09/06/2011 - Work Session - Minutes PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2011
The City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, met in a Work Session on
Tuesday, September 6, 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, Stan
Penfold, Jill Remington Love, Luke Garrott, JT Martin and Soren
Simonsen.
Also in Attendance: Cindy Gust-Jenson, Executive Council Director;
Jennifer Bruno, Council Deputy Director; Karen Halladay, Council
Policy Analyst; Lehua Weaver, Council Research and Policy Analyst;
Janice Jardine, Council Land Use Policy Analyst; Emy Maloutas, Parks
and Public Lands Director; David Everitt, Chief of Staff; Police Chief
Chris Burbank; Ed Rutan, City Attorney; Boyd Ferguson, Senior City
Attorney; Gina Chamness, Budget Director; Gordon Hoskins, Chief
Financial Officer; LuAnn Clark, Housing and Neighborhood Development
Director; Mike Akerlow, Housing and Neighborhood Development Deputy
Director; Rick Graham, Public Services Director; Wayne Mills, Senior
Planner; Wilf Sommerkorn, Planning Director, Ray Milner, Principal
Planner; John Naser, City Engineer; Tim Harpst, Transportation
Director; Jeff Niermeyer, Public Utilities Director; Jim Lewis, Public
Utilities Finance Administrator; Tom Ward, Public Utilities Deputy
Director; Curtis Preece, City Courts Administrator; Kay Christensen,
Legislative Affairs Coordinator; Russ Weeks, Council Policy Analyst;
Mary Beth Thompson, Accounting; Chris Sands, Biowest; Michael Pate,
Petitioner; Ann Wescott, Galena Consulting and Chris Meeker, City
Recorder.
Councilmember Love presided at and conducted the meeting.
The meeting was called to order at 3 : 00 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
TRANSACTION ON THE BEST POSSIBLE TERMS PURSUANT TO UTAH
CODE §52-4-205 (1) (C) ;
11 - 1
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2011
(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.
This Item was not addressed.
#3 . 3 : 14 : 14 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING BUDGET
AMENDMENT NO. 1 FOR FISCAL YEAR 2011 - 2012 . BUDGET AMENDMENTS HAPPEN
SEVERAL TIMES EACH YEAR TO REFLECT ADJUSTMENTS TO THE CITY' S BUDGETS,
INCLUDING PROPOSED PROJECT ADDITIONS AND MODIFICATIONS. (ITEM C2)View
Attachments
Gina Chamness, Gordon Hoskins, LuAnn Clark, Karen Halladay, Lehua
Weaver, Police Chief Chris Burbank, Mary Beth Thompson, David Everitt
and Tim Harpst briefed the Council with the attached handouts .
#4 . 4 : 37 : 05 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING A RESOLUTION
ADOPTING THE RESTORATION USE AND MANAGEMENT PLAN FOR WASATCH HOLLOW
OPEN SPACE. THE GOAL OF THE PLAN IS TO PROTECT NATIVE VEGETATION,
WATER QUALITY, AND AQUATIC AND TERRESTRIAL WILDLIFE HABITAT OF
EMIGRATION CREEK WHILE PROVIDING APPROPRIATE ACCESS AND EDUCATIONAL
OPPORTUNITIES FOR THE PUBLIC. View Attachments
Emy Maloutas, Chris Sands and Jennifer Bruno briefed the Council
with the attached handouts . Ms . Maloutas said Wasatch Hollow was ten
acres and was located east of 1600 East and north of 1700 South, along
Emigration Creek. She said the five main goals were restore and
protect the Emigration riparian corridor and adjacent open space area,
11 - 2
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2011
establish clearly defined boundaries to prevent encroachment, provide
controlled public access, increase safety and foster collaboration.
#5. 5 : 17 : 19 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING A REQUEST
TO REZONE PROPERTY LOCATED AT 2705 EAST PARLEYS WAY FROM COMMUNITY
BUSINESS (CB) TO COMMUNITY SHOPPING (CS) AND CHANGE THE EAST BENCH
COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN FUTURE LAND USE MAP TO BE CONSISTENT WITH THE
PROPOSED REZONING. THIS ACTION WOULD FACILITATE DEMOLITION OF THE
EXISTING STRUCTURE ON THE PROPERTY (A FORMER KMART STORE) AND
CONSTRUCTION OF A NEW WALMART SUPERCENTER. PETITIONER - BALLARD SPAHR
LLP REPRESENTING WALMART STORES, INC. (PETITION NO. PLNPCM 2010-00556
AND PLNPCM 2010-00557) (ITEM D2) View Attachments
Janice Jardine, Wayne Mills, Lynn Pace and Wilf Sommerkorn
briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Councilmember
Simonson said he wanted to initiate a legislative intent anticipating
the length of non conforming uses and non conforming structures in
connection with the small neighborhood commercial zones . Mr.
Sommerkorn said Planning was already re-working the non conforming
section of the code. Councilmember Simonsen said he wanted to
initiate a legislative intent that addressed walkability and
bikeability. Mr. Sommerkorn said change proposals would be coming to
Council soon.
#6 . 8 : 26 : 57 PM RECEIVE A FOLLOW-UP BRIEFING REGARDING THE BUDGET
RELATING TO THE CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM (CIP) FOR FISCAL YEAR
2011-2012 . CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS INVOLVE THE CONSTRUCTION, PURCHASE OR
RENOVATION OF BUILDING, PARKS, STREETS OR OTHER PHYSICAL STRUCTURES.
GENERALLY, PROJECTS HAVE A USEFUL LIFE OF FIVE OR MORE YEARS AND COST
$50, 000 OR MORE. (ITEM G1) View Attachments
Mayor Becker, Rick Graham, John Naser, LuAnn Clark and Karen
Halladay briefed the Council with the attached handouts .
Councilmember Simonsen moved and Councilmember Penfold seconded
to adopt the changes made to the CIP, which motion carried, all
members voted aye.
#7 . 9 : 01 : 58 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING THE CITY' S 10 YEAR
CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN. View Attachments
LuAnn Clark, Mike Akerlow, Ann Wescott, John Naser, Emy Maloutas
and Karen Halladay briefed the Council with the attached handout . Ms .
Wescott suggested that the Council not go line by line but look at
priorities . Councilmember Love asked for a new list.
11 - 3
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2011
#8. 4 : 36 : 38 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING ISSUING WATER AND
SEWER REVENUE BONDS TO FUND THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE FOLSOM AVENUE
STORM DRAIN. (THE DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES IS PROPOSING TO ISSUE
UP TO $10 MILLION IN REVENUE BONDS TO FUND THE FOLSOM AVENUE STORM
DRAIN CONSTRUCTION. FOLSOM AVENUE IS APPROXIMATELY 50 SOUTH, AND THE
STORM DRAIN CORRIDOR STRETCHES FROM 700 WEST, JUST WEST OF I-15, TO
THE JORDAN RIVER. ) (ITEM G2) This issue was not discussed.
#9 . 5 : 51 : 56 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING ORDINANCES AMENDING
SECTION 12 . 96. 020, SALT LAKE CITY CODE, EXTENDING THE PERIOD AFTER
WHICH UNPAID PARKING CITATIONS MAY RESULT IN IMPOUNDMENT OF A VEHICLE
FROM 30 DAYS TO 40 DAYS TO BE CONSISTENT WITH OTHER PROVISIONS WITHIN
THE SAME CHAPTER AND AMENDING SECTION 12 .56.70, SALT LAKE CITY CODE,
CLARIFYING AND REVISING PROVISIONS GOVERNING THE DISMISSAL AND
REDUCTION OF PARKING CITATION FEES. View Attachments
Russ Weeks, Kay Christensen, Rick Graham and Curtis Preece
briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Mr. Weeks said one of
the proposed changes was to change the impoundment of a vehicle from
30 to 40 days . He said another proposed change was to codify the
common law of addressing citation dismissal or reduction. He said the
third proposed change was the vehicle must display a placard or
sticker issued by Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement or the vehicle' s
license plate must be registered with Salt Lake City Parking
Enforcement for enrollment in any license-plate recognition system
used to regulate parking enforcement .
#10 . 6 : 02 : 40 PM RECEIVE A BRIEFING REGARDING AN ORDINANCE TO
CHANGE THE CITY'S ZONING REGULATIONS TO ALLOW ELECTRIC SECURITY FENCES
IN THE MANUFACTURING M-1 AND M-2 ZONES UNDER CERTAIN CONDITIONS.
(TITLE 21A ZONING, CHAPTERS 21A. 62 . 010 DEFINITIONS AND 21A.40 . 120L
REGULATION OF FENCES, WALLS AND HEDGES. ) RELATED PROVISIONS OF TITLE
21A - ZONING MAY ALSO BE AMENDED AS PART OF THE PETITION. (PETITIONER-
SENTRY SECURITY SYSTEMS - PLNPCM2010-0300) (ITEM H1) View Attachments
Ray Milliner, Wilf Sommerkorn, Frank Gray and Janice Jardine
briefed the Council with the attached handouts . Mr. Milner said the
Planning Commission said under certain circumstances an electric fence
was allowable . He said there were eleven conditions . He said the
fences were not deadly or life threatening.
Michael Pate, Century Security System and Petitioner, spoke in
favor of the change to the zoning regulations . He asked for the
international electrical standard to be referenced in the code . He
said he felt the ordinance was restrictive as to where the product
11 - 4
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH
WORK SESSION
TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER 6, 2011
could be used. He said one foot of spacing between the electric fence
and the perimeter fence or wall was too far.
#11. 6 : 21 : 03 PM INTERVIEW CATHERINE ELIZABETH ROBERTS PRIOR TO
CONSIDERATION OF HER APPOINTMENT AS PART-TIME JUSTICE COURT JUDGE FOR
THE SALT LAKE CITY JUSTICE COURT. (ITEM G3)
Councilmember Love said Ms . Robert' s name would be forwarded to
the Consent Agenda for approval .
The meeting adjourned at 9 :45 p.m.
cil Chair
This document along with the recording constitute the
official minutes of the City Council Work Session meeting held
September 6, 2011 .
cm
11 - 5
q/c0/ fifth
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
BUDGET ANALYSIS - FISCAL YEAR 2011-12
DATE: September 6, 2011
BUDGET FOR: 10 YEAR CAPITAL FACILITIES PLAN
STAFF REPORT BY: Karen Halladay, Budget and Policy Analyst
Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Director, Office of City Council
cc: David Everitt, Gina Chamness, Gordon Hoskins, Frank Gray,
Mary De La Mare-Schaefer, Luann Clark, Mike Akerlow, Sherrie
Collins
Council Action Needed
• The Administration, with the help of consultant, Anne Wescott of Galena Consulting, has prepared a new
10-year Capital Facilities Plan (CFP). After discussion and possible modification the Council may consider
adopting 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), which will in turn be used to update the City's impact fee schedule for new development in
the City.
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, as well as, upgrade and maintain the City's
urrent facilities. The plan went through three phases,each more fiscally constrained than the one previous.
The initial plan represents the fiscally unconstrained capital projects totaling $415 million (note: this figure does
not include large capital projects such as the Utah Performing Arts Center, Sugar House and Downtown Streetcar Lines,
Convention Hotel,etc. Those projects would be in addition to the$415 million figure).
Department projects were further constrained and prioritized based 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 typical yearly CIP allocation, assumed and calculated at 7% of general fund revenues,
the plan was required to be constrained further, to$151 million. This iteration of the plan is the one that was
submitted to the Council in conjunction with the annual budget. The Council now has the opportunity to
review this 10-year capital improvement plan in the context of the City Council priorities. There are two items
regarding debt service in this version of the plan 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.
This payment is required for six years, from FY 2016 to FY 2021. The Council may wish to discuss the
impact this agreement will have on the City's ability to fund capital projects, and may wish to discuss with the
Administration, other options for this debt payment.
• 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 Sugarhouse and
Downtown Streetcars, Utah Performing Arts Center, or Salt Lake City Public Market, although it
should be noted that this is not sufficient to fund all projects. (Note: A debt service payment of$2.5
1
million calculated at 4.5% interest over 10 years would fund a $19.6 million bond project. If the
timeline were extended to 20 years at the same interest rate, a $32.2 million bond project could be
funded, which is less than 25% of the funding that would be needed to address the projects. Both project
amounts include issuance costs.) 0
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 Salt Lake $415 million $242 million
City
Note: The estimated costs for Large Capital Projects are not
included,only$2.5 million as a placeholder in the analysis.
Total General Fund OP Allocation $153 million $153 million
Assumption: 7%of General Fund Revenues
Other Funding Sources Identified (10 Years)-Class C,CDBG, $92 million $92 million
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 to Fund $94 million $94 million (11:1
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 (p. 4)
• 2011 Council Goals and Priorities- Identified at Council Retreat (p. 5)
• Capital Improvement Program Budget Process (p. 5)
• Council Policies Regarding Capital Improvement Program (p. 6) 0
• "Special" Items-Class C and Impact Fees- within the CIP Budget (p. 6)
2
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 the full list of unconstrained CIP projects and unmet capital needs
prior to consideration of the 10-Year Plan. As the Council will recall, the plan presented to the Council
has been "fiscally constrained" by the consultant in collaboration with City Departments. The 10 year
Capital Facilities Plan is typically a key place for the Mayor and Council to make generational decisions. 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?
10-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 current 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. The Council may wish to understand the nature and implications of the cuts to current asset repair and
improvement projects that were cut from the Capital Facilities Plan.
5. 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, is included in the 10
Year Plan, but not to the Council's previously expressed interest in terms of earthquake preparedness.
6. 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.
7. Does the Council wish to set a policy regarding the annual amount or percentage of funds that need to
be used for existing City infrastructure and/or for new projects (as was done in the FY 2012 CIP
process)?
8. 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 Precinct.
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?
3
c. Funds to account for inflation in operating costs (without increasing property tax)?
d. Funds available after retirement of debt service?
10. There are some projects included on the CIP 10 Year Plan that were not necessarily vetted through thr
typical public process (for example, the 200 South Bike Lane project) . Does the Council wish to modify tht
policy to reflect the new practice?
11. The Council may wish to discuss how large capital projects (Theater, Convention Hotel, etc) will be
vetted considering they do not currently fit within the parameters of the existing revenue for CIP. For
example, Salt Lake County has a debt review committee, in addition to a recreation facilities committee, that
typically reviews large projects before recommending action to the County Council.
12. The Council may wish to discuss what the City's role is in terms of economic development, and how
investment in current infrastructure vs.new projects can contribute to economic development.
a. Does investing in new projects "growing the economic development pie" or does it take resources away
from investing in current infrastructure (also critical for the local economy)? What is the best way to
evaluate opportunities? Is investment in infrastructure (whether new or existing) serve as a better
economic engine than grants or incentives?
GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT SERVICE PAYMENTS FOR FY 2011-12 AND MATURITY DATE
Change 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
g SportsComplex $
�*Re Tonal -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.
3
4
•
2011 COUNCIL GOALS AND PRIORITIES—IDENTIFIED AT COUNCIL RETREAT
Process of Public Engagement
-Council commurication 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 Donations
-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 CalminpWPedestrian Safety -Ground Transportation
CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PROGRAM BUDGET PROCESS '
The Capital Improvement Program is a multi-year planning program that uses two main planning d. ,._..
.10-Year Capital Facilities Plan(formerly known as the Capital Improvement Plan) and each fiscal ye.
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.
5
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 C
Program. In December 1999 the Council adopted a resolution entitled"Salt Lake City Council Capital an
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
impact fees below)establishing impact fees on new development within the City. Revenue from these fees
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 CII'
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
issues of deferred capital infrastructure. Revenue collected from impact fees must be expended or
encumbered 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
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.
6
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
ode):
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.gov/government/grant/pa/egrates_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 278
(2009).
►The Council may wish to review all CIP projects to determine if they are eligible for Class C funding.
n
Or.ALENAA
/A
NSULTING
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 fiscally constrained 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan(CFP)1
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
1 formerly referred to as a Capital Facilities Plan or CIP
1
A ,
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; .0004.
• $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 term 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 time. 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 FY 11-12 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 for a 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 final 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
Salt Lake City-Sources and Uses
Capital Improvement Plan 2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained
SOURCES I. FY11.12- FY1N-1rT ,Yl Pi4 .. , .FI(;1,4.1,¢. FY1$4., Ft43,,-17 .. FY17-18 FY1.8-10- FY19-20 ,FY20-21 10 year totals
On-Going General Fund Contribution-7% $ 13,323,847 $ 13,723,582 $ 14,135,269 $ 14,559,327 $ 14,996,107 $ 15,445,990 $ 15,909,370 $ 16,388,651 $ 18,878,250 $ 17,384,598 $ 152,742,970
Ongoing General Fund Revenues $ 13,323,847 $ 13,723,562 $ 14,135,269 $ 14.559,327 $ 14,996,107 $ 15.445.990 $ 15,909,370 $ 16,386,651 $ 18,878,250 $ 17,384,598 $ 152,742,970
Impact Fees(including current fund balances) $ 5,065,683 $ 4,329,683 $ 5,142,883 $ 2,615,350 $ 976,950 $ 1,969,750 $ 2,089,750 $ 4,705,350 $ 2,072,350 $ 1,794,350 $ 30,762,100
Open Space Bond Fund Balance $ 750,000 $ 750,000 $ 600,000 $ 2,100,000
Class C CIP Funds S 2,400,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 2,400000 $ 2,400,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 24,000,000
CDBG CIP Funds $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 11,000,000
Facilities-Fleet Bond Revenue $ 1,900,000 $ 1,900,000
Streets Viaduct Match-already In CIP account $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ ' - $ - $ - $ 200,000
FY2011 Budget Amendment#4•Transportation projects $ 1,250,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,250,000
Federal Grant-FHWA $ 9,320,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 9,320,000
Sale of Public Safety/Evidence Properly $ 8,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 11,000,000
Total General Fund Revenues $ 35,309,530 $ 22,303,245 $ 29,378,152 $ 25,674,677 $ 19,473,057 $ 20,915,740 $ 21,499,120 $ 24,592,001 $ 22,450,600 $ 22,678,948 $ 244,275,070
. ...-
USES FYt5,52„ FYf21 Yf• F5,4. • p!rw1'4-f5e . FVt,•16,- _ _ ItY1'6,iT FYITTB.. .-,16-.9 FY19-20 -. 'FY20.21 10 year totals
Debt Service
Sales Tex Bonds $ 3,757,013 $ 4.181,854 $ 4,401,174 $ 2,930,705 $ 8,884,511 $ 9,354,071 $ 9,342,669 $ 9,333,578 $ 9,332,520 $ 9,337,871 $ 68,815,766
CAM Bond Issuance-estimated/placeholder $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2.500,000 S 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500.000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 $ 2,500,000 S 2,500,000 S 25,000 000
Ongoing Debt Service $ 0257,013 $ 6,661,854 $ 6,901,174 $ 5,430,705 $ 9,364,511 $ 11,854,071 $ 11,842,669 $ 11,833,578 $ 11,832,520 $ 11,837,671 $ 93,815,766
Capital Projects
Fire S 1,250,000 $ - $ 5,100000 $ - S - $ 8,050,000 $ - S - $ 12,400,000
Police $ 80,000 S 9,000,000 $ - S - S - $ - S - S - S - $ 9,080,000
Parks and Open Space $ 4,455,820 $ 4,980,620 $ 4,805020 $ 4,205,620 $ 4,155,820 $ 4,230,620 $ 5,355,820 $ 4,155,620 $ 4.155.620 $ 3,655.820 $ 44,156,200
Streets $ 15,575.350 $ 5,780,600 $ 5,505,850 S 5,184,000 $ 5.560,800 $ 4,595,250 $ 4,862,150 S 5,576,500 $ 4,160500 $ 4,556,000 S 61,360,000
Transportation S 3,270,000 $ 3,130,000 $ 2,990,000 $ 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 $ 12,620,000
Facilities-ongoing $ 390,000 $ 390,000 $ 390,000 $ 390,000 $ 390,000 $ 390,000 $ 390,000 $ 390,000 $ 390,000 $ 390,000 $ 3,900,000
Facilities-discretionary $ 1,900,000 $ 610,000 $ 518,504 $ 610,000 $ 810,000 $ 610,000 $ 110,000 $ 110,000 $ 110,000 $ 110,000 $ 5,298,504
CIP/Impact Fee Update $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 44,600 $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ 44,600
Percent for Art $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 S 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,000,000
Overruns $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 80,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 600,000
Ongoing General Fund Expenditures $ 27,080,970 $ 15,051,220 $ 23,369,974 $ 16,179,620 $ 11,291,020 $ 10,515,870 $ 11,247,770 $ 16,972,120 $ 9,349,120 $ 9,401,620 I$ 150,459,304
Potential CAM Bond Issuance Projects-In priority order ($Z5M debt service placeholder for General Fund portion of these projects is above)
SugarHouse Streetcar
Utah Performing Arts Center
Salt Lake City Pubic Market
Salt Lake City Convention Hotel
Downtown Streetcar
Central Plant Upgradelt-lydrogen Cell Co-Generation
Regional Sports Complex-Phase 2
Projects with other financing(non General Fund)
Parking Pay Station
Projects Deferred until other revenue sources available
Jordan River Trail and 100 South Railroad Crossing
Parleys(PRATT)Shared Use Pathway
Surplus Canal Shared Use Pathway
Total General Fund Capital Expenditures $ 33,337,983 $ 21,713,074 $ 30,271,148 $ 21,610,325 $ 20,655,531 $ 22,369,941 $ 23,090,439 $ 28,805,698 $ 21,181,640 $ 21,239,291 $ 244,275,070
difference $ 1,971,547 $ 590,171 $ (892,996) $ 4,064,352 $ (1,182,474) $ (1,454,201) $ (1,591,319) $ (4,213,697) $ 1,268,960 $ 1,439,657 $ (0)
5
7
Salt Lake City-All Departments
Capital Improvement Plan 2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained
CIP
Value FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13.14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16.17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19.20 FY20-21 10 year total
Fire $ 12,400,000 $ 1,250,000 $ - $ 5,100,000 $ - $ - $ 6,050,000 $ - $ - $ 12,400,000
Police $ 9,140,000 $ 80,000 $ 9,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 9,080,000
Parks and Open Space $ 44,156,200 $ 4,455,620 $ 4,980,620 $ 4,805,620 $ 4,205,620 $ 4,155,620 $ 4,230,620 $ 5,355,620 $ 4,155,620 $ 4,155,620 $ 3,655,620 $ 44,156,200
Streets $ 61,360,000 $ 15,575,350 $ 5,780,600 $ 5,505,850 $ 5,184,000 $ 5,560,800 $ 4,595,250 $ 4,862,150 $ 5,576,500 $ 4,163,500 $ 4,556,000 $ 61,360,000
Transportation $ 12,620,000 $ 3,270,000 $ 3,130,000 $ 2,990,000 $ 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 $ 12,620,000
Facilities $ 9,198,504 $ 2,290,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 908,504 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 9,198,504
CIP/Impact Fee Update $ 44,600 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 44,600 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 44,600
Percent for Art $ 1,000,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 1,000,000
Overruns $ 600,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 60,000 $ 603,000
Sub-Total $ 150,519,304 $ 27,080,970 $ 15,051,220 $ 23,369,974 $ 16,179,620 $ 11,291,020 $ 10,515,870 $ 11,247,770 $ 16,972,120 $ 9,349,120 $ 9,401,620 $ 150,459,304
Major Capital Items TBD
$ -
$ 150,519,304 $ 27,080,970 $ 15,051,220 $ 23,369,974 $ 16,179,620 $ 11,291,020 $ 10,515,870 $ 11,247,770 $ 16,972,120 $ 9,349,120 $ 9,401,620 $ 150,459,304
• Page 6
i
Salt Lake City-All Departments
Capital Improvement Plan 2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained
• CIP Impact Fee Other Funding Funding Sources•Detail
Value Eligible Sources General Fund Class C CDBG Impact Fees FHWA Other Total
7%
Fire $ 12,400,000 $ 4,737,000 $ 7,663,000 $ 2,663,000 $ - $ - $ 4,737,000 $ - $ 5,000,000 $ 12,400,000
Police $ 9,140,000 $ 2,285,000 $ 6,795,000 $ 795,000 $ - $ - $ 2,285,000 $ - $ 6,000,000 $ 9,080,000
Parks and Open Space $ 44,156,200 $ 7,693,500 $ 36,462,700 $ 29,062,700 $ - $ 5,300,000 $ 7,693,500 $ - $ 2,100,000 $ 44,156,200
Streets $ 61,360,000 . $ 13,680,000 $ 47,680,000 $ 9,560,000 $ 24,000,000 $ 4,600,000 $ 13,680,000 $ 9,320,000 $ 200,000 $ 61,360,000
Transportation $ 12,620,000 $ 2,322,000 $ 10,298,000 $ 9,048,000 $ - $ - $ 2,322,000 $ - $ 1,250,000 $ 12,620,000
Facilities $ 9,198,504 $ - $ 9,198,504 $ 7,298,504 $ - $ - $
- $ - $ 1,900,000 $ 9,198,504
CIP/Impact Fee Update $ 44,600 $ 44,600 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 44,600 $ - $ - $ 44,600
Percent for Art $ 1,000,000 $ - $ 1,000,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ 600,000 8 - $ - $ - $ 1,000,000
Overruns $ 600,000 $ - $ 600,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ 500,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 600,000
Sub-Total $ 150,519,304 $ 30,762,100 $ 119,697,204 $ 58,927,204 $ 24,000,000 $ 11,000,000 $ 30,762,100 $ 9,320,000 $ 16,450,000 $ 150,459,304
Major Capital Items TBD
$ 150,519,304 $ 30,762,100 $ 119,697,204 $ 58,927,204 $ 24,000,000 $ 11,000,000 $ 30,762,100 $ 9,320,000 $ 16,450,000 $ 150,459,304
General Fund Class,C CDBG , impact Fees FHWA Other Total
available after debt service $ 58,927,204 $ 24,000,000 $ 11,000,000 $30,762,100 $ 9,320,600 $ 16,450,000 $ 150,459,304
difference $ (0) $ -.$ - $ - $ - $ - $ (0)
This does not account for funding for the Hydrogen Cell Co-Generation Project,2 Streetcars,Parking Meter Upgrade,
Utah Performing Arts Center,Salt Lake Public Market,Salt Lake Convention Hotel,or Utah Theater/Building Renovation
which are currently estimated at over$120M. These projects are likely to be funded with bonds,grants,or other sources
• Page 7
Salt Lake City Fire Department
Capital Improvement Plan,2012-2021 -Fiscally Constrained
Square Land Estimated Portion Impact Fee Other
Type of Capital Facility Feet Acreage Cost Attributable Eligible Funding
to Growth Sources
Facilities
2012 Fire Station#3-Relocation and Expansion;Land Acquisition $ 1,200,000 33% $ 396,000 $ 804,000
2015 Fire 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 $ -
Total Infrastructure $ 12,350,000 $ 4,712,000 $ 7,638,000
Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research
Impact Fee Study $ 11,150 100% $ 11,150 $ -
Standards of Cover Study $ 50,000 50% $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance $ 2,396,845 $ 2,396,845
,
Grand Total $ 10,014,305 $ 2,351,305 $ 7,663,000
Notes: Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 3/31/11
• Page 8
Salt Lake City Police Department
Capital Improvement Plan,2012-2021 -Fiscally Constrained
Square Acreage Estimated Portion Impact Fee Other Funding
Type of Capital Facility Feet Cost Attributable Eligible Sources
_ _...... _. .... ._. -._ . . to Growth
Facilities
2014 Police Evidence and Crime Lab Facility 100,000 2.00 $ 9,000,000 25% $ 2,250,000 $ 6,750,000
Total Infrastructure `
$ 9,000,000 $ 2,250,000 $ 6,750,000
Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research
Impact Fee Study $ 11,150 100% $ 11,150 $ -
CSI Lab/Evidence Facility Study $ 140,000 25% $ 35,000 $ 105,000
Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance $ - $ -
. _ . _
Grand Total .
_an._...._ $ 9,151,150 2,296,150 $ 6,855,000
• Page 9
Sell take City Parks Division
Capital Improvement Mon 20124021-Fissility Constrained
Auer/ Estimated Parton Impact Fee Other Fumdng TypeolCepeal Fe6Bty Idles Coo' Pit 1.9,- FY1246 PY1614 FYtv.15 PY15.1e FY1617 PY17.19 PY1610 7Y10.20 Pr20.21 lees&Mel deer A8r12oatle mem Eligible Bourse
b(.loelA
Parks/Open Spas.Acquisition and Development
Additional acres of developed parks and open specs to continue COMM level of service for growth 9888 $ 6,740,000 $ 674,000 $ 871,000 S 874,000 3 674,000 S 674,000 $ 674,000 $ 674,01q 3 674,IXIO $ 674,500 $ 874,000 $ 8,740,000 100% $ 8240,000 $
Additional not growth-related open space acguo6bn 100 $ 2,100,000 $ 750,000 $ 750,000 3 800,000 $ - $ - $ - f - 3 - $ - 3 - 3 2,1001100 0% 3 - 8 2,100,000
Trail/Shared Um Pathway Development
Jordan and Sail Lake(McClelland)Canal Shared Use Pathway S 4,000,001 8 - $ 500,000 3 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 S 500,000 $ 500,000 $ 500,000 3 500,000 $ - S 4poo,000 10% S 400,001 3 3,800,000
City peek Trail 3 1,200,000 3 - S - $ - $ - $ - $ 1,200,000 $ - $ - S 1,200000 10% $ 120,000 $ 1,060,000
Improvements to Existing Parks•Specific prowls b he detemened on an annual Peals $ 27016,200 $ 2,701,620 $ 2,701,620 3 2,701,620 $ 2,701,620 $ 2,701,620 $ 2,701,620 $ 2,701,620 S 2,701,620 $ 2,701,620 $ 2,701,620 $ 27,016,200 3 421,000 3 28,595,200
Includes playgrounds,makoonn,fields,suds,paths,pavOone,plazas,a161eas,dog parka
able parks,13M%N9e perks,Inipalbn end landscaping,and other miscebneoua improvements
Cemetery 3 2,000,000 3 200,000 3 200,000 S 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 S 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 2,000,000 0% 3 - 3 2,000,000
Percent for Art S 500,000 S 50,000 S 50,000 $ 50,030 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 3 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 500,000 0% $ - $ 500,000
`
Coo Overruns 3 300,030 $ 30,003 3 30,000 3 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 s 30,000 $ 30,0006 30,000 $ 300,000 0% S - $ 300,000
Tdtg1101168.A*1. _ -__... . ........ _ . _.. -._.._. __. .1..$2.Et1200_6_..._ie95.620..6 _-I.R43 .0.,.t-_/rs5.$1$1..3. .IJ5399...$._..1 620_3.,.1.333.624.1_1 I4-1.-4,05323.1.._1,1.13 ,t_.,- ,b2a.3 p454 .._ _ .. -,1 t,egt,o90 $, 3g,n1,20O
Pius Cost or C1PlFeeRelaled Rew em h
Impact Fee Study 11,150 611,150
Pares R y P 50,000 6550O00 11,150100%
Open Space and Dogs Masks Plan 75,000 $75,000 75,01 0 0% 71,2
17,150
-
705100 5% 5,080 71,2500
Jordan Rim Wear Plan 100,O1M $50,000 $50.000
FoolNk Remake and Management Pion 75.000 $75,000 175,000 5% 3,750 71250
-JSw.161601teyleAuk9?1F1e4lll403. __.- _ .. __, . 44,L61.354 S_-1A55,620.s..5 ,62O.3 6ROSA2O_S_12o5R26 s.. 6166,170 s.!23067 .J._MO s /,155,620,S. 435VA.s IMP_ -44.3$$A,. 1,709,850.. 38,e62,10O
Minus Impact Fee Balance 3 1,040221 61040,221 1,040221 100% 1040,221 -
OMndTdst "'
�.. �.... _1.+3.i21,129 $. 2i1gp33-s_01.8..o i._.11O? _$... 124 f_lJ .nn.,3__,.! . I..3ss0 _s,-1,1 t2g_s yt06,92e f lea?. aSSn,1». ' ' 1,eu4g ,_..- x.M2. .
i
• Page 10 - -
Salt Lake City Streets/Transportation Divisions
Capital Improvement Plan 2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained
Estimated
Type of Capital Fealty Cost FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21 10 year total
Roadway Projects
1300 South Viaduct Rehabilitation $ 10,000,000 $ 9,720,000 $ 280,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 10,000,000
500/700 South-2800 West to 5600 West $ 14,760,000 $ 3,510,000 $ 3,160,000 $ 2,810,000 $ 2,400,000 $ 2,880,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 14,760,000
ADA Accessibility Ramps $ 1,300,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 5 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 1,300,000
Sidewalk Rehabilitation/Sawcutiing $ 700,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 70,000 $ 700,000
Deteriorated Sidewalk Replacement $ 1,300,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 1,300,000
Indiana Avenue/900 South from Redwood to 3600 West $ 3,640,000 $ - $ - $ $ $ 1,650,000 $ 1,990,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 3,640,000
Gladiola Street-1650 South to 2100 South $ 4,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,900,000 $ 1,100,000 $ - $ 4,000,000
4400 West from 700 South to 850 South $ 1,600,000 5 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 1,600,000 $ 1,600,000
Street Pavement Overlay and Preservation $ 7,000,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 7,000,000
Local Street Reconstruction $ 6,500,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 650,000 $ 8,500,000
Major Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of City Streets $ 8,360,000 $ 445,350 $ 440,600 $ 795,850 $ 884,000 $ 780,800 $ 1,045,250 $ 972,150 $ 776,500 $ 1,163,500 $ 1,056,000 $ 8,360,000
Concrete Street Rehabilitation $ 2,000,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 2,000,000
Bridge Rehabilitation $ 200,000 5 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 I$ 20,000 $ 200,000
Percent for Art $ 509,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 S 50,000 $ 50,000 5 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 50,000 $ 500,000
Cost Overruns $ 300,000 $ 30,000 5 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 300,000
S 62,160,000 $ 15,655.350 $ 5.860.600 $ 5,585,850 $ 5,264,000 $ 5,640,800 $ 4.675,250 S 4,942,150 $ 5,656,500 $ 4.243,500 $ 4,636,000 $ 62,160,000
Transportation Projects
Replacement Traffic Signals $ 2,400,000 $ 160,000 S 320,000 $ 160,000 $ 320,000 $ 160,000 $ 320,000 $ 160,000 $ 320,000 $ 160,000 $ 320,000 $ 2,400,000
Pedestrian Safety Devices $ 250,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25.000 $ 25.000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25.000 $ 25,000 $ 25.000 $ 25,000 $ 250,000
New Bike Lane Installations $ 250,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25.000 $ 25,000 S 25,000 5 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 250,000
Bike Lanes-200 South $ 6,520,000 $ 2.000,000 $ 2.000,000 $ 2,520,000 $ - $ - S - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 6,520,000
900 South Rall Corridor $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ $ 700,000
New Traffic Signets $ 1,600,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160.000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 160.000 $ 160,000 $ 160,000 $ 1,600,000
1300 East Traffic Safety-Phase 2 $ 500,000 $ - $ 500,000 $ - 5 - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000
Street Lighting Replacement $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000
$ 12,420,000 $ 3,270,000 $ 3,030,000 $ 2,890,000 $ 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 $ 12,420,000
Yaf I otnfresUucture,.. .... ,.
..�. ... ._ . _.. . .. _ _...._.,_..34,580,000 _ ,;14,90,350 „0 890 600_,._..0.47k850,_,_.07.194,000._,_70,01D,88.C. __$5105,130-T.f$,31A,ff.:.. .0,10,500.'_ '$4.03,50-0 - . .0 i0,0tg_.:`M80;460
Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research
Impact Fee Study $ 11,150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,150 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 11,150
Transportation Master Plan $ 200,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000
Minus Impact Fee Balance $ 6,529,700 $ 3,510,000 $ 3,019,700 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,529,700
Grand'Mal'"- ' - _ _ ` $68,28.1,430 $13,416,15a $078,306 $e,s7s,8sb , .i p,704,000 f'"6,4 3b s,__'5,0 36•3_,,,.'S572;150'3__'C16 i560 1-1'4,693;880_$.___5,r3t;_eeo,k''61`E'ii4sg
• Page 11
Salt Lake City Streets/Transportation Divisions
Capital Improvement Plan 2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained
10 Year Totals
Estimated Portion Impact Fee Other Funding Funding Sources
Type of Capital Facility Cost limas Attributable equals Eligible Sources General Fund Class C CDBO Impact Fees FHWA Other Total
to Growth 7% (Including fund balance)
Roadway Projects
1300 South Viaduct Rehabilitation $ 10,000,000 0% $ - $ 10,000,000 $ - $ 480,000 $ - $ - $9,320,000 $ 200,000 $ 10,000,000
500/700 South-2800 West to 5600 West $ 14,760,000 57% $ 8,413,200 $ 6,346,800 S 3,173,400 $ 3,173,400 $ - $ 8,413,200 $ - $ - S 14,760,000
ADA Accessibility Ramps $ 1,300,000 0% $ - $ 1,300,000 $ - $ - $ 1,300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,300,000
Sidewalk Rehabllitation/Sawcuthng $ 700,000 0% $ - $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 700,000
Deteriorated Sidewalk Replacement $ 1,300,000 0% $ - $ 1,300,000 $ - $ - $ 1,300,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,300,000
Indiana Avenue/900 South horn Redwood to 3800 West $ 3,640,000 57% $ 2,074,800 $ 1,565,200 $ 782,600 $ 782,800 $ • - $ 2,074,800 $ - $ - $ 3,840,000
Gladiola Street-1650 South to 2100 South $ 4,000,000 57% $ 2,260,000 $ 1,720,000 $ 860,000 $ 860,000 $ - $ 2,280,000 $ - $ - $ 4,000,000
4400 West from 700 South to 850 South $ 1,800,000 57% $ 912,000 $ 688,000 $ 344,000 $ 344,000 $ - $ 912,000 $ - $ - $ 1,600,000
Street Pavement Overlay end Preservation $ 7,000,000 0% $ - $ 7,000,000 $ - $ 7,000,000 $ • $ - $ - $ - $ 7,000,000
Local Street Reconstruction $ 6,500,000 0% 5 - $ 6,500,000 $ 3,500,000 $ 3,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 6,500,000
Major Rehabilitation and Reconstruction of City Streets $ 8,360,000 0% $ - $ 8,360,000 $ - $ 6,360,000 $ 2,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 8,360,000
Concrete Street Rehabilitation $ 2,000,000 0% $ - $ 2,000,000 $ - $ 2,000,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 2,000,000
Bridge Rehabilitation $ 200,000 0% $ - S 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 200,000 `
Percent for Art 5 500,000 0% $ - S 500,000 $ 350,000 $ - 5 150,000 $ - $ - $ - $ 500,000
Cost Overruns S 300,000 0% $ - $ 300,000 E 50,000 $ - S 250,000 $ - $ - E - $ 300,000
$ 62,160,000 $ 13,680,000 5 48,480,000 $ 9,960,000 5 24,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 13,680,000 $ 9,320,000 5 200,000 $ 62,160,000
Transportation Projects
Replacement Traffic Signals $ 2,400.000 0% $ - $ 2,400,000 S 2,400,000 $ - $ - $ - S - S - $ 2,400,000
Pedestrian Se/ety Devices $ 250,000 10% $ 25,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ - $ - $ 25,000 $ - $ - $ 250,000
New Bike Lane Installations 5 250,000 10% S 25,000 $ 225,000 $ 225,000 $ - S - $ 25,000 $ - 5 - $ 250.000
Bike Lanes-200 South S 6.520.000 10% $ 852,000 $ 5,868,000 $ 5,248.000 $ - S - $ 852,000 $ - $ 620,000 $ 8,520,000
900 South Rill Corridor $ 700,000 0% $ - $ 700,000 $ - $ - $ - $ - S - $ 700,000 S 700,000
New Traffic Signals $ 1,600,000 100% $ 1,800.000 $ - $ - $ - $ 1,600,000 S - $ - $ 1,800,000
1300 East Traffic Safety-Phase 2 $ 500.000 0% 5 - $ 500.000 $ 500.000 $ - S - E - $ - S - $ 500,000
Street Lighting Replacement $ _ 200,000 0% 5 - $ 200,000 $ 200,000 S - S - S - $ - $ - $ 200,000
$ 12,420,000 $ 2,302,000 $ 10,116,000 $ 8,796,000 5 - $ - $ 2,302,000 $0 $1,320,000 512,420,000
Totel,InNastructuie 574.580,000 _ . $ 1082,000 5 ' 58,598,000- $ 18,758,000 -$ 24,6S0,000 $ Sp** E 15,062,bb0 $ 9,320,d0a $ _1520,00SY 74,$$0,000
Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research
Impact Fee Study $ 11,150 100% $ 11,150 E -
E /1,150 S 11,150
Transportation Master Plan S 200,000 10% $ 20,000 $ 180,000 $ 180,000 $ 20,000 5 200,000
Minus Impact Fee Balance $ 6,529,700 100% $ 6,529,700 S - $ -
Cirand7btaP` `"' -
• 5o_____ _ ._ 03,261,4 6 _ S_-0,40,4 S $8,778,oe0 $.- itspis,000•f 24,Ooo,000,$ ,sopt000 $ ie,otS,15o,_s_.$,,26,,ao-$ _1,520,000 5 74,Y91,150
Impact Fee Project Allocation General Fund _Class C _CDBO Impact Fees FHWA Other Total
Residential Non-Residential proposed $ 18,938,000 $ 24,000,000 $ 5,600,000 $ 16,013,150 S 9,320,000 $ 1,520,000 $ 74,791,150
$ 1,376,559 5 8,106,892 evailabie funds$ 18,938,000 $ 24,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 16,013,150 $ 9,320,000 $ 1,520,000 $ 74,791,150
difference$ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ -
$ 9,463,450
•Page 12
Salt Lake City Facilities Division This lot doe.not reflect the amount fo funding available each year.Instead,It prioritizes projects for application witNn each funding year.See Sources end Uses
Capital Facilities Plan 2011-2021
Priority Bulldog Project Estimated Project FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY1619 FY19-20 FY20-21
1 Pioneer Prednd HVAC System end Lighting Energy Conservation $493,790 $493,700
2 Justice Courts HVAC System Upgrade and Energy Conservation 5377,100 $377,100
3 CBD-Area 4 Downtown Irrigation Water Coneervetlon and Asset Renewal Project-Design,Engmeenng and Development $135,586 5135,588
4 Central Plant Centerel Plant Heating,cooling system and structural study 5233,783 $233,783
5 Westside Senior Center Building Shell Retrofit Induding roofing,siding and gutters. $110,093 $110,093
B SBD Sugamouse Business Dlelnct Irrigation Water Conservation and Asset Renewal Project-Design,Engineering
and Development E291,928 E291,928
7 Spring Mobfie Reid Energy efficiency project replacing HVAC,Controls,end Lighting systems $663,518 5863,518
8 6th South Properties Replace single pane window with Thermal double pane Windows $60,119 $60,119
9 City&County Budding Fen Coil Unit Replacement 1st Floor South Hall
Waahln on Square Event Power,which $170,292 E170,292
Adman Req City 8,County Building 9t 9 provides in ground rielributed connection points to Nminiate the need $499,938 E499,998
for portable generators on the East side of the Sguefe.
Adman Req Cry&County Bullring Fifth Floor Renovation to office space $884,301 8884,301
10 CIty6Cauny Bullring Exterior Peinhng and Repair work et all wood window frames, $190,000 $190,000
11 C8y&Caunry Building City 6 County Bullring,Stone Repairs,this la needed work to restore damage or broken Kyune send stone end $200,000 $200,000
stone sculptures.Consulteing work pending for final scope of restorative and protective work -
12 City 6 County Bldg City&County Bullring,Stone Upkeep Including testing,cleaning,stone herdner and water proofing 51,400,000 $1,400,000
13 CBD-Area 4 Downtown Irrigation Water Conservation and Asset Renewal Project-Construction Work $800,000 $800,000
14 Fire Station 5 and 2 Replace single-pane window with Thermal double pane Windows 573,200 573,200
15 Fire Stations 1,4,6,7 Upgrade Fire station with full DDC controls end Intergeted system Interfaces 900,000 900,000
15 City&County Building Design and Construction of New Base Isolator System $1,000,000 $1,000,000
17 Fire Stations 9,10,13, Upgrade Fire station with full DDC controls and intergated system Interfaces 900,000 900,000
16 Fine Stations Replace heating end A dreondihoning add DOC controls to systems $244,200 $244,200
1,4,8,7.9,10.13,
19 6th South Properties Replace heating and Alrcondtionmg add DDC controls to systems to remaining properties $80,500 $80,500
20 Sugarhouse Business Sugarhouse Business District Irrigation Water Conservation and Asset Renewal Project Design,Engineering E268,886 E288,888
Dist and Development.
21 Sugemo sa Business Sugamouse Business Distdd lrngatlon Water Conservation and Asset Renewal Project-Construction Work $1,200,000 $1,200,000
Dist
22 City&County Building Fan Coll Unit Replacement 3rd Floor South Half 5194,820 5194,620
23 City&County Bulling Fan Coil Unit Redecemem 3rd Floor North Half $182,458 $162,456
24 City&County Building Fan Coll Unit Repacemant let Floor North Half $137,176 $137,176
25 City&County Bullring Fan Coll Unit Redecemem 4th Floor North Half E170,292 S170.292
26 City&County Building Fan Coll Unit Replacement 2nd Floor North Hall 3158,129 5158,129
27 City&County Building Fan Coil Untt Replacement 2nd Floor South Half $137,178 $137,176
28 City&County Building Fan Coil UNt Replacement 4th Floor South Halt $170,292 $170,292
29 City&County Building Fen Coll Unit Replacement 5th Floor $206,784 $208,784
30 City 6 County Building 3rd&5th Floor Carpet.Access Flooring end Electrical Replacement $748,907 5748,907
31 City&County Building 2nd Floor,Carpet,Access Flooring and Electoral Replacement $561,681 $561,681
32 City&County Building 4th Floor Carpet,Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement $748,907 $748,907
33 Fire StationC4,5,and Panting Lot Repairs end Replacements $338,192 $338,192
WS
34 East Side Senior Center ESSC-Reroofing of Senior Center $109,800 $109,800
35 City&County Building let Floor Carpet,Access Flooring and Electrical Replacement $748,907
E748,907
36 Library Parldng Structure Waterproofing of Concrete Structure Joint/Expansion Joint Repairs E305,000
E305,000
37 Plaza 349 Plaza 349-Parking Structure Repass and Resurface 3261,682 $261,882
38 Spring Mobile Field Spring Mobile Field Concourse'B'Level Waterproofing Project $388,915 $368,915
39 Spring Mobile Field Spnng Mobile Field-Building Steel and Roof-deck Painting Protect $1,079,763 $1,079,763
o Page 13
•
Salt Lake City Facilities Division
Capital Facilities Plan 2011-2021
Priority Building Project Eshmated Project FY11-12 FY12-13 FY13-14 FY14-15 FY15-16 FY16-17 FY17-18 FY18-19 FY19-20 FY20-21
.. ..._ .. ._. .- - - ., Cost ,
40 City 8 County Building Refinish Interior Wood Work,dean,sending end applying new finhlnsh coatings $150,000 $150,000
41 Memorial House Replace single pane window wth Thermal double pane Windows $73,200 $73,200
42 Central Plant Chiller replacment and controls upgrade $300,000
$00,000
43 Stoner East HVAC repecment and controls upgrade $800,000 $800,000
Adman Req Fisher Mansion Renovate end Restore Historic Fisher Mansion $1,900,000 $1,900,000
44 Fire Station 8 FS 8 Re-roofing of Station Built Up Roofing $61,000 $81,000
44 Are Station 9 FS 9 Re-roofing of Station Built Up Roofing $81,000 $81 000
45 Chase House Replace heating end Air-conditioning add DDC controls to systems $55,000 $55,000
46 Pioneer Precinct Re-roofing of Pioneer Prednd $109,800 $109,800
47 City end County Bldg Replace Main Air-handers on each floor $1,220,000 $1,220,000
48 Chase House Exterior Printing and Repair work $100,000 $100,000
49 Ad Barn Exterior Paintng and Repair work $100,000 $100,000
50 SLC Cemetery Exterior Painting and Repair work $100,000 $100,000
51 City8County Building Generator and Fuel Tank Upgrade $250,000 $250,000
52 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Carpet and the and other floor covenngs $250,000
$250,000
53 Venous Buildings Upgrade and Replace Life Safety Systems such as Flre Detection,Fire Suppression $250,000 $250,000
54 Various Buildings Upgrade end Replace I-NAC and Control Systems $250,000 $250,000
55 Various Buildings Upgrade end Repece Roofs and Insulation and decking 5250,000 $250,000
58 Various Buildings Upgrade end Replace Carpet end tile end otter floor covenngs $250,000 $250,000
$7 Various Buildings Upgrade end Replace Windows and glazing to higher efficiency resistance to cold and heat 3250,000
d $250,000
58 Various Build
ings Address structural and issues Identified $250,000 E250,000
59 Vedous Buildings Replace end upgrade water proofing systems $250,000 $250,000
60 Vedous Buildings Replace and upgrade CBD/SBD Pavers and Irrigations systems S250,000 $250,000
81 Various Buildings Regime and upgrade Generaors end Fuel Systems $250,000 $250,000
62 Venous Buildings Repaint Exterior of Buildings needing such action $250,000 $250000
83 Venous Buildings Upgrade and Replace Ufe Safety Systems such as Are Detection,Fire Suppression $250,000 5250,000
64 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace I-NAC and Control Systems $250,000 $250,000
65 Venous Buildings Upgrade and Replace Roofs and Insulation and decking $250,000 $250,000
66 Venous Buildings Upgrade and Replace Carpet and Ole and other floor covenngs $250,000 $250,000
67 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Windows and glazing to higher efficiency resistance to cold end heat $250,000 $250,000
68 Various Buildings Address structural end foundation Issues Identified $250,000 $250,000
69 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade water proofing systems
d $250,000 $250,000
70 Various Build
ings Replace and upgrade CBD/SBD Pavers and Irrigations systems $250,000 $250,000
71 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade Generators and Fuel Systems $250,000 $250,000
72 Various Buildings Repaint Exterior of Bullrfings need such action $250,000 $250,000
73 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Life Safety Systems such as Fire Detection,Fire Suppression $250,000 $250,000
74 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Energy/HVAC and Control Systems
$250,000
76 Venous BuildingsUpgrade $250,000 5250,000
75 Venous Buildings Upgrade end Replace Roofs and Insulation and decking
and Replace Carpet and tie and other floor coverings $250,000 E250,000
$250,000
77 Various Buildings Upgrade and Replace Windows and glazing to higher efficiency resistance to cold and heat 5250,000
$250,000
78 Various Buildings Address structural and foundation Issues Identified $250,000 $250,000
79 Venous Buildings Replace end upgrade water proofing systems $250,000 $250,000
80 Venous Buildings Replace and upgrade CBD/SBD Pavers and Irrigations systems $250,000 $250,000
81 Various Buildings Replace and upgrade Generators and Fuel Systems $250,000 $250,000
82 Various Buildings Repaint Exterior of Buildings needing such action $250,000 $250,000
Total $30,835,971 $3,920,506 $3,563,200 $3,693,586 S3,416,420 $3,2/2,259 $3,223,200 $2,306,800 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 $2,500,000
•Page14
SCANNED TO: >
SCANNED BY: V
S'=A�' 1 i�Ct.. .�C@ 1 � ( DATE: s f 3 f tt
FRANK B. GRAY `•"• RALPH BECKER
DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF COMMUNITY& ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT RECE/VED
OFFICE OF THE DIRECTOR
MARY DE LA MARE-SCHAEFER
DEPUTY DIRECTOR MAY O 3 2011
ROBERT FARRINGTON,JR.
DEPUTY DIRECTOR 'I CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Salt Lake City Mayor
1`
/
\ Date Received: s.. , 3 •l(
David eritt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: ., (1
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 theimpact fee
program. The City will need to adopt thel0=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:801-535-6230 FAX:801-535-6005
W W W.5LCGO V.COM/CED
L`� eeerm.ce.w.e.
A
O SULTING
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 fiscally 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 C. Ps 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
1 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 term 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 time. 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 FYI 1-12,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 for a 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 final 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
Salt Lake City-Sources and Uses
Capitol Improvement Plan 20102021-Fl9catly Constrained
'SOURCES ,,3 ,.0+.',. ' . r. .'`. r ,•...... .,. „ !r , .. ,. 1.., iia x' z . .'''
On Going General Fund Cantrlbu0on-714 $ 13,323,847 $ 13,723,662 $ 14,136269 $ 14,698,377 $ 14.995.107 $ 15,445,990 $ 15,903370 $ 16,383851 5 10,878.250 $ 17,304,598 9 152,742,970
Ongoing 360ata1 Fund Revenuss$ 13,302,647 $ 13,723582 $ 14135029 $ 14,553327 $ 14,998,107 $ 15,445,990 9 16,909,370 8 18,958,951 $ 16,878,250 S 17,334,590 S 182742,970
Impact Peet$ndr dog current fund bilsacas) $ 5,063503 $ 4,329,883 $ 5,142,063 $ 2,516,350 S 976,950 S 1,999,750 $ Z000,730 $ 4,705550 3 2,072,350 $ 1.794,350 $ 33792,100
Open Bpsca Bond Fund Balance S 750.000 $ 750,000 $ 800,000 $ 2,100,000
ClaesC OP Fonda 3 3400.000 $ 2.400,020 3 2,400,000 $ 2,400.000 $ 2,400.000 $ 2400.000 3 Z400,000 3 2,400,006 $ 2,400,000 S 2,403000 5 24,000.000
0080 OP Funds $ 1,100,000 $ 1,103,000 S 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 S 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 S 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 $ 1,100,000 5 11,000,000 ,
Fad00a•-Fleet Bond Revenue $ 1,100.000 9 1=0,000
threels ViaductM6tMakaedy In OP ac00amt $ 200000 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 6 - B - $ - s - $ 200,000
FY2011 Budget Amendment 114-Tmupuiatlon projects $ 1250,000 5 • S - 9 - I - I - 5 - $ - $ - S - I 1,20,000
Federal Gram-FHWA $ 9,320,000 S - S - $ - $ - $ - $ - S - $ - $ - $ 0,320,000
Sale of PublicSafey/Evidence Property S 6,000,000 $ 5,000,000 $ 11p00,000
Toad Aanatel Fund Ravarnnae$ 55,000090 8 22.300245 $ 23375,162 $ 24674.977 $ 19,479,067 $ 20,916,740 $ 21,499.120 5 24,592.001 $ 22460500 S 22,873949 3 244276,070
USES ," r' - 'Z.' t • ,. . :^1`',;, `I; '",
r
t)•bt Samoa
Bad Tax Benda $ 3.757,013 $ 4161,834 $ 4'401,174 $ 2,930,705 $ 0,064,511 S 9554,071 $ 9,3,Q899 S 0S'13,676 $ 9,392,520 $ 1,3375171 $ 04916,769
CAM Sand laeuann.-s$rn.tadrplaaaholdar a 2,600500 $ 2603000 $ 2500,000 5 2,600,000 3 2,601,000 S 2500.000 $ 2.500,000 $ 2600,000 $ 2500A00 $ 2500,000 $ 25,000300
13604110 0.bt Bervls 8 6,227 13 $ 0,091,954 $ 6,001,174 $ 5,430.705 S 9,364511 $ 11,864571 $ 11,842,4es $ 11,933,676 $ 11,822,520 $ 11,837,671 4 13,616,788
Prof acts
Fes 6 1.250.1300 $ - 5 5,100,000 $ - $ - $ 8,060,000 $ - S - $ 125100500
Police s 00,000 8 0.200.000 9 - 9 - 8 - 8 - 3 - $ - s - $ 9,080.000
PtetI end Open Space I 4,45420 5 4,080,620 5 4500.020 $ 4,200.820 $ 4,15,620 $ 4230520 5 5,355,620 S 4,155,920 6 4,155,620 S 3,605,820 9 44 t90,200
00001 8 16,676380 $ 0,T80,690 $ 6106060 9 8,184.000 s 6,660200 s 400260 t 4.1112,160 $ 1670100 $ 4,150,600 $ 4148,000 8 81,310,000
110095006590 9 3270.6011 8 3,130,000 6 2p90.000 $ 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 5 370,000 $ 630,000 4 370,000 3 630,003 $ 12,63000
Fad09s-oogeing S 302,000 6 380,000 $ 300,000 $ 390,000 $ 390,000 3 390,000 $ 390,000 $ 590,000 $ 300,000 $ 300,003 $ 3,900,000
Fad0660-dleee809ery $ 1,900,000 6 810000 $ 618,604 $ 810000 $ 610,000 * 810,000 $ 110.000 $ 110.000 $ 110,000 $ 110.009 $ 4210.804
OPtnlpeet Fa.Update $ - $ - $ - $ - $ 44,600 $ - S - $ - S - S - $ 44400
Pervert farad $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 110,000 $ 100,000 9 100,000 $ 100,000 5 100,000 $ 100,003 $ 1,000.000
Overruns $ 60,000 ; 40,000 $ sumo s 60,000 S 80.o00 a 60500 8 00,000 $ woo $ 90,000 s 60.000 $ $00,000
Ongoing*ennui Fund!seendlMns $ 27,080970 $ 15.031220 $ 23,30074 S 28579420 5 11201,020 5 10,516,870 $ 11,247,770 $ 14972,120 $ 9,34,120 $ 0,401520I$ 150,485,304
Pden6d CAM Band Imams Pmfeda-6pf only order (SLIM debtasrvksnYceboiderl[r General Rod mike of Massprojects k above) .
Utah P6ckming Ads Center
Salt Lake City Pubic Market
Silt Cake dry Convection Hotel •
Downtown Streetcar
Central Plant UpgrediFydrogen Cell C0Aerostion
Regional Spins Com ae<-Phew.2
Protects wet othermestoenp tan GonerMPenc0 - •
Parking Pay$soon
Prefects O9Mrad ca69 other raena.Iorrooe wag*
Jordan Rtter Pall and 100 South Railroad Crossing .
Parleys(PRAT1)Shared Us*Pathway
Surplus Canal Shared Use Pathway
Total General Fund Capital Expeedluros$ 33,337,383 $ 21,71,074 $ 30,271,140 $ 21410,326 $ 20.65543/ $ 22,599,141 $ 23,090,43S 5 23405,693 s 21,181,540 $ 21,239,291 5 244,276,070
difference S 1,971,547 $ 590.171 $ (892,996)$ 4,064,352 $ (1,182,474) $ (1,4544,201) $ (1,501,319) $ (4,213,807)$ 1,25,85 S 1,430517 $ (0)
5
Salt Lake City-All Departments
Capital knprovenrent Plan 2812-2021-Fiscally Constrained
1l,:. ,, tea, ,n
,
' :,.
l..
Firs $ 12400,000 $ 1.250,000 $ - S 5,100,000 $ - $ - $ 6,060,000 $ - $ - $ 12,400,000
Police S 9,140,000 $ 80,000 $ 9.000,000 3 - S - $ - $ - $ - S - $ - $ 9,080,000
Parks and Open Space $ 44,158,200 $ 4,455,820 $ 4,980,620 $ 4,805,820 $ 4205,620 S 4,165,820 $ 4,230,620 S 5,355,820 $ 4,155,820 $ 4,155,820 S 3,3.55,620 $ 44,156,200
Strent $ 61,380,000 $ 15,575,350 $ 5,780,800 $ 5,505,850 $ 5,184,000 $ 5,580,800 $ 4,695,250 S 4,862,150 $ 5,576,500 $ 4,183,500 $ 4,558,000 $ 61,360,000
Traneporbnlen S 12820,000 $ 3,270,000 $ 3,130.030 3 2,990,000 $ 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 S 370,000 $ 530,000 $ 370,000 $ 530,000 $ 12,320,000
Faolltlas $ 9,198,504 $ 2290,000 S 1,000,000 $ 908,504 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 1,000,000 $ 500,000 S 500,000 $ 503,000 $ 500,000 S 9,198,504
OP/Impact Fee Update $ 44,800 $ - $ - $ - $ - S 44,600 $ - $ - S - S - $ - S 44.600
PercantforArt $ 1,000,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 S 100,000 $ 100,030 $ 100,000 $ 100,000 S 100.000 S 1.000,000
Overruns $ 600,000 1 60,000 $ 60.0)0 S 60,000 $ 60.030 S 80,000 $ 60.000 S 60,000 S 80,000 $ 60,000 3 60.000 $ 600,000
Sub-Total $ 150,519,304 $ 27,080,970 $ 15,061,220 3 23,389,974 3 16.179,820 $ 11,291,020 S 10,515,870 $ 11,247,770 $ 18,972,120 S 9,340,120 $ 9,401,320 $ 160,489,304
Major Capital Stuns TOD $ -
$ 150,519,304 $ 37.080,970 $ 16,081,220 $ 23,389,974 $ 15,179,820 $ 11,281,020 $ 10,816,870 $ 11,247,770 $ 16,972,120 E 8,349,120 $ 11,401,820 $ 150,459,304
•Page 6
Salt Lake City-All Departments
Capital Improvement Plan 2012,2021-Fiscally Constrained
.' :,, a 7',.. ; ,',, , of 1.c _7 a .rt Z• ,,... i. kZI r. t *1
r. ., *.,*r+ua�7F •,?'`''. . ' .' 'sq+M. �.,, .!?•: v v�v.a.n�.J4r.Va._..v.l'. :;."'. !� �' ter._..,_.41 ,.,........._ .,. ...tw
Fire $ 12,400,000 $ 4,737,000 $ 7,863,000 $ 2,553,000 $ - $ . $ 4,737,000$ - $ 5,000,000 $ 12,400,000
Police $ 9,140,000 $ 2,285,000 $ 8,796,000 $ 795,000 $ - $ - $ 2,285,000 3 - $ 8,000,000 S 9,080,000
Perks and Open Space $ 44,156,200 $ 7,693,600 $ 36,462,700 $ 20,082,700 9 - $ 5,300,000 S 7,693,400 3 - $ 2,100,000 S 44,158,200
Streets $ 61,360,000• 3 13,880,000 $ 47,6880,000 $ 9,580,000 $ 24,000,000 8 4,600,000 $ 13,680,000 $ 9,320,000 $ 200,000 $ 61,380.000
Transportation 3 12,620,000 S 9<too 000 $ 10,299.000 $ 9,048,000 $ - $ - $ 2,322000$ - 3 1,250,000 $ 12,820,000
Facilities $ 9,198,504 $ - 3 0,198,504 $ 7,298,564 $ - $ - 3 - $ - 3 1,900,000 S 9,198,504
ClPAmpact Fee Update $ 44,800 $ 44,600 $ - 3 - $ - S - $ 44,800$ - $ - $ 44,800
Percent for Art 3 1,000,000 $ • $ 1,000,000 $ 400,000 $ - $ 600,000 $ -$ - $ - $ 1,000,000
Overruns $ 800,000 $ - $ 500 000 8 100 000 $ - S 500 000 3 -$ - 3 - S 600 000
Sub-Totei $ 150,519,304 $ 30,782,100 $ 119,097,204 3 58,927,204 $ 24.000,000 $ 11,000,000 $ 30,782,100 S 0,320,000 $ 18,450,000 $ 163,459,304
Major Capital items TBD
$ 150,519,384 $ 30,762,100 $ 110,697,204 $ 58,82T,204 $ 34,000,000 $ 11,000,000 $ 30,782,100 $ 9,370,000 S 18,460,000 $ 150,459,304
available after debt service $ 58,927,204 $ 24,000,030 $ 11,000,000 330,762,100 $ 9,320,000 S 18,450,000 $ 150,459,304
difference S (0) 3 --$ - 3 - $ - S - $ (0)
This does not account for funding forth.Mycl ogen Cell Co-Generation Project,2 Streetcars,Parking Meter Upgrade,
Utah Perfuming Ads Center,Salt Lake Public Market,Salt Lake Convention Hotel,or Utah Theater/Building Renovation
which are attre0Uy estimated at over3120M.These projects are likely to be fended with bonds,grants,or of ereouces
•Page 7
Salt Lake City Fire Department
Capital Improvement Plan,2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained
.. ...,. r ... . , , ..�.>..• . .,..,,rq� �:r :..E.a#Icn�exi�a'. ,Crm 'e�Fee r,-•, ,:
•.....�<> . .•
... ...., ...., a!,.., .r,.,,..,.t�.,....w.•`a. .r ,.. .�,.,...,.. . �,..... � ..�',.s.r..., ,..�^::V,1�_� ,k w .;1.r'1 5 I.S rn:v.�J...i,°.: TiY'""''.,..a._a
Facilities
2012 Fire Station#3-Relocation and Expansion;Land Acquisition $ 1,200,000 33% $ 396,000 $ 804,000
2015 Fire 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 Trick 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 Study •
$ 50,000 50% $ 25,000 $ 25,000
Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance $ 2,396,845 $ 2,398,845
Notes: Impact Fee Fund Balance as of 3/31/11
•
•Page 8 •
Salt Lake City Police Department
Capital improvement Plan,2012-2021-Fiscally Constrained •
ri
Facilities
2014 Police Evidence and Crime Lab Facility 100,000 2.00 $ 9,000,000 25% $ 2,250,000 $ 6,750,000
PIus Cost of Fee-Related Research
impact Fee Study $ 11,150 100% $ 11,150 $
CSI Lab/Evtdence Facility Study $ 140,000 25% $ 35,000 $ 105,000
Minus Impact Fee Fund Balance -
...,.. .,.-4asi.. .�_.., ,. .. : ,. .- ., .. ....:. ._ .,. .r�.._ � ..�,.�cT`. „�•�43Sc.=t,•'�sfJli
•Page 9
18 - ill! �,
iR
• -- ww w w - A.
r 4 ilk g
r
: as 4 { ?Ra8 •
p
rwwww w ti,
11.. . • g g e
t s &a 11
y sw I 1 1
w w il •
I. I. : 111 >r •.,
H A 4
� r rpw g» w n gM $ .A1
Kr gi i
, § g § °
J< c' $
:. I & g ,
TM i
r
t i.
.q
•i (: go ow o 1 R R.
ur ar• Q ERR }
1
pn w w w ppp g 1 1 1 �. �9k
f w
1
• 1 III
i I •. ,
li i fit
a
1,1
11111
11!
r
jj -t-
'=� ! l 1 a •
Sett lake Cky 80w sminsportatIan Divolon.
O.P6016npro0mrd Plan 2012 3021-Really Constrained
- u C it t i 4:
-' 7 .t'J:r a r'5.:E•t , t`t,' ' h 'v •, '4 1 -S bli }.t-Y 't t ._r.,,,,,. ,t1'..
4. ','r ,,,G C, v 1 ,.,.. �' h ,w G„ ..a� .. tiM u,y.vi ? P J 1 .1v .--�.... .µ r.,G,.� ;4.. {K . {':, x `� .r
„er'�'h5,}',�i.i4 ,.,. ,'s r.,:w'.,�xr^h .s..i.,r+�;P:i-h. i- wr..:d. sees. _ _� ,., a� ..- �t5�' � ,
Roadway Peolerta
1300 South Vkatuat RehoM1Wlon S 15000,030 S 0.720,000 S 280.000 $ - S - 5 - $ - $ - $ - S - S - $ 10,000,000
500r700 South•2000 West to 5800 Weer 5 14,780,000 $ 3,510,000 3 3,180,000 $ 2,510,000 $ 2,400.000 $ 2.880,000 S - S - 6 - 6 - S - 3 14,760,000
ADA Aeo caul,,Ramps S 1,300,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 S 130,000 $ 130,000 $ 130,000 5 130.000 $ 130,000 S 130.000 $ 130.000 $ 130,000 $ 1,300,000
5ldem0cRSMbattalloniesercul005 3 700,000 3 70,050 3 70,000 5 70,000 1 70,000 S 70,000 S 70,000 8 70,000 3 70,000 S 70,000 3 70,000 $ 700,000
D.lad0lated153wrea Rfpl.cncant 3 1,300,000 5 130,000 S 190,000 $ 130.000 3 130,000 3 130,0W 3 130,000 $ 130,000 3 130,000 $ 130,000 3 130,000 s 1,300,000
Ind.na Awnus000 South from Redwood to 3800 West $ 3,640,000 S • $ - $ - $ - $ 1,860,000 S 1,990,000 5 - S - S - $ 3,040,005
Gladiola Shoat-1.50 South to 2100 South S 4,000,000 $ - S - $ - 6 - $ - $ - $ 2000,000 3 1,100,000 $ - S 4,000,003
4400 West horn 700 South to 050 South $ 1,1100,000 S - S - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - S 1.00,000 5 1,000000
Serest PavementOverly and Pnsarvaeon $ 7,000,000 5 700,030 $ 700.000 $ 700,000 S 700,000 S 700,0W 8 700,00D S 700,000 S 700000 $ 700,000 $ 700,000 $ 7,000,000
Local Street Raoonetruellon $ 8,500,000 8 88,000 $ 850A00 6 850AD0 S 050,000 6 050,000 $ 050,W0 $ 050.000 S 050,000 S 050,000 $ 010,000 S 0,000,000
Motor Rehabilitation end RecornWceon of City Street, $ 5300,000 $ 445,330 S 440000 $ memo $ 000.000 0 750.500 $ 1.045?60 $ 872.160 $ 770,500 6 1.103000 S 1053000 S 4300,000
Concrete Ursa Reh.bl5eeon $ 2000,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ 200,000 S 200,000 S 230.000 $ 200,000 S 200.000 $ 230,000 $ 200,000 s 200,000 0 2,000,000
01115.Rehe01901501 3 200,000 S 20,000 13 20,0001$ 20,000 IS 20,000 15 20.000 I$ 20,000 I 1 20,000 I$ 20.000 I$ 20,0001$ 20.000 S 210000
Penned Tor Art 1 500,000 6 50,000 3 50,000 $ 50.000 3 50,000 8 50,000 3 50,000 S 50,000 5 50,000 S 50.000 S 50,050 3 500,000
Cost Overruns $ 300,000 $ 30,000 $ 30.000 $ 30000 $ 30,000 $ 30,000 $ 30.000 $ 30000 $ 30.000 $ 30.000 6 30,555 8 300,000 .
3 82.100,000 3 15,055,350 5 5000003 5 5,505050 S 5784000 3 5040,800 $ 4,575.250 3 4,942,150 $ 5030,500 S 4,243,500 S 4,038000 $ 82,100.000
Tr.nspofidbn Projects
RgAwnrntTOdk Signals S 2,400,000 1 160,000 5 320,000 S 100000 S 320000 $ 180,000 S 323,000 6 100000 S 320,000 $ 100,000 S 320,000 S 2400,000
P.deWlen Weary Du,4c $ 230,000 $ 23,000 5 25,000 S 25,000 S 23,000 $ 25,000 S 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 $ 25,000 6 25,000 6 250,000
Pew Res Lane heelhalone 5 230.000 S 25,000 5 28.000 S 25,000 5 25,000 S 25,000 6 25,000 S 29.000 S 25,000 $ 25,000 5 23,000 $ 250.000
9b Lanes-20South S 8.520,000 $ 2,000.000 $ Z000,000 S 2,520,000 $ - S - $ - I - $ - $ - 3 - $ 6,20,000
000 So th 1010 Corridor s 700,000 S 700.000 3 - 3 - 1 - $ - S - S - S - 6 - $ - $ 700400
Neo7ndie00500e 5 1A00,000 S 100,000 3 100,000 S 100,000 $ 100.000 8 100,000 8 /80.000 S 180,000 S 180.000 S 1130,000 S 105000 3 1000,000
13001JetTMMle Safely-Pha.2 $ 5500,000 00,000 $ - $ 505000 S - S - S - 3 - $ - $ - 3 m- s 800,0
Bb.stllphbtpRap6eosnrtd S 12,420,000 $ 3=70,000S22DD00��0000 $ 4030,0 $ 2,830,000 8 SZAS3 $ 370,030 $ 530.000 3 370000 $ 530.000 $ 376,000 S 530,000 5 12420.
P10s Cost of Fes-Retated Research
bead Peestpy 6 11,150 5 - $ - S - 6 - S 11,150 S - $ - S - $ - S - $ 11,150
TRelep0te00t lidatsr Pan $ 200,000 $ 100,000 S 100,000 S - S - S - S - $ - $ - 5 - $ 200,000
Moos toped Fee Ratsew 3 0,979,700 6 3.510,000 $ 3.010,700 3 - $ - S - $ - 6 - $ - S - S - $ 0,St9,700
•Page 11
,
gall adStrestyrtrr,.Pe,e,mn 01Ne[en.
04011.1terprommont Pan 30122021-FbeOyCeabtlna
..,:�:a.
•'...,:...ter 'x,::,"w..�,r::.'n,.t,..:n''� 5. ?::;."•e'..
:r' ..ji�•.v :'10'.eieTaliOs-
h• Y
a.' =:r r ,,,.,.,,.s. .,5:;'pip. .a, a1 �'Fr6iligioWes..
-::,. ....,.. 0!tr...;.• • ;
.
tilredws77ero a is `
1300 Sae%VledsA R.Iabretlnn 10.000,000 0% S - $ 10,000,000 3 - S 400,000 9 - S S0220.000 S 200,000 $ 10,000,000
600700 South-MOO Matto 5000 West 14,780,000 67% S 3,413,200 $ 0340300 $ 3,173,400 S 3,173.400 S - $ 8,410290 $ - 8 - $ 14.700,000
ASA Aeeass0818 Ramos 1,300,000 0% S - 8 1,300,000 S - S - $ 1,303,001 $ - 8 - S - S 1,300,000
Sidewalk Reheb110453 78449100193 700,000 0% 3 - 8 700,000 S 700,000 S - 8 - a - s - 9 - S 700,000
DeleMm8sd S0law,I pleeanae 1,800000 0% $ - j 1,300000 j - s - S 1,300000 $ - $ - 8 - $ 1,100.000
InrSons AvenssN00 South from Redwoodm 3000 West 3,040000 57% $ 2074,000 S 1,006.200 8 782.800 8 702000 8 - 9 2074,090 9 - S - S 3040,000
Gladiola Stet-1050 Sa%to 2100 South 4,000,000 67% S 2280,000 S 1,720,000 8 860.000 S 600,000 5 - $ 2,280,000 9 - $ _ j 4,000,090
MOO Wet*ern 7008arr0rt8 860 Salim 1,000,000 57% S 912,000 8 608,000
Btre4 Peres entOvalay and Pr.ervNla 7,000000 0% $ - 3 7,000,D00 $ 844,00- S 7000,000 $ - $ 912000 $ - 8 - 7,1703,000
1.sel Skeett'aoemt9atlon 0500,030 0% 8 - $ 6,500,000 8 3,600,000 3 8A000,0Go $ - 0 - s - s - $ e,000000
Me*Rehab10eSon end Reeoelrua6en et City SMA 4300000 0% S - j
- s - s e,s°o,oao
00000 $ - 2,000,000 2,003,000 S - $ - s - $ 000,000Carnmla Strad MlesOAWer 2200,000 0% s - 200000 s - $ 2,000,000
$ - 8 - 3 - 9 - s 200,000B1e3e Retrb5a0n 200,600 a% s - $ 200,090 a 200,000 $ - $ - a - 3 - $ 9 700,000
Perot%%TAR 500,000 0% s - s 500,000 0 350,000 S - s 150,000 3 - I - 3 - S 500.00e
Coot Colarnme 300000 0% $ $ 300000 0 60,000 9 - $ 260,000 $ - j - $ - S 300.000
Traapabdlm Prslem 02160.000 $ 19,e60,0e0 3 44460.000 S 0,900,000 3 24,000,000 S 0000,000 $ 18,080,000 $ 0.320,000 $ 200,000 S 62160.000
IteplaarartTMla 81pAM 2,400000 e% S - $ 2404000 $ 2,400000 8 - 3 - $ - $ _ j _ $ 2400.000
Pedestrian 'D.4o9s 200,000 10% s 26,000 a 235,000 8 225,000 3 _ $ - 3 26,000 9 - a - 3 250.000
Neer%lase I'rora 230,000 10% S 26000 0 220000 $ 223,000 8 - 3 - 8 20000 $ - I - 8 250000
BOA lanes.252 Sousa 0020,000 10% * 062000 3 mesas 8 524,000 $ - 3 - 9 Gesso° S - 3 020,000 0 0620.000
100%Rd Cooked 790,000 0% 8 - $ 700,000 3 - S - 8 - 3 - $ - S 790,000 3 700,000
81ons% 1.605.000 100% $ 1,600,000 8
13803sdTSOtc*s%q-Pm..2 500000 0% $ - 3 000,000 - 3 - 9 1,000.00- 3 - 8 - s t.60o,003
Shot lklnwRwaeernem 22Q�¢00pp0p 33 so0.o0o $ 3 e 3 S 9 soao6o
v+26088 0% 9 2S020DD 10.�0.aoo 3 6 000 - $ 2a92,000 5 a S et 82057•o$ c1y 23,0000
' -_ ..,.. L J
Plea Cat ofFaeldtsted Rammed:
enPaOe Fee 80rM 3 11,160 100% 8 11,te0 $ S 11,14 a 17,150
TAm3a%60n Sear Pan 0 200.000 10% S 20,000 $ 180,000 j 160,000 3 20,000 $ 230,000
Sinus lapsut Fa Balaea $ 6,020,700 100% $ 0,629,700 8 - S -
.,..w. .,-....,.- ,o w.'i Y �, aP.s L9F-'^"Si:ffiYAkw-�•�•a�,�i` ••ySv1�w..
III Fe Praia%Alfee tloe {`1341Yi0116P
80 1 liateltaislardd paposed$ 10936,000 8 24,004000 3 6,000,000 9 16,013,160 5 0,320,000 $ 1,520,000
S 1,37064 3 8,100082 ohm80.Soda 9 18038.000 ♦ 24.000,000 s 6.030000 3 10013,150 S 0,320,000 $ 1.520,000 S 74.781.150
re SAlra 8 0 - $ - $ - $ - j - s
$ 9,483.450
s Page 12
Baltlake QyyFAWN=0356136 This 0d dais not Mutt he amamtfo fudn0eva0a61a each your.Initiod.1315061336 proleda for 6936M603 6104n such funding 1/r•See Samoa edths.
Cy1W Rocatjaa n en 0011-2021
`,. t. '?,{ � ., ;` I i ..i, ' ,c ..!" :,,. '',':-''`A,r , ... -..i �.V ;'- - a • � . ... . �.. . , a:',1,iq@ wn.,.; �t'.
+ � x . x , P ke � . ��
1 P6n6sr1 atod NVACey4hm and L3541r0 1fir*r0•CeweaMen 1442.700 5403700
2 Jro1o4Co.ru 134D 33363 UpOnals and Enemy Comvand 6177,100 9377,100
S COO•Arm 0o63E/36 lnfoIon Warr Camolon and Nut Rancor Project-Deign,ONtrenrinc snd13MoRnea, 513,58e $136,060
4 Central Pled CNN*Plant)1p01g,arfp system and 03603113631 8233.7153 SA3.789
4 WeedMe SeAorCenter 61310631319 R46r2inda4rg merlrp,sktIg arid pAWs. 4110.003 Sile.093
6 SRD Sumehous .a te OWEN Id4MknWdr Cesevadon rdO4etRmosU Pmiset-C Npr,6rr01rue6g 6081.023 6701.076
god a
7 9p66 PAWN Rea Orwsw 3131605ypafe0t replacing FNAC,Ca ele,.M11013316 Nete s 1161618 33$616
6 03 South P631313 Replaces6369 paavArdOw54th Tama double pens WLdaw 500.110 362316
9 ay&C0Wy 542479 Pon Cot Unit Repl 4os41t R0dr6043 MN $175202 3170212
WohbatanRd"'Rag CRYR Clary ShcdnO Ter porhMe bran 6r Errdad6is Swaram�dIMDUM9 Canneebn pdnh'18 a6rdltl*025 Nod VANS 34ao.00e
Aern Rag C1y6Carelyth4ldng RM Moor Roso lfe a Mee Rae* 16e4,501 6184.301
10 CJ6e&Ce0ny Budding 6derbr Pan6rgand Repahtwrka art woad vArdowtams, S104000 a184t0A
11 C163Camy&4dtg Ciy6Cany 4r Rap&1IM8r41.03 h r*ad4d*at 10 Matte 6r e damp p396 lgnra srdame Nd 3200,000 3200,000
star*4w erdn0 ip0aaa CoN3353aw33 p ler135 wood dratalv4 end praleeW4wM1
12 CAI I Coamy Bldg O6&0atary0lu4drg.Mere Uplsep Ii04*Steam deer40,eals Nem131d.+rr 0336N 61,400.000 31.404000
13 310-3 36 Oowrba 131636tlnNhyrCamva6ar end A4stTersrProlact-CaMnrtbnWeek 6000.d00 se04000
14 Rs MIN 5 and NON,WrglepararAndoww6n Tana[dobt*perre*24Mo 1173200 173.2CC
15 F6s ears 1.4A7 UPpad4 Mrs slalbrwdOiTull DOC Net*a d60ertP 4$pl51m 6tadso4a 001000 ST0.000
1s city 6Copp 6Jldne Ds4pn 66d 033603.64n of Now D m6arNtWrayslen $1,000.000 31,080p00
17 P6660.104s 1110.13, Uppada Firs station MA 6s DOC weft ow 1n0303031e316r 1ci3r3353 000.100 004900
16 1Res*10,1 r* Rapl0 haft and Armed( add 000=bola%ay*^s 8244200 3244200
10 013 Serb Pte9e6aa Rap40a MINN odA6m3111666godd DOC eo0rate ey*aea 1e macrong pr0pe a. 160,600 320.33
is 1312030033walaa &geea 4aaaims COON 1115 War Cersearn end Reemui Papd-Dd Erd pr, rm*g NOUN fOb6,MS
Oa and lYMepnrd
21 �0 &eenr 36ithoua&adws 00r1uldpeb0 Weer Qesaaan end AM*ROWNAll PreJeet-CastuctonWe6 31200.00) 31,219,000
Oit
II Q0$Corafy I311138 Pon 031 W41R4pdaeoadard RoorNEN Neff 1191420 61041120
23 at,S Cooly a08in8 Fan Cal U4aRepYwmat3d Mew NWMNO 116.416 335.463
24 Oy&Coury S8kOrg tin Cal UM Raplaea875 1st Peer Nat Half 3137.176 Sin7,176
26 Oy&Cate•,•.:.,i$ -r.C.OUX4 RepLeonere36 nnc.NaM rise 2174332 syrxza
21 City 6 Cons.Adairg ran Cell Unit 11Nbarmert2r =ur NaMNrf $9 •7%% .,53,92
27 QV&Cany&47dn0 Fintbl ck4t RrrpYo.0u2d29a 6P2h KO 3137.176 3137,176
21 Olyt Cantya)440 Fan OM thit Rephom0ert41hFbaaoo6r 1b6 $170,202 3170,232
29 ay a Count,Bolero Fe Col Unit R4p1aor0e*6M Row 9205754 Sda714
10 CI*0Caany8lAig 331253 ReerCa614r Mesa Swaim eV 9163133 R4paearwrt 2745,369` 37441/07
31 Qy S MOW 8a0Atr0 2rd ROM C4rp3.Amer Mooring and SWAM Repraimet 5551,031 3913•e11
32 Oy6Ce11y2015111 43 R8erCsI34t:Pears 7eutrpard 91316031 Replasnert 3744007 3748,607
331.50 ''end Pandno Le 363033231e263enrRl $736.102 5306,102
34 Ee13103SelorC301 E880-Reroa6n0 deenler0ede 11W,Oro 1100A00
36 cloy I Caury&eking tat Flee Ceps:Adam MEAN6n8B1C65NRep.ramrt 5740.507 5746.00T
36 item PMergeafaaee WatetpeelmO 4Cucrrse08a4a.JN0ecendonJdntRN** $995000 5305.000
37 Plus NO Nara340-P4drrg Dtrt¢ae Rsp613333434631636 1201,504 3231.162
36 Spine Noble F413 6plrV NAM Carr4asseS.Lent WarryroM20 Ptgkt 5956,516 33311113
31 ANN 63311.Red sodno 31363 Fh14-I300369 SEW and Re43621313330 Pmh0t 31.079.7Si 31.074720
•Page 13 .
:.'ii..:
i 6
6yp dp
-. j.
yg p Q g RR
11 I
�^Yf
R4
1, 81 444 § 61ff I § § $&� g§ gm. gm_l_§.QR,§ § §§iRiug§.g§. § §§.§ § �4&§.§§§. 1
, w g IL 6 A I lid A S1161 61611 I O 6 616 N 161611 0
i
I yE I
i 1
.. . It i 11 II I 1 11 I 101 I
m g 1111 "i
1 � 1 ` M i 1 Jill h§ IIjay i' i
11114111ihull / I1111 HillIilltiLthimlimiI li
• . ,- 1111611111111 ; miumi1111111111111111111 1
gi _ I
1. ry '• 4 4 114147 4 4 4 442 4 4 11 SIM la EBHetl Ili MI 4 ElR,p0 R XER 4 RA444
Salt Lake City
Capital Facilities Plan
and Impact Fee Study
Draft Report
May 2,2011
Prepared by: Anne Wescott
Galena Consulting
Am A
0 SULTING
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 fee 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
a 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 residents;
• 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 foundation 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);Dalian v.City of
7lgard,512 U.S.374(1994).
4 See Section 11-36-201(6XbX4),Utah Code
5 See Section 11-36-202(5),Utah Code
3 DRAFT REPORT
a
• 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
I Impact fees must be maintained in one or more interest-bearing accounts;11 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)(b)(I),Utah Code.
7 See Section 11-36-201(3),Utah Code.
s See Section 11-36-201(6)(b)(2),Utah Code.
9 See Section 11-36-201(2)(a),Utah Code.
to See Section 11-36-202(2Xa),Utah Code.
II See Section 11-36-301,Utah Code.
12 See Section 11-36-301,Utah Code.
4 DRAFT REPORT
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:
a 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 fimding 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.
5 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 CIF 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(1)(c).
14 See Section 11-36-102(14).
6 DRAFT RBPORT
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
7 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
Breinholt,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(CFI')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
t
f� I ' .:10 9���'1`91a'; `t J 'if1• v9�lea
txl„
Population 186,440 195,263 8,823 5% Amok
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 1I-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
•ss: - _ �.�,,:h, ;1Ua_�ClCs�94��.64�1;�. :l`�RlJ i1;-a:,: .,.ut,�,,.,.
rr�,... t 1.
Residential(In unks) 80,362 84,165 3,803 6,867,781 59% "Y
Stgla worthy 42,270 13% 44,271 2,000 3,704,717
MUFFasly 38,092 47% 39,804 1,003 1,993,004
Nonresidential(In square feet) 82,909,311 88,832,873 3,923,562 41%
Total 9,591,343 100%
Notre:
Number of residential wills xssbssed on 2005-2009 Amman Community Survey daft and U.S.Corns boating dwmlaistiia data item 1973-2009,
Nan-residential mum fborage of 1,031 square feet per residential unit ems obtained by CO Richard Ellis Reel Seale 2010 Yar-HW 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 DRAFTRBPORT
Section III.
Fire Impact 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
gawk
Department.
11 DRAFT REPORT
Exhibit III-I.
Current Assets—Salt Lake City Fire Department
•
-
Facilities
New Public Safety Complex 21,947 $25,000,000 $25,000,000
Existing Public Safety Building 315 East 200 South 18,200 $ 6,487,200 $6,487,200
Fire Station*1 211 South 600 East 15,855 i 4,768,50n $4,760.600
Fire Station#2 270 West 300 North 7,686 i 2,305,500 ;2,306,500
Fire Station*3 1086 East Simpson 9,450 $ 2,636,000 $2.836.000
Fire Station#4 830 East 1101 Avenue 8,019 $ 2,405,700 62,405,700
Fire Station*5 1029 East 900 South 8,400 $ 2,520,000 $2,620,000
Fire Station 06 948 West 800 South 7,325 $ 2,197,800 12,197,600
Fire Station 117 273 North 1000 West 8,010 $ 2,405,700 $2,405,700
Fire Station*8 15 Weal 1300 South 10,000 $ 3,009,000 $3,000,000
Fire Station 09 5822 West Anre%a Emhart Drive 11,010 $ 5,903,000 ;3,303,000
Fire Station#10 785ArepeenDrive 9,785 $ 2,929,500 $2,929,600
Fire Station#11 561 North 2360 West 9,000 $ 2,613,281 $2.813,281
Fire Station*12 1085 North 4030 West 9,000 $ 2,700,000 $2,700.000
Fire Station#19 23e0 East Pareys Way 8,480 $ 1,944,000 $1,944,000
Fire Station*14 1580 South Industrial Road 4.000 $ 1,440,000 $1,440,000
Fire Station#15-land only i $0
Fire Training Tower 1600 South Industrial Road 18,950 $ 5,085,000 $5,085,000
Fleet Facility 15,981 $ 3,937,600 $3,937.500
Land for Fire Trebling Center $ 550,000 ;850,000
19B,asa
Apperstua
25 Engines $12,500,000 $12,600,000
6 Ladder Trucks $ 4,250,000 $4,250,000
•
Plus Cost of Fes•Releted Reaearah
Impact Fee Study Update i 11,160 $11,160
Plus Impact Fee Fund Balance $ 2,398,8445V� t•$2,300,845
e�aH+t..:, S. . `�. ?-.�...5...." r ..-:F i ':rt.- 1;"' ;7i 1� `. :.l'.�.DICI VIEMICA
Source:Salt Lake City Firo 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.
Impact Fee find balance as of 3/31/11.
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 II-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 111-2 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
•
z��.c�{. •.9,,.c -e:7y.,,K•.�.�:4+_Y;ytas.'- 3:r,-1`�r^o-rr�:l...'�,w•n .,n_ _�:f:.s,.,.�,:7,Sfirr., wk, sH.•:ex ' =j;,<r:.r.
:h1;.•,--`. ,:< ..6,.j_.. a:.:1>,.R..,-,. ;;-1t:,��;. '�R ' ✓....:...>,,v;4 .,a,;_..�:.r .,.yt*y3�;
..r .;};'' +i'•. .d'i`a'r'rFil!ti_, 1'!^r^4<< a. x 'r..`" '` '' �'�":. A`•
- -_ �4c..,.»��...:titi'.i';`x°'--.,:.4,`.t�'d'ei3"fig..�Z:r `+i+'�z.'��a.yY:'rL3,t:`��.t.-.-:;.s'fir..'".'a°.ov ei`:•`s?`:::� .�,,,:r.y.5";�-ItMR1�;=
FrOrles
_ 2012 Pia MINN-NapalmendEcwlce LadkqualtIon $ 1,240,000 32% $ 004000 i 004.000
2015 lire Shim00-RIl afar and 4ardwree0*i lion 15,000 1.00 $ 5,100,000 33% 6 1,ON,000 1 3.112,000
2015 Fie 3hfva>!14 15,000 COO $ 5,100p00 33% 1 103,000 4 2417,000
2010 T,00 cAs Mai f14bana HoWNnetaro'h $ 000,000 100% 1 050,000 1 -
k'".- S..ei-
Flu kale Pasl4hdad Res.o
hand Foseadr $ 11,150 100% 1 11,160 $
Badvds*Cow 55df $ 50,000 60% 1 25.000 1 25,000
lama hapaelFss Paadi/ua • 5 2,505,545 5 200,045
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 Cover study will assist the Department in determining the location of future stations. Fund balance as of mint.
• 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 11-1 and I1-2,and the
• impact fee eligible costs from Exhibit II1-2 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 million is),
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 Ill-3.
Salt Lake City Fire Amount to Include in Impact Fees'
Department Impact Fee Fat 8t pr litiSS and
Vehicle(s Research
rtrtl needltopnron-r noonedn-residential growth 9growth ortly) $ t 930,0000
Calculation Percent of Future Growth
Residential 59%
Nonresidential 41%
(I)Fmm ExIi it Iaa. Amount AiUbtla to to Future Leal Use
(2)Flom 84t6it1-2, Residential $ 828,089
Nonresidential $ 1,523,230
S011CD Future Growth by Lend Use'
Sett like City Fire Depurunent end Impact Pee Reeidential(housing teas) 3,803
Study Taut Nonresldential(square feet) 3,923,5ea
Cakuleled Impel Fee
Residential(housing trite) $ 218
Nonresidential(squareare 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 III-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 $0.39
Is 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 gowttt according to their relative percentage of total growth based on total square footage.
The fire suppression vehicle is allocated to non-residential development as 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 Uses,
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 space16. The following
Exhibit IV-1 summarizes the current capital assets of the Salt Lake City Police Department. /*lit,
Exhibit IV-1.
Current Assets—Salt Lake City Police Department
47
dr ?c:��.t, ;"fyf''�. *a.. ,�q; .'m,,Glry' YY�,•�3.;. � ::t: SY �' d.a
Facilities
Mew Public Safety Building 146,160 3.49 6 100,000,000 100% $ 100,000,000
Existing Public Safety Building 72,800 2.18 $ 21,948,800 100% $ 21,948,800
Pioneer Pollee Precinct 27,183 3.78 $ 5,824,600 100% $ 6,624,600
Motor ShadIE+Adence Warehouse 12,300 0.36 $ 1,864,000 100% $ 1,664,000
Fleet Facility 18,961 $ 3,937,500 100% to 3,937,500
Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research
Impact Fes Study Update $ 11,150 100% $ 11,160
Plus Impact Fee Fund Balance $ - 10096 $ -
Source:Salt Lake City Police Department and Impact Poe Study Team.
Notes: Replacement cost assumptions were$300 per square foot for the Public Safety Building,$200 per square foot for the Pioneer
Police Precinct,$100 per square foot for the Motor Shed/Evidence 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.
15 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(CPP)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 1V-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
4 1�.�i:`.c, rr�z`z�Y�ri1:-hyi• hT: *�='. S r to �!
,� �..:;;i� :::x ts+-'.' F.. k •
n...:...:1'.:. ae.�c--��<:...Y,,..r.r.. �.a..'w:.."'•�:•. :rf,.<tee.:=�.a.N�La^sir-..:.�„h±.x;.� �.Lf w'd'eL•ie.. ,ti. • ...
wow
2014 Pots Ewaw rd Ok.labF 100.000 ZOO 6,00000 26% $2,260,000 0 0.740,000
Pim 0002 0111404414444 M44476
ln,d Fw am* 0 11,140 100% 0 11,100 $ •
C01t4 ld .Way 62* i 140,000 20% i MOW $ 100A00
Um*pot 4000%4 441s4 0 - I -
Source:Salt Lake City Police 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 I1-2,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 lo In dude In Impact Fees' $ 2,298,150
• Department Impact Fee pew of FulureGrowth
Calculation Residential 59%
Nonresidential 41%
Note. Amount M ittdable to Future Land Use
(1)Awn l dv'bit 1V-2. RNiderttisl $ 1,358,858
(2)Fwm Sddbit f.2. Nonresidential $ 939,294
Fulure Growth by Land Use'
Sauter
sail Lake City Police Depramrc Ind Impact Nonreddel(hashgunfs) 3,803
Fee study Teem. onreerdlel(aqua";teen 9,923 562
Calculated Impact Fee
Residential(houskig units) $ 357
Nonresidential(square feet) $ 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 $0.30
Draft Police Impact Fee-2011 $0.24
•
18 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 Division
::c=�Je:�.,f..,'���;fi�:ficiz�:arC?�``SS�'-,;i�••-. .Y�•?�:,1.�'�i.`c y^,�'�"?�. +�.<<'%�'..�
v17- #Ktr -Pr• +'�% Tu ':w ,titri"?tii't..�.�iv;. 1 .+' a3.i.', . is • t�i�ay
S'.s'�%''�. s";'1F,w, zz, q': <:'<-i' }: .k :a:.+`.."'•� `�k Y" i �GVA
:�' ��- 'a.✓.'.: ` . � - • di'T;::Ta" F'rf•.'' ..,.�i F_� ,��
i 1 ;7 Yy{ .'i44. 3:n§:: :e. •4.r�_-, �.�• -& ,fix?.
7 � 2.3'�j;e`:s 3. .:Is.`^`~ii'r` V r-1 ,.�; t ��' �,A •1 �
' il_i:i 154:�1. :L;e.,` tt4� '[...;•';'m.. a.: AF��'
S: :.f r -"..:..�.� -�'�!��^ •ai'iv:'f'•, :�L' �y:�<r5`;i�� ���
Regional Parks 376.00 $ 112,600,000 100% $ 112,600,000
Community Parks 263.60 $ 79,080,000 100% $ 79,080,000
Neighborhood Parks 236.20 $ 70,850,000 100% $ 70,860,000
Special Use Parks 33.05 $ 9,915,000 100% $ 9,916,000
Community Gardens 2.25 $ 337,398 100% $ 337,398
Mini Perks 18.18 $ 2,728,908 100% $ 2,728,908
Greenbelt/Shared Use Pathways 32 miles $ 33,390,000 100% $ 33,390,000
Open Spade/Trails 1,147.48 $ 11,474,761 100% $ 11,474,761
Plus Cost of Fee-Related Research
impact Fee Study Update $ 11,150 100% $ 11,150
Plus Impact Fee Fund Balance $ 1,040,221 100% $ 1,040,221
E.�..t;;�'ri� ,.. . . r }. � ..�.r .. ,. `;.e.St,,t�e.�'i���, ? ,> ,`' �' :'` ,. ;:t _ ."�,�i��'1✓��,,,-,
Source:Salt Lake City Parks Division and Impact Fee 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$3,999 per existing residential unit.We will compare our
final impact fee with this figure to determine if the two results will be similar;this represents a
"check"to see if future City residents will be paying for infrastructure at a level commensurate
with what existing City residents have invested in infrastructure.
5. What future growth is expected for the Salt Lake City Parks Division?
As shown in Exhibit 11-1,the resident population of the Salt Lake City is projected to increase by
8,823 people over the ten-year planning period. As indicated in Exhibit 11-2,this equates to
approximately 3,803 new residential units.
6. What new infrastructure is required to serve future growth?
The Salt Lake City Parks Division has developed a Capital Facilities Plan(CFP)that identifies
the capital facilities the City will need to build within the next ten years.
The following Exhibit V-2 summarizes the investment the Salt Lake City Parks Division plans to
make in capital facilities over the next ten years to continue its current level of service:
•
20 DRAFT REPORT
Exhibit V-2,
Salt Lake City Parks Division Capital Facilities Plan—2012-2021
s:,. n^;f ,�.4•iM.:all. '.tai'MPAr .nMefaL'MM '�sl '+,:a'�,a�'.!L'?'-.?.Fj�::F.;':�,,,l�S.; V'
•" •$ ,''•M"''r•:.✓`ti - .._• u• �'..u_..:..r�4?;':.. f��s� y.•F? ry .ti5?::: ,n`,� C-. �(
..v .e ;..... .o..G,��.E1r't:hir. _ :'�3�-SY�-�ei_ '1'_'�-• :�c;^i.:�.,�f%lr
P1 40 44.04411896111184814 Own10p0%At
441144481.•wd dw.Ip.d plots Ind.p.0.p.a$$men..pDp Wei Manta llopr..$ 9408 $ 4740.000 400% 1 4740.000 6
AdYu4140n povend.bdy.n.p.a aapA.%en TOO $ 0104000 0% 1 - S 0104000
T.Miw.A W 4448q DOaMplopt
Joao pd 641144818400464.40 Cpd Olwnd 1h.P+10+07 S 4,004000 10% S 400800 $ 8,000000
Cp43i441/7480 S 1.200pC0 10% I 180P00 $ 1,0/0,000
I40O1$$“46. NOW Peke•Swap p40•4181.L**mined plan NOW hell $ 27,016.210 $ 4210:00 S 20.004200
I.Adn Ik0%n...r n40c.n41aki,O0%t P•M 451463.11p6481.8614844 deft p.rts
.k.%Plo14 0/p6 A%park,MP1.8 and Yaiaplp,88a48ed404168401n 14411%rrrN.
Cprlpf $ 2.000,000 0% $ • 6 2,004000
PM e%farArt $ 434030 0% S • S 600400
OM 01.%10a I 200.000 0% S • 1 204000
u r. ...:'` .,..,- .:y s_ ,.,,;^�;- ;yc;m tip., <'�. 1R{c -_✓�S. ,.a. .. ...., o,;c;.�k:1':... t�a:,t.?. .f:.. ..
Rs.CPO 0O140184alkMd a.aaanl
Rand Foe Mil S 11.100 100% S 11.160 $
Pests R.awlpP , $ 64000 0% S I 00000
114814 Open Opa•.td Tarwdp Pin S 76..000 0% 1 2.700 I 71260
.4018610wr1666604n $ 10000 0% S Opal S I0400
kohl.R.avell%d8%u.prr4Pkp S 74000 0% S 47833 S 71,260
.,+ ,.. � -:..... ..._::S ..-r:i' .. . .._ r :Y,�i.feet. ..-. .!tt.,�i" .f.Ni_,::T u::r..k;,•,,A i.
lino Impost Po YYps I 1.00,221 100% $ 1,040.821 0 -
b,^;R:. > ._ .�__ r. -, d..c - ,... ., ... s ?gt:,^e(f:X efs - �..'•.. ..... 1,; • :..mot .! ]
Source:Salt Lake City Parks Division and 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 .00
investing in improved service levels,and is not impact fee eligible. This amount must be funded n
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 II-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 Lake City Parks Division Amount to Include In Impact Fees' $ 6,664,429
Impact Fee Calculation Peroent of Future Growth
Residential 100%
Noe: Amount Attributable to Future Land Use
(1)From Fshbit V-2. Residential $ 6,664,429
(2)From 0ahbit a-1
Future Growth by Last Use'
Some: Residential(housing units) 3,803
Salt Lake City Pat®Division and Impne Fee
Study ram 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
42 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
- .,:.r
1 � i ..- )2�l� 'F�'4}/ 8 , -, IF '1.I 5 ''� �'�1i�'�� Th
Residential 119,766,645 125,434,426 5,667,781 599E
Single-Family 78,284,870 81,989,587 3.704,717 39%
Mu1tl-Famly 41,481,776 43,444,839 1,963,064 20%
Nonresidential 82,909,311 86,832,873 3,923,562 419E
Retail 5,019,924 5,255,880 235,936 3%
Office 15,050,719 15,758,103 707,384 7%
Industrial 62,838,688 85,818,909 2,980,241 31%
Total 202,675,956 212,267,299 9,591,343 1009E
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. .1: -;• _ <'�''; _ :; ._r-f<. '.5;c�;�;�•.
-rx. ii.
Trip Generation Rates by Land Use ,:.:: ;:Yy�;''_`:'=,^' ;. _ '�� '��J�.
4 .
Category ! �• 6d. yy�� •x ,.s�i.�,.. el Ar �' a '-;:.
Notes:
(1)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.peak hour trip rate formula 1,000 retail square feet 5.0
Source:
International Transportation Engineering 1rlp 1,000 office square feet 1.3
Generation Atanrml.
1,000 Industrial square feet 0.9
i
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 Divisions".
'r 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 22011(67m)or II 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 form behind the incident.This is the targeted LOS for some urban and most
rural highways.
18 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
r
Exhibit VI-3.
Current Assets—Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation Divisions
::*'n�;:,'!.,x_' =;:w^�. .•:}r? �id5'::s•.. �+.fyn;:ragas:.'-a.»�a�g7•:tSy.:�:^,F �.e=3..o:.:P,ri•,r,w'":iY•2:•,. r'�-;/:m...,�,t. r„M.�:.•,�
:.ti �Y`e, <<- Y,° �•Y —e%:•-o 'h>_ a¢ 7 .e�, '�;a i�:::',,';q's�� ,...,y"e ,I.j •f••
1� �, r �•bi .r: � :;:'t*; r,f y:*�.. a L,ti i�
!?�.`' Ily�,�$Qp��, .s^ +T: tt5i' _t C •_{,•,i _yJr': 'L..'` �,�• aT`�..:'.;�' .t�vi �e�f j 4•E,c:,;.t.k.,
!.: 'C, f•'; '�=it,tr::3 <t,F? �t;:r..r:�;•.�-C..`!'�`S`':;kh1r�:? :a �y �ci'.
BpVI, F.'iaSa`i''-uv ;..::. tc:k�itaasts—�.X.`fe:'�i`�:e•;
Roadways
1,643 lane miles of roadway $ 1,105,600,000 100% $ 1,105,800,000
• Bridges
23 bridges $ 23,000,000 100% $ 23,000,000
Curb and Getter
4,750,000 Meal feet of curb and putter $ 199,600,000 100% $ 199,600,000
Sidewalks
20,000,000 sf of sidewalk $ 200,000,000 100% $ 200,000,000
12,000 accessible ramps $ 46,600,000 100% $ 45,600,000
Drive Approaches
7,680,000 of of concrete drive approaches $ 99,640,000 100% $ 99,640,000
Bike Facilities
83 blear mUes of bite lanes Incl.In roadway cost 100% $ -
Traffic 8lpnals
200 Traffic Signals $ 32,000,000 100% $ 32,000,000
crosswalk Liphk
31 Bashing crosswalk lights $ 1,860,000 100% $ 1,880,000 •
79 bashing school crosswalk lights $ 1,975,000 100% $ 1,675,000
Driver FeedNalc inane
44 driver feedback signs $ 352,000 10096 $ 352,000
Feat;ities
Streets Fecbliy $ 9,260,000 100% $ 9,260,000
Fleet Facility $ 2,620,000 100% $ 2,520,000
Salt Storage $ 1,017,406 100% $ 1,017,405
tr''�r.J.'. .. `P J:�t�e: ".if R
Pius Cost of Fee•Related Research
Impact Fee Study Update $11,160 100% $ 11,160
Phis Impact Fee Fund Balance $6,628,700 100% $ 6,628,700
.3��...:.•2x>tr.�:.:.:t`C_2. :vT:.:,....� <1'�r"�tt'v345:Cr2g�f3...�:51
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 REPORT
5. What future growth is expected for the Salt Lake City Streets and Transportation
Divisions?
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 JJ-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
- S'. :1.4,;,: jfprdpP,� „liiip�Fbi:.'.` 3 i.J.
r"',flr1��.^1411 FM!): 5.:.-..'. .•'�'�1�:e -`fRJyYR^T...'.--^r^-. '".^�^_:
-
•''s"ii r'Aim: �t' ,
't
i
Roadway P,*ets
1300 South Misled Rehabiflalon $ 10,000,000 0% $ - $ 10,030,000
500000 South-2500 War%5600 West i 14,700,000 07% 3 6A10,200 0 0349000
ADA AccessIb y Rabe i 1,300,000 0% $ - $ 1.300400
blowelkRsha6alikosBarbubb • $ 700,000 0% 1 - 0 703.000
D.%ebsed Meow kRsplec.mrd $ 1,300.000 0% $ - $ 1,300.000
kdire Aromt.5O060105 horn Radwasd to 3006Woet 6 3.640.000 57% 6 2,074,400 3 1,605200
Oledlole Met-11150$e60 to 2100 South $ 4,000 000 57% $ 2250,000 i 1,720,000
4400 Wed kom 700 6oWb to 890 South $ 1000,000 57% i 012,000 5 000000
Meet PavanwntOrrfM end Pr smva6on $ 7,000,000 0% $ $ 7,000,000
Load Meet R,cartsbedon i 6.300,030 0% $ - 6 5,500.000
Moor ReIMiWo.and necossirela n wart SYers 8 6,300,000 0% 6 i ca60,000
Comets SheetRehablablon $ 2.000,000 0% 6 - $ 2,000,000
Midge Whshatsdrt i 200.000 0% i - $ 200,000
Percent kr Ad $ 500,030 0% $ $ 500,000
Coat Ovemrs 'i 306.000 6% some
000
6 62,100,000 i 13,060,000 6 40460,000
TrrnwpoAaOos Projects
Rsp ceoert Wks 90mis 1 2,400,000 0% i - $ 2,400,000
P, I6n&Wety Oakes $ 250,000 10% 6 26,000 6 225,000
pow Mks Lair lM% $ow $ 250.000 10% $ 25,000 $ 225.000
Ops Labs-2008adh $ 0,520,000 10% 6 652000 $ 5,066.000
600 Boutin Rd Caddor 0 700,000 0% $ - i 700,000
New mac 5 1,000.000 100% $ 1,600,600 $
1300 Rut Treat S$I -Phese 2 $ 500,000 O% $ . $ 500,03D
ehoet Wiling liepkmnad 6 200,000 0% 6 0 200 000
i 12,420,000 i 2,502,000 i 10,2 000
Piss Cod of Fee-Rested Research
biped Fee Study ,6 11,150 100% 6 11,150 6
Trsespotktlan barter Res $ 200,000 10% 4 20,000 $ 100p00
albs Impact Pao Balinca i 6,525,700 100% 6 6,529,700 i -
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 nextten 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$8.1 million represents growth-related demand •
citywide from non-residential uses. These assumptions are based on the distribution of square
footage,with the exception of the proportionate share of the costs of the four Westside roadway
projects. These four projects primarily benefit non-residential uses by providing infrastructure to
connect products,employees,and freight to other parts of the City. As such,Exhibits VI-6 and
VI-7 identify how these costs can be most appropriately recovered through separate residential aimak
and non-residential roadway impact fees.
7. What impact fee is required to pay for the new capital facilities?
As noted above,the calculation of roadway impact fees is based on the projected number of trips
each land-use type will generate in the next ten years. Using the current land use by square foot
within Salt Lake City found in Exhibit VI-1,and the trip generation figures from Exhibit VI-2,
total current trips can be distributed to each land use. Exhibit VI-5 below displays the projected
trip generation distribution.
Exhibit VI-5.
Salt Lake City Distribution by Weighted Trip Generation—2010 2020
.-"..'.•i=' :✓':'^::a'�r ":;yl".. ';+.:: r: �'i�l'}�+'�+.�+SSR`,`^:iYf:'� .
-.1�1�„,'��,� .$'��-`':ekr • '{,} '`;'o'_' -fie..-, s }�r,. '.�i:��yi:�-y �.;.._
` _ -r. `7:, .,,^%:�'.$.= � 'c��A�`�R!?j� �y{ y� .ii. Kr. W:r,¢::?":;
.�ir.'•� <. 1 "T�,.t.,,."':i L.W.:.Y • ' ..,Fy-•+•••f�}:12..^u.T
single Family Units('t.o) 42,270 42,270 25% 2,000 2,000 26%
Mull Fanny Unls('0.7) 38,092 28,664 16% 1,803 1,262 16% •
Regal Square Feet('5.071,000 s@ 5,019,924 25,100 15% 235,896 1,179 15%
OBice Square Feet(1.311,000 sr) 15,050,719 19,566 11% 707,184 919 11%
Industrial Square Feet(0.911,000 at) 62,868,338 53,582 33% 2,950,812 2,666 33%
Total 170,182 8,017 100% •
Source:Salt Lake City and Impact Fee Study Team.
max,
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 Percent of Future Trips
Residential
Nolo: Single Family 65%
(1)From ExhibitVI-4;59%ortransportation Mull Family 35%
Poises.
(a)From Exhibit 11-2. Allocated Value by Land Use Category
Residential
S0w= Single Family $ 899,781
Impart Pm Study Tam. Multi Family $ 476,778
Future Land Uses2
Residential(total dwelling units)
Single Family 2,000
Multi Family 1,803
Calculated Impact Fee
Residential(per dwelling unit)
Single Family $ 450
Multi Family S 264
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 to Include In Impact Fees' $8,106,892
Residential Roadway Fee Percent of Future Trips
Calculation Nonresidential
Retail .8%
Now: Office 18%
• (1)Prom Whit V14;1001Gof roadway Industrial 74%
proJeete in Wutside ladtedrinl Area,plus 41%of
ell urbpormtoa praised,credited ieo%of Allocated Vakre by Lend Use Category
•
impact!a brid balance. Nonresidential
(2)From Exhibit 11•2. Retail $ 685,671
• Office $ 1,461,601
Soute<
ImpaetFunSbtdyTeam Industrial $ 5,976,278
•
Future Land Uses'
• Nonresidential(b square feet)
•
Retail 235,938
Office 707,384
• Industrial 2,980,241
•
Calculated impact Fee
•
Non-Residential(per square foot)
Rebel $ 2.91
• Office $ 2.07
• Industrial $ 2.0i
•
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
r.
•
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 $420
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 VII-i summarizes the Fire,Police,Parks and Roadways Impact Fees for
the Salt Lake City.
Exhibit VII-I. Flea
Salt Lake City Impact Fee Residential(per dwelling unit) $ 218
Summary Nonresidential(per square foot) $ 0.39
Pollee
Residential(per dwelling unit) $ 357
Nonresidential(per square foot) $ 0.24
Parks
Residential(total dwelling units) $ 1,752
Nonresidential(per square foot) $ -
Roadways
Residential(per dwelling unit)
Single Family $ 450
•
Multi Family $ 264
Commsreial(per square toot)
Retail $ 2.91
Office $ 2.07
Industrial $ 2.01
TOTAL FEELS(haduding surcharge)
Residential(per dwelling unit) AlIOW
Single Family $ 2,777 k�
Multi Family $ 2,591
Commerdai(per square foot)
Retail $ 3.53
Office $ 2.69
Industrial $ 2,63
The current impact fees being assessed by Salt Lake City to new development are identified in
Exhibit VII-2 below:
•
Exhibit V1-2. Current Fees
Salt Lake City Current Residential(per dwelling unit) •
Impact Fee Summary Single Family $ 1,618
Multi Family $ 1,618
Conimerdai(per square foot)
Retail $ 8,62
Office $ 4.20
Industrial $ 2.00
•
31 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 VEI-3 divides the City's
participation amount into two categories:
• Required—the non-growth portion of partially impact fee eligible projects. This amount
must be 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 VlI-3. r; :
Salt Lake Cty OFF 1
..._��v—,,....,�-..��-. J..,...:Ifef!`.51i�.:.�...�......b.C�..•�`lSa:'..,....... _.� ,.
Participation Summary,2011-
2021 Fire $ 7,663,000 $0 $ 7,663,000
Police $ 6,855,000 $0 $ 6,855,000
Source:
Salt Lake City and lmpect Fee Study Team. Parks $4,967,500 $31,495,200 $ 36,462,700
Roadways $16,818,000 $ 41,960,000 $ 58,778,000
Total $21,785,500 $ 73,455,200 $ 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
assessment 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.
Donations.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 ])RAFT 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/reimbursement.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 policy.The City should establish and adhere to a policy governing their expenditure of
monies from the Impact 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 STAFF REPORT
TO: Salt Lake City Council Members
RE: PUBLIC UTILITIES REVENUE BONDS,SERIES 2011;
FOLSOM AVENUE SEWER LINE CONSTRUCTION
FROM: Lehua Weaver
DATE: September 6,2011
CC: David Everitt,Jeff Niermeyer,Tom Ward,Jim Lewis, Randy Hillier,Gina
Charmless,Dan Mule,Marina Scott,Frank Gray,Mary DeLaMare
Schaefer,
The Department of Public Utilities is proposing to issue up to$10 million in Revenue Bonds to
fund the Folsom Avenue Storm Drain construction. Folsom Avenue is approximately 50 South,
and the storm drain corridor stretches from 700 West,just west of I-15,to the Jordan River.This
storm drain would collect flows from City Creek and completes an important diversion from
the North Temple conduit to accommodate peak runoff flows. The actual diversion point from
North Temple was constructed in previous years.This would extend the conduit all the way to
the River.
The Administration is pursuing a 15-year bond term and estimates that annual debt service
payments would average around$800,000.
PUBLIC PROCESS:
The issuance of bonds requires the adoption of a parameters resolution(to establish limits to the
different bond components such as length of repayment period,interest rate,maximum amount
to be sold,etc.);a public hearing before the Council(would be scheduled for September 27);a
30-day contest period for written comments to be received;and then consideration of the final
bond resolution in October.This issue would utilize the new bond sale process that the Council
recently discussed,namely using a delegate to affirm the sale terms within established limits on
behalf of the full Council.
MOTIONS:
(I move that the Council)Adopt a resolution that authorizes the issuance and sale of up to
$10,000,000 aggregate principal amount of the City's water and sewer revenue bonds to finance
all or a portion of certain improvements,facilities and property that will be part of the City's
water, sewer and stormwater system;provides for a public hearing on September 27,2011 at
7:00 p.m. and provides for related matters.
KEY ISSUES:
During the annual budget discussions,this project was estimated to cost approximately$8
million.The bonds will be sold as close to that amount as possible.The$10 million"not-to-
exceed" amount allows bond counsel more flexibility if necessary.
According to current schedules,it is expected that construction would begin in November 2011
and be completed by April 2012.
The Administration has the necessary rights or access along the drain corridor for the
construction,except for a few sections near the western end at the Jordan River.The
Department of Public Utilities has been in negotiations with the affected property owners and is
working toward resolution.
In addition to the necessary practical improvements to the storm drain,the Administration has
also given considerable time to exploring the opportunity of making street level improvements
so that the storm drain alignment would not conflict. Budgeting responsibility for the street
level improvements has not been identified.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION:
To refresh the Council on the street level improvements,below is some information from the
last meeting Council staff attended:
• The street-level improvements may be divided up into four different sections that would be
developed differently depending on the width of right-of-way available and future funding
to be identified.However,at a minimum it is expected that the above-ground
improvements include a multi-use trail to run the length of the conduit(700 W to the
River). Some preliminary designs have been drafted.This has allowed for the discussion of
alignment of the conduit to take place.
o Section A:700 W(I-15)to 800 W-Semi-urban park feel
o Section B:800 W to 900 W:94-feet is available for the parkway,and could include a
wider section at the western end for more recreational/park use
o Section C:900 W to 1000 W: 160-feet of right of way,would be shared with vehicle
traffic,allowing for the 94-foot parkway to continue.
o Section D:1000 W to the Jordan River:a narrower section of the trail allowing 50-feet
for the parkway.Some easements and other legal issues are in negotiation with
Questar and the railroad.
• The sections abutting the Euclid neighborhood are consistent with the neighborhood's
comments during the Master Plan process-a higher-density use of the space to
accommodate the established commercial uses mixed with an urban family-friendly area.
• Points still to be worked out:
o Funding source for building the above-ground improvements.
o Ongoing expectation and added"park-type"land for maintenance.
o Easements/adjacency to the established businesses
o Traffic re-routing
> The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a cost estimate for street/trail
improvements along this corridor,and may wish to consider this project as the
discussion for the proposed CIP 10 Year Plan continues. This project is not currently
listed on the proposed CIP 10 Year Plan.
SCANNED TO:
SCANNED BY:
S� � ^` Q � DATE;
JEFFRY T. NIERMEYER "�� 1��I�i��'�►����a� j RALPH BECKER
DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC UTILITIES
ATER SUPPLY AND
TERWORKS
WATER RECLAMATION ANDASTORMWATER RECEIMAVOR
1.-E)
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL AUG 1 7 2011
RECEIVED Salt Lake City Mayor
C ED
Date Received: O 8//7j t (I
Davi veritt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: /t
SLC COUNCIL OFFICE
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 16, 2011
Jill Remington Love Chair
FROM: Jeff Niermeyer, Public Utilities Director
SUBJECT: Public Utilities Revenue Bonds, Series 2011, Resolution Authorizing a
Public Hearing for the Purpose of Financing the Construction of Sewer Line
Improvements.
STAFF CONTACT: Jim Lewis, Finance Administrator(483-6773)
DOCUMENT TYPE: Briefing/Resolution
RECOMMENDATION: 1) That the City Council hold a discussion in anticipation of
approving a Parameters Resolution in October for the aforementioned bond issue; 2) That
the City Council adopt a Resolution Authorizing Public Hearing on September 6, 2011
that will a) authorize a Notice of Public Hearing to be published twice prior to the date
set for the public hearing; and b) set September 27, 2011 as the date to hold the public
hearing.
BUDGET IMPACT: Based on preliminary estimates and the current interest rate
environment, annual debt service costs would average $800,000 per year for 15 years.
BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In accordance with provisions of the Local
Government Bonding Act, the City is required to hold a public hearing to receive input
from the public with respect to: a) the issuance of our revenue bonds; and b) the potential
economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector. The financing team is
requesting that the City Council approve a motion on September 6, 2011 setting Tuesday,
September 27, 2011 as the date to hold the public hearing. A Notice of Public Hearing is
required to be published once a week for two consecutive weeks, with the first
publication being at least 14 days prior to the date set for the public hearing.
1530 SOUTH WEST TEMPLE, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84115
TELEPHONE: 801-4133-6900 FAX: B01-483-681B
WWW.SLCGOV.COM
�,: wccvc�co nAvcw
The Parameters Resolution for the above-referenced bond issue will contemplate the
issuance of up to $10 million principal amount of bonds bearing interest at a rate not to
exceed 6% and maturing in not more than 16 years. The Parameters Resolution is
attached authorizing the Public Hearing and is proposed for adoption on September 6,
2011.
Attachment
cc: Daniel A. Mule, Jim Lewis
2
IA,Acc cel`,130NI)S`.20lI13und\_01I Bond I,,uc Hilt Iin I-It',uuis duc
Chapman and Cutler LLP
Draft of 08/16/11; 3:45 p.m.
RESOLUTION NO._OF 2011
A Resolution authorizing the issuance of not more than
$10,000,000 aggregate principal amount of Water and Sewer
Revenue Bonds of Salt Lake City, Utah, fixing the maximum
aggregate principal amount of the bonds, the maximum number of
years over which the bonds may mature,the maximum interest rate
which the bonds may bear and the maximum discount from par at
which the bonds may be sold; authorizing the publication of a
Notice of Bonds to Be Issued; providing for the publication of a
Notice of Public Hearing and the holding of a public hearing; and
related matters.
*** *** ***
WHEREAS, the City Council (the "City Council") of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City")
considers it desirable and necessary and for the benefit of the City and the users of the water,
sewer and stormwater system of the City (the "System") to issue its water and sewer revenue
bonds, in one or more series (the "Bonds"), for the purpose of (a) financing certain
improvements,facilities and property that will be part of the System,including,but not limited to
the construction of a new stormwater line on Folsom Avenue (the "Project"), (b) funding any
necessary reserves and (c)paying all related costs authorized by law;
WHEREAS,pursuant to the applicable provisions of the Local Government Bonding Act,
Title 11, Chapter 14 (the "Act"), Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Utah Code"),
the City has the authority to issue its water and sewer revenue bonds for the foregoing purposes;
WHEREAS, Section 11-14-316 of the Act provides for the publication of a Notice of
Bonds to Be Issued (the "Notice of Bonds to Be Issued") and the running of a 30-day contest
period, and the City desires to cause the publication of such Notice of Bonds to be Issued at this
time in compliance with said section with respect to the Bonds;
WHEREAS, Section 11-14-318 of the Act requires that a public hearing be held to receive
input from the public with respect to the issuance of the Bonds and the potential economic
impact that the Project will have on the private sector, and that notice of such public hearing be
given, and, in satisfaction of such requirement, the City desires to publish a Notice of Public
Hearing and Intent to Issue Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds (the "Notice of Public Hearing")
pursuant thereto;
WHEREAS, all or a portion of the expenditures relating to the Project (the
"Expenditures") (a) have been paid from the water, sewer and stormwater enterprise fund (the
"Fund") within the sixty days prior to the passage of this Resolution or (b) will be paid from the
Fund on or after the passage of this Resolution; and
3053274.02.00.doc
8704025/RJS/jd SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution
WHEREAS, the City desires (a) to provide for the holding of a public hearing and (b) to
direct the publication of (i) the Notice of Bonds to Be Issued, and (ii) the Notice of Public
Hearing in compliance with the applicable sections of the Act;
Now, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as
follows:
Section 1. Bonds to Be Issued;Authorization; Purpose. The City Council hereby finds
and determines that it is desirable and necessary and for the benefit of the City and the users of
the System for it to issue the Bonds, in one or more series, in an aggregate principal amount not
to exceed$10,000,000,to mature over a period not to exceed 16 years from their date or dates, to
bear interest at a rate or rates not to exceed 6% per annum,and to be sold at a discount from par,
expressed as a percentage of principal amount, of not to exceed 2.00%, of the principal amount
thereof, pursuant to (a) one or more resolutions to be adopted and approved by the City in
substantially the form attached hereto as Annex 1 (the "Bond Resolution"), authorizing the
issuance and confirming the sale of the Bonds,to be adopted by the City Council at a future date,
(b) the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of January 1, 2004, as heretofore amended and
supplemented (the "Master Indenture"), between the City and U.S. Bank National Association,
as trustee (the "Trustee"), a copy of which is attached hereto as Annex 2, and (c) a Sixth
Supplemental Trust Indenture (the "Supplemental Indenture" and together with the Master
Indenture, the "Indenture"), between the City and the Trustee, to be entered into at the time of
issuance of the Bonds in substantially the form attached hereto as Annex 3. The Bonds shall be
subject to such optional and mandatory redemption and other provisions as are contained in the
final form of the Bonds and the Indenture. '"'""''"
Therefore, the City hereby declares its intention to issue, and hereby authorizes and
approves the issuance of, the Bonds according to the provisions of this resolution (the
"Resolution"), the Bond Resolution and the Indenture for the purpose of (a) financing the
Project, (b) funding any necessary reserves and (c) paying all related costs authorized by law;
provided that the principal amount, interest rate or rates, maturity or maturities, and discount
shall not exceed the maximums set forth in this Section 1.
Section 2. Notice of Bonds to Be Issued; Contest Period. In accordance with the
provisions of Sections 11-14-316 of the Act the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder of
the City (the "City Recorder") shall cause a Notice of Bonds to Be Issued in substantially the
form attached hereto as Annex 4, to be published one time in The Salt Lake Tribune and the
Deseret News, each a newspaper of general circulation in the City, and to be posted on the
website created pursuant to Section 45-1-101 of the Utah Code and shall cause a copy of this
Resolution, together with the annexes hereto, to be kept on file in the City Recorder's office for
public examination during the regular business hours of the City Recorder for at least thirty (30)
days after the date of such publication set forth below. All actions previously taken by the City
Recorder and other officers, employees and agents of the City to cause such publication are
hereby ratified,confirmed and approved.
For a period of thirty (30) days from and after publication of the Notice of Bonds to Be
Issued any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of this Resolution .. ,,
- 2 - SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution
(including the Bond Resolution and the Supplemental Indenture),or the Bonds hereby authorized
or any provisions made for the security and payment of the Bonds. After such time,no one shall
have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality or legality of this Resolution
(including the Bond Resolution and the Supplemental Indenture) or the Bonds or any provisions
made for the security and payment of the Bonds for any cause.
Section 3. Public Hearing. In satisfaction of the requirements of Section 11-14-318 of
the Act, a public hearing shall be held by the City Council on Tuesday, September 27, 2011,
during the regular City Council meeting which begins at 7:00 p.m., at the regular meeting place
of the City Council, in the Council Chambers, Room 315 in the City and County Building, 451
South State Street, in Salt Lake City, Utah, to receive input from the public with respect to the
issuance by the City of the Bonds and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on
the private sector.
Section 4. Publication of Notice of Public Hearing. In accordance with the
requirements of Section 11-14-318 of the Act, the City Recorder shall cause a Notice of Public
Hearing and Intent to Issue Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, in substantially the form attached
hereto as Annex 5, to be (a) published in The Salt Lake Tribune and the Deseret News, each a
newspaper having general circulation in the City and in which notices relative to the City are
customarily published,once a week for two consecutive weeks,with the first publication being at
least fourteen days prior to the date set for the public hearing, and (b) posted on the Utah Public
Notice Website, at least fourteen days before the date set for the public hearing.
Section 5. Reimbursement of Expenditures. The City reasonably expects to reimburse
the Fund for the Expenditures from the proceeds of the Bonds.
Section 6. Ratification. All proceedings, resolutions and actions of the City and its
officers taken in connection with the sale and issuance of the Bonds are hereby ratified,
confirmed and approved.
Section 7. Appointment of Bond Counsel. Chapman and Cutler LLP is hereby
appointed as bond counsel for the Bonds.
Section 8. Severability. 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.
Section 9. Conflict. All resolutions, orders and regulations or parts thereof in conflict
herewith are,to the extent of such conflict,hereby repealed.
Section 10. Effective Date. This Resolution shall be in full force and effect immediately
upon its adoption.
- 3 - SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution
ADOPTED and APPROVED by the City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, this
6th day of September,2011.
SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH
By
Chair
Salt Lake City Council
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
By
City Recorder
[SEAL]
APPROVED:
By
Mayor
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By
Senior City Attorney
-4 - SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution
Chapman and Cutler LLP
Draft of 08/15/11
SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE
BETWEEN
SALT LAKE CITY,SALT LAKE COUNTY,UTAH
AND
U.S.BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION
as Trustee
Ask
Dated as of 1,2011
SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH
WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS,
SERIES 2011
3054594.01.01.doc
9007857/RDB/wc Sixth Supplemental Indenture
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PAGE
ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS 2
Section 101. Definitions 2
Section 102. Authority for Sixth Supplemental Indenture 4
ARTICLE II AUTHORIZATION,TERMS AND ISSUANCE OF SERIES 2011 BONDS 4
Section 201. Authorization of Bonds,Principal Amount,Designation and
Series 4
Section 202. Finding and Purpose 4
Section 203. Issue Date 4
Section 204. Series 2011 Bonds 5
Section 205. Registered Bonds; Denomination and Numbers 5
Section 206. Paying Agent 5
Section 207. Optional Redemption; Redemption Price 6
Section 208. Execution of Series 2011 Bond 7
Section 209. Delivery of Series 2011 Bonds 7
Section 210. Book-Entry System 7
Section 211. Payments to Cede 9
ARTICLE III APPLICATION OF SERIES 2011 BOND PROCEEDS AND OTHER
MONEYS;ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF ACCOUNTS
AND SUBACCOUNTS 9
Section 301. Interest During Construction 9
Section 302. Debt Service Reserve Account 9
Section 303. Renewal and Replacement Fund 9
Section 304. Establishment of Series 2011 Project Account 9
Section 305. Establishment of Series 2011 Bond Service Subaccount 10
Section 306. Establishment of Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve
Subaccount 10
Section 307. Determination for Funding the Series 2011 Debt Service
Reserve Subaccount 10
Section 308. Application of Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount 12
Section 309. Application of Proceeds of Series 2011 Bonds and Certain
Other Moneys 13
ARTICLE IV FORM OF SERIES 2011 BONDS 13
[ARTICLE V AMENDMENTS TO MASTER INDENTURE] 22
Section 501. Effective Date of Amendments 22
Section 502. Amendment of Master Indenture 22
1- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
ARTICLE VI MISCELLANEOUS 22 Aft.,
Section 601. Arbitrage Covenant; Covenant to Maintain Tax-Exemption 22
Section 602. System of Registration 23
Section 603. Article and Section Headings 23
Section 604. Partial Invalidity 23
Section 605. Counterparts 24
Section 606. Effective Date 24
Section 607. Representation Regarding Ethical Standards for City Officers
and Employees and Former City Officers and Employees 24
Amok
Almik
-ii- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
THIS SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL TRUST INDENTURE (the "Sixth Supplemental Indenture"),
dated as of 1, 2011, between Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah, a municipal
corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah (the "City"), and U.S. Bank National
Association, a national banking association duly organized and qualified under the laws of the
United States of America, authorized by law to accept and execute trusts and having an office in
Salt Lake City,Utah (the "Trustee"):
WITNESSETH
WHEREAS, the City has entered into a Master Trust Indenture, dated as of January 1,
2004, as amended and supplemented to the date hereof (the "Master Indenture" and, together
with the Sixth Supplemental Indenture,the "Indenture"),with the Trustee;
WHEREAS, the City considers it necessary and desirable and for the benefit of the City
and the users of the System to issue water and sewer revenue bonds pursuant to the Indenture
and as hereinafter provided for the purpose of financing part of the costs of acquiring a project
consisting of the acquisition, improvement or extension of improvements, facilities and property
that will be a part of the System pursuant to authority contained in the Local Government
Bonding Act,Chapter 14 of Title 11,Utah Code Annotated 1953,as amended;
WHEREAS, the Series 2011 Bonds will be authorized, issued and secured under the
Indenture on a parity with all other Bonds issued and outstanding from time to time thereunder;
[WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 8.01(b)(_) of the Master Indenture, the Master
Indenture may be modified or amended at any time, without the consent of any Bondholder, for
the purpose of ;] and
WHEREAS, the execution and delivery of the Series 2011 Bonds and of this Sixth
Supplemental Indenture have in all respects been duly authorized and all things necessary to
make the Series 2011 Bonds, when executed by the City and authenticated by the Trustee, the
valid and binding legal obligations of the City and to make this Sixth Supplemental Indenture a
valid and binding agreement have been done;
NOW,THEREFORE,THIS SIXTH SUPPLEMENTAL INDENTURE WITNESSETH:
For and in consideration of the mutual covenants herein contained and of the purchase of
the Series 2011 Bonds by the Bondholders thereof from time to time, and of the acceptance by
the Trustee of the trusts hereby created, and intending to be legally bound hereby, the City has
executed and delivered this Sixth Supplemental Indenture, and by these presents does confirm
the pledge provided for in the Master Indenture and to further secure the payment of the Series
2011 Bonds and all other Bonds now or hereafter Outstanding under the Indenture does hereby
sell, assign, transfer, set over and pledge unto U.S. Bank National Association, as Trustee, its
successors and trusts and its assigns forever, all right, title and interest of the City in and to
(a) the proceeds of the sale of the Series 2011 Bonds, (b) the Revenues, (c) all moneys held by
Sixth Supplemental Indenture
Trustee in funds and accounts established hereunder, including the investments, if any, thereof,
and (d) all other rights hereinafter granted for the future securing of such Series 2011 Bonds.
To HAVE AND To HOLD THE SAME unto the Trustee and its successors and its assigns in
trust forever;
IN TRUST, NEVERTHELESS, FIRST, for the equal and ratable benefit and security of all
present and future Bondholders and Security Instrument Issuers without preference, priority, or
distinction as to security or otherwise (except as otherwise specifically provided), of any of the
Bonds or Security Instrument Repayment Obligations over any of the others by reason of time of
issuance, sale, delivery, maturity or expiration thereof or otherwise for any cause whatsoever;
and SECOND, for the equal and proportionate benefit, security and protection of all Reserve
Instrument Issuers without preference, priority, or distinction as to lien or otherwise (except as
otherwise specifically provided) of any Reserve Instrument Provider over any other Reserve
Instrument Provider by reason of time of issuance,delivery or expiration thereof or otherwise for
any cause whatsoever.
ARTICLE I
DEFINITIONS
Section 101. Definitions. (a)Except as provided in subparagraph (b) of this Section, all
defined terms contained in the Master Indenture when used in this Sixth Supplemental Indenture
shall have the same meanings as set forth in the Master Indenture.
(b) As used in this Sixth Supplemental Indenture, unless the context shall otherwise
require,the following terms shall have the following meanings:
"Average Annual Debt Service" means, as of the date of calculation and for the Series
2011 Bonds, the total of the Debt Service for such Series 2011 Bonds as computed for each
Fiscal Year during which any of the Series 2011 Bonds are Outstanding, divided by the number
of such Fiscal Years.
["Cede" means Cede & Co., the nominee of DTC, and any successor nominee of DTC
with respect to the Series 2011 Bonds pursuant to Section 211 hereof.]
"Code" means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986,as amended.
["Continuing Disclosure Undertaking" means the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking,
dated , 2011, of the City entered into to satisfy the City's obligations pursuant to
Rule 15c2-12(b)(5) adopted by the United States Securities and Exchange Commission under the
Securities Exchange Act of 1934.]
["Dissemination Agency Agreement" means the Dissemination Agency Agreement,
dated , 2011, between the City and U.S. Bank National Association, relating to the
Continuing Disclosure Undertaking.]
-2- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
["DTC" means The Depository Trust Company, New York, New York, and its
successors and assigns.]
"Indenture" means the Master Indenture as amended and supplemented by this Sixth
Supplemental Indenture and as from time to time hereafter amended and supplemented by
Supplemental Indentures.
Metter of Representations" means the Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations, dated
May 30, 1995, between the City and DTC, relating to a book-entry system for the Bonds and
other obligations of the City.]
"Master Indenture" means the Master Trust Indenture, dated as of January 1, 2004, as
heretofore amended and supplemented, between the City and the Trustee, providing for the
issuance of water and sewer revenue bonds.
["Official Statement" means the Official Statement,dated , 2011,of the City
describing the Series 2011 Bonds and related matters.]
["Participant" means those broker-dealers, banks and other financial institutions from
time to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository.]
["Purchase Contract" means the Purchase Contract, dated , 2011, between
the City and the Underwriter, pursuant to which the Series 2011 Bonds are to be sold by the
City.]
["Purchaser" means , as purchaser of the Series 2011
Bonds pursuant to the Purchase Contract.]
"Record Date" means the fifteenth day of the month next preceding any interest payment
date.
"Regulations" means the Treasury Regulations issued or proposed under Sections 103,
148 or 149 of the Code (26 CFR Part 2) or other Sections of the Code relating to "arbitrage
bonds" or rebate, including without limitation Sections 1.103-13, 1.103-14, 1.103-15 and 1.103-
15AT,and includes amendments thereto or successor provisions.
"Series 2011 Bonds" means the City's Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2011,
issued pursuant to this Sixth Supplemental Indenture.
"Series 2011 Bond Service Subaccount" means the Series Subaccount in the Bond
Service Account established in Section 305.
"Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Requirement" means the amount, if any, required to
be on deposit from time to time in the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount,determined
pursuant to the formula provided in Section 307(b).
-3- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
"Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount" means the Series Subaccount in the ,
Debt Service Reserve Account established in Section 306.
"Series 2011 Project" means the acquisition, improvement or extension of
improvements, facilities and property that will be a part of the System and will consist of
acquiring and constructing stormwater improvements, including the construction of a new
stormwater line on Folsom Avenue, and making other improvements to the System.
"Series 2011 Project Account" means the Project Account in the Construction Fund
established in Section 304.
"Sixth Supplemental Indenture" means this Sixth Supplemental Trust Indenture, dated as
of ,2011,between the City and the Trustee.
The terms "hereby," "hereof," "hereto," "herein," "hereunder," and any similar terms
as used in this Sixth Supplemental Indenture,refer to this Sixth Supplemental Indenture.
Section 102. Authority for Sixth Supplemental Indenture. This Sixth Supplemental
Indenture is adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Act and the Indenture.
ARTICLE II
AUTHORIZATION,TERMS AND ISSUANCE
OF SERIES 2011 BONDS
.4.ac V
Section 201. Authorization of Bonds, Principal Amount, Designation and Series. In
order to provide sufficient funds,together with other available moneys of the City,if any, for the
financing of a portion of the Cost of Construction of the Series 2011 Project and paying all
expenses properly incidental thereto and to the issuance of the Series 2011 Bonds and in
accordance with and subject to the terms,conditions and limitations established in the Indenture,
a Series of the City's Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds is hereby authorized to be issued in the
aggregate principal amount of$ and designated "Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds,
Series 2011."
Section 202. Finding and Purpose. The Series 2011 Bonds are hereby authorized to be
issued for the purpose of paying part of the Cost of Construction of the Series 2011 Project
pursuant to Section 2.03 of the Indenture. Except for (a) the City's $30,955,000 Water and
Sewer Revenue Bonds, Series 2004, (b) the City's $11,075,000 Water and Sewer Improvement
and Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2005, (c) the City's $14,800,000 Water and Sewer
Improvement and Refunding Revenue Bonds, Series 2008, and (d) the Series 2011 Bonds
authorized by this Sixth Supplemental Indenture, the City has no outstanding bonds, notes or
other obligations issued pursuant to the Indenture.
Section 203. Issue Date. The Series 2011 Bonds shall be dated as of the date of delivery
thereof.
Ask
-4- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
Section 204. Series 2011 Bonds. (a) The Series 2011 Bonds shall mature on the dates
and in the principal amounts and shall bear interest from the date of delivery thereof(calculated
on the basis of a 360-day year consisting of twelve 30-day months), payable semi-annually
thereafter on [February 1] and [August 1] in each year,beginning 1,2011, at the rates
shown below:
[FEBRUARY 1] AMOUNT INTEREST
OF THE YEAR MATURING RATE
$ %
(b) Each Series 2011 Bond shall bear interest from the interest payment date next
preceding the date of registration and authentication thereof unless it is registered as of an
interest payment date, in which event it shall bear interest from the date thereof, or unless it is
registered prior to the first interest payment date, in which event it shall bear interest from its
date,or unless, as shown by the records of the Trustee,interest on the Series 2011 Bonds shall be
in default, in which event it shall bear interest from the date to which interest has been paid in
full.
Section 205. Registered Bonds; Denomination and Numbers. The Series 2011 Bonds
shall be issued solely as fully registered Bonds,without coupons, in the denomination of$5,000
or any integral multiple thereof; provided that no individual Series 2011 Bond shall represent
more than one maturity of Series 2011 Bonds. The Series 2011 Bonds shall be numbered from
one (1) consecutively upwards with the prefix "R" preceding each number.
Section 206. Paying Agent. U.S. Bank National Association, of Salt Lake City, Utah, is
hereby appointed the Paying Agent for the Series 2011 Bonds, pursuant and subject to
Section 7.02 of the Indenture. Principal of the Series 2011 Bonds when due shall be payable at
the principal corporate trust operations office of the Trustee, or of its successor as Paying Agent.
Payment of interest on the Series 2011 Bonds shall be made to the registered owner thereof and
-5- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
shall be paid by check or draft mailed on the payment date to the person who is the registered
owner of record as of the close of business on the Record Date at his address as it appears on the
registration books of the Trustee or at such other address as is furnished in writing by such
registered owner to the Trustee prior to the Record Date. [In the written acceptance of each
Paying Agent referred to in Section 7.02 of the Indenture, such Paying Agent shall agree to take
all action necessary for all representations of the City in the Letter of Representations with
respect to the Paying Agent to at all times be complied with.]
[Section 207. Optional Redemption; Redemption Price. (a) The Series 2011 Bonds
maturing on or after 1, 20_, are subject to redemption, in whole or in part, at the
election of the City,on any date on or after 1,20_ (if in part,such Series 2011 Bonds
to be redeemed shall be selected from such maturities as shall be determined by the City in its
discretion and within each maturity as selected by the Trustee), upon notice as provided in
Section 4.03 of the Indenture, and at a Redemption Price equal to the principal amount thereof
plus accrued interest to the redemption date.
(b) With respect to any notice of optional redemption of Series 2011 Bonds, unless
upon the giving of such notice such Series 2011 Bonds shall be deemed to have been paid within
the meaning of Article XI of the Indenture, such notice may state that such redemption shall be
conditioned upon the receipt by the Trustee on or prior to the date fixed for such redemption of
money sufficient to pay the Redemption Price of and interest on the Series 2011 Bonds to be
redeemed, and that if such money shall not have been so received said notice shall be of no force
and effect, and the City shall not be required to redeem such Series 2011 Bonds. In the event
that such notice of redemption contains such a condition and such money is not so received, the Amok
redemption shall not be made and the Trustee shall within a reasonable time thereafter give
notice, in the manner in which the notice of redemption was given, that such money was not so
received and that such redemption was not made.
(c) In addition to the notice described in Section 4.03 of the Indenture,further notice of
any redemption of the Series 2011 Bonds shall be given by the Trustee as set out below, but no
defect in such further notice nor any failure to give all or any portion of such further notice shall
in any manner defeat the effectiveness of a call for redemption if notice thereof is given as
described in Section 4.03 of the Indenture.
(i) Each further notice of redemption given hereunder shall contain (A) the
CUSIP numbers of all Series 2011 Bonds being redeemed; (B) the date of issue of the
Series 2011 Bonds as originally issued; (C) the rate of interest borne by each Series 2011
Bond being redeemed; (D) the maturity date of each Series 2011 Bond being redeemed;
and (E) any other descriptive information needed to identify accurately the Series 2011
Bonds being redeemed.
(ii) Each further notice of redemption shall be sent at least thirty-five (35)
days before the redemption date to DTC in accordance with the operating procedures
then in effect for DTC, and to all other registered securities depositories then in the
business of holding substantial amounts of obligations of types comprising the Series
-6- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
2011 Bonds designated to the Trustee by the City,to the Rating Agency and to any other
nationally recognized information services as designated by the City to the Trustee.
(iii) Upon the payment of the redemption price of the Series 2011 Bonds being
redeemed, each check or other transfer of funds issued for such purpose shall bear the
CUSIP number identifying,by issue and maturity,the Series 2011 Bonds being redeemed
with the proceeds of such check or other transfer.
Section 208. Execution of Series 2011 Bond. The Series 2011 Bonds shall be executed
on behalf of the City by the Mayor by his manual or facsimile signature, and attested and
countersigned by the City Recorder by his or her manual or facsimile signature, and the City's
seal shall be affixed or a facsimile thereof shall be imprinted upon the Series 2011 Bonds. The
Series 2011 Bonds shall then be delivered to the Trustee and manually authenticated by it. In the
case of temporary Series 2011 Bonds delivered pursuant to Section 3.06 of the Indenture,the use
of manual signatures by the Mayor and the City Recorder and the affixing of the City's seal are
hereby authorized.
[Section 209. Delivery of Series 2011 Bonds. The Series 2011 Bonds shall be delivered
to the Purchaser, upon compliance with the provisions of Section 3.02 of the Indenture, at such
time and place as provided in,and subject to,the provisions of the Purchase Contract.]
[Section 210. Book-Entry System. (a) Except as provided in paragraphs (b) and (c) of
this Section 210 the Holders of all Series 2011 Bonds and any Additional Bonds or Refunding
Bonds designated by the City shall be,and the Series 2011 Bonds shall be registered in the name
of Cede & Co. ("Cede"), as nominee of The Depository Trust Company, New York,New York
(together with any substitute securities depository appointed pursuant to paragraph (c)(ii) of this
Section 210, "DTC"). Payment of the interest on any Series 2011 Bond shall be made in
accordance with the provisions of this Sixth Supplemental Indenture to the account of Cede on
the interest payment dates for the Series 2011 Bonds at the address indicated for Cede in the
registration books of the Trustee.
(b) The Series 2011 Bonds shall be initially issued in the form of a separate single,fully
registered bond in the amount of each separate stated maturity of the Series 2011 Bonds. Upon
initial issuance, the ownership of each such Series 2011 Bond shall be registered in the
registration books of the City kept by the Trustee, in the name of Cede, as nominee of DTC.
With respect to Series 2011 Bonds so registered in the name of Cede, the City, the Trustee and
any Paying Agent shall have no responsibility or obligation to any DTC participant or to any
beneficial owner of any of such Series 2011 Bonds. Without limiting the immediately preceding
sentence, the City, the Trustee and any Paying Agent shall have no responsibility or obligation
with respect to (i) the accuracy of the records of DTC,Cede or any DTC participant with respect
to any beneficial ownership interest in the Series 2011 Bonds, (ii) the delivery to any DTC
participant, beneficial owner or other person, other than DTC, of any notice with respect to the
Series 2011 Bonds, including any notice of redemption, or (iii) the payment to any DTC
participant, beneficial owner or other person, other than DTC, of any amount with respect to the
Principal of, or interest on, any of the Series 2011 Bonds. The City, the Trustee and any Paying
Agent may treat DTC as, and deem DTC to be, absolute owner of each Series 2011 Bond for all
-7- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
purposes whatsoever, including (but not limited to) (A) payment of the Principal of, and interest
on, each Series 2011 Bond, (B) giving notices of redemption and other matters with respect to
such Series 2011 Bonds and (C) registering transfers with respect to such Series 2011 Bonds. So
long as the Series 2011 Bonds are registered in the name of Cede & Co., the Paying Agent shall
pay the Principal of,and interest on,all Series 2011 Bonds only to or upon the order of DTC,and
all such payments shall be valid and effective to satisfy fully and discharge the City's obligations
with respect to such Principal, and interest, to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. Except as
provided in paragraph (c) of this Section 210, no person other than DTC shall receive a Series
2011 Bond evidencing the obligation of the City to make payments of Principal of, and interest
on, any such Series 2011 Bond pursuant to this Sixth Supplemental Indenture. Upon delivery by
DTC to the Trustee of written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new
nominee in place of Cede, and subject to the transfer provisions of this Sixth Supplemental
Indenture,the word"Cede"in this Sixth Supplemental Indenture shall refer to such new nominee
of DTC.
Except as provided in paragraph (c)(iii) of this Section 210, and notwithstanding any
other provisions of this Sixth Supplemental Indenture,the Series 2011 Bonds may be transferred,
in whole but not in part, only to a nominee of DTC, or by a nominee of DTC to DTC or a
nominee of DTC, or by DTC or a nominee of DTC to any successor securities depository or any
nominee thereof.
(c) (i) DTC may determine to discontinue providing its services with respect to the
Series 2011 Bonds at any time by giving written notice to the City, the Trustee, and the Paying
Agent, which notice shall certify that DTC has discharged its responsibilities with respect to the ,
Series 2011 Bonds under applicable law.
(ii) The City, in its sole discretion and without the consent of any other
person, may, by notice to the Trustee, terminate the services of DTC with respect to the
Series 2011 Bonds if the City determines that the continuation of the system of book-
entry-only transfers through DTC is not in the best interests of the beneficial owners of
the Series 2011 Bonds or the City; and the City shall, by notice to the Trustee, terminate
the services of DTC with respect to the Series 2011 Bonds upon receipt by the City, the
Trustee, and the Paying Agent of written notice from DTC to the effect that DTC has
received written notice from DTC participants having interests, as shown in the records
of DTC, in an aggregate principal amount of not less than fifty percent (50%) of the
aggregate principal amount of the then Outstanding Series 2011 Bonds to the effect that:
(A) DTC is unable to discharge its responsibilities with respect to the Series 2011 Bonds;
or (B) a continuation of the requirement that all of the Outstanding Series 2011 Bonds be
registered in the registration books kept by the Trustee in the name of Cede, as nominee
of DTC,is not in the best interests of the beneficial owners of the Series 2011 Bonds.
(iii) Upon the termination of the services of DTC with respect to the Series
2011 Bonds pursuant to subsection (c)(ii)(B) hereof, or upon the discontinuance or
termination of the services of DTC with respect to the Series 2011 Bonds pursuant to
subsection (c)(i) or subsection (c)(ii)(A) hereof the City may within 90 days thereafter
appoint a substitute securities depository which, in the opinion of the City,is willing and
Auk
xa,
-8- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
able to undertake the functions of DTC hereunder upon reasonable and customary terms.
If no such successor can be found within such period, the Series 2011 Bonds shall no
longer be restricted to being registered in the registration books kept by the Trustee in the
name of Cede, as nominee of DTC. In such event,the City shall execute and the Trustee
shall authenticate Series 2011 Bond certificates as requested by DTC of like principal
amount, maturity and Series, in authorized denominations to the identifiable beneficial
owners in replacement of such beneficial owners' beneficial interest in the Series 2011
Bonds.
(iv) In connection with any notice or other communication to be provided to
Holders of Series 2011 Bonds registered in the name of Cede pursuant to this Sixth
Supplemental Indenture by the City or the Trustee with respect to any consent or other
action to be taken by such Holders, the City shall establish a record date for such consent
or other action by such Holders and give DTC notice of such record date not less than
fifteen (15) days in advance of such record date to the extent possible.
Section 211. Payments to Cede. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Sixth
Supplemental Indenture to the contrary, so long as any Series 2011 Bond is registered in the
name of Cede,as nominee of DTC,all payments with respect to Principal of and interest on such
Series 2011 Bond and all notices with respect to such Series 2011 Bond shall be made and given,
respectively,to DTC in the manner provided in the Letter of Representations.]
ARTICLE III
APPLICATION OF SERIES 2011 BOND PROCEEDS
AND OTHER MONEYS;ESTABLISHMENT AND OPERATION OF
ACCOUNTS AND SUBACCOUNTS
Section 301. Interest During Construction. The amount to be deposited from the
proceeds of the Series 2011 Bonds into the Construction Fund to pay interest on the Series 2011
Bonds estimated to fall due during the period of construction of the Series 2011 Project, as set
forth in the Written Certificate of the City estimating the cost of construction of the Series 2011
Projects and the estimated date of completion thereof as required by Section 2.03(c)(1) of the
Indenture is ,20_.
Section 302. Debt Service Reserve Account. The amount to be deposited from the
proceeds of the Series 2011 Bonds into the Debt Service Reserve Account is $-0-.
Section 303. Renewal and Replacement Fund. The amount to be deposited from the
proceeds of the Series 2011 Bonds into the Renewal and Replacement Fund is $-0-.
Section 304. Establishment of Series 2011 Project Account. There is hereby established
a Project Account in the Construction Fund designated as the "Series 2011 Project Account."
Moneys in the Series 2011 Project Account shall be used for the purposes and as authorized by
Section 5.03 of the Indenture to pay the Cost of Construction of the Series 2011 Project.
-9- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
Section 305. Establishment of Series 2011 Bond Service Subaccount. Pursuant to
Section 5.06(a) of the Indenture, there is hereby established a separate Series Subaccount in the
Bond Service Account in the Principal and Interest Fund designated as the "Series 2011 Bond
Service Subaccount." Moneys shall be deposited into and paid from the Series 2011 Bond
Service Subaccount in accordance with Section 5.06 of the Indenture to pay Principal of and
interest on the Series 2011 Bonds.
Section 306. Establishment of Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount. Pursuant
to Section 5.07(a) of the Indenture, there is hereby established a separate Series Subaccount in
the Debt Service Reserve Account designated as the "Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve
Subaccount." Moneys shall be deposited into and paid from the Series 2011 Debt Service
Reserve Subaccount, if, when and as required by the Indenture, to remedy deficiencies in the
Series 2011 Bond Service Subaccount in accordance with Section 5.07 of the Indenture. The
Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Requirement for the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve
Subaccount shall be an amount equal to a percentage of Average Debt Service for the Series
2011 Bonds determined in accordance with Section 5.07(a) of the Master Indenture and Section
307 of this Sixth Supplemental Indenture.
Section 307. Determination for Funding the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve
Subaccount. (a) Within twenty-five days after the last day of each calendar quarter within each
Fiscal Year, the City shall determine the Net Revenues of the System for the twelve-month
period ending with such calendar quarter. The City shall cause a Written Certificate of the City
evidencing such determination and, if such determination reveals that the Series 2011 Debt
Service Reserve Account must be funded, setting forth the schedule of monthly payments "m'"'
required to be made thereto as determined pursuant to this Section,to be furnished to the Trustee
within thirty calendar days after the end of each such calendar quarter.
(b) Based on the determination in subsection(a) hereof, the Series 2011 Debt Service
Reserve Requirement for the Series 2011 Bonds shall be calculated by application of the
following table:
PERCENTAGE BY WHICH NET REVENUES SERIES 2011 DEBT SERVICE RESERVE
EXCEEDED AGGREGATE DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENT(EXPRESSED AS A
FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE DEBT SERVICE
TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD FOR THE SERIES 2011 BONDS)
More than 30% 0%
Equal to or less than 30%
but more than 25% 30%
Equal to or less than 25%
but more than 20% 50%
Equal to or less than 20%
but more than 15% 70%
Amok
-10- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
PERCENTAGE BY WHICH NET REVENUES SERIES 2011 DEBT SERVICE RESERVE
EXCEEDED AGGREGATE DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENT(EXPRESSED AS A
FOR THE IMMEDIATELY PRECEDING PERCENTAGE OF AVERAGE DEBT SERVICE
TWELVE-MONTH PERIOD FOR THE SERIES 2011 BONDS)
Equal to or less than 15%
but more than 10% 90%
Equal to or less than 10% 100%
The Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Requirement calculated at any given time shall
remain unchanged unless (i) the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Requirement calculated for
any two consecutive calendar quarters thereafter is less than the Series 2011 Debt Service
Reserve Requirement pursuant to which the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount is
then being funded, in which case the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Requirement shall be
reduced to such lesser amount as calculated for the most recent calendar quarter,or (ii) the Series
2011 Debt Service Reserve Requirement calculated for any calendar quarter thereafter is more
than the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Requirement pursuant to which the Series 2011 Debt
Service Reserve Subaccount is then being funded, in which case the Series 2011 Debt Service
Reserve Requirement shall be increased as so calculated. Any amounts accumulated in the
Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount in excess of a reduced Series 2011 Debt Service
Reserve Requirement shall be transferred by the Trustee to the Series 2011 Bond Service
Subaccount and shall be used to pay Debt Service on the Series 2011 Bonds, subject to any
limitations contained in the Tax Certificate relating to the Series 2011 Bonds.
(c) On or before the twenty-fifth day of the month next following the month within
which a determination is made that the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount is to be
funded or a determination is made that the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Requirement is to
be changed as described in subsection (b), and no later than the twenty-fifth day of each of the
next thirty-five months thereafter (the foregoing thirty-six month period being hereinafter
referred to as the "Deposit Period"), there shall be deposited into the Series 2011 Debt Service
Reserve Subaccount an amount equal to 1/36th of the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve
Requirement as so determined or changed. Whenever the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve
Requirement is changed as described in subsection (b), monthly deposits shall be made to the
Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount in an amount equal to 1/36th of the difference
between any amount then on deposit in the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount and
the revised Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Requirement. Whenever the Series 2011 Debt
Service Reserve Subaccount is required to be funded pursuant to this Section, the thirty-six
monthly payments shall be based on the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Requirement as
determined on the date of the calculation of such Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Requirement
that resulted in such funding.
(d) On or before June 30 and December 31 of each year, the City shall cause the value
of all Investment Securities then on deposit in the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount
to be calculated as follows:
-11- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
(i) as to Investment Securities the prices of which are published on a regular
basis by Financial Times Interactive Data Corporation, Merrill Lynch & Co. Inc., Bear,
Stearns & Co. Inc. and or by any other nationally-
recognized pricing services acceptable to the Trustee and the City, the amount published
by such service for such Investment Securities on or most recently prior to the date of
such calculation;
(ii) as to investments described in clauses (ii) and (iii) of the definition of
"Investment Securities" in Section 1.01 of the Indenture, the face amount thereof, plus
accrued interest thereon; and
(iii) as to any Investment Securities not specified above, the value thereof
established by prior agreement between the Trustee and the City.
If more than one of the foregoing clauses (i), (ii) or (iii) shall apply at any time to any particular
Investment Security, the value thereof at such time shall be determined in accordance with the
provision establishing the lowest value for such Investment Security.
If it is determined upon making such calculation that the value of the Investment
Securities has declined so as to cause the value of the Investment Securities, together with any
uninvested moneys, in the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount to be less than the
amount then required to be on deposit pursuant to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this Section 307,
the City shall deposit in the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount, within thirty days
after such calculation, such amount,in addition to any other amounts required to be deposited by Ask
this Sixth Supplemental Indenture, as shall be required to cause the value of the Investment
Securities, together with any uninvested moneys, in the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve
Subaccount to be equal to the amount then required to be on deposit pursuant to paragraphs (a),
(b) and (c) of this Section 307.
If it is determined upon making such calculation that the value of such Investment
Securities has increased so as to cause the value of the Investment Securities, together with any
uninvested moneys, in the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount to be greater than the
amount then required to be on deposit pursuant to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this Section 307,
the Trustee shall credit such excess amount against the next succeeding monthly payment or
payments to be made by the City into the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount pursuant
to paragraphs (a), (b) and (c) of this Section 307, provided, however, that if the value of the
Investment Securities, together with any uninvested moneys, in the Series 2011 Debt Service
Reserve Subaccount exceeds the then-existing Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Requirement,
such excess shall be withdrawn by the Trustee and deposited into the Series 2011 Bond Service
Subaccount and shall be used to pay Debt Service on the Series 2011 Bonds, subject to any
limitations contained in the Tax Certificate for the Series 2011 Bonds.
Section 308. Application of Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount. If on the
final day of any month, the amount in the Series 2011 Bond Service Subaccount shall be less
than the amount required to be on deposit therein, the Trustee shall use the moneys in the Series
2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount solely to make good the deficiency as provided in the AN,
-12- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
Indenture. No part of the moneys in the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount shall ever
be expended or used by the Trustee for any purpose other than as aforesaid so long as any Series
2011 Bonds are Outstanding,except as otherwise provided in the Indenture.
Section 309. Application of Proceeds of Series 2011 Bonds and Certain Other Moneys.
From the proceeds of the Series 2011 Bonds there shall be paid to the Trustee for deposit as
follows:
(a) into the Series 2011 Debt Service Reserve Subaccount,$-0-;
(b) into the Renewal and Replacement Fund,$-0-; and
(c) Into the Series 2011 Project Account in the Construction Fund,the balance
of the proceeds of the Series 2011 Bonds.
ARTICLE IV
FORM OF SERIES 2011 BONDS
Subject to the provisions of the Indenture,each Series 2011 Bond shall be in substantially
the following form, with such insertions or variations as to any redemption or amortization
provisions and such other insertions or omissions, endorsements and variations as may be
required or permitted by the Indenture:
-13- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
[FORM OF BOND]
Unless this certificate is presented by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company, a
New York corporation("DTC"),to the City or its agent for registration of transfer,exchange,or payment,and any
certificate issued is registered in the name of Cede & Co. or in such other name as is requested by an authorized
representative of DTC (and any payment is made to Cede & Co. or to such other entity as is requested by an
authorized representative of DTC), ANY TRANSFER, PLEDGE, OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR VALUE OR
OTHERWISE BY OR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL inasmuch as the registered owner hereof,Cede& Co.,has
an interest herein.
REGISTERED REGISTERED
No.R- $
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
STATE OF UTAH
COUNTY OF SALT LAKE
SALT LAKE CITY Aft,
WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BOND,
SERIES 2011
INTEREST RATE MATURITY DATE DATED DATE CUSIP
% February 1, ,2011 795666
Registered Owner:
Principal Amount: DOLLARS
KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Salt Lake City, Salt Lake County, Utah (the
"City"), a duly organized and existing municipal corporation and political subdivision of the
State of Utah, located in Salt Lake County, Utah, acknowledges itself indebted and for value
received hereby promises to pay, in the manner and from the source hereinafter provided, to the
registered owner identified above, or registered assigns, on the maturity date identified above,
upon presentation and surrender hereof, the principal amount identified above, and to pay, in the
manner and from the source hereinafter provided, the registered owner hereof interest on the
balance of said principal amount from time to time remaining unpaid from the interest payment
date next preceding the date of registration and authentication of this Bond, unless this Bond is
registered and authenticated as of an interest payment date, in which event this Bond shall bear Amok
-14- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
interest from such interest payment date,or unless this Bond is registered and authenticated prior
to the first interest payment date,in which event this Bond shall bear interest from the dated date
specified above, or unless,as shown by the records of the hereinafter referred to Trustee,interest
on the hereinafter referred to Series 2011 Bonds shall be in default, in which event this Bond
shall bear interest from the date to which interest has been paid in full, at the rate per annum
specified above (calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days comprised of twelve 30-day
months), payable in each year on [February 1] and [August 1], beginning 1, 20_,
until payment in full of such principal amount,except as the provisions hereinafter set forth with
respect to redemption prior to maturity may become applicable hereto. This Bond, as to
principal when due, will be payable at the principal corporate trust operations office of U.S.
Bank National Association, in [St. Paul, Minnesota], a paying agent of the City, or its successor
as such paying agent, in any coin or currency of the United States of America which at the time
of payment is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts;provided, however, that
payment of the interest hereon shall be made to the registered owner hereof and shall be paid by
check or draft mailed to the person who is the registered owner of record as of the close of
business on the fifteenth day of the month next preceding each interest payment date (the
"Record Date") at his address as it appears on the registration books of the Trustee or at such
other address as is furnished in writing by such registered owner to the Trustee prior to the
Record Date.
THE CITY IS OBLIGATED TO PAY PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON THIS BOND SOLELY
FROM THE REVENUES AND OTHER FUNDS OF THE CITY PLEDGED THEREFOR UNDER THE
TERMS OF THE INDENTURE (AS DEFINED BELOW). THIS BOND IS NOT A DEBT OF THE CITY
WITHIN THE MEANING OF ANY CONSTITUTIONAL OR STATUTORY LIMITATIONS OF
INDEBTEDNESS OR PROVISIONS THEREFOR. PURSUANT TO THE INDENTURE, SUFFICIENT
REVENUES HAVE BEEN PLEDGED AND WILL BE SET ASIDE INTO SPECIAL FUNDS BY THE CITY
TO PROVIDE FOR THE PROMPT PAYMENT OF THE PRINCIPAL OF AND INTEREST ON THIS BOND
AND ALL BONDS OF THE SERIES OF WHICH IT IS A PART.
This Bond and the issue of Bonds of which it is a part are issued in conformity with and
after full compliance with the Constitution of the State of Utah and pursuant to the provisions of
the Local Government Bonding Act, Chapter 14 of Title 11, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as
amended,(the "Act"),and all other laws applicable thereto.
This Bond is a special obligation of the City and is one of the water and sewer revenue
bonds of the City (the "Bonds") issued under and by virtue of the Act and under and pursuant to
a Master Trust Indenture, dated as of January 1, 2004, and heretofore amended and
supplemented (the "Master Indenture"), between the City and U.S. Bank National Association,
as trustee (said trustee and any successor thereto under the Master Indenture being herein
referred to as the "Trustee"), as further amended and supplemented by a Sixth Supplemental
Trust Indenture, dated as of 1, 2011 (the "Sixth Supplemental Indenture"), between
the City and the Trustee (such Master Indenture, as amended and supplemented by the Sixth
Supplemental Indenture and as hereafter amended and supplemented,being herein referred to as
the "Indenture"), for the purpose of paying part of the costs of acquiring a project consisting of
improvements and extensions to the water, sewer and storm water system of the City, together
-15- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
with all necessary appurtenant facilities and paying of all expenses incident thereto and to the
issuance of the Series 2011 Bonds described below.
As provided in the Indenture, Bonds may be issued from time to time in one or more
series in various principal amounts, may mature at different times, may bear interest at different
rates, and may otherwise vary as provided in the Indenture, and the aggregate principal amount
of Bonds which may be issued is not limited. All Bonds issued and to be issued under the
Indenture are and will be equally and ratably secured by the pledge and covenants made therein,
except as otherwise expressly provided or permitted in or pursuant to the Indenture.
This Bond is one of a Series of Bonds designated as "Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds,
Series 2011" (the "Series 2011 Bonds"), limited to the aggregate principal amount of
$ ,dated as of the dated date identified above, and duly issued under and by virtue of
the Act and under and pursuant to the Indenture. Copies of the Indenture are on file at the office
of the City Recorder in Salt Lake City, Utah, and at the principal corporate trust office of the
Trustee, in Salt Lake City, Utah, and reference to the Indenture and the Act is made for a
description of the pledge and covenants securing the Series 2011 Bonds,the nature, manner and
extent of enforcement of such pledge and covenants, the terms and conditions upon which the
Series 2011 Bonds are issued and additional Bonds may be issued thereunder, and a statement of
the rights, duties, immunities and obligations of the City and of the Trustee. Such pledge and
other obligations of the City under the Indenture may be discharged at or prior to the maturity or
redemption of the Series 2011 Bonds upon the making of provision for the payment thereof on
the terms and conditions set forth in the Indenture.
Amok
To the extent and in the respects permitted by the Indenture, the Indenture may be
modified, supplemented or amended by action on behalf of the City taken in the manner and
subject to the conditions and exceptions prescribed in the Indenture. The holder or owner of this
Bond shall have no right to enforce the provisions of the Indenture or to institute action to
enforce the pledge or covenants made therein or to take any action with respect to an event of
default under the Indenture or to institute, appear in, or defend any suit or other proceeding with
respect thereto,except as provided in the Indenture.
This Bond is transferable, as provided in the Indenture, only upon the books of the City
kept for that purpose at the principal corporate trust office of the Trustee,by the registered owner
hereof in person or by his attorney duly authorized in writing, upon surrender hereof together
with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Trustee, duly executed by the registered
owner or such duly authorized attorney, and thereupon the City shall issue in the name of the
transferee a new registered Bond or Bonds of the same aggregate principal amount and series,
designation, maturity and interest rate as the surrendered Bond, all as provided in the Indenture
and upon the payment of the charges therein prescribed. The City and the Trustee may treat and
consider the person in whose name this Bond is registered as the holder and absolute owner
hereof for the purpose of receiving payment of,or on account of,the principal hereof and interest
due hereon and for all other purposes whatsoever.
The Series 2011 Bonds are issuable solely in the form of fully registered Bonds, without
coupons,in the denomination of$5,000,or any integral multiple of$5,000. ,dsork
-16- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
The Series 2011 Bonds maturing on or after 1,20_,are subject to redemption,
in whole or in part, at the election of the City on any date on or after 1, 20 (if in
part, such Series 2011 Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected from such maturities as shall be
determined by the City in its discretion and within each maturity as selected by the Trustee),
upon notice given as hereinafter set forth, at a redemption price equal to the principal amount
thereof plus accrued interest to the redemption date.
With respect to any notice of optional redemption of Series 2011 Bonds, unless upon the
giving of such notice such Series 2011 Bonds shall be deemed to have been paid within the
meaning of Article XI of the Indenture, such notice may state that such redemption shall be
conditioned upon the receipt by the Trustee on or prior to the date fixed for such redemption of
money sufficient to pay the redemption price of and interest on the Series 2011 Bonds to be
redeemed, and that if such money shall not have been so received said notice shall be of no force
and effect, and the City shall not be required to redeem such Series 2011 Bonds. In the event
that such notice of redemption contains such a condition and such money is not so received, the
redemption shall not be made and the Trustee shall within a reasonable time thereafter give
notice, in the manner in which the notice of redemption was given, that such money was not so
received and that such redemption was not made.
If less than all of the Series 2011 Bonds are to be redeemed, the particular Series 2011
Bonds to be redeemed shall be selected as provided in the Indenture.
Notice of redemption shall be given by first-class mail,not less than thirty nor more than
forty-five days prior to the redemption date, to the registered owner of each Series 2011 Bond
being redeemed, at his address as it appears on the bond registration books of the Trustee or at
such address as he may have filed with the Trustee for that purpose.
If notice of redemption shall have been given as aforesaid, the Bonds or portions thereof
specified in said notice shall become due and payable at the applicable redemption price on the
redemption date therein designated,and if on the redemption date moneys for the payment of the
redemption price of all the Bonds to be redeemed, together with interest to the redemption date,
shall be available for such payment on said date, then from and after the redemption date interest
on such Bonds shall cease to accrue and become payable.
Less than all of a Bond in a denomination in excess of$5,000 may be so redeemed, and
in such case, upon the surrender of such Bond, there shall be issued to the registered owner
thereof, without charge therefor, for the unredeemed balance of the principal amount of such
Bond, at the option of such owner, registered Bonds of any of the authorized denominations, all
as more fully set forth in the Indenture.
Except as otherwise provided herein and unless the context clearly indicates otherwise,
words and phrases used herein shall have the same meanings as such words and phrases in the
Indenture.
It is hereby certified and recited that all conditions, acts and things required by the
Constitution or statutes of the State of Utah or by the Act, or the Indenture to exist, to have
-17- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
happened or to have been performed precedent to or in the issuance of this Bond exist, have
happened and have been performed and that the issue of Bonds, together with all other
indebtedness of the City, is within every debt and other limit prescribed by said Constitution and
statutes.
This Bond shall not be valid until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been
signed by the Trustee.
(Signature page follows.)
-18- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, has caused this
Bond to be signed in its name and on its behalf by the signature of its Mayor, and its corporate
seal to be impressed or imprinted hereon, and attested and countersigned by the signature of its
City Recorder,all as of the dated date specified above.
SALT LAKE CITY,SALT LAKE COUNTY,UTAH
By
Mayor
[SEAL]
ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN:
By
City Recorder
-19- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
[FORM OF TRUSTEE'S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION]
This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the within mentioned Indenture and is one of
the Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds,Series 2011,of Salt Lake City,Salt Lake County,Utah.
Date of registration and authentication:
U.S.BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Trustee
By
Authorized Officer
Ask
-20- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
[FORM OF ASSIGNMENT]
The following abbreviations,when used in the inscription on the face of the within Bond,
shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or
regulations.
TEN COM — as tenants in common UNIF TRAN MIN ACT—
TEN ENT — as tenants by the entirety Custodian
JT TEN — as joint tenants with right (Cust) (Minor)
of survivorship and not as under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act of
tenants in common
(State)
Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list.
FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned sells,assigns and transfers unto
Insert Social Security or Other
Identifying Number of Assignee
(Please Print or Typewrite Name and Address of Assignee)
the within Bond of SALT LAKE CITY, SALT LAKE COUNTY, UTAH, and hereby irrevocably
constitutes and appoints
attorney to register the transfer of the Bond on the books kept for registration thereof, with full
power of substitution in the premises.
DATED: SIGNATURE:
SIGNATURE GUARANTEED:
NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an "eligible guarantor institution" meeting the
requirements of the Bond Registrar, which requirements include membership or participation in
STAMP or such other "signature guarantee program" as may be determined by the Bond
Registrar in addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, all in accordance with the Securities and
Exchange Act of 1934,as amended.
NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon
the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change
whatever.
-21- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
[ARTICLE V 4446,,
AMENDMENTS TO MASTER INDENTURE
Section 501. Effective Date of Amendments. Pursuant to Section 8.01(b) of the Master
Indenture, the amendments contained in this Article VI shall become effective upon
Section 502. Amendment of the Master Indenture. of the
Master Indenture is hereby amended by revising , such to
read in their entirety as follows]:
ARTICLE VI
MISCELLANEOUS
Section 601. Arbitrage Covenant; Covenant to Maintain Tax-Exemption. (a) The City
covenants and certifies to and for the benefit of the purchasers and Holders from time to time of
the Series 2011 Bonds that no use will be made of the proceeds of the issue and sale of the Series
2011 Bonds, or any funds or accounts of the City which may be deemed to be proceeds of the
Series 2011 Bonds,pursuant to Section 148 of the Code and applicable Regulations proposed or
promulgated thereunder, if such use, had it been reasonably expected on the date of issuance of
the Series 2011 Bonds, would have caused the Series 2011 Bonds to be classified as "arbitrage
bonds" within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code. Pursuant to this covenant, the City
obligates itself to comply throughout the term of the Series 2011 Bonds with the requirements of
Section 148 of the Code and the Regulations proposed or promulgated thereunder.
(b) The City further covenants and agrees to and for the benefit of the purchasers and
Holders from time to time of the Series 2011 Bonds that the City (i) will not take any action that
would cause interest on the Series 2011 Bonds to be or to become ineligible for the exclusion
from gross income of the Holders of the Series 2011 Bonds as provided in Section 103 of the
Code, (ii) will not omit to take or cause to be taken, in timely manner, any action, which
omission would cause interest on the Series 2011 Bonds to be or to become ineligible for the
exclusion from gross income of the Holders of the Series 2011 Bonds as provided in Section 103
of the Code and (iii) without limiting the generality of the foregoing,(A) will not take any action
which would cause the Series 2011 Bonds, or any Series 2011 Bond, to be a "private activity
bond" within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code or to fail to meet any applicable
requirement of Section 149 of the Code and (B) will not omit to take or cause to be taken, in
timely manner, any action, which omission would cause the Series 2011 Bonds, or any Series
2011 Bond, to be a `private activity bond" or to fail to meet any applicable requirement of
Section 149 of the Code.
(c) The City covenants and certifies to and for the benefit of the purchasers and Holders
from time to time of the Series 2011 Bonds that: (i) the City will at all times comply with the
provisions of any Tax Certificates and the rebate requirements contained in Section 148(f) of the
Code, including, without limitation, entering into any necessary rebate calculation agreement to "sokt
-22- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
provide for the calculations of amounts required to be rebated to the United States, the keeping
of records necessary to enable such calculations to be made and the timely payment to the United
States of all amounts, including any applicable penalties and interest, required to be rebated
except to the extent that the Series 2011 Bonds are exempt from such arbitrage rebate
requirements as provided in the Code; and (ii) no bonds or other evidences of indebtedness of the
City have been or will be issued, sold or delivered within a period beginning 15 days prior to the
sale of the Series 2011 Bonds and ending 15 days following the date of delivery of and payment
for the Series 2011 Bonds pursuant to a common plan of financing with the plan for the issuance
of the Series 2011 Bonds and payable out of substantially the same source of revenues.
(d) The City hereby covenants to adopt, make, execute and enter into (and to take such
actions, if any, as may be necessary to enable it to do so) any Indenture or Tax Certificate
necessary to comply with any changes in law or regulations in order to preserve the excludability
of interest on the Series 2011 Bonds from gross income of the Holders thereof for federal income
tax purposes to the extent that it may lawfully do so. The City further covenants to (i) impose
such limitations on the investment or use of moneys or investment related to the Series 2011
Bonds, (ii) make such payments to the United States Treasury, (iii) maintain such records,
(iv) perform such calculations and (v)perform such other acts as may be necessary to preserve
the excludability of interest on the Series 2011 Bonds from gross income of the Holders thereof
for federal income tax purposes to the extent that the City may lawfully do so.
(e) Pursuant to these covenants,the City obligates itself to comply throughout the term
of the issue of the Series 2011 Bonds with the requirements of Section 103 of the Code and the
Regulations proposed or promulgated thereunder.
Section 602. System of Registration. The Indenture shall constitute a system of
registration within the meaning and for all purposes of the Registered Public Obligations Act,
Chapter 7 of Title 15,Utah Code Annotated 1953,as amended.
Section 603. Article and Section Headings. The headings or titles of the several articles
and sections hereof, and any table of contents appended to copies hereof, shall be solely for
convenience of reference and shall not affect the meaning, construction or effect of this Sixth
Supplemental Indenture.
Section 604. Partial Invalidity. In any one or more of the covenants or agreements, or
portions thereof,provided in this Sixth Supplemental Indenture to be performed shall be contrary
to law (other than the provisions of the Indenture limiting the liability of the City to make
payments on the Bonds solely from Revenues and other amounts pledged therefor by the
Indenture), then such covenant or covenants, such agreement or agreements, or such portions
thereof, shall be null and void and shall be deemed separable from the remaining covenants and
agreements or portions thereof and shall in no way affect the validity of this Sixth Supplemental
Indenture or of the Series 2011 Bonds; but the Holders of the Series 2011 Bonds and any other
Security Instrument Issuer and any Reserve Instrument Issuer shall retain all the rights and
benefits accorded to them under the Act or any other applicable provisions of law.
-23- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
Section 605. Counterparts. This Sixth Supplemental Indenture may be executed in
multiple counterparts, each of which shall be regarded for all purposes as an original; and such
counterparts shall constitute but one and the same instrument.
Section 606. Effective Date. This Sixth Supplemental Indenture shall take effect
immediately.
Section 607. Representation Regarding Ethical Standards for City Officers and
Employees and Former City Officers and Employees. The Trustee represents that it has not:
(a) 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; (b) retained any person to solicit or
secure the Trustee's appointment under this Sixth Supplemental Indenture upon an
agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee,
other than bona fide employees or bona fide commercial selling agencies for the purpose of
securing business; (c) knowingly breached any of the ethical standards set forth in the
City's conflict of interest ordinance, Chapter 2.44, Salt Lake City Code; or (d) 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.
41144,
(Signature page follows.) ''
Ark
-24- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the City has caused this Sixth Supplemental Indenture to be
executed by the Mayor and countersigned by the City Recorder, and its official seal to be
hereunto affixed and attested by the City Recorder, and to evidence its acceptance of the trusts
hereby created, U.S. Bank National Association,has caused this Sixth Supplemental Indenture to
be executed by its Vice President,all as of the date hereof.
SALT LAKE CITY,SALT LAKE COUNTY,UTAH
By
Mayor
COUNTERSIGN AND ATTEST:
By
Chief Deputy City Recorder
[SEAL] APPROVED AS TO FORM:
By
Senior City Attorney
U.S.BANK NATIONAL ASSOCIATION,
as Trustee
By
Vice President
-25- Sixth Supplemental Indenture
ANNEX 4
NOTICE OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of Section 11-14-316, Utah Code
Annotated 1953, as amended, that on September 6, 2011,the City Council (the "City Council")
of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), adopted a resolution (the "Resolution") in which it
authorized the issuance of the City's water and sewer revenue bonds, in one or more series (the
"Bonds"),in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $10,000,000,to mature in not more
than 16 years from their date or dates, to bear interest at a rate or rates not to exceed 6% per
annum and to be sold at a discount from par, expressed as a percentage of principal amount, of
not to exceed 2.00%. The Bonds shall be subject to such optional and mandatory redemption
and other provisions as are contained in the Master Trust Indenture, the final form of the Bonds
and the Supplemental Indenture,each described below.
The Bonds are to be issued and sold by the City pursuant to (a) the Resolution, (b) one or
more bond resolutions to be adopted by the City Council of the City at a future date (the "Bond
Resolution"), (c) the Master Trust Indenture,dated as of January 1, 2004, as heretofore amended
and supplemented (the "Master Indenture"), between the City and U.S. Bank National
Association, as trustee (the "Trustee"), and (d) a Sixth Supplemental Trust Indenture, between
the City and the Trustee (the "Supplemental Indenture"); provided that the principal amount,
interest rate or rates, maturity or maturities and discount will not exceed the maximums set forth
above. The Supplemental Indenture will be entered into by the City at a future date prior to the
issuance of the Bonds.
Pursuant to the Resolution, the Bonds are to be issued for the purpose of (a) financing
certain improvements, facilities and property that will be part of the City's water, sewer and
stormwater system, including, but not limited to the construction of a new stormwater line on
Folsom Avenue (the "Project"); (b) funding any necessary reserves and (c) paying all related
costs authorized by law. The Bonds are payable from the water, sewer, stormwater and other
revenues, and funds pledged therefor pursuant to the Master Indenture.
A copy of the Resolution is on file in the office of the City Recorder of the City, located
in Room 415,City and County Building,451 South State Street in Salt Lake City,Utah, where it
may be examined during regular business hours of the City Recorder from 8:00 a.m. to 5:00 p.m.
The Resolution (including the Master Indenture and drafts of the bond resolution and the
Supplemental Indenture) shall be so available for inspection for a period of at least 30 days from
and after the date of the publication of this Notice.
Amok
Annex 4-1 SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution
NOTICE IS FURTHER GIVEN that,pursuant to law, for a period of 30 days from and after
the date of the publication of this Notice,any person in interest shall have the right to contest the
legality of the above-described Resolution (including the bond resolution and the Supplemental
Indenture) of the City or the Bonds authorized thereby or any provisions made for the security
and payment of the Bonds. After such time, no one shall have any cause of action to contest the
regularity,formality or legality thereof for any cause.
DATED this 6th day of September,2011.
SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH
By
City Recorder
Annex 4-2 SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution
ANNEX 5
SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH
NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING AND INTENT TO ISSUE
WATER AND SEWER REVENUE BONDS
PUBLIC NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that on September 6,2011,the City Council (the "City
Council") of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), adopted a resolution (the "Resolution"), calling
a public hearing to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance of its water and
sewer revenue bonds, in one or more series (the "Bonds"), to finance, among other things,
certain improvements, facilities and property that will be part of the City's water, sewer and
stormwater system, including, but not limited to the construction of a new stormwater line on
Folsom Avenue (the "Project"), and the potential economic impact that the Project will have on
the private sector, pursuant to the Local Government Bonding Act, Title 11, Chapter 14, Utah
Code Annotated 1953, as amended.
TIME,PLACE AND LOCATION OF PUBLIC HEARING
The City Council will hold a public hearing during its regular City Council meeting
beginning at 7:00 p.m. on Tuesday, September 27, 2011. The public hearing will be held at the
regular meeting place of the City Council in the Council Chambers, Room 315 in the City and
County Building,451 South State Street,in Salt Lake City,Utah. All members of the public are
invited to attend and participate in the public hearing. Prior to the public hearing, written
Auk
comments may be submitted to the City Council,to the attention of the City Recorder.
PURPOSE FOR THE ISSUANCE OF THE BONDS
The City intends to issue the Bonds for the purpose of(1) financing all or a portion of the
costs of the acquisition and construction of the Project, (2) funding any necessary reserves and
(3) paying all related costs authorized by law.
MAXIMUM PRINCIPAL AMOUNT OF THE BONDS
The City intends to issue the Bonds in an aggregate principal amount not to exceed
$10,000,000.
NO TAXES PROPOSED TO BE PLEDGED
The Bonds are payable from the water, sewer, stormwater and other revenues, and funds
pledged therefore and the City does not propose to pledge any taxes for the repayment of the
Bonds.
Ask
Annex 5-1 SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution
PURPOSE FOR HEARING
The purpose of the hearing is to receive input from the public with respect to the issuance
of the Bonds for the purpose of financing all or part of the cost of the Project and the potential
economic impact that the Project will have on the private sector.
DATED this 6th day of September,2011.
SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH
By
City Recorder
Annex 5-2 SLC Water&Sewer Parameters Resolution
•
•
ME . - ' i
DATE: September 1,2011
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Russell Weeks
RE: Proposed Ordinances Pertaining to Parking Citation Appeals and Other Revisions
CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Rick Graham,Gina Chamness,Frank Gray,Alden Breinholt,
Mary De La Mare-Schaeffer,Jennifer Bruno,Gordon Hoskins;Robert Farrington,Kay Christensen,
Karen Holladay
This memorandum pertains to two proposed ordinances.The first ordinance would make consistent the
time in which people have to appeal parking citations before their vehicles are towed or immobilized by an
electronic boot.The second proposed ordinance would codify,clarify,and revise a section of the Salt Lake City
Code that governs the circumstances under which City hearing officers may reduce civil parking fines or dismiss
citations.The second proposed ordinance also would require employees of other governmental entities—except
police officers in marked vehicles—to obtain a placard or sticker from Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement
Division before parking a vehicle while on official business at a parking meter free or in a time-restricted location
for extended periods of time.The goal of that portion of the ordinance,according to the Administration,is to
return to the City the determination of who should receive`official business"placards instead of other
governmental agencies making and using their own placards.
The Administration is scheduled to brief the City Council on September 6 at the Council's work session.
The work session is scheduled to start at 3 p.m.in Room 326 of the City&County Building,451 South State
Street.
OPTIONS
• Adopt the proposed ordinances.
• Do not adopt the proposed ordinances.
• Amend the proposed ordinances.
POTENTIAL MOTIONS
o I move that the City Council adopt the ordinances:
• extending the period after which unpaid parking citations may result in
impoundment of a vehicle from 30 days to 40 days,and
• clarifying and revising provisions governing the dismissal and reduction of
parking citation fees.
o I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda.
o I move that the City Council adopt the ordinances:
1
A
r
C
• extending the period after which unpaid parking citations may result in
impoundment of a vehicle from 30 days to 40 days, and
• clarifying and revising provisions governing the dismissal and reduction of
parking citation fees with the following amendments(Council Members may
propose amendments he or she deems appropriate).
ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
• Would requiring governmental agencies from other municipalities or levels of governments—except for
police officers in marked vehicles—to obtain permission from the City to park free for extended periods
of time at meters or time-restricted zones materially affect(a 4 percent or higher increase or decrease)
parking revenue or revenue from parking citations?
• Do other cities,counties or governmental agencies allow Salt Lake City government free parking
while on official business?
• Dow other cities of similar circumstance provide complimentary parking for other jurisdictions?
• Does the City Council wish to explore allowing the lowering of a fine for a citation for an expired
vehicle registration sticker if the vehicle is registered within five days of the sticker's expiration
date?
• Does the City Council wish to request that the Administration track and report quarterly on the .
number of"official business"placards or stickers issued and justifications made by each entity?
• Is it the role of Salt Lake City taxpayers to provide free parking for governmental entities, or
should the cost of doing business be allocated to each entity?
• If the ordinance is adopted,would issuing"smart cards"that could be tracked by the City instead
of issuing placards or stickers?
DISCUSSION/BACKGROUND
indicated earlier,the Administration has forwarded two proposed ordinances for consideration. One
would reconcile conflicting time periods in different sections of the Salt Lake City Code that address times a
person has to appeal receiving a traffic citation. The other ordinance would clarify circumstances under which
LAs
City hearing officers may reduce civil parking fines or dismiss citations. In addition, the second proposed
ordinance would allow employees of governmental entities unconnected to Salt Lake City to park at City meters
or restricted parking zones for prolonged periods of time only if the parked vehicles display a placard or a sticker
issued by the Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement Division.
The first proposed ordinance would amend City Code Section 12.96.020,titled Vehicles with Outstanding
Parking Tickets,to reconcile it with City Code Section 12.56.570.G.The latter section reads: "If the penalty
imposed pursuant to this chapter remains unsatisfied after forty(40)days from the receipt of notice, or ten(10)
days from such date as may have been agreed to by the hearing officer,the city may use such lawful means as are
available to collect such penalty, including costs and attorney fees."The section titled Vehicles with Outstanding
ii
C Parking Tickets allows vehicles to be impounded"by towing or by means of an immobilizing device"if the
2
vehicles have two or more parking citations"thirty(30)days old or older."The proposed amendment would
repeal the 30-day limit and enact the 40-day limit that appears in Section 12.56.570.G.
The second proposed ordinance would add five reasons Salt Lake City hearing officers could consider in
determining whether to dismiss or lessen the amount of a traffic citation.The current ordinance lists the following
six reasons for determining whether to dismiss or lessen the amount of a traffic citation:
1.)The vehicle on which the parking citation was placed had been stolen.
2.)The parking meter was malfunctioning to the extent its reliability was questionable.
3.)Complying with the parking ordinances"would have presented an imminent and irreparable
injury to persons or property."
4.)The vehicle on which the parking citation was placed was a short-term rental with a written
lease.
5.)The vehicle was mechanically incapable of being moved.(This reason has a six-hour limit.)
Markings,signs,"or other indicia of parking use regulation were not clearly visible or
comprehensible."
The five proposed reasons that would be added to the ordinance are:
o A vehicle's owner has died before paying or appealing a parking citation.
o A citation was placed on a vehicle previous to the vehicle owner selling the vehicle and not removing the
license plates.
o The driver of a vehicle with a valid freight loading sticker could not find a freight loading zone and
instead parked at a meter.
o A parked vehicle received a citation for an expired vehicle registration sticker but actually had been
registered—or if the vehicle is registered within five days of the registration expiration date.
o At the time of a citation for violating a residential parking permit area the vehicle owner had a residential
parking permit but had not properly displayed it.
In addition,free unlimited-time parking by employees of other governmental agencies on official business
would continue to be allowed at parking meters and restricted zones.However,at present,numerous
governmental agencies unconnected to Salt Lake City apparently create and dispense their own placards that in
effect exempt them from parking regulations without consulting with Salt Lake City.If the proposed ordinance is
adopted,those agencies would be required to request in writing an"official business"placard or sticker from the
Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement Division.Governmental agencies requesting a placard or sticker would have
to include a brief description the reason for the request.Requests would be mailed to Salt Lake City Parking
Enforcement.Placards or stickers issued by Salt Lake City would be the only valid placards or stickers under the
proposed ordinance.
If a vehicle operated by a Salt Lake city employee or guest on official City business had no placard or
sticker and received a citation for parking overtime at a meter or in a time-restricted zone,a City hearing officer
would dismiss the citation only if the City's traffic manager receives a written request"from the applicable
department director or designee on official letterhead or by electronic mail."The request would have to be made
within 10 days of the citation's issue date and must include a brief description of the reason for the request.
The Administration has indicated that marked police cars still may park free and for extended periods at
' meters and time-restricted locations around the Frank Moss U.S.District Court for Utah,the Scott M.Matheson
Courthouse,and the Salt Lake City Justice Court.
3
V WO
RECEIVEDD
RALP HBECKER \ 1 JUL 00 n 2 0 2011 C.)YOR
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Salt Lake City Mayor
RECEIVED Date Received: 61 f 2$( 2011
David Everitt, Chief of Stafl ,JG a 2 2011 Date sent to Council: O$ of (�
SLC COUNCIL OFFICE
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 29,2011
Jill Remington Love, Chair
FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff
SUBJECT: Parking Ticket Ordinance Amendments
STAFF CONTACT: Kay Christensen
801-535-7677
DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinances
RECOMMENDATION: the Administration forwards to the City Council two ordinance
amendments related to the parking tickets and the parking ticket appeals process and
recommends Council adoption.
The Administration recommends amending Section 12.96.020,Salt Lake City Code,to extend
the period after which unpaid parking citations may result in impoundment of a vehicle from 30
days to 40 days to be consistent with other provisions within the same chapter.
The Administration further recommends amending Section 12.56.570,Salt Lake City Code, to
clarify and revise provisions governing the dismissal and reduction or parking citation fees.
BUDGET IMPACT: Minimal but unknown at this time. The Administration does not
anticipate amending current revenue or expense projections.
BACKGROUND DISCUSSION: Section 12.96.020 currently allows the City to impound
vehicles with two or more parking tickets at least 30 days old that have not been dismissed or
reduced to judgment. This is inconsistent with the reduction of penalty periods set forth in
Section 12.56.550 and the appeal deadline set forth in Section 12.56.570 (40 days). The
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
proposed amendment creates a consistent period of 40 days with a change to only one
ordinance.
Under the current penalty schedule, after 30 days a penalty is reduced $40, with an additional 10
day period to pay, creating a 40 day period.
Under the current impoundment ordinance (12.96.020), a vehicle could be impounded when the
second ticket is only 30 days old at a time when the owner still has ten days to appeal under
12.56.570 G. Amending the impound ordinance to be consistent with the appeal ordinance
eliminates that discrepancy and allows a vehicle owner the full appeal period before impound
could occur.
The proposed amendments to Section 12.56.570 clarify and revise the provisions that govern
hearing officers in dismissing and reducing parking citations. Over time,numerous dismissal
and reduction policies have been implemented but not codified in ordinance. This
recommendation codifies some of those policies,modifies or eliminates others.
PUBLIC PROCESS: Council discussion and public hearing
. ,
Ordinance No. of 2011
(Amending Section 12.96.020, Salt Lake City Code, extending the period after which unpaid
parking citations may result in impoundment of a vehicle from 30 days to 40 days to be
consistent with other provision within the same chapter.)
An ordinance amending Sections 12.96.020(A), Salt Lake City Code, extending the period after
which unpaid parking citations may result in impoundment of a vehicle from 30 days to 40 days
to be consistent with the reduction of penalty periods set forth in Section 12.56.550 and appeal
deadline set forth in Section 12.56.570.
NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,
as follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 12.96.020(A) of the Salt Lake City Code be amended as
follows:
12.96.020: VEHICLES WITH OUTSTANDING PARKING TICKETS:
A. Two Or More Notices Of Unauthorized Use Of Streets (Parking Tickets): Any vehicle which
has two (2) or more notices of unauthorized use of streets within the city, as defined at section
12.56.550 of this title, which notices are thirty (30)forty (40) days old or older and have not been
dismissed pursuant to subsection 12.56.570D of this title, or its successor, or dismissed or
reduced to judgment by a court of competent jurisdiction, shall be subject to immediate
impoundment by towing or by means of an immobilizing device.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective upon first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of
2011.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
•
Ordinance No. of 2011
(Amending Section 12.56.570,Salt Lake City Code, clarifying and revising provisions governing
the dismissal and reduction of parking citation fees.)
An ordinance amending Section 12.56.570,Salt Lake City Code, clarifying and revising
provisions governing the dismissal and reduction of parking citation fees.
NOW,THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,
as follows:
SECTION 1. That Section 12.96.570 of the Salt Lake City Code be amended as follows:
12.56.570: UNAUTHORIZED USE OF STREETS;APPEAL PROCEDURES:
A. The mayor shall appoint such hearing officers as he or she deems appropriate to consider
matters relating to the unauthorized use of streets.
B.Any person having received notice of such unauthorized use, or the owner of any vehicle
employed in such use,may appear before a hearing officer and present and contest such alleged
unauthorized use.
C. The burden to prove any defense shall be upon the person raising such defense.
D. The hearing officer may find that no unauthorized use occurred and dismiss the ticket.
DE. If the hearing officer fmds that - th a e rred or an unauthorized use
occurred but one or more of the defenses set forth in this section is applicable,the hearing officer
may dismiss the notice of unauthorized use and release the owner or driver from liability
thereunder. Such defenses are:
1. At the time of the receipt of the notice,possession of the subject vehicle had been acquired in
violation of the criminal laws of the state;
2. If the notice of unauthorized use alleges a violation of any ordinance pertaining to a parking
meter, such meter was mechanically malfunctioning to the extent that its reliability is
questionable;
3. Compliance with the subject ordinances would have presented an imminent and irreparable
injury to persons or property.
4. Parking notices for overtime parking at a meter or in a time restricted zone received by a city
employee or guest while on official Salt Lake City business will be dismissed upon written
request from the applicable department director or designee on official letterhead or by electronic
mail. The request must be made within ten (10) days of receipt of the notice and must include a
brief description of the reason for the request, and be submitted to: Salt Lake City Corporation,
Traffic Manager. 333 South 200 East, P.O. Box 145499. Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5499.
Parking violations other than overtime parking and meter violations will not be dismissed in this
manner.
5. Unlimited time parking by employees of other governmental entities on official business will
be allowed at City meters and time restricted locations. In order to qualify.the vehicle must
display a placard or sticker issued by Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement. Requests for
placards must include a brief description of the reason for the request and be submitted to: Salt
Lake City Parking Enforcement. PO Box 145552, Salt Lake City UT 84114-5552. Requests for
dismissals of other parking violations will be considered and should be submitted to: Salt Lake
City Corporation. Traffic Manager, 333 South 200 East,P.O. Box 145499, Salt Lake City. Utah
84114-5499.
65. If the hearing officer finds that the owner of the vehicle is deceased but was living when the
ticket was issued.
76. If the hearing officer finds that the vehicle was sold with the original license_plates on, and
the ticket was received prior to the sale,provided the sale is reported to the DMV and the bill of
sale is provided within twenty (20) days of receipt of the parking notice.
87. If the hearing officer determines that the driver of a vehicle with a valid freight loading
sticker was unable to find a freight loading zone and parked at a meter. The freight loading
sticker must be properly displayed and the vehicle must not remain longer than the thirty (30)
minutes authorized in a freight loading zone. Requests for dismissal must be made by the
director or manager of the company within ten (10) days of the receipt of the notice and be
submitted to: Salt Lake City Corporation, Traffic Manager, 333 South 200 East, P.O. Box
145499, Salt Lake City. Utah 84114-5499.
EF. If the hearing officer finds that an unauthorized use occurred but one or more of the defenses
set forth in this section is applicable,the hearing officer may reduce the penalty associated
therewith,but in no event shall such penalty be reduced below the sum of three ten dollars
($310.00). Such defenses are:
1. At the time of receipt of the notice, possession of the subject vehicle had been acquired
pursuant to the written lease agreement or similar written agreement;
2. The subject vehicle was mechanically incapable of being moved from such location; provided,
however, such defense shall not apply to any vehicle which remains at such location in excess of
six (6)hours;
3. Any markings, signs or other indicia of parking use regulation were not clearly visible or
comprehensible;
4. At the time of receipt of notice for expired registration,the vehicle was registered but the
sticker not displayed. or if the vehicle is registered within five (5) days of the expiration date.
5. At the time of the notice of violation a residential parking permit was valid but not properly
displayed.
6. Such other mitigating circumstances as the hearing officer may fmd. with the written approval
of the court's traffic manager, which must include the basis for the decision. A report on such
decisions is to provided to the Mayor and City Council on a quarterly basis.
•
FG. If the hearing officer finds that an unauthorized use occurred and no applicable defense
exists,the hearing officer may, in the interest of justice and on behalf of the city, enter into an
agreement for the timely or periodic payment of the applicable penalty.
€H. If the penalty imposed pursuant to this chapter remains unsatisfied after forty (40) days from
the receipt of notice, or ten(10) days from such date as may have been agreed to by the hearing
officer,the city may use such lawful means as are available to collect such penalty, including
costs and attorney fees.
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective upon first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah this day of
2011.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
DRAFT MEMO DRAFT
DATE: September 22, 2011
TO: City Council Members
FROM: Russell Weeks
RE: Proposed Ordinances Pertaining to Parking Citation Appeals and Other Revisions
CC: Cindy Gust-Jenson,David Everitt,Rick Graham, Gina Chamness,Frank Gray, Alden Breinholt,Tim
Harpst, Curtis Preece, Claudia Sundbeck,Jennifer Bruno, Gordon Hoskins; Robert Farrington, Kay
Christensen,Karen Halladay
This memorandum pertains to two proposed ordinances.The first ordinance would make consistent the
time in which people have to appeal parking citations before their vehicles are towed or immobilized by an
electronic boot. The second proposed ordinance would codify, clarify, and revise a section of the Salt Lake City
Code that governs the circumstances under which City hearing officers may dismiss or reduce civil parking fines
or citations. The second proposed ordinance also would require employees of other governmental entities—except
police officers in marked vehicles—to obtain a placard or sticker from the Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement
Division before parking a vehicle free at a parking meter or in a time-restricted zone while on official business.
The goal of that portion of the ordinance, according to the Administration, is to return to the City the
determination of who should receive"official business"placards instead of other governmental agencies making
and using their own placards.
It should be noted that at a September 6 briefing on the two ordinances the City Council asked how
the proposed issuance of placards or stickers would relate the proposed installation of electronic digital
parking meters. The Administration's answer to the question appears on Page 4 of this memorandum
under the sub-heading New Information.Council staff also has prepared a potential motion to amend the
particular ordinance to include the Administration's recommendation pertaining to electronic digital
parking meters.
The City Council has scheduled a public hearing on the two ordinances at the Council's formal
meeting September 27.The meeting is scheduled to start at 7 p.m.in the City Council Chamber,Room 315
of the City & County Building,451 South State Street.
OPTIONS
• Adopt the proposed ordinances.
• Do not adopt the proposed ordinances.
• Amend the proposed ordinances.
POTENTIAL MOTIONS
o I move that the City Council adopt the ordinances:
1
• extending the period after which unpaid parking citations may result in
impoundment of a vehicle from 30 days to 40 days, and
• clarifying and revising provisions governing the dismissal and reduction of
parking citation fees.
o I move that the City Council consider the next item on the agenda.
o I move that the City Council adopt the ordinances:
• extending the period after which unpaid parking citations may result in
impoundment of a vehicle from 30 days to 40 days, and
• clarifying and revising provisions governing the dismissal and reduction of
parking citation fees with the following amendment: that in Section E-5 of
the ordinance,the sentence that reads: "In order to qualify,the vehicle
must display a placard or sticker issued by Salt Lake City Parking
Enforcement.,"be amended to included the following language: "or the
vehicle's license plate must be registered with Salt Lake City Parking
Enforcement for enrollment in any license-plate recognition system used
to regulate parking enforcement."
ISSUES/QUESTIONS FOR CONSIDERATION
• Would requiring governmental agencies from other municipalities or levels of governments—except for
police officers in marked vehicles—to obtain permission from the City to park free for extended periods
of time at meters or time-restricted zones materially affect(a 4 percent or higher increase or decrease)
parking revenue or revenue from parking citations?
• Do other cities, counties or governmental agencies allow Salt Lake City government free parking
while on official business?
• Do other cities of similar circumstance provide complimentary parking for other jurisdictions?
• Does the City Council wish to explore allowing the lowering of a fine for a citation for an expired
vehicle registration sticker if the vehicle is registered within five days of the sticker's expiration
date?
• Does the City Council wish to request that the Administration track and report quarterly on the
number of"official business"placards or stickers issued and justifications made by each entity?
• Is it the role of Salt Lake City taxpayers to provide free parking for governmental entities, or
should the cost of doing business be allocated to each entity?
• If the ordinance is adopted,would issuing"smart cards"that could be tracked by the City be a
better method of tracking governmental vehicles instead of issuing placards or stickers?
DISCUSSIONBACKGROUND
As indicated earlier,the Administration has forwarded two proposed ordinances for consideration. One
would reconcile conflicting time periods in different sections of the Salt Lake City Code that address times a
2
person has to appeal receiving a traffic citation. The other ordinance would clarify circumstances under which
City hearing officers may reduce civil parking fines or dismiss citations. In addition, the second proposed
ordinance would allow employees of governmental entities unconnected to Salt Lake City to park at City meters
or restricted parking zones for prolonged periods of time only if the parked vehicles display a placard or a sticker
issued by the Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement Division.
The first proposed ordinance would amend City Code Section 12.96.020,titled Vehicles with Outstanding
Parking Tickets,to reconcile it with City Code Section 12.56.570.G.The latter section reads: "If the penalty
imposed pursuant to this chapter remains unsatisfied after forty(40)days from the receipt of notice, or ten(10)
days from such date as may have been agreed to by the hearing officer,the city may use such lawful means as are
available to collect such penalty, including costs and attorney fees."The section titled Vehicles with Outstanding
Parking Tickets allows vehicles to be impounded"by towing or by means of an immobilizing device"if the
vehicles have two or more parking citations"thirty(30)days old or older."The proposed amendment would
repeal the 30-day limit and enact the 40-day limit that appears in Section 12.56.570.G.
The second proposed ordinance would add six reasons Salt Lake City hearing officers could consider in
determining whether to dismiss or lessen the amount of a civil parking fine or citation. The current ordinance
lists the following six reasons for determining whether to dismiss or lessen the amount of a parking fine or
citation:
1. The vehicle on which the parking citation was placed had been stolen.
2. The parking meter was malfunctioning to the extent its reliability was questionable.
3. Complying with the parking ordinances"would have presented an imminent and irreparable
injury to persons or property."
4. The vehicle on which the parking citation was placed was a short-term rental with a written lease.
5. The vehicle was mechanically incapable of being moved. (This reason has a six-hour limit.)
6. Markings, signs, "or other indicia of parking use regulation were not clearly visible or
comprehensible."
The six proposed reasons that would be added to the ordinance are:
o The hearing officer determines that no violation had occurred. (Dismissal.)
o A vehicle's owner has died before paying or appealing a parking citation. (Dismissal.)
o A citation was placed on a vehicle previous to the vehicle owner selling the vehicle and not removing the
license plates. (Dismissal.)
o The driver of a vehicle with a valid freight loading sticker could not find a freight loading zone and
instead parked at a meter. (Dismissal upon request of company within 10 days of receiving citation.)
o A parked vehicle received a citation for an expired vehicle registration sticker but actually had been
registered—or if the vehicle is registered within five days of the registration expiration date. (Lowered
fine.)
o At the time of a citation for violating a residential parking permit area the vehicle owner had a residential
parking permit but had not properly displayed it. (Lowered fine.)
In addition, free unlimited-time parking by employees of other governmental agencies on official business
would continue to be allowed at parking meters and restricted zones.However, at present,numerous
governmental agencies unconnected to Salt Lake City apparently create and dispense their own placards that in
effect exempt them from parking regulations without consulting with Salt Lake City. If the proposed ordinance is
adopted,those agencies would be required to request in writing an"official business"placard or sticker from the
Salt Lake City Parking Enforcement Division. Governmental agencies requesting a placard or sticker would have
to include a brief description the reason for the request.Requests would be mailed to Salt Lake City Parking
3
Enforcement. Placards or stickers issued by Salt Lake City would be the only valid placards or stickers under the
proposed ordinance.
If a vehicle operated by a Salt Lake city employee or guest on official City business had no placard or
sticker and received a citation for parking overtime at a meter or in a time-restricted zone, a City hearing officer
would dismiss the citation only if the City's traffic manager receives a written request"from the applicable
department director or designee on official letterhead or by electronic mail."The request would have to be made
within 10 days of the citation's issue date and must include a brief description of the reason for the request.
The Administration has indicated that marked police cars still may park free and for extended periods at
meters and time-restricted locations around the Frank Moss U.S.District Court for Utah,the Scott M. Matheson
Courthouse, and the Salt Lake City Justice Court.
NEW INFORMATION
In response to the City Council's question about how proposed placards or stickers issued by Salt
Lake City Parking Enforcement to other governmental agencies would relate to a proposed electronic
digital parking meter system,the Administration spoke to the vendor of the proposed parking meter
system.According to the Administration,it could do five things:'
1. The City could determine what groups would be identified as "official business"
agencies and when and where workers in those groups could park at meters or time-
restricted areas.
2. A parking meter vendor then could load the information into the City's parking meter
management system.
3. A parking enforcement officer then could enter the vehicle's license into the operator's
parking management device and determine what special parking privileges—if any—
are assigned to the vehicle.
4. If the vehicle is not assigned any privileges or is parked outside the boundaries and
times assigned to it,the officer could issue a warning citation or a regular citation.
5. The parking management system also could tie a placard serial number to the license
plate of the vehicle in the system.
Given the above,the Administration indicates it would like to have the option of either issuing a
placard or sticker or enter a license plate into any parking management system that might be installed. 2
' Communication to the City Council,David Everitt, September 16,2011.
2 Ibid.
4
\ F f
pt ¢h.f(` SLC COUNCIL OFFICE
RALPH BECKERR g 1 y (f�� "'�� C.�:.1"'`Dy�`goi
71�`l� ���1 ; I 1.�.. i11
OFFICE OF THE MAYOR
COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL
Date Received: p g i t l I Zal
id Everitt, Chief of Staff Date sent to Council: Ms ("go i
TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 31, 2011
Jill Remington Love, Chair
FROM: David Everitt, Chief of Staff
SUBJECT: Appointment of Part-time Justice Court Judge
STAFF CONTACT: Curtis Preece
Justice Court Administrator
801-535-7173
DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution
RECOMMENDATION: Approve the Resolution.
BUDGET IMPACT: None
BACKGROUND DISCUSSION: This Resolution appoints Catherine Elizabeth Roberts as a
Part-time Justice Court Judge to fill the vacancy created by the resignation of Judge Holly
Barringham. Pursuant to U.C.A. 78A-7-202, the Salt Lake County Nominating Commission
received applications from interested persons, conducted background and reference checks and
interviewed selected candidates. The Commission then forwarded the names of five nominees to
the Mayor for his consideration. The Mayor considered the information and conducted
interviews leading to the selection of Catherine Roberts.
Catherine Roberts is a resident of Salt Lake City and is currently employed by Salt Lake Legal
Defenders where she has represented clients in felony and misdemeanor cases for the past eight
years. She also serves as the Legal Defender attorney at the West Jordan Felony Drug Court.
She is an editor of the Utah Bar Journal, a small claims judge and a mentor for the Utah State
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
FEDYDLED PAPER
Bar New Lawyer Training Program. She graduated from the University of Utah College of Law
in 1994.
The Mayor submits Catherine Robert's name to the City Council for confirmation as a Part-time
Justice Court Judge for a term of six years after which time she will stand for election.
Following confirmation by the City Council, the appointment will become effective following a
judicial training session scheduled for September 19-23,
and final certification by the Judicial Council on Monday, October 24, 2011.
PUBLIC PROCESS: Council discussion and confirmation
RESOLUTION NO OF 2011
(Confirming the appointment of a Part-time Justice Court Judge)
WHEREAS, Utah Code Section 78A-7-202 provides that municipal justice court judges shall be
selected through a county justice court nominating commission that reviews applicants and
makes recommendations to the appointing authority.
WHEREAS, the Salt Lake County Justice Court Nominating Commission has submitted names
to the Mayor of Salt Lake City and the Mayor has appointed and submitted to this City Council
for confirmation the following person as a part-time justice court judge for the Salt Lake City
Justice Court for a six year term as provided by law, towit:
Catherine Elizabeth Roberts
AND good cause appearing for confirmation of said person, in accordance with the Mayor's
appointment;
THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Salt Lake City Council:
That the appointment by the Mayor of Salt Lake City of the following person as a part-time
justice court judge for the Salt Lake City Justice Court be, and is hereby confirmed:
Catherine Elizabeth Roberts
said appointment to become effective Monday, October 24, 2011 upon final certification by the
Judicial Council of the State of Utah.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2011.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
APPROVED AS TO FORM
CITY RECORDER Salt Lake City Attor Ey's Office
Data — if
By �'
SEE ITEM C4
FROM 8 . 23
ITEM C2
SEE A3
ITEM C3
SEE ITEM A3
ON 8 . 9
SEE ITEM D4
FROM 8 . 23
ITEM D2
SEE A5
ITEM G1
SEE A6
ITEM G2
SEE A8
SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE
No. of 2011
(Repealing Chapter 4.3.54 of the Salt Lake City Code)
AN ORDINANCE REPEALING CHAPTER 4.3.54, SALT LAKE CITY CODE
(ARTWORK ON BUILDINGS AND FENCES IN CONNECTION WITH THE OLYMPIC
WINTER GAMES OF 2002).
WHEREAS, in 2001 the City Council enacted several regulations pertaining to the 2002
Winter Olympics; and
WHEREAS, except for Chapter 4.3.54, Salt Lake City Code, such regulations were valid
only during the Olympics and by their terms have expired; and
WHEREAS, Chapter 4.3.54 should be repealed because it is no longer applicable.
NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah:
SECTION 1. Chapter 4.3.54 of the Salt Lake City Code, which constitutes the entirely of
Title 4, shall be, and hereby is, repealed.
Title 4
OLYMPIC GAMES
Chapter 1.3.51
ARTWORK ON BUILDINGS AND FENCES IN CONNECTION WITH THE OLYMPIC
WINTER GAMES OF 2002
Article I. General Provisions
1.3.51.010: DEFINITIONS:
EVENT PERIOD. Fro.,, two, 3n 2nm
MAYOR: The mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah, or the mayor's designee.
OLYMPICS: The Olympic Winter Games of 2002.
PERMITTED A R • Tl b a th rtl t. N rth T 1 St. th t
____-_ _-_ _____.__. ___., ,...,.. ,,,,...a,,.,,,,,,.. �...,ll.,a tll „y 1.V1 C ,
by 200 East Street, on the south by 900Soutli-StfeeOtteluding-the-900-South-fteeway-exitr and
owthe-west-byttiter-state-l*tegether-Nvi-&the-area-bounded-ofi-the-noftli-by-200-South-Streetr on
41.3.51.020: AUTHORITY TO DISPLAY:
41.3.51.030: APPLICATION FOR PERMIT:
permit f r ch, a; nl., ,f.o th erms wh a,, royide_a€orm or the-application. he
1Vl
rr edo plication must be-submitt t tl+ t 1 hirt (30) d b f tl, d t tl
� t�huaat�aal>_
artwork : e,-1 t„be d:s„layed n,1 ,st ntan t1.e f 11owi. info_motion`�y`wYvov ,
A. Then a, JJ address ill,1 n t 1 h e mber fthe , plic.,...t;
,
13 A rht poogaraph d a
rawing nr fthft r � � t� 1 Y tt' " 't �we*
C The ed mbe of arty rL n.1 the e,1 to ,.ti .h_ th _k
Y.�..Ye u niuiiivv"--- --- e e - - — -- -
will-be aces -and
has , e «tten pe n f r s 1, 1 t
aau.v ba•Val vvlattVll t./V11111JJv ,
The applicant must also provide, together with the-applicatienran-agree ren n
evvYtable to the cit„atto e whi e-applic-ax t agrees co-ind zholda-hmmle�, and
�uvly 1 ",
• I •
, ,
o fthe permit ctio« with the display of the ...a__-__k
/1.3.51.010: GRANTING OF THE PERMIT; STANDARDS:
bee erly" „letea a th t.
::.torists and pedestrians.
.,.tea ,
R The artwork will net co bl l + JYvui t F tr t C a f
historical chitectura s gni fc..
....,..v..v... v. wvaaa a.vv�ua ua ;
front yards, or to open space;
as bl' t' f lit pl.,.�., urty..rd ..the ike.
.F. T_he art- rk ..tibl, itl- buildi .h" ghts of th, sti. ghb__h__d _
es
ous element to an existing skyline;
F. The artwork does not adversely affect the health, safety, or welfare of the public, and
> .
1.3.51.050: TIME FOR APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL OF APPLICATION:
With•n fifteen (1 5) dau after re th l' t' f t th h ll
applicant.
/1.3.51.060: JUDICIAL REVIEW OF DENIAL:
decision to "rt erf-eempetent-itwisdiction-after-reeei'F ottice o the mayor''s decision-Thre
by them nless the.r ordo th
1.3.51.070: DURATION OF DISPLAY:
Th art.. r1 a>,bo Yo itted ,1 n be pl., my d. g th. p _ 7
1.3.51.080: NEGATIVE SAVING CLAUSE:
Tf any portion of this ch.,pto s ,let a + b 'll 1 l'd tit. +' 1
r of
super-sedeEli> > ,
> >
that thin Y t ll b 1f ,l7 vv iotui+l' ti a ed, ch oiding or
� ona , o
sh 1l b eff' tive f t1,. cz i ble ordeer-anF b) the event-e + to
�x�xrvc-crreErc-he -vrzrrP-as -e�-a�p� �-�,T
> > > >
sueh
din,.p of suui i 1, 1� 1 t t
7 7 )
days after o o tiee f;.en tl, l d + t'
.....>., .+.�... avvvi.aib iiv�.vv uvan ,
SECTION 2. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this day of , 2011.
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
Transmitted to Mayor on
Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed.
MAYOR
CITY RECORDER
APPROVED AS TO FORM
(SEAL)
Date:
Bill No. of 2011.
By:
Published:
v
A
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL STAFF REPORT
DATE: August 9,2011
SUBJECT: Wasatch Hollow Open Space Restoration, Use and Management
Plan
STAFF REPORT BY: Jennifer Bruno,Deputy Director
AFFECTED COUNCIL DISTRICTS: District 6
ADMINISTRATIVE DEPT:
AND CONTACT PERSON: Emy Maloutas,Parks and Public Lands Director
COUNCIL PROCESS:
A. The Administration has presented a resolution and attached plan,for the Council's
consideration and adoption.
1. The Council has not historically formally adopted management or use plans for City
Open Space,although it has funded the creation of these plans to be used
administratively,and in the requesting of CIP funds.
2. The adoption of a restoration and management plan was listed as a criterion for the
receipt of reimbursement funds from the County(See Key Element A).
3. The Council formally adopted a use and management plan for Parley's Historic
Nature Park, due to an expressed desire to review and approve it, as stated in a
previous Council action.
B. Public Process Options:
1. No public process is required by City code to adopt this plan.
2. This plan has been reviewed by the Open Space Lands Advisory Board,but has not
been reviewed by the Planning Commission,although planning staff did hold an
open house. Additionally,as a part of the consultant's creation of the plan,a series
of 13 stakeholder meetings were held in the surrounding neighborhoods,including
meetings with children in the neighborhood and Uintah Elementary,to identify a
vision for the property,and to develop decision making criteria.
3. Public Hearing/Notice-The Council may wish to discuss holding a public hearing,
and potentially mailing notice of the proposed plan to surrounding property owners.
4. The Council may wish to establish a policy for how the City reviews and adopts these plans in
the future,and whether an official Council action is required.
KEY ELEMENTS:
A. Wasatch Hollow Open Space(WHOS)is a 10-acre parcel of publicly-owned open space
along Emigration Creek,located north and East of 1700 South 1600 East. In 2009,the City
spent$1.38 million from the City's Open Space bond to acquire adjacent property and form
the current WHOS. The County has agreed to reimburse the City for$425,000 once the City
adopts a management and restoration plan,and the conservation deed is given to the
County. Once the reimbursement is made the City's contribution to this property will be
$950,000.
B. Overall Guiding Principle-The stated goal of the City,County,and Utah Open Lands
partnering in this property is to"provide stewardship of the Wasatch Hollow Open Space
1
area in a manner that protects native vegetation,water quality and aquatic and terrestrial
wildlife habitat of Emigration Creek while providing appropriate access and educational
opportunities for the public." The City's consultant has expanded on this guiding principle
in their report,and developed the following fundamental goals and objectives:
1. Restore and Protect Emigration Creek Riparian Corridor and open space area by
improving water quality,providing habitat for wildlife,and restoring and protecting
native vegetation;
2. Establish Clearly Defined Boundaries to Prevent Encroachment and Foster Respect
for Public and Private Lands;
3. Provide Controlled Public Access that is informed by ecological goals;
4. Increase Safety by reducing risks on both public and private land;
5. Foster cooperation and collaboration among stakeholders in stewardship of the
WHOS to ensure sustainable long term management.
C. The City's consultant has authored an extensive Comprehensive Restoration, Use and
Management Plan(included in the attached transmittal),with the above stated goal in mind,
and after a public input process to identify community values,balanced with best
management practices. The Administration has provided the Council a resolution to adopt
this document and its recommendations as the official plan for the WHOS. This document
contains the following:
1. Documentation of current conditions including natural and cultural resources (pages
1-18 of the plan, summarized graphically in the attached map);
2. Guiding principles for the development of the plan;
3. Detail of public engagement involved in the authoring of the plan(pages 43-44);
4. Recommended implementation and phasing of improvements;
5. A matrix of recommended restoration and management strategies that provide
varying degrees of emphasis in preservation,restoration,public access,education,
and conservation(see page 24 of the plan or matrix attached to this report), and
corresponding Concepts A-E(maps on pages 25-29 and attached to this report).
6. A"Recommended Concept Map"which blends these concepts, analyzes the trade-
offs, and attempts to balance all goals (page 34 in the plan and attached to this report).
D. The recommended alternative contains the following key elements (see attached map), in
general order of recommended phasing. The total estimated cost of these
recommendations could range from$660,000-$1,024,000:
Recommendation Cost Notes
1 Close and re-vegetate unauthorized $10,000- Staff note-this reduces the network of
footpaths. Limit public access solely to $20,000 trails and unauthorized footpaths from
authorized footpaths and restrict dogs to the tangled and redundant network of
designated areas,on-leash(See dashed- 7,345 feet of paths to a single,4,145 foot
red line on map. No dogs would be long footpath,looping in sections.
Participants in the facilitated meetings
allowed on the trail marked by the nearly unanimously agreed that
dashed-yellow line). unrestricted dog access would run
counter to restoration goals,expressed
by all participants,for the property.
2 Access points would be reduced from six $45,000- This recommendation includes
to three (potentially four) $80,000($15- wayfinding signs and informational
$20k per transitions. Four access points is
location) possible only if parking concerns on
Kensington can be addressed. The plan
2
recommends working with residents on
this element before making a
determination.
3 Establish Bicycle Use Guidelines n/a Bicycle use will be limited only to the
proposed on-leash footpaths (red-
dashed lines)within the WHOS to
allow for bicyclists to traverse the
property. Bicycle and BMX activities
will be prohibited in the remainder of
the park to ensure preservation of
footpath and vegetative integrity.
4 Re-establish Riparian floodplain $80,000- Remove artificial fill material and re-
$120,000 grade to establish natural floodplain
along creek. Focus on central area of
Wasatch Hollow so as not to be
influenced by backwater effect of
culvert downstream.
5 Re-connect Wasatch Hollow Spring(if $10,000- Remove fill material to expose natural
feasible) $15,000 spring
6 Establish Restoration Areas-Install $40,000- "Restoration Areas" as identified in the
restoration area fencing $60,000 map will need to be prohibited from
public access until native vegetation is
established (2-5 years)
7 Remove/Control Invasive Species $33,000- The existing conditions section of the
(phased),and re-plant native vegetation $45,000 plan goes into detail regarding the
numerous invasive and non-native
plant species found in the hollow.This
recommendation would mitigate that
concern and re-establish more native
vegetation.
8 Purchase or Accept land donations from $0-$30,000 There are sections of Emigration Creek
willing neighbors that meander outside of the WHOS
property along the eastern boundary,
particularly along the eastern boundary
of Wasatch Hollow Park. If the stream
were encompassed fully in the WHOS
property,this would help alleviate
some trespassing concerns by making
property boundaries more logical and
enforceable. There is approximately 1
acre that fits this category.
9 Establish Clear Property lines $25,000- Approximately 45% of the current
$35,000 WHOS property is fenced. The plan
recommends fencing or other natural
barriers or signage to prevent
trespassing.
10 Site Amenities $90,000- Site Amenities could include art,
$120,000 benches,and/or signage.
11 Small-scale educational facility(one-room, $200,000- Some members in the community
LEED Silver as per City ordinance) $300,000 suggested that a small-scale educational
facility would serve the site well. (see
black box marked "ED"located in the
Natural Area of the Recommended
Concept Map)
3
12 Raze Abandoned House and Associated $40,000- There is currently an abandoned
Infrastructure $80,000 dilapidated house on the WHOS
property. The Council approved the
Administration's budget amendment
request in June 2011 for$50,000 in order
to demolish this building.
13 Enhance existing footpaths and develop $30,000- This element would establish a
new footpaths $50,000 hierarchy of footpaths-8-10 ft wide for
those more heavily traveled,2-3 feet
wide for those less traveled.
14 Install new bridge $30,000- This element would connect footpaths
$50,000 from the south area of the WHOS to the
footpaths in the central area,across
Emigration Creek. Salt Lake City
currently owns a railroad flat-car bridge
that can be re-used at this location for
this purpose. The Administration has
applied for a grant from the LeRay
McCallister Fund to complete this
element(City will be notified of
decision in late September 2011).
15 Establish Outdoor Classrooms(3) $25,000- These could be designated learning
$30,000 spaces to protect vegetation from harm
caused by off-trail impromptu
gathering.
16 Install Interpretive Signage $30,000- This would serve as an educational
$45,000 feature in the park.
17 Stream Cleanup $1,000- This involves organizing a stream
$1,500 clean-up event with volunteer labor.
18 Reduce Wildfire Hazards-conduct $1,000- The assessment would be conducted in
wildfire hazard assessment/implement $2,500 coordination with the Unified Fire
mitigation if necessary Authority. Homeowner education and
training could be a component. The
Council may wish to ask that the study
also be conducted in conjunction with
the SLC Fire Department.
19 Coordinate with Rocky Mountain Power The City will coordinate with RMP to
relating to management of vegetation ensure that RMP will target non-native
near overhead power lines invasive trees below power lines for
removal and phase in replacement of
native species.
E. The City has applied for a grant from the LeRay McAllister fund in the amount of$26,500 to
help defray the costs identified above. The grant funds would be used to coordinate and
design a pedestrian footbridge to allow for safe access across Emigration Creek,as well as to
hire a riparian restoration design/engineering consultant to supply engineering
specifications to restore the riparian area and springs.
F. As of the printing of this staff report,no other City or outside funds have been identified to
help defray the costs of implementing the recommended alternative. The Administration
indicates that their intent is to pursue additional grants once the plan is finalized.
MATTERS AT ISSUE:
4
A. Dog access-The Recommended Concept Map indicates that dogs will only be allowed on
designated areas of the trail,on-leash. Dogs would not be allowed at all on the trail marked
by the yellow-dashed line in the Recommended Concept map. They would only be allowed
on-leash on the trail marked by the red dashed line. The designated area is predominantly
the southern end of the proposed footpath,connecting 1600 East and 1700 East. Currently,
many members of the public use the southern section of the open space area for dog activity
(both on and off leash). The Council may wish to discuss this matter further, including potential
enforcement needs.
B. Budget-the restoration plan includes cost estimates for the various components identified
in the plan. The plan states that these cost estimates to not include design/engineering costs
or future monitoring and maintenance. Future monitoring and maintenance has been
identified as a crucial step in other City natural-open-space projects (Jordan River,Parley's
Historic Nature Park).
a. 77u Council may wish to ask the Administration to estimate any future budget needs that
may result from this project.
b. The Council may wish to ask the Administration about which recommended project elements
will be requested to be funded in the immediate future.
c. The Council may wish to identify recommended project elements that should he addressed
earlier rather than later.
d. The Council may wish to discuss phasing budgeting for the project in the order recommended
by the consultant.
C. Educational Facility- The Council may wish to consider the practicality of constructing a City
building on this property. While the plan indicates that this building would not be staffed or
occupied at all times,it would have to be secured,maintained,and heated/cooled during
occupation. It would also need to be ADA accessible. Future maintenance and accessibility
costs may be a complication to this component of the recommended plan.
5
Existing Conditions
• rr�+L��cr.1.11;1crclitlllitlt4( fthc n Et vonditioip., ma,
• (orttt,,,,,.tt. 1 11 -Arse,
• Lire t!r,➢t,u i I tcck;1 9;;I c�t • („tnd�cl ltak: 1.;S��t:ro�
• Lv stint footpath..., : 1');I eet • Intltuluccrl Plci l�aicttus. ).13:kir�
ilUn4,I rift,C:1,(�nt}N CCC • Ross du Ulric.n,VI At its• Lr
• iTicr tan Lim.1.(ti At.res
tr
0ri et!
9 {t:'°'- "'. 1 t A °•^F. a , # , . '' C Wit, � r* , ; u • . , ", i41 ' ,,.,
071 j ''ei.} a lip ..fiat. r, vu., q u r , { a
.' '''fit- "''''''4 '' 'i '..41 t
E :L2ff'
w
try t t r _ r 8r�4,
I� +1 T •:11.S. y '{}f g.` t tN Y
F S
4., br
4 [.rrxTr S t £. ''' , - t -. ,wr °,x,r , l ^ '
--
1., '�+{ i- tit . f[ -- . 1 ��...$
� d ®'Y�'tt l is
* xn"s�i" Wasatch Hollow Q en S acea
''II;ti -1,t'm '''* -..11'.....' .31aktdia. . r:;,:.43Tio,.. .,. ;....,, . , ,„ . ,,,,, .. . ,,, ,,,i tl, ,,,,, f,,
s,...!,,,,4:,r;......:,,,,...-„,:js„,,,,,,,,, ,,,:.,,,,,,,,„, . "' z � + � i`- Restoration, Use, &Maria ement Plan
ii_.
it solt
It;11
1 , • .._. ,.-,;.'i4 -440,14:ik-7„4„,,,,,., .- ., „,.. ilr,,,Mr. ,... . = ..,...„ ....
X ,,. •' , t,,-,1 8 WEST,Inc.
.:`,....:...,§:;...: .::... .z:-al,:-‘,. ' ,,,lii; . , ,.;,,,,,.",;,,,teide ii ..:, . ,,,s‘A,,,,: .,“, ..
41,
.,: ti, - Existing Qrciiticr� Map
# '',,8 ;' if, `fit.. a:''. ; t ,;it • Legend
N
•
41414.
,..
� e_ "fit" '- ' " .{ ,4. '� 3 s �,e 1 pr.�*3,. l z C Across Location
s a 'a, _.� , cic'c tr t th
N� t _ k-mtgratan C rook
�� „ ! [7om ant Canopy Spc mining t onco
t * Vegetation Type
I F, z , -a vCxtStirgrortcc 4,0
�' .1 _ Ft,r dcr 1 I Wasatch I lofow Often Space Boundary 4
t i 1 'ill' rn eramn S Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary '
� r.,,,r,-,.g ysT �. , t riamkd C4tR
r < • ( 0 ffi. ' �+rr i NOEL•C;nntmws are at 3 intervals
�w rA T7.�•E >.•" Kt,'w+trn Chn (I ZOO �tr)C.1 93A`,?€r+�(
�,. ,.«;ra- ,,,,,,,,,,I;„: r tt� x-.;_:s I t t i I t I t I
Recommended Concept Map
4111ilkt
, y ti•tt a . "t aa " •ir i ' .� -..k 1' ,. .. �v• !» ct oaf �.
�t l • rp s .. t .j tilt Y a y 't4: ; R � lie.
•w4.0..
w .=gym '«y"• w7s` w4 :lry "': 9 e.+t,,`
''n:, .'^w M : 1 .. W « r r r .k a k » .A J 7,.' »,•s: s."f:.{:ik. A:
•.n¢ .r.a..� .ail. , g � qa + „ .
j.i.:1;04A,',1* '' ,,,,. i..„,•r:.1'.
•
tht
M .': .1'1! It,, •„ifH" ., •y.. ':C r' rr { ,y.:aq ;'p' at e pt• Rt� I .
t1� �a *�., ... 1 wr ♦•.,� ,'; "0. ,,.•'.<•*•,.''..'..i'. 'e• ;#1 , ..,:it ', , -F. ,� SJ ,t�, d� r »„ A: , » i
t sw '+•�, ., * �, a e,."F ya, .' 1 `F • rd� »ei �i�j�" ".t
7.:ea+K ;a���,// n/FDrson-jiti $ 4a 't .«. ' d ,f
N Ci"d0- f.. ;., • N 4 b.. •`°.I 'fit»» t • ,L
�p
ipl.
,° •. ;� �i A.1;�WIt+'�' MN, ,». ..+`"''�."N #. • " o+ d" i i w d
a."
°e 4 iv,Jtairii .':, 1 .^;'l'..1`' ..' ' ' * 6—' — ''
iii
4
..........., ...,„
.,:. :.,,
7„,.., ,,j tr,
"` +� ,' r .::::: ...1,.,.., KS�n �n Wasatch Hollow Open Space
r
ii.
i„ .,,,..
ilkoit.,
.' > 'j it j r _.4. I, ,�4,_n1 � Restoration. Use, & Management Plan
-
...,.t.
if'el 411., - ,,,.',,,..
4,4
•
rilitsi, k.....„:,_,„,,,.. . , .. 14:14'1.,4, •,,, .,„oic,74.,:ft,P et,:;.4.4*.i
fl ' arr "� 1"' � ft :. < B10 WEST,Inc.03.,
g Hr,� ;r « a i . r Recor r nclec! Concept Map
.;/,
Legend
r Ifa.illz C CQS i,t .. ,. ' � 3 . t t Fsccess t oratree f c t�nti,ai Act:c�s l t.air n
a - [ 3 -^' > ms�-"--. fit"- �r 1
ii,
Lj
y' A F4
l rt "*.. ."vee " Cmrat�ra Creek
„,,,
d Brow
' • >y ,+°.d `, t p t t "- PruPr"S f oxRtpaths iptvgs pr txk it it
L : fir i» i % pmpo-,Qd r n-k�3",h Fc€tpa#tt=,
`` : � a#"n"� % +: Proposed pdpcatiora Facility
r - • �r jl E s _ ManapI tier
t I _ , Wasatch HoDow Open Space.Boundary
.4*
r t .. > Manadement Areas
li
1� m # '• $ Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary
1 ti 4 r _ ''' 12'steratmn Area
:fly 3 Isrr�tricn�n Area NC3TF C mtrntrs Me at 3 rntr rvafs
.b:mci.„.,> ,,,,,i7:77,,,,,e,.,,.;5,.!:.,,,,.7
:ti .� .�, » � �` � � t �s I Natural Area 1 a. r No 200 dtK3,,. .,. 1
BtJCt poet
I I t ( t I I
Matrix of Concept Alternatives
Tdltle 1. Summary( amparisfrn f)t WF 10S Comprehensive Restoration. Use.and Management Pian AIterndtiveS.
DESIGN CONCEPT& CONCEPT et OtINCE191Cs CONCEPTD CONCEPTE:
PERFORMANCE PRES +AT,ON EMPHASIS RESICNPA1lON EMPHASIS PUSUC ACCESS EMPHASIS CQNSE tvA11ON EMPHASIS EDUCATION EN� IS AS
Arta MEASURES Nottt„Are+a Central Central South&ea North Area South Area North Area Central SauMArea North Area Lena South Area North/InnCep South Area
Area Aral maAna — Area
,
N'UL,i, A„css I'i.I Noted Lir.,cd Lrr'tC,B Lhiccti Li„rItc,B Li•„Ire,l Lit,n`c. Litt-oise Li,te„s,ic I'rr,t,•4bitc,I Li•nit^.,I L,te its ite 1'R,t,ittitc,1 Limite,l I ot,tin
toot athe t` elc Loot Circle t,o Sind, Be)ear<,h kC>Carth
.K 4v,c SirelCLnt,r,, {ins:ICL,a, <in n ICL++arp hrhst+l�. tict-,,.;rrN: 1Ch•,,4r4 G,r};IcLnqs \Ch•,t,rA 51�,ytlrN,xn{� J.,.��;;CLrrnp
,.)ntt V lh
<r,titn,iCe Nolo: ',IT 'Ant t,h,c t,,,l,tt V',C NY,C 1h,c T<i'' N,v,c U rc Tu„ Not UK' Punt
✓ North, North,
w R,+untidrs !North.sa,•, L.tsr i.hc'c N6crc 5%1teft List Ss,he :r re ut
L.. _t.tr,yroC L.stt.W,ac 9,tt'o„it Ct,JNI. L,.tens,sC Letctio st court,`cu;,,,e .0 i,l West and`rl cst ssilt,cssan NC,essay: Net cisart ..<,,,,.1:.'c `it Cisdn a4,4141 c:1'
an,l Lau and List
11^,tordtintr Itnr'r(1 le) 19,-i S, hSlft, Rnth S,Ies SAhrrc SAhtrc 5.hcrt SL,N,Aidcs \4,rcrc ilnd,SRics Rnth Odes
N<•rc C' ' Nn,,C
..CnunC „fStrce C nt of ,f1o, path of Strew. ofStrear- "4C.t1)41: N(:,C»art Nese)sdrs of NM'an, ve.C)SaR ofCtrcd?n t,fSuca,n
4ucr.b4 D ics I'--1uL:ro1 ,.i,Liscd hr,l'iL-•cd I',r061tL)t•cd 1'ro1•0b:,e,t l'rd,'1,'c,i Un[ea,L U,le.,o-i Un kdt.t, Pr,I, itc,i h,t tt.t.tc,l U,11%ot, Pt Pr,'Litcl U•,bash
Cn,Pen. Last Last List Last Lait Lasr List Lot ofLay' ,fPark List;•fl'a b N•mC tome o„,c N,,e ListofPe,
-A,qc*)it,-, of Ctt^-a,n ifSttcim of\Ytcau, of Attedm of'Stre n, of R,Coil ,dQrcani in czm
'olasltc Sreocs
Anere ssne .Aee,cssisc �ecicssisc Ito'c,l P14a,c41 i'Fds.c l t„o,d A4,444-441 ,A444,coal n ts,ic i`hasc,t •ianr ii Acy;re»tie i';,ased 1'h.ot41
(4444.7(441
Vs tcrc ,...t,c•c 5.hcrc A tfxtR s'.I,c,c to A it>Cr+ tAt-c,c SAl-cie
?^.,r,,,.1{uf I,l 1f4'A 1fN*s 1fYY..
ti.rp•opriatc 4prr,t7r4.1Ic Arpr44rr4atc Apprapr,at£ At-prop-star ?ppn,pr,atc
Q itrcrt,Lt t,•h tAlte-c NA cit F4'hcr Lt sthc,-c c totre 4t A'.l,cre SA tttcrc tit
1.., 'r e, Ye, 'C, ',Ca 'c, 'ICS
C;;atil;tc Apprt,pna'c Aprttist,atc APProrr:ar£ -.pl,rs,pr.ate, 4p{srt isr,at< .4plrrt,priatc Appwpr,dtc kiststt,rs.tre `ppr•:prietc
iCs lc> vCs tc-z `ECS N A h? P.1 N A ,C} 1Cs ^1 A Yes iCR )£:
ts,udrla n
?Cn„nc ,es scs tes 105 IN `.A h A IA, t•.A Yes N A N A lez to-A N A
Li,,r,i,i,h in£rst,
11d1.44tat a + a,, ,. a
A crrri"C 3}s t's-,ne A£PrCS,,r g:eres,4,c 4t„dcratc fi isdcrarc A*,,KieGlte A u-1Crd C N nJCrc'C Ae rc,Ytc tltse eta.e 49,xferdte a},e s,¢C '414,tiCra'C i tt crate
Re.'Urdti,,,,
L=rstf,in it roue- N-A l*tom N A 1 A Rare N A N A Rare N A N A Rare is S N A lure Ni A
kettlosal
F :.LLCY Ldtrt.ar,,,-, N A '-gone N A N.A sk,t,e N A P A scs N A r,A Nr*r,c t•.A N A .,,-ic its
t ca,tt�
4.."44t4.144.,r RC,CA"4,t4 RC,C444cL P.C,Cdtch
NOW,' st-4nc Nom' 'Cs 'tr,r,c None Yc4 ,,,•,e son scs 'on ies
au Cli5sr444t4n Ont. tar,!*.• U,lt
hitc,prct,c
A,•,Pc Alma„dl Mio.,,,a1 N144,4'nd0 41n,iCrdtc F.t,k Iccitc 1,1ten+,.e Lvte,11,I%c tArcitshe 'vane ht„d£rec Lx'cn)i,e ',opt! tint€cr.e:c LrrenM.0
C.Ncn•cnrs
€�'stjP NA NA RA (1AAActcl9*A ()AlA,,c19'l
4C,;Cdt it?r Arc i
z
Q Nah,r..eA-ca N 4 '.A ;OnAt"Csi 1sr 1 21A.=c1111*, 1 21ArrCsri?Ai
ig
it
0F'f,°teaCli„t Atci 2-?AtrCz('^',° S°9 ActC)48'1',+'p h 4 n+r Aire if', h1 Acre tf
cl 2c'n='ati+•,A'c. A71A,rc,,19+.r 171Aires;l9'i 2CopA."cii2 '4 A'iAcres41,4.4 t tAcresil9•4
Ptcacrlc A,cr 117 A„c,,11,4 4 A N A ?1-At'Cs11?al A 1TA,rc),11N
Concept A — Preservation Emphasis
I11gIi Iitw(if( 1ni cpt A: PIc,,c1'4,,IttUI1 C.f111)11JS!> • hi SIC +Cnr�tek`cy,tern.}rev§+i3rrl vfld�t,!h,3LEt.tris'amr.Yt:uaCtT;irr;
RCc,c:::,ei„hbla.u,It h ,tEnlr;
nrtnLtallprrLr.,tr,r, , ,nti,1rcl,in I,.,,},r,p,4rf„ISd,rnnfir re ealel,ar:{Criric,lt,+++,nnit It, t,Illrrytt,r.,7r„nfe%r,.iri s!rn=,qP,„rhsi,Ir'r,r,':Carnr,r,littntn,rl,r.r( c,a
I'r�!�L t rtg .i•r,l 4rrrr puL',,..di.c *,t'iryr,p' frt,itPit?:� r rn*r7f a r•I rrt,rrth-\re31x i
(4trr,3'Crt ±tn':Ir'1;r}Cd ,Irr gr.1:l'-tor f Rhnrt±• I tl,.r prrrr-??ti Genf I c±!r,{prrrhrt„t J,rcy�,t,t te r—rzat, rcr,r,fn,rrr<ttit,Cutptr,r r ire i tr+9Cau,,i.c.'CCtatC brrp1I&t^.r:rtpatI• itPICK:rit1L•'rrC),fl('.ii+ttir,;''e 1r,Cra6,td?,n,,CffrrrT. I1,)F.7II•uret!+7Ctetr Srr_r f,ut+'•-,��rrrrI r(/i*at ICltt",r i'Plri In:IFt.rC C,rEµ,?tea,
• gia+a, p prul`C+tt er rf>trca,,,)ot i r '-t"40.\A 1,Jti h HI HI i Iwo,PA.!Mil tti,it:np;>cIicr<
P yyt1 w' I. A, °n" 6 ,t Er 4y 1 R 1 °1'� ,..' ' 7 J t,,t
)iii
II
� 1 �"� 'G .fig" �.t {III
�I ra t' � ( � � ' '
0 1,
r a. �i� yy <,. a5. w `� 4'441,
® b ,
M B / Ilgs
l � Ak.� f • t t to �g y1 L .
"8 b�p4� q 4 e f.F. 1 w.
2 ... . ... , <3 s`;s W!�,. a .,` * ,' <rwW 1t f.�'. 1 . .
.,.,. ...,
0.., "�a.r,"` it r � Y Y �� r �' �..�M ,'_ ," '� •:a aJ ' . . ..
•
.: tc, .1-,-04,14h. 1 1r
#r k L t i. +S ♦��.
ir
�� 'F - '.,1„, = - - ' * • -, / s oft 4, *41
itit
-: ..'� ` ,� Wasatch Hollow Open Space
'14'4 I w _ k.,4 AA ilk'44 :, I , } t` # (t Restoration. Use. &Management Flan
N :
® I ` t} �;i .:t '[ � roist T• r �r pry` 1 ..
_ d" ''"�` e _spy *3',!"'�fF• ✓ £� f.} 1°r
�; ta ♦� +fa � T r 810 WEST.MG
gE.
,� —..s"_ r-
....,_ , " 4. C_yr1[n{;{ pt A Map
'.� dP 1y bE it y�' *4., * 1,F ,,,','� '}j� t P
4.4
+, tS g s� a ° g. 7., 89 `' {' i < Legg end p�
'g , "' �, 1 w,r t §�>Xr n4xF Arcny't Or��rur 1 V
a ` i°.a p.h, A.: ✓»� k ft 1 t E E r. E'nyr;rUrrv'�[i.+'^!:
itr, x i:41- No t Pr'?p�r:c+t1ria�1 'h4
r t ' ' ay _ - re;..^, • a Nrr.<rK�thM7w t �s`^i ac n%cur'„7ry
a�
"N ''17-
''' s ° S+tr;,reah I!rX+r*r'ar9�e rrr alp
# g M., r € g are y ,{ � r., `. � Pre,
1T � _,b,y " r PI Ma aAgorrrcf71 Arr'a i
} .•r'� top Ph TE rrrrlaur,arr, ai 1 ntena
, 1 a ? r
" �' RPM-,txatiev<s ttra'
,; ; caves. 'ri h t 'i-n Pr cs ,Arf d
l "" 4l `
a""`f gR x*y�. $". Y _ d pr�r��r3n A.r�rr i I` IJtr 49) t;��s'r=i
_ tirrr.: ra I liee, 1
r!gill Q 6. 1N,),,dtc,11 I Itt11uty Open 41),Icc t_011U pt A Map.
Concept B — Restoration Emphasis
tll tltl�(tt[ti 1)l 1)tltl'pt. �: �l",tOIJtlllll t.tllt�l)d�l} : ka c+'i': 117",i;r',I,,1.11nit';r''''' ffpr,„„f
Iretdtlrc -<arn„fC,1CmCali ,C!r, 19nrCrov,tcrrC;., Ir>,nurJ Cd,rc�y
• I'riit„{,,t,R,{,,9r'!4.n',IwbI,E>< ls,C n , ,�'fib d?Ti:w m,7P,1rC,Is Kd7C C'<`St'i's:I' ,r"d;•rndn,.f,7,.i i,^.Ic tr,Yr, �7¢ni rn,lm•Cn�1�tC,7i t.r•v,
• l'r n,w(wrp'rcr\It,',i.n C`itt r•+ l''C'i,•+,4.1-',co,dn.l,i'- i,l"..1 ,'r rrwh,!,.n(! �St.4:r It I-t c,I ,, t i +r�n,n>(v1r C,t,i,:YuinJl i,�C�
• trap,!c Cr„I'c.fi cdst,if tirn^,n:,;""ci.t.,ft1a>Ir�l.IIuci,',,t 9',Irb.fl„,� ,n,EL,, scslrr, (!<„c.71,•1 r, tirnrrdr^.!+'r ,,ltc(+„wtr irI-
• 1:Ir crC rt PI
a'"I rnsd•.i c'`rr„c:,rt,7 v:,at,••n cm
„,t-� • 1,-,•,ii n,rrmrrtc''cc,fn,b'',c' c' ';tecr1 I'1t.it,tt tC,t„r ltiuu at,l„a*idr••0t,.at>r,n
• It•rlcr'c nr r raigiii drat UC,Y•.i I,afrir,iT ra",i++r,7 = ,�tTrT=.
t7' ,.{ 'S ^ 4 r ,IY ,. ,g L. y ,y r t,+, M,,1„4 r t e t a;Gn
I ,11 a s,f VI 'so,, r ' Its il":� • + -»' I a s of fl�rr`es �w 4 e +M y.- w
r A c�,0,, � ✓ ✓ a9 a
l'.
,� ..p wr ' . '�� •! 4 _ �_ �! � it � iirti � �`
'xs rt x ar- t., • � 1 l .lye. f .J .
e ,'jam'/�!)jt��-,Y E • • ,�,Y ` 1 6 i��
l, .-gill
` j "A, : • 7yI` � 4' v, t$ —. 1,. "� I_ � � !w i �. f�if i:`.'+� t ,',�^j v Lr
144'
� �` 7,'f1— _f � ill � �� r,�� ' � may ' ¢.k „;, ::.e_. .. .x.�..r
{ ' { `; " `�ne+ Wasatch Hollow C7pen Space
\' i' # -t. t Jk ".
� _„ � r Restnration.Use. &Maf7a ment Plan
ii
'ks:T. rs . §. ♦f#+•v rr; ,<6 '{s,.' r-iiit - . '' -I 1 . '4.•i'i — -- ' — f ' 1 '1 'L — Si i yo u ,.. -s.--- „+ T. ,r+t Ilya a.., a,_: 51 ("•
s.7s'P - - sA; �' �sr a ^'. 1 t 81f1-W[51 t�C.
VII
h, - s,n �'P•" .' j Pro me s9 ,r,_tix trx 3tl�in N
' i „ ` d ` t s tt., _ '' ':{„' Fn, relvtr CrF�4
" »,,. iii. ',- ' ,df "+ 3 " t"rtr{ar ad f xa�+at%r
'� ""-�� � t � 1111 '� • • ®W-7'dY'h InYlflf)'N C�{1Cr S��rx E�06in61,31Y
w ck '.rr ir+t i r t M�'as at-h Fr-.pna f'nrk t n,da ri
# t s $�•...�� � F� �;� `� 5 i � �� ;R' M ns�mmo•tt 3Arr-+,a N07E Cexnrax�an=at 3 pi!,+rx-xl�x a
} '`� • •� 6_' w,"s ' inn,t,.,r,rtar Airrr
u
1a nn
^• a, rr s 1 rr^,rm_Ln A.na :•*ri', xU^ 9C+1
�....° a.....,�' ,!_ �^`}. _.. __ <. z '•€�b`m .n .�....r.....-. i , v , 1 1 i i I
ri gurt° T. Wa,•utclt I3ut1ttvv()llt.•n "tl)dt.t.(t)t (ept(;\lap.
Concept C — Public Access Emphasis
111 �111 �It�d)��.C)Iltept C ' I'utl A ee,� tnll?�ta�l4 • F'I7CCT.at+ngrn14l9Ctil: ,'a),t,td,'rtr,�hl�tlla'IttrySfi'erc+Itit�SYlnntl(trr,SyC•
• tllrns fnt,t,r1CIC,r'nCn t of L E.LO crriAr,cd C,lu..atnwdt ff,,do,. ind f,llr•I,rt',r(13)DIr....n,nl
• .\grns',i'%:,,in Ic:) "rnb,,1 i ItieltPrirr1.,T4te,,,,,.IC91t;r,r)r (ifow:,'I>9If,.t{ Irk,I., t 1,n+r,51 }rc,1
• 0t7f.1,C1Tio9,c,t4v,,,=,0,}'1C97111"ol+Iblr rill'Oil(t`I C,It, 111,r:r:y....ti pp'jt',rrCll'J551u). • t ln,C,I,I,C ygCrt.ff^kit.^I ,i'C fnotl'ith>
• Er�,rlCttiCiit,)+t)tRleil l"\,li�tC°+%1Ct„',9 K'I,S,Ilt,itio„C(j'„!:t • I..,*5tt n tet`,f,,l'of,4;t°,f,k.0 t'»,101'tSt,Ir of IJ,,�*F,4r?,xtI(ICCF i”„)„<C,!t'It we tid4iinjt
* L'Ipicmrr¢.,r4r in it1 I tiflr.1,,i lt.it,t,tt re,r,r'.i`,o•,r,ff,"i r49tniAir•t,v I. i„dil'IC C,IPzAtrn u,
• i•:5101'rr•;,i()1,5t„n.f<'•,,c tt`k+C rc„r"(C9+.l,t to,i,Sy(,r4ur,5CC )z ics',Yo,C„",t't r, 1 C+l+
Awl
tit'
( w ,. ` :'' S + :�1 I
�I fit, :..� •,' •} ,,�,'`..
f( y !� L� :r , is .i �Ti.
,. 1. r ,. I� 3t / i y 1j Yr: ,ikto ; ": < 1i+ t>. f�!
• � � fi+ 4i i%l '�,, ! LA, ms ^'� : d _ f , t. d:4' y:;*r4
f x a *4' io+
• f ' .: .A* • f 7 �a +•lv a-S A?,t'1
�t -/1 ,i : ds.>i xii_ � .`i�' ,.�,...� p aaii.t .L a .. + •.,:•..
- gm
�t _� ° ' t �' erg b Wasatch Hollow Open Space
�..:., � �� + � �� �� �,� 'I� � Restoration. t�se,�Matlagernent Ptah
1: —ii L:ss. - - t. s. t
if
mr r , )..:—,1 '"...,, '. ,. * , .,:i ., ... „„„.1.tis 1 _ wi 1 a•-/,
• ...%* ...„� 1 * +' r^ a " 'f1 f* Concept C Mai)pis€ .1. r
.3 ,
„,..,. ., f .5 3 * • „ - I^`}, 1 ,� re a--, x »--- -- ' anteer71 Asrnwc l r atnr,
a trt _ y"
t »•� x d 4!;rJ `" ' !..:t � '�r R ��� t ', �F'r:xJt,•;r„t u•p}qr.
:VI4 , A .4 .k ' ) 141: 'dT,«t^Ry r{,�,t+xw Open f-rycr+E3nsrmf nry
,,,t ' r its " dd,.atsh9l,',1ow Part Rwssdare i
�� 1 ' f[rcnptivr9 �
r ^x x Man e{'nWntArna NOTE n,r<az„11 3 tnt£r,at':
_ ,� lay � P33'rr>ntR^a � `^✓5 A:� Rib't Ce:.rt
11gt.11 e 8, 1,Vasatt.lt Holltow Open Space(Mtktept(.Map.
Concept D — Conservation Emphasis
III �1�1 �1 1)t��.f)Il�e t E�:�.i111 Z'�vatlllli F.tll�)�1�)I� • 4cyv c Prrq,crtt rayr,rf,trc°un of"er,d I fv11!s,aral,li+f!k»e l <k fr:tlr,ot,l,i�r .r'I!cts
• I•I,I+ICi111',!•f;YL i:,ll I,t=,11,,Y".1 i',I fll,r)',.I II•I I.•ii,Jt {ytn•a':,i'f CON
+ I'r:,I•,6:r JI r•t,;"b,,dt.,C3`Yu bnr hr't,•Gl d•nY r•1„JCC fi',Y.i rrv?tfft tryr�drrh,yn l C,h 4rdti i,n nNft • Kc r^taL1'.I?t4,J)tr,h 11,,6ele CPI 1151,f f^."`bir
• 1'�,hiL":tivytb.11,i a „•t t Y,1�,I :1i:LCS'tn'l,,,,r f'rn"math•,,i C'i t411 gr,7.1 ` 1'f>t.111 IC>inadhrm fCn 0 C at,>r,Q t�nrq)f:h^•.or fit;L'a' C,�,1,Si nr.lyd C air C>?
• AIE,•L6,it,r;�u,,i"Ca.
d e4,r,rli t'r<i In•,it 1'tir.;'�,tCtr-yy i,"p"IC^S*,?3tCa f(,«+t!'dtl n,;�rlrrt,.t.•CJ ' R i; I N'stsr;'4 Hip bur•f•,,,,,taro t9 C,.t C>x tf,h'3n,!•u,Jn,"Cndn(C a,,,,..,,,,,
• Grr;"Cm,:I,r,:T\L.st'•:•a.a=, ^tf,i,r.5rr1„Y�-,1ci,v,iri:,,.Cftr�,J,{Y,a,�.,,1Y=1CC'zr9P.YS5i,fi; • t*t,it,,i,tf•u5r•1,t„Et=,1»,�,,„Yi^fa,•Cr3ll,,dt,e,:i.11 Y,9C>
• f„q^dr,nrnt as;"rr9;•tc in Y-•5r y,7e'C^r,,n Ol i dn,,,•'.. r'��u Nnun 4tc,t c l„`t an•I^r tc�;^fate<u•nto.rrr f,,,rE,;PI,>
• Irn(�'CnrCnt l?9,.0)r,Ir,SJ9rtC?PCu rC�C''d l.r'.dhryr.Cfff?rY>n,I Iil .dl 11,1 • l,I9f Bit f<rtCrpr(°i,DC>"LI14 fi7itlS+nH the toi)ti We'of�11'ilk'drlr,ii(IC4�,.(`S',.iCCY iUl'ilfr,PLdbrt,Jf
• 6•,I•ICn'CnY 3+„•I I r,ld>tC,t9rC,C>Ct,lil:i:lt,,,r Cffnrt :u S:rUtt•..a+C 9 YCStnill..,r ..L°,1 u,drl,C C'1Yis.JY, n
•
�YY �Ir , ti t 9 i x1� e kJ �r 4 s«
', 4,i ���!:r�^"` 1 i + 4 rt k15.
t— 4." L s?70 ,', a�a
•� '� lei"' :.� --1 7 a :� ''^ y ^' .. � J I�t,.� ,.
'Y "1l7`' 1f '� LaTi"' ^, yi'•t ,t a x �,� 1,4 y 7•�ljh:j + t_.t�.
• _,•.�AI '"Y I ,r 7,r.- ,� � r ..r�F . v ',F mom '* �.' k. � �: �-.•d� T' `I a..t
li
•
y }•^- •t' y _ di P- " ,CJ• �" ,; Y �' dyc •e + ±,t ` s
E Y�° tir,�q• ,i." . if. NTT a # :�(. w „x... r t �'Y '� f' J:>I 't..�,,et. r
tttr���' ,�+ 7 gt . t , Sc - reia ,. �t�' r5{° x y;
dt
i t' l j#ai • , , Kt*rt:rn�tki
or
Ili
°K:
_ ,� , �F �,, � �; - .�41.tot Wasatch Hollow Open Spaee
,r t *,',, :-1 4 t r .r"al Restoration, Use.&Ma"
agement Plan
it a �[ * :.1::II fir"
i s i . t `, s 4_
r f •..,. li 1 t i i ,
4 • LIU•1tTST,Inc.
,-if's*, r 1 _ • t
. ,�
w u legend
f .� r 't` Fomnt.<I rrrcrr,I nr nbtft'+
''''''' ,1:1.,1:lir*''''''''' I*7.1k4"
°...1r . °h'" „.. t rtw'ra@nr i rrr,i
^ j$`: -s r ," 1 3 i � , T°,->t,^� a c c•-ar=-,art
$ , xi. ,yy• $gip, ••�4i p°' ... Prf 'rrlsf€+dC •. r,;X•or,*�f*rnvWv..raHaadl
Y: �' Prnar�7 Bria#q+�
a # '.a fct7lacar'""'entorIt Arras a
•-ir ,# r ce + Ffa,extitl+�low:;'-'....,::,,rk,,,,1::::37:::,:ary
Hruvdarvd � � 3' "� '^� (EnptDl3t{Px'iArrar' '4 'c r -Y4a+.aich do°aae 1a itr:plit f lamurl04Ax'a@•- ,!y. , �s* y r , C Prntwctatz�Anr N='1Tr +">nr•Mrn,.p
Y ak "• {,. a •nkAJ <,� '' x Pa ,,v€'Fre•trt�n',rr Ar„a n s
F.,. 7 s q",a"a•7 _ a .�„ r e ., fir,: c, ...,. �w .. . ;�;Xi �'.41 BCYi rase.
?.xs. ho -+� I i f , i r f
I i tli e 9. A d,,,1tcl1 I IalICr,v their`pace Contel)t C Map.
Concept E — Education Emphasis
Ilt�'llll, llt,tsf+„(rlltel7t E: Et�tlldtli311 Ellt�71lJ+9. • I'nrC.err"r"'''1na".+urIJI"+IPb,�-trlc';,I...t•:,,�,¢PG,rt�
" F.i r,Sr,rbt„h 11'A,ar,.h llr,li„SS 4;7+,,,,�+f fC 7),9,Ir
• I'i'„h•1 ,J i!;,DLt d,;i. ri "„,rrn "irC,t a,`:`n,dn,pr f P Si iC'tif i YCSCdr;h!n I C.II!r dti!1n rnih • I:>T,IU rebt„!,3T,r,,,fC,i:i'.IL.iln rq,aril>+IC3 e,f?rpi i,<`rn J,y.t,p4it,C,ri,r)3
• I"r+,I„I„r,a„p. i i ,n-pprL,,ha;trvptn'!•,,,C''f,u,tl°arh,,,Ppnr,.aPA,r",i R,7rr^l nr¢i•n",yr. ,r.„,.'+,r.n•,nrifrin,•.tn,r,r,a+rrcna,ne.utr
• -'411„,1.,,n y,r++ '''l'',rk„i,,,7,,,i I„"it C"tit,"t,tt r„r<"tPC*p,"'"'i f+•,t,,,tti„*,r,i+ki,"'+'SrC.4 •Sli,n1'fr,r,try.Cln(",,,C,•C itf II!C3(Crr,fC;1 C:ft+r,iri„n,)-fa(,i,r',,i„•i tt(,tal,r,rr<I,)l>r,irk'"'t,,,41yt+r4,
• f tiiur Prt,r,r?'tb',P „f.)',r°:T,�r,r,�t;,L,r a"i„'r,',,It'k,,.:,1't.3•„i !„t t�1..,Pp' Pr',n•y�y,•,C .S.IC,1
• I cr,,,p ,at 1L"rrr„''''' ' 'r r.r,pr,:`",rr,t,P,a thn,'rfff,rr.,„,y,�rti'1rr,S • 4 hta'd,,a;C S,"LCr.JrC it pht;§rC ff,<tt{�,)'hS
• 1 pip. nenr pha�.4J uNAb,SC yrCi C�C',1•I P ir,nn CfrPrT>.n l Cnir,l+;),ul+.imrir-1rCds I',5T;Y9i„,tCraPppriMC?Cm fakriSn,i;rr„h:>Tr1Pl of tl+slgfdt+,n I per tt,rkr:Cf l'i UITl1tC.!+d Li r,Jt
• ' '',,cr.,,,+[•crrt,•Itt,Nfvrir,uk+.tn,i rnsr,kfl'k',t,titl•li„il„Sr C'dt P.fi,>•n 1+,-Fi,,.0 yrIIri* ,c,r„I,tr,nn,,u+d,„trrrr C:.hp tt,te„
p,� ¢¢jj
44,
1. �" , - it; r'm�:.. � »• N r,I,.N W t "'.. d k;. gt ii"f. .„471- ,st wx - �'N:: ?.^�q L� *r ,e
i.
+r l p ," r ,. 'P' # y f k,. ;k . �+' i;,S •
- 'tCZ .! , pa, •
1 r;,;4 *t*..
x r a �. . w m a A s
. zikst
w �, .'� � �'. ,� '� N e� :� ' � ���: ER, �FY r � ;���t - ���r� r*yr t�.•`•�i �*r
Ne'
•
., ' - ''�`», tt M d"�"`: b `,a"'& ' ,:fir .•1 . t 3 : ��it *,_''. ',,,a a i"i -
r, L -t- �0, t 11 _ .
•
' !� Ot t:I;11., t _T s t 4,*3�r *ill"' 1 t• .• Y { /.'. ;- ._• ;Yt •o�
'� . y! i , f �.. ' ,r • =aria Wasatch Hollow open Spaee.
grii
it,_
_ "' 4,.._ t } Restoration,Use. &Management Plan
7,,,..::n:N.44.10.„,,,,,,.04(._
€ � Y W +,` F }.»tf � �,; 1� Ylt �,..t Lr{,r
ji teikr
r. r,,
,6 s,Wka T,
r
' — - s';g041-41-11.4 '''''. '''' ''At* rrr...1',,.:.?.0* . '., ''10..•
! K �y�k'o-.t �. .•i s - '�' f'-,u3n,•st Azra-...Lrir,^tcv,n
t i + ' Y ,+s r Pa"a;` " ExmraSr-rs�,n,rY
y S 4 �. Wr y N' '; M t i 9 aft P:_3c«,.k•ra,.r'th�
i, A� . a • .�*� e« tir.'i t`•,u+,.,ty„r'tntt=ate ,
�;-�. "��., s �'.,+• r.` 4'--tl � �0 r,�"� Pri?r;r'r ll7t€VC' �r'ra{rCStu14't•k1gr, r
Hl�nagatrsent flora<<
ye, , r ',,a,„:.,h iP,glnw ,rz^Ck:c,"Bnu'rndary
I it�,#y ,•ti y ,, a+ Pt ..„ xm� t 1k
r+ , r � r'�S'ectttrh,Pnt.,H tTttr4 t$aa'a�t�ty ,!
i € ✓,,'"AL.?;'.;'''' t 1 8' �+'r,•�=,ry 11rn a i
7„3' - C.7 a�.P �� z*,t S'rCNe•trocn Ezra NrJT6 Coranury,�n•st3 nn+,tmak
i1Y . P1'x „>, # !*J'rturilhrta
.'a` y,, "" r�, r" s a € �`F`a w f r rrae,'n Arra r J 2� f3rx r0,4
+ .,•. ; 3 >r.r..,._ ....«.. . ! .' .:T °' S' i,• .w s . _.......•.< s,es•,s.w,w._...� t r t , i t + t t
11gut e 10. 41'jbdldf I lolltow Open Space C.P)fte#>t E Mdp.
„f',J"N. . . _1_. eve
RICHARD GRAHAM SALT -r r) 4,°% Tilir 0RP -°,e'i O I ~,
avw s � .A..rM1..�....,,,br^�.m.-.,..er as.' ;�-� tE s i` du„{ �, 1)
PUBLIC SERVICES DIRECTOR ,y
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC SERVICES I :,, 1—.1 t. .,1
DIRECTORS OFFICE
MAR 0 3 nil
CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Salt Lake City Mayor
/ / Date Received: gen( a INC re..0coglilill
David veritt, ief of Staff Date sent to Council: / i- ( wii
TO: Jill Remington Love, Chair DATE: March 1, 2011
Salt Lake City Council
FROM: Public Services,Parks and Public Lands Division
SUBJECT: Wasatch Hollow Open Space Restoration,Use and Management Plan
STAFF CONTACT: Emy Maloutas 972-7804
Open Space Lands Program Manager Rick Graham 535-7774 pyPublic Services Director
RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the Wasatch Hollow Open Space Restoration,Use and
Management Plan.
BUDGET IMPACT: TBD
DISCUSSION: Wasatch Hollow Open Space (WHOS) is a 10-acre open space along
Emigration Creek. Salt Lake City, in cooperation with Utah Open Lands and Salt Lake County,
has partnered on acquisition and developed an adaptive restoration,use and management plan
that will ensure the following goal; stewardship of the Wasatch Hollow Open Space area in a
manner that protects native vegetation,water quality and aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat
of Emigration Creek while providing appropriate access and educational opportunities for the
public.
The City solicited citizen input through a structured decision making process to gather
articulated opportunities and issues of concern held by citizens, adjacent property owners and
community organizations. Community values were interpreted through carefully organized
analysis to create multiple management strategies and conceptual alternatives that are focused on
achieving the overarching goals stated above. The proposed Comprehensive Restoration. Use
and Management Plan has been prepared by a consultant for the Open Space Lands Program,
who based these recommendations on public input, professional judgment, best management
practices and criteria identified below:
1. Scientific study of available water quality data,riparian corridor conditions, wetlands,
LOCATION: 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 132 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 541 1 1-3104
MAILING ADDRESS: PO BOX 145459, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH B41 14.5469
TELEPHONE: SO1.535-7775 FAX: SO1-535-7963
W W W.SLCGO V.COM
R[crci[a nnPVR
wildlife,vegetation and weeds, soils,cultural features, and observations of recreation
behavior.
2. Review and compliance with existing City, County, State and federal policies.
3. Best management practices for protecting,restoring and maintaining open space areas.
Alternatives were reviewed in public meetings and refined based on input and an analysis of
trade-offs. Through this process a final recommendation has been developed.
DETAILS OF RECOMMENDED ALTERNATIVE:
• Implement phased invasive species eradication efforts in all areas
• Implement riparian and upland habitat restoration efforts
• Define property boundaries to prohibit encroachments and discourage trespassing
• Limit public access to designated footpaths in all areas
• Close and re-vegetate unauthorized footpaths
• Re-establish Wasatch Hollow Spring if feasible
• Install restoration fencing along both sides of the riparian corridor to discourage access
• Work with residents on Kensington Street to address parking issues before considering
designating this as a pedestrian access location
• Raze existing house and remove associated infrastructure,but maintain pedestrian and
maintenance access
• Prohibit dogs except on designated on-leash footpaths
• Allow for future development of a LEED certified educational facility
• Establish outdoor classrooms for educational uses
• Acquire property east of stream and east of Wasatch Hollow Park from willing sellers
• Install interpretive signs focusing on history of Emigration Creek, pioneer culture, habitat
restoration, and nature education
• Conduct a wildfire hazard assessment and implement appropriate mitigation measures
PUBLIC PROCESS:
Following the extensive opportunities for public input the Administration is forwarding the
WHOS Plan to Salt Lake City Council for consideration and adoption. Listed below are the
meetings that took place:
7/29/2009 Introduction of the WHOS Planning Process
8/3 1/2009 Stewardship Training Program
I0/10/2009 Wasatch Hollow Open Space Community Cleanup
1/19/2010 3 Strategic Decision Making Process Meetings
1/20/2010 4 Strategic Decision Making Process Meetings
1/21/2010 2 Strategic Decision Making Process Meetings
1/22/2010 Strategic Decision Making Process Meeting
1/26/2010 Strategic Decision Making Process Meeting
2/22/2010 Kids Meeting to Identify Vision
4/20/2010 Potential Management Alternatives Presentation
4/23/2010 Uintah Elementary School Presentation
5/6/2010 First Review of Conceptual Management Alternative Drafts
6/22/2010 Second Review of Conceptual Management Alternative Drafts
9/16/2010 Presentation of Draft Restoration, Use and Management Plan
10/21/2010 Planning Open House
NEXT STEPS:
Both the Open Space Program and adjacent neighbors request approval to expedite razing the
existing house and other existing infrastructure within this open space. The Program has
requested$50.000 in a budget amendment for this work. City staff has explored and would
recommend considering the demolition be done in partnership with the Division of Sustainability
to create a model for salvage of materials and reusable items. The demo should he planned to
protect the garage and large covered carport for future use for volunteer events and staging of
equipment for restoration and future on-site projects.
RESOLUTION NO. 2011
(Adopting the Restoration, Use and Management Plan for Wasatch Hollow Open Space)
A resolution adopting the Restoration, Use and Management Plan for Wasatch Hollow
Open Space.
WHEREAS, Wasatch Hollow Open Space (the"Open Space") is a ten acre open space
area located along Emigration Creek that is used by city and county residents for a variety of
nature-related and recreational purposes; and
WHEREAS, the Open Space is owned by Salt Lake City, and is located within Salt Lake
City boundaries; and
WHEREAS, the Plan addresses a multitude of land use issues, including:
recommendations on long-term conservation opportunities,protection of wildlife habitat and
environmentally sensitive areas,protection and restoration of the riparian area, remediation and
clean-up of noxious weeds and debris, identification of access and use areas in the Open Space,
management and enforcement solutions, and recognition that the Open Space has multiple public
benefits; and
WHEREAS, the Plan will utilize an adaptive management approach to making decisions and
changing management actions to adapt to future conditions; and
WHEREAS, the City has hired a consultant to work with City staff,with public input
from stakeholders, open space advocates and adjacent property owners, to prepare the Plan; and
WHEREAS,the City Council finds that the Plan is in the best interest of the City and
community residents; and
NOW. THEREFORE, be it resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, as
fol lows:
SECTION 1. The Restoration,Use and Management Plan for Wasatch Hollow Open
Space, a copy of which is attached hereto, shall be and hereby is adopted.
SECTION 2. Effective Date. This resolution shall become effective upon publication.
Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of
2011.
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL
By
CHAIRPERSON
ATTEST:
CITY RECORDER
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
SENIOR 7 SALT LAKE eITY ATTORNEY
HS ATTY-#I7?17-e2-Resolution_adopting_Wasatch_Hollotii_Open_Space_Use_and_Management_Plan_201 I.DOC
061414''. 1111! ' lig!6.ti4--'-: %\ • '
•
ofrl , Wasatch Hollow Open Spacef- rOil -
L. .. . i - ,. -. . Y .
:,r, � i e t Yi ,`•`c , .,7 , v�,.. �� � 7
.., .„., y� a s
.,,,,, ,,,,;,,, ,, ,i,., , .„, „ litt„,a,A
Comprehensive Restoration,
Use, and Management Plan
' .a /
February 2011
w w. {{ ! 1(1.7I1 ! J�JI 1.jy
ppg�y." — "!�' ;4 1-fy -s. -T .,Y,' •' ' '4 d '7"-
-.LI! ri,ii, .,,- kii 1 i . 1,:,.,, -,--1, . . - i *1"---ts I, Li , „ , . , i... , tr-tlAt - .-1., :
'' ' • 4 : .r'I—'''.'. ,t %iii,t!: ''', -fr.'••,r. ,ili IF;11 Al- '''' ..; --r f Til...le- '•,',, ' .:...,c*jt -• -zi - 4 1 1,' 1 I., ,,,,,, i
,,.."r_
r
.l i.
{ t ' i ��r _
:.t'i:,r'SI'
° .f , T1 ' t :. i as* tl. ... .
,:7.a11!:-.
ii
_-: p. ii `s
11
. 1 L n vim_ '' . 01 r i ' -1..
. -4....:. 'i, :7 ' ' 111::
''.' .s4la .,1E4 ,1' r'l * ,0 millit i.:: i, 40'4':k'ii ,i,j.±,A,..::. 4,3 ,--..:.,4. .. 1 ...71111L, , I.:,,• . ...„ 4,T
, , .., ,—.1, ,...c. . .- 1 _ . ., _,, it ,.4,..,. ,w ;i:IL 1 i r.' ;,:!. 's 'ot :,,:r.... .- v i., .....'. .411' ' .,„:„, .4.. I . ' .:' '''' 1 '
jii
o,p
411v.
mii
L y• 1.41.1.-
w
i !; A N R- & a ' wS� � : '
'..1;0Vii7 '42111 '' "Itat,;p: 1 -2.-„'NiiLl'44:4°7;:ra,. ,,,:,,,T,:;','. ',,,7':::::i:, '..,14.;'''',.::' i-4''.(4141 !'''` f . .14$';',1:1,;,,,,:je .je'L. : . '-, ' . ''''". 1:•.:''', 4:*; "T.
1.'":',.;;-,,-.. • • . .`!.., , ,4 .;‘,.:,,,,,72-.-j 7 VI- .,,,,-- ', -, ';';"1? \ '' ' ....7 .. '''''''0 ,''.27-
y :
Acknowledgments
Salt Lake City Mayor
Ralph Becker
Salt Lake City Staff
Emy Maloutas, Open Space Lands Program Manager
Brandon Fleming, Open Space Lands Program Analyst
Vicki Bennett, Division of Sustainability and the Environment Director
Rick Graham, Public Services Director
Salt Lake County
Julie Peck-Dabling, Open Space Program Manager
Utah Open Lands
Wendy Fisher, Executive Director
Arthur Morris, Ecologist Prepared for
Salt Lake City Corporation,
Open Space Lands Advisory Board Open Space Lands Program =may, �`--
Sw+ i�y.� +s ,r
Brad Bartholomew Parks and Public Land Division
Lydia Berggren Public Services Department ,"_ f.., .r
Sharen Hauri 451 South State Street, Room 148
Kyle LaMalfa Salt Lake City, Utah 84111
Donna Maldonado
Benjamin Jordan Prepared by
Eric McCulley BIO-WEST, Inc.
1063 West 1400 North s kv__ A►*
Logan, Utah 84321 BIO-WEST, Inc.
435-752-4202
www.bio-west.com
CRSA
649 E South Temple
Salt Lake City, Utah 84102
801-355-5915
www.crsa-usa.com
Spectrum of Conceptual Management Alternatives 23
Table of C o n to n is Management Strategies that are Common
to All Conceptual Management Alternatives 30
Management Strategies that May Vary
between Conceptual Management Alternatives 32
Introduction 1 Recommended Comprehensive Restoration, Use,
and Management Plan 33
Existing Conditions 4
Natural Resources 4 Management Strategies 35
Geology and Soils 4 Adaptive Management 35
Hydrology 6 Applicable Plans and Policies 35
Water Quality 6 Summary of Adaptive Management Strategies 36
Stream Channel Conditions 7 Crime Prevention Through Environmental
Vegetation 8 Design (CPTED) 42
Fish and Wildlife 9 Natural Surveillance 42
Cultural Resources 9 Natural Access Control 42
Visitor Experiences 10 Natural Territorial Reinforcement 42
Potential Access Locations 10
Built and Natural Amenities 13
Active and Passive Recreational Opportunities 14 Public Involvement and Input 43
Structured Decision-Making Process 43
Guiding Principles 15 Stakeholder Meetings 44
Wasatch Hollow Open Space Goals and Objectives 15 Public Workshops 44
Planning Constraints 15
Conservation Easement 16 Implementation and Phasing 45
Eliminate Unauthorized Footpaths 45
Decision Making 17 Develop Access Locations 45
Re-establish Riparian Floodplain 46
Criteria for Evaluating Conceptual
Re-connect Wasatch Hollow Spring 46
Management Alternatives 17 Install Restoration Area Fencing 46
Other Considerations 18 Invasive Species Removal and Control 46
Re-plant and Restore Vegetation 47
Comprehensive Use Planning 21 Purchase or Accept Land Donations
Open Space Management 21 from Willing Neighbors 47
Prescriptive Management Area Designations 21 Establish Clear Property Boundary Lines 47
Site Amenities 48 Figure 3. Wasatch I lollow Open Space Existing
One-Room Educational Facility 48 Conditions Map 5
Remove Abandoned House and Associated Figure 4. Monthly flows at Salt Lake County's gauge
Infrastructure 48 at Rotary Glen Park 6
Develop New Footpaths 48 Figure 5. Surveyed stream channel cross section plots
Install New Bridge 49 illustrating the variability in channel shape
Establish Outdoor Classrooms 49 within the WHOS property. 7
Install Interpretive Signage 49 Figure 6. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept A Map 25
Stream Cleanup 49 Figure 7. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept B Map 26
Reduce Wildfire Hazards 50 Figure 8. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept C Map 27
Coordinate with Rocky Mountain Power 50 Figure 9. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept D Map. 28
Bycicle Usage 50 Figure 10. Wasatch I follow Open Space Concept E Map 29
Figure I I. Wasatch I lollow Open Space Recommended
References Cited 52 Concept Map 34
Appendix A Structured Decision-Making Report
Appendix B Baseline Documentation Report
List of Tables
Table 1. Summary Comparison of WHOS Comprehensive
Restoration, Use, and Management Plan
Alternatives. 24
Table 2. Summary of Adaptive Management Strategies
for the WHOS Comprehensive Restoration, Use,
and Management Plan 37
Table 3. Summary of Public and Agency Outreach and
Involvement. 43
List of Figures
Figure 1. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Study Area Map 2
Figure 2. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Planning Process 3
Introduction
The Wasatch Hollow Open Space (WHOS) is an approximately �, i • r �� " a '
P P ( ) PP y :'
10-acre undeveloped open space located along Emigration Creek
within Salt Lake Citybetween 1600 East Street and 1800 East x it s u , c r;, *'°
Street and between 1700 South Street and Harrison Avenue 2 ';q "` „� iw
(Figure 1). The WHOS property encompasses several parcels a;, • w aovo of land that were acquired in segments over a period of several "� , ; ," �'
•
years through both acquisition and donation. These lands z
will be protected through conservation easements which will ,
identify conservation values to be protected, including scenic, `
historic:, ecological, wildlife, and public education and use, while
preventing commercial or residential development. The purpose • , )*
of this Comprehensive Restoration, Use, and Management
Plan is to provide stewardship of the WHOS area in a manner The WHOS planning process was completed in five stages over
that protects native vegetation, water quality, and aquatic and an approximate 12-month period. Major steps in the planning
terrestrial wildlife habitat of Emigration Creek while providing process are described below and shown on Figure 2.
appropriate access and educational opportunities for the public.
• Structured Decision Making Process: facilitated a
For planning purposes, the WHOS property has been divided deliberative, structured decision process to accurately
into three segments: (1) North Area, (2) Central Area, and (3) identify stakeholder values and objectives to help ensure
South Area (see Figure 1). The North Area is approximately 3.9 that both near-term and long-term management reflects these
acres in size and primarily encompasses the property donated by values and objectives.
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS Church)
and the northern portion of the 1700 East Street easement. The • Existing Conditions Inventory: inventoried existing
Central Area is approximately 2.5 acres in size and includes the resource conditions at the site using scientific and expert
properties acquired using Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County personnel and a review of existing decisions, policies, and
Open Space Program funds and the central portion of the 1700 practices that have helped to shape the evolution of the
East Street easement. The South Area is approximately 3.2 WHOS property.
acres in size and includes an undeveloped portion of the original
Wasatch Hollow Park and the south portion of the 1700 East • Conceptual Alternative Plans Analysis: developed
Street easement. alternative concept plans using defined management
• Potential/I xisting Access Iocation 1:Wasatch hollow Park North
Highlights of the Study Area Map
• Potential/I xisting Access I ocation 2:Wasatch Hollow Park Fast
• North Al ea:.1.9 Ac es • Potential/I xisting Access location 3:17001 ast Street/I ogan So eel
• Central Area:2.5 Ac res • Potential/1 xisting Access I()cation 4:Kensington Street
• oath Area:31 noes • Potential/1 xisting Access I()cation 5:Fnlerson Street
• Wasatch llollow Pal k:3.5 Act es • Potential/Existing Access I°cation6:It)S(.hutch Pioperly
• Wasatch Hollow Open Space:9.6 Aci es
MG 1 ir" ' II' Fp ' GI B °ill i1 a� �t V "- ..?�� h t 5 1 ' /N t � ZJ:;t,
• 7.� 7y ri 4 ra r 1‘
yy,, + M ',,,`; �y i -I '■ T1a`rson Ave, ^, , 1 a.v , ' q
Ra•� ' ,,,, ,,,,
ey.,t �r 'f.' X. 1ue • `.�}:, N ,2y� : , r� !+l dYit � d
tt I
, .,,,, „4„,..... „?.,.:...,„. .. ,,,,,.,..„
....., , ..„.. ._
P, Rta'S'eV,tilt _... e Lid..., ! "'
. ,„..,„ ., •
, ,.
,, ig,....,- .,i;,lik, -
.--,..:,,,,,,‘!-.,:A. �:. a } � :r r � Rc,�"it,� <j 4 : :ml'
�Emer=n g ' 'till/
f'{Ha . 3' I 4 irk / ,"} :-: :
;rill"7- 'I.* Si#/ r
' till
t4,'. "� Itr oW .J `ir- 0 4', I.
Y� a"',� �I I" .i. tt .7',:-.4
414
4
I tit Kensmgtal Wasatch Hollow Open Space
-bra-� '-. '4 7 A ,1 l ,,l
Kensin t n � I',�
�' i. Restoration,Use,&Mana ementPan 1'01a.w w
r :,a. ���!!! ..,:.1.,'.S (1 is . '' o- - , ..
Bm0 wE 11G ,..
, —11 t ,',.,41 j.- S7 1 N.
,� :ry�n • � t ), �F .' �gm �� ,+ 4"11, tit ,f
Study Area Map
IC � { ` tiiLegend
'# •• °�� �� � • " h ,[,g' � �7) Potential/Existing Access Location
1 � ,� • k� ti LP9.V' �— :w :... .... - Emigration Creek
! a mot. -:t" -, >i4-...� I. f 1 }. • t '— }- �.
�, - • ,m ;;• Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary
x Logan ;�, , �, d ���m 4..� ,,F' t t ;' ': i Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary
�s-� �' ;,�% rm 2 '�"+ . � North Area
T ,! o
L s .' bl qA: t x.I.
- i c. Central Area
it,,,, - 4....• , .4
�+ r^ {„ - - � .� South Area
1 '4' lii • a ,1 w0 - Wasatch Hollow Park
&fir ,, ,,-- t . r z � •. 700t "uth d�� •
17005ou'th 0 200 400 800 Feet
7+ s
awe,::a:�. _ ���_ _- ,;%6S ......_ .. � a�.7 �� >����s �� s`�'r .c, I i t i I i i i I
Figure 1. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Study Area Map
prescriptions and analyzed how each alternative achieved the „ -- `'''
desired resource protection priorities and stated management r �
n
objectives. , ,
• Management Strategies Development: developed guidelines
for management, maintenance, and monitoring of the WHOS ""
property that highlights best management practices and site "L .ate'iPS, �k d ,M I
specific strategies. :._, , , , i
'''x `
• Implementation Plan Creation: created an action plan of "°""' ''I
recommended capital improvement projects, maintenance . e
priorities, and research needs to achieve the stated goals and � .'� st r, r
objectives.
Following public review and comment on the WHOS Draft
Meeting
j Comprehensive Restoration, Use, and Management Plan,
t,.,tmg Rakehnlder I the recommended plan will be forwarded to Salt Lake City
Studies/Plans _� Data _ Aneciodal
RaSe''"e Evdcnce Administration for consideration. An implementation plan and
Doannentatioi_ 1 _ ImPlemenaivon
associated cost estimate will be drafted after the administrative
Analysis
__ waterQnali=yandSod _ review, revision, and approval process. This document is
Gaps Vegetation
Identified —/ Wilacdfire Pnontizabnn
Open Spe Accest considered a draft until stakeholders, the public, and city
Cultural Montage Reso�rzes < _
I Stakeholder I administration complete their review and input on the plan.
/____ _ _+_ _ Meeting
Structured Dec non Making Evaluat or
Stakeholder _.. Identify Goals,
Meeting Objectives and Values t
�[
/ 1 Restoration Use Re<ommendanon�
and Management .4_4 and
Stakeholdger I _� Conceptual / Plan Adoption
Meetin ./ Altem1alrves T
Top Conceptual Q e
Altrrn reed
Stakeholder R=fined --► Conmpt Wasatch Hollow
�Memng —/ Conceptual —�li to itto ndd Approved
Alternatives c,tycnun�l Open Space
-- Planning Process
Figure 2. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Planning Process
vital habitat for nearly 80% of mammal and bird species in
•
Fix i st i ngCo n d i t o n s the western United States (Krueper 1993). The importance of
Emigration Creek and other above-ground stream corridors in
Salt Lake City is amplified due to their proximity to the Great
The WHOS portion of the Emigration Creek riparian corridor is Salt Lake, an ecosystem of hemispheric significance in terms of
providing resting, nesting and staging habitat for migratory bird
environmentally valuable as an unusually large and contiguous
section of riparian corridor with significant remnants of natural populations.
stream conditions and native plant communities (Morris 2007).
Much of time Emigration Creek riparian corridor both upstream Geology and Soils
and downstream from the WHOS property has been fragmented
by settlement and urbanization over the last 150 years. The Within the North Area and part of the Central Area of the
WHOS property is unique for its large size, remaining natural WHOS property, Emigration Creek is mapped as flowing
habitats, and proximity to adjacent residential neighborhoods through Holocene-age alluvium. Within the South Area and
and schools (e.g., Westminster College, Highland High School, the remaining part of the Central Area, the stream is mapped
Clayton Middle School, and Uintah Elementary School). as flowing through artificial fill material (Utah and Wyoming
1990). The WHOS property is bordered by Pleistocene-age Lake
The WHOS property is home to a diverse assemblage of Bonneville deposits that consist primarily of sand and gravel
native wildlife and vegetation, important water resources, and material to the west of the property and silt and clay material
recreational opportunities. Used by hikers, dog walkers, and to the east. Streambank soil material within the upstream half
wildlife enthusiasts today, the WHOS property has also played a of the WHOS property includes a significant amount of coarser
significant role in the settlement history of the Salt Lake Valley. gravel and some cobble material, while streambank material
This section provides a summary of the many resources that generally consists of finer-grained sand and silt within the
make the WHOS property so unique. downstream portion of the property (BIO-WEST 2010). Within
the South Area, the streambanks are subject to inundation and
Natural Resources deposition of fine-grained sediments due to the backwater effect
of the culvert inlet located at the downstream end of the property.
This culvert regularly clogs during high flow conditions, and
The WHOS property includes Emigration Creek, its riparian the portion of the stream within the South Area is intended to
corridor, and adjacent uplands. Much of the property's serve as a flood control facility that traps sediment and reduces
ecological value is associated with its unique free-flowing downstream flow velocities. The large number of user-created
stream channel and riparian corridor. Riparian areas occupy footpaths within the WHOS property (Figure 3) also impacts soil
only a small portion (less than 3%) of the land area in Utah condition and quality.
(USU 2003) and comprise only 1.2% of the land area of Salt
Lake City. Despite their small size, riparian zones provide
Highlights of the Existing Conditions Map � Box I Idei:1.241Acres
Cottonwood:1.11 Acres
• Fmigration(reel:1,915 I eel • Gambel Oak:1.38 Acres
• I xisting Footpaths:7,345 feet Introduced Iles haceous:1.18 Acres
• f xisting I ence:2,600 Feet Russian Olive:0.19 Ages
• Siberian Flm:1.61 Acres
tl� l xuRA{ 1 en ry w•iie v/ t� at ^5}S t, n R f ;. t, ..e zi`tt
le
°-44
�� ,1r ",m !•°'1 h�'' 1 - I '�i "�'1'k�. a 9 rt'�(g71 5i `;`-', r�Mr l� �f, ,.�9..
'ky�441 � 1�. •l t�.61 i ' r r r •tot �°., p}e: .::,„: , Hun c:4:, �,� f u'+t' } Y
� I cl � VI Il ✓ �� � "�," ,a � t 9� �� .� },
;490t.i-,--5-7,,ra,-,:ii..,
se, � w F7 ¢. �F..'+� �� �,.�.p.,„,,. .,r �� W" i•..„,_..., A„),,,,,,,..,�,c��° za �Il � J,Sr�[� � *IiR .F � �.,
, ,,,,,'!:,,,, !r4;14:°;°, 0
T.
01,
'' I Illfgr`. II,tA� 4,.1-4 ,g al. ' 1 1 , ,, 54 k Q• ,'tt •'l
L 4-4
h S tj'�'_..:�rv1 •
r •� ° �% T74)144:1--:.'!1:-,,!.,
�. �1� "fi_a 'lp. J- , 4r � "r0hu i •-
,' • ,.ar-vi� 1 �' # a a i s �n a �'4 {t r s , r,
...- - -
, :444,,
it.
il z--. 4
1 )Y f i �%f� K n Inc)t"- i
_ f � � � � Wasatch Hollow Open Space
0 - 4
-7-.;..„44141 \f'-'-'-'
yFiri
}, s � "Pfitl(It Ufl ,{� ., y+' St, j }°.Ti t; "
: -- t � � f , � � � � ,� >� � �� f.� � � � �_� - �� Restoration, Use, &Management Plan
1
s '� ,ir ri t� ran o"
I , ,..
� 4.,,,,„..,3:—'•1 . .,' r Bryan 4f. $Ir 8 �
-;1--
r
U S lit. ,,� ..
Bryn -- �-x`
,,.,3 ,� �,,:: �� ._ s Existing Coridrtior�s Map
4
4
v'' , r '' I ` 7. '!t . ::''' 1t. i y Legend
P` A�rY a� �sp,,�-`��'�- - I o,�an -- Y —x"w.?� (1) Potential/Existing Access Location
N
°+��'wr`�' ' +, Y � r°B3 Rwl '`'=` t '"'tet ,e4R. .".. -- Emigration Creek
a#� ^' �'..,"t > :. of '< <
•o an ., ., Dominant Canopy Species/ Existing Footpaths
. 1, m ! t i.._ `.1 Vegetation Type
� k � � 'y �Existing Fence
'Ra `III. „' o ' _„ Elder I ]Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary
th
° Cottonwood
t ,-�k � ! of y -
�. ` � �r �{ ', � � � j Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary
t �, W _ t,,�'R �yS �.y a�� „!8 � 1 Gambel Oak .
pf , ` ¢ �` ��' !.�' i Irnroduced Herbaceous NOTE:Contours are at 3'intervals
kssy '+'.' a � �_`. s t R ss an OLve
"F 7l
7005VIifli� .: _ Sb Elm i 0 200 400 800 Feet
-,kne,K"rl-+#I�ua.S A.-.: � �#IlblAk -1fdi .x �""..� I I I I I I I I I
Figure 3. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Existing Conditions Map
Hydrology 1st, on average (SLCO 2009). Average annual high flow is 55
cubic feet per second (cfs) with typical base flows near 2.5 cfs.
Base flows within Wasatch I lollow may be supplemented by
Emigration Creek has its headwaters at the top of Emigration inputs from natural springs.
Canyon and has a total drainage area of 15,370 acres. The
WHOS property is located in the Lower Emigration Creek With no streamflow gauge located closer to the WHOS property,
subwatershed, which is classified by Salt Lake County as a no quantitative data are available to characterize hydrology after
"perennial-reduced" stream, indicating that flows are artificially the stream flows through the urbanized areas between Rotary
reduced by stream diversions (SLCO 2009). Emigration Creek's Glen Park and the subject property. Storm events generally
hydrology is characterized by a distinct springtime peak typical affect stream flows differently in urban areas than in natural
of snowmelt-driven systems (Figure 4). Salt Lake County areas. In the upper, more natural, portions of Emigration
operates a streamflow gauge at Rotary Glen Park at the mouth Creek storm events result in slower, more gradual changes in
of Emigration Canyon, approximately 3.5 miles upstream of the stream flow volume. However, with a proportional increase in
subject property. Based on analysis of flow data collected at this impervious surfaces such as roads, parking lots and buildings,
gauge from 1980-2005, average monthly flow is highest in May urban stream segments respond more quickly to storm events
and peak daily flow occurs on May and experience more rapid, `flashy' increases in flow volume.
Field observations of Emigration Creek near the Wasatch Hollow
Emigration Creek Average Monthly Flow indicate that the creek does experience this"flashy" hydrologic
15 response during storm events.
No significant water storage reservoirs are present on Emigration
25
Creek but sediments that would normally supply the valley
15 portions of the creek are intercepted by the Emigration Creek
debris basin located in Rotary Glen Park. Originally constructed
in 1985, the debris basin is maintained by the county. The basin
traps the bulk of coarse sediment loads and requires dredging
1
about every two years.
ot
Water Quality
Figure 4. Monthly flows at Salt Lake County's gauge at Rotary
Glen Park. The subject property is located on the portion of Emigration
Creek below Foothill Drive. In this segment, the creek is
assigned the default beneficial use classifications of 2B
(secondary contact recreation) and 3D (waterfowl/shorebird
protection) by the Utah Division of Water Quality (DWQ). The
Lower Emigration Creek Reach 9C Cross Section
DWQ has listed a segment of Emigration Creek above Foothill (In North Area of WHOS property)
Drive as impaired for E. coil bacterial contamination (DWQ tom;
2006). Residential septic systems in the upper subwatershed io4
are most likely a significant contributing source of E. coli to the
102
stream (SLCO 2009). --
yy E
a tl
Below Foothill Drive, the stream is not listed by DWQ as i
z ss
LJ
exceeding state standards for any specific water quality v 98
constituents at this time. However, no established DWQ water „4,,1
94
quality monitoring stations are present on Emigration Creek +Em Su•!ace at 21 sti ,
downstream from Rotary Glen Park, and the creek is subject to <12
a variety of potential nonpoint contamination sources. These 90
include urban runoff, hydrologic modification, habitat alteration, 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45 50
plstance from LEP to REP(feet)
construction runoff and managed golf courses and parks (SLCO .
2009).
lower Emigration Creek Reach 10 Cross Section
(In Central Area of WHOS property)
Stream Channel Conditions 96
94
After Lake Bonneville receded approximately 16,000 years ago, 92
it left a series of old shoreline deposits that now form prominent I90
"benches" along the edges of Salt Lake Valley. To reach its
modern base level at the Jordan River, Emigration Creek had W ��
to carve through these deposits. In part because of the natural Hs
geologic history, stream gradient tends to be relatively steep, and ao
the creek is typically entrenched between tall slopes that extend __._�,�a��"�
92 l wa1«.srm.c»at 21 its
up to the Bonneville bench levels. Human-induced alterations
such as fill placement, channel straightening, and erosive flows
-50 -45 -40 -35 -30 -25 -20 -16 -t0 -5 Q
associated with urbanization have further contributed to the o+stonce from LEP to REP ifeet)
entrenched shape of the channel.
Figure 5. Surveyed stream channel cross section plots
Within the WHOS property, wetted channel width ranges illustrating the variability in channel shape within the WHOS
from about 7 to 10 feet at low flow and from about 15 to 26 property.
feet at high flow (Figure 5). Gradient is about 1 to 2%. Flat,
hydraulically-connected floodplain surfaces and depositional
bars are occasionally present, but in some areas are limited by r
r
naturallystet banks as well as fill material on the west bank M1` �,.,, " .
steep te fit, 3�` <4
•
in portions of the Central and South Areas. Channel substrate �� ` xrt `,
in dominated by gravel-sized particles, with some cobble also
present in riffles and finer sand and silt present in slower-velocity
areas. Within much of the North Area, streambed material and 1 ° �` ►, r,
hank shape are influenced by a clay shelf/root mat feature (BIO- "',
WEST 2010). High h amounts of bank erosion are evident within : b ° 14,
the WI IOS property.
Vegetation
,i K p'14 pia + 44.24
a .4
Within the North Area, box elder is the dominant near-stream �,� k, �Fz f t , .
tree species, with Gambel oak forest and introduced herbaceous
vegetation comprising the majority of the upland plant
communities (Figure 2). Within the Central Area, Russian olive 20% in the North Area and consists primarily of non-native reed
(an invasive non-native species) forms the dominant near-stream canarygrass, while near-stream understory is lacking within the
canopy species and Siberian elm (also an invasive non-native Central and South Areas. Streambank understory vegetation
species) is the dominant tree within upland areas west of the is likely impacted by compaction from foot traffic and by silt
stream. In the South Area, Siberian elm remains the dominant deposition associated with the backwater/sediment deposition
upland tree species to the west of the stream, while upland areas effect from the downstream culvert.
to the east primarily consist of introduced herbaceous vegetation
(BIO-WEST 2010). Near-stream canopy vegetation in the South The habitat value of the existing vegetation within the WHOS
Area is dominated by cottonwood, with box elder and crack property is reduced due to the high proportion of invasive
willow also present. weed species present. Within the property, the upland areas
surrounding the immediate stream corridor generally have
Near-stream shrub cover is generally good (between 26-75%) weed species classifications of"high" or"majority", indicating
within the North Area and the upstream half of the Central Area. a percent weed cover of greater than 25% (BIO-WEST 2010).
Common species include twinberry, honeysuckle and red-osier A total of 13 different invasive species listed on State or City
dogwood. Within the South Area and the downstream half of noxious weed lists are present within the property including:
the Central Area, near-stream shrub cover is only about 10% Dalmatian toadflax, field bindweed,jointed goatgrass, lesser
and consists primarily of twinberry honeysuckle. Near-stream burdock, Scotch cottonthistle, whitetop, houndstongue, Myrtle
understory cover follows a similar spatial pattern. Cover is about spurge, puncture vine, quackgrass, Siberian elm, Russian olive.
Fish and Wildlife Cultural Resources
Quantitative data on fish and wildlife populations within the Wasatch I follow formed as the waters of Emigration Creek
urban portion of Emigration Creek are limited. I lowever, eroded alluvial fill from the mouth of Emigration Canyon
populations of Bonneville cutthroat trout (Oncorhynchus clarki through the Salt Lake Valley. When the Mormon pioneers
Utah) and introduced rainbow trout (Oncorhvnchus mykiss) entered the Salt Lake Valley, they reported that Emigration Creek
are known to be present within upstream portions of the creek. was flowing in a steep-sided ravine that gradually moderated
During riparian corridor studies conducted in 2008, trout (species further west in the valley (Morris 2007). Wagons of the first
unknown) were observed in a pool at the outlet of the culvert group of pioneers of the LDS Church followed the Donner-
under 1900 East, about 1,200 feet upstream of the WHOS Reed route along the southern side of the Emigration Creek
property (BIO-WEST 2010). Many species of wildlife have been corridor through what is now Wasatch Hollow before camping
observed to occur within the WIIOS study area (Morris 2007). at approximately 1700 South and 500 East on their first night in
Lists of mammals, birds, reptiles, and fish observed within the the valley (July 22, 1847). On the 24'h of July 1847, the LDS
study area during baseline documentation visits are provided in Church leader Brigham Young and the last of the initial pioneer
Appendix A. Nearby residents have also reported observations company entered the valley along the same route, traveled along
of fish, deer, lbx, and wide variety of bird species, including a the south side of the Emigration Creek corridor through Wasatch
bald eagle, in the study area. Hollow, crossed the creek (thought to be at about 1100 East), and
then continued north to the established City Creek camp (Dixon
The WHOS property encompasses approximately 2,000 linear 1997)
feet of the Emigration Creek stream channel. It is connected to
an additional 1,200 linear feet of open-channel stream north of Housing development surrounding Wasatch Hollow began
the property. As part of a 3,200 foot-long continuous riparian primarily in the early 1900's and the subdivision of land occurred
corridor uninterrupted by roads—the longest such corridor on until approximately the 1970's. By 1930, there were several
lower Emigration Creek-- the property provides important houses on the bluffs above the riparian corridor, as well as one
corridor habitat for mule deer and other animals to allow travel farm where Wasatch Hollow Park now exists. Fruit orchards
between habitat patches. The property is also unique because it extended into the corridor as well. In the early 1900's, an
includes a relatively wide extent of undeveloped corridor width underground pipeline was constructed from springs in Wasatch
that encompasses a range of habitat types including lowland Hollow to the Utah State Penitentiary. This source of fresh water
riparian, mountain shrub, and meadow communities. was utilized by the penitentiary until about 1950. Apparently the
pipeline still exists, although it has been abandoned. The springs
have been covered by fill from adjacent residential development
(Morris 2007).
' - r ;'.. been included in this planning process and is now known as the
t > ,', `. South Area in the WHOS property.
4 "---, ... , ', A• , °M` Other man-made developments within the.WHOS property
c•am t, ., include a series of Rocky Mountain Power overhead powerlines,
v,p � $, • `: ,4.,< ` t chain-link fencing along many of the WHOS property
1.
4:. *+ boundaries, user-created paths throughout the study area, a
:; n, . ,. * ,,, :� �w ,,,t, t detention basin and debris tower where Emigration Creek
M, 9
„ ,�' , : i ��t .m ,4 � ,A`" `. is piped at Wasatch Hollow Community Park, and primitive
,� ' vehicular access locations for maintenance and utility uses.
Mg r LA ,! • 0M, 1 � :�
F
. Visitor Experiences
A.
4E 9E� a1,�,
w. ,, ,. 4 4,,,O,,,,,, t , : 1.14 s, 0; .N, - Potential Access Locations
There is an existing home located within the Central Area of There are several potential points of access to the Wasatch
the WHOS property which comprises the only building within Hollow Open Space study area that currently exist. These
the study area. This home was built in 1964 and much of the potential access locations, outlined on Figures 1 and 2, may be
property was raised and leveled by filling with soil and other classified as either formal or informal. Formal access locations
material. This fill material is thought to have covered springs are those that are generally considered accessible from existing
and is known to have constrained the stream channel through this public rights of way. Informal access locations are those that
area (Morris 2007). The house has been uninhabited and secured may require trespass through private property. Many informal
from occupation since it was purchased by the City in 2008. access locations may also serve as private access points to
the site by adjacent property owners. For the purpose of this
The Wasatch Hollow Community Park forms the southwestern document only formal access locations will be considered as it
boundary of the WHOS property and adjacent to the Wasatch is not the intent of this plan to encourage tresspass or the use of
Presbyterian Church. The park was planned to be completed prohibited access points by the general public.
in three phases. Phase I was completed in 1993 and included
development of a parking area, playground, restrooms, drought- Access to the WHOS study area is generally good from the south
tolerant demonstration gardens, and a grassy park area. Phase and west sides of the property. Access from the east and north is
II was completed in 1994 and included development of paths, somewhat limited. Outlined in more detail below, and as shown
lighting, benches, and irrigation system (Morris 2007). Phase III on Figures 1 and 2, there are no formal access locations on the
was planned as a natural area but never completed. This area has north side of WHOS, and only one formal access location on the
east side. Where formal access exists, the quality of the access is Although the road is currently gated near the border between
varied. ADA standards have not been implemented at any of the time South and Central Areas, this access location potentially
potential access locations, although in some cases ADA access is provides ADA access into large portions of the study area
potentially possible. Management plan suggestions may address without significant retrofit. Also, this potential access
this concern at one or more locations. Additionally, potential location does not suffer from flooding or safety issues. This
access locations do not provide universal access to all portions of potential access location is near formal park facilities and
the WHOS property. Current conditions make it difficult to enter there is sufficient space for additional amenities such as site
the site at one location, move through the property, and exit the orientation signage.
site at a different access location. 'Phis may also be remedied by
management plan suggestions. 2. Wasatch Hollow Park East Potential Access Location: The
adjacent Wasatch Hollow Park is the primary formal access
Generally accepted potential access locations are listed below, location for the WI IOS study area. Visitors to the park
each with a summary of the existing conditions of the access from outside the adjacent neighborhoods are most likely to
point. An additional formal access location is available behind discover WIIOS from this access location due to the adjacent
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints chapel north of formal park off street parking facilities. Access into this park
Kensington (shown as potential access location #6 on Figures is also available from 1600 East near Bryan Avenue, although
1 and 2). Although this is well graded access road, it is not off street parking is not available at this location.
currently publicly available as it is only accessed through private
property. It is not considered as a public access location in this From the formal park a paved path leads visitors to the
analysis. southwestern edge of the WHOS study area. On the east side
of the creek an informal path has been established in the open
1. Wasatch Hollow Park North Potential Access space area. This path is heavily used and has a compacted
Location: The adjacent Wasatch Hollow Park is the primary surface. Except in times of flood in the spring it may be the
formal access location to the WHOS study area. On the west most heavily used route into the WHOS. Although this is
side of the creek a paved pathway leads visitors from formal a heavily used path, the spring flooding issue may make it
paths to a fairly well delineated compacted earth maintenance difficult for this route to remain a primary access location
access. This maintenance access continues through the South without significant retrofit. This access point would not be
Area of WHOS study area to the Central Area (see Figure considered ADA accessible. The west side of the creek is
1). The Central Area is primarily the abandoned home site also accessed from Wasatch Hollow Park, and described in
and is a large open flat plateau above the creek. The Central more detail in access point#1 above.
Area is elevated significantly above the adjacent creek
limiting access to other portions of the WHOS study area. This access point provides convenient access to the creek,
Additionally the home site is gated and fenced. as well as most of the South Area of the site as outlined on
Figure 1. Access to the Central and North areas is currently
limited as there is no formal crossing of the creek. Of all defined paved road beginning at the east end of Kensington
the access locations, this one is closest to the only existing Avenue. It provides good access into the abandoned home
amenities in Wasatch Hollow Park. See the section below for site. Visitors to the WHOS study area who currently use
a description of existing amenities in WHOS. For example this access location are primarily from within tl►e adjacent
there is sufficient space at this location for site orientation neighborhood. There is no off street parking in the area, and
signage. the dead end street is not highly used by non residents. Thus
this should be considered a secondary site access location
3. 1700 East Street/Logan Street Potential Access and primary maintenance access location. Current access
Location: The 1700 East Street potential access location is limited by gates, although little limits pedestrian access
is heavily used and provides the only access to the WHOS into the site at this location. A moderate number of visitors
study area from the east side. Neighborhoods to the north use this access location. Although well delineated with an
along Kensington Avenue to 1800 East and Rosecrest. Drive asphalt driveway, this potential access location may not meet
have no formal access locations. The access from 1700 accessibility standards for grades (i.e., slope). However, it
East Street down to the WI lOS study area is fairly steep. is feasible that this point of access could be brought up to
Although it appears somewhat well maintained as a gravel standard, although with significant effort.
path, its slope and surfacing is not generally considered as
accessible. 'there is no off street parking at this location and This potential access location provides the only direct access
it is primarily used by local neighborhood residents. to the Central Area (see Figures 1 and 2). Amenities are
described in more detail in the following section, however the
The existing footpath provides access to the South Area of Central Area provides different opportunities for use than the
the WHOS study area. Limited access is available to the rest of the WHOS study area due to tl►e large and open nature
Central and North areas as the creek currently is not easily of the meadow. There are no convenient amenities near this
crossed. A simple foot bridge across Emigration Creek could potential access location. Private property directly adjacent
remedy this situation by providing easy access to the Central to the WHOS study area at the end of Kensington Street may
Area. Existing amenities are described in more detail in make site orientation signage difficult.
the section below. However, this potential access location
may lend itself to the addition of some amenities, if desired, 5. Emerson Street Potential Access Location: The Emerson
as there are considerable non riparian lands in the area. Street potential access location is a steeply eroded path that
Although there are no convenient amenities at this potential drops quickly into the WHOS study area. This potential
access location, there is available space for site orientation access location is not as heavily used for this reason, and
signage at the street level. is considered a secondary access point. There is little
opportunity to make this access point more accessible
4. Kensington Street Potential Access Location: The without significant site modifications. There is no city
Kensington Street potential access location is a well owned off street parking available. Parking does exist at the
adjacent Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints chapel,
although no arrangement exists for this to be available for 1s' �
visitors. This potential access location is primarilyused by ��' �` 'e
p '� p
the adjacent residents. , ,,
°
:fir '" ? q` 4
This potential access location is the only formal access to the
North Area (see Figures 1 and 2). Recommendations of the
management plan may call for foot bridges across Etigration r •
Creek from the Central or South Areas which may rectify � �«
r
• wr
this issue. There is no convenient access to amenities at this '� t ' �" . eh
potential access location. At the street level, there is little " + ' ' r ^" � Y
space for site orientation signage. t mf ,
Built and Natural Amenities , ; r A -. , y � . . w
Much of the WHOS study area is primitive with few formal
amenities. The adjacent Wasatch Hollow Park provides appeal for most visitors. Once access into the site is obtained,
restrooms (although not always operable), picnic tables and the study area is fairly quiet and removed from the busy
shelters, and a playground. Manicured lawns are also available surrounding city. It is fairly easy to access the stream, although
for use in the park area. The only formal amenity that may be at the expense of native vegetation, to experience the water.
described for the WHOS study area is a fairly well delineated Heavy tree cover provides deep shade along Emigration Creek.
user created footpath (no signage or maintenance) system. That Additional detail about amenities in each of the areas follows.
being said, this footpath is only well developed near the formal
Wasatch Hollow Park and becomes less useable the further north 1. South Area: The South Area of WHOS, as do all areas,
one travels through the WHOS study area. Access from the includes a portion of Emigration Creek. In this location,
South Area to the Central and North Areas from this footpath however, the creek runs through the center of the area rather
system is only available by crossing through Emigration Creek at than along an edge of the property. Access is available on
one or more locations. These creek crossings are not developed both sides of the creek. Along much of the creek, the west
and in some locations crossing requires some significant effort to side is elevated by man-made fill making a safe crossing
obtain safely. Existing crossings and uncontrolled stream access challenging without significant retrofit or restoration.
are causing extreme erosion issues along the streambanks. However,ADA accessible access on the west side near
Wasatch Hollow Park provides a safe access location that
Beyond the existing footpath system, some built and natural may be a compelling reason for a stream crossing to be
amenities do exist. The natural setting of the site is the primary considered in the South Area. ADA access to the bulk of the
South Area on the east side could provide the visitor access
to the non riparian areas at this location. The area on the Active and Passive Recreational
east side is open (i.e., elevated above the riparian area) and Opportunities
possibly useable for a different type of visitor experience
than what is found along the riparian area footpaths. Casual hiking and exploration is the primary active recreational
Current recreational activities are outlined in the following opportunity in the study area, although this takes place on user
section. Future use of the South Area will be dictated by the created footpaths. No formal recreational facilities exist. There
management plan recommendations. Currently the area is are few other active recreation opportunities, with the exception
not well vegetated. of the east side of the WHOS study area near the 1700 East
Street potential access location. This area is elevated above the
2. Central Area: The Central Area of the WHOS study area riparian corridor and is void of vegetation. There are some user
includes significant riparian areas. However, the hulk of created mountain bike trails and jumps, which account for the
the area is comprised of the abandoned home site and the lack of vegetation in the area. This portion of the study area
adjacent meadow made from man-made fill activities. This
(see Figure 2) is also large enough for other active opportunities
open and flat topographic area is a different type of amenity such as tossing a Frisbee or a game of catch. This may not be
than found elsewhere in the WHOS property. This area is a common use of the area however as the ground plane is fairly
currently fenced and not easily accessible for visitor use. The rough and the ground cover is not manicured or well suited for
fence will remain throughout the duration of the planning this type of activity. This activity may not be recommended in
process and will be open to public use once this plan is the final management plan guidelines.
adopted. Although the management plan will suggest the
appropriate uses for this area, there is significant area here for The North Area of the WHOS site is not heavily frequented by
safe activities that will not damage existing riparian habitats. visitors. Those who access the area may find themselves fairly
isolated. The Central and North Areas may lend themselves to
3. North Area: The North Area may be best described as an quiet contemplation, as a form of passive recreation. However,
area of passive amenities. Emigration Creek is not easily these areas must not be too distant from active areas for safety
accessible in this area, and the space itself is difficult to considerations.
access. There is significant upland area outside the riparian
corridor, but it is not readily useable by visitors. Much of the
area is populated by invasive species.
2. Establish Clearly Defined Boundaries to Prevent
CGuiding P r i n c i l e s Encroachment and Foster Respect.for Public.
and Private Lands:
• Protect Open Space Property
• Regular Monitoring of Violations
Wasatch Hollow Open Space • Protect Private Property
Goals and Objectives 3. Provide Controlled Public Access that is II:formned
Primarily by Ecological Goals:
The goals and objectives developed for the WHOS • Provide Public Access
Comprehensive Restoration, Use, and Management Plan were • Provide Educational Access
derived from the participatory planning process initiated by Salt • Provide Access for Research
Lake City and known as a "structured decision making process"
(Arvai and Wilson 2010). Given the diverse and strong interests 4. Increase Safety by Reducing Risks on Both Public
of various stakeholders in the planning process, it was important and Private Land:
to utilize a deliberative and structured decision making process • Enhance Public Safety
to accurately identify stakeholder values and objectives, and to • Reduce Risks From Liability
ensure the plan reflects these values and objectives. A series
of stakeholder meetings and public workshops were facilitated 5. Foster Cooperation and Collaboration Among Stakeholders
during this process to identify goals and objectives, performance in Stewardship of the WHOS to Ensure Sustainable
measures, and potential design and management alternatives. A Long-Term Management:
report was prepared and is included as Appendix B. • Promote Community Stewardship and Co-Management
• Improve Partnerships Between the City and Stakeholders
Participants in the structured-decision making process were
nearly unanimous in their identification of five fundamental Planning Constraints
goals and their associated means objectives for the design and
management of the WHOS property (Arvai and Wilson 2010).
The fundamental goals and primary means objectives include: The WHOS property is managed within a framework of accepted
policies and standards, in addition to current Salt Lake City
1. Restore and Protect the Emigration Creek Riparian and Salt Lake County ordinances and management plans. The
Corridor and Adjacent Open Space Area: needs of utility providers, resource agencies, and adjacent
• Improve Water Quality neighborhoods are understood and respected. The following is a
• Provide Habitat for Wildlife list of basic agreements and entities that define and reinforce the
• Restore and Protect Native Vegetation key planning constraints for the WHOS property:
1. Because there are no existing plans for management of study i � .A ,.,'
area lands, any previous agreements or precedents regarding . , r." " ;ti `, ,e % "'� ~ " N.,
the WHOS property are subject to reconsideration. �" !. z«.� �,�`. ,�a a. ;;�,� ;,
2. The conservation easement will require management as a „., ` 1 ; � • t_.-7 •
natural open space with appropriate standards and goals. i. .> �' * ,
. ,
d mow.. yy
3. Access will be evaluated in light of the important goals of ;.
resource protection, visitor experience, and public safety. :* i • 4, •N
4. The City's Riparian Corridor Ordinance (e.g. development
.
setbacks from stream) and the Emigration Creek Riparian a ` . • •*"• .i
Corridor Study will be followed. �;�� `- � '��;
5. All stakeholder concerns are respected and considered
equally, and are balanced with the fundamental goals
established for the WHOS property. property will be retained in a predominantly natural and open
6. An adaptive management framework will be implemented to space condition and to prevent any use of the property that will
significantly impair or interfere with the conservation values of
guide long-term monitoring, management, and maintenance. the property. The public benefits of the easement will include
7. Facility and management costs will be prioritized within preventing future conversion of open land to urban development,
funding levels for successful maintenance and stewardship. protecting and enhancing water quality and quantity, protecting
wildlife habitat and maintaining habitat connectivity, protecting
8. The city will actively coordinate with entities having riparian areas, maintaining and restoring natural ecosystem
jurisdiction over portions of the WHOS property, such as functions, and maintaining the sustainability of resources.
Rocky Mountin Power and Salt Lake County Flood Control Activities that would be prohibited are likely to include
subdivisions, significant building structures or improvements,
mineral development, significant topography modification, waste
Conservation Easement disposal, game farming, non-native species, commercial feed
lots, and large signs or billboards. Activities that are likely to be
The WHOS property will be encumbered by Deeds of permitted include low intensity recreation, habitat enhancement
Conservation Easement held by Salt Lake County and Utah Open and management, limited buildings or facilities, irrigation
Lands. The purpose of the easement will be to assure that the improvements,fire protection, and noxious weed control.
• • • sa
Decision Making , , . r, .,. ,„, . . .
' Vw � EE
_ .„ .
OS I. ;'''
Criteria for Evaluating ,_
Conceptual Management
Alternatives , y ; :.
fi s .. �'r, k 0 A,. .'
� d^
� 2 44 r
The following list of near term design performance measures ,�, , ,rs , , , , k ' ,
that Were developed through the structured decision making �� ' .., 'r i 3
►ocess (Arvai and Wilson 2010 are relevant for evaluatingeach ' � ' � ', � '� � r '� r � a
of the conceptual management alternatives developed during the , ,r .
WHOS planning process. They are organized by the established
fundamental goal categories. Salt Lake City, in cooperation with
Utah Open Lands and Salt Lake County, will ensure stewardship 2. Establish Clearly Defined Boundaries to Prevent
of WIIOS in a manner that protects the native vegetation, water Encroachment and Foster Respect for Public
quality, and aquatic and terrestrial wildlife habitat of Emigration and Private Lands:
Creek while providing appropriate access and educational • number and placement of access points and footpaths
opportunities for the public.
• size of buffer between private property and open space
1. Restore and Protect the Emigration Creek Riparian area
Corridor and Adjacent Open Space Area:
• extent of restoration activities and resultant benefits • number and placement of natural barriers at property
boundaries
• BMPs for water quality, wildlife and habitat protection
3. Provide Controlled Public Access that is Informed
Primarily by Ecological Goals:
• number and location of access points and footpaths
• Inclusion of historical, cultural, and educational signage
4. Increase Safety by Reducing Risks on Both Public
"•r
and Private Land: °
• fire risk assessment 41 r
tr * , 3 h
• BMPs for enforcemente,
• BMPs for limiting trespassing
5. Foster Cooperation and Collaboration Among Stakeholders 'h?' T '' ' 64' �`�� ,, 1
in Stewardship of(lie WHOS to Ensure Sustainable Long- �� w�. d' � I I� .,,4 ,'''
Term Management: ,,I.-'' . K` i � '. :
.9�gy �p,Ea s 3, Y'., �, � E
• Implement shared management plan between City, Salt , ,.0:
Lake County, Utah Open Lands, and community , ,
Other Considerations
The goal of the structured decision-making process (Arvai and It was also suggested that "splitting" WHOS into different
Wilson 2010) was to work closely with members of the City to management clusters would provide ecologists with an
organize information obtained from stakeholder meetings into opportunity to study the effects of human impacts on riparian
components of possible conceptual management alternatives areas. Characterizing the northern portion of WHOS as a
for WHOS. The following components derived from this restricted use area may help the site better achieve some of its
process should also be considered when evaluating conceptual restoration goals.
management alternatives.
2. Access by Dogs: There was nearly unanimous agreement,
1. Alternative Open Space "Clusters": The structured even among the most ardent dog owners, that allowing
decision-making process defined "clusters" as different open unrestricted access to the WHOS site by dogs would likely
space management strategies implemented in different areas stand as an affront to the restoration goals expressed by all of
of the 10-acre WHOS site. There was widespread agreement the participants. Alternatives plans should explore different
among participants in the workshops that it may be beneficial dog policies with the impacts of these policies studied in
to open the southern reaches of WHOS to wider public access terms of achieving the stated goals and objectives expressed
while maintaining a stricter stance on access in the northern during the planning process. It has been suggested that
portion. Many feel that limiting access would likely offer a the planning process should explore the option of heavily
greater sense of security to adjacent private property owners. restricting (i.e., strictly-enforces on-leash regulations) or
prohibiting dogs in the active restoration areas of the open in some form is likely to occur in order to be consistent with
space. the Open Space Program goals and mission, it has been
suggested that various passive forms of use be considered
3. Buffer Zones: Buffer zones are essentially widened for implementation (e.g., walking, wildlife viewing, quiet
boundary lines that increase the proverbial "no man's land" reflection). Another benefit of encouraging appropriate,
between public and private property. Buffer zones could, passive use of the WHOS property would be the potential for
in many places, be built into the existing 10-acre open such use to drive out elicit or illegal activities that currently
space property. In other cases, it may be possible to acquire occur.
slivers of land from adjacent private landowners who are
willing to sell or donate these lands for the specific purpose 6. Footpaths: Alternative designs (e.g., looped trails, the
of increasing the buffer zone and/or improving restoration presence or absence of bridges), placement (within the
opportunities. WI IOS property), and number (single or multiple) of
footpaths should be considered in terms of their influence on
4. Abandoned House: Some participants suggested that the meeting some of the five fundamental goals.
house located in the. Ventral Area be renovated and used as
an educational or nature center, perhaps providing permanent 7. Rope Swings: Rope swings currently located within the
space for a non-profit organization or full-time WI lOS WHOS property pose problems for many of the fundamental
docent. Many who supported this idea felt that it would goals developed by workshop participants (e.g., significant
be a shame to tear down a structure if there was a way to erosion of the stream bank). Also, use of the swings has
incorporate it into future management of the study area. prompted noise complaints from neighbors and likely poses a
However, many who shared this opinion also recognized significant risk of liability for the City. It has been suggested
that if it was not financially feasible then perhaps such a that proposed management alternatives not include any rope
center could be built elsewhere on the property. The costs swings over Emigration Creek.
associated with restoring the existing house, as well as those
associated with removing the house, should be communicated 8. Utilities, Drainage, and Flood Control: Some participants
through the planning process. discussed issues surrounding access to utilities, drainage
points along the creek, and the need to provide adequate
5. Types of Uses: Some groups were clearly in favor of flood control within the WHOS property. It has been
prohibiting access while others were supportive of providing suggested that alte►native management options explore the
some public access through a variety of uses. However, possibility of moving utilities out of the WHOS property, or
even those who would prefer no access indicated support for perhaps burying power lines during any restoration efforts.
limited access and use, if that access and the types of uses Alternative management strategies should also explore the
were informed by restoration goals and perhaps limited to possibility of moving culverts arid drainage points to protect
certain segments of the property. Given that public access the ecology of Emigration Creek. In addition, it has been
suggested that natural flood control mechanisms be explored Y
• ' 'f Taspects of potential "; 70” a`41.-iilt1� ```w ' a�; p ; '
�: i,, : ` *-( iii, , r.:- . F 1
9. Educational and Research Partnerships: Workshop �? _ " >°' 1 i ' »l d ''
participants were very supportive of partnering with local , "'• :, _ w 4 .., ; if
educational institutions to both provide research opportunities , " •. , , ,;- i `,444
4.-
for graduate students and to help monitor conditions in the A "y. a ' f^' ' • 'Lr �« k r'' :%"
5 ,are, ', ,� d t ,
WHOS property. Alternative management strategies should ! i" t�. '' r, i 1.`, .',3.� ,, _ y .� •' , ,k ', , .
incorporate means of reaching out to and working with ,''x z A , � ,4 , $i h , , Y� ;�' , k `•
colleges, universities, and government agencies to encourage ,* �` " +0 A'' ". @y ':; r
collaborative research in the WHOS and at surrounding sites. „, t ' r
10. Enforcement: Almost all workshop participants shared ti , . .. ; -
concerns about enforcement, whether it was in regard to `• - � .:
public safety, trespassing across private-public property a ,, -`�- i ,, `; Ay,,.-i �` ' r "'
lines, or appropriate uses within the WHOS property. As a •o ' �f ,' . K,
result, it has been reconnnncuded that the various conceptual '' 4- `` ..,,,, -
�';
management alternatives explore the effectiveness and cost 4 � _ y 0 � �` r s
of alternative enforcement regimes (e.g., increasedpolice `r �. - �:
patrols, private security, community based initiatives). r ef Sys•, `P
,. ,
s
, 1" -.`
titib' „/
A ,
tL
"' � t
1. ," *- a _ .. toy- , ? -o•
,
1 Com rehensIve Use , �� e� , , ,,� ;
k§� 5 4,,,„,4,;*''r
,P
, . ` � ,. , ,d` ° i P wcp,.. 7 % • �rst'tlP ''PIanning Py , �lq -0rfV � � q � y II id ' T a
' , , 7
Open Space Management �„
,i rk t, ,{ .' ,'f ,+.4' ,., '4't
r {
Salt Lake City owns and manages a variety of land parcels for .�, a Y"4 4 ;'''?.-A
public use, ranging from traditional parks to preserved open " " r'�r' c ' 4 ^�': ` / �,, ." , 4
spaces. Some properties, such as the adjacent Wasatch hollow �� i r,,f `", h,` r,� ,+^�`ac ,;.
Community Park, have manyfeatures of a traditional park r >�¢',;> W� .' ,. a t"" � .-- � , , ' Oltt� .',
including turf areas, playground equipment, picnic shelters, , •,:' '''' , y r '
concrete footpaths, and restrooms. Other properties, such as
WHOS or Parleys Historic Nature Park, were acquired and
planned as natural open space with little more than footpaths. critical to avoiding additional restoration expenditures. The
Salt Lake City is continuing to purchase open space lands, City's Open Space Lands Program is committed to managing
for standards that are focused on natural resource protection as
expanding trail networks, and protecting resource sensitive
well as user experience. This may require trade-offs between
areas. The new and evolving demands of an expanding urban
population require a new management framework that can be performance measures.
applied to all city properties where resource preservation and
ecological restoration are encouraged. Prescriptive Management Area
While the North and Central Areas of WHOS were acquired Designations
or donated as natural open space, they have, along with the
South Area, not been actively managed or maintained for a Prescriptive Management Areas help to define and establish
number of years which has allowed for unrestricted use. This a range of land use and management prescriptions that can
has resulted in significantly degraded portions of the study area be applied to suit the unique resource and user needs for a
where vegetation is non-existent and soils are actively eroding. particular zone within the WHOS property. Designated use
Restoration to a more sustainable and healthy condition will areas, footpaths, and barriers help to clearly define appropriate
take substantial investment. Defining appropriate uses and uses to improve public safety, minimize maintenance, and
implementing active management and oversight of WHOS is
protect sensitive resources. Each alternative concept is mapped • Self directed activities, like hiking or orienteering, on
according to the following zones where applicable. designated footpaths
1. Footpaths': • Moderately maintained to minimize resource degradation
• Applies only to the use on the footpath (e.g., weed and erosion controls, native plantings)
• Self directed activities like hiking and walking as directed 4. Protection Area:
by footpath signs • Promotes and supports a light level of use in a natural
setting
• Moderately maintained and monitored to promote safety
and reduce user conflicts • Self directed activities focused on the protected resources,
such as hiking, education, interpretation, and wildlife
• Lands adjacent to the trail are managed to the standard of watching on designated footpaths
their prescriptive management area
• Maintained to enhance natural systems (e.g.. protecting
• Dogs are prohibited throughout the property except on sensitive habitats, restoring natural hydrology, restoring
designated footpaths upland habitat, and adapting to natural changes over tune)
2. Passive Recreation Area: 5. Restoration Area:
• Promotes and supports a moderate level of use in a • Discourages or restricts access and use from natural areas
managed setting under restoration
• Self directed activities, such as reading, painting, • Actively restored, maintained, and monitored to improve
learning, or informal leisure activities degraded natural resources or cultural features
• Moderately maintained and manicured • Involves removal of fill or spoils, streambank grading,
floodplain restoration, and habitat restoration
• Facilities may include education center, outdoor
classroom, or interpretive elements 6. Preserve Area:
• Restricts and discourages access and use in sensitive
3. Natural Area: resource area
• Promotes and supports a moderate level of use in a
natural setting • Suitable for occasional use for stewardship or education
• Moderately maintained and monitored to conserve
unique, high-quality natural resources or cultural features �, �a 4 d m
�, :
(e.g., restoring natural hydrology, restoring upland � �' t� f ,� a11), ,,,,,, ,,, .,i '4::''''':, �
habitat, and adapting to natural changes over time) x „ n !' �."? . �, ' +,i°
+' . ;^ :::"
�����",,,: � '� C+�"^ �' 1 , iat���"�.,� � ij
Spectra m of Conceptual k '� x" � "
Management Alternatives �. y ��d " is a r
A range of conceptual alternatives was developed to meet @�" ._,
varying goals of providing natural resource protection and s t ,. x « t
� t a,S"• � md"+�i��, yy s FMB m h. x
'sl:
•Sii.
improving the visitor experience. A total of five alternatives -° «�� �y, y c' ��
were developed and presented to the public before a final `"'r°` ,_vs, ,, , 4 °,,. �`
preferred alternative was refined. "I lie alternatives generally 4•�, - _s ,.�,/t ,r{ ,; ,`'
reflected a range of resource protection levels, which were
shaped by many local, state, and federal policies that must be
followed. The alternatives were adjusted to accommodate
recommendations made by the public in a series of workshops.
A summary comparison of the alternatives is provided in Table
1. Figures 6 through 10 are maps of the various conceptual
alternatives developed during the planning process.
Table 1. Summary Comparison of WHOS Comprehensive Restoration, Use, and Management Plan Alternatives.
DE SIN CONCEPTAt CONCEPT B f.�, ,' CONCEPT CI CONCEPT CI: CONKEPTE:
PRESERVATION EMPHASIS/ RESfORAllONEMP)tASIS PUBUC ACCESS EMPHASIS CONSERVATION EMPHASIS EDUCATION.EMPHASIS
PERFORMANCE
MEASURESCentral ' Central Central Central
North Area Central South`A ea North Area, South Area North Area SautR"Area North Ahea South Area North Area South Area
Area f Atra ;Area _ Area Area..
I'uhlic Access I'ioltibited I invited I incited limited I incited I incited I incited 1 xtensive 1 xtensive Prohibited I incited I xtensive I'ioltibited I united I incited
Research Research
Footpaths None Single Loop Single loop Single I oop Single Loop Single Loop Netwoi k Netwoi k Netwoi k Only Single loop Netwoi k Only Single I oop Single I oop
footbridge None None None One One One One One Iwo None One Iwo None One None
'^ Noi th, Noi th,
w Roundary Noith,Fast, Fast Whet Where Where last Whet Fast
v f xtensive I xtensive South,
I encing and West and West uul 1 act Necessary Necessary Necessary and West NetessaIy and West all fast
Recto'at ton Roth Sides Roth Sides Outside Roth Sides Roth Sides Where Where Where Roth Sides Where Both Soles Roth Sides
None None None
f encing of Sueant of Stream of 1 ootpath of Sueam of Stream Necessary Necessary Necessary of Stream Necessary of Stream of Stream
Access by Dogs Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited Prohibited I'rohibited On-leash On-leash On-leash Prohibited I'roltibited On-leash 1'rohrbited Prohibited On-leash
IS uper ry fast !ast I ast I ast of
f ast of Par k f act fast I ast of Palk None None None I ast I ast None f ast of Par k
Acquisition of Stream of Secant of Siloam of Sueam of Su cam of Soeam of Stream Strrant
Invasive Species Aggi A ressive A ressive Phased Phased Phased Annual Annual Annual Aggi Phased Annual A ressive Phased Phased
Control RR RR RR RR RR
Where Where Where Where Where Where
Removal of I ill 100", 100", 100", N/A NA N/A 100", N/A 1110",
Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate Appropriate
z
O Su eambank Where Mole Where Where Moe Where Whet Whet e Where
Caadin Yes Yes Yes Yes Appi Irate Appi bate A no tiate A� ronrate A ro bate Yes Apo opt A ro irate Yes Awl Ammon'rate
R II I IP I PI P IP I PP P II P PP P IP I
O Restore
wYes Yes Yes Yes Yes N.A N/A N,'A N/A Yes yes N/A Yes Yes Yes
z Floodplain
Remmr Yes Yes Yes Yes N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Yes N/A N/A Yes N/A N'A
Eno oachntents
Habitat Aggi A ressive A ressive A ressive Moderate Modelate Moderate Moderate Moderate Aggi Modelate Moderate A ressive Moderate Moderate
Restoration KR RR RR RgRRRR
Existing I louse N/A 100"' N/A N/A Raze N/A N/A Raze N/A N/A Raze N/A N/A Raze N/A
Removal
z I F'I)Education
N/A None N/A N/A None N/A N/A Yes N/A N/A None N/A N/A None Yes
SCenter
D Outdoor Research Research Research
o Classroom Only None None None Yes None None Yes None Only Yes Yes Only Yes Yes
Interpretive None Minimal Minimal Minimal Moderate Moderate Extensive Extensive Extensive None Moderate Extensive None Moderate Extensive
Elements
Passive N/A N/A N/A 0.133 Aci e(9°,) 0.8 3 Act e(9°,)
RecreationArea
z
g Natcit al Area N/A N/A 7.00Aues(73",) 1.25Aues(13°) 1 25 Au es(13%)
tz7 F'itrtectioil Ai ea 2.72 Act es(28°) 5.89 Acres(61°) N/A 0.64 Act e(6",) 0.64Acre(6°)
DI
c Rector anon Area 3.71Acres(39°) 3.71Acres)39°) 2.60 Act es(27°) 3.71 Act es(39",) 3.71 Au es(39",)
Preserve Ai ea 317Acies(33°) N/A N/A 3.17 Act es(33',) 3.17Acr es(33",)
Highlights of Concept A: Preservation Emphasis � IniPlement aggressive rip,u ion and upland habitat restoration elli7rts
Re-establish Wasatch Ilollow Spring
• Prohibit all public access to North Area and manage for scientific research and education only ▪ Install I education fencing along bath sides of stream to discourage access
Prohibit dogs and limit public access to"loop"(ooy7aths in Central and South Areas nhliterate existing house and re•grade to natal al crnuoul s
• Establish property boundaries to prohibit access and encroachments from adjacent pl opel tics (lose and re-vegetate duplicate footpaths
• Implement aggressive invasive spec ies eladicatioii efforts • Install interpretive signs focusing on habitat restoration and nattn'e education
• Acquire pi raper ty cast o(sucam and east of Wasatch Ifollow Park front willing sellers
W T �-'�P"!I W t , '} �' ', e Its r 9a 1 • wit , 'T3,'9
•
•
„II.. ���y °4xbip�.�Mt ♦~t M t �4'„�i}h•,fi t R � A R. 4 " jyttt1 ', t : 4p ft 1F., '.f •.' •��1 '' ...h r I.
,, re t g i i J j, f Horn nn,Av, �6 c� r `� °
if-t1 st �v t t , t ,,,,y.t�a t. ix
la' •...... uty.. j , r ^' ti n,,q, a }•1�..r•
rW "r r +,,,P
LILA
ill
µ .ra.` Rb�, c.,.Ar I I c ° t. ,„ .•` � rt ' _ }fi t 2 ( H
1.
I t s ., , — � is1 i� 4,it ,}' ' } 4 „ - ',- , :p� c y � �dt1PYM !! ;� h °
Tad ��` # '«wu fF' '�'� !'t. .� 6,.. ���� � 1 1 ..� �-'� _�
x�q _,
,a�1 ,fi - r t {y�
' ----- ..s.:.7v ....... ...-,,.•
Bik 4 • pica ' 00 utli
°' .r, �� /L �1 � ri{ L�•rtYll,`x� �-i irr � .' t "' � 'p i _ ' .t".�+4't` ,, ♦ .r ..� , 1 t r: ! r• .
4�t `' ' ` w en S ace
-A I' ,look 11.4. - -.f.14 ,,',' ' ;,' , i,441, rii:A4.*!:-V;
r_. s � "n - 1k s n Wasatch Hollo OP P
} x + Restoration, Use, &Mana ement PIan
}
P y��'p� {-p � • vF z �'•
0001
rtill f ',r tf
7 {}[7� `' a: i � �,'T B1O•WEST,MC.
4 *t• i,, k..� -red'.. -- i „a,••..5 i '' lc� `.' ;: 7�.t
i _
«•Crya �_"
; @ _J sue./ 4 = r• o Gam" - Concept /� Map
1 +Sar aoir Tiefi';''''--"''
i ` 'r�fe l t Le end
� -, � �� � i � 3.�� . :,� � _��lCurt.n az.. , ..,M..�,�v""y..i ^ � Potential Access Location
fJ" 3�,pi � •- �g �' t -, T' T _ ._....-Emigration Creek
141t
L�oq<,n • , `' • *Gt i �� '" . .... f �,_ Proposed Footpaths
•
'i,r "1 % ;°' r, . •, ; rx! .� I Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary
� r r • '� tt:� nr ' 1 l `� .`4 i' y 1 ,a Prescriptive =Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary
1 Iigo-, Yk• ' ,:,, .. r "' Mana ement Areas
'i
Di �^°^` i 9 NOTE Contours are at 3'intervals
Z` .."j-. -' dt m ! �- �* ',I to ' ; RestoratlonArea "'
��``'� " „.»VI ,, i---i Preserve Area -
pM « S t, .A. °".s 700kSuutH
_ '"'"', W 700 South protection Area 0 200 400 800 Feet
"5,.. :. ..-
pace
�.'��, . aA�'. .r�..._ . .�'. re:i .,:_ .fit r.. s> r. a�_a I
, 1 i 1 1 I
Figure 6. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept A Map.
Highlights of Concept B: Restoration Emphasis • Re-estahlish Wasatch Hollow Spring iffeasible
• Install restoration fencing along both sides of stream to discourage access
• Prohibit clogs and limit public access to"loop"footpaths in all areas • Ra,e existing house but maintain pedestrian and maintenance access
• Define property boundaries to prohihit encroachments and discourage trespassing • rstahl i sh outdoor class'Oonts for educational Uses
• Acquire property east of stream and east of Wasatch Hollow Pai k from willing sellers • (lose and re-vegetate duplicate footpaths
• Implement phased invasive species eradication effi its • Install interpretive signs focusing on history,ha hi tat restoration,and nature education
• Implement riparian and upland habitat I estoration efforts
Mali` � , ,,, au 1 t ' ifa a:y • .-T it r
t.(r 7 '� � . .kn q J �,.wiq M by `S t..'M Y- ah R
� 4yj. ,M 1� �a +'ta alr t c a Ilrirr a :1• }•?.
• 4F 1 ►, �s, I��, ro' wkd tt 1 s • .
" . ,..,. r� kuo vi 1' y gym... � � m. ° � yy'�y y'q' re d ', ,W 1
1.j J{ ', l I,+ f t a ,, •
.a., 1 I - 17,. M 1 M1 F , ,, f
` "�9! ...,i • + T � i k� f rF'�''" y tr�.�' 7. I r fi D s.. r? r': ' f
Rk J ia,, N t1k 7r r +y N• {,L-:n i.•e°• a,y �l o
¢� 4 m
i isP J �• (� _.��� � ry ��'�'� • i 7`` ti j � l � • M ,,, ,'� 4 :A• d! 7I
u.. • i t `� R t ,•i • , ¢ 1�a j, ,11i1 ui p
I .y �i f mur 2 ,.y A. 'I r9 .I ,,it t t -x
L"Ir•
ir
AA', j # 3"=i trto
r s, h�ou al �• ,
..4": '.- i .;---.4.-
f 1 b .i. +L O --) n (iZ•' M s.. 9� 1�.•i> •.S •, ', .,I P,. .n _ . '..7 r•
Kc n�ux tan
tio-,1k.' ' ''-ir • ` '• `• ,t • x �� Wasatch Hollow Open Space
2
' 4'Ili
r,- �.i ris _ . riti a ti� : t �, / : r -a Restoration, Use, &Management Plan
r
� b r
IFd 41 fi, r ' •! , • t 1 i k-ii l I , __ ,. .:S t8ry . {t. 7-.
Jam.. A . 4.-:` ....., ,• r. .. §L ,r T ,.
,,..-.,:.,..,
t _ . c BIO-WEST IIIC.
,t t
I s r / •'a .� s w`r
Concept B Map
` '" - yet. . .♦ a :: it. m
1 j,'tt it dY fc: r
" --Ili-- 1-) ,', Legend
� '�;; - 4 ,a. - s r , Luc4an z� "'"�" � ,, "•" O Potential Access Location
z- `°', �.' i —„, Y JI it -, r- T ,•�` ,, Emigration Creek
' t o Ind t c l t ti - 1la 0 1 r v Proposed Footpaths
q` N6 a � ,4 • I �' Proposed Bridge
is
.,4 ite
� a ,•, r , _ if, I I Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary
t•< ,F k � �. - ' �< i ,=. t k off 45• 1 . '" w '.
€Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary
., _ _ ,, , e a ?, Prescriptive
a M s Yr • r Management Areas NOTE:Contours are at 3'intervals
4 1"� '
�` :�1700YSouth Restoration Area
V 'I xatii _ Protection Area 0 200 400 800 Feet
.i.L,`��Y^' -i...all.,kwt w. ;,r. nv . i•a ' .,,.i Y-. 4.1 ,;:aJin C• ..,14CSKS 111114i ,8... 1 I I I I I I I I
Figure 7. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept B Map.
Highlights of ConceptC: PublieAccessEmphasis • Ra7eexistinghousebutmaintainvehi(ularaccessforeducationalpulposes
• Allow for development of I I l I)certified educational facility and outdoor classrooms in
• Allow dogs of
only and limit public access to designated footpath~in all arena (ential Area
• I)ofinepropertybooidariestoprohihitencroarhmentsanildiscouragetrespasaing • Close and re-vegetate plicate footpaths
• Implement annual•invasive species eradication efforts •
Install interpretive signs focusing On history of f migration(reek,pioneer culture,habitat
• Implement I ipat inn and upland habitat lest oration efforts restoration,and nature education
• Install I esUxation fence where necessary to discourage access to sensitive areas
ql i Y,P,tft v'. �•. 611141.�!' 'I d 'n ".d i +�' # v t�'q ` h)I{^� $ (gr ri.+..i, „, t �1. f�v,t ' Z}i,.4
�� +: *I� ¢' ' ^ �I ''•"+a y s +( it "'7';j�?: 7 „it:, 41'* 'v A;
•
� i N •''� T a I war CI Y tiM..' «,t,. . fn S. .;' rf0 r .pv "0.
•
q yl ��y�
W',IIs 1 y d r ., a VlL., rI.F,it ,�.,c t,4 ', 'k a
d�k{� �''- - ,ft....,1 ,r `, '9i, d, i s 4 ,.� '.tfd ,N..,,r ,�ew
A.
I r w.. ,,w; flu t 0,II i,' Ir a v , 'rS,.' _. .5 : 1 i f+' u
If at i /
I �( � ,i 6 1-7 1,°T � : ,,, ,.rcl "''' e ij! at-, Aft t a�i'Ft4 r p l.•.•�
481,
..,r ,sJ r. 3,, '�` �., 1.4 '+qy -gel a, ,r,a
>; a , ro v� ao . 1 ,,f,0 Jt,a h r
`&r"�. 1 .� ' aiLy r x ti:„ F7 It��rd a `,t j Q .cry �'#,`� 17` r rr7w l�r 1 ok
„.„.,„,...„,:,,,,,),,.., ,,,,, ..., ..,,,,,..iii: 4,,,., : , '..‘
..,,, :.1 : k�:
,,... .....
�` .. k �� Yin �ng �� Wasatch Hollow Open Space
/.,,,., .,,,,
. ,,.
0.„,„:„.,1,.....
K ensryt nr 4„- �^v � a , `` ,ti rry
`, jJy}y���_ ,� ��� t � � � � ,�� �. �� � �� �� � :111•
Restoration, Use, &Management Plan
.� ' -lilt tg f
�. r2'� �,y�� t, � _ ..V +ram ill
s-..., w�+R
7 d o„.. F
_ s — >
ft
•
l''.1......a..'t:), ',..,-;,.'',,e,,,,� w.)y � �'�,� ,f v _ hry vn 4.; _, fir. .. �t i-r
ip
�"i,' 'Al � ' ��// ,.� �t #; � f..t BIO WEST,Inc
11
B::', ' " - Tom' �` '
10 1 :0 -;� a- ' NI Concept C Map
° �a I I ,, Legend
;,:":4. .'"***;;^:::*'',— 0:--1,„':0%144—*-.01.1 •-- Sl\'1,141—lll'll'OT'Z'i , ''.l''
4 .lc� I, 'm z 'MM'. �u-r'tfn-•:.'v ^'
:#", v s ; )a Luq..lr, U Potential Access Location I V
4
w- *' .�'` . w r r4° t��: 1Ii( � ' r {` f' -_. --_. Emigration Creek
Lo4111C � ;tire • -�: ,.. . _ $ • y +'. Proposed Footpaths
. i
pt
,.....,
4 Y, eg ? ,: • �a„ e c t +,t` •
.' Proposed Bridge
S'741:: ‘I'lt-r'''AiltiT,L ' ; t� a{ • "� - '' * I I Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary
� �. -..-A. � �, � _ �Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary
�,, s Prescriptive
sae,( a }! y �� '? Management Areas NOTE Contours are at 3'intervals
4. 1�, a .i a
�t• �� a i •��'�• � �srb.,�« ..77 ,-_ 700i,nutlf Restoration Area i
' ' I 1J1 _outh > 'g �}'^ Natural Area 0 200 400 Soo Feet
,-,. ._a;,nsa ._......: _....M, .. ».._ .„T ,.... 4 .. ,. 1 - r s—_s u. I ( I t I I I
Figure 8. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept C Map.
Highlights of Concept D:Conservation Emphasis � Acquile property east ol St'earn and east ofWasatcIi Hollow Paikhonl willing selleis
Implement aggressive ripal ian and upland habitat restoration efforts
• prohibit all public access to North Area and manage for scientific research and education only • Re-establish Wasatch Hollow Spring if feasible
• Prohibit clogs and limit public access to"loop''footpath in Central Area •
Install restol at ion fencing along both sides of stream to discour age access
• Allow clogs on-leash only and limit public access to designated footpaths in South Area • Rale existing house hut maintain pedestrian and maintenance access
• Define property houndal ies to prohibit encroachments and discourage trespassing • I stahlish outdoor classrooms for educational uses
• Implement aggi essive invasive species eradication efforts in North Area (lose and re-vegetate duplicate footpaths
• Implement phased invasive species eradication efforts in Central Area • Install interpretive signs focusing on history of Emigration Creek,pioneer culture,habitat
• Implement annual invasive species eradication efforts in South Area restoiation,and nature education
Y{y~n 43.11 t;�+► a g _` l t lea 4,,, I ` a,,, ,� sar r v..-
R hA t si!JY 7� �r '"6r lrt 'r .Q.: �, i� mot "t :.;
• p t t,, !. Nq., .. J��M.l�`to!!,„;,,,,,,-,.K. a t rr rt t {r a yr. ',,,s� 7(...0., ' i;A:r. 1r, t~ ' j ,
',f k- M4't f • y t •N, ul �, t _ 1-') . it: y�..a c,.�i•�66 • , �'0..
1 e •:' o- R 3 Mice i '7wu��.� Y 3h n 4#.1,t t r r
+s.. s ft I , '4I h .a> v 4 „..Y wi,,t wi. r'r,r
.p y. ".., L>> -P :2... r' . ';"• t" f fa °r as t 1' r i P 4 d
'q Yr'.a •u+l ..._4 ,1t,g % '. x !• e ti � 4 >✓'i 1 ey �. '4T 1 q
iqi
.1 r.. x✓+ rr '.,, " , . }.'^� r , ' 1 dr w
,` a R -I .. ✓ ,fit - SY a Y ' u K` !f ri S^ y .' !T1
15 I'f.�v 1. T r 'i , �,y ,".'Sb 1 "1± I '1 L 'f �-N .r ►r,a '.a
j w}'1� f•.4' 11i, Ts�
1. t i_ , ., her ro; ., -1 R/;. ,.•* �' r _'K- -,> • �1 t ' 1 • ;.-e' ...y ..a. i �' ti•'ry'*,:
^_ ` e rir�;+ ' .� kin "'�.ty�ni. _„ii 1
Wasatch Hollow Open Space
e• - ' .'4;- - .' ' -'Zi''.1,k1.-.' -ritirit.. , ,,,, , „, I• a 'a& ! - t -i ' Restoration, Use, &Management Plan
�++ IW ii
` !�is J • .k t
;"
l 1 :Si+I..-- C-rt... '''.-. - --et-,i-2,. _ � ,if4 '.` rt •t t BIO'WEST, Inc.
' 'a°s/6ryan '`c
#p y:-" `°fie' i p 7 A+
P
is i :, r �.. ! ,%' , . - , �`: i Concept D Map
r ` i �. #I[ id, �� Legend
Concept
t-0. '1 _ '� N
°`�� ^a��`� � 9 � � �3 -^-r., �- { ,—z-" � � (1) Potential Access Location
�y�_"" ���� � � �, � �..�, ,�,�� Luc en,� .�- a sue..^, ......-_.....Emigration Creek
r +'�x �, � to t� _"; _ fr E. `�.� Proposed Footpaths
I url do 5� r' t' ' ' F - -- Proposed Preserve Footpath
' s . .< Management
3 �' � � � ; �3' �^�� Prescriptive • �Proposed Bndge
Management Areas
ifr„If\ L r k c�q t I Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary
° € Mg+ t `� "' '*' Restoration Area
' ,ilit
Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary
i tyfi _ s 't ��Preserve Area
�++ t;R�, " ?` ti '. O '�' , • Protection Area i NOTE:Contours are at 3'intervals
p •` ■ � 1 �, '€ �— �`�tx� .IOC Natural Area
.' :;lion South passive Recreation Area 0 200 400 800 Feet
. v
.� ✓�.ta�l+ . r�a„ '��� ..r.w,,.m. f.. �k i!' ` --... '. V�➢WYc �'ti`Yt%Y:?�Y� A .,, I r r r 1 l r r 1
Figure 9. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept D Map.
Highlights of Concept E: Education Emphasis • Implement l ipal kin and upland habitat restoration effol is
• Re-establish Wasatch Hollow Spring if feasible
• Prohibit all public access to North Area and manage for scientific resealch and education only • Install restoration fencing along both sides of stream to discourage access
• Prohibit clogs and limit public act ess to"loop"footpath in Central Area • Race existing house but maintain pedesu tan and maintenance access
• Allow clogs on-leash only and limit public access to designated footpaths in South Area • Allow for development of I I I I)certified educational facility and outdoor classrooms in South
• Define property boundaries to prohibit encroachments and discourage trespassing Area
• Implement aggressive invasive species eradication efforts in North Area • (lose and re-vegetate duplicate footpaths
• Implement phased invasive species eradication efforts in Central and South Areas • Install inter pletive signs focusing on history of Emigration Creek,pioneer culture,habitat
• Acquire property cast of stream and east of Wasatch Hollow Park from willing sellers restoration,and nature education
r a• �r-. 1. • i•-t "II "l'rt5 •' $ 4.t�i i(rIli' _ p , h� 8 wR ev `,
01:y, - .�A r P 1� . C'•' r t nq R J k ! ' f t` ^�.xp r r r , 1
,�i,('' ear lR .yam ♦jyf RM ,II 1 't
f ,. "7 r. T "C t; "7,�t,L. i "' ' ., t>4 41 I l517:i in Per.. Y tr•.+' ',
to
1 4 >n '`! "1"' 'Y I M i . �i k� A i 1" artr tt. .Ly S tf wx
,,,,,,r a". ' ^4 r R.,0 4-" } a ,,,. as a . -'v+, t.."'qa.• t `1+ ,«
Roy �,It fl" \.. � x t h }• t t
-' Ir.,.
.1C ! * t.t ]a I s` „� may. 4�' a s-�l� 1 � v1,o
•
iu i `i ' a,: c eel r,c•.'r" .ice- . i. ,/, i 1 - ke' y'C a r.
t �k R is • ti .. a.,,
�`,+' aa., .F ilrrv,o t v °.."l7 °t.. :� ti, „q . -a.
it'
i�i 1 A,'S lit r.�l a. � 1 '. r Ci w t# Ik r• t.1t a - ;�3r'"If r 1•,,,
',1; 7.444)116 .... .'. ---'" .,.2.. ' ',:,k, ,‘ > . .._,...4 ,
f '•
4 4 , ii
ir .,::,:, .',' '-''' ;..s', . --." . .. 4. it ; x" :'� i i,; - -' - Wasatch Hollow Open Space
tity Ke 1 "-1t" -' ._ r - Restoration, Use, &Management Plan
f l i-A 17-—' ' -. . .%.,..4,....?, .,t a `t 1� ,t•, l ?P, - • - - • 4 G - fll
i. i,&-:. .� « ra. � ,'7. $gip "tier N "�'� -'i \;.� �y<,
, . ,-.......1.y..4„
.. -......_ :, , .. .....
4,„,.
,, ..„ ,,.......„ ,,,,, :„...,....,.,,
c..i.._ _Ilk - II— ''''" ' '-" i v " '
' Concept E Map
0 0
of �, / $ _
a ar.• rya f 1,14.v.!...-.,itsft,,,.;,..
� ' ( i i�, r.t -, Legend
• .d ' {"', 'i'_ L _ . .,3 E'--,. f 3'' a ,1) Potential Access Location
.- i -` t • 9 t' q, l ','" I oil n "�a ,.,,,� •� - " Emigration Creek�� +s i44>�' i„�, -��"' tfi'�,'. �'°�, - Proposed Footpaths
t,ogan "'^'� q�, ` "�' •t> �- -.-'' - -.r Proposed Preserve Footpath
"Trcl Prescriptive
',1; e t l s a - Proposed Bodge
i ' 4' �, � `� � Management Areas
i 4T N t t t I I Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary
• j * % "' es u9 -- Restoration Area
r _
#t° ,,. z. d : i ,Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary
' -,..`tr.. .,.... ,a ' — " a Preserve Area
• tt
f
,� R ' ,7' ' F =�`" " b i t - Protection Area q NOTE:Contours are at 3'intervals
:- • "°� r t. ,1)'+� '', c ` :i;4';� Natural Area r
!0(Sou1F— '.r, i o I I ' i Passive Recreation Area I 0 200 400 800 Feet
I l I l I l
Figure 10. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Concept E Map.
Management Strategies that
are Common to All Conceptual
Management Alternatives 5
The following list of management strategies developed through , t ,, A.a*
,
the structured decision-making process (Arvai and Wilson 2010) �,, e;4
are common to each of the conceptual management alternatives ''
developed during the WHOS planning process. They are
organized by the established fundamental goal categories. - ° iitof r
,' #
1. Restore and Protect the Emigration Creek Riparian
Corridor and Adjacent Open Space Area: �; i f , • , 3
•
establish conservation easements,
• promote "leave no trace" ethic, 2. Establish Clearly Defined Boundaries to Prevent
Encroachment and Foster Respect for Public
• address culverts and drains to creek, address runoff and and Private Lands:
sedimentation (e.g., prevent bank erosion), • reduce risks from liability (e.g., non- permitted activities),
• re-establish de-silting meadows, • prevent trespassing, protect private property values (e.g.,
protect aesthetic values, limit noise, allow only natural
• focus on species most likely to thrive, open space compatible activities),
• restrict and prevent disruptive uses (e.g., limit pollution • prevent annexation of private property,
from lights/noise, paintball/air soft, dumping of refuse,
tree cutting for"fort" building,campfires, camping or • prevent encroachment of private property onto WHOS
squatting), (e.g., no dumping of refuse),
• control and eliminate invasive species, • provide adequate enforcement (e.g., personnel, penalties
for violations).
• restore natural forest processes.
►' y 4. Increase Safety by Reducing Risks on Both Public
11 it ,�N 1, % ;, „ � t1� and Private Land:
�,;� • curtail illegal activity (e.g., drugs, squatting),
11' • provide adequate enforcement (e.g., regular
► " �,,. 53 .;m walkthroughs, more patrols),
y .. a ib t .
. l � ia�;�yt, .��, • reduce risk of injury in WHOS (e.g., remove rope swing),
4iN
• reduce risks to private landowners (e.g., establish clear
boundaries, discourage trespassing and encourage
44* property owners to participate in private property
protection).
T. 5. Foster Cooperation and Collaboration Among Stakeholders
in Stewardship of the WHOS to Ensure Sustainable Long-
3. Provide Controller/Public Access that is Informed Term Management:
Primarily by Ecological Goals: • involve neighboring property owners, local community,
close WHOS to public after dark, youth organizations, visitors, educational institutions,
• neighboring churches, and easement holders (e.g.,
increase historical awareness, promote installation of native plants on private land,
• regular wildlife counts, regular clean-up days, research
• open space as an "open classroom" (e.g., seating for
opportunities, regular walkthroughs, community docent
reflection and wildlife viewing,single loop footpath, only
and interpreters, manage in perpetuity)
for passive activities, limit lights and noise, exploration
by all age groups, partner with schools/colleges), • improve communication, foster transparent decision
making, and facilitate decision making partnerships with
Inclusion of historical, cultural,and educational easement holders, across city offices, between city and
• interpretative elements (signage and art). community, between community residents, and with
experts and other stakeholders (e.g., Community Council
create awareness of detrimental behavior, newsletters, website, regular meetings, acquire expertise
• in decision making, information sheet at entrance, hire a
monitor conditions over time (e.g., citizen science, WHOS docent).
• graduate theses).
3. Provide Controlled Public Access that is Informed
Management Strategies that Primarily by Ecological Goals:
May Vary between Conceptual • limit access in northernporion (e.g., research and
education only, no footpath)
Management Alternatives • wider access in southern portion (e.g., limited/no access
by dogs)
The following list of management strategies developed through
the structured decision-making process (Arvai and Wilson 2010) • open space as an "open classroom" (e.g., interpretive art,
may or may not be included in one or more of the conceptual markers, signs, create an education center)
management alternatives developed during the WHOS planning
process. They are organized by the established fundamental goal 4. Increase Safety by Reducing Risks on Both Public
categories.
and Private Land:
1. Restore and Protect the Emigration Creek Riparian • provide adequate enforcement (e.g., volunteer or staff
Corridor and Adjacent Open Space Area: for education and enforcement, enhance public access,
• address septic field at acquisition site consider CPTED in certain areas)
• reconnect Wasatch Hollow Spring • remove abandoned house
• allow creek to meander •
reduce risk of injury in WHOS (e.g., dogs on leash or
restricted, reduce wildfire risk)
• limit public access (e.g., natural barriers vs. fences,
limit access by dogs, minimize number of paths, curtail • reduce risks to private landowners (e.g., establish buffer
encroachment, create "low impact" area) zones between OS and private property)
2. Establish Clearly Defined Boundaries to Prevent 5. Foster Cooperation and Collaboration Among Stakeholders
Encroachment and Foster Respect for Public in Stewardship of the WHOS to Ensure Sustainable Long-
and Private Lands: Term Management:
• establish buffer zones between WHOS and private • keep City website related to WHOS project up to date
property (e.g., purchase land from neighbors)
• establish clear boundary lines (e.g., improve signage,
implement natural barriers)
• Work with residents on Kensington Street to address parking
Re co m m ended Corn p re li e n s i ve issues before considering designating this as an access
Restoration , Use, and location
• Prohibit dogs except on designated on-leash footpaths
Management Plan
• Define property boundaries to prohibit encroachments and
The recommended plan is a blend of several key components discourage trespassing
from the five alternative concepts that were developed during the • Acquire property east of stream and east of Wasatch Hollow
WHOS planning process and described in the previous section. Park from willing sellers
The recommended plan reflects the input received during public
and stakeholder meetings, as well as recommendations from • Implement phased invasive species eradication efforts in all
both City and consultant staff. Figure 11 shows the proposed areas
locations of prescriptive management areas, footpaths, and
access locations for the recommended concept. • Implement riparian and upland habitat restoration efforts
•
The recommended plan allows for limited public access to all Re establish Wasatch Hollow Spring if feasible
three areas of the WHOS property on designated footpaths. A • Install restoration fencing along both sides of the riparian
substantial portion of the upland and riparian habitats will be corridor to discourage access
restored and educational opportunities are maximized through
installation of interpretive signage, outdoor classrooms, and a • Raze existing house and remove associated infrastructure,
potential educational facility. Minimal site amenities will be but maintain pedestrian and maintenance access
provided to improve safety, reduce risks, and discourage illegal
activities. • Allow for future development of a LEED certified
educational facility
The recommended plan includes the management strategies • Establish outdoor classrooms for educational uses
that are common to all conceptual management alternatives
as described in the previous section. Detailed management • Close and re-vegetate unauthorized footpaths
strategies, policies, standards, monitoring, and action items
are described in the following sections. Highlights of • Install interpretive signs focusing on history of Emigration
Creek, pioneer culture, habitat restoration, and nature
the Recommended Comprehensive Restoration, Use, and
Management Plan include the following: education
• Conduct a wildfire hazard assessment and implement
• Limit public access to designated footpaths in all areas appropriate mitigation measures
r"" . r « z� @r i A f eSt rrl.P' �y .- * t ', ( w.A sr ro Ldn4
�„� i �1 �^ z114 if .� 1 lira '}rt$h 1 3!�., A 1, ig r 4 4 C.
�1 1lC ,t t ; iiiibp,' t¢a 1 A k4�a '{u x a��� 7 y k k ' :^l
c dA r IC` t, r 1r a
n b-iti' ,g� .," is-:::;,.-,,,,
i try,.r,qa "�
r Us� y` �i 1F1 r L � � �i Ilnrn nn Ava I,y 6A �a,oa. a 1•.w.
. , +t `...iv:. 'L ..: ; t i �y l •�1 ..; ., ,r • '�.y' t e ':'.9.1 4J',api
�.. met *70' rr,**^°r � 1 ,"4a '.( w .M ";:.�• waJ '� � e 8.,tit A :.;
"r' ,���y��"-°'77,,"-rlt V , ' cr!". ^,„ ww,.'. >! :� w w .R. -",, A tl ,
-"-r�i_21,Z rlt �fy! lA .' 8' �111 W s*", , aw.t' t'' K.•� ., `ys �n )1 ,}: S �j'I -�
Tt *♦ c ? c ,,'-:-'0.
Ate,`
,I, ..1',-11' :::e.::
M
KZ
'•► tl„t .4 A `� w Eiiiir cm t +caa • ` i�r ,,� Q d� r �� 1I� 11. � i�rn trw'•^r.♦ •" i¢ "
+.:. 'A°1hh 1 'A "T' . . i t d✓ r,...t d .t r. ;:'. A w. ,.. '�" "4. .•,.
.ii @' } ,'[ °P t r I I,, P 5 ,(± a 1, l N 4[ 1.c. A
"r i" ' g t'#', , $ ` 1!"; t •
y i(" q' ' .: y �r �' 00'"S< it N
4 A j r 14 i•. ` �7,,w. R. �, `:: '
•,' •� :P4 ' R •t "" �N'.. (.a..c9
11
�;. "f �S ° r` M 'ys f. iw `" d w b .
"' E' ir. • A •t �: " w Kan uiytrpr WasatC11 HOIIOW Open SI7ace
s ' x`r ,' y'Y t n u iyton � y,a s:'' to A . �, ,y..
,. `..t; ' . wl t t, . „::,!.."',:',.',. ,.;;.,*,-:.* •� st i�• Restoration, Use, &Management Plan
it, ii�� "4 ,Iw� r t t e, �7f 4,`+ ;, ji! a q o�� v .. t d n _
1..� ' 1} ,..+ .. f74 f.'x 4 tf 1 '_ �:• 5(r- __ .�. ("- t r�. 11
' jjar� M liryaiii ._�s. r t" �T
� r4vt�° '� a s s t �; �' �_ it1 t ,� BIO•WEST,Inc. �?
ti "ha A
Saee'''41:." ''''\ `�'' 1:1S' Ill _: —
1' �s Al• - Recomended Concept Map
7 'Stablll a SStrea .K, ,j..•` Y h * `: �u li
r >R Legend
Maintenance Acesy� _
,� v ce* .,, -• x. v ;,- _ (.1) Access Location (s 1 Potential Access Location
-• Y 7 3 \< #'tea' l
t t }} ��, 3 s �, 9• - - ' � -- -Emigration Creek N
"� ' .vilr. Proposed Footpaths(Dogs Prohibited)
.,.: '� L'ciy tn�. .. ,�, `� �,y, •
t•" ' .t a ate, --^^ Proposed On-leash Footpaths
.A , -" ...a a •� - 14, :_..,� � ! ,A �Proposed Bridge
_' '�, k ':.: O • ,. w t ve ..•. • co Proposed Education Facility
rescr
&"F . , � A i i':::....,. . C�Wasatch Hollow Open Space Boundary
't ,"�, {,,.� t � Management Areasa . I a P ._11 c "+' • i ;Wasatch Hollow Park Boundary
d ;' + Restorahen Area
tea' + t• a '� '-:,.,. '.'`' ""'a-1700°South Protection Area NOTE'Contours are at 3'intervals
� 1700 South .q, a" ,H
a. ,� ryi, - ) .�, y � ` 1 ,Natural Area 0 200 400 B00 Feet
" .. ,. .. ,.'.. '°, '� r � � •r ....-a.'^*-rr sags l i I r I
Figure 11. Wasatch Hollow Open Space Recommended Concept Map
Management k•
,a
Strategies .
•
f �
Adaptive Management rtxP4 � ��r
The Comprehensive Restoration, Use, and Management Plan ''
for the WHOS will utilize an adaptive management approach to 0
making decisions and changing management actions to adapt ton• � � % y .,
future conditions. Adaptive management is a structured, iterative "'`
process of decision-making that uses ongoing monitoring to guide `.' -
M
the process. Monitoring, such as surveys of visitors, samples of
water quality, or measuring the extent of damaged vegetation,
is used to understand current conditions and whether or not the As adaptive management is applied at Wl IOS, managers may
existing management actions are successfully achieving park decide to open or close certain use areas, change an area's
goals. Adaptive management is essentially "learning by doing." prescriptive management designation, and initiate or complete
restoration projects. Monitoring of conditions is essential, and
Salt Lake City plans to use adaptive management at WHOS to the City will likely enlist volunteer stewards when possible to
help address changing conditions such as: help achieve these goals.
• Increased visitation and recreation use Applicable Plans and Policies
• Implementation of restoration projects Recommended actions within this plan support the WHOS long-
• Responding to natural acts (e.g., drought, flood, fire, natural term sustainability, minimize maintenance costs, and implement
disaster) or enforce existing policies. A number of key adopted plans and
policies have influenced recommended actions. Several of the
Controlling noxious weeds, erosion, and vandalism key adopted plans relevant to WHOS are listed below:
• 1. Salt Lake City Zoning and General Plan
2. Salt Lake City Open Space Master Plan �. `` `�` 3s
•
�. � .may �t� a. 4,.,, ,1,:.� � ,`'`, '�` .
3. Salt Lake City Sustainability Plan Recommendations 1P
4. Salt Lake County Natural Areas Land Management Plan r, "" a
5. Emigration Creek Riparian Corridor Study Management Plan i : � " 4:,,,,,,,,.: ,,,,,,,.6_,,,ei.,,,,i, ,,,,4,,,, p, • r !' t M1 ;aOP
2.
6. Wasatch Hollow Community Park Master Plan "
:,
„e'" sa' a tti1 �4 �a� � �u°a ��& �i$ .� :V �"G wk�� R
Several of the ke ado �ted standards and policies relevant toy' a'.
WIIOS are listed below ., \ i ' `a ti � ivb { ' „ v
4.,,?ro ,,,,4:qr,'.4 ' ' • -- .
1. ExistingWasatch Hollow CommunityPark Rules �1 � - �°
.i `'. -' (p 1,
•
2. Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County Animal Control
Ordinances q
3. Salt Lake City Riparian Corridor Ordinance Summary °f Ad a�t Ve
Management Strategies
4. Salt Lake City Open Space Lands Ordinance
Table 2 summarizes the fundamental goals and relevant
5. Salt Lake County Water Quality Stewardship Plan policy standards for the plan, as well as outlines the adaptive
management strategies and monitoring activities required to
6. Salt Lake County Open Space Management Plan achieve the stated goals.
7. Utah State Water Quality Standards
8. U.S. Clean Water Act
9. U.S. Endangered Species Act
10. U.S. Secretary of the Interior's Guidelines for Historic
Preservation
Table 2. Summary of Adaptive Management Strategies for the WHOS Comprehensive Restoration, Use,and Management Plan.
Management Strategy Form and ManagementdStandards �'Monitorrng.,�. :'' Adaptive ManagermeftAction
Goal 1;Restore and Protect the Emigration Creek Riparian Corridor and Adjacent Open Space Area.
A. Improve Water Quality
• No disturbance within 25 feet of
AHWL(excludes designated bridges). 1. Collaborate on all proposals for 1. Education,signage,and soft patrol
• Limited structures between 25-50 feet restoration,management,and with information on water quality
of AHWL such as interpretive signs, maintenance practices within WHOS. and discouraging non-compliant
trails,boardwalks,and benches. 1. Meet Riparian Corridor Ordinance. 2. Staff observation of vegetation uses.
• Reduce compaction and bank 2. Meet the Best Management Practices conditions and user-created trails 2. If not successful,set up fines and
erosion by eliminating user-created and implementation projects with weekly spot checks. formal permitting process for WOOS.
duplicate footpaths. recommended in the Emigration 3. Staff maintenance monthly to 3. Redesign trails and access points
• Develop designated access locations Creek Riparian Corridor Study address problem spots. and use education,signage and soft
and close/restore all other access Management Plan. 4. Reporting by trained volunteers at patrol to guide behavior towards
points. 3. Support intent of Open Space Lands least 4 times per year(quarterly). compliance.
• Address culverts and drains to creek, Master Plan. 5. Measure changes in water quality 4. If not successful,ticket violators and
as well as runoff and sedimentation. 4. Meet Utah State water quality (e.g.,turbidity,temperature,e-coli, increase enforcement.
• Re-establish i Marian flood plain and standards. coliform,and dissolved oxygen). 5. If not successful,redesign trail,
de-silting meadows. 6. the data to identify target al eas for fencing,or access points.
• Eliminate existing septic system at restoration,protection,signage,or 6. If not successful,consider closing
acquisition site. enforcement operations. trails or access points.
• Re-connect Wasatch Hollow Spring.
• Allow Emigi ation Creek to meander.
1. Easement shall pi otect the purpose
of WOOS and its conservation values.
B. Provide Habitat for Wildlife 2. Correct easement violations 1. Staff observations of compliance
• Establish Conservation Easement immediately. with easement using weekly spot
Documents. 3. Establish 2010 Baseline Conditions checks.
• Restore natural ecological processes. for wildlife. 2. Staff maintenance monthly to
• Restrict and prevent disruptive 4. Maintain viable populations of addi ess problem spots.
uses(e.g.,light and noise pollution, indicator species for fish,migratory 3. Staff monitoring report 4 times a 1. Assess limiting factors and mitigate
paintball/air soft,dumping of neo-tropical birds,and desirable year(quarter ly)at problem spots. as needed,which may include
refuse,tree cutting/fort building, terrestrial species that are likely to 4. Monitoring report of easement increased buffer,improved controls,
campfires,camping,squatting). thrive. compliance by easement holder or seasonal/permanent closui es.
• Focus on species most likely to 5. Achieve no visible trace of previous annually.
thrive. conditions. 5. Monitoring report 4 times a year
• Promote"leave no trace"ethic. 6. Follow restoration and maintenance (quarterly)by trained volunteers
• Improve habitat to increase diversity recommendationsof the Salt Lake 6. Consider conducting extensive
of per manent and seasonal wildlife. County Open Space Management Plan breeding bird survey.
and the Emigration Creek Riparian
Col ridor Study Management Plan.
f.
Management Strategy - Policy and Management Standards Monitoring Adaptive MariagementActloft
C. Restore and Protect Native 1. Meet the Rest Management Practices 1. Allow access on designated trails and
Vegetation recommended in the I migration 1. Staff observation of Con idor use permeable fences(such as split
conditions with weekly spot checks.
• Close sections of the Emigration (.reek Ripai ian Corridor Study rail)for restoration closures.
Creek riparian col i idor for Management Plan,Salt Lake County 2. Staff maintenance monthly to 2. Knot successful,consider closing
restoration projects with fencing and Natural Areas I and Management address problem spots. access.
warning/education signs. Plan,and the Salt Lake County Water 3. Staff monitoring report 4 times a 3. If successful,consider removing
year(quarterly)at problem spots.
• Control and eliminate noxious and Quality Stewardship Plan. fence. I eave restoration fence in
4. Monitoring report 4 times a year
invasive species. 2. Support the intent of the Open Space place if necessary.
• Limit public access to sensitive areas Lands Ordinance. (quarterly) pained volunteers. 4. I ducation,signage,and soft pat'ol.
5. Include weeded reporting with
(e.g.,use natural barriers or fences, 3. Reduce noxious and invasive weeds 5. Enforcement and ticketing of
vegetation plot monitoring.
limit access by dogs,minimize each year from previous year's level. violations. Increase enforcement if
6. lice data to identify target areas for
footpaths,curtail encroachments). 4. Meet standards and maintenance conditions deteriorate.
• Replant understory and overstory recommendations of the Salt Lake education,signage,or enforcement 6 Increase weed management efforts
operations.
ripan ian vegetation. County Weed Abatement Program. until conditions are sustainable.
Goal 2.Establish Clearly Defined Boundaries to Prevent Encroachment and Foster Respect for Public and Private Lands.
A. Protect Open Space Property
• Reduce risks from liability(e.g.,non-
permitted activities).
• Prevent encroachment of private
property onto WHOS(e.g.,no 1. Legal enfor cement of open space
dumping of refuse). rules,animal control ordinance,and 1. Staff observations of compliance
• Establish buffer zones between all applicable laws and regulations. using weekly spot checks. 1. Include recommendations in annual
WHOS and private property 2. Uphold new regulations as identified 2. Annual reporting of enforcement report until objectives are met.
efforts and results.
(e.g.,purchase land from willing and adopted.
neighbors).
• Establish clear boundary lines(e.g.,
improve signage,implement natural
barn iers).
1. Gather baseline data of crime and
B. Regular Monitoring of Violations 1. 95 compliance with local laws and nuisance reports.
open space regulations. 2. Track ticketing and law enforcement 1. Include i ecommendations in annual
• Provide adequate enforcement(e.g., 2. 90%neighbor satisfaction with in database. report until objectives are met.
personnel,penalties for violations)
conditions. 3. Monitoring report 4 times a year
(quarter ly)by trained volunteers.
Management Strategy.,„ Policy and Management Standards Monfforing, AdaPtiVeManag+n nt Action
C. Protect Private Property
• Prevent trespassing and protect
private pi operty values(e.g.,protect
aesthetic values,limit noise,allow 1. 95%compliance with local laws and 1. Gather baseline data of crime and 1. f ducation,signage,and soft patrol.
2. If not successful,ticket violators and
only natural open space compatible open space regulations. nuisance to neighbors.
activities). 2. 90%neighbor satisfaction with 2. Track ticketing and law enforcement increase enforcement.
3. If not successful,redesign or
• Prevent annexation of private conditions. in database. reallocate access.
propel ty. 3. Pi event measurable damage to 3. Monitoring repoi t 4 times a year 4. If not successful,consider closing
• Install perimeter fencing where properties. (quarterly)by trained volunteers.
access point or area.
necessary to prevent trespass.
• Post open space rules at each access
location.
Goal 3.Provide Controlled Public Access that is Informed Primarily by Ecological Goals
A. Provide Public Access 1. Manage types of use,areas of use, 1. Education,signage,and soft patrol.
• Close WHOS to public after dark. and user numbers to maintain no 2. If not successful,ticket violators and
• Pi ohihit dogs and limit public access degradation of resources. 1. Staff observations of-compliance
increase enforcement.
to"loop"footpath in North and using weekly spot checks.
(entral Areas. 2. 95°4 compliance with local laws and 2. track ticketing and law enforcement 3. If not successful,redesign or
open space regulations. reallocate access.
• Allow dogs on-leash only and in database.
3. 90%neighbor satisfaction with 4. If not successful,consider closing
limit public access to designated 3. Monitoring i eport 4 times a year
footpaths in South Area. conditions. (q y) y access point or area.
uarterl b trained volunteers.
Close and re-vegetate duplicate 4. 100°o compliance with conservation 5. Include i ecommendations in annual
• easement document. report until objectives are met.
footpaths.
B. Provide Educational Access
• Utilize WHOS as"outdoor
class]oom"(e.g.,interpretive art,
markers,signs,education center, 1. Write interpretive strategy to
partner with schools and colleges). provide sufficient media and
• Allow development of a EEED programs to encourage proper
stewardship. 1. Revisit interpretive strategy and
certified educational facility and 1. Survey partners annually to gauge I interpretive etive methods
outdoor classrooms in the South 2. Require one education/outreach effectiveness of interpi etation. apply new p
effort annually from partnership annually.
Area.
• Increase historical awareness. groups.
• Install historical,cultural,and 3. Pi ovide regular opportunities for
educational inter pi etive elements.
nature interpretation.
• Create awareness of deti i mental
behavior.
Management Strategy ' 11 t; Policy and Management Standards Monitoring ' kdaptive Managententttction
C. Provide Access for Research
• Monitor conditions over time(e.g., 1. f stablish 2010 Baseline Conditions 1. Perform at least one comprehensive
citizen science,graduate theses, 1. Use results to identify priority
for vegetation,wildlife,and water monitoring event annually t o ects and recommendations.
class projects). quality. (preferably quarterly). p
• Complete habitat health assessment
to identify threats and opportunities.
Goat 4.Increase Safety by Reducing Risks on Both Public and Private Land
A. Enhance Public Safety
• Curtail illegal activity(e.g.,drugs, 1. Education,signage,and soft patrol.
squatting). 1. Gather baseline data of crime and 2. If not successful,ticket violators and
• Provide adequate (e.g., 1. 95 compliance with local laws and nuisance to neighbors. increase enforcement.
regular"walkthroughs,enforcement more patrols, open space regulations. 2. Track ticketing and law enforcement
3. If not successful,redesignor
2. 90°6 neighbor satisfaction with in database.
volunteer or staff for education and reallocate access.
enforcement,enhance public access, conditions. 3. Monitoring repoi t 4 times a year
4. If not successful,consider closing
(quarterly)by trained volunteers. point or area.
consider OPTED in certain areas). access
• Remove abandoned house.
B Reduce Risks from Liability 1. Install regulation and interpretation 1 Staff observations of compliance
signs and maintain in readable
• Reduce r isk of injury on WHOS using weekly spot checks.
condition and good repair.
property(e.g.,remove rope swings, 2. Survey users about knowledge
clogs on leash or restricted,reduce 2. Update signs to include new of information on signs to gauge 1. Change the number of signs,
fir e i isks). regulations and information to effectiveness. location,design,or readability.
suppot t stewardship goals.
• Reduce risks to private landowners 3. Legal enforcement of open space 3. Survey partnership groups annually 2. Include recommendations in annual
(e.g.,establish clear boundaries and to see if signs are addressing their report until objectives are met.
rules,animal control ordinance,and
buffer zones,discourage trespassing, concerns and issues.
all applicable laws and regulations.
encourage private property 4. Uphold new regulations as identified 4. Annual reporting of enforcement
protection). and adopted. efforts and results.
1. Coordinate with the Unified Fire
Authority.
C Reduce Risks from Wildfire 2. Identify fire-pi one conditions. 1. Implementfuels modification as
• Conduct a wildfire hazard assesment. 3. Identify fuel breaks appropriate.
1. Perform a wildfire hazard assessment 2. Develop a fire response and
• Implement mitigation measures to 4. Locate adjacent structures
monitoring event annually. evacuation plan as necessary.
reduce wildfire hazards and risks to 5. Identify emergency access
3. Educate homeowners to implement
adjacent properties. 6. Identify water sources
defensible space concepts.
7. Determine appropriate mitigation
strategies.
Management Strategy Policy and Manage'Ment.5tandards 'a MotlitOring R Adapt'iVe Management Action
Goal S.Foster Cooperation and Collaboration Among Stakeholders in Stewardship of the WHOS to Ensure Sustainable Long-Term Management.
A. Promote Community Stewardship
and Co-Management
• Involve neighboring property
owners,local community youth 1. Revisit pal tnership agreements
1. Meet Salt Lake City standards for
organizations,visitors,educational annually to set current year's goals.
managing boards and volunteers.
institutions,neighboring churches, 2. Conduct annual partnership survey 1. Rewrite partnership agreements and
and easement holders(e.g., 2. Stewardship partners must meet to gauge satisfaction with programpark privileges if expectations are
b promotefi b P b P g P
all conditions of their agreement
installation of native plants on and overall open space management. not met.
annually to continue their use
private land,regular wildlife counts, privileges. 3. Build tracking database of partners
regular clean-up days,research and use for reminders.
opportunities,community docent
and interpreters,manage in
perpetuity)
B. Foster Relationships Between the
City and Stakeholders
• Improve communication,fostei
transparent decision making, 1. Meet regularly(quarterly)with
and facilitate decision making stakeholders.
partnerships with easement holders, 1. Regular ranger/docent visits to
2. 100°;concurrence between partners.
across City offices,between City and observe conditions and to interact
3. Design and install restoration,use,
community,between community with visitors.
and management improvements as 1. Focus efforts on priority issues.
residents,and with experts and 2. Weekly volunteer steward presence.
agreed upon.
other stakeholders(e.g.,Community 3. Monitoring report by trained
4. Build Public and Private Partnerships
Council newsletters,website,regular volunteers.
for Stewardship,Education,Funding,
meetings,acquire expertise in
decision-making,infoi mation sheet and Implementation.
at entrances)
• Consider creating a full or part-time
WHOS docent.
Crime Prevention Through �` pR � ���� �9 ss 4 `
'"
Environmental Design (CPTED) ` `` '�� �` ` ' '
I'he term "Crime Prevention Through Environmental Design" 5,
(CPTED) describes a series of recommendations that when ti • 1`4"') ""
implemented in a physical space generally make that space safer " r} d
for its users. Defensible space is the most important factor in
developing CPTED principles. When visitors have a defensible
space to use, this limits the opportunities for detrimental acts
to take place. However, implementing CPTED principles will
need to be carefully balanced with the purposes for protecting z "! L � � °
.. ...oP .. . .fit°: ....
this natural area. Where feasible, CPTED principles should
be implemented when they promote appropriate uses and do
not conflict with prohibited uses as defined in the conservation Natural Access Control
easement. The following principles of CPTED are recommended
for the WHOS study area. Natural access control refers to the differentiation of public and
private spaces. When appropriate access locations are delineated
Natural Surveillance it removes the need for trespass through inappropriate spaces.
This also increases legitimate uses in these areas. Examples may
Natural surveillance refers to the design of a space that increases include using clearly identifiable points of entry and constructing
the opportunities to see spaces and their surroundings. Not only built or natural structures to divert persons to appropriate places
does this allow a visitor to see if potential risks might exist by of use.
minimizing hiding places, it also encourages positive use of the
space by many visitors. Having many legitimate visitors in a Natural Territorial Reinforcement
space makes it safer for all. Examples may include clearing of
invasive and non-native species that create hiding spaces and Spaces that are well designed and maintained present a sense
providing safe access for all visitors into a wide variety of areas that a space is being consistently occupied. Although this often
(may also include ADA access). applies to private spaces, the concept can be applied to public
spaces as well. Examples may include placing amenities such
as seating to help attract users to an area and programming or
scheduling spaces to increase legitimate uses.
workshops, all of which are described in detail below. A detailed
Pu b I i c I n v o I v e m e n t list of public and agency outreach efforts is included in Table 3.
and I nput Structured Decision-Making
Pro
cess
cess
The planning process for the WHOS Comprehensive Restoration,
Use, and Management Plan relied on regular review and input This effort is the result of a participatory planning process
from City staff, the consultant team, agency representatives, initiated by Salt Lake City to inform the design and management
community stakeholders, and the general public. These efforts of the 10-acre WI LOS property (Arvai and Wilson 2010). Given
included implementation of a strategic decision-making process, the diverse and strong interests of various stakeholders in the
facilitation of stakeholder meetings, and facilitation of public planning process, it was important to utilize a deliberative
and structured decision making process to accurately identify
Table 3. Summary of Public and Agency Outreach and Involvement.
Date Meetings,; Location Alrended
7/29/2009 Introduction of the WOOS Planning Process Foothill Anderson Library 20
8/31/2009 Stewardship Training Program Salt Lake City PD 7
10/10/2009 Wasatch Hollow Open Space Community Cleanup Wasatch Hollow Open Space 23
1/19/2010 Strategic Decision Making Process 3 Meetings City and County Building 14 1 1
1/20/2010 Strategic Decision Making Process 4 Meetings City and County Building 12 8 2 5
1/21/2010 Stiategic Decision Making Process 2 Meetings City and County Building 13 14
1/22/2010 Strategic Decision Making Process 1 Meeting City and County Building 3
1/26/2010 Strategic Decision Making Process 1 Meeting City and County Building 2
2/22/2010 Kids Meeting to Identify Vision Foothill Anderson Library 16
4/20/2010 Potential Management Alternatives Presentation Foothill Anderson Library 13
4/23/2010 Uintah Elementary School Presentation Uintah Elementary School 500+
5/6/2010 First Review of Conceptual Management Alternative Drafts Foothill Anderson Library 14
6/22/2010 Second Review of Conceptual Management Alternatives Drafts Foothill Anderson Library 43
9/16/2010 Presentation of Draft Restoration,Use,and Management Plan Foothill Anderson Library 40
10/21/2010 Planning Open House for Final Draft Plan City and County Building 5
stakeholder values and objectives, and to ensure the plan reflects • Representatives of the Salt Lake City Open Space Lands
these values and objectives. A list of stakeholder groups was Advisory Board, Salt Lake County, and Utah Open Lands
created and included City staff, community members living near
the WHOS property, neighboring churches and schools, Salt • Content area experts (e.g., ecologists, ornithologists,
Lake City Open Space Lands Advisory Board members, and planners, and engineers)
content area experts (e.g., ecologists). A series of stakeholder
meetings and public workshops were facilitated by the consultant Public Workshops
team to help identify planning goals and objectives, design
performance measures, and potential design and management
alternatives for the WHOS property. A report was prepared and A series of public workshops were facilitated by City staff and
is included as Appendix B. the consultant team during the planning process. Public input
was sought during issues identification, goals and objectives
development, design performance measures creation, and
Stakeholder Meetings conceptual alternative management strategies review. A draft of
the Comprehensive Restoration, Use, and Management Plan was
Stakeholder meetings were held throughout the planning process prepared and presented to the public at the final public workshop.
as needed. A majority of these meeting occurred during the
strategic decision-making process, while others were held during
the development of management alternatives. The various
stakeholder groups that were utilized included the following: '��
• Representatives of Salt Lake City Corporation (e.g., Salt
Lake City council, Office of the Mayor, Police, Parks, and 4,_ • '
Open Space Lands Program)
' � � r-,4
t r 0 i ����
• Community members living around the WHOS property r
R
(including members of the Wasatch Hollow Community °' .: „ art.
, _ "
Council)
_ ...."411t- 0••• oisii-----N. , ' w -
• Representatives of neighboring institutions (e.g.,Westminster ; — >
College, Clayton Middle School, Rocky Mountain Power, . -Q
the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, Wasatch '0 ;
Presbyterian Church) °t i
Implementation and Eliminate Unauthorized Footpaths
This project involves the closure and landscape rehabilitation
P a s i n g of unauthorized and duplicate footpaths throughout the WHOS
property. Closure would include implementing the necessary
pedestrian traffic controls to prevent re-use, such as boulders,
Organizing improvement projects into phases is an integral brush piles, signage, and fencing (if necessary). Any required
element and strategy for implementation of restoration and fencing should be a natural finished two or three-rail wood type
management solutions proposed in this master plan. This (e.g., split-rail) or temporary welded wire fencing on t posts.
approach is beneficial for fundraising of proposed facility Rehabilitating the landscape would include grading, drainage,
improvements and restoration activities, which when divided seeding, planting, and mulching activities. 'There are a total of
into smaller sub-projects are responsive to budgeting constraints approximately 3,200 feet (0.6 miles) of redundant secondary
and allow for pilot testing of proposed measures when necessary. and user created trails that are recommended for closure within
Effective recommendations can then be replicated in subsequent and adjacent to WHOS property. Estimated costs for designing
phases. This phased implementation strategy works hand-in- and implementing the unauthorized footpath closure and
hand with the adaptive management nature of the WHOS master rehabilitation project: $10,000 to $20,000.
plan, thereby protecting the property's current value to citizens
and wildlife while acknowledging that its potential far exceeds Develop Access Locations
current conditions.
Controlled access locations are important to guide visitors to
This section provides approximate quantity and cost information appropriate locations to enter the WHOS property. This will
for the capital improvement projects identified as part of prevent trespass onto neighboring properties as well as protect
the recommended plan. These estimates are for materials sensitive vegetation and wildlife habitats. Development of an
and installation costs only. Implementation of these capital access location includes the following potential amenities. It
improvement projects will entail expenses for site-level plan is recommended that an informational kiosk with wayfinding
design, engineering, permitting, monitoring, and maintenance in information, with a concrete pad to provide a location for the
addition to the costs provided below. These additional expenses kiosk and act as a transition between the sidewalk and the WHOS
may add 20 to 30 percent to the costs presented. Additionally, property be provided. Seating and artwork may also be located
it is anticipated that quantities and approaches may vary once at these access points and are discussed as part of other capital
site-specific design work is initiated for a given project. All cost improvement projects within this section.
estimates are given in 2010 dollar values.
For safety and security, decorative fencing to guide visitors to
the appropriate access location is also suggested. The estimated
costs listed below allow for one (1) signage kiosk, thirty (30) feet outflow point and Emigration Creek. The restored tributary
of decorative fencing (may vary by location), and one (1) trash channel would be planted with native vegetation appropriate for
and recycling receptacle at each location. Also included in the seep/spring areas that would enhance overall habitat diversity
estimate is up to 300 square feet of concrete. It is also expected within the WHOS property. Costs for this project are difficult to
that new plantings will be necessary to re-vegetate any disturbed estimate given that the precise location and depth of the spring
area while the above items are installed. The estimate includes outlet are not currently known. Assuming a large quantity of fill
twenty five (25) five gallon shrubs for that purpose. Estimated (about 500 cubic yards) will need to be removed and assuming
costs of developing up to four access locations: $15,000 to about 100 feet of tributary channel would be restored, estimated
$20,000 per location. costs for re-connecting Wasatch Hollow Spring: $10,000 to
$15,000. If this project is implemented in conjunction with the
Re-establish Riparian Flood plai n riparian floodplain re-establishment project described above,
costs may be much lower because most of the fill would already
This project would involve removal of artificial fill material and have been removed.
streambank re-grading to establish a wider active floodplain
along Emigration Creek. Such efforts would enhance vegetation Install Restoration Area Fencing
and habitat diversity, improve water quality by creating areas
of natural sediment deposition, and restore dynamic channel During active restoration projects, it will be necessary to prohibit
processes. It is anticipated that these efforts would focus public access in these areas while vegetation is becoming
primarily on the western bank within the Central Area of the established (usually 2 to 5 years). Construction of a decorative
WHOS property, upstream of the area influenced by the backwater fence, such as a split rail fence, would fit the natural vernacular
effect of the downstream culvert. Estimated costs for floodplain of the WHOS property. Welded wire fencing and metal
re-establishment (assuming approximately 2600 cubic yards of t-posts can be used for more temporary fencing applications.
earthwork and installation of bank stabilization and grade control Constructed in key areas, the fence could limit access to sensitive
measures along 600 linear feet of stream): $80,000 to $120,000. areas and help control access at trail heads. Signs explaining the
purpose of the temporary closure are also recommended and can
Re-connect Wasatch Hollow Spring help educate the public about restoration activities. Estimated
costs for installing restoration area fencing: $40,000 to $60,000.
This effort entails removing fill material in the vicinity of
Wasatch Hollow Spring in order to locate the natural spring Invasive Species Removal and Control
outflow point. Assuming the spring outflow can be found, and
that water rights are not encumbered, additional steps would This improvement measure involves phased control and removal
involve ensuring the abandoned pipeline is completely capped of invasive plant species within the WHOS property using an
and restoring a tributary channel between the natural spring integrated weed control strategy. Techniques include a mix of
physical, chemical, and cultural controls. Physical (mechanical) planting efforts (assuming 6 acres of re-seeding and installation
controls involve hand pulling, disking, cutting, or mowing to of 300 containerized plants): $30,000-$40,000.
remove plants or portions of plants. Chemical controls involve
applying herbicides to weed infestations or cut woody sterns Purchase or Accept Land Donations
using best management practices. In areas near Emigration
Creek, only herbicides approved for use near water would be from Willing Neighbors
used. Cultural controls involve establishing vigorous, desirable
plant species that are able to out-compete the invasive or noxious Emigration Creek and its associated riparian corridor meander
weed species. The costs associated with cultural control re- in and out of the WHOS property along the eastern property
planting efforts are described below under the "Re-plant and boundary, as well as along the east side of the Wasatch Hollow
Restore Vegetation" project. Invasive species management. Park property boundary. Without collaboration from adjacent
within the WI lOS property would be implemented in a phased property owners on restoration projects, restoration in these
approach so that large areas are not left devoid of vegetative areas will be limited to only one side (the west side) of the
cover. Estimated costs for one year (three separate treatments stream. In some cases, adjacent property owners in these areas
per year) of mechanical/chemical invasive species removal may he willing to donate or sell a portion of their property that
work over 3.3 acres (one-third of the WHOS property): $3,000 contains existing or potential riparian habitat. This would help
to $5,000. Multiple years of treatment will be required for prevent trespass in these areas, as well as help make property
long-term success. Long term weed management should focus boundaries more logical and enforceable. The City should work
on early detection and rapid response to avoid future costs of with property owners in these areas in order to achieve more
controlling infestations. comprehensive restoration projects. There is approximately one
(1) acre of existing or potential riparian habitats adjacent to the
Re-plant and Restore Vegetation WHOS eastern property boundary and approximately 0.5 acre
of upland buffer adjacent to the Wasatch Hollow Park eastern
This project involves re-establishment of native plants in existing property boundary. Estimated costs for purchasing or accepting
disturbed areas, areas that currently lack shrub or understory land donations from willing neighbors: $00 to $30,000.
cover, and areas where invasive plants have been removed.
Re-vegetation efforts should generally be implemented in Establish Clear Property
conjunction with other projects such as access control or bank Boundary Lines
stabilization to ensure that the underlying cause of disturbance
(e.g. uncontrolled foot traffic) has been addressed. Steps
involved in revegetation projects include: adding or preparing Currently, approximately 45 percent (2,000 feet) of the WHOS
property boundary is fenced. Nearly all of the existing fencing is
topsoil; planting native vegetation using seed, containerized
plants, and/or live stakes; and protecting the area with mulch or 6-foot high chain link and was constructed by adjacent property
owners. Clearly designated property boundary lines are needed
biodegradable erosion control blanket. Estimated costs for re-
in those areas lacking fencing to prevent encroachments onto needed to teach school groups about environmental aspects of
WI IOS property and to protect private property from trespass. the WHOS property (e.g., vegetation, wildlife, water quality). It
Where fencing is not needed or desired, natural barriers and perhaps could also include educational exhibits and interpretive
signage should be implemented. Where fencing is required, tools and materials for both indoor and outdoor use. This facility
a decorative fence, such as a split rail wood fence, should be is likely a one-room, single level facility with simple furnishings.
considered. Estimated costs for establishing clear property For estimation purposes, the proposed educational facility is
boundaries: $25,000 to $35,000. assumed to be a 12' story height constructed with fairly standard
materials. The estimated cost for the facility includes the costs
Site Amenities associated with design services and LF,ED certification (Salt
Lake City requires that all new city buildings be LEEI)certified
at the silver level). Estimated costs for providing a one-room
Site amenities such as artwork, benches, and directional signs educational facility at approximately 1,000 square feet: $200,000
should be installed throughout the WHOS property, where to $300,000.
appropriate. These items provide a comfortable user experience
by providing places of rest and important directional information.
The estimate for the benches and signs is based on high quality Remove Abandoned House
materials that, perhaps while slightly more expensive initially, and Associated Infrastructure
have a lower lifetime cost due to their ability to successfully
withstand weather and wear and tear. Well maintained This project involves the removal of the abandoned house and
equipment is an important factor in maintaining a property
associated infrastructure within the Central Area. Infrastructure
that has a perception of being safe. Artwork can be added to
access locations and throughout the site to help develop a sense to be removed would include the existing septic system, gazebo,
of identity and educational opportunities. Often artwork is irrigation system, lighting, sidewalks, patios, garage, and
outbuildings. Existing utility infrastructure (e.g., water, power)
respected and deters vandalism; however artwork is usually more
effective in helping to showcase a place as a well maintained connections that service the site would be preserved in case
and often used space. A cost estimate for artwork is difficult to they are needed during restoration projects. The existing house
accurately estimate as the price for each piece will vary widely would be demolished and disposed of following applicable
on the scale and materials used. Estimated costs for providing regulations. Estimated costs for removing the abandoned house
appropriate site amenities: $90,000 to $120,000. and associated infrastructure: $40,000 to $80,000.
One-Room Educational Facility Develop New Footpaths
Many have suggested that a small-scale educational facility may Properly constructed footpaths are essential in controlling
be a nice amenity for the site. This facility could be staffed as- access and impacts throughout the WHOS property. Many of
the proposed footpaths follow existing user created trails that
were not properly constructed. A hierarchy of footpaths should vegetation, boulders, and other amenities will vary depending on
be established for the WHOS property. In general, a primary the location of the classroom. Estimated costs for three outdoor
footpath (e.g., the proposed on-leash footpath) may handle classrooms: $25,000 to $30,000.
most of the foot traffic through the WI lOS property with a
recommended 8 to 10 foot-wide tread. Primary footpaths should Install Interpretive Signage
have a crusher-fines type of tread surface and also provide
maintenance vehicle access to the W1fOS property. Secondary As the majority of WHOS visitors will not be a part of a formal
footpaths provide safe opportunities for visitors to explore the group, interpretive signage is an important educational feature.
WHOS property with a recommended 2 to 3 foot-wide native soil The signs can help visitors learn about the natural features of
or crushed fines if appropriate. Estimated costs for 1,300 feet of the WHOS and why it is important to restore and protect them.
primary footpath and 3,700 feet of secondary footpath: $30,000 Well built and well maintained signs are important to providing a
to $50,000.
positive experience for users. Each interpretive sign is proposed
as one 36" x 24" sign mounted on a pedestal. Final costs per
Install New Bridge sign may vary greatly depending on the number of signs ordered,
as generally the cost per sign will decrease with larger orders.
One single-span footbridge is proposed to cross Emigration This estimate also includes design fees for an overall interpretive
Creek to connect footpaths from the South Area to footpaths in plan and for graphic design of each individual sign. Estimated
the Central Area. Salt Lake City has a railroad flat-car bridge costs for installing ten (10) interpretive signs mounted on
that can be refurbished and re-located to the WHOS property. pedestals: $30,000 to $45,000.
The bridge will require installation of railings, signage, decking,
and abutments. There are opportunities to work with local artist Stream Cleanup
and stakeholders for fabrication of artistic or interpretive siding.
Estimated costs for refurbishing and relocating the 80 foot long This measure involves organizing a group of people to pick up
pedestrian bridge: $30,000 to $50,000. trash along the Emigration Creek riparian corridor within the
WHOS property. Planning a cleanup event involves selecting a
Establish Outdoor Classrooms date, publicizing the event and recruiting volunteer help, making
arrangements for proper disposal and recycling of the collected
Outdoor classrooms will provide locations for small groups to trash, and obtaining supplies via purchase or donations (trash
learn more about the natural features of the WHOS within its bags,first aid kits, waders, water/refreshments, etc.). Estimated
context. Designated gathering spaces will protect vegetation and costs for a one-time stream cleanup event: $1000-$1500.
habitat from harm that may otherwise be caused by impromptu
off trail congregating. Each outdoor classroom includes seating
for up to twenty (20) people. Other costs such as earthwork, re-
power lines that traverse the property. The City and RMP have
Reduce Wildfire Hazards
identified species to target for removal, as well as the desirable
vegetation that will be compatible underneath the power lines.
Wildfire management is an important component of managing The City has agreed that RMP will target the fast growing and
and maintaining the WHOS property as a natural area. Wildfire nonnative invasive trees beneath the power lines for removal and
is a natural process that is often necessary to maintain healthy phase in a replacement process over time with compatible native
ecosystems, but it also presents a hazard to nearby residents. trees conducive to the long term master plan.
Appropriate management strategies will include maintenance
of vegetation and public education. The first step will be to The City and RMP have discussed and will implement best
conduct a wildfire hazard assessment for the WIIOS property management practices (BMP's) for access locations, vegetation
in coordination with the Unified Fire Authority. Follow-up clearing crews, ways that RMP can reduce the amount of heavy
steps will include implementing proposed mitigation measures equipment that enters the WI IOS property, and the number of
such as fuels modification, fire response and evacuation visits to conduct maintenance work. These BMP's will minimize
guidelines, and homeowner education. Fuels modification visual impacts and promote leaving brush on site, lopped and
could consist of removing non-native species. thinning of trees scattered, to block use of areas identified for closure. This will
and shrubs, removing dead fuels, developing fuel breaks, and/ also incorporate trail feathering and baffling or staggering the
or mechanical treatments. Estimated costs for annual wildfire brush to break up any unnatural edges or to block other forms of
hazard assessments and homeowner education activities: $1,000 access where needed. The City and RMP have also discussed the
to $2,500. Costs for implementation of proposed mitigation notification process for the next time RMP is in the area and that
measures will depend upon the results of the wildfire hazard both parties could meet to do a thorough site review to identify
assessments. and explain any necessary work before crews begin. The City
and RMP agreed on the importance of communicating to the
Coordinate with Rocky Mountain public all proposed vegetation management activities within
the WHOS property to allow for feedback and opportunities to
Power discuss any concerns or questions. Costs for this effort are part
of regular staff management budgets.
The City acknowledges its working relationship with Rocky
Mountain Power (RMP) on the WHOS property. The City Bicycle U s e
understands that RMP has an obligation to ensure delivery of
power to its customers and is willing to work with RMP in
regard to management of vegetation within its easement on In general, bicycle use will be limited to the primary footpaths
WHOS property. The City also understands that RMP follows a (e.g., the proposed on-leash footpath) within WHOS to allow
3-year cycle approach to managing vegetation for the overhead for neighborhood residents to traverse the property safely or
power lines and achieving basic clearance requirements for the to access Wasatch Hollow Park. The primary footpaths are
recommended to have an 8 to 10 foot-wide tread of crusher-fines
that can support this type of use. Bicycle use and BMX activities
will be prohibited in all other areas of the Wf lOS property to
protect sensitive resources and to preserve footpath integrity.
Costs for this effort are part of regular staff management budgets.
References Cited •
•
r c
Arvai J. Wilson R. 2010. A structured approach for involving "' " '` ;,;1* = " ti„"
local stakeholders in design and management decisions fora � •:.. r:, ' .
l; g { �� Y { r
the Wasatch Hollow Open Space area. 33 p. '., •
BIO-WEST, Inc. 2010. Salt Lake City riparian corridor ° *k '
study—final Emigration Creek management plan. 81 p. plus
•
attachments. 14', 4,
24:1*
Dixon R.W. 1997. From Emigration Canyon to City Creek: .� s 4, }* i =. r ,
Pioneer Trail and Campsites in the Salt bake Valley in 1847. 10 U
Utah Historical Quarterly 65(2): 155-164. "' is ��. . ,)� A- i.r}`'`t4 •,° a. ;
IDWQJ Utah Department of Environmental Quality, Division of [USUJ Utah State University, Water Quality Extension. 2003.
Water Quality. 2006. Utah 2006 integrated report volume I — Utah State University cooperative extension. Utah stream
305(b) assessment. Salt Lake City (UT): DWQ. 342 p. team water education and water quality monitoring program
manual. Logan (UT): USU. 294 p.
Krueper D.J. 1993. Effects of land use practices on western
riparian ecosystems in status and management of neotropical Utah and Wyoming. 1990. Geology of the Salt Lake City 30'
migratory birds. In: Finch D.M., Stangel P.W., editors. Status x 60'quadrangle, north-central Utah and Uinta County,
and management of neotropical migratory birds. General Wyoming. Bryant B. Salt Lake City (UT): U.S. Geological
technical report RM-229. Fort Collins (CO): U.S. Forest Survey. Miscellaneous Investigations Series Map I-1944.
Service. p. 331-338. scale 1:100,000.
Morris A.E.L. 2007. Wasatch Hollow Emigration Creek corridor
baseline documentation. Salt Lake City (UT): Utah Open
Lands 31 p.
JSLCOJ Salt Lake County. 2009. 2009 Salt Lake countywide
water quality stewardship plan. Salt Lake City (UT): Salt
Lake County.
Appendix A
Structured Decision- Making Report
Appendix B
Baseline Documentation Report