls and intergated Controls 900,000 FY2013 900,000 system interfaces 16 City&County Building Design and Construction of New Base Isolator System Structural $1,000,000 FY2014 $1,000,000 17 Fire Stations 9,10,13. Upgrade Fire station with full DDC controls and intergated Controls 900,000 FY2014 900,000 system interfaces 18 Fire Stations 1,4,6,7, Replace heating and Air-conditioning add DDC controls to Energy/HVAC $244,200 FY2014 $244,200 9,10,13, systems 19 6th South Properties Replace heating and Air-conditioning add DDC controls to Energy/HVAC $80,500 FY2014 $80,500 Systems to remaining properties. 20 Sugarhouse Business Sugarhouse Business District Irrigation Water Conservation and Pavers/Irrigation $266,886 FY2014 $268,888 Dist Asset Renewal Project-Design,Engineering and Development. 27 Sugarhouse Business Sugarhouse Business District Irrigation Water Conservation and Paversllrrigation $1,200,000 FY2014 $1,200,000 Dist Asset Renewal Project-Construction Work 22 City&County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 3rd Floor South Half EnergylHVAC $194,620 FY2015 $194,620 23 City 8 County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 3rd Floor North Half Energy/HVAC $182,456 FY2015 $182,456 24 City&County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 1st Floor North Half Energy/HVAC $137,176 FY2015 $137,176 25 City 8 County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 4th Floor North Half Energy/HVAC $170,292 FY2015 $170,292 26 City&County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 2nd Floor North Half Energy/HVAC $158,129 FY2015 $158,129 27 City 8 County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 2nd Floor South Half Energy/HVAC $137,176 FY2015 $137,176 28 City&County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 4th Floor South Half Energy/HVAC $170,292 FY2015 $170,292 29 City&County Building Fan Coil Unit Replacement 5th Floor Energy/HVAC $206,784 FY2015 $206,784 30 City&County Building 3rd 8 Sth Floor Carpet,Access Flooring and Electrical Flooring $748,907 FY2015 $748,907 Replacement 31 City 8 County Building 2nd Floor,Carpet,Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement Flooring $561,681 FY2015 $561,681 L. 32 City&County Building 4th Floor Carpet,Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement Flooring $748,907 FY2015 $748,907 37 Fire StaSC4,5,and Parking Lot Repairs and Replacements Parking and Drives $338.192 FY2016 $338,192 34 East Side Senior Center ESSC-Re-roofing of Senior Center Roofing $109,800 FY2018 $109,800 1111 35 City&County Building 1st Floor Carpet.Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement Flooring $748,907 FY2016 $748,907 36 Library Parking Waterproofing of Concrete Structure Joint/Expansion Joint Waterproofing $305,000 FY2016 $305,000 Structure Repairs 37 Plaza 349 Plaza 349-Parking Structure Repairs and Resurface Parking and Drives $261,682 FY2015 $261,682 EXHIBIT E FACILITIES Priority Building Project Estimated Project FY11-12 FY12.13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY/611 FY19-20 FY20-21 Cost n38 Spring Mobile Field Spring Mobile Field Concourse'B'Level Waterproofing Project Waterproofing $368,915 FY2016 $368,915 79 Spring Mobile Field Spring Mobile Field-Building Steel and Roof-deck Painting Painting E1,079 763 FY2016 $1,079,763 Protect 40 City 8 County Building Refinish interior Wood Work,clean,sanding and applying new Painting $150,000 FY2017 $150,000 finhinsh coatings. 41 Memorial House Replace single pane window with Thermal double pane Windows $73,200 FY2017 $73,200 Windows 42 Central Plant Chiller replacment and controls upgrade Energy/HVAC $300,000 FY2017 $300,000 43 Steiner East HVAC replacment and controls upgrade Energy/HVAC $800,000 FY2017 $800,000 Admin Reg Fisher Mansion Renovate and Restore Historic Fisher Mansion Remodel $1,900,000 FY2017 $1,900,000 44 Fire Station 8 FS 8 Re-roofing of Station Built Up Roofing Roofing $61,000 FY2018 $61,000 44 Fire Station 9 FS 9 Re-roofing of Station Built Up Roofing Roofing 881,000 FY2018 $61,000 45 Chase House Replace heating and Air-conditioning add DDC controls to Energy/HVAC $55.000 FY2018 $55.000 systems 46 Pioneer Precinct Re-roofing of Pioneer Precinct Roofing $109,800 FY2018 $109,800 47 City and County Bldg Replace Main An-handlers on each floor Energy/HVAC $1,220,000 FY2018 $1,220,000 48 Chase House Exterior Painting and Repair work Painting $100,000 FY2018 $100,000 49 Art Barn Exterior Painting and Repair work Painting $100,000 FY2018 $100,000 50 SLC Cemetery Exterior Painting and Repair work Painting $100,000 FY2018 $100,000 51 Ciry&County Building Generator and Fuel Tank Upgrade Generator $250,000 FY2018 $250,000 52 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Carpet and tile and other floor coverings Flooring $250,000 FY2018 $250,000 53 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Life Safety Systems such as Fire Life Safety $250,000 FY2019 $250,000 Detection,Fire Suppression 54 Venous Buildings Upgrade and Replace HVAC and Control Systems Energy/HVAC $250,000 FY2019 $250,000 55 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Roofs and Insulation and decking Roofing $250,000 FY2019 $250,000 56 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Carpet and tile and other floor coverings Flooring $250,000 FY2019 $250,000 57 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Windows and glazing to higher efficiency Windows $250,000 FY2019 $250,000 sislance to cold and heat 58 Various Buildings Address structural and foundation issues identified Structural $250,000 FY2019 $250,000 59 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade water proofing systems Waterproofing $250,000 FY2019 $250,000 60 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade CBD/SBD Pavers and Irrigations systems Pavers/Irrigation $250,000 FY2019 $250,000 • 61 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade Generators and Fuel Systems Generators $250,000 FY2019 $250,000 62 Various Buildings Repaint Exterior of Buildings needing such action Painting $250,000 FY2019 $250,000 63 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Life Safety Systems such as Fire Life Safety $250,000 FY2020 $250,000 Detection,Fire Suppression 64 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace HVAC and Control Systems Energy/HVAC $250,000 FY2020 $250,000 65 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Roofs and Insulation and decking Roofing $250,000 FY2020 $250,000 66 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Carpet and tile and other floor coverings Flooring $250,000 FY2020 $250,000 67 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Windows and glazing to higher efficiency Windows $250,000 FY2020 $250,000 sistance to cold and heat 68 Various Buildings Address structural and foundation issues identified Structural $250,000 FY2020 $250,000 69 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade water proofing systems Waterproofing $250,000 FY2020 $250,000 70 Venous Buildings Replace and upgrade CBD/SBD Pavers and Irrigations systems Pavers/Irrigation $250,000 FY2020 $250,000 71 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade Generators and Fuel Systems Generators $250,000 FY2020 $250,000 72 Venous Buildings Repaint Exterior of Buildings need such action Painting $250,000 FY2020 $250,000 j Upgrade and Replace Life Safety Systems such as Fire 73 Various Bulldogs Life Safety $250,000 FY2021 $250,000 Detection,Fire Suppression 74 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Energy/HVAC and Control Systems Energy/HVAC $250,000 FY2021 $250,000 75 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Roofs and Insulation and decking Roofing $250,000 FY2021 $250,000 76 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Carpet and file and other floor coverings Flooring $250,000 FY2021 $250,000 77 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Windows and glazing to higher efficiency Windows $250,000 FY2021 $250,000 resistance to cold and heat • 78 Various Buildings Address structural and foundation issues identified Structural $250,000 FY2021 $250,000 79 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade water proofing systems Waterproofing $250,000 FY2021 S250.000 80 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade CBD/SBD Pavers and Irrigations systems Pavers/Irrigation $250,000 FY2021 $250,000 81 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade Generators and Fuel Systems Generators $250,000 FY2021 $250,000 82 Various Buildings Repaint Exterior of Buildings needing such action Painting $250,000 FY2021 $250,000 Total $30,835,971 83,920.506 $3.563.200 $3,693,586 $3,416,420 $3.212.259 $3,223,200 $2,306,800 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Funded Fiscal Year 2011-12 EXHIBIT F A General Fund entl R&R Cost Impact Fees General Fund/ Fiscally Notes epair CDBG Constrained Scenario 'Playgrounds 101 TOTAL COST 1 Lindsey Gardens 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 2 Fairmont 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 3 Swede Town 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 4 Poplar Grove 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 5 Popperton 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 6 Cotton 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 7 Stratford 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 8 Sunnyside 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 9 Jordan 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 10 Riverside 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 $ 1,700,000 $ - $ 1,700,000 $ - $ 1,700,000 $ 1,700,000 10 out of 30 playgrounds IRestrooms 11 1 Rotary Glen 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 2 Warm Springs 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 3 Parley's Historic Nature 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 4 Glendale Park 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 5 Poplar Grove 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 6 Wasatch Hollow 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 7 Cottonwood 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 8 Pioneer 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 9 Herman Franks 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 10 Fairmont 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 O 24 Memory Grove Pavillion 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 300,000 $ 3,300,000 1 $ 300,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 300,000 $ 3,000,000 $ 3,300.000 11 out of 24 restrooms (Multipurpose Fields 71 1 Fairmont 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 2 Fairmont 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 3 Fairmont 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 4 Fairmont 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 5 Jordan 2 $ 100,000 $ 200,000 2 $ 200,000 6 Rosewood 1 $ 150,000 $ 150,000 1 $ 150,000 $ 950,000 $ - $ 950,000 $ - $ 950,000 $ 950,000 7 out of 13 fields (Basketball Courts 21 1 Swede Town 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 r 2 Madsen 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 $ - $ 150,000 $ 150,000 2 out of 4 courts 'Tennis Courts 271 1 5th Ave&C Street 1 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 1 $ 175,000 2 Lindsey Gardens 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 3 Fairmont 5 $ 175,000 $ 875,000 5 $ 875,000 4 Dee Glen Smith 4 $ 175,000 $ 700,000 4 $ 700,000 5 Fire Station 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 6 Pioneer 1 $ 175,000 $ 175,000 1 $ 175,000 7 Warm Springs 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 8 11th Avenue 8 $ 175,000 $ 1,400,000 8 $ 1,400,000 9 Victory Park 2 $ 175,000 $ 350,000 2 $ 350,000 $ 4,725,000 $ - $ 4,725,000 $ - $ 4,725,000 $ 4,725,000 27 of 43 tennis courts 'Softball Fields 21 • 1 Lindsey Gardens 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 2 Ensign Downs 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ 400,000 $ - $ 400,000 $ 400,000 2 out of 3 fields • 'Baseball Fields 7$ 1 Lindsey Gardens 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 2 Herman Franks 3 $ 200,000 $ 600,000 3 $ 600,000 3 Glendale 2 $ 200,000 $ 400,000 2 $ 400,000 4 Rosewood 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 EXHIBIT F 1 $ 200,000 $ 1,400,000 $ - $ 1,400,000 $ - $ 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000 7 out of 11 fields IJogging/Walking Paths 31 1 Memory Grove 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 3 Riverview 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 4 17th S RiverPark 1 $ 16,000 $ 16,000 1 $ 16,000 $ 291,000 $ 16,000 $ 275,000 $ 16,000 $ 275,000 $ 291,000 3 out of 7 paths 'Drinking Fountains-no priority order 20' $ 3,500 $ 70,000 $ - $ 70,000 $ - $ 70,000 $ 70,000 20 out of 40 fountains (Volleyball Courts 2' 1 Sherwood 1 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 1 $ 35,000 2 Richmond 1 $ 35,000 $ 35,000 1 $ 35,000 $ 70,000 $ - $ 70,000 $ - $ 70,000 $ 70,000 2 out of 3 courts 'Pavilions 3' 1 Rotary Glen 1 $ 400,000 $ 400,000 1 $ 400,000 2 Jordan 2 $ 400,000 $ 800,000 2 $ 800,000 $ 1,200,000 $ - $ 1,200,000 $ - $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 3 out of 8 pavilions 'Off-Leash Dog Area 31 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 12,500 1 $ 237,500 2 Memory Grove 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 250,000 3 Lindsey Gardens 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 12,500 $ 1 $ 237,500 $ 750,000 $ 25,000 $ 725,000 $ 25,000 $ 725,000 $ 750,000 3 out of 6 parks 'Picnic Tables-no priority order 1201 $ 2,000 $ 240,000 $ 240,000 $ 2,000 $ 240,000 $ - $ 240,000 $ - $ 240,000 $ 240,000 120 out of 238 tables 'Skate Park-no priority order 1' $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ - $ 700,000 $ - $ 700,000 $ 700,000 1 of 2 parks Horseshoes-no priority order 1' $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 $ - $ 15,000 $ - $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 of 2 horseshoes $Plaza 2' 1 Pioneer 1 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 1 $ 50,000 $ 950,000 2 Artesian Well 1 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 1 $ 200,000 $ 1,200,000 $ 50,000 $ 1,150,000 $ 50,000 $ 1,150,000 $ 1,200,000 2 of 5 plazas 'Water Feature-no priority order 1' $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 $ - $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 out of 3 water features 'Landscaping 9' 1 11th Avenue 1 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 1 $ 30,000 2 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 $ 675,000 $ 675,000 1 $ 675,000 3 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 $ 1,275,000 $ 1,275,000 1 $ 1,275,000 4 Faultline 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 5 Miller Bird Refuge 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 250,000 Fairmont 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Sorenson 1 $ 7,000 $ 7,000 1 $ 7,000 Sunnyside 1 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 1 $ 30,000 Wasatch Hollow Park 1 $ 8,000 $ 8,000 1 $ 8,000 Q $ 2,305,000 $ - $ 2,305,000 $ - $ 2,305.000 $ 2,305,000 constrained from$3,6M I EXHIBIT F (Benches-no priority order 301 $ 90,000 $ 90,000 $ 90,000 $ - $ 90,000 $ - $ 90,000 $ 90.000 half the benches 'Lighting 141 1 Fairmont 1 $ 100,000 S 100,000 1 $ 100,000 2 First Encampment 1 $ 20,000 $ 20,000 1 S 20,000 3 Donner Trail 1 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 1 $ 30,000 4 Artesian Well 1 $ 20,000 S 20,000 1 $ 20,000 5 Elizabeth Sherman 1 $ 20,000 S 20,000 1 $ 20,000 Jordan Park 1 $ 75,000 S 75,000 1 $ 75,000 Library Square 1 $ 145,000 $ 145,000 1 $ 145,000 North Gateway Park 1 5 50,000 S 50,000 1 $ 50,000 Riverside Park 1 $ 75,000 S 75,000 1 $ 75,000 Rosewood Park 1 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 1 5 60,003 Warm Springs Park 1 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 1 $ 50,000 Wasatch Hollow Park 1 5 20,000 $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 9th South 1 5 50,000 $ 50,000 1 $ 50,000 Madsen 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 $ 720,000 $ - 5 720,000 $ - $ 720,000 $ 720,000 constrained from$1.1M 'Bridges 11 1 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 $ - S 250,000 S - $ 250,000 5 250,000 1 of 5 bridges 'Irrigation-number of acres per park 663.661 1 Cottonwood 25.00 $ 7,500 $ 187,500 1 $ 187,500 2 Parley's Historic Nature Park 86.83 $ 7,500 $ 651,225 1 $ 651,225 3 12 East(S Temple-5S) 2.46 $ 7,500 $ 18,450 1 $ 18,450 4 Rosewood 22.25 $ 7,500 $ 166,875 1 5 166,875 5 Popperton 29.16 $ 7,500 $ 218,700 1 $ 218,700 6 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 10.00 $ 7,500 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 O 7 Jordan 33.50 $ 7,500 $ 251,250 1 $ 251,250 8 Pioneer 10.00 $ 7,500 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 9 Washington Square 11.00 $ 7,500 $ 82,500 1 $ 82,500 10 Bend-In-The-River 4.25 5 7,500 $ 31,875 1 S 31,875 Dee Glen Smith 2.75 $ 7,500 $ 20,625 1 5 20,625 Hillcrest 0.75 S 20,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Memory Grove 8.75 S 7,500 $ 65,625 1 5 65,625 Sunnyside 25.50 S 7,500 $ 191,250 1 S 191,250 Warm Springs 9.00 S 7,500 $ 67,500 1 S 67,500 Wasatch Hollow 3.55 S 7,500 $ 26,625 1 $ 26,625 11th Avenue 25.00 S 7,500 $ 187,500 1 S 187,500 5th Ave.&"C"Street 0.37 S 7,500 $ 2,775 1 $ 2,775 City Creek 4.00 $ 7,500 $ 30,000 1 $ 30,000 Dilworth 4.50 S 7,500 $ 33,750 1 $ 33,750 Donner Trail 17.00 S 7,500 $ 127,500 1 $ 127,500 Glendale Park 0.75 S 7,500 $ 5,625 1 $ 5,625 Gilgal 0.95 $ 7,500 $ 7,125 1 $ 7,125 Kay Rees Park 5.35 S 7,500 $ 40,125 1 $ 40,125 Madsen 2.00 4 7,500 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 Parley's Way 3.37 $ 7,500 $ 25,275 1 5 25,275 Poplar Grove 6.75 $ 7,500 $ 50,625 1 $ 50,625 Reservoir 6.50 $ 7,500 $ 48,750 1 5 48,750 S 2,719,050 $ 15,000 $ 2,704,050 $ 15,000 $ 2,704,050 $ 2,719,050 constrained to 50%*of original CIP 'Asphalt 1 Rosewood 1, $ 91,000 $ 91,000 1 $ 91,000 2 Lindsey Gardens 1 $ 52,000 $ 52,000 1 $ 52,000 3 Rotary Glen 1 $ 76,000 $ 76,000 1 $ 76,000 4 10th E Senior 1 $ 105,000 $ 105,000 1 $ 105,000 $Sunnyside 1 $ 183,000 $ 183,000 __ 1 $ 183,000 6 Memory Grove 1 $ 380,000 $ 380,000 1 $ 380,000 4110 7 Jordan 1 $ 356,000 $ 356,000 I $ 356.000 EXHIBIT F $ 1,243,000 $ - $ 1,243,000 $ - $ 1.243,000 $ 1,243,000 constrained to 50%of projects 'Fencing 71 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 $ 265.000 $ 265,000 1 $ 265,000 2 Ensign Peak Nature Park 1 $ 20.000 $ 20,000 1 $ 20,000 3 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 1 $ 25,000 4 Miller Bird Refuge 1 $ 15,000 $ 15,000 1 $ 15,000 5 Riverview 1 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 1 $ 25,000 6 Jordan River Parkway 1 $ 800,000 $ 800,000 1 $ 800,000 Riverside 1 $ 5,000 $ 5,000 1 $ 5,000 $ 805,000 $ - $ 805,000 $ - $ 805,000 $ 805,000 7 of 14 projects (Earthen Trail 51 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 $ 140,000 $ 140,000 1 $ 140,000 2 Ensign Peak 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 3 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 4 Miller Bird Refuge 1 $ 75,000 $ 75,000 1 $ 75,000 5 Bonneville Shoreline Preserve 1 $ 4,000 $ 4,000 1 $ 4,000 $ 369,000 $ - $ 369,000 $ - $ 369,000 $ 369,000 5 out of 10 projects (Slgnage 131 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 $ 31,000 $ 31,000 1 $ 31,000 2 Ensign Peak Nature Park and Trailhead 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000 3 Wasatch Hollow Open Space 1 $ 31,000 $ 31.000 1 $ 31,000 4 Jordan River Parkway 1 $ 68,000 $ 68,000 1 $ 68,000 5 Miller Bird Refuge 1 $ 11.000 $ 11,000 1 $ 11,000 6 Modesto Park 1 $ 3,000 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000 7 Bend-In-The-River 4 $ 3.000 $ 12,000 1 $ 12,000 8 Bonneville Shoreline Trail 1 $ 26.000 $ 26,000 1 $ 26,000 9 H-Rock 1 $ 4.150 $ 4,150 1 $ 4,150 10 Alan Parsons-BST 1 $ 3.000 $ 3,000 1 $ 3,000• $ 192,150 $ $ 192,150 $ - $ 192,150 $ 192,150 13 out of 21 projects (Bleachers 141 1 Oak Hills Ball Diamonds 2 $ 8,000 $ 16,000 2 $ 16,000 2 Sunnyside 2 $ 8,000 $ 16,000 2 $ 16,000 3 Sherwood 6 $ 8,000 $ 48,000 6 $ 48,000 4 Herman Franks 4 $ 8,000 $ 32,000 4 $ 32,000 $ 112,000 $ - $ 112,000 $ - $ 112,000 $ 112,000 50%of the bleachers (Concessions 31 1 Riverside 1 $ 250,000 $ 250,000 1 $ 250,000 2 Poplar Grove 1 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 1 $ 125,000 3 Oak Hills Ball Diamonds 1 $ 125,000 $ 125,000 1 $ 125,000 $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000 $ 500,000 3 of 6 concessions 'BMX and Bike Parks J Parley's Historic Nature Park 1 $ 300,000 $ 300,000 1 $ 15,000 $ 285,000 $ 300,000 $ 15,000 $ 285,000 $ 15,000 $ 285,000 $ 300,000 100%of projects irrigation 30 acres $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 restrooms 1 $300,000 $300,000 $300,000 facilities 1 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 roads,curb and gutter $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $6,300,000 $0 $6,300,000 $ - $ 6,300,000 $ 6,300,000 half of the scope $ 33,316,200 $ 421,000 $ 32,895,200 $ 421,000 $ 32,895,200 $ 33,316,200 • SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT BUDGET ANALYSIS- FISCAL YEAR 2011-12 DATE: October 4, 2011 BUDGET FOR: 10 YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN • Initial Briefing-May 31,2011 • Briefing-September 6,2011 STAFF REPORT BY: Karen Halladay, Budget and Policy Analyst cc: David Everitt, Gina Chamness, Gordon Hoskins, Frank Gray, Mary De La Mare-Schaefer, Luann Clark, Mike Akerlow, Sherrie Collins Council Priorities-September 2011 At the Council's mid-year retreat,held on September 9th,the Council discussed their vision and ideas for Salt Lake City. Seven main themes or priorities resulted from their discussion(listed alphabetically): • Arts and Culture • Economic Health of the City • Local/Neighborhood Business • Neighborhoods/Schools • Parks and Open Space • Sustainability • Transportation and Mobility The Council,along with their staff,will further clarify these priorities in the coming months. The Council and Administration,in collaboration,could use the Council and Administration priorities,to guide,plan,develop, and implement projects and plans for Salt Lake City. There are various mechanisms or tools the Council and Administration can use to further their goals and vision for the City. One of these tools is the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan(CFP),formerly known as the 10- Year Capital Improvement Program Plan. This plan,presented by the Administration,is now before the Council for their consideration. As mentioned during the September 6th briefing,the initial list of departmental needs over the next ten years was nearly$415 million-$300 million of the funding projected to come from the General Fund. It should be noted that this list does not include several large capital projects: parking pay stations,Sugar House streetcar, Utah Performing Arts Center,East Side/Liberty Precinct,Salt Lake City Public Market,Salt Lake City Convention Hotel, Downtown streetcar,Central Plant Upgrade/Hydrogen Cell Co-Generation,or phase 2 of the Regional Sports Complex. Also,the Administration's plan indicates that several projects are deferred until other revenue sources become available: Jordan River Trail and 100 South Railroad Crossing,Parley's (PRATT) shared use pathway,and the Surplus Canal shared use pathway. The original list of needs exceeded the estimated or projected financial resources identified and available for capital projects. Given the amount of funding available,the Administration,along with the Consultant and City departments,re-evaluated and modified the original list and submitted a fiscally constrained plan of$151 million. e following chart presents department allocations as a percentage of the total for the unconstrained,fiscally constrained,and Mayor's recommendations: 1 • Dept%of Total Dept%by 1st 1st Dept%of Total Unconstrained Total Constrained Constrained Mayor's Mayor's Capital Project by Department Needs Unconstrained List List Recommendations Recommendations DATE PREPARED Mar-11 Apr-11 11-May Fire 20,250,000 4.9% 20,250,000 8.4% 12,400,000 8.2% Police 9,080,000 2.2% 9,080,000 3.8% 9,140,000 6.1% Parks and Open Space 70,773,811 17.1% 70,773,811 29.4% 43,356,200 28.8% Streets 242,000,000 58.4% 74,360,000 30.9% 61,860,000 41.1% Transportation 39,460,000 9.5% 33,260,000 13.8% 12,860,000 8.5% Facilities On-going 30,835,971 7.4% 30,835,971 12.8% 9,198,504 6.1% CIP/Impact Fee Study 44,600 0.0% 44,600 0.0% 44,600 0.0% Percent brArt 1,000,000 0.2% 1,000,000 0.4% 1,000,000 0.7% Cost Ooerruns 800,000 0.2% 800,000 0.3% 600,000 0.4% Total Need 414,244,382'IP100.0% 240,404,382 100.0% 150,459,304' 100.0% The Mayor's recommendation assumes that 7percent of eligible General Fund revenues or$15.3 million be allocated to the capital improvement program each year. Although the Council's policy is to allocate at least 9 percent of on-going General Fund revenue,the actual yearly CIP allocation is closer to 7 percent. Assuming the same General Fund revenue,the yearly CIP allocation at 9.00 percent would be$19.7 million. This is a difference of$4.4 million more than if 7 percent of on-going revenues were allocated to CIP. If the Council wanted to fully fund the articulated needs of the City's departments,excluding the large capital projects not included in the$415 million,the funding allocation would be 13.7 percent of General Fund revenues,nearly twice that being proposed. (Note: The proposed plan indudes a debt service placeholder of$2.5 million for future projects. A debt service payment of$2.5 million calculated at 4.5%interest over 10 years would fund a $19.6 million bond project. If the bond were extended to 20 years,a$32.2 million project could be funded.) In other words,the Council could allocate 13.7 percent to CIP each year for the next ten years and still not have adequate financial resources to dedicate to the following projects if the focus were on other identified priorities,such as: • Parking pay stations • Sugar House streetcar • Utah Performing Arts Center • East Side/Liberty Precinct • Salt Lake City Public Market • Salt Lake City Convention Hotel • Downtown streetcar • Central Plant Upgrade/Hydrogen Cell Co-Generation • Phase 2 of the Regional Sports Complex • Jordan River Trail and 100 South Railroad Crossing • Parley's (PRATT)and Surplus Canal shared use pathways Assuming these projects are important to the Council and the Community,the Council may need to limit or further defer replacement,maintenance,and standard CIP expenditures. It is also important to keep in mind that the amount of the annual CIP allocation decreases when the General Fund revenues decrease.This has happened over the past couple of years with the reduction of the annual operating budget. It should be noted that on average over the past eight years,less than one-half of the amount of CIP and CDBG requests are able to be funded with the resources that are available. Funds available are not adequate to meet the current maintenance or capital needs of the City. The challenge of balancing the many needs of the City 2 could end up costing more due to deferring maintenance on existing assets(assets may have to be replaced if not properly maintained) or missing opportunities that would benefit the City in the future. Next Steps-Capital Facilities Plan(CFP) The list of City needs over the next ten years,the 10-Year CFP,is now before the Council for their review, discussion,possible modification,and approval. At the last briefing,the Council requested the$415 million fiscally unconstrained list of capital projects. This information is included on the attached spreadsheet. (See Attachment-3). To aid the discussion,Council Staff has included columns on the attached spreadsheet for the following questions: 1. Is the item a Council priority? If so,which one? 2. Is the item a non-discretionary item or a discretionary item? a. How does the item impact level of service? b. Level 1 -Level of service remains the same. c. Level 2-Level of service is enhanced. d. Level 3-Level of service is new. The following graph presents how the extensive list of City projects could be evaluated and selected for funding. This is one method the Council could use to review and develop the 10-Year CFP for fiscal years 2012 thru 2021. Consider Projects for Funding: • Addresses Council Priorities Must be Completed for the City > • Funding Source Becomes .0 Available or Identified O. • Other V Consider Projects for c Funding: • Public Safety • Maintain Existing V Level of Service • Other Non-discretionary Discretionary (Not Optional) (Optional) Spending ► Since this is such a significant issue and opportunity to guide City investment over the next 10 years does the Council wish to have staff,perhaps working with Council Members individually or in small groups, identify which of the items on the 10-year Capital list link directly with Council priorities and which are essential as opposed to discretionary? This could further inform the Council's decision making process. 3 Questions for the Council's Consideration The Council may wish to consider the following policy questions during their capital needs discussion: Financial Management and Bonding 1. The proposed plan appears to be a significant departure from the Council's previously adopted Capital and Debt Management policies (See Attachment-1). a. Does the Council wish to review and discuss these policies prior to their review of the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)? b. The Council may wish to update, rescind, or revise the previously adopted policies. 2. Given the recent bond discussions for the Library, Golf special projects,and the 10-Year CFP, the Council may wish to ask the Administration for a follow-up briefing on the City's bonding capacity, and the requirements or criteria needed to maintain the City's AAA bond rating. (See Attachment-2). 3. Given the many needs of the City - maintaining existing assets, funding previous priorities, responding to neighborhood and community quality of life requests, and investing in economic development opportunities for the City - does the Council wish to discuss additional funding mechanisms? Examples, include projects that could be partially or fully funded or completed with: a. Private Donations b. Partnerships c. Issuance of Bonds, including General Obligation Bonds d. Organized Volunteer Efforts 4. Does the Council wish to verify that its policies, rules of thumb, or patterns of appropriation of funds have been, considered in the development of the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan? Examples include, set amount for local stree. reconstruction, amount or percentage for sidewalk ramps, sidewalks Special Assessment Areas, 1 percent for Art, etc. Note: The Council has had a policy to use 1 percent of the CIP allocation for Art. The amount set aside in the Mayor's proposed plan indicates this percent to be less than the desired 1 percent. 5. Does the Council wish to set a policy on the annual amount or percentage of funds that need to be used for existing City infrastructure and/or for new projects? 6. Does the Council wish to establish or clarify its policies regarding the understanding of annual impacts to City operations when capital projects are completed or not completed? For example, what are the financial implications of not upgrading irrigation systems, energy-saving traffic lights, etc. Another example would be to understand the annual operating costs of adding new facilities. 7. Does the Council wish to establish a policy about the use of a. Funds anticipated from increased sales tax due to particular developments? b. Increased property tax anticipated due to end of initial commitments? c. Funds to account for inflation in operating costs (without increasing property tax)? d. Funds available after retirement of debt service? Projects 8. Mentioned above - Since this is such a significant issue and opportunity to guide City investment over the next 10 years does the Council wish to have staff, perhaps working with Council Members individually or in small groups, identify which of the items on the 10-Year CFP list link directly with Council priorities and which are essential as opposed to discretionary? This could further inform the Council's decision making process. 9. During the September 27th Council Meeting, the Council passed a legislative intent to discuss the East Side/Liberty Precinct in context of the 10-Year CFP. Are there other items the Council wishes to understand with regard to shifts in policy,priority, or strategy that are represented by the absence of items on the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan list? Such as, the East Side/Liberty police facility, mentioned here. 4 10. There are several projects (current and future) being considered by the Administration and the Council that are not included on the Capital Facilities Plan. Does the Council wish to define a strategy,process, and timeline to fund and develop these projects in a manner that maximizes the City's resources? 11. Does the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan fully fund issues the Council has raised or recognized previously? For example, the 1300 South bridge, a major east-west connection in the City, to meet the necessary earthquake standards? 12. Case law related to sidewalk trip and fall cases has been evolving and may impact how the City administers its sidewalk replacement program. Does the Council wish to discuss these changes with the Administration? Process and Policy 13. Does the Council wish to establish a policy that requires that capital projects be considered in the context of all current and future City needs,and that all capital projects be vetted through a public process? 14. Does the Council wish to consider appropriating CIP funds bi-annually, rather than annually? Adopting the CIP budget every two years could result in time and cost savings by reducing the time spent determining the allocation. Additionally, cost savings may be possible in the bidding and construction process. Such a process would need to be timed with terms of office to avoid problems with binding future elected officials. 15. Capital Asset Management (CAM) Projects Set Aside - $2,700,000- The Administration is proposing to set aside a portion of the CIP funds in order to accumulate and fund future (CAM) projects. These projects, not yet specified, are defined by the Administration as major infrastructure projects that cost $5.0 million or more, require other funding sources, such as bonds,grants,private and public funding,and generally have a useful life of over five years. ►Does the Council wish to establish a policy to define the criteria or requirements for use of these funds? ► Given there are many unfunded City projects, including capital repair, maintenance, and replacement needs, does the Council wish to have a policy discussion about setting aside funds for major future projects when needs associated with current City assets, including infrastructure,facility,and park needs are not being met? 16. The 10-year Capital Facilities Plan is typically a key place for the Mayor and Council to make generational decisions. What is the most effective way to make these large capital decisions for the City and its residents? 17. Several projects, including the 200 South and 900 South projects, and some Council suggested projects, were never vetted through the CIP process, should the policy be modified to reflect this approach? Other 18. The Council may wish to ask for information regarding current best practices regarding level of service standards for cities that are similar to Salt Lake City. Some level of service examples are amount of parks and open space per resident, response times for fire departments,and number of sworn officers per 1,000 residents. 19. Sometimes the City makes major capital investments in order to 'grow the economic development pie' among other reasons. Sometimes the numbers that are used to justify the investment are later used to justify a subsidy to a group to encourage them to come to Salt Lake City or another locale. Recent examples include: 1) Salt Palace expansion for Outdoor Retailers, that organization is now requesting financial assistance for tents; 2) Salt Palace expansion has significant vacancy, convention hotel investment is less of a risk than current known loss due to vacancy (D-News quote of Cony and V Bureau Director); 3) Sandy's Rio Tinto Stadium is not meeting projected number of concerts; and 4) First soccer tournament appears to be interested in City/County sponsorship. Does the Council wish to develop or clarify its policies regarding its investments in economic growth for Salt Lake City? a. Is the City's role to invest in capital infrastructure? b. Is the City's role to invest in the infrastructure and subsidize the events? c. What is this just an economic reality? 5 Attachments The following paperwork (See Exhibits)has been submitted by Consultant,Anne Wescott,since the September briefing: • Exhibit A-Process for Constraining CFP Project List-Narrative,including steps taken to constrain the City's list of articulated needs. • Exhibit B-Parks Division Inventory • Exhibit C-Summary of Parks Priorities • Exhibit D-50 Highest Priority Streets • Exhibit E-Ten-Year Priority Plan for Capital Facility Repair and Replacement Needs • Exhibit F-Projects Identified as Priorities Based on Available Funding for Parks Prepared by Council Staff: • Attachment 1- Salt Lake City Council Capital and Debt Management Policies • Attachment 2-Bond Options for General Purpose Financing(Lewis Young Robertson and Burningham,Inc) • Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet The below information was provided for the September 6, 2011 briefing on the 10- Year Capital Facilities Plan. Council Action Needed • The Administration, with the help of consultant, Anne Wescott of Galena Consulting, has prepared a new 10-year Capital Facilities Plan. After discussion, possible modification, and approval the Council will need to adopt the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan. • Once adopted, the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan will be used to prepare the City's Impact Fee Facilities Plan(IFFP). Developing the Plan With the assistance of the consultant, departments went through a process to identify future capital needs, which included projects that would be necessary to serve growth, upgrade and maintain the City's current facilities. The initial plan represents the fiscally unconstrained capital projects totaling$415 million. Department projects were further constrained and prioritized based on additional factors,including alignment with Mayoral direction, community input, public safety, ability to serve new growth, and availability of other funding sources, such as Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) and Class C Funds. The cost of the proposed fiscally constrained plan is$242 million. After considering the yearly CIP allocation, assumed and calculated at 7% of general fund revenues, and the annual debt service needs, the amount available to fund the Capital Facilities Plan was reduced to reflect the amount available to fund the City's capital needs. There are two items regarding debt service that should be noted: • During FY 2015-16 debt service will increase by approximately $5.3 million due to the transfer of the SARR (Steiner Ice Sheet) obligation from the City's Redevelopment Agency (RDA) to the General Fund. • The Capital Facilities Plan includes the CAM (Capital Asset Management) Set Aside of $2.5 million. During the FY 2011-12 CIP budget, the Administration recommended setting this amount aside to provide a funding source for major capital asset projects, which could include the Sugar House and Downtown Streetcars, Utah Performing Arts Center, and/or Salt Lake City Public Market. (Note: A debt service payment of$2.5 million calculated at 4.5% interest over 10 years would fund a$19.6 million bond project. If the bond timeline was extended to 20 years at the same interest rate, a $32.2 million bond project could be funded. Both project amounts are net of issuance costs.) 6 Fiscally Fiscally Unconstrained Constrained FY 2011-12 to FY 2011-12 to FY 2020-21 FY 2020-21 Capital Needs: Identified 10-Year Capital Needs of $415 million $242 million Salt Lake City Note: Large Capital Projects are not included,only • $2.5 million as a placeholder in the analysis. .„ = t. Total General Fund CIP Allocation $153 million $153 million Assumption: 7%of General Fund Revenues Other Funding Sources Identified(10 Years)-Class $92 million $92 million C,CDBG,Open Space Bond Revenue,Impact Fees, Fleet Facility Bond Proceeds,Federal Highway Funds,Sales Proceeds-Public Safety and Police Evidence Facility Debt Service: General Fund CIP Allocation Needed $94 million $94 million to Fund Debt Service(10 years) Unfunded Capital Needs $264 million $91 million Capital projects had to be reduced by an additional $91 million in order to keep the revenue sources and capital project expenditures in balance. According to the Administration, department projects, mostly in current asset repair and improvements were cut from the Capital Facilities Plan. The Administration indicates that there will be an impact on the condition of these assets and the future costs to replace them. Details about the department projects eliminated can be found on page 3 and 4 of the report prepared by Galena Consulting. (See Attached.) Anne Wescott, Galena consultant, is scheduled to brief the Council at the September 6th work session meeting. Next Steps The Council may want to review and discuss their policies and processes regarding the City's capital needs and projects. This discussion could be scheduled for a future Council briefing or be a topic at the scheduled September 9th Council retreat. The following information related to capital projects is included later in this report: • General Obligation Debt Service payments for FY 2011-12 and Maturity Date • 2011 Council Goals and Priorities-Identified at Council Retreat • Capital Improvement Program Budget Process • Council Policies Regarding Capital Improvement Program • "Special" Items-Class C and Impact Fees- within the CIP Budget 7 Questions for the Council's Consideration Council Staff has also prepared questions the Council may wish to consider during their capital needs ~'° discussion. 1. The Council may wish to consider a process for adopting this plan,and whether or not the CFP should be adopted or considered in greater detail. Further, the Council may wish to consider the full list of potential CIP projects and unmet capital needs prior to consideration of the 10-Year CFP. As the Council will recall, the plan presented to the Council has been "fiscally constrained" by the consultant in collaboration with City Departments. The Council may wish to confirm that the policy budget decisions that have been made are consistent with the Council's policy and budget views. 2. Capital Asset Management (CAM) Projects Set Aside - $2,700,000- The Administration is proposing to set aside a portion of the CIP funds in order to accumulate and fund future (CAM) projects. (Note: The Administration recommends that a portion,$2.4 million,comes from City and County Building debt being paid in full during FY 2011.) These projects, not yet specified, are defined by the Administration as major infrastructure projects that cost $5.0 million or more, require other funding sources, such as bonds;grants,private and public funding, and generally have a useful life of over five years. In FY 2011-12 budget amendment #1, the Administration is proposing to use the CAM set aside of$2.7 million to fund a portion of the electronic parking pay station system being proposed by the Administration. Does the Council wish to establish a policy to define the criteria or requirements for use of these funds? Given that project(s) and details have not been specified, the Council may wish to make the spending of these funds contingent upon final Council approval. ► Given there are many unfunded City projects, including capital repair, maintenance, and replacement needs,,,., does the Council wish to have a policy discussion about setting aside funds for major future projects when Curren. City assets, including infrastructure,facility,and park needs are not being met? 3. There are several projects (current and future) being considered by the Administration and the Council that are not included on the Capital Facilities Plan. Does the Council wish to define a strategy or process and timeline to fund and develop these projects in a manner that maximizes the City's resources? 4. Does the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan fully fund issues the Council has raised or recognized previously? For example, the 1300 South bridge, a major east-west connection in the City, to meet the necessary earthquake standards? 5. Does the Council wish to verify that its policies, rules of thumb, or patterns of appropriation of funds have been considered in the development of the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan? Examples include, set amount for local street reconstruction,amount or percentage for sidewalk ramps, sidewalks Special Assessment Areas,etc. 6. Does the Council wish to set a policy on the annual amount or percentage of funds that need to be used for existing City infrastructure and/or for new projects? 7. Does the Council wish to understand shifts in policy, priority, or strategy that are represented by the absence of items on the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan list? For example, the east side police facility. 8. The 10-year Capital Facilities Plan is typically a key place for the Mayor and Council to make generational decisions. What is the most effective way to make these large capital decisions for the City and its residents? 9. Does the Council wish to establish a policy about the use of a. Funds anticipated from increased sales tax due to particular developments? b. Increased property tax anticipated due to end of initial commitments? c. Funds to account for inflation in operating costs (without increasing property tax)? d. Funds available after retirement of debt service? 8 10. Should we go back to the CityGate study and policies adopted after that so that we can determine whether the CIP plan and recent practices are in keeping with that? 11. 200 South and 900 South and some Council suggested projects were never vetted through the process, should the policy be modified to reflect new practice? 12. Will main projects, such as street car, theatre, convention hotel, etc. be vetted through the CIP process? If not, should we address that in the policy too? The County has just shifted to have significant projects vetted. 13. Sometimes the City makes major capital investments in order to 'grow the economic development pie' among other reasons. Sometimes the numbers that are used to justify the investment are later used to justify a subsidy to a group to encourage them to come to Salt Lake City or another locale. a. Salt Palace expansion for Outdoor Retailers, that organization now requesting financial assistance for tents. b. Salt Palace expansion has significant vacancy, convention hotel investment is less of a risk than current known loss due to vacancy(D-News quote of Cony and V Bureau Director) c. Sandy's Rio Tinto Stadium is not meeting projected number of concerts. d. First soccer tournament appears to be interested in City/County sponsorship. 14. Is the City's role to invest in capital infrastructure, or to invest in the infrastructure and subsidize the events? Is this just an economic reality? GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS FOR FY 2011-12 AND MATURITY DATE 'hange in GO Debt Service Accounting — Last year, the Administration changed how General Obligation (GO) Bond Revenue and Debt Service transactions are accounted for. Now, Debt Service is allocated directly to the Debt Service Fund, a legally-separate fund, which handles the payment for each of the City's debts. In the past, Debt Service revenue and expense transactions flowed through the City's General Fund. ►The Council may wish to continue the practice of reviewing these GO Bond projects (and amounts)in conjunction with the overall CIP budget. The following table is a schedule of the City's GO Debt Service payments for FY 2011-12: Summary of GO Bond Debt Service Payments- FY 2012 Project *Debt Service Amount Maturity Date Library-Series 1999 $ 33,200 June 2019 Library-Series 2002 $ 6,794,294 June 2019 Zoo/Aviary-Series 2004a $ 857,325 June 2024 Open Space-Series 2009a (partial issuance) $ 103,224 December 2018 Leonardo-Series 2009b $ 731,775 June 2029 Public Safety-Series 2010a (Tax-exempt) $ 1,124,738 June 2016 Public Safety-Series 2010a (Taxable) $ 932,613 June 2030 Public Safety-Series 2010b $ 6,423,764 June 2031 *Regional Sports Complex-Series 2011a (Estimate) $ 1,084,349 TBD Total Yearly GO Bond Debt(including estimates) $ 18,085,281 **Includes principal and interest payments,and other costs. *Note-as these bonds have not yet been finalized,the amount for debt service is an estimate only. 9 2011 COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES— IDENTIFIED AT COUNCIL RETREAT Process of Public Engagement -Council commu ication efforts -Channel 17 interviews -mailing lists/listsery -Weekly council meeting reports -Website Neighborhood/Quality of Life -Small Neighborhood Business -New Libraris -Street lighting Zones -Conditional Use text amendments -Resident/Neighborhood Donatio -Parley's Historic Nature Park -Pan-handling -Historic Preservation Plan -Demolition Ordinance Budget&Capital Planning -10 Year CIP Plan -Public Safety Building -Council Oversight -Impact Fee Study -Open Space Policy -Internal Controls -North Temple -Emergency preparation -Streamlining/Efficiency -Regional Sports Complex -City Benefits Plan/Health Insurance Walkability&Transportation -Street Cars/Trolleys -Sidewalk snow removal(complete) -Concrete/Sidewalk audit -Bicycle&Transportation Projects -Electric Vehicles -Traffic Calming'Pedestrian Safety -Ground Transportation CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET PROCESS The Capital Improvement Program is a multi-year planning program that uses two main planning documents: a 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan (formerly known as the Capital Improvement Plan) and each fiscal year's capital budget. After a lengthy administrative process to identify the most critical and realistic projects that need to be funded over the next decade, the Council will consider adopting a new 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan later this year. It should be noted that the proposed overall amount to transfer from the general fund in order to pay for the proposed 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan over the decade,is 7.0% per year. Following the Mayor's presentation of his recommended budget on Tuesday May 3rd, the Council received a schedule of the proposed capital projects for FY 2011-12 with ranking information from the Community Development and Capital Improvements Program (CDCIP) Board and the Mayor. The schedule identifies all of the projects that were submitted for funding with the Mayor's recommendations and the priority rankings of the Citizens Advisory Board and Administrative Staff. The City Council makes the final determination of projects to be funded. Council Staff will project the schedule on the screen during the work session to facilitate discussion and funding decisions. The Administration accepts applications for capital projects from citizens and City departments each year. These applications are reviewed,considered and then recommended for funding by the CDCIP Board and the Mayor. The Council considers these recommendations when deciding which CIP projects get funded. Copies of each project application are available if Council Members desire. During the past several years, the Council has appropriated funds for debt service and "time sensitive projects" during the annual budget process and waited until later in the summer to make other appropriations. ► The Council may wish to determine whether it wants to pursue this same course of action or whether the Council wishes to appropriate the entire amount of CIP funding for specific projects during the annual budget process. 10 COUNCIL POLICIES REGARDING CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM On April 6, 1999 the City Council adopted a resolution entitled "Council Policies Regarding Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement Program." This resolution specifically stated the Council's intentions that the Administration regard the resolution as the Council's policy objectives for the City's General Fund CIP Program. In December 1999 the Council adopted a resolution entitled "Salt Lake City Council Capital and Debt Management Policies" which set forth the capital and debt-management policies that were intended to guide the City in addressing the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of the City. In December 1999, the Council also adopted an ordinance (which was amended in May 2000, and again in 2006 - see section on impact fees below) establishing impact fees on new development within the City. Revenue from these fees are dedicated to fund those capital projects which are directly attributable to growth. Some of the Council's capital improvement program policies are highlighted as follows: • Establish a formal multi-year capital program. • Link the 10-year needs list and the annual capital budget. • Identify the extent and cost of deferred maintenance. • Utilize condition information to select and prioritize capital projects. • Focus attention on the long-term implications of capital decisions. • Identify full life cycle project costs. • Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts. • Give priority to capital improvement projects that reduce current City maintenance requirements. • Continue taking advantage of one-time opportunities to supplement base budget CIP (i.e. one-time revenues,particularly from the sale of real property). • Maintain a capital improvement prioritization process that allows citizen and community input. • Provide ongoing funding to address capital improvement needs of the City. (Council's policy is that at least 9% of on-going General Fund revenue be allocated to the CIP Fund. Class C, federal funds, impact fees, and one-time monies are all in addition to the 9%. Since FY 2005, the City has funded CIP at a level closer to 7%.) ➢ In January 2006, the Council adopted a fiscally constrained 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan,in which each department was asked to identify the most crucial and realistic projects, in order to arrive at a plan that was more likely to be executed to completion. A new 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan is expected to be adopted by the Council later this year. ➢ In the past, consultants hired to form the plan noted that in order to fully pay for the fiscally constrained 10 Year list of projects, the Council would need an average of 9% to 7.95% of the General Fund per year allocated to CIP. The proposed new 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan recommends the General Fund portion be 7.0% of General Fund revenues. "SPECIAL" ITEMS WITHIN THE CIP BUDGET Impact Fees Impact fees are a financing tool that enables the City to address some of the infrastructure necessitated by new growth without further deferring current infrastructure needs. Impact fees cannot be assessed to address `ssues of deferred capital infrastructure. Revenue collected from impact fees must be expended or _numbered within six years after receipt, unless the Council identifies, in writing, an extraordinary and compelling reason to hold the impact fees longer. Under such circumstances, the Council must establish an absolute date by which the impact fees will be expended. Impact fees are determined based on future projects 11 in the 10-Year Plan that relate to new growth. It should be noted that as the Administration and Council revise the 10-Year Plan,Impact Fees may be adjusted to reflect new projects. Class C funds Class C funds are generated by the Utah State Tax on gasoline. The state then distributes these funds to local governments on a mileage basis. The following are permissible uses for Class C funds (as defined by Utah Code): 1. All construction and maintenance on eligible Class B&C roads(Utah Code 72-3-103 to 72-3-104) . 2. Enhancement of traffic and pedestrian safety including but not limited to:sidewalks,curb and gutter (on all eligible B&C roads and state highways),safety features,traffic signals,traffic signs,street lighting and construction of bicycle facilities in the highway right-of-way. (Utah Code 72-8-101 to 72-8- 105) . 3. Investments for interest purposes (interest to be kept in fund). 4. Equipment purchases or equipment leases and rentals. 5. Engineering and Administration costs. 6. Future reimbursement of other funds for large construction projects. 7. Rights of Way acquisition,fencing and cattle guards. 8. Matching Federal Funds. (Utah Code 72-2-110). 9. Equipment purchased with B&C funds may be leased from the road department to another department or agency using schedule of Equipment Rates posted on the FEMA website at http://www.fema.govigovernment/grant/pa/eqrates_2005.shtm. 10. Construction of road maintenance buildings,storage sheds,and yards.Multiple use facilities may be constructed by mixing funds on a proportional basis. 11. Construction and maintenance of alleys(see definition of alleys in Section II-1) 12. B&C funds can be used to pay the costs of asserting,defending,or litigating RS 2477 issues per HB 27f (2009). The Council may wish to review all CIP projects to determine if they are eligible for Class C funding. 12 Attachment 1 Salt Lake City Council Capital and Debt Management Policies Pages 22-24—Salt Lake City Council Policy Manual A.25 GENERAL BUDGET POLICY a.When possible,Capital Improvement Projects are not delayed nor eliminated in order to balance the budget.The Council also avoids using one time revenues to balance the budget. A.26 CAPITAL AND DEBT MANAGEMENT(1/04) On December 14, 1999,the Council adopted a resolution relating to capital and debt management policies.The resolution states: THEREFORE,BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah: That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City: Capital Policies 1. The Council intends to define a capital project as follows:"Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings,parks, streets or other physical structures.A capital improvement must have a useful life of five or more years.A capital project must also have a cost of$50,000 or more unless its significant functionality can be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project.A capital improvement is not a recurring capital outlay item(such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine)or a maintenance expense(such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches).Acquisition of equipment is not a capital project unless it is an integral part of the cost of a capital project." . The Council requests that the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the Five- Year Capital Plan and be submitted to the City Council for tentative approval no later than March 1 of each fiscal year. 3. The Council requests that the Administration prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts which correspond to the capital program period as well as an analysis of the City's financial condition and capacity to finance future capital projects,and present this information to the Council with the presentation of each biennial budget. 4. The Council intends that no less than nine percent of ongoing General Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund. 5. The Council requests that the Administration submit an updated proposed five-year capital improvement plan to the Council along with the Mayor's Recommended Budget. 6. The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. 7. The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects which preserve and protect the health and safety of the community are mandated by the state and/or federal government provide for the renovation of existing facilities,resulting in a preservation of the community's prior investment, •result in decreased operating costs or other significant cost savings,or improve the environmental quality of the City and its neighborhoods. 8. The Council intends to give fair consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies,establish a public/private partnership, or secure grant funding, all other considerations being equal. 9. The Council intends to follow a guideline of approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year , . immediately following the project's design wherever possible. 10. The Council intends that all capital projects be evaluated and prioritized by the CIP Citizen Advisory Board. 11. The Council does not intend to fund any project that has not been included in the Five-Year Capital Plan for at least one year prior to proposed funding,unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified. 12. The Council requests that any change order to any capital improvement project which equals or exceeds twenty percent of the approved project budget be brought to the Council for review in a formal budget amendment. 13. The Council requests that the Administration submit a budget amendment request to the Council no later than September 1 each year identifying those Capital Improvement Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains.It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and placed in the CIP Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year,at which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's General Fund ongoing allocation. Debt Management Policies 1. The Council intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are included in the City's 5-Year Capital Program and 20-Year Capital Inventory of Needs,or in order to take advantage of opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. 2. The Council requests that the Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity,and how each proposal meets the Council's debt policies,prior to proposing any projects for debt financing.This analysis should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios. 3. The Council requests that,when borrowing is recommended by the Administration,the source of funds to cover the debt service requirements be identified. 4. The Council requests that the Administration provide an analysis of the effect of any proposed bond issue on the City's ability to finance future projects of equal or higher priority. 5. The Council requests that the Administration analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and coordinate this analysis with the budget development process. 6. The Council requests that the Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed,including an indication of requirements or circumstances that the Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue. 7. The Council does not intend to issue debt that would cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the municipal bond rating industry. 8. The Council does not intend to issue debt if such debt will damage the City's current AAA general obligation bond rating or cause the City's lease revenue bond ratings to fall below current ratings. 9. The Council requests that the Administration fully disclose and the Council intends to consider the impact of all debt that has a net negative fiscal impact on the City's operating budget. 10. The Council requests that the Administration structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the issue unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or if the useful life of the financed project(s)suggests a ''."". different maturity schedule. A I B I C JDIEIF G 1 ti Tf I I J r K I L i M N 1 0 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet I Salt Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 _ Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted - 15 Process for Constraining Project List Items-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration 1 Council Priority •Arts and Culture •Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Leval of •Parks and Open Space service Non-Discretionary •Sustainability 1-Existing or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Protect Mobility 3-New Capital projects by Department March 2011 _IF Allocation Notes Fin 9 Fire 1 Fire Station 03-Relocation and Expansion;Land Acquisition(1085 Simpson Ave) $ 1.200000 $ 1,200,000 unchanged $ 1,250,000 $50k increase in cost $ 1,250,000 $50k increase in cost 10 Fin _ Fire Station 83-Relocation and Expansion;Construction(1085 Simpson Ave) $ 5,100,000 $ 5,100,000 unchanged $ 5.100,000 unchanged $ 5,100,000 unchanged 11 Fin Fire Station#14(1560 S.Industrial Rd.) $ 5,100000 $ 5,100,000 unchanged $ 5.100,000 unchanged $ 5.100000 unchanged 12 Fire Training Facility _ $ 7,900,000 $ 7,900,000 unchanged $ - cut training facility $ - cut training facility 13 Fire Truck for Fire Station a14(1560 S.Industrial Re.) $ 950,000 $ 950,000 unchanged $ 950,000 unchanged $ 950,000 unchanged 14 8 20,250,000 $ 20,250,000 $ 12,400,000 $ 12,400,000 15 Police 16 Police Evidence and Crime Lab Facility Study $ 80,000 $ 80,000 unchanged $ 140,000 560k increase in cost $ 140,000 $60k increase in cost 17 Police Evidence and Crime Lab Facility $ 9.000.000 $ 9,000,000 unchanged $ 9,000,000 unchanged $ 9,000.000 unchanged 18 8 9,080,000 $ 9,080,000 $ 9,140,000 $ 9,140,000 20 Parks and Open Space(see list for prioritization and unit costs within each category) 21 Parks New park acquisition to serve growth-45 acres $ 4,457,634 $ 4,457,634 unchanged $ 6,740,000 unchanged $ 6,740,000 unchanged 22 Parks New open space acquisition $ 1.217,327 S 1,217,327 unchanged $ 2,100.000 balance of open space bond $ 2,100,000 balance of open space bond 23 Jordan and Sat Lake Canal Shared Use Pathway _ $ 4,000,000 moved from Transportation $ 4,000.000 moved from Transportation 24 Cry Creek Trail $ 1,200,000 moved from Transportation $ 1,200,000 moved from Transportation 25 Playground Improvements $ 5,050,000 $ 5,050,000 unchanged $ 1,700,000 f cut 10 out of 30 playgrounds $ 1,700,000 cut 10 out of 30 playgrounds 26 Parks 1 Lindsey Gardens $ 150,000 27 Parks 2 Fairmont $ 200,000 28 Parks 3 Swede Town $ 150,000 29 Parks 4 Poplar Grove $ 150,000 30 Parks 5 Popperton $ 150.000 31 Parks 6 Cotton $ 150.000 32 Parks 7 Stratford $ 150,000 33 Parks a sunnyside $ 200,000 34 Parks 9 Jordan $ 200,000 35 Parks10 Riverside $ 200,000 36 Parks 11 Jefferson $ 150,000 $ 150.000 37 Parks 12 Pugslay Ouray Parks 13 Jordan $ 200,000 A I B I C j D jEI F G H j I ' J ' K L - M N 0 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet l+ 2 Salt Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012.2021 Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted 1 3 Process for Constraining Project List Items-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration ' Council Priority -'._._,, ....: .`. •Arts and Culture •Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools of •Parks and Open Space Level Serv ice Non-Discretionary •Sustainability 1-Eris6ng or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Department March 2011 39 -Parks 14 Wasatch Hollow $ 200,000 40 Parks 15 Fairmont $ 200,000 41 Parks 16 Tauter $ 150,000 42 Parks 17 Jordan $ 200,000 43 Parks 10 Laird Park $ 150,000 44 Parks 19 Liberty $ 200,000 45 Parks 20 6th East $ 150.000 46 Parks 21 Sorenson $ 200.000 47 Parks 22 Post Street Tot Lot $ 150,000 46 Parks 23 Redwood Meadows $ 150.000 49 Parks 24 Richmond $ 150,000 50 Parks 25 Inglewood $ 150,000 51 Parks 26 Herman Franks $ 200,000 52 Parks 27 Wesipointe $ 150,000 53 Parks 20 Galagher Tot Lot $ 150.000 54 Parks 29 Peoples Freeway Park $ 150,000 55 Parks 30 Kletting $ 150,000 ` 56 Restroom Improvements $ 7,200,000 $ 7.200,000 unchanged $ 3,300,000 cut 13 out of 24 restrooms $ 3,300,000 cut 13 out of 24 restrooms 57 Parks 1 Rotary Glen $ 300,000 56 Parks 2 Wann Springs $ 300,000 59 Parks 3 Parley's Historic Nature $ 300,000 60 Parks 4 Glendale Park $ 300,000 61 Parks 5 Poplar Grove $ 300,000 62 Parks 6 Wasatch Hollow $ 300,000_ f 4. 63 Parks 7 Cottonwood $ 300,000 64 Parks 8 PMneer $ 300,000 65 Parks 9 Herman Franks $ 300,000 66 Parks 10 Fairmont $ 300,000 67 Parks 11 Jordan $ 300,000 66 Parks 12 Lindsey Garden $ 300.000 69 Parks 13 9th South River $ 300,000 70 Parks 14 Sherwood Park $ 300.000 A J B I C I D jEI F j G j H f I j J r K j L M N I 0 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet 2 Salt Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted I Process for Constraining Project List Items-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration _- - - _-------- Council Priority - •Arts and Culture •Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 •Neighborhoods/SchooLs Level of •Parks and Open Space Service Non-Discretionary •Sustainabillty 1-Existing or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Daparbnant March 2011 71 Parks 15 Riverside $ 300,000 72 Parks 16 Herman Franks $ 300,000 73 Parks 17 Wesipoinle $ 300,000 74 Parks 18 Jordan $ 300,000 75 Parks 19 Riverside $ 300,000 76 Parks 20 Fairmont j$ 300,000 77 Parks 21 Rotary Glen $ 300,000 78 Parks 22 Pioneer $ 300,000 79 Parks 23 Riverside $ 300,000 80 Parks 24 Memory Grove Pavilllon $ 300,000 81 Multipurpose Field Improvements $ 1,650,000 $ 1,650,000 unchanged $ 950,000 cut 6 out of 13 fields S 950,000 cut 6 out of 13 fields Parks 1 Fairmont $ 150,000 Parks 2 Fairmont 150,000 84 Parks 3 Fairmont $ 150,000 85 Parks 4 Fairmont _$ 150,000 86 Parks 5 Jordan $ 200,000 87 Parks 6 Rosewood $ 150,000 88 Parks 7 Sorenson $ 100,000 89 Parks 8 Laird $ 100,000 90 Parks 9 Stratford $ 100,000 91 Parks 10 Westpointe ,$ 150,000 92 Parks 11 RNerside $ 150,000 93 Parks 12 Dilworth $ 100,000 94 Basketball Improvements $ 230,000 $ 230,000 unchanged $ 150,000 cut 2 out of 4 courts $ 150,000 cut 2 out of 4 courts 95 Parks 1 Swede Town $ 75,000 96 Parks 2 Madsen $ 75.000 97 Parks 3 Pioneer $ 40.000 98 Parks 4 Poplar Grove $ 40,000 99 Tennis Court Improvements $ 7,525.000 5 7,525,000 unchanged $ 4,725,000 unchanged $ 4,725,000 unchanged 100 Parks i 5th Ave 8 C Street-1 $ 175,000 cli Parks 2 Lindsey Gardens-2 S 350,000 Parks 3 Fairmont-5 $ 875,000 A Ell 2 AttachmentSalt Lake CityCapital Facilitiesnstraican List 0P1 C D he F I G H I J K L M 1 N . 0 1 3 lUnwnstrained of Projects Spreadsheet {l _ _ _ _ Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted • 3 Process for Constraining Project List Items-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration 4 1 el : IMF IMIlir - Council Priority ' -Arts and Culture •Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Leval of •Parks and Open Space sector Non-Discretionary •Sustainability 1-Existing or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Department March 2011 103 Parks 4 Dee Glen Smith-4 $ 700,000 104 Parks 5 Fire Station-2 $ 350.000 105 Parks 6 Pioneer-1 $ 175,000 _. 106 _Parks 7 Wa Springs-2 $ 350,000 rm 107 Parks 8 11th Avenue-8 $ 1,400,000 108 Parks 9 Victory Park-2 $ 350,000 109 Parks 10 Riverside-4 $ 700,000 110 Parks 11 Jordan-2 $ 350,000 111 Parks 12 Reservoir-2 $ 350.000 112 Parks 13 Poplar Grove-2 $ 350,000 113 Parks 14 Wesrpointe-2 $ 350,000 114 Parks 15 Ensign Downs-2 $ 350.000 115 Parks 16 Dilworth-2 $ 350.000 116 Volleyball Court Improvements -$ 105,000 $ 105,000 unchanged _$ 70.000 cut 1 out of 3 courts $ 70,000 cut 1 out of 3 courts 117 Parks 1 Sherwood-1 $ 35,000 118 Parks 2 Richmond-1 $ 35,000 119 Parks 3 Jordan-1 $ 35,000 120 Softball Field Improvements $ 600,000 $ 600,000 unchanged $ 400,000 cut 1 out of 3 fields $ 400,000 cut 1 out of 3 fields 121 Parks 1 Lindsey Gardens-1 $ 200.000 122 Parks 2 Ensign Downs-1 $ 200.000 123 Parks 3 Riverside-1 $ 200,000 124 Baseball Field Improvements $ 2,200600 $ 2,200,000 unchanged $ 1.400,000 cut 4 out of 11 fields $ 1,400,000 cut 4 out of 11 fields 125 Parks 1 Lindsey Gardens-1 $ 200,000 126 Parks 2 Herman Franks-3 $ 600,000 127 Parks 3 Glendale-2 $ 400.000 128 Parks 4 Rosewood-1 $ 200,000 129 Parks 5 Sorenson-1 $ 200.000 130 Parks 6 Poplar Grove-1 $ 200,000 131 Parks 7 Westpointe-1 $ 200,000 132 Parks 8 Dihvorth-1 _ $ 200,000 A I B I C I D IEI F I G I H I j J K L J M N 0 • 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet 2 Salt Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted Process fo Constraining Project List Items-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration Council Priority •Arts and Culture •Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Laval of •Parks and Open Space SaMoa Non-Discretionary •Sustainability 1-Existing or Discretionary .Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Department March 2011 133 Perks Jogging/Walking Path Improvements $ 464,000 $ 464,000 unchanged S 291,000 cut 4 out of 9 paths $ 291.000 cut 4 out of 9 paths 134 Parks 1 Memory Grove-1 $ 200,000 135 Parks 2 Wasatch Hollow Open Space-1 $ 25,000 136 Parks 3 Riverview-1 $ 75,000 137 Parks 4 17th S RiaerPark-1 $ 16,000 138 Parks 5 City Creek Park-1 $ 50,000 139 Parks 6 Cottonwood-1 $ 4,000 140 Parks 7 11th Avenue-1 $ 4,000 141 Parks 8 Hidden Hollow-1 $ 15.000 142 Parks 9 Ensign Peak-1 $ 75.000 143 Pavilion Improvements $ 3,200000 $ 3200,000 unchanged $ 1,200.000 cut 5 out of 8 pavilions $ 1,200,000 cut 5 out of 8 pavilions Parks 1 Rota Glen-1 $ 400.000 Parks 2 Jordan-2 $ 800,000 146 Parks 3 Riverside-1 $ 400,000 147 Parks 4 Cottonwood-4 $ 1,600,000 148 Plaza Improvements $ 1,325,000 $ 1.325,000 unchanged $ 1,200,000 cut 3 out of 5 plazas $ 1200.000 cut 3 out of 5 plazas 149 Parks 1 Pioneer-1 $ 1,000,000 150 Parks 2 Artesian Well-1 $ 200,000 151 Parks 3 Ciy Creek-1 $ 50,000 152 Parks 4 Neill Jack-1 $ 25,000 153 Parks 5 First Encampment-1 $ 50,000 154 Off-Leash Dog Park Improvements $ 1,650,000 $ 1,650,000 unchanged $ 750,000 cut 2 out of 6 parks $ 750,000 cult out of 6 parks 155 Parks 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park-1 $ 250,000 156 Parks 2 Memory Grove.1 $ 250,000 157 Parks 3 Lindsey Gardens-1 $ 250,000 158 Parks 4 Herman Franks-1 $ 400,000 159 Parks 5 Jordan-1 $ 250.000 160 Parks 6 Rosewood-1 $ 250,000 161 Skate Park Improvements-Not Ranked-(No Priority Order) $ 1,400,000 $ 1,400,000 unchanged $ 700,000 cut 1 out of 2 parks $ 700,000 cull out of 2 parks 162 Parks Fairmont-1 $ 700,000 • Parks Jordan-1 $ 700,000 BMX/Bike Path Improvements $ 300,000 $ 300,000 unchanged $ 300.000 unchanged $ 300,000 unchanged 16'5 Parks Parley's Hstoro Nature Park-1 $ 300,000 A I B I C ( D MI F G ' H r i ' J L K I L I M I N I 0 - 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet "4 San Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted ' I . -Process for Constraining Project List Items-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration I _ Council Priority t •Arts and Culture •Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Level of -Parks and Open Space Bar- . Non-Discretionary •Sustainability 1-Existing or Discretionary -Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Department March 2011 166 Drinking Fountains-Not Ranked(No Priority Order) $ 140,000 $ 140,900 unchanged $ 70,000 cut 20 out of 40 fountains $ 70,000 cut 20 out of 40 fountains 167 Parks Cottonwood-1 $ 3,500 168 Parks Fairmont-2 $ 7.000 169 Parks Heiman Franks-2 $ 7,000 y 170 Parks Intl Peace Gardens-1 $ 3.500 171 Parks Jordan-2 $ 7,000 172 Parks Riverside-1 $ 3,500 173 Parks Warm Springs-1 $ 3,500 174 Parks Washington Square-2 $ 7,000 175 Parks 11th Avenue-1 $ 3,500 176 Parks 9th South-1 _$ 3,500 177 Parks City Creek-1 $ 3,500 178 Parks Donner Trail-1 $ 3,500 ( 179 Parks Ensign Downs-1 $ 3,500 180 Parks Lindsey Gardens-1 $ 3,500 181 Parks Pioneer Park-1 $ 1500 182 Parks Poplar Grove-2 $ 7.000 183 Parks Popperton-1 $ 3.500 184 Parks Reservoir-1 $ 3,500 185 Parks Richmond-1 $ 3,500 186 Parks Rotary Glen-1 $ 3,500 187 Parks Stratford-1 $ 3.500 188 Parks Victory-1 $ 3,500 189 Parks Westpointe-2 $ 7,000 190 Parks Artesian Well-1 $ 3,500 191 Parks Cotton-1 $ 3,500 192 Parks Curtis-1 $ 3,500 193 Parks Davis-1 $ 3,500 194 Parks Faullline-1 $ 3,500 195 Parks Inglewood-1 $ 3,500_ 196 Parks _ Post Street Tot Lot-1 $ 3,500 14 197 Parks _ Pugisey Oury-1 $ 3.500 198 Parks Tauter-1 $ 3.500 • A I B I C I D 1E1 F G H I J J K L M N 0 MOM- 1 Council Approved List October 2011 ' 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet 2 Salt Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 `tams-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted Process for Constraining Project List hems-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Adminlshation ' or Council Priority •Arts and Culture •Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Level of •Parks and Open Space SeMce Non-Discretionary •Sustainabdity 1-Existing or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Prejacts by DepaMNsnt March 2011 199 Parks Glendale-2 $ 7,000 200 Picnic Tablas-Not Ranked-(No Priority Order) $ 476,000 $ 476,000 unchanged $ 240,000 cut 119 out of 238 tables $ 240,000 cut 119 out of 238 tables 201 Parks Liberty-12 $ 24,000 202 Parks Washington Park-28 $ 56,000 _ 203 Parks Cottonwood-4 $ 8,000 204 Parks Fairmont-36 $ 72,000 205 Parks Jordan-30 $ 60,000 206 Parks Memory Grove-4 $ 8,000 207 Parks Riverside-25 $ 50,000 208 Parks Rosewood-2 $ 4,000 209 Parks Sunnyskle-10 $ 20,000 1 Parks Warm Springs-2 $ 4,000 411 Parks 11ih Avenue-2 $ 4,000 212 Parks 9th South-4 $ 8,000 213 Parks Donner Trail-2 $ 4,000 214 Parks Laird-4 $ 8,000 215 Parks Lindsey Gardens-12 $ 24,000 216 Parks Madsen-2 $ 4,000 217 Parks Poplar Grove-14 $ 28,000 218 Parks Poppenon-1 $ 2,000 219 Perks Reservoir-4 $ 8,000 220 Parks Rotary Glen-1 $ 2,000 221 Parks Richmond-8 $ 16,000 222 Parks Sherwood-15 $ 30,000 223 Parks Stratford-1 $ 2,000 224 Parks Westpointe-6 $ 12,000 225 Parks Cotton-1 $ 2,000 226 Parks Fauttline-1 $ 2,000 227 Parks Guadalupe-3 $ 6,000 228 Parks Jackson-1 $ 2,000 '9 Parks Tauter-3 $ 6,000 ..30 _ Horseshoes-(No Priority Order) $ 30,000 $ 30,000 unchanged $ 15,000 cut 1 out of 2 horseshoes 5 15,000 cut 1 out of 2 horseshoes 231 Parks Jordan-1 $ 15,000 I A I B I C j D IErF I G H - I 1 J K L M N I 0 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet -2 Salt Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted Process for Constraining Protect Litt ' Items-Recommended for Funding by MayorlAdminlstration 1_ Council Priority •Arts and Culture • •Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Laval of •Parks and Open Space Servise Non-Discretionary •Sustainability 1-Existing or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New -_,__ March2011 232 Parks Rlvenside-1 $ 15.000 233 Water Features-Not Ranked-)No Priority Order) $ 800,000 $ 800,000 unchanged $ 250,000 cut 2 out of 3 features $ 250,000 cut 2 out of 3 features 234 Parks Fairmont-1 $ 400,000 235 Parks Library Square-1 $ 250,000 236 Parks Memory Grove-1 $ 150.000 237 Bridges $ 1,260,000 $ 1,260,000 unchanged $ 250,000 Cut 3 out of 5 bridges $ 250,000 Cut 3 out of 5 bridges 238 Parks 1 Wasatch Hollow Open Space $ 250,000 239 Parks 2 Riverview $ 750,000 240 Parks 3 Parley's Historic Nature Park $ 250,000 - 241 Parks 4 Fairmont $ 10,000 242 Bleachers $ 224,000 $ 224,000 unchanged $ 112,080 Cut 14 of 28 bleachers $ 112,000 Cut 14 of 28 bleachers 243 Parks 1 Oak Hills Ball Diamonds-2 $ 16,000 244 Parks 2 Sunnyside-2 $ 16,000 245 Parks 3 Sherwood-6 $ 48,000 246 Parks 4 Herman Franks-4 $ 32.000 247 Parks 5 Lindsey Gardens-2 $ 16.000 248 Parks 6 Riverside-4 $ 32,000 249 Parks 7 Rosewood-4 $ 32,000 250 Parks 8 Ensign Downs-1 -$ 8.000 251 Parks 9 Westpointe-3 '$ 24,000 252 Benches(No Priority Order) $ 174,000 $ 174,000 unchanged $ 90,000 cut 29 of 58 benches $ 90,000 cut 29 of 58 benches 253 Parks Sorenson-4 $ 12,000 254 Parks Wasatch Hollow-3 $ 9,000 255 Parks Washington Square-25 $ 75,000 256 Parks Dilworth-2 $ 6,000 257 Parks Jefferson-2 $ 6,000 258 Parks Madsen-3 $ 9,000 259 Parks Pioneer-2 $ 6,000 260 Parks Richmond-5 $ 15,000 261 Parks Galagher Tot Lot-1 $ 3,000 262 Parks Post Street Tot Lot-3 $ 9,000 J 263 Parks_ Redwood Meadows-3 -$ 9,000- 264 Parks Swede Town-3 $ 9.000_ A L B ICIDIEIFI G I H I I I J I K I L I M I N I 0 ' 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet 2 Salt Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted 3 Process for Constraining Project List Items-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration I Council Priority -Arts and Culture •Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved Lint October 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Lesal of •Parks and Open Space S.Mce Non-Discretionary '5ustainabllily 1-Existing or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Department March 2011 265 Parks Nelli Jack-2 $ 6.000 266 Earthen Trails $ 382,000 $ 382,000 unchanged $ 369,000 unchanged $ 369.000 unchanged 267 Parks 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park-1 $ 140,000 268 Parks 2 Ensign Peak-1 $ 75,000 269 Parks 3 Wasatch Hollow Open Space-1 $ 75,000 270 Parks 4 Miller Bird Refuge-1 $ 75,000 271 Parks 5 Bonneville Shoreline Preserve-1 $ 4,000 272 Parks 6 H-Rock-1 $ 4,000 273 Parks 7 Riverview-1 $ 5,000 274 Parks 8 Rotary Park-1 $ 1,500 275 Parks 9 Bend-In-The-River-1 $ 1.000 '6 Parks 10 Twin Peaks-1 $ 1,500 277 Concessions $ 1,625,000 $ 1,625,000 unchanged $ 500,000 cut 3 out of 6 concessions $ 500,003 cut 3 out of 6 concessions 278 Parks 1 Riverside-1 $ 250,000 279 Parks 2 Poplar Grove-1 $ 125,000 280 Parks 3 Oak Hills Ball Diamonds-1 $ 125,000 281 Parks 4 Sunnyside-1 $ 125,000 282 Parks 5 Herman Franks-2 $ 500,000 283 Parks 6 Dee Glen Smilh Tennis-1 $ 500.000 284 Landscaping $ 3,582,500 $ 3,582,500 unchanged $ 2,305,000 cut 256/6;not project specific $ 2,305,000 cut 25%;not project specific 285 Parks 1 11th Avenue-1 $ 30,000 286 Parks 2 Wasatch Hollow Open Space-1 $ 675,000 287 Parks 3 Parley's Historic Nature Park-1 $ 1,275,000 288 Parks 4 Fauluine-1 $ 15,000 289 Parks 5 Miller Bird Refuge-1 $ 250000 290 Pants Fairmont-1 $ 15,000 291 Parks Sorenson-1 $ 7,000 292 Parks Sunnysde-1 $ 30.000 293 Parks Wasatch Hollow Park-1 $ 8,000 294 Parks City Creek-1 $ 250,000 15 Parks Dikvorth-1 $ 5,000 I496 Parks Gilgel-1 $ 3,000 _ 297 Parks Oak Hills Ball Diamonds-1 $ 500 A j B I C ]_ D jEj F G I H I J K L IM N f 0 _ 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet 2 Salt Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 lltems-Funded SInce 10-Year Plan Submitted 3 Process for Constraining Project List Items-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration 1 4 al • Council Priority -Arts and Culture •Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Lave,of •Parks and Open Space seMce Non-Discretionary 'Sustainabdlty 1-Existing or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Department March 2011 298 Parks Poplar Grove-1 $ 2,000 299 Parks Reservoir-1 $ 5,000 300 Parks Richmond-1 $ 3,000 301 Parks Rotary Glen-1 $ 150,000 302 Parks Stratford-1 $ 500 303 Parks victory Park-1 $ 3,000 304 Parks 10th E Senor-1 $ 5,000 305 Parks 6th East-1 $ 1,000 306 Parks Artesian Well-1 $ 5,000 307 Parks Curbs-1 $ 2.000 308 Parks Davis-1 $ 1,000 309 Parks First Encampment-1 $ 1,000 jI 310 Parks 10th East Islands-1 $ 3.000 [ 311 Parks 12th East/South Temple-1 $ 500 312 Parks 13th Avenue and J-1 $ 500 313 Parks 4th Avenue Stairs-1 $ 1,000 314 Parks Foothill Islands-1 $ 500 315 Parks Glendale-1 $ 5,000 316 Parks Research Parks(sands-1 $ 500 317 Parks 0th West-1 $ 500 318 Parks Bend-In-The-River-1 $ 1,000 319 Parks Bonneville Shoreline Preserve-1 $ 20.000 320 Parks _ Ensign Peak Nature Park-1 $ 10,000 321 Parks Ensign Peak Nature Park and Tallhead-1 $ 3.000 322 Parks Hidden Hollow Natural Area-1 $ 5,000 323 Parks H-Rock-1 $ 0000 324 Parks Jordan River Parkway-1 $ 30.000 ` 325 Parks Modesto Park-1 $ 5.000 326 Parks Riverview-1 $ 750.000 327 Lighting $ 1,105,000 $ 1,105,000 unchanged $ 720,000 Cut 30%.Not project specific $ 720,000 Cut 30%,Not project specific 328 Parks 1 Fairmont-1 $ 100.000 114 329 Parks 2, First Encampment-1 $ 20.000 330 Parks 3 Donner Trail-1 $ 30.000 A j B I C j D jEj F j G I H I 1 I J I K j L 1 M N 0 • 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet 2 Salt Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted '3 Process for Constraining Project List • Cents-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration •Council Priority •,..v •Arts and Culture -Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 •Neighborhoods/SchooLs Law,of •Parks and Open Space sonic. Non-Discretionary •Sustainabitlty 1-Existing or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Department March 2011 331 Parks 4 Artesian Well-1 $ 20,000 332 Parks 5 Elizabeth Sherman-1 $ 20,000 333 Parks Jordan Park-1 $ 75,000 334 Parks Library Square-1 $ 145,000 335 Parks North Gateway Park-1 $ 50,000 336 Parks Riverside Park-1 $ 75,000 337 Parks Rosewood Park-1 $ 60,000 336 Parks Warm Springs Park-1 $ 50,000 339 Parks Wasatch Hollow Park-1 $ 20,000 340 Parks 9th South-1 $ 50,000 341 Parks Madsen-1 $ 5,000 '2 Parks Richmond-1 $ 30,000 643 Parks Stratford-1 $ 5,000 344 Parks Westpointe-1 $ 75,000 345 Parks Conon-1 $ 5,000 346 Parks Fauliline-1 $ 60,000 347 Parks Galagher Tot Lot-1 $ 15,000 348 Parks Jackson-1 $ 20,000 349 Parks Mimi-1 $ 5,000 350 Parks Pugsley Ouray-1 $ 10.000 351 Parks Redwood-1 $ 40,000 352 Parks Siler-1 $ 20,000 353 Parks Steenblik-1 $ 30,000 354 Parks Swede Town-1 $ 20,000 355 Parks Taufer-1 $ 25,000 356 Parks Westminster-1 $ 15,000 357 Parks Glendale-1 $ 5,000 358 Parks Roberta Laconia-1 $ 5.000 359 Irrigation-770.63 Acres $ 6,039,100 $ 6,039.100 unchanged $ 2,719,050 $ 2,719,050 360 Parks 1 Cottonwood-25.00 Acres $ 187,500 '91 Parks 2 Parley's Historic Nature Park-86.83 Acres $ 651,225 .162 Parks 3 12 East(S Temple-5S)-2.46 Acres $ 18,450 _ 363 Parks 4 Rosewood-22.25 Acres $ 166,875 A 1 B 1 C j D SET F G ( H I I J rK L M N I 0 . 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet 2 Salt Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted 1 3 Process for Constraining Project List Items-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration 40 Council Priority -.:.. •Arts and Culture - -Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Level of •Parks and Open Space Seeder Non-Discretionary •Sustainability 1-Existing or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Department March 2011 364 Parks 5 Popperton-29.16 Acres $ 218.700 365 Parks 6 Wasatch Hollow Open Space-10.00 Acres $ 75,000 366 Parks 7 Jordan-33.50 Acres $ 251,250 367 Parks 8 Pioneer-10.00 Acres $ 75.000 368 Parks 9 Washington Square-11.00 Acres $ 82,500 369 Parks 10 Bend-In-The-River-4.25 Acres $ 31,875 370 Parks Dee Glen Seth-2.75 Acres $ 20,625 371 Parks Hillcrest-0.75 Acres $ 15,000 372 Parks Memory Grove-8.75 Acres $ 65,625 373 Parks Sunnyside-25.50 Acres $ 191,250 374 Parks warm 5pdngs-9.00 Acres $ 67,500 375 Parks Wasatch Hollow-3.55 Acres $ 26.625 376 Parks 11th Avenue-25.00 Acres $ 187,500 377 Parks 5th Ave.8'C'Street-0.37 Acres $ 2,775 378 Parks City Creek-4.00 Acres $ 30.000 379 Parks Dilworth-4.50 Acres $ 33,750 380 Parks Donner Trail-17.00 Acres $ 127,500 . 381 Parks Glendale Park-0.75 Acres $ 5,625 382 Parks Gilgal-0.95 Acres -$ 7,125 383 Parks Kay Rees Park-5.35 Acres $ 40,125 384 Parks Madsen-2.00 Acres $ 15,000 385 Parks Parley's Way-3.37 Acres $ 25,275 386 Parks Poplar Grove-6.75 Acres $ 50,625 387 Parks Reservoir-6.50 Acres $ 48,750 388 Parks Rotary Glen-24.50 Acres $ 183,750 389 Parks Stratford-2.00 Acres $ 15,000 390 Parks 10th E Senior-2.80 Acres $ 21,000 391 Parks Westside Senior-2.00 Acres $ 15,000 392 Parks 6th East Park-0.25 Acres $ 1,875 393 Parks _ Artesian Well-0.25 Acres $ 1,875 394 Parks Beatrice Evans Park-0.25 Acres $ 1,875 _ CO 395 Parks Cotton Park-0.25 Acres $ 1,875 396 Parks Curtis Park-1.25 Acres $ 9,375 A I B I C I D IEj F G H I J K L M N O 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet TI Salt Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted Process for Constraining Project List I Hems-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration Council Priority •Arts and Culture •Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Level of •Parks and Open Space Service Non-Discretionary •Sustainability 1-Existing or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by DepaMlem March 2011 397 Parks Davis Park-0.50 Acres $ 1750 398 Parks Faultline 1.00 Acres $ 7.500 399 Parks Guadalupe Pads-1.00 Acres $ 7.500 400 Parks Jackson Park-1.00 Acres $ 7,500 401 Parks Blotting-0.50 Acres $ 3,750 402 Parks Post Street Tot Lot-0.50 Acres $ 3,750 403 Parks Redwood Meadows-1.25 Acres $ 9,375 404 Parks Silver Park-0.25 Acres $ 1,875 405 Parks Steenblik Park-2.00 Acres $ 15,000 406 Parks Swede Town-0.75 Acres $ 5.625 407 Parks City Creek-5.00 Acres $ 37,500 '8 Parks Ensign Peak Nature Park-126.99 Acres $ 952,425 409 Parks Ensign Peak Nature Park and Trailhead-0.25 Acres $ 1,875 410 Parks Hidden Hollow Natural Area-3.19 Acres 5 23,925 411 Parks H-Rock-50.20 Acres $ 376,500 412 Parks Jordan River Parkway-74.44 Acres $ 558,300 413 Parks Miller Bird Refuge-8.68 Acres $ 65,100 414 Parks Modesto Park-4.70 Acres $ 35,250 415 Parks Regional Athletic Complex-26.85 Acres $ 201.375 416 Parks Riverview-10.51 Acres $ 78,825 417 Parks 10th E.Islands-0.86 Acres $ 6,450 418 Parks 1300 East Parking-1.75 Acres $ 13,125 419 Parks 1300 South 1500 East 0.25 Acres $ 1,875 420 Parks 13th Ave.8J-0.06 Acres $ 450 421 _ Parks 13th East-0.25 Acres $ 1,875 422 Parks 13th South Island-1.03 Acres $ 7,725 423 Parks 2 West(6N-Wan)-1.60 Acres $ 12,000 424 Parks 2nd South Islands-0.18 Acres $ 1,350 425 Parks 200 West(N Temple-4N)-0.17 Acres $ 1,275 426 Parks 6th East(s Temple-4th S)-2.80 Acres $ 21.000 27 Parks 8th West Islands(100 S-300 N)-1.50 Acres $ 11,250 428 Parks _ 7th East(13S-21S)-3.50 Acres $ 26,250 429 Parks 8th West(6-9s)-4.50 Acres $ 33,750 A B I C 1 D IE-I F G H l J K L M N I 0 _ 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet 2 Salt Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted _ ' 3 Process for Constraining Project List items-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration 4 Council Priority r •Arts and Culture a - •Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 e •Neighborhoods/Schools Level of •Parks and Open Space service Non-Discretionary •Sustainability 1-Existing or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Department March 2011 430 Parks Elizabeth Sherman-1.50 Acres $ 11,250 431 Parks Federal Heights Islands-0.63 Acres $ 4,725 432 Parks Foothills Islands-0.67 Acres $ 5,025 433 Parks Harvard Islands-0.37 Acres $ 2,775 ✓. 434 Parks Jefferson Circle-2.00 Acres $ 15,000 435 Parks Lead Circle-0.25 Acres $ 1,875 436 Parks Normandy-0.04 Acres $ 300 437 Parks Oneida-0.75 Acres $ 5,625 438 Parks Prison ISland-0.50 Acres $ 3,750 439 Parks Research Park Islands-8.47 Acres $ 63,525 440 Parks Skyline Island-0.25 Acres $ 1,875 441 Parks 17th South Retention-0.75 Acres $ 5,625 442 Parks 349 Plaza-0.25 Acres $ 1,875 443 Parks Almond Park-0.10 Acres $ 750 444 Parks Court Building-0.25 Acres $ 1,875 445 Parks Weseman-0.25 Acres $ 1,875 446 Parks Nelli Jack Park-0.25 Acres $ 1,875 447 Parks Roberta LaConia-0.25 Acres $ 1,875 448 Parks Stanton-0.25 Acres $ 1,875 449 Parks f Washington Park Parleys-10.00 Acres $ 200,000 450 Parks Mountain Dell-10.00 Acres $ 200,000 451 Fencing $ 1,213,500 $ 1,213,500 unchanged $ 805,000 cut 7 out of 15 projects $ 805,000 cull out of 15 projects 452 Parks 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park-1 $ 265,000 453 Parks 2 Ensign Peak Nature Park-1 $ 20,000 454 Parks 3 Wasatch Hollow Open Space-1 $ 25,000 455 Parks 4 Miller Bird Refuge-1 $ 15,000 456 Parks 5 Riverview-1 $ 25.000 457 Parks 6 Jordan River Parkway-1 $ 800,000 458 Parks Riverside-1 $ 5,000 459 Parks Sorensen-1 $ 5,000 460 Parks _ Sunnyside-1 $ 10,000 461 Parks _ Rotary Glen-1 $ 15.000 J 462 Parks Sherwood-1 $ 5,000 rw I A 1 B I C I o IEI F I c I H I I I J 1 K I L I M I N I o ' 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet 2 Salt Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted I Process for Constraining Project List Items-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration I _ —. T 1 j Council Priority •Arts and Culture •Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Level of •Parks and Open Space Service Non-Discretionary •Sustainabdity 1-Exlsbng or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Department March 2011 463 Parks victory-1 $ 2,500 464 Parks Hidden Hollow Natural Area-1 $ 8,000 465 Parks H-Rock-1 $ 8,000 466 Parks Modesto Park-1 $ 5,000 467 Asphalt $ 1,794,000 $ 1,794,000 unchanged $ 1,243,000 $ 1,243,000 468 Parks 1 Rosewood $ 91,000 469 Parks 2 Lindsey Gardens $ 52.000 470 Parks 3 Rotary Glen $ 76,000, 471 Parks 4 10th E Senior $ 105,000 472 arks 5 Sunnyside $ 183,000 473 Parks 6 Memory Grove $ 380.000 -4 Parks 7 Jordan $ 356,000 475 Parks 8 Sherwood $ 94,000 476 'Parks 9 Silver $ 11,000 477 Parks 10 Almond $ 11,000 478 Parks 11 11th Avenue $ 35,000 479 Parks 12 9th South $ 26,000 480 Parks 13 Popperton $ 22.000 481 Parks 14 Steiner Aquatics $ 352.000 482 Signage $ 254,750 $ 254,750 unchanged $ 192,150 unchanged $ 192,150 unchanged 483 Parks 1 Parley's Historic Nature Park-1 $ 31,000 484 Parks 2 Ensign Peak Nature Park and Trailhead-1 $ 3,000 485 Parks 3 Wasatch Hollow Open Space-1 $ 31,000 486 Parks 4 Jordan River Parkway-1 $ 68,000 487 Parks 5 Miller Bird Refuge-1 $ 11,000 488 Parks 6 Modesto Park-1 $ 3,000 489 Parks 7 Bend-In-The-River-1 $ 12,000 490 Parks 8 Bonneville Shoreline Trail-1 $ 26,000 491 Parks_ 9 H-Rock-1 $ 4,150 492 Parks 10 Alan Parsons-BST-1 $ 3,000 '93 Parks Bonneville Shoreline Preserve-1 $ 8,600 494 Parks City Creek-1 $ 11,000 _ 1495 Parks Ensign Peak-1 $ 3,000 A I B j C _I DIEjF G H 1 I J r K L M r N 1 0 . 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet _ Salt Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012.2021 Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted _ 3 Process for Constraining Project List Items-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration I e Council Priority .Arts and Culture •Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Leval of •Parks and Open Space Scrvke Non-Discretionary •Sustamability 1-Existing or Discretionary -Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Department March 2011 496 Parks Hidden Hollow Natural Area-1 $ 25.000 497 Parks Popperton Park-1 $ 3.000 498 Parks Riverview-1 $ 6,000 499 Parks Rotary Park-1 $ 3,000 500 Parks Twin Peaks-1 $ 3,000 501 Cemetery $ 12,800.000 $ 12,800,000 unchanged $ 2,000000 cut 85%;not project specific $ 2000000 cut 85%;not project specific 502 Parks Irrigation-60 Acres $ 5,000,000 503 Parks Restrooms-z $ 600,000 504 Parks Facilities-3 $ 2,200,000 505 Parks Roads,curb and gutter $ 5.000.000 506 Parks Parks Recovery Plan $ 50,000 $ 50,000 unchanged $ 50,000 unchanged $ 50,000 unchanged 507 Parks Parks,Open Space,and Trails Master Plan $ 75,000 S 75,000 unchanged $ 75,000 unchanged $ 75,000 unchanged Q 508 Parks Jordan River Master Plan $ 100,000 $ 100,000 unchanged $ 100,000 unchanged $ 100,000 unchanged - 509 Parks Foothills Recreation and Management Plan $ 75,000 $ 75,000 unchanged $ 75,000 unchanged $ 75,000 unchanged 510 $ 70,773,811 $ 70,773,811 $ 43,356,200 $ 43,356,200 511 512 Streets lee list for prioritization of projects within each category) - 513 Streets 1300 South Viaduct Rehabilitation $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000 unchanged $ 10,000,000 unchanged $ 10,000,000 unchanged 514 Streets 500/700 South-2800 West to 5600 West $ 14,760,000 $ 14,760,000 unchanged $ 14,760,000 unchanged $ 14,760,000 unchanged 515 Streets ADA Accessibility Ramps(-$3,800 per ramp) $ 10,000,000 $ 3,500,000- cut 65%;not project $ 1,300,000 cut another 12%;not project sped.$ 1,300,000 cut another 12%;not project spoor 516 Streets Sidewalk Rehabilitation/Sawcuteng $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 unchanged $ 700,000 cut 65%;not project specific $ 700,000 cut 65%;not project specific 517 Streets Deteriorated Sidewalk Replacement $ 20,000,000 S 3,500,000 cut 83%;not project $ 1,300,000 reduced cut to 77%;not project se$ 1,300,000 reduced cut to 77%;not project sp - 518 Sheets Indiana Avenue/900 South from Redwood to 3600 West $ 3,640,000 $ 3,640,000 unchanged $ 3,640,000 unchanged $ 3,640,000 unchanged 519 Streets Gladiola Street-1650 South to 2100 South $ 4,000,000 $ 4000,000 unchanged $ 4,000,000 unchanged $ 4,000,000 unchanged 520 Streets 4400 West from 700 South to 850 South $ 1,800,000 $ 1,600,000 unchanged $ 1,600,000 unchanged $ 1,600,000 unchanged 521 Streets Street Pavement Oven Y and Preservation $ 49,000,000 $ 10,000,000 cut 80%;not project$ 7,000.000 cut 30%;not project specific $ 7,000,000 cut 30%;not project specific 522 Streets Local Street Reconstruction $ 10,000,000 $ 10,000,000 unchanged $ 7,000,000 cut 30%;not project specific ,$ 7,000,000 cut 30%;not project specific 523 Streets Major Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of City Streets $ 114,000,000 $ 8,380,000 cut 93%;not project$ 8.360,000 unchanged $ 8,360,000 unchanged 524 Streets Concrete Street Rehabilitation $ 2,000,000 $ 2,000,000 unchanged -$ 2,000,000 unchanged $ 2,000,000 unchanged 525 Streets _ Bridge Rehabilnatlon $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 unchanged $ 200,000 cut 80%;not project specific $ 200,000 cut 80%;not project specific 526 _ $ 242,000,000 $ 74,360,000 $ 61,860,000 $ 61,860,000 Q A I B I C I D IEl F G ( H I J ` K L M 1 N 0 ' 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet 1 2 Salt Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 Items-Fended Since 10-Year Plan Submitted 3 Process for Constraining Project List Kerns-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration Council Priority -Arts and Culture -Economic Health of City -Local/Neighborhood ) Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Level or -Parks and Open Space Service Non-Discretionary •SustautabdttY 1-Existing or Discretionary -Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Department March 2011 527 528 Trans Transportation 529 Trans Replacement Traffic Signals($160,000 per unit) $ 8,000,000 $ 4.800,000 cut 40%;not project $ 2,400,000 cut another 30%;not project spec'$ 2,400 000 cut another 30%;not project spec' Pedeshsan Safety Devices(Flashing Crosswalk Light$00,000, Flashing School Crosswalk Lights-$25.000,Driver Feedback Sign- 530 Trans $8,000) $ 750,000 $ 750,000 unchanged $ 250,000 cut 33%;not project specific $ 250,000 cut 33%;not project sped 531 Trans New Bike Lane Installations $ 500,000 $ 500,000 unchanged $ 250,000 cut 50%-slower phasing $ 250,000 cut 50%-slower phasing 532 Trans Bike Lanes-200 South $ 6,520,000 $ 6,520,000 unchanged $ 6,520,000 unchanged $ 6.520.000 unchanged 533 Trans 900 South Rail Corridor $ 700,000 $ 700,000 unchanged $ 700,000 unchanged $ 700,000 unchanged 534 Trans New Traffic Signals $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000 unchanged $ 1,600,000 unchanged $ 1.600,000 unchanged 535 Trans 1300 East Traffic Safety-Phase 2 $ 1,000.000 $ 1,000,000 unchanged $ 500,000 cut 50%-slower phasing $ 500,000 cut 50%-slower phasing 536 Trans Parley's Shared Use Pathway $ 3,000,000 $ 3.000000 unchanged $ - seek other sources $ - seek other sources '37 Trans Jordan and Salt Lake Canal Shared Use Pathway $ 4,000,000 $ 4.000.000 unchanged $ - seek other sources $ - seek other sources Trans City Creek Trail $ 1,200,000 $ 1,200,000 unchanged $ moved to Parks $ moved to Parks 539 Trans Surplus Canal Shared Use Pathway $ 2,750.000 $ 2,750,000 unchanged $ - seek other sources $ - seek other sources 540 Trans Jordan River Trail and 100 South Railroad Crossing $ 4,000,000 $ 4,000,000 unchanged $ - moved to Parks $ - moved to Parks 541 Trans Street Lighting Replacement $ 5,000,000 $ 2000.000 cut 33%;not project $ 200,000 cut another 63%;funded elsewher$ 200,000 cut another 63%;funded elsewher 542 Trans 7CC Cameras $ 240,000 $ 240,000 unchanged $ 240,000 unchanged $ 240,000 unchanged 543 Trans Transportation Master Plan $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200.000 $ 200,000 544 $ 39,460,000 $ 33,260,000 $ 12,880,000 $ 12,860,000 545 546 Facilities-ongoing 547 ongoing $ 30,835,971 $ 27,235,971 unchanged $ 5,298,504 cut 80% $ 5.298,504 cut 80% 548 discretionary $ - $ 3,600,000 unchanged $ 3,900,000 increased to$3.9 M per year $ 3,900000 increased to$3.9 M per year 549 Fac 1 Pioneer Precinct-HVAC System and Lighting Energy Conservation $ 493,790 550 Fac 2 Justice Courts-HVAC System Upgrade and Energy Conservation $ 377,100 551 Fac 3 CBD-Area 4-Downtown Irrigation Water Conservation and Asset Re$ 135,586 552 Fac 4 Central Plant-Centeral Plant Heating,cooling system and structural s$ 233,783 553 Fac 5 Westside Senior Center-Building Shell Retrofit including roofing,sidin$ 110,093 554 Fac 6 SBD-Sugarhouse Business District Irrigation Water Conservation are$ 291,928 55 Fac 7 SpnngMobile Field-Energy efficiency project replacing HVAC,Conics$ 663,518 - 556 Fac 8 6th South Properties-Replace single pane window with Thermal dout$ 60.119 I A I B I C I D IEI F I c I H 1 l I J I K I L I M I N I o 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet 2 Salt Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted I 3 Process for Constraining Project List Items-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration I • Council Priority •Arts and Culture •Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Level of •Parks and Open Space See,. Non-Discretionary •Sustamnability 1-Existing or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Department March 2011 557 Fac 9 Coy and County Building-Fan Coil Unit Replacement 1st Floor South $ 170,292 558 Fac Admir City and County Building-Washington Square Event Power,whch pn$ 499,996 559 Fac Admir City and County Building-Fifth Floor Renovation to office space $ 884,301 560 Fac 10 City and County Building-Exterior Painting and Repair work at all woc$ 190,000 561 Fac 11 City and County Building-City 8 County Building,Stone Repairs,the $ 200,000 Existing 562 Facility Fac 12 City and County Building-City 8 County Building,Stone Upkeep bole $ 1,400,000 563 Fac 13 CDB-Area 4-Downtown Inigation Water Conservation and Asset Re$ 800,000 564 Fec 14 Firestation 5 and 2-Replace single-pane window with Thermal double$ 73,200 565 Fac 15 Firestation 1,4,6.8 7-Upgrade Fire station with full DDC controls an $ 900,000 566 Fac 16 City and County Building-Design and Construction of New Base Isola$ 1,000,000 0 567 Fac 17 Firestation 9,10,8 13-Upgrade Fire station with full DDC controls an $ 900,000 568 Fac 18 Firestation 1,4,6,7,9,10,8 13-Replace heating and Aircondabnin,$ 244,200 569 Fec 19 City and County Building and 600 South Properties-Replace heating,$ 80,500 570 Fac 20 SBD-Sugarhouse Business District Irrigation Water Conservation ant$ 268,886 _ 571 Fac 21 SBD-Sugathouse Business Detect Irrigation Water Conservation ant$ 1,200,000 572 Fac 22 City and County Building-Fan Coil Unit Replacement 3rd Floor South $ 194,620 573 Fac 23 City and County Building-Fan Coil Unit Replacement 3rd Floor North $ 182,456 574 Fac 24 City and County Building-Fan Coil Unit Replacement 1st Floor North $ 137,176 575 Fac 25 City and County Building-Fan Coil Unit Replacement 4th Floor North $ 170,292 576 Fec 26 City and County Building-Fan Coil Unit Replacement 2nd Floor North$ 156,129 577 Fac 27 City and County Building-Fan Coil Unit Replacement 2nd Floor South$ 137,176 578 Fac 28 City and County Building-Fan Coil Unit Replacement 4th Floor South $ 170,292 579 Fac 29 City and County Buibirlgr Fan Coil Unit Replacement 5th Floor $ 206,784 580 Fac 30 City and County Building-3rd 8 5th Floor Carpet,Access Fbonng an$ 745,907 581 Fac 31 City and County Building-2nd Floor,Carpet,Access Flooring and Ele$ 561,681 Q 582 Fac 32 City and County Building-4th Floor Carpet,Access Flooring and Den$ 748,907 583 Fac 33 Firestation 4,5 8 WSC-Parking Lot Repairs and Replacements $ 338,192 • A I B I C I D IEI F IG H I ( J K f L M N 0 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet 2 Sett Lyra City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 'Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted 3 Process for Constraining Project List lams-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration I Council Priority -Arts and Culture -Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood BusinessConstrained List April 2011 Constrained Lint May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Level of •Parks and Open Space Semce Non-Discretionary •SusWaubtltty 1-Existing or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Department March 2011 584 Fac 34 East Side Senor Center-ESSC-Re-roofing of Senior Center $ 109,800 585 Fac 35 City and County Building-1st Floor Carpet.Access Flooring and Elect$ 748,907 586 Fac 36 Library Parking Structure-Waterproofing of Concrete Structure Jointlt$ 305,000 Existing 587 Facility Fax 37 Plaza 349-Parking Structure Repairs and Resurface $ 261,682 588 Fac 38 SpnngMobile Field-Spring Mobile Field Concourse-B-Level Waterpr$ 368,915 589 Fat 39 Spring Mobile Field—Building Steel and Roof-deck Painting Project $ 1,079,763 590 Fac 40 City and County Building-Refinish interior Wood Work,clean,sandin1$ 150,000 591 Fac 41 Memorial House-Replace single pane window with Thermal double p$ 73,200 592 Fac 42 Central Plant-Chiller replacment and controls upgrade $ 300,000 Fac 43 Steiner East-HVAC replacment and controls upgrade $ 800,000 594 Fac Admir Fisher Mansion-Renovate and Restore Historic Fisher Mansion $ 1,900.000 595 Fac 44 Firestation 8-FS 8 Re-roofing of Station Built Up Roofing $ 61,000 596 Fac 44 Firestation 9-FS 9 Re-roofing of Station Built Up Roofing $ 61,000 597 Fac 45 Chase House-Replace heating and Air-conditioning add DDC control$ 55,000 598 Fac 46 Pioneer Precinct-Re-roofing of Pioneer Precinct $ 109,800 599 Fac 47 City and County Building-Replace Main Air-handlers on each floor $ 1,220,000 600 Fac 48 Chase House-Exterior Painting and Repair work $ too.000 601 Fac 49 Art Barn-Exterior Painting and Repair work $ 100,000 602 Fac 50 SLC Cemetry-Exterior Painting and Repair work $ 100,000 603 Fec 51 City and County Building-Generator and Fuel Tank Upgrade $ 250,000 604 Fac 52 Various Buildings-Upgrade and Replace Carpet and tile and other 80$ 250,000 605 Fac 53 Venous Buildings-Upgrade and Replace Life Safety Systems such al$ 250,000 606 Fax 54 Venous Buildings-Upgrade and Replace HVAC and Control Systems$ 250,000 607 Fac 55 Various Buildings-Upgrade and Replace Roofs and Insulation and de$ 250,000 - 78 Fac 56 Various Buildings-Upgrade and Replace Carpet and the and other no$ 250,000 609 Fec 57 Various Buildings-Upgrade and Replace Windows and glazing to hig $ 250,000 610 Fac 58 Various Buildings-Address structural and foundation Issues Identified $ 250,000 I A I B i C I_ o IEIFI G I H I I l J I K I L 1 M I N I o 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet - 2 Sat Lake City-Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 - Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted I 3 Process for Constraining Project List I Items-Recommended for Funding by Mayor/Administration 1 4 Council Priority -Arts and Culture •Economic Health of City •Local/Neighborhood Business Constrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved List October 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Level of -Parks and Open Space Service Non-Discretionary •Sustainability 1-Existing or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Department March 2011 611 Fac 59 Varous Buildings-Replace and upgrade water proofing systems $ 250,000 612 Fac 60 Various Buildings-Replace and upgrade CBD/SBD Pavers and brigs $ 250.000 613 Fac 61 Various Buildings-Replace and upgrade Generators end Fuel Systen$ 250,000 614 Fac 62 Various Buildings-Repaint Exterior of Buildings needing such action $ 250,000 615 Fat 63 Various Buildings-Upgrade and Replace Life Safety Systems such al$ 250,000 616 Fac 64 Various Buildings-Upgrade and Replace HVAC and Control Systems$ 250,000 617 Fac 65 Various Buildings-Upgrade and Replace Roofs and Insulation and de$ 250,000 618 Fac 66 Various Buildings-Upgrade and Replace Carpet and tile and other fib$ 250,000 619 Fac 67 Various Buildings-Upgrade and Replace Windows and glazing to hig-$ 250,000 620 Fac 68 Various Buildings-Address structural and foundation issues identified $ 250,000 621 Fac 69 Various Buildings-Replace and upgrade water proofing systems $ 250,000 622 Fac 70 Various Buildings-Replace and upgrade CBD/SBD Pavers and Imga $ 250,000 623 Fac 71 Various Buildings-Replace and upgrade Generators and Fuel Systen$ 250,000 624 Fac 72 Various Buildings-Repaint Exterior of Buildings need such action $ 250,000 625 Fac 73 Various Buildings-Upgrade and Replace Life Safety Systems such a $ 250,000 626 Fac 74 Various Buildings-Upgrade and Replace Energy/HVAC and Control$$ 250,000 ` 627 Fac 75 Various Buildings-Upgrade and Replace Roofs and Insulation and de$ 250,000 — 628 Fac 76 Various Buildings-Upgrade and Replace Carpet and the and other fio$ 250,000 629 Fec 77 Various Buildings-Upgrade and Replace Windows and glazing to hiq$ 250,000 630 Fac 78 Various Buildings-Address structural and foundation issues identified $ 250,000 631 Fac 79 Various Buiklings-Replace and upgrade water proofing systems $ 250.000 632 Fac Bo Various Buildings-Replace and upgrade CBD/SBD Pavers and Intros $ 250,000 633 Fac 81 Various Buildings-Replace and upgrade Generators and Fuel Systen$ 250.000 634 Fac 82 Various Buildings-Repaint Exterior of Buildings needing such action $ 250,000 635 $ 30,835,971 $ 30,835,971 5 9,198,504 $ 9,198,504 CO 636 637 CIP/Impact Fee Study Other $ 44,600 $ 44,600 $ 44,600 unchanged $ 44,600 unchanged 638 Percent for Art Other 5 1,000,000 5 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 unchanged $ 1,000,000 unchanged A I B j C j D IEI F G j H J K L M N 0 1 Attachment 3-Unconstrained List of Projects Spreadsheet 2 Salt Lake City•Capital Facilities Plan 2012-2021 Items-Funded Since 10-Year Plan Submitted Process for Constraining Project List Items-Recommended for Funding by MayorlAdministratlon �— 1 - Council::1 Arts andultEconomHealth ofCty I I Local/Nghborhood BusinessConstrained List April 2011 Constrained List May 2011 Council Approved Llst October 2011 •Neighborhoods/Schools Laval of •Parks and Open Space Service Non-DiscretIonary •Sustainability 1-Existing or Discretionary •Transportation and 2-Enhanced Articulated Needs 5 Project Mobility 3-New Capital Projects by Department March 2011 639 Cost Overruns Other f 800,000 1 800,000 1 600,000 cut by 25% 1 600,000 cut by 25 640 641 Ongoing General Fund Expenditures $ 414,244,382 5 240,404,382 5 150,459,304 E 150,459,304 642 643 Potential CAM Bond Issuance Projects-in priority order 644 Parking Pay Station • 645 SugarHouse Streetcar 646 Utah Performing Arts Center 647 Salt Lake City Public Market 648 Salt Lake City Convention Hotel 649 Downtown Streetcar _ WO Central Plant Upgrade/Hydrogen Cell Co-Generation _ 651 Regional Sports Complex-Phase 2 652 653 654 Projects Deferred until other revenue sources available - 655 Jordan River Trail and 100 South Railroad Crossing 656 Parleys(PRATT)Shared Use Pathway - 657 Surplus Canal Shared Use Pathway 658 659 660 SCANNED TO: l SCANNED BY: 1r MU M ( DATE: 5/3/i FRANK B. BRAY `++ «�i RALPH BECKER DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RECEIVED OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR MARY DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER DEPUTY DIRECTOR MAY 032011 ROBERT FARRINGTON,JR. DEPUTY DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _ Salt Lake City Mayor lr Date Received: s. r •1( David eritt,Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: f bl TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 28, 2011 Jill Remington-Love ------ FROM: Frank Gray, CED irector SUBJECT: 10-Year Fiscally Constraine e Facilities Plan STAFF CONTACT: LuAnn Clark, Director Housing and Neighborhood Development (801)535-6136,luann.clark@slcgov.com Mike Akerlow,Deputy Director Housing and Neighborhood Development (801)535-7966,mike.akerlow@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the Salt Lake City Council consider adopting a new 10-year fiscally constrained impact fee facilities plan and adopt an ordinance establishing impact fees. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Salt Lake City has hired Anne Westcott of Galena -_ Consulting to update the 10-year fiscally constrained impact fee facilities plan and the.impact fee program. The City will need to adopt the 10=year plan before we can adopt an update to the City's impact fee program. The attached 10-Year facilities plan has been reviewed and approved by the Mayor and is included in this transmittal to the City Council as part of the budget process. Impact fees have been updated based on the assumptions made in the fiscally-constrained facilities plan. Based on these assumptions a first draft of the Impact Fee Study is also attached and included in the transmittal to the City Council as part of the budget process. Anne Wescott will be available with Administrative staff to present these materials and support documents at the City Council's convenience. 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 404 P.O.BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114.5486 TELEPHONE:B01-535-6230 FAX:SD1-535-6005 www.sixtiov.com/cco t.' •mre.re aSUL4ING To: LuAnn Clark and Michael Akerlow,Salt Lake City HAND From: Anne Wescott,Galena Consulting Date: May 3,2011 Re: 10-Year Fiscally Constrained Capital Facilities Plan The City will need to adopt a filly constrained 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan(CFP)' which identifies all available revenues and other General Fund commitments to the CFP Fund before adopting any update to the City's impact fee program. To begin to develop the 10- Year CFP,each department went through an extensive process to identify future capital needs, including projects necessary to serve growth,upgrades to current capital facilities,and projects necessary to maintain the City's current capital assets. In order to address all of the City's capital needs,particularly those related to the maintenance of current assets,the 10-Year CFP would total almost$415 million,at least$300 million of which would need to be funded by General Fund revenues. The Departments constrained their CFPs to a 10-year total of$242 million by prioritizing projects based on factors including alignment with Mayoral direction,community input,public safety,ability to serve new growth,availability of other funding sources including CDBG and Class C funds,etc. Approximately$150 million of this amount would need to be funded by the General Fund. At'7%of eligible General Fund revenues,the General Fund contribution to the CFP Fund averages$15.3 million per year,or$153 million over the 10-year period. This amount is adequate to address the General Fund portion of the$242 million CFP. However,General Fund debt service,which has been around$4 million per year,will be increasing to approximately$11.8 million in the latter half of the 10-year plan. Approximately$5.3 million of this increase is related to the transfer of the SARR obligation from the RDA to the General formerly referred to as a Capital Facilities Plan or CIP 1 Fund. The other$2.5 million is a placeholder for new debt service to fund some portion of major Capital Asset Project priorities including the SugarHouse and Downtown streetcars, Utah Performing Arts Center,Salt Lake City Public Market,and Central Plant Upgrade/Hydrogen Cell Co-Generation Project. After debt service then,only$59 million in General Fund revenues are available to fund ten year's worth of capital projects for police,fire,parks,streets,transportation,and facilities. Fortunately,several other sources of revenues can augment available General Fund revenues, although with some restrictions for use. Within this 10-Year period,we have anticipated the appropriation of$92 million in additional revenue sources as follows: • $24 million in Class C funding(a$4 million reduction from historical levels); • $11 million in CDBG funding for capital projects in eligible areas(a$2 million reduction from historical levels; • $2.1 million in remaining Open Space bond revenues; • $31.3 million in impact fee-eligible revenues(pursuant to Council review and adoption); • $1.9 in remaining bond revenues from the Fleet Facility for improvements at the City and County Building, • $1.5 million in revenues already appropriated for capital projects in FY11,including the 1300 South Viaduct local match($200,000);200 South Bike Lane Project ($620,000 pending Budget Amendment#4 approval);and the Surplus Canal Shared Use Pathway($700,000 pending Budget Amendment#4 approval); • $9.3 million in Federal Highway Administration funding for the 1300 South Viaduct;and • $11 million estimated from the sale of the existing Public Safety and Police Evidence facilities. Even with the addition of these revenue assumptions into our model,the City only has the capacity to fund$151 million of$242 million of priority General Fund capital projects. Therefore,we have had to eliminate another$92 million from the departmental CFPs. Deep cuts have been made to the CFP across the departments,mostly in repairs and improvements to current assets,as these projects are the only ones with no other potential funding sources.These cuts will most likely have a long team impact on the condition of these assets and future costs to replace. Some large capital priorities of the administration had to be cut as well in order to obtain a fiscally balanced CFP. •Page 2 Funding reductions,project re-scheduling,and/or project elimination included: Fire—The Fire Training Center,a priority of the Fire Department and Administration for some time,was cut as its construction depends almost solely on General Fund revenue sources. Fire Station#14 was left in the CFP,but moved back a few years. In order to fund the project,however,it had to be assumed that$5 million from the sale of the existing Public Safety Building will earmarked for the construction of Fire Station#3 in FY14-15. Police -No cuts were made to the Police Department's CFP as they only have one project on their list—the Crime Lab and Evidence Facility. In order to fund this project,however, it had to be assumed that$6 million from the sale of the existing Public Safety Building would be earmarked for this facility. Parks—With very few revenue sources other than General Fund contribution,the Parks CFP was reduced significantly. Approximately$30 million was cut from the Parks CFP, by aggressively reducing the scope and amount of improvements in existing parks by 50%. In addition,an initiative to increase the number of miles of open space trails was eliminated. While a comprehensive list of specific prioritized projects and locations has been developed,we did not schedule these projects specifically in lime. Instead,an average funding amount was allocated to each fiscal year,with the assumption that the specific projects would be identified during the budget process based on needs at that time. Streets—Much of the Streets CFP is funded by sources other than the General Fund, including Class C,CDBG,and Federal grants. However,over$13 million and 50%of General Fund projects were cut from the Streets CFP,including:a 77%decrease in funding for ADA Accessibility Ramps;a 70%reduction in sidewalk replacement and rehabilitation; a 30%reduction in street pavement overlay and preservation;a 40%decrease in local street reconstruction;a 20%reduction in major rehabilitation and reconstruction;and an 80% reduction in bridge rehabilitation. Transportation—Over$20 million was cut from the Transportation CFP,including a 50% reduction in traffic signal replacement;a 33%reduction in pedestrian safety device installation;a 50%reduction in new bike lane installations;and a 50%reduction in the scope of the 1300 East Traffic Safety project Furthermore,all additional TCC cameras •Page 3 were eliminated,all General Fund revenue for streetlight replacement after FY11-12 was eliminated,the Parley's and City Creek Shared Use Pathways were eliminated,and the Jordan River Trail crossing at 100 South project was eliminated. Facilities—The inventory of capital needs for existing City facilities is valued at over$30 million. In order to ensure that there is some dedicated stream of General Fund revenue available for repairs and improvements to existing City facilities,$390,000 per year was earmarked for Facilities. In FY11-12,an additional$1.9 million is identified for improvements to the City and County Building from bond revenues from the Fleet Facility project. In FY13 through FY16,an additional$610,000 in discretionary funding is identified for ongoing facilities projects fora total of$1 million annually. This decreases to $500,000 annually in FY17 through FY21. The Facilities Division's CFP includes a list of projects by facility. This list has not been constrained to meet the funding level—it is assumed that each year a list of projects within the funding level will be presented and approved. Next Steps The attached 10-Year CFP has been reviewed and approved by the Mayor for transmittal to the Council as part of the budget process. Our process was focused on developing a balanced 10-Year Plan according to available revenues and Administration directive. Each of these reductions is likely to result in some degree of negative impact to the City,its residents and businesses.We anticipate a number of policy issues will need to be discussed prior to a find CFP approval. Impact fees have been updated based on the assumptions made in the fiscally-constrained CFP. Council revisions to the CFP will not likely make a significant impact to the impact fee calculations,as the revisions are most likely going to be focused on General Fund and other revenue source projects. Therefore,also attached is the first draft of the Impact Fee Study for Administration review and transmittal to the City Council as part of the budget process. I am available to present these materials and support any discussions at the Council's convenience. •Page 4 IRWIN 111 1111111114 1' ill i¢ , . . I 1I „Wan lI ii 111 IF . iI . MP RI V K ii i ii — i ' iii I Puri i i 11; i! i Hi Um ail U v I a. oevne a $ , as Pi i k a 1 ti;WW1 i iii MP 111 I i.5.1 iii la ki`1a j j II l . I Ii I i� 11111111 11181: t Ii(IIIIii 1iii IiIiIJiIJi' Salt Lake City-All Departments Capital knprovemsnt Plan 2012-2021-Fiscally Cena ine0 ' -. .._..,..,.'''' 145-7" :riT`'. ^*.'-`s y• '.'4''.1-^ 7?'' „4nF •pt'w.:}`. "Y:, e•z .195' r-). ,Nra.. 7', s` Fire $ 12,400,000 $ 1,250.000 $ - S 5,100,000 $ - $ - S 0,050,000 $ - $ - $ 12,400,000 Pollee S 9,140,000 S 00,000 $ 9,000,000 S - S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 9,050,000 Plats and Open Space $ 44,156,200 $ 4,455,520 $ 4,950,520 $ 4,805,020 $ 4,205,820 S 4,156,520 $ 4.230,6620 5 5,366420 $ 4,155,020 $ 4,155,020 $ 3,555,520 $ 44,105,200 Streets $ 61,360,000 $ 15,575,350 $ 5,790,500 S 5,505,850 S 5,184,000 S 5,580,000 $ 4,596,260 $ 4,562,150 $ 5,576,500 $ 4,163,500 $ 4,550,000 S 01,350,000 TranepodaHal S 12620,000 $ 3,270,000 $ 3,130,000 $ 2,900,000 $ 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 S 370,000 S 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 $ 12020,000 FadMIM S 9,198,504 $ 2290,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 908,604 S 1,000,000 S 1,000,000 $ 1,000.000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500.000 $ 5006000 1 9,108,604 CMmpac*Fee Update S 44,800 S • $ - $ - I - S 44,500 $ - S - I - $ - $ - S 44,000 PoraedforArt $ 1,000,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 S 100,003 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 S 102000 8 1.003,000 Ov.men $ 000,000 s eo,000 $ 01000 $ 50,003 $ 00.000 $ 40.000 $ 80.000 $ 60,000 $ 60.000 S 60,000 $ mow $ 500.000 Sub-Total $ 150,519,304 $ 27,000,970 $ 15,051,220 $ 23,350,974 S 16,179,1320 $ 11,291,020 $ 10,515,870 $ 11,247,770 $ 16,972,120 0 9,349,120 $ 9,401,020 $ 160,469,304 Minor Capital Memo TOO $ - $ 150419,304 $ 27A80,170 $ 15.061.220 $ 23,341074 S 10.179,020 $ 11,201,020 $ 10,815,870 $ 11,247,770 5 18,172,120 $ 9,340,120 $ 9,401,820 $ 180,469,304 i a Page 6 sit Lake City-AS Departments Capital Improvement wan 2012.2021-Flsceny Constrained Are $ 12,400,003 $ 4,737,000 3 7,983,000 $ 2,683,000 $ - $ - 3 4,737,000 3 - $ 6, -00 Op0,000 S 'L'�400,000 Pollee $ 9,140,000 a 2,295,000 $ 6,796,000 a 795,000 $ - $ - $ Z205,000 a - S 0,000,030 $ 9,000,000 Perks and Open Space $ 44,166,200 3 7,093,500 i 36,462,700 S 29,082,700 $ - $ 5,300,000 a 7,603400 a - $ 2,100,000 $ '44,168.200 Streets $ 61,380,000' $ 13,680,000 s 47,680,000 $ 9,860,090 $ 24,000,000 8 4,600,000 $ 13,830,000 $ 9,320000 $ 200,000 $ 61,3e0000 Transportation $ 1$620,000 9 2,322,000 $ t0,29 ,000 $ 9,048,000 S - S - $ 2,322,000$ - $ 1,250,000 $ 12,620,000 Realm $ 9,196,504 S - 3 9,196,504 $ 7,298,504 1 - $ - S -s - s 1,900,000 $ 6,196,604 ClPempect tree Update $ 44,600 3 44,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - 3 44,000$ - $ - 3 44,600 PerantforArt S 1,000,000 S - $ 1,003,000 $ 400,000 S - $ 800,000 $ -$ - $ - $ 1,000,000 Overrun* $ 600,000 - $ 600 000 $ 100 0p0 S - $ •••000 a -$ - $ - a ... ... Sub-Total $ 150,519,304 3 30,782,100 $ 119,807,204 3 58,927,204 $ 24,000,000 $ 11,000,000 S 30,702,100 $ 9,320,000 3 10,460,000 S 160,459,304 MUa Capital Rants TUD s 180,511,30/ a 30,712,100 s 119,117,204 8 59..27,2414 $ 24,090,000 $ 11,000,000 $ 30,712,100 $ 14330.000 $ 16.454000 S 1e0,461,304 _ Jam;' 4._-__ _ _._:,Iai...::r;�...-____:,g 1: ___-,-:J avufeble tier debt service $ 69,921,204 $ 24,000,000 $ 11,000,000 330,762.100 a 9,320,000 3 16,454000 $ 150,459,304 differences (0) S --$ - $ - i - a - S . This does not s000ynt for funding forete hydrogen Cal Co-0sneratlon Project,2 94setatrs,Parting Meter Upgrade, Utah Pertbmdnp Arts Center,Salt Leke Pubilo Maket,Salt Lake Canvation Hotel,or Utah Thededetadinp Renovation %tech are[mane!estimated et over$120M.These projects as Stslj to betndsd wtih bands,prints,or abrorsouees •Page 7 4 I Salt Lake City Fire Department Capital Improvement Plan,2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained r v yri'•d:.• r . �r -Xri s? . T � :M�� I �•.r + ci'viL <s a a •:"'.i y;,iM1.�'. 'ti , ;3l Ati4..„,r . I..Pl•`.-__ , ...+ b y,tr,,,; F. ,r,i''.'I F1 Facilities 2012 Flre Station#3-Relocation and Expansion;Land Acquleltion $ 1,200,000 33% $ 395,000 $ 804,000 2015 Fin:Station#3-Relocation and Expansion;Construction 15,000 1.00 $ 5,100,000 33% $ 1,683,000 $ 3,417,000 2019 Fire Station#14 15,000 5.00 $ 5,100,000 33% $ 1,683,000 $ 3,417,000 Apparatus • 2019 Truck for Fire Station#14 to serve Southwest growth $ 950,000 100% $ 950,000 $ - Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research Impact Fee Study $ 11,150 100% $ 11,150 $ - Standards of Cover Shady $ 50,000 50% $ 25,000 $ 25,000 Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance $ 2,396,845 $ 2,398,845 cn n Notes: Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 3/31/11 •Page 8 Salt Lake City Police Department Capital Improvement Plan,2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained Fadlitles 2014 Police Evidence and Crime Lab Faclay 100,000 2.00 $ 9,000,000 25% $2,250,000 $ 6,750.000 Plus Coat of Fes-R.Iit.d Research Impact Fee Study $ 11,150 100% $ 11,150 $ - CM Lab/Er/dance Fedity Study $ 140,000 25% $ 35,000 $ 105,000 Minus Impact Faa Fund Balance •Page 9 . 1 11 i I I BLit 8g g y li dN ..R A t{ ! t " s 1t 11 4 4 4 1 S 1" 1 1 I 1 k• 4r a g R A R ,i C Q k x t. i r r.'. • f:.. w_ :: ! ! ! ! . 3Y q ww wr w _ w w $ w .' - i I 3t a i} 1 k. i ii i I a 1 j I; : I 1 ill , III I fit 1 .111 _ 1 • :; li l ig it 1 i 3 1if/if i . 1 wit M ,H1 -111 . .1111§1§)§ 41g. .0 ,] 4 NN N ,IR11 III ' ill"! ' � •: �Q( QQ S�Qj ``pppp��CCaQ i ' FR'1 ' 11701 1 4R1' MN N ow N M N M 1f f 111 f ' Gillis -" ill' , f f ' la- 7 RA' f S f 1iJ1 a N _ .. M f g$$g f f .Olgg$ = IEW 0 . SFaA 1�7� 0 _ MY M i ,i _ N N N ) QQ MN M b , i 114§ . . .11114§4 r N N , ''. la4§§§§§14aakv4 ligglg§u, : Pt R , YNYNNNN MNNN MM♦ M NMNNN N,� NM M Y I8. i 8 1 iJ111!i11ii I i ' PI 1 ��la : :, fliolliimilfig iimill lib I .as 1 : ! ! !! §/§d{§§ eaf1 $00 w . w ... w ;Id": " ;ti, a H s g ggg g eg ii r V.. w wn ww.N w _ • I. eH x 77 w w�+ a d' '..w.-w ‘ki N. 6 F 'Oil it 01B 1 !PO! f f :i Is N .✓w w X` Cw.N I 11 I ,•' + ' x ww N:., k31•:1.:.; , N i 1 4 aaaaaaaaaaa aaaaa ill w •:- ddstdd dd s Rgq i d F .11 • 1 1l ' 1lltiliHifl11 III 1.111gF sit i}'err - • is ,i 1 . NM 1 1 1 DR HMI t 1 , inn Ifni i I Rom i !Human; ill 1' 0 I 1 1 1 1 i ! 1 I ft ii i i I I jllj i 1 Iliii 1 fib i JM4IIJ all l I in I 0 Pi I I Milli ii 1 1011 !II I Iliiiiiild I Ili / 'I i 11111 .pim!. id i If mil i mmHg!! fli fll 0 11 IU l! as a Wilful imuiiM 1 iii 1 11 it 1 J r l f111fJ ; # iTill i 1 iiii##iiiiii III 111 Ili s iai i t manual a s La • -■ w • w mow• » a »xa»cash & gA�iiIARAAiiFill A a R t » a� tt U 111111 1111111111 IN 1111111111 1 11 1 $ s 1 $ II I iiI iii 1I II„§ 1 I lit itin I if Nil! i 1113 D f a i iA hi ti IIIJJhJ1flIt f I "pi I i III i Intl I iii i Hill I iii NM I h re 11 1 f $ �� II #111111M/IIII it /111111## I I Hi J JJJJJ J Hi J JIMMM IIII H HMMMJ • i z Og133 7 3 Q tiB a 0 0 300 6 000E0 0 3011 R seggc R RRR R Magi Salt Lake City Capital Facilities Plan and Impact Fee Study Draft Report May 2,2011 Prepared by: Anne Wescott Galena Consulting 8SULTING� Section I. Introduction This report regarding updated impact fees for Salt Lake City is organized into the following sections: • An overview of the report's background and objectives; • A definition of impact fees and a discussion of their appropriate use; • An overview of land use and demographics; • A description of the City's 10-Year Fiscally Constrained Capital Facilities Plan (CFP);' • A step-by-step calculation of impact fees; • A list of implementation recommendations;and • A brief summary of conclusions. Background and Objectives Salt Lake City hired Galena Consulting to complete an update of the City's police,fire,parks, and roadway impact fees. The scope of work included an analysis of current conditions,service areas,levels of service,and capital infrastructure;an analysis of current and future land uses and growth projections;the development of an updated,fiscally-constrained capital facilities plan (CFP);a calculation of impact fees required to finance capital facilities necessitated by growth to continue the current levels of service;and recommendations on the implementation and administration of proposed fees. This document presents impact fees based on the City's demographic data and infrastructure costs;calculates the City's monetary participation;and outlines specific fee implementation recommendations.Credits can be granted on a case-by-case basis;these credits are assessed when each individual building permit is pulled. • Definition of Impact Fees Impact fees are one-time assessments established by local governments to assist with the provision of Capital Improvements necessitated by new growth and development.Impact fees are governed by principles established in Title 11,Chapter 36,Utah Code, known as the Impact Fee Act,which specifically gives local political subdivision the authority to levy impact fees.The 'The Utah Impact Fee Act requires the development of a Capital Facilities Plan(CFP). This reference is interchangeable with what the City refers to as a Capital Improvement Plan(CFP). 2 DRAFT REPORT Utah Code defines an impact foe as"... a payment of money imposed upon new development activity as a condition of development approval to mitigate the impact of the new development on public facilities."2 "Development activity"means any construction or expansion of a building,structure,or use,and change in use of a building or structure,or any changes in the use of land that creates additional demand and need for public facilities. "Development approval"means any written authorization from a local political subdivision that authorizes the commencement of development activity. "Public facilities"means only the following capital facilities that have a life expectancy of 10 or more years and are owned or operated on behalf of a local political subdivision or private entity: water rights and water supply,treatment,and distribution facilities;wastewater collection and treatment facilities;storm water,drainage,and flood control facilities;municipal power facilities; roadway facilities;parks,recreation,open space and trails;and public safety facilities. "Roadway facilities"means streets or roads that have been designated on an officially adopted subdivision plat,roadway plan,or general plan of a political subdivision,together with all necessary appurtenances. "Roadway facilities"also includes associated facilities to federal or state roadways only when the associated facilities:(i)are necessitated by the new development; and(ii)are not funded by the state or federal government."Public safety facility"means a building constructed or leased to house police,fire,or other public safety entities;or a fire suppression vehicle costing in excess of$500,000. Utah fee restrictions and requirements.The Impact Fee Act places numerous restrictions on the calculation and use of impact fees,all of which help ensure that local governments adopt impact fees that are consistent with federal law.Some of those restrictions include: • Impact fees must estimate the proportionate share of the costs of impacts on system facilities that are reasonably related to new development activity;3 ■ Impact fees may not include costs for qualifying public facilities that will raise the level of service for the facilities above the level of service that is supported by existing residents4; • Impact fees may not cure deficiencies in a public facility serving existing development;5 2 See Section 11-36-102,Utah Code. 3 See Sections 11-36-201(5),Utah Code. As explained further in this study,proportionality is the lbundation of a defensible impact fee.To meet substantive due process requirements,an impact fee must provide a rational relationship (or nexus)between the impact fee assessed against new development and the actual need for additional capital facilities.An impact fee must substantially advance legitimate local government interests.This relationship must be of "rough proportionality."Adequate consideration of the factors outlined in Section 67-8207(2)ensure that rough proportionality is reached.See Banbury Development Corp.v.South Jordan,631 P.2d 899(1981);Dollan v.Cl(y of 7lgard,512 U.S.374(1994). 4 See Section 11-36-201(60X4),Utah Code 5 See Section 11-36-202(5),Utah Code 3 DRAFT REPORT • • Impact fees must be incurred or encumbered within 6 years from the date they are collected.Fees may be held in certain circumstances beyond the 6-year time limit if the governmental entity can identify an extraordinary and compelling reason;6 • The City must consider all revenue sources,including impact fees and the anticipated dedication of system facilities,to finance the impacts on system facilities7;and • Impact fees cannot contain any cost for operation and maintenance of public facilities;8 In addition,the Impact Fee Act requires the following: • The City must prepare and adopt a Capital Facilities Plan to determine the public facilities required to serve new development;9 • The City provide a schedule of impact fees for each type of development based on identified service areas;10 • Impact fees must be maintained in one or more interest-bearing accounts; and • The City must file an annual report identifying all impact fees collected and revenues expended.12 How should fees be calculated?State law requires the City to implement the Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)methodology to calculate impact fees.The City can implement fees of any amount not to exceed the fees as calculated by the CFP approach.This methodology requires the City to describe its service areas,forecast the land uses,densities and population that are expected to occur in those service areas over the 10-year CFP time horizon,and identify the capital facilities that will be needed to serve the forecasted growth at the planned levels of service,assuming the planned levels of service do not exceed the current levels of service. Only those items identified as growth-related on the CFP are eligible to be funded by impact fees. Once the essential capital planning has taken place,impact fees can be calculated.The Impact Fee Act places many restrictions on the way impact fees are calculated and spent,particularly via the principal that local governments cannot charge new development more than a"proportionate share"of the cost of public facilities to serve that new growth.The proportionate share concept is designed to ensure that impact fees are calculated by measuring the needs created for capital 6 See Section 11-36-201(6)(bXI),Utah Code. 7 See Section 11-36-201(3),Utah Code. 8 See Section 11-36-201(6)(bx2),Utah Code. 9 See Section 11-36-201(2)(a),Utah Code. 10 See Section 11-36-202(2Xa),Utah Code. 11 See Section 11-36-301,Utah Code. 12 See Section 11-36-301,Utah Code. 4 DRAFT REPORT r facilities by development being charged the impact fee;do not exceed the cost of such facilities; and are"earmarked"to fund growth-related capital facilities to benefit those that pay the impact fees. Impact fees should take into account the following: ■ Any appropriate credit,offset or contribution of money,dedication of land,or construction of system facilities; • • Payments reasonably anticipated to be made by or as a result of a new development in the form of user fees and debt service payments; • That portion of general tax and other revenues allocated by the City to growth- related system facilities;and • All other available sources of funding such system facilities. Through data analysis and interviews with the City,Galena Consulting identified the share of each capital facility needed to serve growth.The total projected capital facilities needed to serve growth were then allocated to new residential and non-residential development with the resulting amounts divided by the appropriate growth projections from 2012 to 2021.Among the advantages of the CFP approach is its establishment of a spending plan to give developers and new residents more certainty about the use of the particular impact fee revenues. " Other fee calculation considerations.The basic CFP methodology used in the fee calculations is presented above.However,implementing this methodology requires a number of decisions.The considerations accounted for in the fee calculations include the following: • Allocation of costs is made using a service unit which is a standard measure of consumption,use,generation or discharge attributable to an individual unit."The service units chosen by the study team for every fee calculation in this study are linked directly to residential dwelling units and non-residential square feet. • A second consideration involves refinement of cost allocations to different land uses.In this analysis,the study team has chosen to use the highest level of detail supportable by available data.As a result,in this study all impact fees are allocated among residential and non-residential development,with the exception of streets impact fees. Streets fees are allocated to specific land uses according to trip generation data from the Institute of Transportation Engineers(ITE)manual.These land uses include single and multi-family residential;and retail,office,and industrial land uses. • Current Assets and Capital Improvement Plans The CFP approach estimates future capital facility investments required to serve growth over a fixed period of time.The impact fee study team has used a 10-year time period. s DRAFT REPORT The types of costs eligible for inclusion in this calculation include contract construction prices; the costs of acquiring land,improvements,materials and fixtures;the cost for planning,surveying and engineering fees for service provided for and directly related to the construction of system improvements;and debt service on obligations issued to finance the costs of system improvements.13 Fire suppression vehicles with a value over$500,000 are also eligible.14 The total cost of facilities over the 10 years is referred to as the"CFP Value"throughout this report. The cost of this impact fee study is also impact fee eligible for all impact fee categories.Each fee category was charged its pro-rated percentage of the cost of the impact fee study. The forward-looking 10-Year CFP includes some facilities that are only partially necessitated by growth(e.g.,facility expansion partially due to upgrade and partially in order to add capacity for service provision).The study team met with the City to determine a defensible metric for including a portion of these facilities in the impact fee calculations.A general methodology used to determine this metric is discussed below.In some cases,a more specific metric was used to identify the growth-related portion of such facilities.In these cases,notations were made in the applicable section. Fee Calculation In accordance with the CFP approach described above,we calculated impact fees by answering the following seven questions: 1. Who is currently served by the City Police,Fire,Parks,and Streets/ Transportation Departments?This includes the number of residential units and non-residential square feet. 2. What is the current level of service provided by the City?Since an important purpose of impact fees is to fund the capital facility necessary to maintain the current service level,it is necessary to know the levels of service it is currently providing to the community. 3. What current assets allow the City to provide this level of service?This provides a current inventory of assets used by the City,such as facilities,land and equipment (where eligible).In addition,each asset's replacement value was calculated and summed to determine the total value of the Departments' current assets. 4. What is the current investment per residential household and non-residential square foot?In other words,how much have current residential and non-residential land uses"paid into"the total value of current departmental assets? 5. What future growth is expected in the City?How many new residential households and non-residential square feet will the City serve over the CFP period? How many more people will be demanding a continuation of the current level of service enjoyed by City residents? 13 See Section 11-36-202(1Xo). 14 See Section 11-36-102(14). 6 DRAFT REPORT .00144 6. What new infrastructure is required to serve future growth? For example,how many new parks or fire stations will be needed by the City within the next ten years to maintain the current service level? 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new infrastructure? We calculated an apportionment of new infrastructure costs to future residential and nonresidential land-uses for the City. Then,using this distribution,the impact fees were determined. Addressing these seven questions,in order,provides the most effective and logical way to calculate impact fees for the City.In addition,these seven steps satisfy and follow the regulations set forth earlier in this section. Not all capital costs are associated with growth.Some capital costs are for repair and replacement of aging facilities(e.g.,standard periodic investment in existing facilities such as roofing or HVAC repairs).These costs are not impact fee eligible.Some capital costs are for betterment of facilities,or implementation of new services(e.g.,an upgraded training facility).These costs are generally not entirely impact fee eligible.Some costs are for expansion of facilities to accommodate new development at the current level of service(e.g.,acquisition and construction of a fire station to serve new growth).These costs are impact fee eligible. Because there are different reasons why.the City invests in capital projects,the study team conducted an analysis on all projects listed in each CFP: • Growth.To determine if a project is solely related to growth,we ask"Is this project designed to maintain the current level of service as growth occurs?"and"Would the City still need this capital project if it weren't growing at all?"Growth projects are only necessary to maintain the City's current level of service as growth occurs.It is thus appropriate to include 100 percent of their cost in the impact fee calculations. An example of a purely growth related project would be additional park acreage to continue the current ratio of acreage to population. • Repair&Replacement.We ask,"Is this project related only to fixing existing infrastructure?"and"Would the City still need it if it weren't growing at all?" Repair and replacement projects have nothing to do with growth.It is thus not appropriate to include any of their cost in the impact fee calculations. One example of this type of project would be a playground replacement. • Upgrade.We ask,"Would this project improve the City's current level of service?" and"Would the City still do it even if it weren't growing at all?"Upgrade projects have nothing to do with growth.It is thus not appropriate to include any of their cost in the impact fee calculations. One example of this type of project would be the parking pay station major capital asset project. ■ Mixed. Some capital projects are partially necessitated by growth,but also include an • element of repair,replacement and/or upgrade.In this instance,a cost amount between 0 and 100 percent should be included in the fee calculations.Although the ? DRAFT REPORT project might be an upgrade of or replacement to an existing facility,its scope will create capacity necessary to serve projected growth. A specific example of this within this study is the new Evidence/Crime Lab facility. While this project can be considered an upgrade to the current facility,which is not generally impact fee eligible,part of the purpose of the new facility is to add space to process and house additional evidence associated with growth. It should be understood that growth is expected to pay only the portion of the cost of capital facilities that are growth-related.The City will need to plan to fund the pro rata share of partially growth-related capital facilities with revenue sources other than impact fees within the time frame that impact fees must be spent.These values will be calculated and discussed in Section VII of this report. Acknowledgements We would like to thank the following for their cooperation in the development of this report: • LuAnn Clark and Michael Akerlow,Housing and Neighborhood Development Division, for service as the project managers and City liaisons. • Deputy Chief Tim Doubt,Sergeant Scott Teerlink,Deputy Chief Brian Dale,Battalion Chief Robert McMicken,John Vuyk,Rick Graham,Emy Maloutas,Lee Bollwinkel, Dell Cook,John Naser,Lynn Jarman,Tim Harpst,Kevin Young,Dan Bergenthal,Alden Dreinholt,Paul Nielson,Marilyn Lewis,Gina Chamness,Randy Hillier,Sherrie Collins, Dan Mule and Marina Scott for their significant attention to the development of the updated Capital Facilities Plan. 8 DRAFT REPORT Section IL Land Uses City services are measured in terms of number of population served,physical structures to be protected,and trips generated. Knowing how much the population,residential households and non-residential square feet are projected to increase assists city staff in determining how many and what type of new capital facilities will be needed within the planning period. As noted in Section I,it is necessary to allocate capital facility plan(CFP)costs to residential and non-residential development when calculating impact fees.The study team performed this allocation based on the number of new households,non-residential square footage,and new trips projected to be added over the ten-year period. The following Exhibit II-1 presents the current and future population projections for the Salt Lake City. Exhibit 11-1. Current and Future Population for Salt Lake City 2010-2020 Population 188,440 195,263 8,823 5% Source:2010 U.S.Census,the Wasatch Front Regional Council Transportation Plan 2011-2040,and the 2009 American Community Survey. Salt Lake City currently serves 186,440 persons.By 2020,the population is projected to increase by 8,823 persons to 195,263 persons,a 5%increase. The City must plan for the necessary capital facilities to serve these additional residents. In order to apportion the costs of the capital facilities necessitated by growth over the ten-year planning period,it is necessary to determine the number of new units of development among residential and non-residential development,and then convert both land uses to square feet.The following Exhibit II-2 presents the current and future number of residential households and non- residential square feet,and their distribution as a total of all new development. 9 DRAFT REPORT Exhibit 11-2. Land Use Distribution,Salt Lake City,Utah,2010-2020 L!.�I'� ��,`•.�� .�. 4 r:R•,F';'is.`�i:.:`k�ty�y'G^. a,•F..Qe}'4as: e!' 'yR'v,- ?.+.eYY�iL'A!�:.�:N,uWt':l f•Ya:}u 4 i' „;u:tt;ti rt €.Tx. Y :�y,i. v xsr 3 Y I, '` NA? . Y:Rr�': .4i74, +,,., 4..�' i''�1'4;r Residential(h units) 80,382 84,18E 3,803 6,667,781 69% aMel►Funey 42,270 53% 44,271 2.000 3,701,717 W49iaaay 38,002 47% 50.804 1,003 1,903,064 Norweelderdlel(In square feet) 82,909,311 88,83Z873 3,923,582 41% Total 9,591,343 100% Nova: Number of Reidental mils vetsbaned on 2005.2009 Mariam Coonueity Sava data and U.S.COME homing duoWalMice data nem 1973.2009. Non•addentid Kure Soong of 1,031 square foot perresidanil mot wen obtained by C13 Bidrnd Eta Red Male 2010 Yor•Eed Report Salt Lake City currently has 80,362 residential units. 53%of these(42,270)are single-family, while 47%(38,092)are multi-family. There are currently 82,909,311 square feet of non- residential square footage(office,retail,and industrial).Based on square foot conversion, residential development represents 59%of current land use,while non-residential development represents 41%. Growth projections provided by the Wasatch Front Regional Council indicate Salt Lake City is expected to grow by approximately 3,803 residential units by 2020. 2,000 of these are anticipated to be single-family units,while 1,803 are anticipated to me multi-family units. An additional 3,923,562 square feet of non-residential square footage is expected to be added by 2020. Demographic and land-use projections are some of the most variable and potentially debatable components of an impact fee study,and in all likelihood the projections used in our study will not prove to be 100 percent correct.As each CFP is tied to the City's land use growth,the CFP and resulting fees can be revised based on actual growth as it occurs. 10 DRAFT REPORT Section III. Fire Imp act Fees In this section,we calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Fire Department following the seven question method outlined in Section I of this report. 1. Who is currently served by the Salt Lake City Fire Department? As outlined in Section II,the Salt Lake City Fire Department currently serves 186,440 residents in 80,362 residential units,and 82,909,311 square feet of non-residential square footage(office, retail,industrial and institutional). 2. What is the current level of service provided by the Salt Lake City Fire Department? Salt Lake City's Fire Department currently provides a level of service of an average response time of 4 minutes 28 seconds. 3. What current assets allow the Salt Lake City Fire Department to provide this level of service? The following Exhibit III-1 summarizes the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Fire rk. Department. 11 DRAFT REPORT Exhibit III-i. Current Assets—Salt Lake City Fire Department mot.. _ Syr,:a. - -•• :ti..a-IR:i: :.3`..-"".:_�•n� �,LT✓tA.)�v. ,�. L-�=.•,?4:.'-.. _"PE:. �.� .'+ire��rq.,.:.'-�5^ :�, r.8::', ..�..a...:Ji,.....�,.a__�1�•�--�,r_.c._�..,..,... �...�..::4• ..-..:1��.n_.._._a_...:,...v.:�L'�i,_:`�i:::u..4:'n:i,':,.+ Faolilies New Public Safety Complex 21,947 $26,000,000 $26,000,000 Existing Pubic Safely Building 315 East 200 South 15,200 $ 6,407,200 $6.487,200 Fire Stational 211 South 600 East 16,855 $ 4,755,600 $4,768,600 Fire Station r!2 270 West 300 North 7,886 i 2,305,600 12,305,600 Flre Station*8 1085 Soul 8fmpson 0,450 $ 2,536,000 52.835,000 Fire Station*4 830 East 11th Avenue 8.010 $ 2,405,700 $2,406,700 Ftre Station*5 1023 East 900 South 8,400 $ 2,520,000 $2,524000 Re Station06 948 West 800South 7,328 $ 2,197.800 12,197,800 As Station a7 273 North 1000 West 8.010 i 2,406.700 $2,404700 As Station t18 15 Weal 1300 South 10.000 $ 8,000,000 28,000,000 Re Stepan#9 8822 WestArre5a Sashed Drive 11,010 i 8,303,000 58,808,000 Re Station*10 785 kapeen Drive 9,768 $ 2,929,800 $2,929,500 As Station al 681 North 2880 West 9,000 i 2,813,281 12,813,281 Pas Stenos N12 1065 North 4030 West 9,000 * 2,700,000 $2,704000 Re Siation 813 2860 Emit Peres Way 0.480 $ 1,944,000 i1.044,000 Fi's Station$14 1560 South Ind aldel Road 4.800 $ 1,440,000 51.444000 Fire Station*16-land only i - $0 As Training Tow 1600 South Industrial Road 18,950 i 5,086,000 15.065.000 Fleet Fealty 18,981 $ 3.937.600 $3,937.500 Land far As Training Carer $ 650,000 $650,000 106,B68 APPPratos 26 Engines $12,600000 $12,500,000 6 Ladder Trucks a 4,230.000 i4,260,000 Plus Cost or Fee-R lsted Research Morsel Fee Study Update j 11,160 $11.150 Pan Impact Fee Fund Balance a 2.396,845 52,394845 Source:Salt Lake City Fire Depattrnett and Impact Fee Study Team. Notes: Replacement cost assumption is$300 per square foot. All cost assumptions based on replacement cost in 2011 dollars. Impact Fee fund balance as of 3/31 ill. As shown above,the Salt Lake City Fire Department currently owns approximately$96.9 million of capital assets. These assets are used to provide the Department's current level of service of an average response time of 4 minutes 28 seconds. 4. What is the current investment per unit? By dividing the total replacement value of the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Fire Department by the number of current households and non-residential square feet whose owners have invested in these assets,we can determine that the Department has invested$712 per existing residential unit and$0.48 per non-residential square foot.We will compare our final impact fee with this figure to determine if the two results will be similar;this represents a"check" to see if future City residents will be paying for infrastructure at a level commensurate with what existing City residents have invested in infrastructure. 5. What future growth is expected for the Salt Lake City Fire Department? As shown in Exhibit II-1,the resident population of the Salt Lake City is projected to increase by 8,823 people over the ten-year planning period. As indicated in Exhibit 11-2,this equates to approximately 3,803 new residential units and 3,923,562 new square feet of non-residential square footage. 12 DRAFT REPORT • 6. What new infrastructure Is required to serve future growth? The Salt Lake City Fire Department has developed a Capital Facilities Plan(CFP)that identifies the capital facilities the City will need to build within the next ten years. Because City residents approved a bond to construct a$125 million Public Safety Building which will be completed in 2013,no future capacity for additional growth-related administrative staff is required. However, the Fire Department must relocate and expand Fire Station#13 in order to continue providing the current service level to projected growth. In addition,it must construct and outfit Fire Station#14 to accommodate the service needs of projected growth. The following Exhibit III-2 summarizes the investment the Salt Lake City Fire Department plans to make in capital facilities over the next ten years to continue its current level of service. Exhibit III-2 Salt Lake City Fire Department Capital Facilities Plan—2012-2021 � ssS'i x;_f:�.e� a...•?';;� �4. '} r.�.�ri .F,2�1. , o�.,..7ye�=X :}: .� fl. 3 i iiT f 4` :! lH% .t ... •: ir'::�_ •54 f1js+.42 � f>:. •'+ 7`.•Y `i,, '9�+1�,' Z :.•r lµ_ Y : t1�� - i s, u sa;;y j� r a+ ��x t"• ..�...` `✓.r,�s1-"2.i".:>•" ''W �t.S"et;"i.�s.�C`.1..�.v �'� + �,�..j foNllow 2012 POo OYbp-aol000ian and E;rodon;LsdAoorddbn 0 1403000 83% i 144000 I 00(000 2013 rU IOW 03-Noloodae end awns/ors eimevotbn 16,000 1.02 $ 8,100.000 33% $ 1 .an3,000 0 3,417,000 2oW i6+lYOs/14 13,000 OAO $ 0.100,000 33% $ 1,013000 $ 3.417.000 Af+a.+. rOSto. 2007n0410140 Oem114%.S80 eeaOwd(NNMh 0 00,000 100% i 030,000 $ • '+ ;�• .. t PiOs1olfoRoloudRsw* ' Yowl Fos Okay i 11,160 10011 s 11,130 i - aYnd��ste01rOP* $ 30400 60% i 23,000 6 20,000 lass loped lb And Nam $ 2,300,N6 i 2.30E,U3 Source:Salt Lake City Fire Department and Impact Fee Study Team, Notes: Replacement cost assumption is$300 per square foot All cost assumptions based on replacement cost in 2011 dollars. The Standards of Coves study will assist the Department in determining the location of future stations. Fund balance as of 3/31/11. • • • • As shown above,the Salt Lake City Fire Department plans to invest approximately$10 million in capital facilities over the next ten years,$2.4 million of which is impact fee eligible. The impact fee eligible portion includes a proportional share of the cost to plan for and construct the relocated Fire Station#3 and the new Fire Station#14,and to provide Fire Station#14 with a fire suppression vehicle. The remaining$7.7 million is the result of correcting an existing deficiency and is not impact fee eligible. This amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees. 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new capital facilities? The following Exhibit 111-3 takes the projected future growth from Exhibits II-1 and II-2,and the impact fee eligible costs from Exhibit III-2 to calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Fire Department. 13 DRAFT REPORT If the cost of the infrastructure necessary to continue the level of service currently enjoyed by City residents to an additional 8,823 new residents(growth-related CFP cost of$2.4 million15), num ber divided by the of households and non-residential square footage correlated to the new residents(3,803 households and 3.9 million square feet),every new household and non- residential square foot's proportional share of the CFP cost would be as follows: Exhibit III 3. Amount to include in impact Fees' Salt Lake City Fire Pacifies and Fee-Raiated Research(apportioned to d growth) a 1,401,905 Department Impact Fee Fire Supressfon Veltde(apportioned to non-residenlisl growth orty) $ 950,000 Calculation Percent of Future GrawIl Residential 59% Nab: Nonresidential 41% (I)races Brhilt vfa. Amount Atirlbutable to Ritre Land use (2}From Hdulttna. • Residential $ 528,090 Nonresidential $ 1,523,235 Some Future t#rowlh by lsnd the' Sit Was City fin Derartnant and impiwl Fie Residential(housing trite) 8,603 Study Tear. Nareeldentlel(square feet) *92302 Calculated impact Fee Residents!(housing units) $ 218 Nonresidential(square feet) $ 0.39 The amount per household is less than the current$712 investment per household and$0.48 investment per non-residential square foot we calculated based on Exhibit 1 Cl-I of this report. This confirms that new growth is not being asked to contribute more to continue the current service level than existing residents have already invested in the current system. The Department cannot assess fees greater than the amounts shown above.The Department may assess fees lower than these amounts,but would then experience a decline in service levels unless the Department used other revenues to make up the difference. A comparison of current investment,current impact fees and 2011 calculated fire impact fees is as follows: Residential Unit • Current Investment per Unit $712 Current Fire Impact Fee $485 Draft Fire Impact Fee-2011 $218 Non-Residential Square Foot Current Investment per Square Foot $0.48 Current Fire Impact Fee $0.32 Draft Fire Impact Fee-2011 $039 "The impact fee-eligible costs associated with Fire Station#3,Fire Station#14,the impact fee study,and standards of cover study are allocated to residential and non-residential growth according to their relative percentage of total growth based on total square footage. The fire suppression vehicle is allocated to non-residential development es it is this development in the southwest area of the City that will require a specialized vehicle to address rescue and hazmat activities associated primarily with non-residential tees. 14 DRAFT REPORT Section IV. Police Impact Fees In this section,we calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Police Department following the seven question method outlined in Section I of this report. 1. Who is currently served by the Salt Lake City Police Department? As outlined in Section II,the Salt Lake City Police Department currently serves 186,440 residents in 80,362 residential units,and 82,909,311 square feet of non-residential square footage(office, retail,industrial and institutional). 2. What is the current level of service provided by the Salt Lake City Police Department? Salt Lake City's Police Department currently provides a level of service of 2.35 sworn officers per every 1,000 residents. 3. What current assets allow the Salt Lake City Police Department to provide this level of service? These officers are currently housed in 202,604 square feet of physical space 16. The following Exhibit IV-1 summarizes the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Police Department. Exhibit IV-1. Current Assets—Salt Lake City Police Department Facilities New Pubic Safety Building 146,180 3.49 $100,000,000 100% $ 100,000,000 Esteem Putt Safely Hulking 72,800 2.18 $ 21,948,800 100% $ 21,948,800 Pioneer Poke Precinct 27.183 3.78 $ 5,624,600 100% $ 6,824,800 Motor Shed/Evidence Warehouse 12,300 0.38 $ 1,884,000 100% $ ',864,000 fleet Fealty 16,961 $ 3,937,500 100% t 3,937,500 lY mod,.,:.„r:-rot ,-c,::L .: /ihT.): :.,.." .' - 1-4J:c., .., �_.. .. . i. . . 1"ice.tti:,7ram: Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research kilned Fee Study Update S 11,160 100% S 11,160 Plus impact Fee Fund Balance S - 100% $ Source:Salt Lake City Police Department and Impact Fee Study Team. Notes: Replacement cost assumptions were$300 per square foot fbr the Public Safety Building,$200 per square foot for the Pioneer Police Precinct,$100 per square foot for tho Motor Shed Bvidemce Warehouse,and$232 per square foot for the Fleet Facility. All cost assumptions based on replacement cost in 2011 dollars. 16 For the sake of a forward-looking CFP,current square footage includes the new Public Safety Building,not the current facility. is DRAFT REPORT As shown above,the Salt Lake City Police Department currently owns approximately$133.4 million of capital assets. These assets are used to provide the Department's current level of service of 2.35 sworn officers per 1,000 population. 4. What is the current investment per unit? By dividing the total replacement value of the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Police Department by the number of current households and non-residential square feet whose owners have invested in these assets,we can determine that the Department has invested$981 per existing residential unit and$0.66 per non-residential square foot.We will compare our final impact fee with this figure to determine if the two results will be similar;this represents a"check" to see if future City residents will be paying for infrastructure at a level commensurate with what existing City residents have invested in infrastructure, • 5. What future growth is expected for the Salt Lake City Police Department? As shown in Exhibit 11-1,the resident population of the Salt Lake City is projected to increase by 8,823 people over the ten-year planning period. As indicated in Exhibit 11-2,this equates to approximately 3,803 new residential units and 3,923,562 new square feet of non-residential square footage. 6. What new infrastructure is required to serve future growth? The Salt Lake City Police Department has developed a Capital Facilities Plan(CFP)that identifies the capital facilities the City will need to build within the next ten years. Because City residents approved a bond to construct a$125 million Public Safety Building which will be completed in 2013,no future capacity for additional growth-related officers is needed. However, the Police Department must replace its current Police Evidence and Crime Lab in order to provide its desired level of service. This facility will be larger than the existing facility that is being replaced in order to provide capacity for processing and housing evidence associated with the projected growth in population. The following Exhibit IV-2 summarizes the investment the Salt Lake City Police Department plans to make in capital facilities over the next ten years to continue its current level of service. Exhibit IV-2. Salt Lake City Police Department Capital Facilities Plan—2012-2021 -5 w:�i. •.t.'Y i,� ,t_.:':: ;,t;as.i5.ua.--_:: ,:.,`t.�;*-... ..�:i;'.$�j"rtj%SP.I;bs-i:^�. .., i`'�".r'.L. Fdel06w OMd Poke[wow sod Plea lab Fdy 100.016 200 $%M6P66 ffi% 6 014000 0 0.760M0 PYe 6nte llsiliYd l% %mod he OAF I 11.100 100% F 11,160 0 • ca LrA/rw ha%SS* S 140.000 26% S CO,MO 0 106,000 tbae NOe%I ANN Diem 0 - I - Source:Salt Lake City Pollee Department and Impact Fee Study Team. 16 DRAFT REPORT As shown above,the Salt Lake City Police Department plans to invest approximately$9.2 million in capital facilities over the next ten years,$2.3 million of which is impact fee eligible. The impact fee eligible portion includes a proportional share of the police evidence and crime lab facility,and a facility study prior to the construction of this facility. The remaining$6.9 million is the result of correcting an existing deficiency in available space and investing in improved service levels,and is not impact fee eligible. This amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees. 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new capital facilities? The following Exhibit IV-3 takes the projected future growth from Exhibits II-1 and II-2,and the impact fee eligible costs from Exhibit IV-2 to calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Police Department If the cost of the infrastructure necessary to continue the level of service currently enjoyed by City residents to an additional 8,823 new residents(growth-related CFP cost of$2,3 million),was divided by the number of households and non-residential square footage correlated to the new residents(3,803 households and 3.9 million square feet),every new household and non- residential square foot's proportional share of the CFP cost would be as follows: Exhibit IV-3. • Salt Lake City Police Amount b Include In Impact Fees' $ 2,296,150 Department Impact Fee Petard of Future Growth Calculation ReNdmild 69% Nomisklantial 41% N0t Amount Affibuteble b Fuhse Lend Use (I)Prom BAI RIV-2 R sldmLal $ 1,358256 (2)Poe Eclat 1:1.2. NonroNdenbal $ 939,294 so Future Growth by Land Use' ma Sail Lao aeaadlmpad ResblenialQwudnguntte} 3800 Pee Spey mom Nonresidential(square feat) 9,923,582 Calculated Impact Fee Reeldeni al(housing wAts) $ 357 • Nmreddenml(equate bet) $ 024 The amount per household is less than the current$981 investment per household and$0.66 investment per non-residential square foot we calculated based on Exhibit IV-I of this report. This confirms that new growth is not being asked to contribute more to continue the current service level than existing residents have already invested in the current system. The Department cannot assess fees greater than the amounts shown above.The Department may • • assess fees lower than these amounts,but would then experience a decline in service levels unless the Department used other revenues to make up the difference. • 17 DRAFT REPORT A comparison of current investment,current impact fees and 2011 calculated police impact fees is as follows: Residential Unit Current Investment per Unit $981 Current Police Impact Fee $452 Draft Police Impact Fee-2011 $357 Non-Residential Square Foot Current Investment per Square Foot $0.66 Current Police Impact Fee $030 Draft Police Impact Fee-2011 $0.24 • 111 DRAFT REPORT Section V. Parks Impact Fees In this section,we calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Parks and Public Lands Division following the seven question method outlined in Section I of this report. • 1. Who is currently served by the Salt Lake City Parks Division? As outlined in Section II,the Salt Lake City Parks Division currently serves 186,440 residents in 80,362 residential units. Parks impact fees are not assessed on non-residential development. 2. What is the current level of service provided by the Salt Lake City Parks Division? Salt Lake City's Parks Division currently provides a level of service of 5.05 acres of developed park land and trails and 6.15 acres of open space per every 1,000 residents. Total level of service is 11.2 acres per 1,000 population. 3. What current assets allow the Salt Lake City Parks Division to provide this level of • service? The following Exhibit V 1 summarizes the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Parks Division. Exhibit V-1. Current Assets—Salt Lake�} City Parks�i Division gf. 1 �s in`'?t.' f"y Lx. `�U f If r K a > cnei "+Rd tir.. t5, • .f� ,s I � .A Kt 1 11 , T A • :„E Regional Paw 375.00 $ 112,500,000 100% $ 112,500.000 Community Parks 263.60 $ 79,060,000 100% $ 79,080,000 Nelghbc hood Parks 238.20 $ 70,880,000 100% $ 70,850,000 Special Use Parks 33.05 $ 9,915,000 100% $ 9,915,000 MCoawn Community Gardens 2.25 $ 337,395 100% $ 337,308 IN Parks 18.18 $ Z728,908 100% $ 2,728,908 Greenbelt/Shared Use Pathways 32 miles $ 33,390,000 100% $ 33,390,000 Open Space/Tratts 1,147.48 $ 11,474,751 100% $ 11,474,751 _....._ ... .. - .. �k.�.2 aJ 1 i a .,...91%s: ,. ' Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research Imps Fee Study Update $ 11,150 100% $ 11,150 Plus Impact Fee Fund Balance $ 1,040,221 100% tt • ; 1,040,221 Source:Salt Lake City Parks Division and Impact Foe Study Team. Notes: Replacement cost assumptions range from$10,000 to$300,000 per acre;based on current value. 19 DRAFT REPORT As shown above,the Salt Lake City Parks Division currently owns approximately$321.3 million of capital assets. These assets are used to provide the Division's current level of service of 5.05 acres of developed park land and trails and 6.15 acres of open space per every 1,000 residents. 4. What is the current investment per unit? By dividing the total replacement value of the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Parks Division by the number of current households whose owners have invested in these assets, we can determine that the Division has invested$3,999 per existing residential unit.We will compare our final impact fee with this figure to determine if the two results will be similar;,this represents a "check"to see if future City residents will be paying for infrastructure at a level commensurate with what existing City residents have invested in infrastructure. 5. What future growth is expected for the Salt Lake City Parks Division? As shown in Exhibit 1I-1,the resident population of the Salt Lake City is projected to increase by 8,823 people over the ten-year planning period. As indicated in Exhibit lI-2,this equates to approximately 3,803 new residential units. 6. What new infrastructure is required to serve future growth? The Salt Lake City Parks Division has developed a Capital Facilities Plan(CFP)that identifies the capital facilities the City will need to build within the next ten years. The following Exhibit V-2 summarizes the investment the Salt Lake City Parks Division plans to make in capital facilities over the next ten years to continue its current level of service: 20 DRAFT REPORT Exhibit V-2. Salt Lake City Parks Division Capital Facilities Plan—2012-2021 M4gw O,wMry1M%40wi004r4M00/01 Ar.IN4rwel44n4_4A peg.4.d4Aw4,14rr.n1440.wn44AMW.1sinks Warm* SIN $ 0,70:400e 10011 O 074001 0 AMEtwg /1014414101•Annio+0p1dM0 TOD 0 1100A00 0% 0 - 3 110e00G * Amin_N 41104i417O$110 UAW W43hOn0, $ 100000D 10% 3 /01.000 0 1000,000 e1$0044143 $ 1A0,OW 1e% O 113 00 O 100000$ M/w4r0/041.M401M34AY3•q•+•3w}.rte I.*WAWA onennr4tl 4404 $ 37.010" S 4•1A0e O OO.m0.700 Wafts 10/000$Adrw.y04414,4040 p1•'OnR 3341....4000A0000144 0.11 Mgt MfMnM10i11141144K04114e4040.0i.Mw►ra0wow Prew r& (wiry O MOP) 0% 0 • $ 3AOOA00 twat kr get 0 maw 0% O • 0 IKON 000 Diann O 000O0 0% 0 • 0 >0010oo Rw04.0400/Ofw11N114l OMuM1% Iq.RFw 01d0 0 11,100 100% O 11.140 0 Pals 0neveg Pin 00,00D 0% O - 0 300% ARIA Dpn Mw NTas0Y.*Pin 3 70,0 0% 1 1700 0 71A00 Aram 1itr 114.MrM1n real.MwOwut4rw4uw4AMoo A 70.007 O% i 0.76D I 71,20e ASSIMMESEMINEMEMEgal 104.111/01 R4Yon I 104011 11 100% 0 1A14331 { Source:Salt Lake City Parks Division end Impact Fee Study Team. As shown above,the Salt Lake City Parks Division plans to invest approximately$45,0 million in capital facilities over the next ten years,$6.7 million of which is impact fee eligible. The remaining$38.4 million is the result of correcting an existing deficiency in available space and investing in improved service levels,and is not impact fee eligible. This amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees. To continue the current level of service of 11.2 acres per 1,000,the Division will need to add 98.88 acres of growth-related parks and open space acreage. These acres will be acquired and developed according to the speed and geographic pattern of anticipated growth. The City desires to further increase the level of service for open space. As this is an upgrade or improvement to the current level of service,it cannot be financed with impact fees. Instead,the Division intends to allocate the remaining balance from the Open Space bond($2.1 million)to achieve this goal. To continue the current level of service for trails and pathways,which are measured in miles instead of acres,the City intends to construct two shared use pathways--the Jordan and Salt Lake Canal,and the City Creek Trail. Only a small portion of these projects(10%)is impact fee eligible. This percentage is tied to the historical increase in multi-modal trip generation(i.e.,bike traffic)on greenbelts and shared use pathways.The other 90%of the projects will need to be funded with sources other than impact fees. The Division intends to expend approximately$29 million over the next ten years to make improvements to existing City parks and facilities. A very small percentage($421,000 or 1%)of these improvements relate to adding capacity to existing amenities to support anticipated growth. The remainder of the costs for these improvements must come from sources other than impact fees. 21 DRAFT REPORT Improvements to the City's Cemeteries,allocations to the Percent for Art program,cost overruns for repair and replacement projects,and the Parks Recovery Plan are not impact fee eligible. A small percentage(5%)of the Parks,Open Space,and Trails Master Plan,the Jordan River Parkway Master Plan,and the Foothills Recreation and Management Plan is impact fee eligible, as these studies will facilitate capital facilities planning. 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new capital facilities? The following Exhibit V-3 takes the projected future growth from Exhibits U-1 and II-2,and the impact fee eligible costs from Exhibit V 2 to calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Parks Division. If the cost of the infrastructure necessary to continue the level of service currently enjoyed by City residents to an additional 8,823 new residents(growth-related CFP cost of$6.7 million),was divided by the number of households correlated to the new residents(3,803 households),every new household's proportional share of the CFP cost would be as follows: Exhibit V-3. Salt lobe City Parks Division Amount to Include Is Impact Fees' ti 6,664,429 Impact Fee Calculation Percent of Future Growth Residential 100% Amount Attributable to Future Land Use 0)From mobil V-2. Residential $ 8,864,428 (2)From ashbif ai Future Growth by Land Use' Source: Residential(housing units) 3,803 Solt Lire t5ty Puke Diriroe and hapset Pee Study Tees. Calculated Impact Fee Residential(housing units) $ 1,752 The amount per household is less than the current$3,999 investment per household we calculated based on Exhibit V-I of this report. This confirms that new growth is not being asked to contribute more to continue the current service level than existing residents have already invested in the current system. The Division cannot assess fees greater than the amounts shown above.The Division may assess fees lower than these amounts,but would then experience a decline in service levels unless the Division used other revenues to make up the difference. A comparison of current investment,current impact fees and 2011 calculated parks and recreation impact fees is as follows: Residential Unit Current Investment per Unit $3,999 Current Parks and Recreation Impact Fee $ 681 Draft Parks and Recreation Impact Fee-2011 $1,752 22 DRAFT REPORT Section VI. Roadway (Streets and Transportation) Impact Fees In this section,we calculate impact fees for the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions following the seven question method outlined in Section I of this report. 1. Who is currently served by the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions? As outlined in Section II,the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions currently serve 186,440 residents in 80,362 residential units,and 82,909,311 square feet of non-residential square footage(office,retail,industrial and institutional). Unlike police,fire,and parks fee calculations in which fees are calculated for residential units and nonresidential square feet,roadway fees are calculated for residential and nonresidential land uses based on street and facility usages generated by each land use type.Exhibit VI-1 below shows the specific allocation of existing and projected square feet for Salt Lake City by land use type over the next ten years. • Exhibit VI-1. Salt Lake City Growth Projections by Square Feet and Land Use—2012-2021 , I ,, • 411.111i�6 I.,�' �I} 7 1 =��' 1', Ate. ' 11rA9 iII 3 j Residential 119,786,845 125,434,426 5,687,781 59% Single-Family 78,284,1370 81,989,587 3,704,717 39% Multl Family 41,481,775 43,444,839 1,883,064 20% Nonresidential 82,909,311 88,832,873 3,923,582 41% Retail 5,019,924 5,255,880 235,938 3% Office 15,050,719 15,768,103 707,384 796 industrial 82,838,888 85,818,909 2,980,241 31% Total 202,675,956 212,267,299 9,591,343 100% Source:Salt Lake City and Impact Fee Study Team. Based on this distribution,we calculate trip generation based on figures from the Institute of Transportation Engineers' Trip Generation Manual.The trip generation figures estimate the number of p.m.peak hour trips generated by particular land uses.Peak hour trips are appropriate for this calculation because street infrastructure is sized according to the expected peak.Since peak hour trips will be used to distribute infrastructure costs,peak hour estimates should be employed. Exhibit VI-2 below presents trip generation rates for land uses in Salt Lake City. 23 DRAFT REPORT Exhibit V1-2. s ,.. �;.;r �.,:, r N't.�; i- 1,. '�: ` y.^. FF,T F: 1:slr �:ktd iLf.�;•.k yr'iC.�.'�':�` . Trip Generation Rates by Land Use ;' ':? i *n .FAT j *+YS• 'x`,':" 3 t, • ° Category v- • :_ c?� . ;t vl J "A. y.. 'e.I:•N7::Tl.t '` _ •-t 4."rt:7� -:Ks`i`'.:":it ;;.�. .�.., :` • Notes: (I)Reflects weekday traffic generation Single Family Units 1.0 patterns,weekday p.m.peak hour trip rate formula. Multi Family Units 0.7 (2)Reflects average of office commercial, retail and industrial land uses,weekday p.m. 1QOD retail square feet 5.0 peak hour trip rate formula , Source: International Transportation Engineering 9f•!p 1,000 office square feet 1.3 Generation Manual. 1,000 Industrial square feet 0.9 2. What is the current level of service provided by the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Division? Salt Lake City's Streets and Transportation Divisions currently provide an average level of service of"C"within the City roadway network." 3. What current assets allow the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Division to provide this level of service? The following Exhibit VI-1 summarizes the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions1s. "Level-of-Service C describes at or near free-flow operations.Ability to maneuver through lanes is noticeably restricted and lane changes require more driver awareness.Minimum vehicle spacing is about 220ft(67m)or I I car lengths.At LOS C most experienced drivers are comfortable,roads remain safely below but efficiently close to capacity,and posted speed is maintained.Minor incidents may still have no affect but localized service will have noticeable affects and traffic delays will tbrm behind the incident.This is the targeted LOS for some urban and most rural highways. 's As vehicles and equipment are not eligible to be purchased with impact fees,these capital items are not included in the above capital facilities inventory. 24 DRAFT REPORT Exhibit VI-3. Current Meets—Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions :F:,r,,':r- ;his'Fyn:.� �ry:;i ,;?�s•.�f'nr�,A1er Fzg. :'K�?.. "1'a �+',,^..Cwri..�� ."f_ :w`i,�,:a� S:r.�i t a. t' ' �" ,� � 's+ J�t�iry� arc ; �t'r `f•._L,,. •�� tc-'At# +•. a. � ! �+ 4.. ':�6.• �' Ls tr tilt' 4)t`�:'i'.! �'�l✓i t it •� ' :.'fiC�tiiZ7�555t:��`` seb�r"J:t�i'C�t,�f:.Ytf:.3•�� .Gac4:i �' ,•i 2�;'... •'•4f+'.ilxe:..�•;t.;; ROedwaN .. 1,843 lane miles of roadway i 1,105,800,000 100% i 1,106,800,000 Bddeas 23 bddOes i 23,500,000 100% i 23,000,000 Curb sad Ostler 4,750,000 lineal Mat of curb and putter i 199,500,000 10096 $ 190,500,000 eldervdb 20.000.50 sr of sidewalk $ 200,000,000 100% $ 200,003,000 12,000 aooenlble ramps $ 45,600,000 100% $ 46,1100,000 DrMApproedrea 7,680,000 sr of concrete*Iva approaches $ 99,840,000 100% $ 99,840,000 Bike FasMtlM 83 meet miles of bke lanes Ind.In roadway cost 100% i - 7faaio Opiate 200 Tragic Signals $ 32,000,000 100% $ 32,000,000 Crosswalk tlgMa 31 flashing crosswalk i9Ms $ 1,860,000 100% S 1,880,000 79 gashing school aveewalk lights i 1,975,000 100% $ 1,976,000 Driver Feedback taps 44 driver feedback signs i 352,000 100% $ 352,000 Fedities FealtyStreets i 9,250,000 10096 $ 9,250,000 Fleet Felt Storage Facilityi 2,820,000 100% $ 2,520,000 i 1,017,405 100% i 1,017,405 s Rua Cos!of Fee-Releled Research Impact Fee Study Update $11,150 100% $ 11,150 Plus Impact Fos Fund Bslanos $8,529,700 10096 i 6,529,700 Source:Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions and Impact Fee Study Team. As shown above,the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions currently own approximately$1.7 billion of capital assets. These assets are used to provide the Divisions' current level of service of"C." 4. What is the current Investment per unit? By dividing the total replacement value of the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions by the number of current households and non-residential square feet whose owners have invested in these assets,we can determine that the Divisions have invested $10,161 per existing single-family residential unit;$7,113 per existing multi-family residential unit;$50.81 per existing square foot of retail development;$13.21 per existing square foot of office development and$9.15 per existing square foot of industrial development.We will compare our final impact fee with this figure to determine if the two results will be similar;this represents a"check"to see if future City residents will be paying for infrastructure at a level commensurate with what existing City residents have invested in infrastructure. • 25 DRAFT IMPORT 5. What future growth is expected for the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions? As shown in Exhibit 11-1,the resident population of the Salt Lake City is projected to increase by 8,823 people over the ten-year planning period. As indicated in Exhibit 1J-2,this equates to approximately 3,803 new residential units and 3,923,562 new square feet of non-residential square footage. 6. What new infrastructure is required to serve future growth? The Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions have developed a Capital Facilities Plan (CFP)that identifies the capital facilities the City will need to build within the next ten years. The following Exhibit VI-4 summarizes the investment the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions plan to make in capital facilities over the next ten years to continue its current level of service: Exhibit VI-4. Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions Capital Facilities Plan--2012-2021 f; Roadway Ptap-M 1160 Booth 11166ad Raha4iYiwl $ 10.000,000 014 i - 6 10,000,00 606700E*.2000 Westb ROOINsst 6 14,760,000 07% $ aA10.200 6 4646,600 ADAAomr6lapRamps i 1,300,000 0% i - $ 1.60%000 adensk Rol ou.%sm IIog • P 700.000 0% 1 - $ 700.000 Daltlatoid 810seatReplacement $ 1600600 0% i - 6 1662.000 Indira Avenue/200 Souk from Ridwoo4 to 3500 Won i A640A00 57% $ 2,074600 6 1.806100 Obi*Skirt-1630S00%to2100South $ 000,000 57% 1 2,250.000 6 1.720.000 4400 West horn 7006ou%1e 8608odA i 1600,000 57% $ 012.000 6 616,000 Most PavementOvsdey sad Pteaanta00 $ 7,000,000 0% i - $ 7,000.000 Local Most n counbo06m $ 6.600.000 0% i • $ 5,500,000 144w RaadAatlen and Reoaeaao6on of City saests $ 0,600060 0% 8 • 6 0.660000 Daons%Stud NsIabiYpm i 2.000.000 0% 6 - $ 2000,000 Mktg RaMti46a i 200600 0% i $ 200.000 Potent for Art I 500.000 0% i - $ 500600 Cost Ovwnae S 000A00 0% i - i 000.000 $ 62,100.000 $ 18,660,000 8 4600,000 Ta aapots_ea Pulse% RepYoeant halo ebnab i 2A0op00 0% i $ 2A00,000 PedwtM Bolds Dnkw $ 250,600 10% $ 26.600 $ 225,000 Mott 96s late laeleee6as $ 250.000 10% i 26.000 i 225,000 Bin Lams-200Salt 6 0620,000 10% i 65Z000 $ 6606.000 000 Seuta Res Ostea 4 706000 0% $ i 700.00D Nor llieo Sigma i 1A00,000 100% i 1.000.000 i 1300 EOM Thee Salty-Rum2 $ 600.000 0% 6 - $ 500,000 60aa1L4Mn0 Ibpisoisseat $ 200.000 0% i $ 6 12,420600 "ice I 1o,1t Roe cost of Fes-$i0.0 Reawaa toped Fos Study $ 11,150 100% 6 11,160 6 - Ttnepa6aIOUMNwPNa $ 200600 10% $ 20,000 $ 160,000 Mrs talpset Fos Salutes $ 0,520.700 100% $ 0,520,100 6 - 5 Source:Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions and Impact Fee Study Team. • 26 DRAFT REPORT As shown above,the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions plan to invest approximately$68.3 million in capital facilities over the next ten years,$9.5 million of which is impact fee eligible. The remaining$58.8 million is the result of correcting an existing deficiency in available space and investing in improved service levels,and is not impact fee eligible. This • amount must be funded with revenue sources other than impact fees. The only major roadway projects that are impact fee eligible are four projects within the Westside Industrial Area—500/700 South from 2800 West to 5600 West;Indiana Avenue/900 South from Redwood to 3600 West;Gladiola from 1650 South to 2100 South;and 4400 West from 700 • South to 850 South. 57%of each of these projects is impact fee eligible,as this is the percent of each project related to the widening and expansion of each roadway for projected growth. The remainder of these projects costs must be funded from sources other than impact fees. 100%of new traffic signals are impact fee eligible,as these facilities would not be installed were it not for growth-related congestion at various Intersections. The growth-related portion of facilities such as pedestrian safety devices and bike lane installations are impact fee eligible as well. Of the$9.5 million in impact fee eligible projects,$1.4 million is associated with growth-related demand citywide from residential uses,while$8.1 million represents growth-related demand citywide from non-residential uses. These assumptions are based on the distribution of square footage,with the exception of the proportionate share of the costs of the four Westside roadway projects. These four projects primarily benefit non-residential uses by providing infrastructure to connect products,employees,and freight to other parts of the City. As such,Exhibits VI-6 and VI-7 identify how these costs can be most appropriately recovered through separate residential and non-residential roadway impact fees. 7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new capital facilities? As noted above,the calculation of roadway impact fees is based on the projected number of trips each land-use type will generate in the next ten years. Using the current land use by square foot within Salt Lake City found in Exhibit VI-1,and the trip generation figures from Exhibit VI-2, total current trips can be distributed to each land use; Exhibit VI-5 below displays the projected trip generation distribution. Exhibit Vt-5. Salt Lake City Distribution by Weighted Trip Generation—2010 2020 • ':?� .;y •'F-"::._-;w�xA.;!r�:T`^+. a;'.;"tT.-r., ' an_.,...�..et, .,f,, , ��I.lp".lti'�Y( �� :.4,' 's`,•TJ' [ �.n??�e`Y'�-�'��.1'+-'�'1�`ryi ..'�MY,.'.t. • -r: R..:.�` J' � '•ecu: s,+F,�i{�:� ��.M.Jit u^: p �ir �- .1.J!l.i.r. ? 'i.�sK •,k-i�r:l::J}i}'fi�'Y.�,�; ife. i_+�(�)Hj- yNs.-.• • .x.ii. -..Q'-'..a:.rxu:.1.:6: v- _`T_L+•.r'pt•-^�' c~.ii. ,1"0.f.1;}•.1..�_Y54`:d �i -t .il'EiL% Sfnae FemQy Ude('1.0) 42,270 42,270 25% 2,030 2.000 25% Mull Family Units('0.7) 38,092 26,864 16% 1,803 1,282 18% Retell Square Feet('5.011,000 at) 5,019,924 25,100 15% 235,866 1,179 15% Office Square Feet(1.3h,000 ef) 16,050,718 19,568 11% 707,184 919 11% kudusttle1 Squire Feet('0.9M,000 ef) 62,888,338 58,582 33% 2,950,812 2,658 33% Total 170,182 8,017 100% Source:Salt Lake City and Impact Fee Study Team. 27 DRAFT REPORT As shown above,the number.of daily trips in Salt Lake City is expected to increase by approximately 8,017 trips by 2021.25%of those trips will be for single-family residential uses; 16%will be for multi-family residential uses; 15%will be for retail uses; 11%will be for office uses;and 33%will be for industrial uses. Exhibits VI-6 and VI-7 below use the distribution of the CFP by weighted trip generation figures from Exhibit VI-5 and the growth-related CFP from Exhibit VI-4 to calculate roadway impact fees for the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions. Exhibit VI-6 relates to the portion of the CFP that represents the trip demand generated by new residential development citywide. Exhibit VI-6. Salt Lake City Residential Amount to Include In Impact Fees' $1,376,559 Roadway Fee Calculation pint of Future Trips Residential Nolo: Single Family 65% (1)Fags EchibilVF4;59%oroaupogldon Multi Family 35% mites. (2)Mom Exhibit ua Allocated Value by Lend Use Category Residential Sauna Single Family $ 899,781 Impact roe Study Tam Multi Family $ 478,778 Future Land Uses2 Residential(total dwellng units) Single Family 2,000 Multi Family 1,803 Calculated Impact Fee Residential(per dwelling unit) Single Family $ 450 Multi Family $ 284 The amount per household is less than the current$10,161 per single family residential unit and $7,113 per multi-family residential unit investment per household we calculated based on Exhibit VI-3 of this report. This confirms that new residential growth is not being asked to contribute more to continue the current service level than existing residents have already invested in the current system. • 28 DRAFT REPORT Exhibit VI-7 relates to the portion of the CFP that represents the trip demand generated by new non-residential development citywide. Exhibit VI-7. Salt Lake City Non- Amount b Include In Impact Fees' $8108.892 Residential Roadway Fee Percent of Future Trips Cakulatioa Nonresidential Retail • 8% Now Office 18% (I)Pew aadbit V14;100%&Roadwy Industrial 74% peofmbi■%.areeldnhW Anee,phr41%of di aneaedoa pm)eoe.c ediud N10%of Allocated Vie by Lend Use Category impact lie And bdasea Nonresidential mPho=RAM a•2. Retail $ 685,871 SmutOffice $ 1,461,801 Impact Pee Study Tema Industrial $ 8,970,276 • Future Land Usti Nonresidential(in square feet) Retail 235,938 Office 707,384 industrial 2,080,241 Calculated Impact Fee Non-Residential(per square foot) Retail E 291 Of80e $ 2.07 Industrial $ 2.01 'the amount per square foot is less than the current$50.81 per square foot investment for retail development,$13.21 per square foot investment for office development,and$9.15 per square foot investment for industrial development we calculated based on Exhibit VI-I of this report. This confirms that new non-residential growth is not being asked to contribute more to continue the current service level than existing residents have already invested in the current system. The Divisions cannot assess fees greater than the amounts shown above.The Divisions may assess fees lower than these amounts,but would then experience a decline in service levels unless the Division used other revenues to make up the difference. A comparison of current investment,current impact fees and 2011 calculated roadways impact fees is as follows: Residential Unit Current Investment per Single Family Unit $10,161 Current Investment per Multi Family Unit $7,113 Current Roadways Impact Fee • no fee is currently in effect Draft Residential Roadways Impact Fee-2011 $ 450 Draft Residential Roadways Impact Fee-2011 $ 264 29 DRAFT REPORT • Non-Residential Square Foot Current Retail Investment per Square Foot $50.81 Current Office Investment per Square Foot $13.21 Current Industrial Investment per Square Foot $9.15 Current Retail Roadway Fee per Square Foot $8.62 Current Office Roadway Fee per Square Foot $4.20 Current Industrial Roadway Fee Square Foot $2.00 Draft Retail Roadways Impact Fee-2011 $2.91 Draft Office Roadways Impact Fee-2011 $2.07 Draft Industrial Roadways Impact Fee-2011 $2.01 The significant decrease in non-residential impact fee is related to the changing nature of the Streets and Transportation Division's growth-related capital facilities plans. As the City addresses future congestion created by growth,it has few options to widen or extend existing roads. Instead,it must consider the incremental modal shift by residents and commuters from vehicles to bikes,and create capacity for these alternative transportation forms as well. These capacity-creating capital facilities benefit all land uses,residential and non-residential alike. Therefore,the City has determined it is appropriate to spread the cost of these facility improvements among all land uses. Residential uses will be assessed a modest fee to recover their proportional share of the growth-related portion of the capital facilities plan,and non-residential roadway fees will be reduces as the total cost is spread over more users. 30 DRAFT REPORT Section VII. Summary The following Exhibit VR-1 summarizes the Fire,Police,Parks and Roadways Impact Fees for the Salt Lake City. Exhibit VII-I. Fire Salt Lake City Impact Fee Reebentiel(per dwelling unit) $ 218 Samataty Nonresidential(per square foot) 8 0.39 Pollee Residential(per dwelling unit) $ 857 Nonresidential(per square foot) $ 0.24 Part Residential(total dwelling units) 8 1,752 Naresidentil(per square foot) 8 - Roadways Residential(per dwelling unit) Single Family 8 450 Mull Family 8 264 Commercial(per square foot) Retell $ 2.91 Office Ii 207 industrial 8 2.01 TOTAL FEES(icluding Surcharge) Residential(per dwelling unit) Single Famly $ 2,777 Mutit Family 8 2,591 Commercial(per square foot) Retail $ 3.53 Office $ 2.69 industrial 8 2.63 The current impact fees being assessed by Salt Lake City to new development are identified in Exhibit V11-2 below: • Exhibit VII-2. Convent Fees Salt Lake City Current Residential(per dwelling unit) • Impact Fee Summary Single Family 8 1,818 Multi Family 8 1,818 Comrade!(per square foot) Retal 8 8.82 Office $ 4.20 Industrial 8 2.00 • 3I DRAFT REPORT City Participation Not all of the capital facilities listed in the CFPs are 100 percent growth-related. Many projects are not growth related at all,and a few projects are only partially growth-related, The City would assume the responsibility of paying for the non-growth portions of these capital facilities. These payments would come from other sources of revenue such as general funds,state revenue- sharing,federal grants,user fees,bond proceeds,etc. To arrive at this participation amount,the expected impact fee revenue and any shared facility amount needs to be subtracted from the total CFP value.Exhibit VII-3 divides the City's participation amount into two categories: • Required—the non-growth portion of partially impact fee eligible projects. This amount must bti funded in order to maintain the integrity of the impact fee program. • Discretionary—strictly non-growth related facilities. The City is not under any obligation to fund these capital facilities within a certain timeframe(although this could result in a decrease in the level of service over time). Exhibit V113. �;: =k. :t ._r ..z;:; ,•.. `+J. Salt Lake City CFP _ z,,.....�_-._. I Fe 1 M 9 's:':M ,"=�i a��._ .,, Participation Summary,2011- 2021 Fire $ 7,663,000 $0 $ 7,863,000 Police $ 6,855,000 $0 $ 6,855,000 soars Sdt Like CiyaedI pactPeeStdyTeam Parks $4,967,500 $31,495,200 $ 36,462,700 Roadways $16,818,000 $ 41,960,000 $ 58,778,000 Total $21,785,500 $ 79,455,200 $ 95,240,700 The total amount the City would be required to contribute over 10 years,should the City adopt impact fees at the calculated amount,will be approximately$21.8 million.The remaining$73.5 million will be necessary for the City to fund In order to complete the 10-Year CFP,but can be considered discretionary. Implementation Recommendations As City Council evaluates whether or not to adopt the Capital Facilities Plans and impact fees presented in this report,we also offer the following information for your consideration.Please note that this information will be included in the amended impact fee enabling ordinance. Specialized assessments,If permit applicants are concerned they would be paying more than their fair share of future infrastructure purchases,the applicant can request an individualized acaecsment to ensure they will only be paying their proportional share.The applicant would be required to prepare and pay for all costs related to such an assessment. Donation&If the City receives donations for capital facilities listed on the CFP,they must account for the donation in one of two ways.If the donation is for a non-or partially growth-related 32 DRAFT REPORT facility,the donation can contribute to the City's General Fund participation along with more traditional forms,such as revenue transfers from the General Fund.If,however,the donation is for a growth-related project in the CFP,the donor's impact fees should be reduced dollar for dollar. This means that the City will either credit the donor or reimburse the donor for that portion of the impact fee. Credit/rehnbursement.If a developer constructs or contributes all or part of a growth-related project that would otherwise be financed with impact fees,that developer must receive a credit against the fees owed for this category.This prevents"double dipping"by the City. The presumption would be that builders/developers owe the entirety of the impact fee amount until they make the City aware of the construction or contribution.If credit or reimbursement is due,the governmental entity must enter into an agreement with the fee payer that specifies the amount of the credit or the amount,time and form of reimbursement. Impact fee accounting.The City should maintain Impact Fee Funds separate and apart from the General Fund.All current and future impact fee revenue should be immediately deposited into this account and withdrawn only to pay for growth-related capital facilities of the same category. General Funds should be reserved solely for the receipt of tax revenues,grants,user fees and associated interest earnings,and ongoing operational expenses including the repair and replacement of existing capital facilities not related to growth. Spending p g policy.The City should establish and adhere to a policy governing their expenditure of monies from the Impaact Fee Fund.The Fund should be prohibited from paying for any operational expenses and the repair and replacement or upgrade of existing infrastructure not necessitated by growth.In cases when growth-related capital facilities are constructed impact fees are an allowable revenue source as long as only new growth is served.In cases when new capital facilities are expected to partially replace existing capacity and to partially serve new growth,cost sharing between the General Fund or other sources of revenue Impact Fee Fund should be allowed on a pro rata basis. Update procedures.The fees calculated in this study can be updated as the City monitors the future development patterns.Fees can be updated on an annual basis using an inflation factor for building material from a reputable source such as McGraw Hill's Engineering News Record. 33 DRAFT REPORT { SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL MEMORANDUM TO: Council Members SUBJECT: Retreat Follow-up: General Discussion&Review of the"Arts&Culture"priority topic DATE: October 4, 2011 FROM: City Council staff—policy analysts: Janice Jardine,Jennifer Bruno, Russell Weeks, Karen Halladay, Brady Wheeler, Jan Aramaki,Nick Tarbet, Dan Weist,Neil Lindberg, Lehua Weaver During the Council's September 9th retreat, the following topics were discussed as the Council's priority interests: 1) Arts &Culture 2) Economic Health of the City 3) Local/Neighborhood Businesses 4) Neighborhoods& Schools 5) Transportation&Mobility 6) Parks &Open Space 7) Sustainability The Chair and Vice Chair requested that staff schedule each of the seven topics on Work Session agendas in order to continue the Council's discussion and review of the items before the end of the year. Since the Council's retreat, staff has focused on using the flip charts and notes from the Council's discussion to develop Philosophy Statements for the Council's review. The first item scheduled for discussion is the Arts&Culture priority topic, and a quick first draft of a Philosophy Statement is attached for the Council's conversation. Since the term"Philosophy Statement"is relatively new in Council jargon, staff has first provided an operating definition on Attachment A. The Council may wish to confirm or adjust staff's direction. Attachments: A: Components of a Philosophy Statement B: Copy of the 2003 Council Policy Statement on Downtown&Economic Development C: List of Arts& Performance venues around Salt Lake City 1 PRIORITY: ARTS & CULTURE DEFINITION Supporting "Arts&Culture" as a priority means that the City Council supports creating an environment where event organizers, artists,performers,residents,businesses, and visitors can provide and participate in a wide variety of artistic expressions. The Council believes that vibrant, diverse, and accessible artistic and cultural events in Salt Lake City add to the City's Quality of Life for residents and visitors. Arts and Cultural events may include,but are not limited to: • Celebrations of cultural diversity, celebrating all communities • Diverse types of visual or performance art ranging from casual or impromptu performances to formal pre-planned events in venues around the City. • Presence of Public Art pieces • Musical events—concerts, symphonies, festivals,many genres, sizes, locations,paid and free • Independent film • Educational opportunities • Access to a variety of events for all residents Supporting Arts &Culture as a priority also means that the Council intends for the City to continue fulfilling a role for the valley and state as"the focal point of arts,culture, and entertainment in Utah." (Excerpt from the current Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown, Afoott Attachment B.) ➢ Are these statements an accurate way of representing why the topic of'Arts& Culture' is a priority to the Council? ➢ Are there any components that should be added to more accurately reflect the Council's interests? VALUES/GOALS • We encourage events that celebrate cultural diversity&celebrate all communities. • We value all genres of music, art, and performance and want it to be accessible to all of our communities—not only Downtown,but city-wide. • We want to create an environment where a wide range of theater options and performance venues can thrive. • We support quality public art that is complementary to surroundings, and is strategically placed around the City. • We support local talents and artists and educational opportunities. > Do these statements accurately reflect the Council's values and goals for Arts& Culture in Salt Lake City? 2 > Are there any components that should be added to more accurately reflect the Council's interests? INTENTS/PROJECTS • We look forward to the discussion about a Utah Performing Arts Center. • We also look forward to continuing the conversation and review of the Salt Lake County study about a Convention Center Hotel to provide more hotel rooms for visitors who may also enjoying the arts and cultural opportunities. • We support a review of ordinances for amendments that would create a more welcoming environment for people to perform on City sidewalks, and for the review to involve outreach and engagement with business and property owners in the Business Districts to enhance an arts & cultural environment for the City. ➢ There are more projects for the Council's consideration under the second question below. QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION 1. Does any Council Member have an item or interest that is not reflected? 2. Specific Tasks/Projects: Based on the Council's discussion at the retreat and Council staff brainstorming, following is a list the Council may wish to consider adding to the"Intents/ Projects" category above? a. We would like Council staff to explore the saturation of different types of theater venues in Downtown. b. We would like to hold a policy discussion regarding the pros and cons of creating an Arts (or Cultural Core) District. c. We would like to consider and explore opportunities to support private organizations in providing more arts education. d. We would like to explore how to expand opportunities for private organizations, including Community Councils and churches,to host neighborhood events. e. We would support a review of ordinances for amendments that would make it easier for people and organizations to hold events—including more assistance through the City's permit process and/or changes to the permitting process. f. We would like Council staff to review the January 2003 Council Policy Statement on the Future Economic Development of Downtown and suggest updates specific to Arts &Culture in Downtown for the Council's review. (See Attachment B for a copy of the 2003 statement.) g. We would like Council staff to review other related plans (Downtown Rising, Futures Commission Report, R/UDAT study, Cultural Necklace/Cultural Campus Plan)to identify key components. h. We would like to request that the Arts Council staff prepare a briefing and present to the Council the current process for considering Public Art pieces around the City, 3 including the Percent for Art program, location,type, other budgetary considerations, etc. i. We would like to request a briefing with Chief Burbank regarding the public safety costs associated with supporting Special Events and safety issues that are involved with Special Events. j. Public Engagement/Communication Opportunities i. We would like to request exploration of ways to better coordinate and advertise all events within the City(expand for non-City sponsored events). ii. We would like to request that the Special Events website have an expanded, more-user friendly presence on the City website. iii. We would like Council staff to include the City's Arts& Cultural component in the educational information about the benefit SLC provides to the valley. 3. Tools for Implementation-the Council may wish to consider whether to apply any Legislative tools to assist in moving the Council's values for Arts&Culture ahead. For example: a. Budget$$ - including allocation or removal of funds b. Ordinances-revision, development or removal c. Oversight/Audits d. Partnerships(government,private, others) e. Hire Consultant f. Land Use Planning g. Efficiencies h. Public Education i. CDBG Funds j. Public Engagement k. 10-Year CIP 1. Policies m. Other 4 ATTACHMENT A Philosophy Statement The Arts.& Culture Philosophy Statement was drafted based on this outline of components. The Council thay wish to provide feedback or different direction to Council staff. A Philosophy Statement is a document that provides: a) Definition-what the topic means to the Council. For example, does Parks & Open Space only relate top programmed parks with recreational equipment or something broader or more narrow? b) Values - List of the Council's identified values relating to the topic, and what specifically makes the topic a priority, and perhaps lists a goal or vision for the topic. The values are generally more broad than the intent(Item c below). For example, is Parks & Open Space a priority topic because the Council envisions acquiring more or less open space based on certain factors; maintaining a certain level or type of open space; etc. c) Intent- Outlines the intent of the Council on the topic. The intent of the Council may get to more specific interests of the Council and may be more narrow than the values(Item b above). For example, the Council may have specific ideas or tasks that relate to the priority topic and would like to collaborate with the Administration on certain projects, or request that Council staff complete a project or research, etc. 5 ATTACHMENT B Council Policy Statement re: Downtown (excerpt from Council Policy Manual) t D.9 COUNCIL POLICY STATEMENT REGARDING DOWNTOWN ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT The following statement was adopted by the City Council in January of 2003: Salt Lake City Council Policy Statement on The Future Economic Development of Downtown INTRODUCTION By most objective measures, downtown Salt Lake City is healthy and doing well. Yet, even though there is much "good news"about downtown, City leaders and residents share a concern about its future. At the beginning of 2002,the City Council named the future of downtown, and in particular, Main Street, as its top policy priority for the year. While downtown is much more than Main Street, Main Street is at the center—it is the heart—of downtown. The challenge facing Salt Lake City policymakers as we move forward after hosting the Olympics and into the 21st Century is how to build upon downtown's many strengths, and further enhance the vibrancy and vitality of the downtown. The City Council's role is to provide policy direction and to ensure that its efforts support the City's policy goals. The Council's tools are its authority to allocate city resources, including those of the Redevelopment Agency; to make zoning decisions; and to adopt ordinances. To help focus on how the Council could best fulfill its responsibilities, it held hearings in March and April. Over one hundred citizens including representatives from various interest groups, provided comments and suggestions. A draft policy statement was circulated in November, and a Public Hearing was held on December 3. Council members have also,throughout the year, individually and in small groups,had many meetings with downtown stakeholders and citizens to deepen their understanding of the issues and forces shaping downtown. As a result,the City Council's overarching policy regarding downtown is this: The City Council recognizes that Main Street is the core of our downtown commercial,tourist, and convention activity. To encourage the relocation of retail or other commercial businesses or other key "anchors" away from Main Street will undermine these activities to the long-term detriment of downtown, including the Gateway and other developments. The continued vitality of Main Street is essential to the economic and cultural health of our great city. Downtown, defined generally as the area from Temple Square on the north,to The Gateway on the West,to Trolley Square on the east,to the hotel district along the 600 South Street entrance to the city Akaisk from Interstate 15, is important to Salt Lake City residents for a variety of reasons. Historically it has Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 1- been the business, fmancial, retail, and government center of the City, County, region, state, and in many ways the entire Intermountain West. The health and vitality of Salt Lake City's downtown is important to city residents and people throughout the region. Business and commerce; institutional uses; local government and related public facilities; arts, culture and entertainment; tourism, and housing are all vital to the health of Salt Lake City's downtown. A brief listing of the downtown's strengths shows what downtown Salt Lake City means to Utah: Business and Commerce Salt Lake City is Utah's commercial and financial center. • The Central Business District within the downtown contains 28.8 percent of the total square footage of office space in Salt Lake County. When office space on the CBD's periphery is included the figure rises to 42.8 percent. (1) • Downtown Salt Lake City contains the corporate offices of the two largest banks in Utah, and 10 commercial banks operate in the Central Business District. Retail Services Although it contains 10 to 15 percent of the total space leased for retail in Salt Lake County, Salt Lake City's downtown is perhaps the only downtown in the nation to have four destination malls within its borders: The Gateway,the Crossroads Plaza,the ZCMI Center and Trolley Square. • Salt Lake City's downtown workforce grew by nearly 25 percent to 61,000 people between 1990 and 2001, leaving a significant daytime population to support retail services. • According to a May 2002 survey conducted by the Downtown Alliance, 32 percent of Salt Lake County's population said they had visited the downtown"within the past week"to dine, shop, or seek entertainment. Institutional As Utah's capital, Salt Lake City is the seat of state government including state and local courts, and the local presence of the Federal Government. • Near downtown are the State Capitol and the University of Utah,providing further opportunities to attract people to the core of the city. Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 2- • As the World Headquarters of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City's 001, downtown is a magnet to members of that faith worldwide, as well as a draw to tourists from throughout the world. Temple Square and other LDS sites downtown including the world- renowned Family History Center draw more than five million visitors per year. • Downtown is also home to several religious communities including the Roman Catholic and Episcopal dioceses, a number of historic churches—the Cathedral of The Madeleine, the Cathedral Church of St. Mark, the Holy Trinity Greek Orthodox Church, the historic First Presbyterian and First United Methodist churches, and the Buddhist Temple, each of which attracts people to the downtown area. Local Government and Related Public Facilities Maintaining Salt Lake City's downtown has been a major concern of city government for decades. • Since 1975 the City's Redevelopment Agency has allocated a substantial amount for downtown public improvements, land purchases and sales, and loans to businesses to renovate buildings. • Salt Lake City voters approved bond issues of$30 million and up to $84 million respectively to renovate the City&County Building and build a new main library and public plaza. • Salt Lake City elected officials also have been instrumental in encouraging the construction of the state's only operating light rail lines, and the location of the State Courts Complex in the Scott M. Matheson Courthouse. Arts/Culture/Entertainment Downtown remains the focal point of arts, culture and entertainment in Utah. • It is the home of Utah's premier performing arts organizations and Utah's only major league sports franchise. • The Capitol Theater,Abravenel Hall, and the Delta Center serve as venues for a wide variety of special events. The Days of'47 parade,the Utah Arts Festival and the New Year's Eve First Night celebration identify Salt Lake City as a core activity center for the region. Tourism Downtown is the focal point of Utah's convention business. • It is home to the Salt Palace Convention Center and more than 5,000 hotel rooms. (2) Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 3- • In terms of square footage, downtown contains 67 percent of the top meeting space in Utah. It contains the two top facilities for meeting space,three of the state's top five facilities for meeting space, and five of the state's top ten facilities for meeting space. (3) • Salt Lake City also attracts ski visitors from out of state to stay in downtown hotels while enjoying several world-class resorts within a one-hour drive of downtown. Housing Downtown living is on the rise in Salt Lake City, and housing is an increasingly important component of downtown. • Partly due to the concerted efforts of the City Redevelopment Agency,housing stock in downtown has increased substantially during the past decade, to where it is now estimated that 4,500 residents live in the downtown's core. • Downtown is bordered on the east by a neighborhood that has the highest density of any neighborhood in the state and on the west by a neighborhood that is projected to ultimately be the home of 13,000 residents. (4) Downtown is not in decline. According to a recent economic study conducted by the University of Utah's Bureau of Business and Economic Research for the Downtown Alliance, in the 1990's every major economic indicator for downtown has been positive, including: • 24% increase— 12,000 more employees—working in the CBD • 69% increase in housing units • 30% increase in office square footage,with the lowest vacancy rates in a decade. • 45% increase in retail square footage • 54% increase in wages • 35% increase in commercial bank deposits • 25 new restaurants and 15 new private clubs • 6% increase in retail sales The only major indicator that has been a disappointment, however, is one that is among the most visible—retail sales. While retail sales increased a slight 6% from 1990 to 2001, sales peaked in 1996, and then declined by 21%. The loss of retail business from downtown to the suburbs and other retail outlets such as the Internet, coupled with the empty storefronts of South Main Street have led policymakers,the news media, and citizens to be concerned about the viability and vibrancy of Main Street. To further focus and shape City policies to enhance the success of downtown and Main Street, the City Council adopts these statements of principle: Updated: September 18,2009 -Page 4- 1. City's Leadership Role , The City can and should be a vigorous advocate of downtown, encouraging business investment,working to retain as well as attract businesses to downtown, and making it easy to do business in the City. The City's advocacy should include being proactive to make businesses feel welcome in and a part of Salt Lake City. The City Council recognizes that many decisions affecting the fate of downtown must be made by the private sector. There is much City government can and should do to encourage a healthy downtown. And yet it must be remembered that the City,through the tools available to it, is a catalyst and coordinator,not a wealth-creator in and of itself. City government should provide focus and leadership to encourage and support private efforts leading to downtown investment. It should make sure that its roles—including but not limited to infrastructure,business licensing,regulation,zoning and code enforcement and public safety —are done efficiently, effectively, and in a way that encourages rather than discourages private investment. The City should encourage and facilitate communication and cooperation among the various private and public interests who have a stake in downtown, such as the Downtown Alliance, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, the Economic Development Corporation of Utah, the Downtown Merchants Association, the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau, and County, State and Federal governments. "'" The City should leverage its resources as much as possible by encouraging, utilizing, and not duplicating,the services of private non-profit organizations including the Downtown Alliance, the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, and the Economic Development Corporation of Utah, in furthering the City's goals for downtown. 2. Build Upon Downtown's Strengths and Uniqueness People will come downtown when it provides an experience or opportunity they can't find in their own neighborhoods. Salt Lake City must distinguish itself from the suburbs by building upon what is unique to downtown—things that cannot be experienced anywhere else. The City Council supports a greater emphasis on leveraging historic preservation as an economic development tool by working more closely with the Utah Heritage Foundation to find opportunities to use Salt Lake City's historic buildings in new and exciting ways, for office, cultural, retail, and institutional uses. Despite numerous efforts to promote downtown, for too long Salt Lake City too often has assumed that downtown will attract people just because it exists. The time is long past when people will come to downtown because it is the only place to shop, eat at a restaurant, or see a movie. The City Council encourages greater efforts to market downtown to people where downtown is geographically the closest retail shopping area. Marketing campaigns should ,4044 Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 5- target Salt Lake City residents, the daytime population,particularly office workers, University of Utah employees and students,visitors, and the suburban population,particularly residents of South Davis County. • The City Council supports encouraging the Downtown Alliance and Downtown Merchants associations to promote joint marketing opportunities, such as seeing the Utah Symphony and enjoying a dinner or staying the night in downtown hotels. The Council supports marketing campaigns targeting University of Utah employees and students to come downtown for restaurants, entertainment and shopping and to our own residents who shop in suburbs rather than coming downtown. • The City Council supports the development of other anchors to Main Street, in addition to retail,that will attract people to the City's core. Anchors could include museums, a Broadway-style theater, Olympic legacy or other similar attractions that would provide unique"draws"to downtown. 3. Take the long view rather than focusing on quick fixes While there are some immediate steps that should be taken during the next one to three years, City policy-makers must resist the temptation to think short-term and instead take a long-range view of how decisions now will impact the City five,ten, even twenty years into the future. The City Council believes that the elements of sound development and marketing strategies for the downtown already exist in available plans and studies. The Council believes that the time for additional plans and studies have past, and the time for implementing a coherent, rational, and achievable program is now. The City Council urges the Mayor and his administration to fashion an implementation program based on existing plans and strategies and carry out the implementation. To keep the City Council and general public involved and informed of specific program steps taken and tied to long-term priorities with measurable benchmarks, the City Council supports having the Administration provide updates to the Council and the public on the program's implementation. Regularly, the Administration should share, on a confidential basis as needed, its efforts with a subcommittee of the Council that will include representatives of Council and Redevelopment Agency leadership. 4. Support All facets of Downtown Development Too often the focus on downtown is on just one aspect of downtown—such as nightlife or retail —while failing to recognize that a successful downtown is made of several important elements. Each element is important in its own right,but, like an ecosystem,the success of each is intertwined and interdependent. These elements can be summarized as follows and measured by the criteria listed under each section: Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 6- i • Business center,providing the premier location for a variety of businesses, in particular, local,regional, and where possible national headquarters. o Indicators of success include: • Square footage and type of office space in the downtown inventory • The vacancy rate • The number and size of"headquarters" located in the downtown. • New businesses relocating to the Central Business District. • Existing businesses expanding at their present locations in the Central Business District. • Existing businesses renewing their leases. • Retail, supporting the retail needs of daytime population and drawing people to the downtown. o Indicators of success include: • Number of jobs generated • Square footage of retail • Total retail sales and retail sales per square foot at each of the major retail destinations. • Sales tax revenue generated. • Institutional Center o Indicators of success include: • Increased presence of county, state and federal offices • Presence of educational facilities available to the public • Local government and related public facilities o Indicators of success include: • Well-maintained public infrastructure • Continued development of efficient public transportation systems with easy access to homes and businesses and connected to a wider area Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 7- • Arts, culture, entertainment and nightlife,providing unique entertainment and cultural opportunities for residents throughout the region and visitors o Indicators of success include: • Sales generated • Number of nights of entertainment offerings • Location of new entertainment and cultural facilities including theater for Broadway productions and museums • Tourism including convention visitors o Indicators of success include: • Convention bookings • Hotel occupancy rate • Housing—available at all ranges of income levels—will further enhance the livability and vibrancy of downtown o Indicators of success include: • The number of housing units • Vacancy rates • Population • The mix of market rate,middle income, affordable and low income housing units FIRST STEPS Based on the quantity and quality of public input the City Council has received resulting from its focus on Main Street and Downtown, the Council suggests the following areas be considered immediately relating to the seven elements of a successful downtown: • Business Center o Administration should identify major corporate presences in downtown, ascertain their satisfaction, and make appropriate efforts to ensure that they will remain downtown and not relocate to the suburbs. Updated: September 18,2009 -Page 8- o Administration, in cooperation with EDCU, should target businesses to locate corporate or regional headquarters downtown. o The City should encourage greater cooperation between the Salt Lake Chamber of Commerce, Downtown Alliance, and EDCU. o The Administration should meet with major landowners of property fronting Main Street between 600 South and South Temple,to ascertain plans for development and to encourage appropriate development as supported by market conditions. o The City should endorse legislation to be presented to the Utah Legislature extending historic preservation tax credits—that currently exist only for residential properties—to commercial properties. o The City should utilize the assistance of the Utah Heritage Foundation in identifying key vacant or underutilized historic buildings and all financial incentives available to encourage appropriate development as supported by market conditions. o The City should strongly consider encouraging legislation to extend the expiration date of the Central Business Redevelopment District to enable the City to continue to use RDA tools in the future to bolster the center of ., downtown. • Retail o The City should continue to support and encourage retail on Main Street, with complimentary retail at The Gateway,Trolley Square, and in East Downtown in an effort to generate economic growth in the broader downtown area. o The City and RDA, in conjunction with local businesses and landowners, should actively promote and market our downtown's opportunities to national, regional and local retailers,using existing plans and studies to identify and recruit potential retailers for the downtown area. o Perceived parking problems continue to be a major obstacle to retail activity downtown. The City should continue to support the Parking Token initiative of the Downtown Alliance,but also look at more aggressive marketing of existing downtown parking to Salt Lake residents. Such marketing efforts could include advertising the availability of parking but also the advantages of covered parking at a mall versus parking in a flat parking lot in the elements of sun and snow. Marketing efforts also should dispel misperceptions that no parking is available downtown. Updated: September 18,2009 -Page 9- o The City should also consider additional free parking downtown, such as that provided on a pilot basis on 300 South. The cost-benefit of parking meters should be studied. o The UTA Free Fare zone should be advertised by the City and downtown merchants. The UTA,the City, and downtown merchants should evaluate and implement ways, including small buses and possible expansion of the Free Fare Zone,to link the Gateway, Main Street,the future Intermodal Hub, and Trolley Square in such a fashion as to make movement around the downtown simple and easy for any visitor. o The City should encourage and support the owners of the ZCMI Center and Crossroads Plaza in undertaking significant renovations and upgrading of both mall properties including making the retail spaces more accessible to the streets. o RDA dollars should go toward supporting additional retail in all the CBD with a primary focus on filling vacant Main Street locations. o The Downtown Alliance and Downtown Merchants Association should be encouraged to develop more joint marketing opportunities with conventions being hosted in downtown to attract more tourists to stores and restaurants. o Given the proximity to downtown of communities in South Davis County, those communities should be targeted in a special marketing campaign. Emphasis should be on helping Davis County residents feel welcomed to and appreciated by Salt Lake City. o Efforts to make Main Street more pedestrian friendly should continue by creating elements that generate interest along the length of Main Street. Elements could include public art, window decorations and benches where people can relax. o 100, 200, and 300 South streets, along with South Temple Street, are important links between Main Street and West Temple Street,where much of the convention and tourist traffic flows. Efforts should continue to be made to make these links as inviting as possible to pedestrians. • Institutional Center o The City should meet with the State Building Board and/or its executive director to find opportunities to work together to enhance state offices or locating state cultural centers downtown. Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 10- o The City should meet with officials of the University of Utah to find areas where the City and University can work together to locate functions that attract people and activities downtown, including classrooms,museums and galleries. o The City should meet with officials of Salt Lake Community College to ascertain the success of their downtown classroom building and to see if there is anything the City can do to aid its success. o The City should meet with officials of the LDS Church to ascertain any plans for expansion of office space,use of properties(such as State Street and First South) in the downtown area. • Local government and related public facilities o The City Council will continue to support making downtown more friendly to pedestrians,the disabled, and bicyclists. o The City should pursue ways to move the future construction of a light-rail connection to Salt Lake City International Airport—including completion of the downtown light-rail loop—further up the list of projects on the Wasatch Front Regional Council's long-range transportation plan. o The City Council is committed to support the installation of Olympic legacy memorabilia in a prominent location downtown. • Arts, Culture, entertainment, and nightlife o The City should focus on offering several successful events, such as"First Night,"rather than putting efforts into weekly activities that are less likely to be successful. o The City should consider current alcohol policies and monitor any changes in state laws that may be proposed in 2003. o In partnership with Salt Lake County—the owner of downtown arts facilities— consider the feasibility and advisability of constructing a Broadway-style theater on or near Main Street, capable of presenting full-scale productions. o The City Council will support marketing efforts to dispel misperceptions that "there's nothing to do"downtown. • Tourism o The City should support a feasibility study regarding further expansion of the Salt Palace to keep Salt Lake City competitive in attracting conventions. Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 11- o The City should cooperate with the Salt Lake Convention and Visitors Bureau and the Utah Travel Council in attracting convention business and tourists to Salt Lake City. • Housing o The City should continue to encourage downtown housing for a full spectrum of income levels throughout the downtown area. o The City should conduct an inventory of land within two blocks of the new main library that could be used for housing sites and study the feasibility of purchasing the sites for housing uses. o The City should explore ways to protect further multifamily housing units on 300 East Street between South Temple and 400 South streets and encourage in- fill development of multifamily housing along 300 East Street. o The City should encourage retail services, especially grocery stores, necessary to support an increased residential population as well as services that cater to downtown workers. Notes Except where noted, all factual statements were taken from the Downtown Alliance's Economic Change in Salt Lake City's Central Business District— 1991 to 2001 prepared by James A. Wood of the University of Utah's Bureau of Economic and Business Research. Noted exceptions follow: 1. Collier's CRG. 2. City Council staff estimate. The Economic Change in Salt Lake City's Central Business District— 1991 to 2001 study defined the Central Business District's borders as North Temple, 300 East, 500 South and 500 West streets. The borders do not appear to include hotels between 500 South and 600 South streets including the 850 rooms in the Little America Hotel or the 775 rooms in the Grand America Hotel. Other hotels south of 500 South Street contain at least 375 rooms. Updated:September 18,2009 -Page 12- Attach:, dt C: List of Art Venues in the City Arts in the Capital City Type Address Additional Information » .Art Galleries » »._. »»...».».._._._ _ ».».....» _.»....»._.._.»....»....._......._....._.»»...._._.....»._.»._....._._...._................._....._......._.._......._........_.».». _ 3W Gallery at W Communications 159 West 300 South,Suite 200 M M_ 15th Street Gallery 1500 East 1500 South Art Access Gsiler r 230 S 500 W,#125 _ ___ Arts for persons with disabilities Art at the Main 210 East 400 South Supports beginning artists »».».._._._. Blonde Grizzly _._ 15 East 400 South City Creek Antiques 169 East Broadway - David Ericson Fine Art 418 South 200 West Gallery at Library Square mm 210 East 400 South,Level 4 Exhibit space is integral part of Main Library building Graywall Gallery 351 W. Pierpont Ave.STE 2B Hellenic Cultural Museum 279 South 300 West - _. _.._._.»._._ Hope Gallery 151 South Main Street House Gallery 29 East 400 South - _.w_ Kayo Gallery 177 East Broadway Supports Local Artists Ken Sanders Rare Books and Gallery 268 South 200 East Carries rare books,documents Marble Gallery 44 East Exchange Place Museum of Church History and Art 45 North West Temple Displays historical artifacts Repartee Gallery Downtown 20 East South Temple � ....__.._._��__.»..»_._._..�.�._._._....__...._.»._.».....»._....__»_._..»_._.�._._._. Rio Gallery 300 South 455 West(Rio Grande St.) In the historic Rio Grande depot building Rose Wagner Art Gallery 138 West 300 South Permanent Art installations and Rotating Art galleries »»�• »Salt Lake Art Center 20 South West Temple Supports Youth and Local artists Social Hall Herit eMuseum 51 South State Street Southam Gallery 50 East Broadway - TP Gallery 252 South Main Street - Utah Artist Hands 61 West 100 South Supports Local Artists Utah Arts Alliance Gallery 127 South Main 3 locations,supports Youth and Local artists (Quick 1st Draft) Attachment C: List of Art Venues in the City Type 1 Address 1 Additional information Fine Art 200 East South Temple,Suite 100 Suprts Local Artists Rim Broadway Centre Cinemas 111 East 300 South Center for Documentary Arts 243 East 400 South,Suite 301 _ - Clark Planetarium 110 South 400 West at The Gateway ._._._._._.__ Leg Theater -� _ 15 E.South Temple Salt Lake Film Center 122 S.Main St. - ..^ ._..........�Performing A ._._...._....._._.»................_...._ _.... w .. _.._...._.-........._._._....._...._.__.._._._...._.._...»._._._....._._._........_._._._.._ Ballet West 50 West 200 South Children Theatre._._. _. _. 3605 South State Seating Capacity=1$5+_._.._._.__._.._._._. . Off Broadway Theatre 272 South Main Street Seating Capacity=250 Plan B Theatre Company 133 West 300 South - _ Repertory Dance Theatre_.._._ 13B West 300 South _.. _.� _ ..� _ _� ._.. _....._.... .'�. ...._.._._...._._. �. .. . Salt Lake Acting Company 168 West S00 North - Utah Opera 123 W South Temple - .._._ _._. ..Utah Symphony 123 W South Temple ._..._._ Musams/Canservatasy Clark Planetarium 110 South 400 West - _ DauPubers of tie Utah Pioneer ___ � �^ 300 North Main Street _ - __ _ Discovery Gateway 444 West 100 SouthM Family History Library 35 N.West Temple - Family History Search Center 15 E.South Temple - Fort Douglas Military 32 Potter Street - . � _ Governor's Mansion 603 East South Temple Red Butte Gardens 300 Wakara Way - _._ ._._. The Beehive House 67 East South Temple B1 - _— The Leonardo 209 East 500 South - Utah Museum of Fine Arts 410 South Campus Drive - ^»��Utah Natural History Museum Along Bonneville Shoreline Trail (Quick lst ) Attachme.... C: List of Art Venues in the City Type J Address I Additional Information ._._._.._...._.Performance Venues._._....._.__...._._._._._._.._._._..........._._._._.._._._._._._.._......._._.._._._._._.._._._._._._.._...._.__....._._._._.._._._._._._.._._._._._.._._......._.._._...._. Abravenel Hall 123 West South Temple ._. Seat Capacity=2,768 ^� Assembly Hall on Temple Square SOW.North Temple......._._._....._._...................._._...... _.:_.. .. ._.... _..........._. . Capitol Theatre 50 West 200 South Seatin(Capacity=1,876 Dumke Recital Hall 1376 East President's Circle Seating Capacity= 114 (University of Utah) Dumke Student Theatre 1840 5 1300 E(Westminster College) Seating Capacity=150,Black Box proudctions Edgar J.Thompson Chamber Music 1375 East President's Circle Seating Capacity=300 Hall (University of Utah) ._._._.._._.Energy Solutions_ Arena ____�_._. 301 W.South Temple...._._._..__.__...M..___�._._ Seating Capacity=20,000 _____._._.... Gallivan Center 239 S. Main Street Holds Summer Concert Series In the Venue _ _ 219 South 600 West - _ _ �^_ �_ ��Kingsbury Hall��mm TTM^ «1395 Presidents Circle#190 _.__T �� _ _Seating Capacity=1,992 ___ _ _ __. LDS Conference Center �60 W. North Temple Seating Capacity=21,333 Libby Gardner Concert Hall 1377 East President's Circle Seating Capacity=680 (University of Utah) Library Square 210 East 400 South Holds Festivals and Concerts during the Summer Pioneer Park 350 S 300 W Holds Twilight Concert Series max attendance 52,000 people for final concert of Summer 2011 Red Butte Garden Ampitheater 300 Wakara Way Holds Summer Concert Series Rose Wainer Theatre 138 West Broadway Seating Capacity 501 Salt Lake City&County Building 451 South State Street Summer Festival Series Tabernacle on Temple Square 50 West North Temple Holds weekly performance of Mormon Tabernacle Choir po.....______The De_________._._._._._....._._._._._._.__._._. 13 North 400 West....._._.__.___._...._.....__._...._._.._...._..._....._...._._.__._._._._.._._._...._._.......__.._._._._. Urban Lounge 241 South 500 East - Vieve Gore Concert Hall 1250 E 1700 S(Westminster College) Seating Capacity=285 (Quick 1st Draft) ITEM All SEE ITEM A8 FROM 9 / 27