Loading...
04/19/2022 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION April 19,2022 Tuesday 2:00 PM Council Work Room 451 South State Street Room 326 Salt Lake City,UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com 7:00 pm Formal Meeting Room 326 (See separate agenda) Welcome and public meeting rules In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance,the meeting may be held electronically.After 5:00 p.m.,please enter the City & County Building through the main east entrance. The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters.The public is welcome to listen.Items scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and /or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. Please note:Dates not identified in the FYI -Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined.Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion. Generated:09:56:22 The Council has returned to a hybrid meeting approach.The hybrid meeting enables people joining remotely or in-person to listen to the Council meeting and participate during public comment items. Public Comments:The public can give comments to the Council during the meetings online through Webex or in-person in Room 326 of the City and County Building.In-person attendees can fill out a comment card and online participants will register through Webex in order to be added to the comment queue. Agenda &Registration Information:For more information,including Webex connection information,please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings.(A phone line will also be available for people whose only option is to call in.) Public Health Information:Masks are no longer required in City Facilities,but are welcome for any attendees who prefer to continue using them.We will continue to monitor the situation take any reasonable precautions for the public and staff. Work Session Items 1.Informational:Updates from the Administration ~2:00 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress.Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed),services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness,active public engagement efforts,and projects or staffing updates from City Departments,or other items as appropriate. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a 2.Ordinance:Amending Salt Lake City Code Pertaining to the Use of City Owned Motor Vehicles ~2:30 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend sections 2.54.030 and 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code Pertaining to the Use of City Owned Motor Vehicles by employees.The changes include:revising personal use allowances,expanding the distance limit from 35 miles to 60 miles from city limits;location monitoring,reporting and enforceability; cleanups to align with state law;and allowances during emergency circumstances. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,May 3,2022 3.Informational:Status Update on the Foothills Trail System ~2:50 p.m. 30 min. The Council will discuss updates from the Department of Public Lands on the status of the Foothills Trail System,and consider whether to schedule a vote on related items pending from Budget Amendment No.6 for Fiscal Year 2021-22. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a 4.Informational:UDOT I-15 Study ~3:20 p.m. 20 min The Council will receive a briefing from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT)on an environmental study focused on the I-15 corridor between Farmington and Salt Lake.The study looks to identify issues,needs,and potential solutions from the public and other stakeholders while evaluating the environmental impacts of those proposed solutions and selecting an alternative that best meets the needs. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a 5.Informational:Fairpark International Market and Master Plan Updates ~3:40 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the Fairpark’s upcoming International Market which is planned to operate monthly from May to October this year.The briefing will also include an overview of the Fairpark’s recently completed Master Plan with redevelopment scenarios over the next 15 years. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a 6.Tentative Break ~4:10 p.m. 20 min. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -n/a Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a 7.Ordinance:Budget Amendment No.7 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 ~4:30 p.m. 30 min The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend the final budget of Salt Lake City,including the employment staffing document,for Fiscal Year 2021-22.Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications.The proposed amendment includes funding repairs at The Leonardo caused by flooding,transferring the Housing Trust Fund to the Redevelopment Agency,rebuilding a pedestrian bridge over the Jordan River to Cottonwood Park,and cybersecurity improvements among other items. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,May 3,2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,May 17,2022 8.Ordinance:Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 1902 South 400 East ~5:00 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for property at 1902 South 400 East from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and the zoning map from R-1-5,000 (Residential)to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District).The purpose of the rezone request is to facilitate the construction of townhomes.Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,May 3,2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,May 17,2022 9.Ordinance:Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 1950 S West Temple and 1948 S West Temple ~5:20 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about a proposal that would amend the zoning map for the properties at 1950 South West Temple and a portion of the property at 1948 South West Temple,changing them from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential)to CG (General Commercial).This ordinance would also amend the Future Land Use Map in the Central Community Master Plan from "Medium Density Residential"to "Medium Residential/Mixed Use."The requests are part of an effort to expand the existing Intermountain Wood Products operation into a new office building with uniform zoning on their properties. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,May 3,2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,May 17,2022 10.Ordinance:Library Budget Amendment No.1 for Fiscal Year 2021-22 Written Briefing - The Council will receive a written briefing about a proposal to amend the budget for the Library Fund for Fiscal Year 2021-22.Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets,including proposed project additions and modifications.The proposed amendment includes a budget for property tax revenues that are legally required to be passed through the Library to the Utah Inland Port and the County Convention Center Hotel,among other changes. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,May 3,2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,May 17,2022 11.Informational:Cultural Core Action Plan Update Written Briefing - The Council will receive a written briefing about the Cultural Core (The Blocks)Year 4 Overview and Year 5 Budget Plan.The update is the result of an agreement between the City and Salt Lake County to develop,improve,and market arts and cultural activities in downtown.The goal of the Cultural Core is to enhance downtown as a key cultural center for the city,region,and nation. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -n/a 12.Board Appointment:Planning Commission –Levi De Oliveira ~5:40 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Levi De Oliveira prior to considering appointment to the Planning Commission for a term ending April 19,2026. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,April 19,2022 13.Board Appointment:Business Advisory Board –Jocelyn Kearl ~5:45 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Jocelyn Kearl prior to considering appointment to the Business Advisory Board for a term ending December 28,2026. FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,April 19,2022 14.Board Appointments:Accessibility and Disability Commission Interviews ~5:50 p.m. 10 min. The Council will interview the following candidates prior to considering their appointment to the Accessibility and Disability Commission; •Amy Carmen •Todd Claflin •Karolyn Campbell •Leah Lobato •Pamela Mower •Jeffery Kenyon FYI –Project Timeline:(subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Set Public Hearing Date -n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment -n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,April 19,2022 Standing Items 15.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 16.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director,including a review of Council information items and announcements.The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business,including but not limited to scheduling items. 17.Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session.A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including,but not limited to: a.discussion of the character,professional competence,or physical or mental health of an individual; b.strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c.strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d.strategy sessions to discuss the purchase,exchange,or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares,if public discussion of the transaction would: (i)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e.strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property,including any form of a water right or water shares,if: (i)public discussion of the transaction would: (A)disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration;or (B)prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii)the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale;and (iii)the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f.discussion regarding deployment of security personnel,devices,or systems;and g.investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code §78B-1-137,and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m.on April 14,2022,the undersigned,duly appointed City Recorder,does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1)posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701,and (2)a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda,including but not limited to adoption,rejection,amendment,addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. The City &County Building is an accessible facility.People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation,which may include alternate formats,interpreters,and other auxiliary aids and services.Please make requests at least two business days in advance.To make a request,please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com,801-535-7600,or relay service 711. Administrative  updates  April 19, 2022  Last week This week National  Wastewater  Surveillance  System  (NWSS) CDC’s NWSS works with local health  departments to track SARS-CoV-2 levels in  wastewater so communities can act quickly  to prevent the spread of COVID-19.  Wastewater sampling is considered an  accurate early leading indicator of whether  COVID-19 is spreading in a community,  especially when testing is not timely or  publicly recorded.  Find local data at deq.utah.gov/water- quality COVID 19  update Current  status Salt Lake City joins North Davis, South Davis, Central Valley,  South Valley, East Canyon, Timpanogos, Orem, Price River, Ash  Creek, and St. George in showing a trend in increasing COVID  genetic material in sewage samples taken. The trend shows a slow increase thus far, last week being at 31  Million Gene Copies, per person, per day and this week we are at  39. These are still very low.   Peaks have been above 4,400. US Cases are rising fueled mostly by the Northeast and more  recently the midwest. While trends are going up actual daily cases remain low,  hospitalizations remain low and deaths continue to decline. Last Week This Week www.slc.gov/feedback/ Regularly updated with ways to engage with the City. Community Engagement Highlights Transportation •1300 East Reconstruction •Open Houses at Highland Park Elementary  •Wednesday April 20, 5-7pm •1100 East Reconstruction •ELPCO meeting Thursday April 21 •2700 South Restriping •Impacted corridor canvassing Starting April 19 Sustainability •Community Renewable Energy Program •Y2 Analytics Survey Mailed to residents last week •Resident Food Equity Advisors •Second Cohort kicks off first meeting April 21 •Waste rate increases •Mailer landing in mailboxes first part of May •Sustainability presents budget on May 24th to council •Electric Vehicle Ready Ordinance •This week, notice mailed to Community Councils •Master Recycler Program •Intensive course for residents kicked off April 13 •Goal to increase community stewardship of systems Love Your Block •The LYB team is engaging with Glendale Stakeholders  to grow interest in the project and encourage  applications for the first round of funding. Homelessness Update: HRC and Overflow Occupancy April 11 - 15 STH - 1000 West Men's HRC STH - King Women's HRC STH - Miller Mixed HRC Total St Vincent de Paul Shelter Capacity 300 200 200 700 Avg number of beds occupied/night 293 192 199 684 67 Avg number of beds  unoccupied/night 7 8 1 16 Avg % of beds occupied/night 97.7%95.9%99.7%97.7% Avg % of beds unoccupied/night 2.3%4.1%0.3%2.3% Cleaning and Abatements - Westside focus on many smaller camps - City towing contract is being resolved but lack  of a provider has slowed enforcement ability.  VOA continues to offer limited vehicle repairs Kayak/ Bicycle Court - Friday April 15th @ The Point - 4 cases heard Access Emergency Shelter: 801-990-9999 Homelessness  update  System Infrastructure Updates 1) SLVCEH: -Built for Zero data consulting                                 Veteran homelessness                                 coordinating with state                                      -M.V.P. program funding/ site search 2) Salt Lake City Mayor's Office:                      - Bloomberg/ Harvard trainings 3) State Office of Homeless Services:                             - Homebase Consulting services                                   developing state strategic plan                       - Released new application for 2023                               Homeless Mitigation Funding 4) Winter 2023 Overflow Planning Update:                        - COM Subcommittee mtg Fri 4/15                                    Basic Building Criteria                        - COM Mtg Thurs 4/28 Homelessness  update  CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:April 19, 2022 RE: Ordinance Amendment: Use of City Owned Vehicles by Employees ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration recommended an ordinance amendment that makes several changes to how employees may take-home and use city owned vehicles. The ordinance mostly impacts public safety employees. While the take- home vehicles are not part of the City’s compensation package, the changes could put the City in a more competitive position for the recruitment of police officers, since take-home vehicles are a standard feature for many other police departments. Greater use of city owned vehicles is likely to occur based on the changes. This would result in a greater General Fund subsidy including some departments paying more in fuel and the Fleet Division incurring maintenance costs and vehicle replacement costs sooner than would otherwise be the case. The amendment also makes housekeeping changes to bring City Code in line with State law and some general language clean up. Expand Distance Limit from 35 Miles to 60 Miles; Increasing Costs to Fleet and Departments The ordinance amendment increases the maximum distance from 35 miles to 60 miles from city limits. An employee living more than 60 miles away could be allowed to use a city vehicle if the relevant department director and mayor both waive the distance limit. The longer distance limit is believed to be inclusive of all current City police officer’s primary residences. Departments pay the Fleet Division for fuel and the increased distance limit may result in a greater amount of total miles travels and therefore higher fuel billings for some departments to pay. The greater amount of mileage on city owned vehicles means faster wear and tear which would require the Fleet Division to provide maintenance at a faster pace. Vehicle replacements would also need to be done faster. Increased funding to the Fleet Division may be needed to account for these shortened maintenance and replacement schedules. Specific estimates on increase milage, maintenance, and replacement funding needs based on the ordinance changes could be requested from the Administration. Revise Personal Use of City Vehicles as determined by each Department The ordinance amendments restrict personal use from within Salt Lake County and an employee’s home county (current ordinance) to be limited within the employee’s standard commute. The shortest route from an employee’s home to their primary place of employment determines their standard commute. Each department would be tasked with setting allowable personal use distances beyond an employee’s residence and the standard commute. There are also allowances for personal use by public safety employees subject to callback duty which could improve operational readiness and response times. Another change allows employees to take-home a city vehicle when emergencies or inclement weather cause dangerous circumstances. Employees are required to obtain supplemental insurance coverage for personal vehicle use. Project Timeline: 1st Briefing: April 19, 2022 2nd Briefing: May 3 (if needed) Potential Action: May 3 or 17, 2022 Page | 2 Payments to City for Personal Use Not Updated in over a Decade Per the current ordinance, an employee that lives outside of city limits makes biweekly payments for personal use of the city owned vehicle. The cost as set in ordinance is $3 per mile. No payment is required for employees that live within the City. A $6 per mile fee is required for use of a city owned vehicle to and from secondary employment. Neither the $3 per mile fee for personal use nor the $6 per mile fee for secondary employee use have been updated in over a decade. The two fees are not subject to the annual consumer price index (CPI) inflation adjustment so the City subsidy has been increasing as purchasing power declines. In 2019, the Fleet Advisory Committee estimated the following two subsidy scenarios: a. If only counting fuel and maintenance costs, then the cost is currently split 50% City / 50% public safety employee. b. If also counting insurance, wear and tear caused by longer distance travel and vehicle replacement costs, then the cost is currently split 80% City / 20% public safety employee. Vehicle Location (GPS) Data and Compliance Monitoring The Fleet Division will provide department directors with reports on how employees use a vehicle including GPS data. The geofencing technology can send alerts when a vehicle leaves an employee’s predetermined personal use area which each department would identify based on an employee’s standard commute and radius from their home. Prior to use, an employee must acknowledge they have no expectation of privacy when using a city owned vehicle. The Fleet Division has implemented the software platform to generate usage reports and alerts based on location data. Supervisors in each department would need to be trained on how to setup, use, and understand the reports. Some trainings have already occurred. POLICY QUESTIONS 1.Balancing Hiring & Operational Readiness Goals with Budget Constraints – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration to what extent the proposed ordinance achieves the City’s competing goals of reaching full staffing of police officers with whether it becomes prohibitive due to the cost of increased funding for maintenance and replacement to ensure vehicles are safe and available when employees need them. 2.Increase Vehicle Funding in FY2023 Annual Budget – The Council may wish to request that increased funding be included in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for FY2023 to account for shortened vehicle maintenance and replacement schedules that may occur under the proposed ordinance amendments. 3.Who should Evaluate Personal Use Fee and How Often – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether to keep the current ordinance language assigning annual fee evaluation responsibilities with the Council or if that would better fit with another part of the City such as the Fleet Division and/or the Finance Department? Historically, the Council has not consistently re-evaluated the fee annually. The evaluation could be part of the Mayor’s Recommended Budget like other city fees many of which are adjusted annually by the CPI. 4.Coordinating Citywide Fleet Policy and Departmental Policy – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how the pending citywide policy for personal use of city owned vehicles will be coordinated with each department creating a personal use policy. The ordinance amendments would require employees to follow both sets of policies. ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION Comparison with other Law Enforcement Agencies A few years ago, the City’s HR Department and the Fleet Division did an informal comparison to other law enforcement agencies in the metropolitan area. They concluded the City’s take-home vehicle ordinance and policies were about average with some municipalities more generous and others less so. However, the different nuances of each agency’s take-home vehicle policies and the variation of compensation and benefit packages prevented a direct “apples to apples” comparison. Intangible Benefits Intangible benefits are difficult to quantify such as perceptions of increased safety, deterrence effect of putting more police vehicles in neighborhoods, improved operational readiness, and the convenience/time savings for officers. Outside work hours most take-home vehicles are used outside Salt Lake City because most employees live in other municipalities so the intangible benefits may be to residents in other cities. Page | 3 $179,600 for Vehicle Telematics in FY2022 Annual Budget The FY2022 annual budget includes $179,600 to purchase Global Positioning System (GPS) hardware for General Fund vehicles. A few hundred vehicles in the City’s fleet have onboard sensors that allow the collection of data such as speed, engine idling time, location, intensity of braking, fuel consumption and more. The data provides insight into a vehicle’s health and driver’s behavior. The Fleet Division stated vehicle telematics can improve safety, “minimize long-term equipment damage, reduce operational costs, such as fuel consumption, and extend the maintenance intervals of heavy-wear parts like brakes and tires.” At last count, 762 General Fund vehicles were equipped with the hardware and a few hundred more need it. This ongoing funding is sufficient to cover the hardware costs for the remaining vehicles, upgrade to existing hardware to be compatible with 5G data networks and ongoing maintenance. Vehicle Storage at another Municipality’s Fire or Police Facility The ordinance amendment includes the option for a take home vehicle for a public safety employee to be securely parked at another municipality’s fire or police facility. This could be done daily if an employee lives outside the 60-mile distance limit. The intention is for the employee to save time by not needing to drive to the Public Safety Building or Pioneer Police Precinct to transfer from their personal vehicle to a city owned vehicle. Liability Insurance The ordinance amendment would remove the $200,000 minimum liability insurance the City provides and instead use the amount required by Utah Code 63G-7-802 Liability Insurance – Government vehicles operated by employees outside scope of employment. The City would cover liability up to the minimums set in state law. Employees are required to obtain supplemental insurance coverage for personal use including passengers if any. Misc. Info: Council Members may wish to note the following points: - At last count, the City has 618 police vehicles with a replacement value of $28.4 million which is 43% of all General Fund vehicles. The City also has 113 fire vehicles with a replacement value of $33.3 million which is 8% of all General Fund vehicles. The fire vehicles are more expensive because they include large engines and other specialty response vehicles. - Public safety employees are required to keep an article of clothing and/or equipment in a city owned vehicles used for personal use that clearly identifies them as public safety officers of Salt Lake City. This preparation helps when an employee must respond to emergency situations or off duty deployments. - Department heads are exempt from the fee and distance restrictions on city owned vehicles. - The Fleet Division estimates the emergency proclamation suspending take-home fees for City vehicles reduced revenue for fuel reimbursements by $453,704 in FY2021. This represented 16% of the fuel revenue in the FY2021 adopted budget. ACRONYMS CPI – Consumer Price Index FY – Fiscal Year GPS – Global Positioning System ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date Sent to Council: TO: DATE: December 21, 2021 FROM: Salt Lake City Council Amy Fowler, Chair Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: An ordinance amending Sections 2.54.030 and 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code Pertaining to the Use of City Owned Motor Vehicles STAFF CONTACTS: Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Office Sara Montoya, Senior City Attorney DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the ordinance. BUDGET IMPACT: Anticipated to be negligible. May result in some increased costs, but will also decrease costs as a result of tighter “personal use” allowance. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In the face of increasing competition for qualified law enforcement officers across the state, as well as feedback from the Police Department that the City’s current take-home vehicle ordinance was a detractor from recruitment, the Mayor’s Office determined earlier this year to examine whether to amend this ordinance. The proposed revision was created in conjunction with the Police Department and Public Services. Below is a brief synopsis of the changes: Limitations on personal use of vehicles: Previously, the ordinance permitted employees to use city-owned vehicles for “reasonable personal use” within Salt Lake County and the employee’s home county. The proposed changes have limited personal use to “reasonable personal use within . . . the employee’s standard commute or related to a public safety officer’s use of the vehicle while actively responsible for callback duty.” The purpose of this change is to better tailor the policy to the intended benefits of taking home a vehicle, Lisa Shaffer (Dec 27, 2021 14:25 MST) 12/27/2021 12/27/2021 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 including the benefit to the City of having public safety officers available for immediate response when on callback duty, without accumulating excessive mileage or permitting excessive personal use of the vehicles. The proposed ordinance includes procedures for establishing the employee’s “standard commute,” and requires employees to first agree, in writing, to comply with the ordinance, limit personal use, maintain the vehicle, and acknowledge that there is no expectation of privacy their use of city vehicles. “Reasonable personal use” will be further defined as per Fleet and Departmental policy. Expanded eligibility radius for permitted take home use: The proposed ordinance expands authorized take home use to any employee residing 60 miles or less from the city limits, an increase from the current ordinance’s limit of 35 miles or less.. Additionally, the proposed change permits exceptions to this radius requirement on a case-by-case basis, with permission of the employee’s department director and the mayor. The primary purpose of this change is to enable the City to recruit new public safety officers, as an increasing number of recruits reside in communities surrounding the City, and public safety agencies in other communities often have robust take home vehicle policies. The previous 35-mile limitation seemed to arbitrarily cut employees living furthest from the city out of the policy (arguably those most benefited from commuting in a city-owned vehicle). Additionally, this change encourages more equity in the take home policy, as the previous ordinance permitted very broad personal use for employees within Salt Lake County and their home county, while other employees residing just a few miles outside of the limit were not permitted to even commute in a city vehicle, even without personal use. Reporting and enforceability: The proposed ordinance calls for Fleet to maintain a take home vehicle policy and to provide department directors with access to geofencing technology and telemetrics reports, allowing them to audit employees’ vehicle use. The Fleet policy must also set forth procedures to address unauthorized use. These provisions are intended to allow the City to monitor and enforce the terms of the ordinance. Liability Insurance: Utah Code sets forth the insurance coverage a government entity must carry to cover circumstances where a city employee is using a city vehicle outside the scope of employment, with the express or implied consent of the city. The proposed amendments bring the ordinance in line with the State Code minimum insurance requirements. Cleanup: The proposed new ordinance re-structures the authorization provision and removes some categories of authorization for simplification. Emergency circumstances: The changes include new language permitting employees to take home a vehicle when emergency circumstances make it difficult or unsafe for an employee to return a vehicle at the end of their shift. This is intended to address circumstances such as the protests in summer 2020 when public safety officers had to get through demonstrators to gain access to the public safety building to pick up or return their vehicles. This could also address inclement weather situations, such as snow storms, etc. Attachments: A. Legislative Draft B. Oridinance LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2022 2 3 (An ordinance amending Sections 2.54.030 and 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code 4 Pertaining to the Use of City Owned Motor Vehicles) 5 6 An ordinance amending Section 2.54 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the use of city 7 owned motor vehicles. 8 WHEREAS, Chapter 2.54 “City Owned Motor Vehicles” provides certain conditions for the 9 permitted use of city owned vehicles for personal use, including commuting to and from work; and 10 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that updates to the current ordinance are 11 necessary to ensure that the permitted personal use of city owned vehicles is equitable for all Salt Lake 12 City employees as well as reasonably limited to protect Salt Lake City property; and 13 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council further desires to revise the current ordinance to 14 require Salt Lake City employees who are authorized for personal take home use of city vehicles 15 to abide by the liability insurance coverage requirements set forth in Utah Code § 63G-7-802; and 16 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 17 SECTION 1. Amending Section 2.54.030. Section 2.54.030 of the Salt Lake City Code 18 shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 19 A.Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nNo motor vehicle owned by the city20 may be taken home by any city employee except under the following circumstances:21 22 1. Authorization to regularly take home a city owned vehicle is granted to a full-time23 employee by the department director and approved by the mayor, they mayor’s chief of24 staff, or his or her designee based on a demonstrated need for such vehicle to be taken 25 home to serve the public interest, which demonstrated need must be based on one of the 26 following criteria:; or 27 28 a. The vehicle is assigned as a qualified take-home vehicle to a sworn and certified29 law enforcement officer of the Salt Lake City police department or an employee 30 of the Salt Lake City fire department (in either case, a "public safety officer") 31 pursuant to the department's take home vehicle policy. Public safety officers shall 32 at all times maintain in their vehicle an article of clothing or equipment that 33 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT clearly identifies them as public safety officers of Salt Lake City to be used in the 34 event of unexpected or off-duty deployment; or 35 36 b. The nature of the employee's work requires immediate response to emergency 37 situations, regardless of frequency, that require the use of specific safety or 38 emergency equipment that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee's 39 personal vehicle. 40 41 2. Due to an isolated incident of use when, because of the lateness of the hour or other 42 peculiar circumstances, it is impractical or impossible to return such vehicle to city 43 custody at the end of a duty shift;. 44 45 3. Due to emergency circumstances, the ability of the employee to access their primary 46 location of employment is compromised such that the employee may be unable to 47 reasonably retrieve such vehicle from, or return such vehicle to, city custody. The 48 employee in such circumstance must obtain prior written consent from their department 49 director describing the limited time period during which the employee is authorized to 50 take the vehicle home, along with a description of the circumstances necessitating the 51 temporary authorization; or 52 53 4. The employee has been designated as the director of a city department. 54 55 B. Authorization to regularly take home a city owned vehicle pursuant to subsection A1 is 56 subject to the following requirementsmay be granted to a full time employee for a 57 “demonstrated need” based on at least one of the following criteria : 58 59 1. The employee has been designated as the director of a city department. 60 2. The vehicle is assigned to a sworn and certified law enforcement officer of the Salt Lake 61 City police department or an employee of the Salt Lake City fire department (in either 62 case, a “public safety officer”) pursuant to their department’s take home car program 63 requirements. Public safety officers shall at all times maintain in their vehicle an article 64 of clothing or equipment that clearly identifies them as public safety officers of Salt Lake 65 City to be used in the event of unexpected or off duty deployment. 66 3. The employee must respond to at least five (5) emergency situations or callbacks to work 67 per month. 68 4. The nature of the employee’s work requires immediate response to emergency situations, 69 regardless of frequency, that require the use of specific safety or emergency equipment 70 that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee’s personal vehicle. 71 72 5. For vehicles provided pursuant to subsections B2 through B4 of this section, reasonable 73 personal use of the take home vehicle is allowed within Salt Lake County and the county 74 in which the employee resides. No personal use may be made of the vehicle outside of 75 these limits. The amount and nature of personal use shall be established by department 76 policy, and shall be a reasonable amount and nature that, as described in that policy, shall 77 not accumulate excessive miles on the vehicle. 78 1. Prior to receiving authorization, an employee must establish their daily commute 79 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT mileage by calculating the shortest possible driving distance from the primary location of 80 employment to the employee’s residence, as evidenced by a commonly available internet 81 program or application that estimates distances using driving directions (the “standard 82 commute”). Each employee will be required to provide documentation of their standard 83 commute. For such employees, reasonable personal use of a take home vehicle is allowed 84 within the employee’s standard commute or related to a public safety officer’s use of the 85 vehicle while actively responsible for callback duty. Such reasonable personal use shall 86 be further defined by department policies, which shall set forth a mileage radius limit 87 from the employee’s residence, to limit excessive mileage and wear and tear incurred on 88 city vehicles. No personal use may be made of the vehicle outside of these limits. Prior to 89 receiving authorization, employees shall agree, in writing, to abide by the provisions of 90 this chapter, to limit take-home use of the vehicle as described herein, to maintain and 91 use the vehicle in a clean, safe, and serviceable manner, and to acknowledge that the 92 employee has no expectation of privacy in their use of any city-owned vehicle. 93 94 2.Fleet management shall provide to the department director a monthlyaccess to reports95 detailing usage, safety data, location, and mileage of city vehicles, as well as access to 96 geofencing monitoring technology, thus enabling the department director to monitor 97 vehicle usage and to determine what constitutes a reasonable accumulation of miles on 98 vehicleswhether employees are exceeding reasonable personal use as defined herein and 99 in department policies. Each department with employees authorized for take home 100 vehicle use shall follow adopted city fleet policies requiring regular audits of the fleet 101 management actual use reports and employees’ acknowledged use and procedures for 102 addressing unauthorized personal use and usage that exceeds the employee’s standard 103 commute or estimated monthly mileage, including procedures for termination of 104 authorization for take home use and disciplinary action. 105 106 3.Travel to and from secondary employment in a city vehicle is prohibited except with107 respect to public safety officers and in that case only if the secondary employer pays a108 fuel surcharge of six dollars ($6.00) per work shift of the public safety officer.109 110 C. 111 1. Employees who have a demonstrated need as set forth inauthorized for take home use112 pursuant to subsection B of this sectionA1 may use city owned motor vehicles on a113 voluntary basis with the knowledge and consent of the appropriate department head, and114 only if such employees make biweekly payments to the city for such use according to the115 following fee schedule:116 117 a.Employees who live within Salt Lake City shall make no payment for the use of118 the vehicle.119 120 b.For those employees living outside of Salt Lake City, each employee shall make a121 biweekly payment to the city in the amount of three dollars ($3.00) per mile based122 upon the distance of the employee’s standard commute from the Salt Lake City123 limits to the employee's homeresidence. Such distance shall be calculated using124 the shortest possible driving distance from the city limits to the residence as125 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT evidenced by a commonly available internet or computer software program that 126 estimates distances using driving directions. The distance calculated by such 127 program shall be rounded to the nearest whole mile by calculating the mileage to 128 the hundredth of a mile and then applying standard rounding practices. An 129 employee who disagrees with the determination of the city regarding that distance 130 calculation may appeal that determination to the employee's department head or 131 the department head's designee, pursuant to a process established by departmental 132 policy. Any department's policy shall require the employee to: 1) provide 133 documentation supporting any disagreement with the distance determination of 134 the city, and 2) describe any action taken by the department regarding the matter. 135 The department shall maintain records regarding the appeal and shall make those 136 records available for audit purposes. 137 138 2. The city council shall reevaluate the fee schedule each year in conjunction with its139 adoption of the annual city budget. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary,140 department heads, including the chief of the police department and the chief of the fire141 department, shall not be required to pay the fees imposed by this subsection C.142 143 3.The mayor shall, by written policy, set forth liability insurance coverage to such144 employees, which coverage shall be not less than two hundred thousand dollars145 ($200,000.00) per incident, shall cover bodily injury, death, and property damage and146 shall be in addition to that required by Utah code sections 31A-22-304 and 63G-7-802.147 Liability coverage provided by the City for an employee’s authorized personal or off-duty148 use of city owned vehicles under this subsection is set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 63G-7-149 802 and is limited to the minimum levels required by state law. It is the responsibility of150 the employee to purchase supplemental insurance coverage for the authorized personal or151 off-duty use of city vehicles, including coverage for any personal or off-duty use152 passengers, if applicable, under this subsection.153 154 D.Except for vehicles provided to department directors pursuant to subsection B1 of this155 section, under no circumstances shall a city owned vehicle be authorized for take home156 use for an employee who resides farther than thirty five (35) miles from the city limits, as157 calculated pursuant to subsection C of this section, regardless of the department in which158 the employee is employed159 Except for vehicles provided to department directors pursuant to subsection A4 of this160 section, any employee whose standard commute exceeds sixty (60) miles from the city161 limits may only be authorized for take home use of a city owned vehicle with the express162 permission of the employee’s department director and the mayor or the mayor’s designee.163 With respect to public safety officers authorized pursuant to subsection A1 of this164 section, the Chief of Police or Fire Chief may permit city owned vehicles to be secured at165 a police station or fire department located within a sixty (60) mile radius from the city166 limits if a determination is made that such arrangement is necessary and reasonable .167 168 E. Except as provided for herein, under no circumstances shall a city vehicle be used for any169 purpose other than city business, to promote a city interest, or for any use authorized by170 the mayor or the mayor’s designee.171 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 172 SECTION 2. Amending Section 2.54.060. Section 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code shall 173 be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 174 Any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be grounds for suspension or dismissal 175 from employment, but shall not be considered a criminal offense , except as set forth in Utah Code 176 Ann. § 76-8-402. 177 178 SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first 179 publication. 180 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of ____________, 2022. 181 182 183 CHAIRPERSON 184 ATTEST: 185 186 187 ______________________________ 188 CITY RECORDER 189 190 191 Transmitted to Mayor on . 192 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 193 194 195 196 MAYOR 197 198 199 ______________________________ 200 CITY RECORDER 201 202 (SEAL) 203 204 205 Bill No. ________ of 2022. 206 Published: ______________. 207 208 209 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2021 An ordinance amending Sections 2.54.030 and 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code Pertaining to the Use of City Owned Motor Vehicles) An ordinance amending Section 2.54 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the use of city owned motor vehicles. WHEREAS, Chapter 2.54 “City Owned Motor Vehicles” provides certain conditions for the permitted use of city owned vehicles for personal use, including commuting to and from work; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that updates to the current ordinance are necessary to ensure that the permitted personal use of city owned vehicles is equitable for all Salt Lake City employees as well as reasonably limited to protect Salt Lake City property; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council further desires to revise the current ordinance to require Salt Lake City employees who are authorized for personal take home use of city vehicles to abide by the liability insurance coverage requirements set forth in Utah Code § 63G-7-802; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending Section 2.54.030. Section 2.54.030 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: A. No motor vehicle owned by the city may be taken home by any city employee except under the following circumstances: 1. Authorization to regularly take home a city owned vehicle is granted to a full-time employee by the department director and approved by the mayor, they mayor’s chief of staff, or his or her designee based on a demonstrated need for such vehicle to be taken home to serve the public interest, which demonstrated need must be based on one of the following criteria: a. The vehicle is assigned as a qualified take-home vehicle to a sworn and certified law enforcement officer of the Salt Lake City police department or an employee of the Salt Lake City fire department (in either case, a "public safety officer") pursuant to the department's take home vehicle policy. Public safety officers shall at all times maintain in their vehicle an article of clothing or equipment that clearly identifies them as public safety officers of Salt Lake City to be used in the event of unexpected or off-duty deployment; or b. The nature of the employee's work requires immediate response to emergency situations, regardless of frequency, that require the use of specific safety or emergency equipment that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee's personal vehicle. 2. Due to an isolated incident of use when, because of the lateness of the hour or other peculiar circumstances, it is impractical or impossible to return such vehicle to city custody at the end of a duty shift; 3. Due to emergency circumstances, the ability of the employee to access their primary location of employment is compromised such that the employee may be unable to reasonably retrieve such vehicle from, or return such vehicle to, city custody. The employee in such circumstance must obtain prior written consent from their department director describing the limited time period during which the employee is authorized to take the vehicle home, along with a description of the circumstances necessitating the temporary authorization; or 4. The employee has been designated as the director of a city department. B. Authorization to take home a city owned vehicle subject to subsection A1 is subject to the following requirements: 1. Prior to receiving authorization, an employee must establish their daily commute mileage by calculating the shortest possible driving distance from the primary location of employment to the employee’s residence, as evidenced by a commonly available internet program or application that estimates distances using driving directions (the “standard commute”). Each employee will be required to provide documentation of their standard commute. For such employees, reasonable personal use of a take home vehicle is allowed within the employee’s standard commute or related to a public safety officer’s use of the vehicle while actively responsible for callback duty. Such reasonable personal use shall be further defined by department policies, which shall set forth a mileage radius limit from the employee’s residence, to limit excessive mileage and wear and tear incurred on city vehicles. No personal use may be made of the vehicle outside of these limits. Prior to receiving authorization, employees shall agree, in writing, to abide by the provisions of this chapter, to limit take-home use of the vehicle as described herein, to maintain and use the vehicle in a clean, safe, and serviceable manner, and to acknowledge that the employee has no expectation of privacy in their use of any city-owned vehicle. 2. Fleet management shall provide to the department director access to reports detailing usage, safety data, location, and mileage of city vehicles, as well as access to geofencing monitoring technology, thus enabling the department director to monitor vehicle usage and to determine whether employees are exceeding reasonable personal use as defined herein and in department policies. Each department with employees authorized for take home vehicle use shall follow adopted city fleet policies requiring regular audits of the fleet management actual use reports and employees’ acknowledged use and procedures for addressing unauthorized personal use and usage that exceeds the employee’s standard commute or estimated monthly mileage, including procedures for termination of authorization for take home use and disciplinary action. 3. Travel to and from secondary employment in a city vehicle is prohibited except with respect to public safety officers and in that case only if the secondary employer pays a fuel surcharge of six dollars ($6.00) per work shift of the public safety officer. C. 1. Employees authorized for take home use pursuant to subsection A1 may use city owned motor vehicles only if such employees make biweekly payments to the city for such use according to the following fee schedule: a. Employees who live within Salt Lake City shall make no payment for the use of the vehicle. b. For those employees living outside of Salt Lake City, each employee shall make a biweekly payment to the city in the amount of three dollars ($3.00) per mile based upon the distance of the employee’s standard commute from the Salt Lake City limits to the employee's residence. 2. The city council shall reevaluate the fee schedule each year in conjunction with its adoption of the annual city budget. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, department heads, including the chief of the police department and the chief of the fire department, shall not be required to pay the fees imposed by this subsection C. 3. Liability coverage provided by the City for an employee’s authorized personal or off-duty use of city owned vehicles under this subsection is set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 63G-7- 802 and is limited to the minimum levels required by state law. It is the responsibility of the employee to purchase supplemental insurance coverage for the authorized personal or off-duty use of city vehicles, including coverage for any personal or off-duty use passengers, if applicable, under this subsection. D. Except for vehicles provided to department directors pursuant to subsection A4 of this section, a city owned vehicle may only be authorized for take home use for an employee whose standard commute exceeds sixty (60) miles from the city limits with the express permission of the employee’s department director and the mayor or the mayor’s designee. With respect to public safety officers authorized pursuant to subsection A1 of this section, the Chief of Police or Fire Chief may permit city owned vehicles to be secured at a police station or fire department located within a sixty (60) mile radius from the city limits if a determination is made that such arrangement is necessary and reasonable. E. Except as provided for herein, under no circumstances shall a city vehicle be used for any purpose other than city business, to promote a city interest, or for any use authorized by the mayor or the mayor’s designee. SECTION 2. Amending Section 2.54.060. Section 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: Any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be grounds for suspension or dismissal from employment, but shall not be considered a criminal offense, except as set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-402. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of ____________, 2020. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2021. Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________ By:__________________________ Senior City Attorney 12/21/2021 Sara Montoya ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date Sent to Council: TO: DATE: December 21, 2021 FROM: Salt Lake City Council Amy Fowler, Chair Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer SUBJECT: An ordinance amending Sections 2.54.030 and 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code Pertaining to the Use of City Owned Motor Vehicles STAFF CONTACTS: Rachel Otto, Mayor’s Office Sara Montoya, Senior City Attorney DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the ordinance. BUDGET IMPACT: Anticipated to be negligible. May result in some increased costs, but will also decrease costs as a result of tighter “personal use” allowance. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In the face of increasing competition for qualified law enforcement officers across the state, as well as feedback from the Police Department that the City’s current take-home vehicle ordinance was a detractor from recruitment, the Mayor’s Office determined earlier this year to examine whether to amend this ordinance. The proposed revision was created in conjunction with the Police Department and Public Services. Below is a brief synopsis of the changes: Limitations on personal use of vehicles: Previously, the ordinance permitted employees to use city-owned vehicles for “reasonable personal use” within Salt Lake County and the employee’s home county. The proposed changes have limited personal use to “reasonable personal use within . . . the employee’s standard commute or related to a public safety officer’s use of the vehicle while actively responsible for callback duty.” The purpose of this change is to better tailor the policy to the intended benefits of taking home a vehicle, Lisa Shaffer (Dec 29, 2021 15:37 MST) 12/29/2021 12/29/2021 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 including the benefit to the City of having public safety officers available for immediate response when on callback duty, without accumulating excessive mileage or permitting excessive personal use of the vehicles. The proposed ordinance includes procedures for establishing the employee’s “standard commute,” and requires employees to first agree, in writing, to comply with the ordinance, limit personal use, maintain the vehicle, and acknowledge that there is no expectation of privacy their use of city vehicles. “Reasonable personal use” will be further defined as per Fleet and Departmental policy. Expanded eligibility radius for permitted take home use: The proposed ordinance expands authorized take home use to any employee residing 60 miles or less from the city limits, an increase from the current ordinance’s limit of 35 miles or less.. Additionally, the proposed change permits exceptions to this radius requirement on a case-by-case basis, with permission of the employee’s department director and the mayor. The primary purpose of this change is to enable the City to recruit new public safety officers, as an increasing number of recruits reside in communities surrounding the City, and public safety agencies in other communities often have robust take home vehicle policies. The previous 35-mile limitation seemed to arbitrarily cut employees living furthest from the city out of the policy (arguably those most benefitted from commuting in a city-owned vehicle). Additionally, this change encourages more equity in the take home policy, as the previous ordinance permitted very broad personal use for employees within Salt Lake County and their home county, while other employees residing just a few miles outside of the limit were not permitted to even commute in a city vehicle, even without personal use. Reporting and enforceability: The proposed ordinance calls for Fleet to maintain a take home vehicle policy and to provide department directors with access to geofencing technology and telemetrics reports, allowing them to audit employees’ vehicle use. The Fleet policy must also set forth procedures to address unauthorized use. These provisions are intended to allow the City to monitor and enforce the terms of the ordinance. Liability Insurance: Utah Code sets forth the insurance coverage a government entity must carry to cover circumstances where a city employee is using a city vehicle outside the scope of employment, with the express or implied consent of the city. The proposed amendments bring the ordinance in line with the State Code minimum insurance requirements. Cleanup: The proposed new ordinance re-structures the authorization provision and removes some categories of authorization for simplification. Emergency circumstances: The changes include new language permitting employees to take home a vehicle when emergency circumstances make it difficult or unsafe for an employee to return a vehicle at the end of their shift. This is intended to address circumstances such as the protests in summer 2020 when public safety officers had to get through demonstrators to gain access to the public safety building to pick up or return their vehicles. This could also address inclement weather situations, such as snow storms, etc. Attachments: A. Legislative Draft B. Ordinance LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2022 2 3 (An ordinance amending Sections 2.54.030 and 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code 4 Pertaining to the Use of City Owned Motor Vehicles) 5 6 An ordinance amending Section 2.54 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the use of city 7 owned motor vehicles. 8 WHEREAS, Chapter 2.54 “City Owned Motor Vehicles” provides certain conditions for the 9 permitted use of city owned vehicles for personal use, including commuting to and from work; and 10 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that updates to the current ordinance are 11 necessary to ensure that the permitted personal use of city owned vehicles is equitable for all Salt Lake 12 City employees as well as reasonably limited to protect Salt Lake City property; and 13 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council further desires to revise the current ordinance to 14 require Salt Lake City employees who are authorized for personal take home use of city vehicles 15 to abide by the liability insurance coverage requirements set forth in Utah Code § 63G-7-802; and 16 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 17 SECTION 1. Amending Section 2.54.030. Section 2.54.030 of the Salt Lake City Code 18 shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 19 A.Except as provided in subsection B of this section, nNo motor vehicle owned by the city20 may be taken home by any city employee except under the following circumstances:21 22 1. Authorization to regularly take home a city owned vehicle is granted to a full-time23 employee by the department director and approved by the mayor, they mayor’s chief of24 staff, or his or her designee based on a demonstrated need for such vehicle to be taken 25 home to serve the public interest, which demonstrated need must be based on one of the 26 following criteria:; or 27 28 a. The vehicle is assigned as a qualified take-home vehicle to a sworn and certified29 law enforcement officer of the Salt Lake City police department or an employee 30 of the Salt Lake City fire department (in either case, a "public safety officer") 31 pursuant to the department's take home vehicle policy. Public safety officers shall 32 at all times maintain in their vehicle an article of clothing or equipment that 33 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT clearly identifies them as public safety officers of Salt Lake City to be used in the 34 event of unexpected or off-duty deployment; or 35 36 b. The nature of the employee's work requires immediate response to emergency37 situations, regardless of frequency, that require the use of specific safety or 38 emergency equipment that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee's 39 personal vehicle. 40 41 2. Due to an isolated incident of use when, because of the lateness of the hour or other42 peculiar circumstances, it is impractical or impossible to return such vehicle to city43 custody at the end of a duty shift;. 44 45 3. Due to emergency circumstances, the ability of the employee to access their primary46 location of employment is compromised such that the employee may be unable to 47 reasonably retrieve such vehicle from, or return such vehicle to, city custody. The 48 employee in such circumstance must obtain prior written consent from their department 49 director describing the limited time period during which the employee is authorized to 50 take the vehicle home, along with a description of the circumstances necessitating the 51 temporary authorization; or 52 53 4. The employee has been designated as the director of a city department.54 55 B. Authorization to regularly take home a city owned vehicle pursuant to subsection A1 is56 subject to the following requirementsmay be granted to a full time employee for a57 “demonstrated need” based on at least one of the following criteria :58 59 1. The employee has been designated as the director of a city department.60 2. The vehicle is assigned to a sworn and certified law enforcement officer of the Salt Lake61 City police department or an employee of the Salt Lake City fire department (in either62 case, a “public safety officer”) pursuant to their department’s take home car program63 requirements. Public safety officers shall at all times maintain in their vehicle an article64 of clothing or equipment that clearly identifies them as public safety officers of Salt Lake65 City to be used in the event of unexpected or off duty deployment.66 3. The employee must respond to at least five (5) emergency situations or callbacks to work67 per month.68 4. The nature of the employee’s work requires immediate response to emergency situations,69 regardless of frequency, that require the use of specific safety or emergency equipment70 that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee’s personal vehicle.71 72 5. For vehicles provided pursuant to subsections B2 through B4 of this section, reasonable73 personal use of the take home vehicle is allowed within Salt Lake County and the county74 in which the employee resides. No personal use may be made of the vehicle outside of75 these limits. The amount and nature of personal use shall be established by department76 policy, and shall be a reasonable amount and nature that, as described in that policy, shall77 not accumulate excessive miles on the vehicle.78 1. Prior to receiving authorization, an employee must establish their daily commute79 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT mileage by calculating the shortest possible driving distance from the primary location of 80 employment to the employee’s residence, as evidenced by a commonly available internet 81 program or application that estimates distances using driving directions (the “standard 82 commute”). Each employee will be required to provide documentation of their standard 83 commute. For such employees, reasonable personal use of a take home vehicle is allowed 84 within the employee’s standard commute or related to a public safety officer’s use of the 85 vehicle while actively responsible for callback duty. Such reasonable personal use shall 86 be further defined by department policies, which shall set forth a mileage radius limit 87 from the employee’s residence, to limit excessive mileage and wear and tear incurred on 88 city vehicles. No personal use may be made of the vehicle outside of these limits. Prior to 89 receiving authorization, employees shall agree, in writing, to abide by the provisions of 90 this chapter, to limit take-home use of the vehicle as described herein, to maintain and 91 use the vehicle in a clean, safe, and serviceable manner, and to acknowledge that the 92 employee has no expectation of privacy in their use of any city-owned vehicle. 93 94 2.Fleet management shall provide to the department director a monthlyaccess to reports95 detailing usage, safety data, location, and mileage of city vehicles, as well as access to 96 geofencing monitoring technology, thus enabling the department director to monitor 97 vehicle usage and to determine what constitutes a reasonable accumulation of miles on 98 vehicleswhether employees are exceeding reasonable personal use as defined herein and 99 in department policies. Each department with employees authorized for take home 100 vehicle use shall follow adopted city fleet policies requiring regular audits of the fleet 101 management actual use reports and employees’ acknowledged use and procedures for 102 addressing unauthorized personal use and usage that exceeds the employee’s standard 103 commute or estimated monthly mileage, including procedures for termination of 104 authorization for take home use and disciplinary action. 105 106 3.Travel to and from secondary employment in a city vehicle is prohibited except with107 respect to public safety officers and in that case only if the secondary employer pays a108 fuel surcharge of six dollars ($6.00) per work shift of the public safety officer.109 110 C. 111 1. Employees who have a demonstrated need as set forth inauthorized for take home use112 pursuant to subsection B of this sectionA1 may use city owned motor vehicles on a113 voluntary basis with the knowledge and consent of the appropriate department head, and114 only if such employees make biweekly payments to the city for such use according to the115 following fee schedule:116 117 a.Employees who live within Salt Lake City shall make no payment for the use of118 the vehicle.119 120 b.For those employees living outside of Salt Lake City, each employee shall make a121 biweekly payment to the city in the amount of three dollars ($3.00) per mile based122 upon the distance of the employee’s standard commute from the Salt Lake City123 limits to the employee's homeresidence. Such distance shall be calculated using124 the shortest possible driving distance from the city limits to the residence as125 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT evidenced by a commonly available internet or computer software program that 126 estimates distances using driving directions. The distance calculated by such 127 program shall be rounded to the nearest whole mile by calculating the mileage to 128 the hundredth of a mile and then applying standard rounding practices. An 129 employee who disagrees with the determination of the city regarding that distance 130 calculation may appeal that determination to the employee's department head or 131 the department head's designee, pursuant to a process established by departmental 132 policy. Any department's policy shall require the employee to: 1) provide 133 documentation supporting any disagreement with the distance determination of 134 the city, and 2) describe any action taken by the department regarding the matter. 135 The department shall maintain records regarding the appeal and shall make those 136 records available for audit purposes. 137 138 2. The city council shall reevaluate the fee schedule each year in conjunction with its 139 adoption of the annual city budget. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, 140 department heads, including the chief of the police department and the chief of the fire 141 department, shall not be required to pay the fees imposed by this subsection C. 142 143 3. The mayor shall, by written policy, set forth liability insurance coverage to such 144 employees, which coverage shall be not less than two hundred thousand dollars 145 ($200,000.00) per incident, shall cover bodily injury, death, and property damage and 146 shall be in addition to that required by Utah code sections 31A-22-304 and 63G-7-802. 147 Liability coverage provided by the City for an employee’s authorized personal or off-duty 148 use of city owned vehicles under this subsection is set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 63G-7-149 802 and is limited to the minimum levels required by state law. It is the responsibility of 150 the employee to purchase supplemental insurance coverage for the authorized personal or 151 off-duty use of city vehicles, including coverage for any personal or off-duty use 152 passengers, if applicable, under this subsection. 153 154 D. Except for vehicles provided to department directors pursuant to subsection B1 of this 155 section, under no circumstances shall a city owned vehicle be authorized for take home 156 use for an employee who resides farther than thirty five (35) miles from the city limits, as 157 calculated pursuant to subsection C of this section, regardless of the department in which 158 the employee is employed 159 Except for vehicles provided to department directors pursuant to subsection A4 of this 160 section, any employee whose standard commute exceeds sixty (60) miles from the city 161 limits may only be authorized for take home use of a city owned vehicle with the express 162 permission of the employee’s department director and the mayor or the mayor’s designee. 163 With respect to public safety officers authorized pursuant to subsection A1 of this 164 section, the Chief of Police or Fire Chief may permit city owned vehicles to be secured at 165 a police station or fire department located within a sixty (60) mile radius from the city 166 limits if a determination is made that such arrangement is necessary and reasonable . 167 168 E. Except as provided for herein, under no circumstances shall a city vehicle be used for any 169 purpose other than city business, to promote a city interest, or for any use authorized by 170 the mayor or the mayor’s designee. 171 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 172 SECTION 2. Amending Section 2.54.060. Section 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code shall 173 be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 174 Any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be grounds for suspension or dismissal 175 from employment, but shall not be considered a criminal offense , except as set forth in Utah Code 176 Ann. § 76-8-402. 177 178 SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first 179 publication. 180 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of ____________, 2022. 181 182 183 CHAIRPERSON 184 ATTEST: 185 186 187 ______________________________ 188 CITY RECORDER 189 190 191 Transmitted to Mayor on . 192 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 193 194 195 196 MAYOR 197 198 199 ______________________________ 200 CITY RECORDER 201 202 (SEAL) 203 204 205 Bill No. ________ of 2022. 206 Published: ______________. 207 208 209 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2022 (An ordinance amending Sections 2.54.030 and 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code Pertaining to the Use of City Owned Motor Vehicles) An ordinance amending Section 2.54 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to the use of city owned motor vehicles. WHEREAS, Chapter 2.54 “City Owned Motor Vehicles” provides certain conditions for the permitted use of city owned vehicles for personal use, including commuting to and from work; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that updates to the current ordinance are necessary to ensure that the permitted personal use of city owned vehicles is equitable for all Salt Lake City employees as well as reasonably limited to protect Salt Lake City property; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council further desires to revise the current ordinance to require Salt Lake City employees who are authorized for personal take home use of city vehicles to abide by the liability insurance coverage requirements set forth in Utah Code § 63G-7-802; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending Section 2.54.030. Section 2.54.030 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: A. No motor vehicle owned by the city may be taken home by any city employee except under the following circumstances: 1. Authorization to regularly take home a city owned vehicle is granted to a full-time employee by the department director and approved by the mayor, they mayor’s chief of staff, or his or her designee based on a demonstrated need for such vehicle to be taken home to serve the public interest, which demonstrated need must be based on one of the following criteria: a. The vehicle is assigned as a qualified take-home vehicle to a sworn and certified law enforcement officer of the Salt Lake City police department or an employee of the Salt Lake City fire department (in either case, a "public safety officer") pursuant to the department's take home vehicle policy. Public safety officers shall at all times maintain in their vehicle an article of clothing or equipment that clearly identifies them as public safety officers of Salt Lake City to be used in the event of unexpected or off-duty deployment; or b. The nature of the employee's work requires immediate response to emergency situations, regardless of frequency, that require the use of specific safety or emergency equipment that cannot be reasonably carried in the employee's personal vehicle. 2. Due to an isolated incident of use when, because of the lateness of the hour or other peculiar circumstances, it is impractical or impossible to return such vehicle to city custody at the end of a duty shift; 3. Due to emergency circumstances, the ability of the employee to access their primary location of employment is compromised such that the employee may be unable to reasonably retrieve such vehicle from, or return such vehicle to, city custody. The employee in such circumstance must obtain prior written consent from their department director describing the limited time period during which the employee is authorized to take the vehicle home, along with a description of the circumstances necessitating the temporary authorization; or 4. The employee has been designated as the director of a city department. B. Authorization to take home a city owned vehicle subject to subsection A1 is subject to the following requirements: 1. Prior to receiving authorization, an employee must establish their daily commute mileage by calculating the shortest possible driving distance from the primary location of employment to the employee’s residence, as evidenced by a commonly available internet program or application that estimates distances using driving directions (the “standard commute”). Each employee will be required to provide documentation of their standard commute. For such employees, reasonable personal use of a take home vehicle is allowed within the employee’s standard commute or related to a public safety officer’s use of the vehicle while actively responsible for callback duty. Such reasonable personal use shall be further defined by department policies, which shall set forth a mileage radius limit from the employee’s residence, to limit excessive mileage and wear and tear incurred on city vehicles. No personal use may be made of the vehicle outside of these limits. Prior to receiving authorization, employees shall agree, in writing, to abide by the provisions of this chapter, to limit take-home use of the vehicle as described herein, to maintain and use the vehicle in a clean, safe, and serviceable manner, and to acknowledge that the employee has no expectation of privacy in their use of any city-owned vehicle. 2. Fleet management shall provide to the department director access to reports detailing usage, safety data, location, and mileage of city vehicles, as well as access to geofencing monitoring technology, thus enabling the department director to monitor vehicle usage and to determine whether employees are exceeding reasonable personal use as defined herein and in department policies. Each department with employees authorized for take home vehicle use shall follow adopted city fleet policies requiring regular audits of the fleet management actual use reports and employees’ acknowledged use and procedures for addressing unauthorized personal use and usage that exceeds the employee’s standard commute or estimated monthly mileage, including procedures for termination of authorization for take home use and disciplinary action. 3. Travel to and from secondary employment in a city vehicle is prohibited except with respect to public safety officers and in that case only if the secondary employer pays a fuel surcharge of six dollars ($6.00) per work shift of the public safety officer. C. 1. Employees authorized for take home use pursuant to subsection A1 may use city owned motor vehicles only if such employees make biweekly payments to the city for such use according to the following fee schedule: a. Employees who live within Salt Lake City shall make no payment for the use of the vehicle. b. For those employees living outside of Salt Lake City, each employee shall make a biweekly payment to the city in the amount of three dollars ($3.00) per mile based upon the distance of the employee’s standard commute from the Salt Lake City limits to the employee's residence. 2. The city council shall reevaluate the fee schedule each year in conjunction with its adoption of the annual city budget. Notwithstanding anything herein to the contrary, department heads, including the chief of the police department and the chief of the fire department, shall not be required to pay the fees imposed by this subsection C. 3. Liability coverage provided by the City for an employee’s authorized personal or off-duty use of city owned vehicles under this subsection is set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 63G-7- 802 and is limited to the minimum levels required by state law. It is the responsibility of the employee to purchase supplemental insurance coverage for the authorized personal or off-duty use of city vehicles, including coverage for any personal or off-duty use passengers, if applicable, under this subsection. D. Except for vehicles provided to department directors pursuant to subsection A4 of this section, a city owned vehicle may only be authorized for take home use for an employee whose standard commute exceeds sixty (60) miles from the city limits with the express permission of the employee’s department director and the mayor or the mayor’s designee. With respect to public safety officers authorized pursuant to subsection A1 of this section, the Chief of Police or Fire Chief may permit city owned vehicles to be secured at a police station or fire department located within a sixty (60) mile radius from the city limits if a determination is made that such arrangement is necessary and reasonable. E. Except as provided for herein, under no circumstances shall a city vehicle be used for any purpose other than city business, to promote a city interest, or for any use authorized by the mayor or the mayor’s designee. SECTION 2. Amending Section 2.54.060. Section 2.54.060 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: Any violation of the provisions of this chapter shall be grounds for suspension or dismissal from employment, but shall not be considered a criminal offense, except as set forth in Utah Code Ann. § 76-8-402. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of ____________, 2022. CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2022. Published: ______________. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Allison Rowland Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:April 19, 2022 RE: INFORMATIONAL: STATUS UPDATE ON FOOTHILLS TRAIL SYSTEM ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE In a discussion of items included in Fiscal Year 2022 Budget Amendment #6 (BAM#6), the Council requested a status update related to the Foothills Trail System from the Department of Public Lands. In response, the Department provided information in a transmittal for the Council to consider as possibly fulfilling this request. The Council could choose to schedule a vote on this matter if it decides that the request was fulfilled with this information. In brief, the Department of Public Lands reported the following in response to five specific parts of the Council’s request: -Plan implementation work completed or paused to date: Six trails have been completed and two are “on pause” (Twin Peaks Trail and Dry Creek Trail). -Overview of the funds and projects that are on hold per the annual budget contingency: $328,556. -Status of the independent audit / professional review of trails and timeline for the resulting written evaluation report: An environmental consultant was hired, and this analysis should be complete in August 2022. For the Trails Plan and Construction Evaluation, the Department canceled a first RFP and rewrote a new one to update and add items. They expect to issue it in April 2022. Item Schedule: Briefing: April 19, 2022 Set Date: n/a Public Hearing: n/a Potential Action: TBD Page | 2 -Additional public engagement conducted or planned: The Department plans to hire a consultant for this task once the trails consultant is hired. -How the five new trailheads requesting funding in Budget Amendment #6 relate to the pause in work from the annual budget contingency: Trailhead projects would begin with public engagement and design work during the coming year, with construction beginning no sooner than Spring, 2023. The Department notes that the Council could place a restriction on this funding to impose a “no construction” clause until the FY2022 budget contingency requirements are met. The Department of Public Lands also stated that while the pause on trail construction continues, it will focus on building trust within the community through conservation of the natural lands and promoting responsible and sustainable trail use. Goal of the briefing: Review information provided by the Department of Public Lands and consider whether to: 1) schedule a vote on related items pending from FY22 Budget Amendment #6 (this would allow the Department to go forward with the State grant for trailheads); 2) approve the Department’s recommendations for next steps, which appear in section E below. ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION A.Responses to Council request for information. In a transmittal received by the Council Office on March 18, the Department of Public Lands provided the following information in response to topics requested by the Council in the March 22 discussion of BA#6. (Department of Public Lands responses in blue font below.) 1.Plan implementation work completed or paused to date. Phase 1 Trails Plan Implementation Trails Fully Completed: - Popperton Trails, - Lower City Creek Loop, - Avenues Ridge Trail, - 19th Ave Trail, - BST Valleyview (partial re-alignment), - BST East City Creek Trails Partially Completed and on pause: Twin Peaks Trail 75% complete. Trails in Phase 1 not started and on pause: Dry Creek Trail 0% Complete 2.Overview of the funds and projects that are on hold per the annual budget contingency. Phase I Trails Plan Implementation Funding on Hold per Budget Contingency Total Appropriation: - Grant Funding: $250,000 - City Funding: $ 901,027 Funds Expended: - Grant Funding: $250,000 Page | 3 - City Funding: $347,088 Funds Reallocated for Phase 1 Review: $225,383 Funds on Pause: $ 328,556 3.Status of the independent audit / professional review of trails and timeline for the resulting written evaluation report. -Environmental Analysis: Scope of Work was finalized and contracted with SWCA Environmental Consultants in November 2021. Work for the Environmental Analysis commenced in January 2022 and is anticipated to be complete in August 2022. -Trails Plan & Construction Evaluation: Request For Proposals (RFP) submissions were due in January 2022, but there was consensus from the selection committee that the RFP and the proposals received did not adequately represent the evolving needs based on unforeseen factors and an expanded scope of work. Salt Lake City Public Lands has canceled this first RFP and has rewritten a new RFP to update the desired specifications and scope of work to include a deeper evaluation of the Trails Plan itself and add the creation of an addendum to the Trails Plan that will include a land conservation and trail maintenance plan and updated alignment recommendations for Phase II and III. This will provide us with the evaluation, recommendations, and documentation that will be pertinent for the responsible and sustainable management of the Foothills Natural Area. We expect to issue a new RFP by April 2022 and anticipate this work to continue through 2022 and be completed in spring of 2023. 4.Additional public engagement conducted or planned. Communications Consultant: Selection and timeline is yet to be decided, based on preceding consultants’ timelines. 5.How the five new trailheads requesting funding in Budget Amendment #6 relate to the pause in work from the annual budget contingency. During the Budget Amendment Approval Process Council has requested clarification on whether funding for the Foothills Trailhead Improvements is included in the “conditional appropriation about future dollars spent on foothill trails.” The conditional appropriation about future funding spent on foothill trails was primarily related to the “construction, modification and decommissioning of trails built under the Foothills Trail System Master Plan.” The grant funding requested would fund public engagement and design work of five trailhead projects, in the urban zone, in the first twelve months, with construction planned no earlier than spring of 2023. Council could place a restriction on this funding to impose a no construction clause until the FY2022 budget contingency requirements are met. If constructed, the new trailheads would provide full-service amenities that include parking; comfort stations/restrooms at Bonneville Blvd and Popperton and; wayfinding, kiosks, and interpretive signage to promote safe recreation and conservation of natural lands; and minor trail work to connect the trailheads to the BST. B.Additional Information from the Department. Page | 4 In FY 21 the City Council allocated $193,336 for design of five trailheads identified in the Foothills Trail System Plan. These locations included: 1. Bonneville Boulevard near City Creek Canyon and Utah State Capitol, 2. Emigration Canyon near This Is The Place Heritage Park, 3. Popperton Park near the University of Utah, 4. 18th Avenue in the upper Avenues neighborhood, and 5. Victory Road northwest of the Utah State Capitol. C.Background: In FY22 Budget Amendment #6, the Administration included a grant awarded by the Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity for the Bonneville Shoreline Trail, which is part of the City’s Foothills Trail System. 1. The February 1 staff report described the issue as follows: E-4: State of Utah, Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity, Bonneville Shoreline Trail Grant The Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands received $1,300,000 for the Foothills Natural Area & Bonneville Shoreline Trailhead Infrastructure Improvements. The project proposes to construct five public access trailheads along the stretch of the Bonneville Shoreline Trail that runs through the Salt Lake City foothills between Emigration Canyon and Davis County. Proposed trailhead locations are: 1) Bonneville Boulevard near City Creek Canyon and Utah State Capitol, 2) Emigration Canyon near This Is The Place Heritage Park, 3) Popperton Park near the University of Utah, 4) 18th Avenue in the upper Avenues neighborhood, and 5) Victory Road northwest of the Utah State Capitol. This grant has a match requirement of $1,300,000. Parks & Public Lands has committed matching funds is from parks impact fees adopted in FY 2022 Capital Improvement Program for the Foothills Trailhead Development Phase II. The $2.6 million total project funding will fully cover construction costs at all five locations based on current plans and estimates. Note: This funding is not subject to the FY2022 annual budget adoption ordinance contingency on all Foothill trails funding because this project is constructing trailhead infrastructure. Policy Question: Pausing Trail Construction and Building Trailhead Infrastructure – The Council may wish to ask the Administration how this relates to the pause in work relating to the Foothills Trails Plan. 2. The March 22 Update to the BA #6 staff report added this: E-4: State of Utah, Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity, Bonneville Shoreline Trail Grant ($1.3 million), and, I-2: Rescope $1.3 Million of Parks Impact Fees as Match to State Grant for Five New Foothills Trailheads (Budget Neutral) Page | 5 The deadline for the City to use the grant funding for item E-4 if June 30, 2023. The Department is requesting an extension from the State since the timeline for the capital improvements will likely exceed the current deadline. The Council requested a briefing on the Foothill Trails System Plan implementation status from the Parks and Public Lands Department before considering votes on items E-4 and I-2, in which case, the Council may wish to continue holding this item open until further discussion can take place. Some specific topics Council Members mentioned for the briefing include: -Plan implementation work completed or paused to date -Overview of the funds and projects that are on hold per the FY2022 annual budget contingency -Status of the independent audit / professional review of trails and timeline for the resulting written evaluation report -Additional public engagement conducted or planned -How the five new trailheads requesting funding in Budget Amendment #6 relates to the pause in work from the annual budget contingency D.Department Next Steps. 2022 Goal: Building Trust not Trails Given the continued pause on trail construction of the Foothills Trail System Plan, Salt Lake City Public Lands will focus our Foothills work on building trust within the community by supporting the conservation of the natural lands and promoting responsible and sustainable trail use. These plans include: Rehabilitate Trench above Terrace Hills: Announce our plans to actively rehabilitate the damage and get input on an updated plan for this specific segment. -Repair damage by the cut trenches in 2021 by filling with the removed soil and rehabilitating ridgeline. -Work with local natural lands managers and botanists to design a plan for re-seeding and revegetation of the rehabbed trenches and the areas of legacy trail with excessive deterioration. -Work with our trail design consultant on an identified legacy trail alignment that is in line with industry standards with significant input from the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forest and Trails Advisory Board. -Review proposal with key community stakeholders (Save our Foothills, SLC Trails Alliance, others) for input. -Present proposal to Mayor; submit briefing to City Council. -Ensure proposal is communicated effectively with appropriate signage and fencing at the route access points and through various communication channels including community councils and social media. Maintenance of Trail Network: Utilizing internal staff and volunteers, use hand tools to maintain the City-built section of Foothills trails that experience erosion due to water flow, sediment and vegetation failure. Without seasonal care, public safety for trail users is compromised and further deterioration of the natural environment may occur. -Current Needs: BST East City Creek and Lower City Creek Loop trails need revegetation and stabilization efforts and on back slopes (to be completed by staff); Lower City Creek Loop needs trail surface repair from two separate Public Utilities pipe leaks (to be completed by external professionals in conjunction with pipe and road repairs); 19th Ave needs seasonal bike feature Page | 6 maintenance, and all trails need seasonal loose debris clearance on trails for public safety (volunteers and staff). -Promotion of Sustainable Trail Culture: Salt Lake City Public Lands will work with our internal communications team and communications consultant to positively promote sustainable trail culture with guidelines regarding e-mountain bikes, dogs in natural areas, and trail use etiquette to help protect our environment using trail signage, social media and online updates, and trailhead events hosted by staff and our Trail Ambassadors. E.Department Recommendations. In the March 22 transmittal, the Department of Public Lands made the following Recommendations to the Council that would allow the Department to proceed on the path described above: 1. Approve planning, design, and community engagement of the five Foothill Trailheads, with a “no construction clause” placed on funding approval until FY22 Budget, conditional appropriation requirements are met. 2. Approve request to continue pause on trail construction until Spring 2023. 3. Approve maintenance work to rehabilitate Trench above Terrace Hills. 4. Approve Maintenance of constructed trail network starting in Spring 2022. POLICY QUESTION The Council may wish to discuss whether to schedule a vote on related items pending from FY22 Budget Amendment #6, since those items were held open pending this update. Page 1 of 4 SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84104 ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR DEPARTMENT of PUBLIC LANDS OFFICE of the DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrator Officer Date sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 10, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Kristin Riker, Director, Public Lands Department SUBJECT: Foothill System Trails Plan Status Update STAFF CONTACT: Tyler Murdock, Deputy Director Planning & Ecological Services, Public Lands, tyler.murdock@slcgov.com; Tyler Fonarow, Recreational Trails Manager, Public Lands, tyler.fonarow@slcgov.com COUNCIL SPONSOR: Not Applicable DOCUMENT TYPE: Information Item RECOMMENDATION: 1. Approve planning, design, and community engagement of the five Foothill Trailheads, with a “no construction clause” placed on funding approval until FY22 Budget, conditional appropriation requirements are met. 2. Approve request to continue pause on trail construction until Spring 2023. 3. Approve maintenance work to rehabilitate Trench above Terrace Hills. 4. Approve Maintenance of constructed trail network starting in Spring 2022. BUDGET IMPACT: $1,300,000 State of Utah, Governor’s office of Economic Opportunity, Bonneville Shoreline Trail Grant BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In FY 21 the City Council allocated $193,336 for design of five trailheads identified in the Foothills Trail System Plan. These locations included: 1. Bonneville Boulevard near City Creek Canyon and Utah State Capitol, 2. Emigration Canyon near This Is The Place Heritage Park, 3. Popperton Park near the University of Utah, 4. 18th Avenue in the upper Avenues neighborhood, and DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC LANDS 1965 WEST 500 SOUTH WWW.SLCGOV.COM TEL:801-972-7800 Lisa Shaffer (Mar 18, 2022 13:55 MDT)03/18/2022 03/18/2022 Page 2 of 4 5. Victory Road northwest of the Utah State Capitol. Conceptual Design work commenced in 2021 and draft concepts were completed later that year. Following completion of the initial concept designs, Salt Lake City Public Lands requested full design and construction funding during the FY 22 CIP process. The City Council allocated partial funding of $1.3 million for design and construction of two trailheads located at Emigration Canyon and Bonneville Blvd. Public Lands then used these City dollars to request matching funds from the Utah Governor’s Office of Economic Opportunity in the amount of $1.3 million to complete all five proposed trailhead improvements. Combined, these funding sources provide funding for completion of public engagement, construction design and construction at all five proposed trailhead locations. Design is would occur in 2022 with anticipated construction occurring in late 2023. While trailheads and access points are mentioned in the Foothills Trail System Plan, they also benefit the urban interface and public safety and do not involve construction, modification, or decommissioning of trails. Public Lands would like to seek approval from Council that planning, design, and community engagement of the five Foothill Trailheads proceed. Trailhead construction will be on hold until the formal pause is lifted on implementation of the Foothills Trail System Plan. Budget Amendment Approval Language During the Budget Amendment Approval Process Council has requested clarification on whether funding for the Foothills Trailhead Improvements is included in the “conditional appropriation about future dollars spent on foothill trails.” The conditional appropriation about future funding spent on foothill trails was primarily related to the “construction, modification and decommissioning of trails built under the Foothills Trail System Master Plan.” The grant funding requested would fund public engagement and design work of five trailhead projects, in the urban zone, in the first twelve months, with construction planned no earlier than spring of 2023. Council could place a restriction on this funding to impose a no construction clause until the FY2022 budget contingency requirements are met. If constructed, the new trailheads would provide full-service amenities that include parking; comfort stations/restrooms at Bonneville Blvd and Popperton and; wayfinding, kiosks, and interpretive signage to promote safe recreation and conservation of natural lands; and minor trail work to connect the trailheads to the BST. UPDATE ON CONDITIONAL APPROPRIATION REQUIREMENTS: Timeline 2016 – 2019 Foothills Trails Master Plan planning and community engagement March 2020 – May 2021 Phase I Trail Construction June 2021 Pause began with Twin Peaks Trail 75% completed and Dry Creek Trail alignment still not determined. September 2021 - June 2022 Pause extended in at Mayor’s press conference. Page 3 of 4 Phase 1 Trails Plan Implementation • Trails Fully Completed: Popperton Trails, Lower City Creek Loop, Avenues Ridge Trail, 19th Ave Trail, BST Valleyview (partial re-alignment), BST East City Creek • Trails Partially Completed and on pause: Twin Peaks Trail 75% complete. • Trails in Phase 1 not started and on pause: Dry Creek Trail 0% Complete Phase I Trails Plan Implementation Funding on Hold per Budget Contingency Total Appropriation: - Grant Funding: $250,000 - City Funding: $ 901,027 Funds Expended: - Grant Funding $250,000 - City Funding: $347,088 - Funds Reallocated for Phase 1 Review: $225,383 Funds on Pause: $ 328,556 Independent Audit/Professional Review • Environmental Analysis: Scope of Work was finalized and contracted with SWCA Environmental Consultants in November 2021. Work for the Environmental Analysis commenced in January 2022 and is anticipated to be complete in August 2022. • Trails Plan & Construction Evaluation: Request For Proposals (RFP) submissions were due in January 2022, but there was consensus from the selection committee that the RFP and the proposals received did not adequately represent the evolving needs based on unforeseen factors and an expanded scope of work. Salt Lake City Public Lands has canceled this first RFP and has rewritten a new RFP to update the desired specifications and scope of work to include a deeper evaluation of the Trails Plan itself and add the creation of an addendum to the Trails Plan that will include a land conservation and trail maintenance plan and updated alignment recommendations for Phase II and III. This will provide us with the evaluation, recommendations, and documentation that will be pertinent for the responsible and sustainable management of the Foothills Natural Area. We expect to issue a new RFP by April 2022 and anticipate this work to continue through 2022 and be completed in spring of 2023. • Communications Consultant: Selection and timeline is yet to be decided, based on preceding consultants’ timelines. • Pause Extension: With the required environmental review and Phase I evaluation not complete and likely to continue throughout 2022, Public Lands would like to formally propose to extend the pause on trail construction until the Spring of 2023, when we have completed our preliminary environmental review and the phase I evaluation. PUBLIC PROCESS: See above Communications Consultant. Page 4 of 4 NEXT STEPS: 2022 Goal: Building Trust not Trails Given the continued pause on trail construction of the Foothills Trail System Plan, Salt Lake City Public Lands will focus our Foothills work on building trust within the community by supporting the conservation of the natural lands and promoting responsible and sustainable trail use. These plans include: Rehabilitate Trench above Terrace Hills: Announce our plans to actively rehabilitate the damage and get input on an updated plan for this specific segment. • Repair damage by the cut trenches in 2021 by filling with the removed soil and rehabilitating ridgeline. • Work with local natural lands managers and botanists to design a plan for re-seeding and revegetation of the rehabbed trenches and the areas of legacy trail with excessive deterioration. • Work with our trail design consultant on an identified legacy trail alignment that is in line with industry standards with significant input from the Parks, Natural Lands, Urban Forest and Trails Advisory Board. • Review proposal with key community stakeholders (Save our Foothills, SLC Trails Alliance, others) for input. • Present proposal to Mayor; submit briefing to City Council. • Ensure proposal is communicated effectively with appropriate signage and fencing at the route access points and through various communication channels including community councils and social media. Maintenance of Trail Network: Utilizing internal staff and volunteers, use hand tools to maintain the City-built section of Foothills trails that experience erosion due to water flow, sediment and vegetation failure. Without seasonal care, public safety for trail users is compromised and further deterioration of the natural environment may occur. • Current Needs: BST East City Creek and Lower City Creek Loop trails need revegetation and stabilization efforts and on back slopes (to be completed by staff); Lower City Creek Loop needs trail surface repair from two separate Public Utilities pipe leaks (to be completed by external professionals in conjunction with pipe and road repairs); 19th Ave needs seasonal bike feature maintenance, and all trails need seasonal loose debris clearance on trails for public safety (volunteers and staff). Promotion of Sustainable Trail Culture: Salt Lake City Public Lands will work with our internal communications team and communications consultant to positively promote sustainable trail culture with guidelines regarding e-mountain bikes, dogs in natural areas, and trail use etiquette to help protect our environment using trail signage, social media and online updates, and trailhead events hosted by staff and our Trail Ambassadors. cc: Kristin Riker Tyler Murdock Tyler Fonarow Scoping, Purpose and Need Spring 2022 What we will cover Purpose of the study What we know so far Opportunities for feedback Purpose of the Study Utah’s Quality of Life Framework UDOT’s Mission Study Process What We Know So Far Aging Infrastructure Travel Time Interchange Needs Safety Shoulders Sharp Curves Limited Connections Limited Connections –East-West Early Stakeholder Engagement Resources To Be Studied Land use Community and property impacts Environmental justice Economics Traffic and transportation Equity Air quality Noise Water resources Ecosystem resources Floodplains Cultural resources Hazardous materials and waste sites Visual resources Opportunities for Input Draft Purpose and Need Statement Purpose: To improve safety, replace aging infrastructure, provide better mobility for all travel modes, strengthen the state and local economy, and better connect communities along I-15 from Farmington to Salt Lake City. The project purpose consists of the following items which are organized by UDOT’s Quality of Life Framework categories of Good Health, Connected Communities, Strong Economy, and Better Mobility. Draft Purpose and Need Statement Good Health and Connected Communities Improve the safety and operations of I-15 mainline, I-15 interchanges, bicyclist and pedestrian crossings, and the supporting roadway network. Be consistent with planned land use, growth objectives, and transportation plans. Enhance access and connectivity to FrontRunner, connection to transit, regional trails and across I-15. Draft Purpose and Need Statement Strong Economy and Better Mobility Replace aging infrastructure on I-15. Enhance the economy by reducing travel delay on I-15. Improve mobility and operations on I-15 mainline, I-15 interchanges, the supporting roadway network, transit connections, and bicyclist and pedestrian facilities to help accommodate projected 2050 travel demand. Screening Criteria Ways to submit a comment –April 11-May 13 Visit www.i15eis.udot.utah.gov and use the comment map to enter a comment (también está disponible una versión en español) Send an email to i15eis@utah.gov Address: 392 E Winchester St., Ste. 300 Salt Lake City, UT 84107 Any individual needing special accommodations to make a comment should contact the project team at (385) 220-5797 Schedule Ways to stay in touch Scoping, Purpose and Need Spring 2022 INTERNATIONAL MARKET AT THE UTAH STATE FAIRPARK & EVENT CENTER 2019 FEASIBILITY STUDY •Conducted by SLCRDA, CRSA, Projects for Public Spaces, and Zions Public Finance. •Westside is most diverse neighborhood in Utah; a major asset. •Westside is considered a food desert. •Fairpark is convenient to neighborhood but residents living further need a compelling reason to shop there. •SUGGESTED: International Market or Night Market 2019 FEASIBILITY STUDY •Market should: o Fill a niche and complement, not compete with the existing markets in the area. o Feature culturally relevant products to reflect & celebrate multiculturalism/diversity of neighborhood. PURPOSE OF THE INTERNATIONAL MARKET •Celebrates multiculturalism and diversity of SLC’s growing population. •Create a year-round destination on the west side. •Address food desert/insecurity on the west side. •Community gathering place for west side residents. •Assist immigrants & refugees as entrepreneurs •Educate locals about world cultures, customs, & beliefs. WHAT IT IS •A regular occurring event that serves as a platform to celebrate, educate, and appreciate the many diverse cultures in Utah. •A place for ethnic business owners to sell their goods, services, & food, advertise and grow their businesses. •A place for Utahn’s to: •Find unique goods from around the world. •Discover new products to try. •Learn about other cultures and customs. WHAT IT IS NOT •Another Farmers Market or Boutique. •A competing event for other markets and festivals in Northern Utah. AN INTERNATIONAL EXPERIENCE Food Entertainment Vendors Fun VENDORS •Handcrafted goods by artisans from around the world o Imported o Locally crafted •Niche food products around the world o Herbs & spices, cookies, candy, select produce, etc. •Cultural services •Outreach services •Nonprofits •Education VENDORS VENDOR INFO •Goal: 75% authentic ethnic goods & services. •Limited Imported Mass-Produced Items FOOD •Ethnically-diverse foods •Food stands •Food trucks INTERNATIONAL BEER/BEVERAGE GARDEN •Beer from around the world •International beverages ENTERTAINMENT •Indoor & Outdoor o World Music o Dance o Poetry o Storytelling PROGRAMMING •Hands-On Activities for kids, families, and adults. •Artisan Demonstrations •Ethnic Cooking Demonstrations •Workshops •Dance Classes CELEBRATIONS •Cultural Holidays from around the world. •Work with ethnic communities to plan events. PHASE 1 (2022) •Launch as a once-a- month operation. •In & around Barn 8 (9 if needed) •Up to 40 vendors 2022 DATES: Saturdays o May 28 o June 18 o July 16 o August 20 o October 29 •VENDORS OPEN 2pm-8pm •FOOD & ENTERTAINMENT 2pm- PHASE 2 •Full build-out of Barns 8, 9 & 10 •Permanent tenant space •Further growth of the outdoor space •Indoor Markets open 4 days/week, year round. •Outdoor Market open 1x/week (or more) permits. ENTRANCE •Pedestrian entrance on North Temple •Easy access from Trax stop •Free Parking (non-event days) Phase 1 Start Up Costs Capital Costs – Interior Improvements Material Quantity Cost Unit Subtotal Limited HVAC Impr. 6,229 Barn 8 $40 SF $249,160 Limited Lighting Impr. 12,000 Barn 8 $20 SF $240,000 Limited Signage 1,500 Barn 8 $30 SF $45,000 Misc. Improvements 440 Barn 8 $100 SF $44,000 * Limited Interior Improvements $578,160 Phase 1 Start Up Costs Capital Costs – Exterior Improvements Material Quantity Cost Unit Subtotal Concrete 1,197 $3 SF $3,591 Repaved Asphalt 10,000 $5.50 SF $55,000 Decking 1,386 $20 SF $27,720 Turf 2,584 $2 SF $5,168 Trees 8 $550 EA $4,400 Planters 8 $35 SF $11,856 O.H string lights 440 $85 LF $37,400 Food Truck Service 8 $1,250 EA $10,000 Phase 1 Start Up Costs Capital Costs – Exterior Improvements Material Quantity Cost Unit Subtotal Fencing 161 $20 LF $3,220 Site Furniture 2,040 $6 SF $12,240 Demo –24’ of brick fencing for main entrance ------$3,840 Signage 1,500 $110 SF $165,000 Entrance enlarged to 53’, decorative gate installed ------$25,440 Limited Exterior Upgrades PHASE 1 $364,875 Phase 1 Start Up Costs Management and Operations Pre-Opening Management & Planning $50,000 Growth Management $35,000 PR and Marketing $25,000 Sponsorships/Partnerships $20,000 Fees, Permits, Legal $ 5,000 Total $135,000 Phase 1 Start Up Costs Capital Improvements & Management Indoor improvements $578,160 Exterior improvements $364,875 Managements & Operations $135,000 Total $1,078,035 WWW.SLCINTERNATIONALMARKET.COM Thank you! CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY22Budget TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards, and Lehua Weaver City Council Staff DATE:April 19, 2022 RE: Budget Amendment Number Seven FY2022 ________________________________________________________________________________ Budget Amendment Number Seven includes 25 proposed amendments and requested changes to eight funds. Total expenditures coming from Fund Balance are $843,298. The Council may wish to note that the Administration is proposing to add one ongoing IMS FTE using Fund Balance initially; although actual costs will be allocated proportionally across all funds based on usage. If all the items are adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be $45,405,201 above the 13% minimum target established by the Council in FY2020. The increase is a result of higher-than-expected revenues and unspent funds dropping to Fund Balance at the end of FY2021 as confirmed by the Comprehensive Annual Financial Report (CAFR). The Finance Department will be available at the briefing to provide a more detailed revenues update as summarized in the table later in this report. Inflation Impacts for Upcoming FY2023 Annual Budget Although there are positive revenue and fund balance reports, staff wanted to mention that there will likely be several inflationary impacts that may offset that positive news. Some departments have mentioned they expect significant cost increases for existing services and contract renewals as part of the upcoming FY2023 annual budget. In addition, the CIP Cost Overrun Account is less able to offset project cost increases in response to pandemic- related construction supplies inflation so either project scopes are reduced, or additional funding may be needed. The FY2022 annual budget included significant use of one-time funding for ongoing expenses which will need to have ongoing revenue identified in future fiscal years to continue those programs, services, and FTEs. Project Timeline: Set Date: April 19, 2022 1st Briefing: April 19, 2022 2nd Briefing: May 3, 2022 (if needed) Public Hearing: May 3, 2022 Potential Action: May 17, 2022 Page | 2 Revenue for FY2022 Budget Adjustments The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund revenue for Fiscal Year 2022. The Finance Department will be available at the briefing to review individual revenue line-item changes. According to the Administration, revenues for Fiscal Year 2021 were better than expected, while projections for Fiscal Year 2022 continue to trend above budget. The City is forecasting increases in most categories. Sales tax for the first quarter was well above budget and the prior year. However, franchise tax is lagging below budget from a decrease in water franchise ($704,000) and telephone ($218,000) franchise taxes. Licenses and Permits is coming in very strong. Licenses are above budget driven by increases in airport parking taxes and innkeepers tax. The City continues to see positive construction numbers leading permits to remain very strong with increases in plan check fees and building permits. Field reservations, land leases and building leases are leading to an increase in Charges, Fees, and Rentals. Miscellaneous revenue is seeing an increase in fuel reimbursement and other utility reimbursements. These are offset by special event revenue due to a continued decrease of in-person events in the City. Fines and Forfeitures are below budget from a decrease in moving violations and justice court fines. Interfund Reimbursement is below budget due to fire reimbursement from the airport which should show an increase next fiscal year. Page | 3 Fund Balance The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures. If all items proposed in Budget Amendment Number 7 are adopted by the Council, then Fund Balance above the 13% minimum target is $45,405,201. Impact Fees Update The Administration provided a summary of impact fee tracking, details on refunding amounts and dates and lists of unfinished projects with impact fee funding. The information is current as of March 16, 2022. As a result, the City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all FY2022 and FY2023. The Administration reports work is nearing completion to update the fire and parks sections of the impact fee plan. The transportation section was updated last year. Eligible projects for police impact fees are being identified. Type Unallocated Cash “Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring Impact Fees Fire $808,770 More than a year away - Parks $13,256,676 More than a year away - Police $524,230 More than a year away - Transportation $7,147,853 More than a year away - Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract Page | 4 Section A: New Items (note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the transmittal for some of these items) A-1: Open Space Acquisition – Public Lands ($700,000 from Parks Impact Fees) Public Lands is requesting an FY2022 budget amendment for $700,000 in unallocated parks impact fees funding to acquire property to be preserved as open space. Details on the specific property will be discussed in a Council closed session meeting. If the Council approves this funding request, then the available to spend balance of parks impact fees would be $12,556,676. A-2: Cottonwood Park Bridge Rebuild ($195,000 from Public Lands Department Vacancy Savings – Budget Neutral) The Public Lands Department is requesting a budget amendment of $195,000 to transfer general funds to POL CIP deferred maintenance fund. On November 6th, a windstorm upturned a large tree on top of the pedestrian bridge by Cottonwood Dog Park. This bridge is the main access for the dog park for residents over the Jordan River. A structural engineer has deemed that one side of the bridge can remain open to pedestrians to allow access. The engineer has also determined the bridge stability has been compromised to a level that it is unsafe for Parks vehicles to travel over this bridge, inhibiting maintenance vehicles from crossing. One of the two supporting braces on the bridge has been crushed and so the bridge can handle light pedestrian traffic but no vehicle use. The structural engineer determined that the cost of replacement of the brace is as much as the replacement of the bridge. Parks staff have barricaded the damaged side of the bridge to keep pedestrians away from the broken area for now. The bridge needs to be replaced as soon as possible as it is unclear how weather and use of the bridge may impact the bridge stability. Public Lands will continue to monitor the bridge safety until it can be replaced. Public Lands is proposing to use anticipated year-end savings as a source of funding for this bridge reconstruction. The funds would be transferred from Public Lands to the CIP Maintenance Fund. Absent this pedestrian bridge, residents living west of the river and parks maintenance crews would need to take a detour more than a third of a mile to the nearest alternative crossing over the Jordan River. A-3: UDOT Pass-through Funds for RAC Access Road ($1 million from UDOT) In 2021, Utah State Legislature Senate Bill 3 allocated funds for a road connecting Rose Park Lane to Redwood Road at 2600 North. This would be a new city-owned road. An agreement between UDOT and the City has been executed for the City to receive the funds and to manage the project design and the funds have already been transferred. The funding is limited to design, environmental work, and land acquisition. Additional funding would be needed for construction. Policy Questions: Total Project Cost – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what is the total project cost and if additional State funding is anticipated to be available for construction. Demand for the Road – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what level of demand exists currently for this new road and projected in the future. New Bridge over the Jordan River – The Council may wish to ask the Administration if the new road will require a new bridge over the Jordan River. A-4: WITHDRAWN A-5: Road Cost Center Adjustments for Class C Funds (Rescope $611,749 from 1300 East Reconstruction to 900 South Reconstruction) The Administration is requesting a rescope of Class C (gas tax) funding that remains after completion of the 1300 East reconstruction project. UDOT confirmed they have sufficient funding to cover close out costs. The funding would be rescoped for use on the 900 South corridor reconstruction project including improvements to the 9-Line Trail. The corridor project consolidates 10 individual projects across multiple departments over a few years. Page | 5 Policy Question: 9-Line Trail and 900 South Reconstruction Fully Funded – The Council may wish to ask the Administration are the multiple consolidated projects along 900 South fully funded? A-6: Leonardo Flood Damage Repair ($300,000 from Fund Balance) A rainstorm in July last year caused flooding in the sub-basement, basement and the two elevators. Sewage impacted both the Library and The Leonardo after the City’s main drain suffered a backup. The Administration reports the fundamental drainage problem has been addressed. Most of the funding estimated at $200,000 would be for cleaning, demolition, and disposal. The remaining $100,000 is for construction and replacements. Damaged areas that would be repaired include four restrooms, a mezzanine, several offices, the elevator shafts, and the cabs. Repairs also include lighting, plumbing, furniture, flooring and sump pumps. These repairs are the City’s responsibility under the primary lease between the City and The Leonardo. The areas to be repaired are part of the sub-lease to Ken Sanders Rare Books which the Council approved in December. A-7: IMS Cyber Security Portfolio Expansion ($713,680 from Fund Balance) Due to increased computer security risks, the Administration is requesting funding toward improved security software, licenses, and one new FTE for staffing needs. The breakdown includes: $500,000 for security software, called Security Incident and Event Management (SIEM) $75,000 for security assessments, such as penetration tests and vulnerability scans $65,800 for 1,000 additional licenses for laptop and PC devices $47,805 for device software $25,075 for one new staff person through the end of the fiscal year (this will make four cyber security engineer positions) Some of these items are initial expenses for the purchases, but the ongoing costs will include approximately $250,000 for the SEIM ongoing expenses, and $150,445 for the fully loaded cost (salary and benefits) for the new cyber security FTE position. These ongoing costs will be requested for inclusion in the annual budget. The initial budget comes from the General Fund to the IMS Fund but will also be allocated to the separate enterprise funds as usual. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section (None) Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section (None) Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Youth & Family, Salt Lake County Central City Damages Payment ($37,892 from General Fund) Youth and Family has partnered with Salt Lake County at the Central City Recreation Center since 2003 to provide youth and teen programs. Salt Lake City has provided staffing and purchased program supplies and furnishings while Salt Lake County has provided the space to operate the programs. In March 2020 all in-person Youth and Family programming was halted. The County then contracted with the Salt Lake County Health Department to provide a space for homeless individuals who were Covid positive but did not need hospitalization. The health department moved out after a few months and the Center sat empty. Shortly thereafter, the Center was broken into and as a result sustained significant damage to the building and interior contents including a good portion of the equipment and furnishings that the City had paid for. This settlement payment of $37,892 is a reimbursement for the damaged equipment and supplies. D-2: WITHDRAWN Page | 6 D-3: UTA Sponsored Routes – Encumbrance Carryforward ($184,259 from General Fund) During encumbrance carry forwards Finance forgot to include the remaining encumbrance from FY 2021 in the amount of $184,259 to cover the contract cost. D-4: Wildland Deployment Reimbursements ($653,571 from General Fund) Personnel were deployed several times during the Summer of 2021 to assist in wildland firefighting. Beginning in July, the Fire Department sent 6 individuals to Montana. Another crew of 3 were then sent to California in August and fulfilled a 2-week deployment. A third crew of 6 were then sent to swap them out at the end of August and continued wildland duties into September. All costs associated with these deployments will be reimbursed to Salt Lake City and will have a matching revenue offset budget. The Administration is asking the City Council to approve this request to offset personnel costs that include overtime, benefits, and backfill. This proposal will make the Fire Department whole as well as the General Fund. Expenses Montana Wildfire - July 2021 $270,921 California Wildfire - August 2021 $126,693 California Wildfire - Aug/Sept 2021 $255,957 Total Expense Incurred $653,571 D-5: Fire Department – Other Reimbursements ($21,896 from General Fund) The Fire Department has provided several services in which it expects to receive a reimbursement including training backfill costs incurred on behalf of Utah Search and Rescue (USAR), Fire investigation overtime incurred on behalf of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and finally cost recovery efforts from negligent accidents/incidents. This will have a matching revenue offset budget. Utah Search and Rescue (USAR) Training/Backfill $2,936.37 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Reimbursement $10,777.24 Cost Recovery: Incline Terrace Apartments - requested Fire Watch $6,432.00 Swift Water Rescue & Recovery on 12/11/21 $1,749.98 Total Reimbursement $21,895.59 D-6: Remove Transfers for ARPA Funding ($1,508,000 from General Fund) To ensure compliance with federal reporting all grant related expenses will remain in the grant fund. In BA#4 the Administration proposed transferring ARPA funds to the General Fund and the Fleet Fund. This amendment is to remove those transfers in the General Fund. D-7: 700 South Corridor Preservation Funds Reimbursement ($611,500 from CIP Fund) In March 2021 an administrative transmittal was sent to Council to enter into an Interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County for reimbursement of land purchase for the 700 South construction project. Salt Lake City Council approved the Interlocal Agreement with Salt Lake County on April 20, 2021, to transfer the funds to the City. Funds of $611,500 have been received and are needed to complete the project. D-8: Transfer to Sustainability ($440,000 from General Fund) During the FY2022 budget the Administration and Council were briefed that a transfer of $440,000 would be made from the General Fund to the Sustainability Fund. This transfer was not included in the budget adoption; this amendment formalizes that transfer. D-9: Public Utilities Revenue Bonds ($874,000 – Sewer and $234,000 – Water) In order to adequately finance the construction of the new Water Reclamation Facility and to lock in a favorable interest rate, the Sewer and Water Utilities are planning to issue Revenue Bonds in June 2022 instead of two separate issuances in FY 2022 and FY 2023. D-10: Police Budget Reallocation for Workers Compensation ($199,500 from General Fund) The Police Department is requesting a change in budget to cover the costs associated with a workers compensation settlement. The Department will utilize attrition from vacant positions that have not been filled to fund the expense. No additional budget is being requested. Page | 7 D-11: Community Connection Center (CCC) Supplies and Tenant Improvements ($482,809 from Police Department Vacancy Savings – Budget Neutral) The Council approved $200,000 in the FY2022 annual budget that was intentionally flexible for lease payments, repairs and/or remodeling. The funding was later rescoped in a budget amendment to also include utility payments. A lease has been signed for a new CCC location and $167,000 is encumbered under the contract for rent and utility payments. The remaining $33,000 is being used for building improvements but is only enough to cover 10% of the $320,459 estimated cost. Improvements include security upgrades, wifi, network connectivity, electrical wiring as well as moving / relocation costs. The Administration is also requesting $90,000 to the Fleet Fund for two response vehicles, $52,800 for uniforms, radios, and other equipment, $52,550 is also requested to IMS for computers, mobile data terminals, licensing, trainings, and related equipment. All the funding would come out of the Police Department’s existing budget from vacancy savings. The CCC is currently operating out of the Public Safety Building which limits the ability to offer in-person services. The CCC new location was expected to open in spring or summer 2022, however, supply chain delays may push back the date to the fall. Policy Questions: Impact Fee Eligibility – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to evaluate this ongoing leasing cost for impact fee eligibility as part of updating the police section of the City’s Impact Fees Plan. This could be like the City’s crime lab lease being partially eligible under a prior version of the plan. CCC Staffing Update – The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update on efforts to bring the CCC to full staffing of 19 social worker FTEs, and what additional resources could help address the program’s obstacles. Public Awareness of New Location – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how the public, clients and service providers will learn about the new CCC location. D-12: Central Business Improvement Area (CBIA) ($500,000 from Misc. Special Services) The Administration is requesting the approval of a budget to collect new CBIA-22 assessment and pay contractual obligations to the Downtown Alliance Inc. The current assessment area CBIA-19 expires April 21, 2022. The City Council re-established a special assessment CBIA-22 for a three-year period to continue collection of assessment funds and allow the continuation of marketing, promotion, advocacy and other benefits to the City and downtown property owners and businesses. The new assessment ordinance was adopted and bills to the property owners will go out in the beginning of April 2022. This item would create a revenue budget of $1,770,813 to accept the first-year payments from property owners which are due May 6 and create a $500,000 expenditure budget for Special Assessment Area (SAA) initial costs and the first payment to the contractor (Downtown Alliance). D-13: Police Department Mobile Surveillance Trailer Cameras ($383,160 from Police Department Vacancy Savings – Budget Neutral) See Attachment 1 for photos of trailer cameras The Administration is requesting approval to use vacancy savings to purchase eight additional mobile surveillance trailer cameras for the Police Department. There are currently six trailer cameras used by the Department. This funding would allow two trailer cameras to be placed in each Council District. The trailer cameras are placed on public property and occasionally on private property with the owner’s permission for case-specific needs. See Attachment 1 for images of trailer cameras the Department currently uses which are solar powered, the camera extends vertically above the trailer and multiple cameras point in different directions. Policy Questions: Placement of Trailer Cameras – The Council may wish to ask the Administration where trailer cameras are most effective and how the Department prioritizes where to locate them. Page | 8 Privacy Considerations – The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration privacy considerations from placing cameras around the City and what protections exist for the resulting audio and video data. Trailer Camera vs Pole Cameras – The Council may wish to ask the Administration why trailer cameras are preferable to pole cameras which can be installed on streetlights in the public right of way. D-14: Housing Trust Fund Transfer to RDA ($2,800,000 from Housing) As requested by Council, this budget amendment transfers the Housing Trust Fund loans and associated cash to the RDA. The $2,800,000 amount on the budget amendment is to move the cash in the current Housing Trust Fund cost centers to the RDA. Approximately $20 million of loan receivables will also be transferred. As these are balance sheet accounts, they do not affect budgets. Any remaining balance sheet items and cash that comes in will subsequently be transferred to the RDA. A separate agreement between the RDA and the Community and Neighborhoods Development Department will be completed after this budget amendment is approved by the Council for the loans and deeds of trust to also be transferred. Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: State of Utah, Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Granary District Flood Plain Mitigation ($2 million from CIP Fund and $2,238,000 from Miscellaneous Grants Fund) The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities received $2,000,000 for the Granary District Flood Plain Mitigation and Re-Mapping. Granary District Floodplain Mitigation and Re-Mapping is a phased planning, permitting, and capital improvement project to reduce the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) designated 750-acre Flood Hazard Area (FHA) concentrated in the Granary District and the adjacent stretch of the Jordan River. There are at least 1,182 properties partially or completely within the FHA. The flood hazard risk is substantial and limits new development. The project area is approximately 5,700 acres. The project under this Agreement will only cover Phase 1 for planning, design, and constructing water quality and storage facilities. Future Phase 2 will plan, study, and schedule additional capital improvements to maximize the FHA reduction as funding is secured from federal and state grants and/or Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) capital funds. Phase 1 of the project is estimated to begin January 2023 and be completed by December 2026. This grant has a match requirement of $2,238,000. Salt Lake City identified $2 million from the first tranche of its American Rescue Plan Act State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. A public hearing was held on 12/7/21. Note that since the grant application was submitted last fall, the $2 million required match increased by $238,000. The grant is requesting $11.45 million of federal funding for a total project cost of $13.45 million. The increase will be covered by the Public Utilities Department’s Capital Improvement Fund. A revised scope of work caused the increased costs and includes project elements that are ineligible for the federal grant funding. Section F: Donations (None) Section G: Council Consent Agenda No. 3 G-1: National Renewal Energy Lab (NREL), Solar Energy Innovation Network (SEIN) Round 3 Multi-Stakeholder Team ($166,979 from Miscellaneous Grants Fund) The Department of Sustainability applied for and received $166,979 in grant funding for the Solar Energy Innovation Network (SEIN) Round 3 Multi-Stakeholder Team grant program from the National Renewal Energy Laboratory. The funding will be used to increase uptake of commercial solar and/or storage in underserved communities through involvement from trusted stakeholders, community listening sessions, three to five solar and storage benefit case studies, and culturally relevant outreach tools and resources that address solar PV market barriers. Funding is allocated for: Travel $3,582 Three trips to Golden, Colorado for Team Lead (Senior Energy & Climate Program Manager) to participate in SEIN-hosted cohort peer exchange workings sessions and symposium. Contractual $163,397 Subrecipient contract to facilitate stakeholder convenings, guide case study assessments, and develop solar/storage resources, outreach materials, and deliverables. No match is required. A public hearing was held on 12/7/21 for this grant application. Page | 9 G-2: Utah State Department of Public Safety, Bureau of Forensic Services, FY21 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program ($7,500 from Miscellaneous Grants Fund) The Police Department is proposed as a sub-awardee in the Utah Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Forensic Services (UBFS) application for the FY21 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. The state’s application includes $7,500 for the police department’s Crime Laboratory to attain 2022 annual accreditation fee through ANAB (ANSI National Accreditation Board) under ISO/IEC 17020:2012 requirement. The lab received their ANAB accreditation in June 2021. With the assessment fee and annual accreditation fee being paid with Coverdell 2020 funds, the costs for the first-year surveillance audit will be covered by this year's grant funds. A public hearing was held on 4/5/22. G-3: Utah Department of Health – Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Grant, FY22 Per Capita Allocation ($4,200 from Miscellaneous Grants Fund) Additional Funding of $4,200 has been awarded to this original grant bringing the total grant award amount to $14,450. This agenda item will increase the funding budget. The Fire Department applied for and was awarded $10,250 of grant funding from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. This funding will be used towards the purchase of a 12-Lead Cardiac Monitor and medical supplies relating to the provision of Emergency Medical Services as funding permits. The public hearing for the original grant was held 2/16/21. Section I: Council Added Items (None) ATTACHMENTS 1. Item D-13: Images of Mobile Surveillance Trailer Cameras ACRONYMS ANAB – National Accreditation Board ANSI – American National Standard Institute ARPA – American Rescue Plan Act ATF – Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives CAFR – Comprehensive Annual Financial Report CAN – Community and Neighborhoods Department CBIA – Central Business Improvement Area CCT – Community Connection Center CIP – Capital Improvement Program COVID – Name for the disease caused by the 2019 Novel Coronavirus FEMA – Federal Emergency Management Act FHA – Flood Hazard Area FTE – Full Time Equivalent Position FY – Fiscal Year GF – General Fund HUD – United States Housing and Urban Development Department IMS -- Information Management Services NREL – National Renewal Energy Lab PPE – Personal Protective Equipment RAISE – Rebuilding American Infrastructure with Sustainability and Equity RDA – Redevelopment Agency SEIN – Solar Energy Innovation Network SIB – State Infrastructure Bank SLCDPU – Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities UBFS – Utah Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Forensic Services UDOT – Utah Department of Transportation USAR – Utah Search and Rescue Budget Amendment #7 Attachment 1 – SLCPD Trailer Camera Example Photos DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: ________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 30,2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #7 - Revised SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2021-22 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND $ ( 794,641.00) $ 843,298.00 SEWER FUND 157,874,000.00 874,000.00 WATER FUND 42,234,000.00 234,000.00 MISCELLANEOUS GRANT FUND 2,416,979.00 2,416,979.00 HOUSING FUND 0.00 2,800,000.00 CIP FUND 4,106,500.00 4,806,500.00 MISC, SPECIAL SERVICE DISTRICT FUND 500,000.00 500,000.00 IMS FUND 713,680.00 713,680.00 TOTAL $ 207,050,218.00 $ 13,188,157.00 Lisa Shaffer (Apr 1, 2022 07:09 MDT) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2021-22 Budget Adjustments The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2022. Projections for fiscal year 2021 were better than expected, while projections for fiscal year 2022 continue to trend above budget. The City is forecasting increases in most categories. Sales tax for the first quarter was well above budget and the prior year. However, franchise tax is lagging below budget from a decrease in water franchise ($704,000) and telephone ($218,000) franchise taxes. Licenses and Permits is coming in very strong. Licenses are above budget driven by increases in airport parking taxes and innkeepers tax. The City continues to see positive construction number leading permits to remain very strong with increases in plan check fees and building permits. Field reservations, land leases and building leases are leading to an increase in Charges, Fees and Rentals. Miscellaneous revenue is seeing an increase in fuel reimbursement and other utility reimbursements. These are offset by special event revenue due to a continued decrease in in person events in the City. Fines and Forfeitures are below budget from a decrease in moving violations and justice court fines. Interfund Reimbursement is below budget due to fire reimbursement from the airport which should show an increase next fiscal year. FY21-22 FY21-22 Amended Variance Annual Ammended Revised Favorable Revenue Budget Budget Forecast (Unfavorable) Property Taxes 112,726,044 112,726,044 112,726,044 - Sales and Use Tax 89,556,472 89,556,472 96,561,473 7,005,001 Franchise Tax 12,102,129 12,102,129 11,202,353 (899,776) PILOT Taxes 1,562,041 1,562,041 1,562,041 - TOTAL TAXES 215,946,686 215,946,686 222,051,911 6,105,225 License and Permits 29,904,360 29,904,360 35,971,991 6,067,631 Intergovernmental 4,644,018 5,134,865 4,853,182 (281,683) Interest Income 1,271,153 1,271,153 1,271,153 - Fines & Forfeiture 3,474,455 3,474,455 3,374,595 (99,860) Parking Meter Collection 2,693,555 2,693,555 2,693,555 - Charges and Services 3,934,570 3,934,570 4,568,553 633,983 Miscellaneous Revenue 3,372,272 3,772,272 4,399,436 627,164 Interfund Reimbursement 22,032,892 22,032,892 21,707,813 (325,079) Transfers 21,079,600 22,587,644 22,337,645 (249,999) TOTAL W/OUT SPECIAL TAX 308,353,561 310,752,452 323,229,834 12,477,382 Sales and Use Tax - 1/2 cent 35,600,000 35,600,000 40,000,000 4,400,000 TOTAL GENERAL FUND 343,953,561 346,352,452 363,229,834 16,877,382 Including proposed changes for BA#7 and projected increases to revenue fund balance would be projected as follows for FY2022: Adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 25.67%. FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 6,625,050 82,617,126 89,242,176 12,114,190 104,171,780 116,285,970 Budgeted Change in Fund Balance 2,924,682 (7,810,302) (4,885,620) (2,879,483) (15,335,334) (18,214,817) Prior Year Encumbrances (3,733,743) (6,165,453) (9,899,196) (1,879,654) (10,259,789) (12,139,443) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 5,815,989 68,641,371 74,457,360 7,355,053 78,576,657 85,931,710 Beginning Fund Balance Percent 14.51%23.16%22.13%18.22%24.71%23.98% Year End CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes - - - - - - Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) - (5,676,583) (5,676,583) - (7,535,897) (7,535,897) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 5,815,989 62,964,788 68,780,777 7,355,053 71,040,760 78,395,813 Final Fund Balance Percent 14.51%21.24%20.44%18.22%22.34%21.88% Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance (1,000,000) (15,858,313) (16,858,313) BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - - - BA#1 Expense Adjustment - - 5,138,235 5,138,235 BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - - 490,847 490,847 BA#2 Expense Adjustment - - (986,298) (986,298) BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - - - BA#3 Expense Adjustment - (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000) BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - - 1,508,044 1,508,044 BA#4 Expense Adjustment - - (4,242,779) (4,242,779) BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - - 400,000 400,000 BA#5 Expense Adjustment - - (400,000) (400,000) BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - - - BA#6 Expense Adjustment - - (1,553,938) (1,553,938) BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - - (794,641) (794,641) BA#7 Expense Adjustment - - (843,298) (843,298) Change in Revenue 7,298,201 10,388,598 17,686,799 4,400,000 12,477,382 16,877,382 Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance 12,114,190 57,495,073 69,609,263 10,755,053 81,234,314 91,989,367 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 30.21%19.40%20.69%26.65%25.55%25.67% Projected Revenue 40,095,707 296,422,894 336,518,601 40,359,137 317,980,599 358,339,736 2021 Projection 2022 Projection The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $207,050,218.00 of revenue and expense of $13,188,157.00. The amendment proposes changes in eight funds, with one new FTE to help with cyber security. The amendment also includes the use of $843,298.00 from the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes 25 initiatives for Council review. A summary spreadsheet document, outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2022 Seventh amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2021-2022 In June of 2021, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2021. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning 2 July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2022. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2022. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form Senior City Attorney Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs 1 Open Space Acquisition CIP - 700,000.00 One-time - 2 Cottonwood Park Bridge Rebuild GF - (195,000.00)One-time - 2 Cottonwood Park Bridge Rebuild GF - 195,000.00 One-time - 2 Cottonwood Park Bridge Rebuild CIP 195,000.00 195,000.00 One-time - 3 UDOT Pass-Through Funds - RAC Access Road CIP 1,000,000.00 1,000,000.00 One-time - 4 Withdrawn prior to transmittal 5 Road Cost Center Adjustments - Class C CIP - (611,749.00)One-time - 5 Road Cost Center Adjustments - Class C CIP - 611,749.00 One-time 6 Leonardo Flood Damage Repair GF - 300,000.00 One-time - 6 Leonardo Flood Damage Repair CIP 300,000.00 300,000.00 One-time - 7 Cyber Security Portfolio Expansion IMS 500,000.00 500,000.00 One-time - 7 Cyber Security Portfolio Expansion IMS 188,605.00 188,605.00 One-time - 7 Cyber Security Portfolio Expansion IMS 25,075.00 25,075.00 Ongoing 1.00 7 Cyber Security Portfolio Expansion GF - 713,680.00 1 Youth & Family, Salt Lake County Central City Damages Payment GF 37,892.00 37,892.00 One-time - 2 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal 3 UTA Sponsored Routes - Encumbrance Carryforward GF - 184,259.00 One-time - 4 Fire - Wildland Deployment Reimbursements GF 653,571.00 653,571.00 One-time - 5 Fire - Other Reimbursements GF 21,896.00 21,896.00 One-time - 6 Remove Transfers for ARPA Funding GF (1,508,000.00) (1,508,000.00)One-time - 7 700S. Corridor Preservation Funds Reimbursement CIP 611,500.00 611,500.00 One-time - 8 Transfer to Sustainability GF - 440,000.00 One-time 9 Public Utilities Revenue Bonds Sewer 157,874,000.00 874,000.00 One-time 9 Public Utilities Revenue Bonds Water 42,234,000.00 234,000.00 One-time - 10 Police Budget Reallocation for Workers Compensation GF - (199,500.00)One-time - 10 Police Budget Reallocation for Workers Compensation GF - 199,500.00 One-time - 11 Budget Reallocation for CCT Supplies and Lease Improvements GF - (480,000.00)One-time - 11 Budget Reallocation for CCT Supplies and Lease Improvements GF - 480,000.00 One-time - 12 Central Business Improvement Area (CBIA) 2022 Budget Misc Special Serv 500,000.00 500,000.00 One-time - Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7 Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed Section A: New Items Section D: Housekeeping Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources 1 Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs 13 Funding for Trailer Cameras Utilizing Attrition Savings GF - (383,160.00)One-time - 13 Funding for Trailer Cameras Utilizing Attrition Savings GF - 383,160.00 One-time - 14 Housing Trust Fund Transfer to RDA Housing - 2,800,000.00 One-time - 1 State of Utah, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, Granary District Flood Plain Mitigation CIP 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 One-time - 1 State of Utah, Governor's Office of Planning and Budget, Granary District Flood Plain Mitigation Misc Grants 2,238,000.00 2,238,000.00 One-time - - Consent Agenda #5 1 National Renewal Energy Lab (NREL), Solar Energy Innovation Network (SEIN) Round 3 Multi-Stakeholder Team Misc Grants 166,979.00 166,979.00 One-time - Consent Agenda #6 2 Utah State Dept. of Public Safety, Bureau of Forensic Services, FY21 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program Misc Grants 7,500.00 7,500.00 One-time - 3 Utah Department of Health - Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)grant, FY22 Per Capita Allocation Misc Grants 4,200.00 4,200.00 One-time - Total of Budget Amendment Items 207,050,218.00 13,188,157.00 - - 1.00 Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #7: General Fund GF (794,641.00) 843,298.00 - - - Public Utilities: Sewer Sewer 157,874,000.00 874,000.00 - - - Public Utilities: Water Water 42,234,000.00 234,000.00 - - - Miscellaneous Grants Fund Misc Grants 2,416,679.00 2,416,679.00 - - - Housing Fund Housing - 2,800,000.00 - - - CIP Fund CIP 4,106,500.00 4,806,500.00 - - - Misc Special Service Districts Misc Special Serv 500,000.00 500,000.00 - - - IMS Fund IMS 713,680.00 713,680.00 - - 1.00 - - - Total of Budget Amendment Items 207,050,218.00 13,188,157.00 - - 1.00 Administration Proposed Council Approved Section I: Council Added Items Section F: Donations Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards Administration Proposed Council Approved 2 Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2021-22 Budget, Including Budget Amendments FY 2021-22 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total ^^ Total Through BA#5 ^^ General Fund (FC 10)367,582,070 (5,138,235.00) 986,298.00 2,000,000.00 4,242,779.00 400,000.00 370,072,912.00 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)2,033,573 2,033,573.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000 1,550,000.00 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,699,663 7,098.00 5,706,761.00 Water Fund (FC 51)127,365,555 460,716.00 18,118.00 127,844,389.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)268,213,796 221,826.00 7,941.00 268,443,563.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,201,013 19,705.00 2,278.00 19,222,996.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)706,792,500 1,350,949.00 39,790.00 708,183,239.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,713,505 36,538.00 4,109.00 24,754,152.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)9,697,417 19,649.00 88,749.00 1,802,257.00 11,608,072.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)4,056,856 4,056,856.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,090,576 18,999.00 112,646.00 423,258.00 28,645,479.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)24,302,487 219,193.00 135,492.00 24,657,172.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69) 5,307,142 5,307,142.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,341,332 5,341,332.00 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)18,684,617 10,427,551.76 1,522,743.00 11,151,215.48 3,447,000.00 45,233,127.24 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)273,797 273,797.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)2,752,565 2,752,565.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,121,000 16,121,000.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)31,850,423 26,165,000.00 58,015,423.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)29,503,216 (150,753.00) 23,400,000.00 52,752,463.00 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,933,913 24,843.00 2,958,756.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)52,939,489 19,705.00 212,897.00 53,172,091.00 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,755,009,505 7,688,537.76 2,559,683.00 2,000,000.00 67,605,134.48 3,847,000.00 1,838,709,860.24 3 Fiscal Year 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7 ^^ Total Through BA#5 ^^ BA #6 Total BA #7 Total ^^ Total Through BA#6^^ General Fund (FC 10)370,072,912.00 1,528,938.00 843,298.00 372,445,148.00 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000.00 3,000.00 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)2,033,573.00 2,033,573.00 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,550,000.00 500,000.00 2,050,000.00 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,706,761.00 5,706,761.00 Water Fund (FC 51)127,844,389.00 234,000.00 128,078,389.00 Sewer Fund (FC 52)268,443,563.00 874,000.00 269,317,563.00 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)19,222,996.00 19,222,996.00 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)708,183,239.00 708,183,239.00 Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,754,152.00 24,754,152.00 Golf Fund (FC 59)11,608,072.00 11,608,072.00 E-911 Fund (FC 60)4,056,856.00 4,056,856.00 Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,645,479.00 987,576.00 29,633,055.00 IMS Fund (FC 65)24,657,172.00 219,338.00 713,680.00 25,590,190.00 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for 5,307,142.00 5,307,142.00 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)5,341,332.00 5,341,332.00 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)45,233,127.24 7,227,652.00 2,416,679.00 54,877,458.24 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)273,797.00 273,797.00 Donation Fund (FC 77)2,752,565.00 2,752,565.00 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,121,000.00 32,495.00 2,800,000.00 18,953,495.00 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)58,015,423.00 7,000,000.00 65,015,423.00 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)52,752,463.00 1,013,616.75 4,806,500.00 58,572,579.75 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)2,958,756.00 2,958,756.00 Risk Fund (FC 87)53,172,091.00 53,172,091.00 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,838,709,860.24 18,009,615.75 13,188,157.00 - - - 1,869,907,632.99 BA#4, BA#5 and BA#6 remain open with the City Council. Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation 4 Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Open Space Acquisition Impact Fees $700,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared B: Kat Maus For Questions Please Include: Gregg Evans, Kristin Riker, Kat Maus, Lewis Kogan Public Lands is requesting an FY 2022 budget amendment for $700,000 in unallocated impact fees funding to acquire property to be preserved as open space. Details on the specific property will be discussed in a Council closed session meeting. A-2: Cottonwood Park Bridge Rebuild GF -$195,000.00 GF $195,000.00 CIP $195,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Gregg Evans For Questions Please Include: Gregg Evans, Kristin Riker, Lee Bollwinkel The Public Lands Department is requesting a budget amendment of $195,000 to transfer general funds to POL CIP deferred maintenance fund. On November 6th, a windstorm upturned a large tree on top of the pedestrian bridge by Cottonwood Dog Park. This bridge is the main access for the dog park for residents over the Jordan River. A structural engineer has deemed that one side of the bridge can remain open to pedestrians to allow access. The engineer has also determined the bridge stability has been compromised to a level that it is unsafe for Parks vehicles to travel over this bridge, inhibiting maintenance vehicles from crossing. One of the two supporting braces on the bridge has been crushed and so the bridge can handle light pedestrian traffic but no vehicle use. The structural engineer determined that the cost of replacement of the brace is as much as the replacement of the bridge. Parks staff have barricaded the damaged side of the bridge to keep pedestrians away from the broken area for now. The bridge needs to be replaced as soon as possible as it is unclear how weather and use of the bridge may impact the bridge stability. Public Lands will continue to monitor the bridge safety until it can be replaced. Public Lands is proposing to use anticipated year-end savings as a source of funding for this bridge reconstruction. The funds would be transferred from Public Lands to the CIP Maintenance Fund. A-3: UDOT Pass-Through Funds – RAC Access Road CIP $1,000,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dustin Petersen For Questions Please Include: Dustin Petersen, Matt Cassell In 2021, Utah State Legislature Senate Bill 3 allocated funds for a road connecting Rose Park Lane to Redwood Rd at 2600 North. An agreement between UDOT and the City has been executed for the City to receive the funds and to manage the project design and the funds have already been transferred. A-4: Withdrawn prior to transmittal A-5: Road Cost Center Adjustments – Class C CIP -$611,749.00 CIP $611,749.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dustin Petersen For Questions Please Include: Dustin Petersen, Matt Cassell Public Services Engineering Division is requesting to revise the scope of Class C funds. Funds for 1300 East Projects - Cost Centers 8317035 in the amount of $39,051.55 and 8318154 in the amount of $572,697.11. Both of these cost centers are Class C funds. The 1300 East project was a partially federally funded project and has been completed two years ago but is Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 still not closed out by UDOT. Closeout is imminent. Staff is asking that these funds be moved from the 1300 East Class C cost centers to a new contingency Class C cost center. A-6: Leonardo Flood Damage Repair GF $300,000.00 CIP $300,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Brent Beck For Questions Please Include: Brent Beck, Tammy Hunsaker, Shellie Petersen Flooding occurred at the Leonardo in July of 2021 due to a heavy rainstorm. The total anticipated cost of reconstruction is approximately $300,000. Real Estate Service will manage the reconstruction since the Leonardo is a city-owned building leased to a tenant. Funding will be transferred from the General Fund to a CIP Maintenance Fund cost center Real Estate Services utilizes for leased building repairs. A-7: Cyber Security Portfolio Expansion IMS $500,000.00 IMS $188,605.00 IMS $25,075.00 GF $713,680.00 Department: IMS Prepared By: Joseph Anthony For Questions Please Include: Joseph Anthony, Aaron Bentley, Mary Beth Thompson Salt Lake City is a major government organization that has a robust network with a vast array of valuable data and processes that are reliant on the network. This is a request to get the city's endpoint management upgraded due to current cyber security threats and a vast array of threats that are currently being seen throughout the industry. We are requesting $500,000 to secure a contract for a SIEM (Security Incident and Event Management) security suite to actively monitor and respond to security events ac ross the network that pose a risk to the city's network reliability. A SOC (Security Operations Center) will be created to mitigate and monitor the active threats against the network. We are also requesting an additional 75,000 for penetration testing and vulnerability scanning of our security posture, both internally and externally. Desktop/Laptop management expansion $65,800. The City’s Desktop Security solution needs additional licensing or a “true up”. Our current system has 2350 licenses, and we need to expand that to 3350 (1000 additional licenses). This software provides patch management to the primary devices (pcs and laptops) across the City. As Microsoft updates come out monthly (sometimes weekly) this software enables us to patch the devices across the network without having to touch every device individually. Security Suite additional software for desktops/laptops $47,805. This software is an expansion of the above desktop/laptop management software. It will allow us to tighten the security on these devices such as disabling USB connected peripherals, change administrative permissions for applications to install and run and allows enhanced control of the operating systems among other functionalities. To maintain these improvements an additional Cyber Security Engineer FTE will be needed. Annual maintenance will vary greatly based on the SIEM solution that is chosen but may be as much as $250,000 per year on an ongoing basis. Costs will initially be covered through a transfer from the general fund. Actual costs will be allocated across all funds based on usage. Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekeeping D-1: Youth & Family, Salt Lake County Central City Damages Payment GF $37,892.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Ken Perko For Questions Please Include: Ken Perko, Brent Beck, Blake Thomas, Orion Goff Youth and Family has partnered with Salt Lake County at the Central City Recreation Center since 2003 to provide youth and teen programs. Salt Lake City has provided staffing and purchased program supplies and furnishings while Salt Lake County has provided the space to operate the programs. In March, 2020 all in-person Youth and Family programming was halted. The County then contracted with the Salt Lake County Health Department to provide a space for homeless individuals who were Covid positive but did not need hospitalization. The health department moved out after a few months and the Center sat empty. Shortly thereafter, the Center was broken into and as a result sustained significant damage to the building and interior contents including a good portion of the equipment and furnishings that the City had paid for. This settlement payment of $37,892.00 is a reimbursement for the damaged equipment and supplies. D-2: Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal D-3: UTA Sponsored Routes – Encumbrance Carryforward GF $184,259.00 Department: Non-Departmental Prepared By: Sharon Mangelson For Questions Please Include: Sharon Mangelson, Mary Beth Thompson During encumbrance carry forwards Finance forgot to include the remaining encumbrance from FY 2021 in the amount of $184,259 to cover the contract cost. D-4: Wildland Deployment Reimbursements GF $653,571.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen For Questions Please Include: Clint Rasmussen, Karl Lieb Personnel were deployed several times during the Summer of 2021 to assist in wildland firefighting. Beginning in July, SLCFD sent 6 individuals to Montana. Another crew of 3 were then sent to California in August and fulfilled a 2-week deployment. A third crew of 6 were then sent to swap them out at the end of August and continued wildland duties into September. All costs associated with these deployments will be reimbursed to Salt Lake City and will have a matching revenue offset budget. The Administration is asking the City Council to approve this request to offset personnel costs that include overtime, benefits, and backfill. This proposal will make the Fire Department whole as well as the General Fund. Expenses Montana Wildfire - July 2021 $270,921 California Wildfire - August 2021 $126,693 California Wildifire - Aug/Sept 2021 $255,957 Total Expense Incurred $653,571 D-5: Fire – Other Reimbursements GF $21,896.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 For Questions Please Include: Clint Rasmussen, Karl Lieb The Fire Department has provided several services in which it expects to receive a reimbursement including training backfill costs incurred on behalf of Utah Search and Rescue (USAR), Fire investigation overtime incurred on behalf of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF), and finally cost recovery efforts from negligent accidents/incidents. This will have a matching revenue offset budget. Utah Search and Rescue (USAR) Training/Backfill $2,936.37 Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) Reimbursement $10,777.24 Cost Recovery: Incline Terrace Apartments - requested Fire Watch $6,432.00 Swift Water Rescue & Recovery on 12/11/21 $1,749.98 Total Reimbursement $21,895.59 D-6: Remove Transfers for ARPA Funding GF -$1,508,000.00 Department: Multiple Prepared By: John Vuyk For Question Please Include: John Vuyk, Mary Beth Thompson To ensure compliance with federal reporting all grant related expenses will remain in the grant fund. In BA#4 the Administration proposed transferring ARPA funds to the General Fund and the Fleet Fund. This amendment is to remove those transfers in the General Fund. D-7: 700 S. Corridor Preservation Funds Reimbursement CIP $611,500.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dustin Petersen For Questions Please Include: Dustin Petersen, Jorge Chamarro, Holly Draney, Obreeae Hardy In March 2021 an administrative transmittal was sent to Council to enter into an Interlocal agreement with Salt Lake County for reimbursement of land purchase for the 700 South road construction project. Salt Lake City Council approved the Interlocal Agreement with Salt Lake County on April 20, 2021 to transfer the funds to the City. Funds of $611,500 have been received and are needed to complete the project. D-8: Transfer to Sustainability GF $440,000.00 Department: Non-Departmental Prepared By: John Vuyk For Questions Please Include: John Vuyk, Mary Beth Thompson During the FY2022 budget the administration and Council were briefed that a transfer of $440,000 would be made from the General Fund to the Sustainability Fund. This transfer was not included in the budget adoption, this amendment formalizes that transfer. D-9: Public Utilities Revenue Bonds Sewer $874,000.00 Water $234,000.00 Department: Public Utilities Prepared By: Mark Christensen For Questions Please Include: Mark Christensen, Laura Briefer, Lisa Tarufelli, Jamey West, Tamara Prue In order to adequately finance the construction of the new Water Reclamation Facility and to lock in a favorable interest rate, the Sewer and Water Utilities are planning to issue Revenue Bonds in June 2022 instead of two separate issuances in FY 2022 and FY 2023. Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 5 D-10: Police Budget Reallocation for Workers Compensation GF -$199,500.00 GF $199,500.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich For Questions Please Include: Shellie Dietrich, Mary Beth Thompson The Police Department is requesting a change in budget to cover the costs associated with a workers compensation settlement. The Department will utilize attrition from vacant positions that have not been able to fill to fund the expense. No additional budget is being requested. D-11: Budget Reallocation for CCT Supplies and Lease Improvements GF -$480,000.00 GF $480,000.00 Department: Police Prepared By Shellie Dietrich For Questions Please Include: Shellie Dietrich, Mary Beth Thompson In the FY 22 budget, the Police Department was allocated budget for 12 FTE's in the Social Work Program. Budget for uniform, equipment, supplies, IMS, Fleet was not included. Also in the Lease allocation for the Commu nity Connection Center leasehold improvement was not included. The Police Department is requesting a change in budget to cover the estimated costs of moving, leasehold improvements including IMS connectivity, WiFi, desks and cubicles for the new lease space, security, social work vehicles (2 shared), computers, supplies, radios and training. The Police Department will utilize attrition from the vacant positions that have not been able to fill to fund the needs of this program. No additional budget is being requested. D-12: Central Business Improvement Area (CBIA) 2022 Budget Misc Special Serv $500,000.00 Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Marina Scott / Jolynn Walz For Questions Please Include: Marina Scott, Jolynn Walz, Lorena Riffo-Jensen, Mary Beth Thompson The Administration is requesting the approval of a budget to collect new CBIA-22 assessment and pay contractual obligations to the Downtown Alliance Inc. The current assessment area CBIA-19 expires April 21, 2022. The City Council re-established a special assessment CBIA-22 for a three-year period to continue collection of assessment funds and allow the continuation of marketing, promotion, advocacy and other benefits to the City and downtown property owners and businesses. The new assessment ordinance was adopted and bills to the property owners will go out in the beginning of April 2022. D-13: Funding for Trailer Cameras Utilizing Attrition Savings GF -$383,160.00 GF $383,160.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Shellie Dietrich For Questions Please Include: Shellie Dietrich The Police Department is requesting a change in budget to utilize attrition savings to purchase 8 trailer cameras to provide coverage across all council districts. The Police Department will utilize attrition from vacant positions that have not been able to fill to fund the expense. No additional budget is being requested. D-14: Housing Trust Fund Transfer to RDA Housing $2,800,000.00 Department: Community and Neighborhoods Prepared By: Suzanne Swanson For Questions Please Include: Mary Beth Thompson, Suzanne Swanson, Mike Burns As requested by Council, budget amendment transfers the Housing Trust Fund loans and associated cash to the RDA. The $2,800,000 amount on the budget amendment is to move the cash in the current Housing Trust Fund cost centers to the Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 6 RDA. Approximately $20 million of loan receivables will also be transferred. As these are balance sheet accounts they do not affect budgets. Any remaining balance sheet items and cash that comes in will subsequently be transferred to the RDA. Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: State of Utah, Governor’s Office of Planning and Budget, Granary District Flood Plain Mitigation CIP $2,000,000.00 Misc Grants $2,238,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Melyn Osmond For Questions Please Include: Melyn Osmond, Elizabeth Gerhart The Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilit ies received $2,000,000 for the Granary District Flood Plain Mitigation and Re-Mapping. Granary District Floodplain Mitigation and Re-Mapping is a phased planning, permitting, and capital improvement project to reduce the Federal Emergency Management Act (FEMA) designated 750 -acre Flood Hazard Area (FHA) concentrated in the Granary District and the adjacent stretch of the Jordan River. There are at least 1,182 properties partially or completely within the FHA. The flood hazard risk is substantial and limits new development. The project area is approximately 5,700 acres. The project under this Agreement will only cover Phase 1 for planning, design, and constructing water quality and storage facilities. Future Phase 2 will plan, study, and schedule additional capital improvements to maximize the FHA reduction as funding is secured from federal and state grants and/or Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) capital funds. Phase 1 of the project is estimated to begin January 2023 and be completed by December 2026. This grant has a match requirement of $2,238,000. Salt Lake City identified $2 million from the first tranche of its American Rescue Plan Act State and Local Fiscal Recovery Funds. A public hearing was held on 12/7/21 on the grant application for this award. Section F: Donations Salt Lake City FY 2021-22 Budget Amendment #7 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda #5 G-1: National Renewal Energy Lab (NREL), Solar Energy Innovation Network (SEIN) Round 3 Multi- Stakeholder Team Misc Grants $166,979.00 Department: CAN (Youth & Family) Prepared By: Christopher Thomas/Melyn Osmond The Department of Sustainability applied for and received $166,979 in grant funding for the Solar Energy Innovation Network (SEIN) Round 3 Multi-Stakeholder Team grant program from the National Renewal Energy Laboratory. The funding will be used to increase uptake of commercial solar and/or storage in underserved communities through involvement from trusted stakeholders, community listening sessions, three to five solar and storage benefit case studies, and culturally relevant outreach tools and resources that address solar PV market barriers. Funding is allocated for: Travel $3,582 Three trips to Golden, Colorado for Team Lead (Senior Energy & Climate Program Manager) to participate in SEIN -hosted cohort peer exchange workings sessions and symposium. Contractual $163,397 Subrecipient contract to facilitate stakeholder convenings, guide case study assessments, and develop solar/storage resources, outreach materials, and deliverables. No match is required. A public hearing was held on 12/7/21 for this g rant application. Consent Agenda #6 G-2: Utah State Dept. of Public Safety, Bureau of Forensic Services, FY21 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program Misc Grants $7,500.00 Department: Police Prepared By: Jordan Smith / Ann Garcia The police department is proposed as a sub-awardee in the Utah Department of Public Safety’s Bureau of Forensic Services (UBFS) application for the FY21 Paul Coverdell Forensic Science Improvement Grant Program. The state’s application includes $7,500 for the police department’s Crime Laboratory to attain 2022 annual accreditation fee through ANAB (ANSI National Accreditation Board) under ISO/IEC 17020:2012 requirement. The lab received their ANAB accreditation in June 2021. With the assessment fee and annual accreditation fee being paid with Coverdell 2020 funds, the costs for the first-year surveillance audit will be covered by this year's grant funds. A match is not required for this award. G-3: Utah Department of Health - Bureau of Emergency Medical Services (EMS)grant, FY22 Per Capita Allocation Misc Grants $4,200.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Brittany Blair / Melyn Osmond ***Additional Funding of $4,200 has been awarded to this original grant bringing the total grant award amount to $14,450** This agenda item is to increase the funding budget. The Fire Department applied for and was awarded $10,250 of grant funding from the Utah Department of Health, Bureau of Emergency Medical Services. This funding will be used towards the purchase of a 12 -Lead Cardiac Monitor and medical supplies relating to the provision of Emergency Medical Services as funding permits. Section I: Council Added Items Impact Fees ‐ Summary Confidential Data pulled 03/16/2022 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 524,230$ A Impact fee - Fire 8484002 808,770$ B Impact fee - Parks 8484003 13,256,676$ C Impact fee - Streets 8484005 7,147,853$ D 21,737,529$ Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month 202107 (Jul2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202108 (Aug2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202109 (Sep2021)2022Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202110 (Oct2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202111 (Nov2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202112 (Dec2021)2022Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202201 (Jan2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202202 (Feb2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month 202203 (Mar2022)2022Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202204 (Apr2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202205 (May2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202206 (Jun2022)2022Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202307 (Jul2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202308 (Aug2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202309 (Sep2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202310 (Oct2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202311 (Nov2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202312 (Dec2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202401 (Jan2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202402 (Feb2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202403 (Mar2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202404 (Apr2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202405 (May2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202406 (Jun2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total, Currently Expiring through June 2021 0$ -$ -$ -$ 0$ FY 2023Calendar Month FY 2022FY 2024Fiscal Quarter E = A + B + C + D Police Fire Parks Streets Total Impact Fees Confidential Data pulled 03/16/2022 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC Police Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Police Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Police Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Police Allocation Remaining Appropriation Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$ Impact fee - Police 8484001 -$ -$ -$ -$ Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ 21,639$ -$ -$ ReimbExcessPoliceCapacity IF 8422800 1,898,497$ -$ 1,898,497$ -$ PolicePrecinctLandAquisition 8419011 239,836$ 239,836$ -$ -$ Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$ Police'sConsultant'sContract 8419205 3,565$ -$ 3,565$ -$ A Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$ Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 338,448$ -$ 68,100$ 270,347.94$ Fire Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Fire Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Fire Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Fire Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Fire Allocation Remaining Appropriation Fire refunds 8416007 82,831$ -$ -$ 82,830.52$ Fire Station #14 8415001 6,083$ 6,083$ -$ -$ Fire Station #14 8416006 44,612$ -$ -$ 44,612$ Fire Station #3 8415002 1,568$ -$ -$ 1,568$ Fire Station #3 8416009 565$ 96$ -$ 469$ Impact fee - Fire 8484002 -$ -$ -$ -$ Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$ Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$ B Study for Fire House #3 8413001 15,700$ -$ -$ 15,700$ Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 4,941$ 3,021$ 1,862$ 58$ Parks Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Parks Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Parks Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Parks Allocation Remaining Appropriation JR Boat Ram 8420144 15,561$ 7,798$ 7,763$ -$ Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 20,411$ -$ 20,411$ -$ Cnty #2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 88$ -$ 88$ -$ Fairmont Park Lighting Impr 8418004 49,752$ 12,155$ 37,597$ -$ Fisher Carriage House 8420130 1,098,764$ 875,563$ 223,201$ -$ Impact fee - Parks 8484003 -$ -$ -$ -$ Impact fee - Streets Westside 8484005 -$ -$ -$ -$ Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 4,857$ 2,596$ 2,219$ 42$ Folsom Trail/City Creek Daylig 8417010 146$ -$ -$ 146$ Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,530$ 23,000$ -$ 530$ Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,110$ -$ -$ 1,110$ Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$ Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 224,247$ 148,037$ 74,564$ 1,646$ FY 9line park 8416005 21,958$ 17,010$ 2,692$ 2,256$ Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$ Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,795$ 4,328$ -$ 8,467$ Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$ ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 10,830$ -$ -$ 10,830$ Park refunds 8416008 11,796$ -$ -$ 11,796.28$ IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 58,014$ -$ 1,905$ 56,109$ C Parks Impact Fee Refunds 8418015 101,381$ -$ -$ 101,381.06 Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 523,889$ 390,056$ 21,760$ 112,073$ UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 135,084$ 21,169$ 1,355$ 112,560$ Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$ 9Line Orchard 8420136 195,045$ 40,900$ -$ 154,145$ FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 722,920$ 402,239$ 161,343$ 159,338$ RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 180,032$ -$ -$ 180,032$ Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 388,477$ 14,066$ 109,534$ 264,877$ Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ -$ 275,000$ Bridge to Backman 8418005 290,276$ 10,285$ 4,515$ 275,475$ Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$ Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ -$ -$ 420,000$ SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 425,000$ -$ -$ 425,000$ Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 489,688$ 50,090$ 14,243$ 425,355$ Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 431,000$ -$ -$ 431,000$ Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ -$ -$ 510,000$ Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 610,000$ -$ -$ 610,000$ Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,094,430$ 40,743$ 39,939$ 1,013,749$ SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ -$ -$ 1,304,682$ Pioneer Park 8419150 3,343,904$ 66,409$ 162,614$ 3,114,882$ GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,200,000$ 17,400$ 21,800$ 3,160,800$ Streets Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Street Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Street Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Street Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Street Allocation Remaining Appropriation Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$ 9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 152,500$ 139,280$ 13,220$ -$ 500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 32,718$ 16,691$ 16,027$ -$ 900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ 70,000$ -$ -$ 700 South Reconstruction 8415004 2,449$ -$ 2,449$ -$ Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 95,653$ 20,953$ 73,999$ 700$ Transportation Safety Improvem 8417007 1,444$ -$ -$ 1,444$ Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 13,865$ -$ 2,244$ Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$ Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$ 500 to 700 S 8418016 96,637$ -$ 73,893$ 22,744$ Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ -$ -$ 25,398$ 900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$ D 1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$ Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ -$ 35,392$ 200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$ Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 20,697$ -$ 38,083$ 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$ Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ -$ 44,400$ Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ -$ 50,000$ 400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$ Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$ Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$ Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 200,000$ -$ 12,484$ 187,516$ TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 302,053$ 23,013$ 3,810$ 275,230$ Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 2,250,220$ 513,372$ 1,353,539$ 383,309$ IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 221,688$ 156,078$ 65,159$ 450$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8420105 300,000$ 300,000$ -$ -$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 875,000$ 67,474$ 19,589$ 787,937$ Total 26,384,700$ 3,810,784$ 5,505,369$ 17,068,547$ E = A + B + C + D TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE 21,737,529$ 8484002 8484003 8484005 13,256,676$ 7,147,853$ $808,770 UnAllocated Budget Amount 8484001 524,230$ CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:April 19, 2022 RE: Dowland Rezone and Master Plan Amendment (1902 South 400 East) PLNPCM2021-00717/00718 The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the master plan and zoning map for property located at 1902 South 400 East in City Council District Five. The property is currently zoned R-1/5,000 (Residential) and the requested zoning designation is RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential). The Central Community Master Plan future land use map designates this property Low Density residential (1-5 dwelling units per acre). The requested designation is Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre). A historic structure, the Septimus and Isabella Sears residence, was previously located on the subject property. Unfortunately, the building suffered catastrophic damage during the March 2020 earthquake and was subsequently demolished. The .33-acre property is currently vacant. Requested master plan and zoning map amendments are to facilitate a proposed development of four townhomes. The applicant originally requested RMF-45 zoning, but after Planning staff recommended the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to the Council, and the Planning Commission reviewed the proposal at its November 10, 2021 meeting, the applicant stated they would be amenable to changing the requested zoning to RMF-35. The Planning Commission voted to table the application so the applicant could work with Planning staff to revise the requested zoning designation. Townhomes are not allowed in the R-1/5,000 zoning district but are within the RMF-35 and RMF-45 districts. The applicant worked with Planning staff to revise their request to change the zoning designation to RMF- 35. The original proposed development was for eight townhomes but has been changed to include four townhomes. It should be noted the Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. No development plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to Item Schedule: Briefing: April 19, 2022 Set Date: April 19, 2022 Public Hearing: May 3, 2022 Potential Action: May 17, 2022 Page | 2 review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. The Planning Commission reviewed the revised proposal at its February 9, 2022 meeting, held a public hearing, and followed Planning staff’s recommendation, voting unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for both the zoning map and master plan amendments. Area zoning map with subject property outlined in red Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the Planning Division if there are other, potentially more compatible zoning designations would allow the proposed townhome development. 2. The Council may wish to ask if the applicant is considering any affordability considerations in the additional units. 3. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration how the pending affordable housing overlay would have related to this request, to inform future discussions on that proposal. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Planning staff identified one key consideration related to the proposal which is found on pages 3-4 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Existing City Plan Guidance – Central Community Master Plan Page | 3 The subject property is within the Central Community Master Plan’s Liberty neighborhood planning area (900 South to 2100 South, and State Street to 700 East). The Plan states single-family detached residential is the most common use in this area. Preservation of low-density neighborhoods and ensuring new developments are compatible with existing scale, character and density of the surrounding neighborhoods is outlined in the Plan. The Plan also states projects not in keeping with the scale, character and density should not be allowed. It is Planning staff’s opinion the proposed zoning change to RMF-35 is appropriate for the neighborhood. The subject parcel is across the street from St. Joseph’s Villa rehabilitation center, which is split-zoned RMF-35 and I (Institutional), as shown in the area zoning map above. The Central Community Master Plan future land use map shows the subject parcel is intended to be Low- Density Residential (1-5 dwelling units per acre), which is not consistent with the proposed zoning map amendment. The applicant requested a master plan amendment to the Central Community Future Land Use Map to Medium-Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre). This change would align with the proposed zoning map change to RMF-35. In addition to the consideration above, Planning staff reviewed the proposed amendments for compliance with citywide plans Growing Salt Lake, and Plan Salt Lake. Planning found the proposed map amendments meet goals outlined in these plans. Please see Attachment D (page 15 of the Planning Commission staff report) for the full discussion. R-1/5,000 and RMF-35 ZONING COMPARISON The following comparison of R-1/5,000 and RMF-35 zoning designations are included in Attachment C (pages 13-14) of the Planning Commission staff report. They are included below for convenience. The table below shows uses not allowed in the R-1/5,000 zoning district but are permitted or conditional uses within the proposed RMF-35 zoning district. New Permitted Uses New Conditional Uses Assisted Living Facility (Small)Community Recreation Center Multi-family Dwelling Assisted Living Facility (Large) Dwelling, Single-family Attached Congregate Care Facility (Large) Dwelling, Twin Home and Two-family Group Home (Large) Dwelling, Residential Support (Small) Change from Permitted Use to Not Allowed Change from Conditional Use to Not Allowed None None Changing from Permitted to Conditional Use Changing from Conditional Use to Permitted None Community Garden Accessory Dwelling Units Assisted Living Facility (Limited Capacity) Congregate Care Facility (Small) Development Standards Page | 4 The following table compares some development standards of the R-1/5,000 and RMF-35 zoning designations. Existing R-1/5,000 Proposed RMF-35 Building Height 28 feet for pitched roofs and 20 feet for flat roofs 35 feet Front Setback Equal to average of the front yards of existing buildings on block face or minimum 20 feet 20 feet Corner Side Yard Setback 10 feet 10 feet Interior Side Yard Setback, corner lot 4 feet Single-family detached and Two-family dwellings: 4 feet Interior Side Yard Setback, interior lot 4 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side Single-family detached and two- family dwellings: 4 feet on one side and 10 feet on the other side Single-family attached: none required Twin family: none on one side and 10 feet on the other side Multi-family and all other: 10 feet Rear Setback 25% of lot depth or 20 feet, whichever is less. 25% of lot depth or 20 feet, whichever is less and not to exceed 25 feet Maximum Building Coverage 40%Single-family detached: 45% Two-family dwellings: 50% Single-family attached: 60% Twin-family: 50% Multi-family: 60% Non-residential: 60% Maximum Lot Size 7,500 square feet None listed ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment E (pages 16-17) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines master plan and zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies Page | 5 The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties Complies Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Not Applicable The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Complies PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • July 9, 2021-Application submitted. • August 3, 2021-Petition assigned to Caitlyn Tubbs, Principal Planner. • August 30, 2021-Notification sent to the Liberty Wells Community Council and surrounding neighbors and property owners. • September 8, 2021-Applicant and staff met with Liberty Wells Community Council. • October 15, 2021-Public input period closed. • October 29, 2021-Sign posted on subject property. Public hearing notice sent out and posted to City website. • November 10, 2021-Planning Commission held a public hearing and tabled the requests. • January 27, 2022- Sign posted on subject property. Public hearing notice sent out and posted to City website. • February 9, 2022-Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. • March 3, 2022-Sent to Attorney’s Office. • March 16, 2022-Planning Division received ordinance from Attorney’s Office. • March 29, 2022-Transmittal received by City Council Office. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801.535.7757 FAX 801.535.6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: Caitlyn Tubbs, caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com, 385-315-8115 Date: February 9, 2022 Re: PLN PCM2021-00717 and PLNPCM2021 -00718 – 1902 S 400 E Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (tabled at November 10, 2021 Planning Commission meeting) Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments MASTER PLAN: Central Community FUTURE LAND USE (EXISTING): Low Density Residential (1-5 du/acre) FUTURE LAND USE (PROPOSED): Medium Density Residential (15-30 du/acre) ZONING DISTRICT (EXISTING): R-1-5,000 Residential ZONING DISTRICT (PROPOSED): RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1902 South 400 East (Salt Lake County Parcel ID: 16-18-452 -012) REQUEST : Paul Dowland, on behalf of the property owner, is requesting a Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment for the parcel located at approximately 1902 South 400 East. •Zoning Map Amendment - The property is currently zoned R-1-5,000 Residential and the request is to rezone it to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential. •Master Plan Amendment - The subject property is located within the boundary of the Central Community Master Plan where the existing future land use designation is Low Density Residential (1-5 dwelling units/acre). The Applicant is requesting to amend this designation to Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units/acre) in order to facilitate the Zoning Map amendment request. RECOMMENDATION: Based on the findings and analysis in this staff report and the factors to consider for zoning map amendments in 21A.50.050 of the zoning ordinance , Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding this proposal. ATTACHMENTS: A.Zoning and Vicinity Maps B.Minutes from November 10, 2021 Planning Commission Meeting C.R-1-5,000 Residential & RMF-35 Zoning Land Use Comparison D.City Plan Considerations E.Analysis of Zoning Amendment Standards F.Property Photographs G.Public Process & Comments H.City Department Review Comments PROJECT DESCRIPTION AND BACKGROUND : Paul Dowland, on behalf of the property owner, is requesting a master plan and zoning map amendment for the property located at appro ximately 1902 South 400 East. The total area of the subject property is approximately 0.3316 acres or approximately 14,444 square feet. The subject property was home to the historic Septimus and Isabella Sears Residence. The home was constructed in 1896 and suffered catastrophic damage in the March 2020 earthquake. The historic home has been demolished and the property currently stands vacant. The purpose of the Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment requests is to facilitate future development of townhome units on the subject property. The subject property is located just north of 2100 South, a major vehicular, pedestrian, and transit corridor. While the subject property is close to the major corridor 400 East itself is a calmer street which primarily provides access to residential streets and properties. The properties across the street to the east are zoned RMF-35 and Institutional and are the location(s) of the St. Joseph Villa and Senior Living development. The surrounding properties on the block and within the surrounding area are zoned R-1-5,000 and are strictly residential properties. The primary reason for the rezone request is so the applicant will have the ability to construct townhome units, which is not currently allowed under the existing R-1-5,000 zoning district but is allowed as a permitted use under the requested RMF-35 zoning district. New permitted uses would include: assisted living facilities (small), multi-family dwellings, single-family attached dwellings, and twin home/two family dwellings. New conditional uses would include: congregate Figure 1: View of the vacant subject property from 400 East. Figure 2: Photograph of damage to Sears Mansion following March 2020 earthquake. care facility (large), residential support (small), community recreation centers, assisted living facilities (large), group homes (large) and residential support dwellings (small). There are no uses which are currently permitted which would become conditional uses but there are conditional uses which would become permitted. These include: co mmunity garden, accessory dwelling units, limited capacity assisted living facility, and small congregate care facility. For a complete list of uses that are allowed under the existing R-1-5,000 Residential zone and the proposed RMF- 35 Multifamily Residential zone, please refer to Attachment C. Typically when the zoning designation of properties is amended to a zone which allows non-residential uses a Housing Loss Mitigation Study is required. In this case, however, the residential use was terminated (demolished) before these petitions were filed so a Housing Loss Mitigation Study is not required. This request was previously heard by the Planning Commission on November 10, 2021 where the Applicant was requesting a zoning map amendment to the RMF-45 zoning district. Numerous neighbors attended the public hearing at this meeting; some voiced their support and others stated their opposition. Planning Staff’s previous analysis of the map amendment considerations led to a negative recommendation and the Planning Commission voted to table the requested map amendments to allow the Applicant and Planning Staff time to discuss the request and consider other available zoning districts. Following this discussion the Applicant opted to amend their zoning map amendment request to RMF-35. Zoning Map Amendment Considerations Planning staff is required by ordinance to analyze proposed zoning map amendments against existing adopted City policies and other related adopted City regulations. Planning staff is also directed to consider whether zoning map amendments implement best planning practices. However, ultimately, a decision to amend the zoning map is fully up to the discretion of the City Council and is not subject to any particular standard of review or consideration. The full list of factors to consider for a zoning map amendment are located in Attachment E. KEY CONSIDERATIONS : The key considerations and concerns below have been identified through the analysis of the project, neighbor and community input, and department reviews. 1. Existing Area Plan Guidance Consideration 1: Existing City Plan Guidance – Central City Master Plan For zoning map amendments, Planning Staff is directed by ordinance to consider the associated City master plans and adopted policies that apply to a proposal. Staff reviews general City policies, including adopted policies in Citywide master plans such as Plan Salt Lake , and considers plans that are specific to an area. In this case the property is within the boundaries of the Central Community Master Plan. The Central Community Master Plan outlines how this area developed; beginning as a residential area into which commercial uses began to infiltrate after WWII. The Future Land Use Map associated with the Central Community Master Plan indicates the subject property is intended to be a Low-Density Residential land use (beige ), which is not consistent with the proposed zoning map amendment. To remedy this the Applicant has also requested an Master Plan Amendment of the Central Community Future Land Use Map to Medium-Density Residential (golden color) in order to facilitate the zoning change. This change would allow for zoning changes consistent with 15-30 dwelling units per acre as opposed to the 1- 15 dwelling units per acre currently encouraged under the existing land use and zoning map designations. The subject property is located in the “Liberty neighborhood planning area” within the Central Community Master Plan. This area is bounded between 900 South to 2100 South and State Street to 700 East. The Plan indicates single-family detached residential uses are the most common in this area. The residential land use goals outlined in the Central Community Master Plan encourage higher density developments to be located in appropriate areas including East Downtown, the Central Business District, the Gateway area and nearby downtown light rail stations. It also seeks to ensure the preservation of low-density residential neighborhoods and to ensure new developments are compatible with the existing scale, character and density of the surrounding neighborhoods. While the Plan encourages the creation of various housing opportunities it is clear that projects not in keeping with the surrounding scale, character and density of a neighborhood should not be allowed. The proposed zoning change to RMF-35 is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood and would be directly across the street from an existing property that is also zoned RMF-35 (St. John’s Villa). See Attachment D for policy statements and goals from various city plans that staff co nsidered as part of the review of this rezone request. Generally, staff finds that the proposed map amendments meet the considerations outlined in section 21A.50.050. NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission can provide a positive or negative recommendation for the proposal and as part of a recommendation, can add conditions or request that changes be made to the proposal. The recommendation and any requested conditions/changes will be sent to the City Council, who will hold a briefing and additional public hearing on the proposed zoning changes. The City Council may make modifications to the proposal and approve or decline to approve the proposed zoning map amendment . Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment Approval - If the requests are ultimately approved by the City Council, the changes would be incorporated into the official City Zoning map and the future land use map within the Central Community Master Plan and the subject property could be developed under the RMF-35 zoning regulations. Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment Denial - If the proposed amendments are not approved by the City Council, the property could still be developed under the current R-1-5,000 zoning designation, however, the property would not be able to have townhome units as they are not permitted in the existing zoning district. Zoning and Vicinity Maps Minutes from November 10, 2021 Planning Commisison meeting Salt Lake City Planning Commission November 10, 2021 Page 7 MOTION Commissioner Adrienne Bell stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission approve the Design Review for the Alta Terra Sugar House South building at approximately 1132 East Ashton Avenue(petition PLNPCM2021-00691)with the following condition of approval: 1. That final approval of the signage, lighting, and landscaping of the development be delegated to staff to review in accordance with the adopted standards and ordinances. Commissioner Maurine Bachman seconded the motion. Commissioners Andres Paredes, Jon Lee, Sara Urquhart, Aimee Burrows, Adrienne Bell, Maurine Bachman, Mike Christensen, and Brenda Scheer voted “yes”. The motion passed. Dowland Townhomes General Plan & Zoning Map Amendment at Approximately 1902 South 400 East - Paul Dowland, on behalf of the property owner, is requesting an amendment of the General Plan and Zoning Map for a property located at approximately 1902 South 400 East. The Applicant is requesting to change the General Plan Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and to change the Zoning Map from R -1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District) to RMF-45 (Moderate/High Density Multifamily Residential District) The subject property is located within Council District 5 represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: Caitlyn Tubbs at 801-535-7706 or caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com) Case numbers PLNPCM2021-00717 & PLNPCM2021-00718 Principal Planner, Caitlyn Tubbs, reviewed the petition as outlined in the staff report. She shared that the majority of public comments were in opposition to the petition. She stated that Staff recommends the Planning Commission forward a negative recommendation to City Council. The applicant representative, Tom Jolley, stated that they have no formal presentation. He said that the City’s Master Plan was made in response to the market at the time but that needs have changed. He feels the project could be tweaked to fit within the City’s goals. Chairperson Barry asked for the reason they are asking RMF45 versus other options such as RMF-35. The applicant stated that they were looking to fit 8 units on the lot. He stated they are open to change the request to RMF35. Commissioner Bell asked if the applicant had considered subdividing the lot and if so, how many lots they could get out of it. The applicant stated they had not considered subdividing, but they could possibly subdivide the lot into two and meet zoning. Salt Lake City Planning Commission November 10, 2021 Page 8 Commissioner Burrows asked what the chances were the applicant would rebuild the mansion on the lot. He stated that they were not willing to do that. PUBLIC HEARING Chairperson Barry opened the public hearing. • Cindy Cromer – supports the staff report – in opposition of the petition. • Darlene Kaufusi – in opposition of the petition • Doyle Buchanan – in favor of the petition • Jeff Bair – in opposition of the petition • Mary Piele – in opposition of the petition • Sharlene Kiuhara – in opposition of the petition • Taylor Anderson – asked wanted to know why the applicant asked for RMF-45 and wanted to know what other kind of zoning could be put there • Vincent Gryboski – read his previously emailed comment – in opposition of the petition • William Nesse – in support of the petition • Bailey Cooper – sees value in adding more properties to the area • Amy Thompson read an email from Sara E. Adelman – Liberty Wells Community Council - we do not support the rezoning of this property to RMU-45 given the existing character of the surrounding neighborhood. Seeing that no one else wished to speak, Chairperson Barry closed the public h earing. Chairperson Barry addressed Taylor Anderson’s question about zoning and asked Caitlyn if the RMF-45 was needed specifically for the project density. She stated that the requested zoning was needed for the proposed project. Chairperson Barry then asked what kind of density they could get in the RMF-35 zoning. Staff stated that the bulk requirements would be similar but there would be a major change with the height restrictions which would be 35ft for the RMF-35 zone verses 45ft in the RMF-45 zone. Chairperson Barry asked about the appropriateness of form-based code in the proposed area. Director Nick Norris clarified that zoning is typically used in metro areas close to transit. Chairperson Barry asked what the setback for the front yard is. Planner Tubbs reviewed the setbacks that are shown in the staff report. Director Nick Norris reviewed the density for RMF-35 saying the lot is just over 14,000 square feet, and how density is calculated in the RMF-35 zone is that you get 3 unit for the first 9,000 square feet of lot area and then each additional unit up to 11 additional units requires 2,000 square feet per unit. He stated that the property in question could have 5 units under the RMF- 35 zoning. Salt Lake City Planning Commission November 10, 2021 Page 9 Commissioner Scheer stated that the applicant did not ask for the RMF35 zoning and the Commission is not able to negotiate that at a Planning Commission meeting. She said she agrees with almost all of the public comments, but this project has not been thought out enough and she will be opposing. Commissioner Mike Christensen said he wants to see more density and housing available in the neighborhood but wants something that is more thought through. Mr. Jolly feels they can build a project the community could be proud of. He asked if t hey could continue a conversation with staff to find a solution. MOTION Commissioner Aimee Burrows stated, Based on the information in the staff report, the information presented, and the input received during the public hearing, I move that the Planning Commission forward a Negative Recommendation to the City Council for the requested General Map Amendment from Low Density Residential (1-5 dwelling units per acre)to Medium Density Residential (15-30 dwelling units per acre) for 0.33 acres at approximately 1902 South 400 East with the following finding: 1. The requested map amendment is not consistent with the considerations within section 21A.50.050of Salt Lake City’s ordinances. Commissioner Mike Christensen seconded the motion. Director Nick Norris review the options with the Commission other than denial since the applicant mentioned willingness to change their application. Commissioner Scheer asked staff if they send a negative recommendation if it has to go before City Council or of the applicant could withdraw. Commissioner Aimee Burrows stated that she would withdraw her motion. Commissioner Adrienne Bell stated that she would be in favor of tabling the petition in favor of finding an alternative. Commissioner Christensen stated he would be in favor of tabling as well. Commissioner Burrows withdrew her motion. Commissioner Brenda Scheer stated. In the application PLNPCM2021-00717 & PLNPCM2021-00718 I move that we table this set of applications. Commissioner Sara Urquhart seconded the motion. Commissioners Maurine Bachman, Adrienne Bell, Aimee Burrows, Sara Urquhart, Andres Paredes, Mike Christensen, Brenda Scheer, and Jon Lee voted “yes”. The motion passed. Salt Lake City Planning Commission November 10, 2021 Page 10 Commissioner Sara Urquhart left the meeting. OTHER BUSINESS Ethics: Conflict of Interest Training – This training was covered by Hannah Vickery, City Attorney. Commissioners in attendance for the training were: Amy Barry, Brenda Scheer, Adrienne Bell, Andres Paredes, Aimee Burrows, Jon Lee, Maurine Bachman, and Mike Christensen. The meeting adjourned at 7:57 PM. R-1-5,000 & RMF-35 Zoning Comparison The following uses are not currently allowed in the R-1-5,000 zoning district but are listed as permitted or conditional uses under the proposed RMF-35 zoning district designation: New Permitted New Conditional Assisted Living Facility (Small) Community Recreation Center Multi-Family Dwelling Assisted Living Facility (Large) Dwelling, Single-Family Attached Congregate Care Facility (Large) Dwelling, Twin Home and Two -Family Group Home (Large) Dwelling, Residential Support (Small) Changing from Permitted to Not Allowed Changing from Conditional to Not Allowed -None - -None - Changing from Permitted to Conditional Changing from Conditional to Permitted -None - Community Garden Accessory Dwelling Units Assisted Living Facility (Limited Capacity) Congregate Care Facility (Small) A comparison of zoning standards between the existing R-1-5,000 zoning district and the proposed RMF-35 zoning district are as follows below: Existing R-1-5,000 Proposed RMF-35 Building Height 28 Feet for pitched roofs and 20 Feet for flat roofs 35 Feet Front Setback Equal to average of the front yards of existing buildings on block face or minimum 20. 20 Feet Corner Side Yard Setback 10 Feet 10 Feet Interior Side Yard Setback, corner lot 4 Feet Single Family Detached and Two Family Dwellings: 4 Feet Interior Side Yard Setback, interior lot 4 Feet on one side and 10 Feet on the other side Single Family Detached and Two Family Dwellings: 4 Feet on one side and 10 Feet on the other Single Family Attached: None required Twin Family: None on one side and 10 Feet on the other Multi-Family: 10 Feet All other: 10 Feet Rear Setback 25% of lot depth of 20 Feet, whichever is less 25% of lot depth or 20 Feet, whichever is less and not to exceed 25 Feet Maximum Building Coverage 40% Single Family Detached: 45% Two Family Dwellings: 50% Single Family Attached: 60% Twin Family: 50% Multi-Family: 60% Non-Residential: 60% Maximum Lot Size 7,500 square feet None listed City Plan Considerations Adopted City Plan Policies and Guidance Zoning map amendments are reviewed for compliance with City master plans and adopted policies. The below plans were adopted for the area: • Central City Master Plan (Current Community Plan) o Density increases in single family type structures are encouraged in the Liberty Neighborhood. The proposed zoning amendment to RMF-35 would allow for moderate density increases within single family attached structures as encouraged in the Central City Master Plan. o • Growing Salt Lake o Housing Initiative 2 suggests the City increase the number of medium density housing types and options. Allowing the zoning change would increase the medium density housing types in this area of the city in a location where the additional units would have access to amenities such as parks. o Housing Initiative 3 encourages housing options that accommodate aging in place. The development of multiple housing types in a neighborhood provides opportunities for residents to live in homes that serve their specific needs for their age while also keeping them in the same neighborhood and nearby the amenities they have grown accustomed to. • Plan Salt Lake o Growth initiative 3 encourages the City to “promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land.” The subject property is larger than other properties in the surrounding area. The property is currently vacant following the demolition of the damaged Sears Mansion. The subject property’s location in an already established neighborhood and the size of the land makes this parcel a good candidate for infill redevelopment. o Housing Initiative 2 promotes the increase of medium density housing types and options. The Plan also advocates for the city to enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate. As seen in the Central City Master Plan the subject property is appropriate for a moderate density increase because it is in close proximity to multiple collector streets and local amenities. Analysis of Zoning Amendment Standards ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS 21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: FACTOR FINDING RATIONALE 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Complies The proposed map amendments are consistent with the housing and growth initiatives of multiple citywide housing plans and the subject property is a good candidate for moderate density increase as allowed by the Central City Master Plan. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Complies The general purpose statement of the City’s residential zoning districts includes: providing a range of housing choices, types, and densities and to ensure co mpatible development, among other goals. The proposed map amendments are consistent with the purpose statements. 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; Complies The subject property is in an already established neighborhood and there is an existing land use across the street to the east that is also zoned RMF-35. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards Not Applicable There are no overlay zoning districts governing the subject property. 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater Complies The surrounding area is fully developed, and all public infrastructure and utilities are already in place. An increase in the number of dwelling units permitted under the proposed RMF-35 zone may require upgrading the utilities and drainage systems. However, such upgrades would be required for any new larger/intensification of use on the property through the building permits process. drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. Photographs Figure 3: Photo of subject property as viewed from 400 East looking west. Figure 4: View of neighboring property to the northeast. Figure 5: View of neighboring property to the north. Figure 6: View of neighboring property to the southeast. Figure 7: View of neighboring property to the south. Public Process And Comments The following attachment lists the public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project. All written comments that were received throughout this process are included within this attachment. Early Notification A notice of application was sent to the chair of the Liberty Wells Community Council ; the Community Council was given 45 days to respond with any concerns or comments. The Applicant team and Staff were invited to participate in an online meeting with the Liberty Wells Community Council on September 8, 2021. Notice of the application was also sent to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the project. The purpose of this notice is to inform surrounding property owners and residents that an application has been submitted, provide details regarding the request, outline steps in the planning review and decision-making process, and to let them know how to obtain more information and submit comme nts early on in the review process. Public Hearing Notice The Planning Division provided the following notices for the Planning Commission meeting: • Mailed notice sent: October 29, 2021 • E-mailed notice to listserv sent: October 29, 2021 • Public hearing notice signs posted on the property: October 29, 2021 Public Input Received Staff has received a few comments from surrounding neighbors regarding the proposed general plan and zoning map amendments. The neighbors are not in favor of the change to RMF-45 and are concerned about the potential development of higher density housing on this site. The emails received by staff have been included on the following pages. Staff has not received any comments from the public to date since the Applicant decided to amend their request to RMF-35. City Department Review Comments Engineering: SLC Engineering will review project specifics when plans for a building permit are submitted but encroachments for private purposes are not allowed in the public way. Where vehicles are anticipated to travel, pavers are not allowed, even in a crosswalk. Public way improvements must meet APWA Standards. – Cory Legge Transportation: There are no issues from Transportation. Each residence has an adequate two - car garage. – Michael Barry Public Safety/Fire: no comments received Public Utilities: no comments received Building: no comments received Zoning: no comments received City Council Briefing // April 19, 2022 DOWLAND GENERAL PLAN MAP AND ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS PLNPCM2021-00717 & PLNPCM2021-00718 GENERAL PLAN MAP AMENDMENT: LOW DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (1-10 DU/ACRE) MEDIUM DENSITY RESIDENTIAL (11-15 DU/ACRE) ZONING MAP AMENDMENT: R-1-5,000 RESIDENTIAL RMF-35 REQUEST SITE POTENTIAL LAND USE CHANGES POTENTIAL LOT/BULK CHANGES February 9, 2022 –The Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a POSITIVE recommendation of the General Plan and Zoning Map amendment requests. PLANNING COMMISSION ERIN MENDENH ALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received _____________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council ____________ ________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 25, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Dowland Master Plan (PLNPCM2021-00717) and Zoning Map Amendments (PLNPCM2021- 00718) STAFF CONTACT: Caitlyn Tubbs, Principal Planner Caitlyn.Tubbs@slcgov.com or (801)-535-7706 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the following amendments at approximately 1902 S 400 East: •Amend the Central City Master Plan’s land use map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential (petition number PLNPCM2021-00717) • Amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map from R-1-5,000 (Single Family Residential) to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) (petition number PLNPCM2021- 00718) BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a request by Paul Dowland to amend the Central City Master Plan’s land use map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map from R-1-5,000 Residential to RMF-3 5 Moderate Density Mu lti-Family Residential for the property located at 1902 South 400 East. The purpose of the rezone request is to facilitate the construction of townhomes. The applicant initially requested to amend the Zoning Map from R-1-5,000 to RMF-45. The Planning Commission reviewed the request for RMF-45 at a public hearing on November 10, 2021 and voted to table the request to allow time for the applicant to find a more appropriate zoning designation for the subject property. The applicant revised the request to amend the zoning map to RMF-35. . The Planning Commission held another public hearing on February 9, 2022 and voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation of the proposed Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment to the City Council. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 WWW.SLC.GOV TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 Lisa Shaffer (Mar 29, 2022 08:24 MDT)03/29/2022 03/29/2022 PUBLIC PROCESS: • August 30, 2021 - An early notification was sent to the Liberty Wells Community Council and all residents and property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. • September 8, 2021 - The Applicant and Staff met with the Liberty Wells Community Council to present the project and gather feedback from the community. • November 10, 2021 - The Planning Commission held a public hearing and tabled the items to allow the Applicant and staff time to discuss more appropriate zoning designations. • February 9, 2022 - The Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a positive recommendation of the map amendment requests to the City Council for their review and decision. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of February 9, 2022 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of February 9, 2022 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of February 9, 2022 (Click to Access) d) PC Agenda of November 10, 2021 (Click to Access) e) PC Minutes of February 10, 2021 (Click to Access) f) Planning Commission Staff Report of November 10, 2021 (Click to Access) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Additional Public Comments (not included in Staff Reports) 3) Notice of City Council Hearing 4) Notice Letter to Recognized Community Organizations 5) Notice Letter to Neighbors 6) Original Petition 7) Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2022 (Amending the general plan land use designation of property located at approximately 1902 South 400 East from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and the zoning map from R-1-5,000 Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District) An ordinance amending the general plan map pertaining to property located at approximately 1902 South 400 East from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-00717 and amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately 1902 South 400 East from R-1-5,000 Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021- 001718. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on February 9, 2022 on applications submitted by Paul Dowland (“Applicant”) to change the general plan map and zoning map for property located at 1902 South 400 East (Tax ID No.16-18-452-012- 0000) (the “Property”) from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and from R-1-5,000 Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2021-00717 and PLNPCM2021-00718, respectively; and WHEREAS, at its February 9, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission held a public hearing and voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said applications; and WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance is in the city’s best interests. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the General Plan Map. The Central City Master Plan Land Use Map shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be and hereby amended from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential. SECTION 2. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property identified on Exhibit “A” attached hereto shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1-5,000 Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2022. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2022. Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney 3/16/2022 EXHIBIT “A” Legal Description of Property 1902 South 400 East, Salt Lake City, UT Tax ID No. 16-18-452-012-0000 BEG 241.9 FT S & 33 FT W FR NE COR LOT 6 BLK 4 5 AC PLAT A BF SUR S 120.6 FT W 115.5 FT N 120.6 FT E 115.5 FT TO BEG 5969-1933 7794-1052 7801- 2257 7944-0541 9034-7930 09178-833510648-3928 1. Project Chronology Project Chronology Dowland Master Plan Amendment – PLNPCM2021-00717 Dowland Zoning Map Amendment – PLNPCM2021-00718 July 9, 2021 Paul Dowland filed the Master Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment applications. The subject property is located at 1902 South 400 East and encompasses approximately 0.33 acres (14,375 square feet). August 3, 2021 Application assigned to Caitlyn Tubbs, Principal Planner. August 30, 2021 Sent notifications to Liberty Wells Community Council and surrounding neighbors and property owners. September 8, 2021 Applicant and Staff met with Liberty Wells Community Council. October 15, 2021 Public input period closed. October 29, 2021 Sign posted on subject property. Public hearing notice sent out and posted to city website. November 10, 2021 Planning Commission held public hearing and tabled the requests. January 27, 2022 Sign posted on subject property. Public hearing notice sent out and posted to city website. February 9, 2022 Planning Commission held public hearing and forwarded a positive recommendation of both requests. March 16, 2022 Ordinance received from City Attorney’s Office. 2. Addition al Pub lic Comments From: To:Planning Public Comments Subject:(EXTERNAL) Re: Dowland Townhomes General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments at 1902 S 400 E Date:Wednesday, February 9, 2022 6:55:54 PM My name is Sharlene Kiuhara. I live at 373 E Ramona Ave located around the corner of the Dowland proposal (in case my audio does not work). I would like to thank Madame Chair, the commissioners, and Ms. Tubbs for their time and judicious thought on the original application and the amendment, which I am in support of. In light of the fact that SLC is growing and affordable housing is becoming more limited, I also want to thank the applicant and the amended proposition to reduce the number of townhomes from 8 to 4. I look forward to attending the next public hearing on the building plan. Thank you again, Sharlene Kiuhara 3. Notice of City Council Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2021-00717 – Dowland Master Plan Amendment at 1902 South 400 East and PLNPCM2021-00718 – Dowland Zoning Map Amendment at 1902 South 400 East – On behalf of the owner of 1902 South 400 East Paul Dowland has requested Salt Lake City amend the Central City Master Plan from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and amend the Zoning Map from R-1 -5 ,000 to RMF- 35. The subject property is located within Council District 5 , represented by Darin Mano. As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During the hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The Council may consider adopting the ordinance the same night of the public hearing. The hearing will be held: DATE: TBD PLACE: Electronic and in-person options. 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah ** This meeting will be held via electronic means, while also providing for an in-person opportunity to attend or participate in the hearing at the City and County Building, located at 451 South State Street, Room 326, Salt Lake City, Utah. For more information, including WebEx connection information, please visit www.slc.gov/council/virtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@slcgov.com. All comments received through any source are shared with the Council and added to the public record. If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call Caitlyn Tubbs at 801-535-7706 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com. The application details can b e accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/, by selecting the “planning” tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2021-00717 and PLNPCM2021-00718. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, (801 )535-7600, or relay service 711. 4. Notice Letter to Recognized Community Organizations From: Tubbs, Caitlyn To: Liberty Wells Subject: General Plan Map and Zoning Map Amendments Date: Monday, August 30, 2021 11:01:00 AM Attachments: Dowland Townhomes MPZM Early Notification Letter (x81).pdf Good morning Caitlin, I can’t recall if I sent this to you already – please let me know if I haven’t so I can update our 45-day early notification expiration date. The Planning Division has received a request to amend the General Plan Map and the Zoning Map for the property located at 1902 South 400 East. The Applicant has requested to change the General Plan from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and the Zoning Map from R-1-5,000 to R -MU-45 to allow for the construction of eight townhome units. I have attached the early notification letter I sent to the surrounding neighbors on August 12th with this email. The Application numbers for these requests are PLNPCM2021-00717 and PLNPCM2021-00718 and all of the submittal materials may be found online at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/Citizen/Default.aspx . We are required by ordinance to give recognized community organizations 45 days to provide input – 45 days from today will be Friday October 15th. Please let me know if you would like myself and the Applicant to attend one of the Liberty Wells Community Council’s meetings to discuss this project. Thank you, CAITLYN TUBBS, AICP Principal Planner DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION Our staff are working remotely; for more expedient responses please call cell or send email. TEL 801-535-7706 CEL 385-315-8115 EMAIL caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com WWW.SLC.GOV/PLANNING Disclaimer: The Planning Division strives to give the best customer service possible and to respond to questions as accurately as possible based upon the information provided. However, answers given at the counter and/or prior to application are not binding and they are not a substitute for formal Final Action, which may only occur in response to a complete application to the Planning Division. Those relying on verbal input or preliminary written feedback do so at their own risk and do not vest any property with development rights. 5. Notice Letter to Neighbors Notification of a Project in Your Neighborhood Salt Lake City has received a request for a master plan map and zoning map amendment from Paul Dowland, representing the property owner, to change the master plan map for one parcel from Low-Density Residential (1-10 units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (11-15 units per acre) and to rezone the same parcel from R-1-5,000 to RMU - 45. The site is currently vacant and the Applicant intends to construct eight (8) townhome units if these map amendments are approved. This type of request requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission and a final decision by the City Council. A public hearing with the Planning Commission has not been scheduled yet. You will be notified of the public hearing at a later date in advance of the meeting. The purpose of this notice is to make you aware of the proposed change and let you know how you may obtain more information about and comment on the project early in the review process. If you would like additional information, please contact the project planner, Caitlyn Tubbs at (385)-315-8115 or caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com. Please refer to petition numbers PLNPCM2021-00717 & PLNPCM2021- 00718 or the “Dowland Townhomes Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments.” You may also find information that includes submitted plans online at https://aca.slcgov.com/citizen/ by clicking under “Planning” and typing in the petition numbers referenced above. Notice of this application has also been sent to the Liberty Wells Community Council Chair. The Community Council may choose to schedule the matter at an upcoming meeting. Please contact the Liberty Wells Community Council Chair Caitlin Lutsch at info@lwccslc.org for more information on whether they will review the matter and details at their meeting. Vicinity Map □ Salt Lake City Planning Divis ion 8/5/2021 Notification of a Project in Your Neighborhood - CORRECTED This is a follow-up notice correcting an error in the prior letter sent. The Applicant has requested a zoning change from R-1-5,000 to RMF-45, not R-MU -45 as originally listed. Salt Lake City has received a request for a master plan map and zoning map amendment from Paul Dowland, representing the property owner, to change the master plan map for one parcel from Low-Density Residential (1-10 units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (11-15 units per acre) and to rezone the same parcel from R-1-5,000 to RMU - 45 RMF-45. The site is currently vacant and the Applicant intends to construct eight (8) townhome units if these map amendments are approved. This type of request requires a recommendation from the Planning Commission and a final decision by the City Council. A public hearing with the Planning Commission has not been scheduled yet. You will be notified of the public hearing at a later date in advance of the meeting. The purpose of this notice is to make you aware of the proposed change and let you know how you may obtain more information about and comment on the project early in the review process. If you would like additional information, please contact the project planner, Caitlyn Tubbs at (385)-315-8115 or caitlyn.tubbs@slcgov.com. Please refer to petition numbers PLNPCM2021-00717 & PLNPCM2021- 00718 or the “Dowland Townhomes Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments.” You may also find information that includes submitted plans online at https://aca.slcgov.com/citizen/ by clicking under “Planning” and typing in the petition numbers referenced above. Notice of this application has also been sent to the Liberty Wells Community Council Chair. The Community Council may choose to schedule the matter at an upcoming meeting. Please contact the Liberty Wells Community Council Chair Caitlin Lutsch at info@lwccslc.org for more information on whether they will review the matter and details at their meeting. Vicinity Map □ Salt Lake City Planning Divis ion 8/5/2021 6 . Original Petition June 28, 2021 Via Electronic Mail Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S. State Street Salt Lake City, UT 84111 Attn: Daniel Echeverria – Senior Planner Re: Written Narrative in Support of Master Plan and Zoning Amendment Applications Dear Daniel, This firm represents PJJD LLC (the “Developer”) in connection with a proposed multi-family residential real estate development in Salt Lake City. Developer owns a vacant lot located at 1902 S 400 E in Salt Lake City (the “Property”). Developer is proposing to develop the Property into an 8-Unit/Lot multi- family residential subdivision (the “Project”). The Property is currently zoned R-1/5,000 (Single - Family Residential District) and in order to develop the Property as intended by Developer, it is necessary to request a rezone and a master plan map amendment of the Property from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family) to the RMF- 45 (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential District (“RMF-45 Zone”). Concurrent with this letter, Developer is submitting: (i) a General Master Plan Map Amendment Application; (ii) a General Zoning Amendment Application; and (iii) supporting materials (collectively the “Application”) as required by Salt Lake City (the “City”). The purpose of this letter is to address the Application requirements and provide written support for the Application. 1. Current General Plan Classification. The current City General Plan classification for the Property is located in the Central Community district. 2. Current Zoning Classification. The current City Zoning classification is R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential) and Low Density Residential (See Central Master Plan). 3. Requested Zoning Classification. The Developer is requesting a Zoning Classification and change of the Zoning Map to RMF -45 Zone (Moderate/High Density Multi-Family Residential). 4. Parcel Number Change. The Developer is requesting the Zoning Map to be amended for only one Parcel Id: 16-18-452-012-0000. 5. Project Description and Proposed Use. Developer purchased the Property on October 20, 2020. Prior to Developer’s ownership, a single-family home was located on the Property which received substantial earthquake damage. As a result of such damage and for safety reasons, the home was razed, and the Property now sits vacant. Developer proposes to subdivide and construct 8 tasteful townhomes on Page 2 of 2 the Property for sale and use as a multifamily residential subdivision. Each townhome will have 4 bedrooms, 2 baths with a double car garage. There will be no on street parking. 6. Reasons in Support of Requested Zone Change. In support of rezoning the Property to the RMF -45 Zone, Developer respectfully requests the City to balance existing rules and regulations with flexibility for change and growth and consider the following: (a). General Statement. Salt Lake City is one of the fastest growing cities in the nation and boasts a strong housing and employment market. Although this growth in population and employment supports a vibrant community, for many residents and workers, SLC is becoming a city out of reach. Similar to cities across the country, Salt Lake City is faced with housing prices that are rising more rapidly than wages, resulting in a lack of diverse and affordable housing. To address the growth and housing challenges, over the years the City has developed goals, objectives and policies as stated through its various adopted planning documents, including, Plan Salt Lake; Salt Lake City/Citywide Vision, adopted 2015 (“Master Plan ”); Growing SLC, A Five Year Housing Plan, (2018-2022) (“City Housing Plan”); Salt Lake City Consolidated Plan; Hud Program Years 2020-2024; Fiscal Years 2021-2025, (“HUD Plan”), Central Community Neighborhood Master Plan, adopted 2005 (“Central Master Plan ”); Building Affordable in Salt Lake City: An Affordable Residential Development Guide, 2019 (“Affordable Residential Guide”); various zoning regulations (“Ordinances”) and other city wide and community plans, etc. Implementing these various goals, objections and policies as reflected in the adopted planning documents requires a unique approach of balancing existing rules and regulations while exercising flexibility to achieve real and responsive change that will encourage the market to develop the diverse and affordable housing needed to accommodate the growing SLC community. (b) The Project is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the City. The Master Plan, City Housing Plan, HUD Plan, Central Master Plan, Affordable Residential Guide and Ordinances all recognize, support and call for increasing the housing supply and expanding housing opportunities throughout the city, including removing local barriers to housing development. For example, both the Master Plan and the City Housing Plan specifically provide: (1) By creating places with a diverse mix of uses, building types, connections, and transportation options, people have the choice of where they live, how they live, and how they get around. As our City grows and evolves overtime, having a diverse mix of uses in our neighborhoods citywide will become increasingly important to accommodate responsible growth and provide people with real choices. See Master Plan; Sustainable Growth & Development, Page 9. (2) Compatibility of development generally refers to how a development integrates into the existing scale and character of a neighborhood. New development should be context sensitive to the surrounding development, taking into account the existing character of the neighborhood while providing opportunities for new growth and to enhance the sense of place. See Master Plan; Sustainable Growth & Development, Page 10. Page 3 of 2 (3) Guiding Principle; Access to a wide variety of housing types for all income levels throughout the City, providing the basic human need for safety and responding to changing demographics; Initiatives; Increase the number of medium density housing types and options; Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate. See Master Plan, Guiding Principles and Housing Initiatives, Pages 14 & 21. (4) Guiding Principle; Maintaning places that provide a foundation for the City to affirm our past; Initiatives; Preserve and enhance neighborhood district character; Balance preservation with flexibility for change and growth. See Master Plan, Guiding Principles and Housing Initiatives, Pages 14 & 33. (5) In order to respond to Salt Lake City’s changing demographics and the housing needs of its diverse communities, it is critical to begin to look within the City for real and responsive change that will encourage the market to develop the housing and infrastructure needed to accommodate our growing community. This goal focuses on the need to increase the diversity of housing types and opportunities in the city by seeking policy reforms that can enhance the flexibility of the land-use code and create an efficient and predictable development process for community growth. See City Housing Plan, Section 3, Goal 1, Page 17. (6) In order to respond to the demographic shift described above, modernizing zoning is key not only to catching up with the demand, but creating housing that responds to every stage of lifewhether just starting out or downsizing later in life… In addition, thereis a needfor in-fill ordinances that allow for greater density in existing neighborhoods, offering owners the option to subdivide large parcels to increase the utility and value of their land, removing impediments to innovative construction types, such as accessory dwelling units, and reducing parking requirements to bring downthe cost of developing new housingunits. See City Housing Plan, Section 3, Objective 1.1.1, Page 18; (Emphasis Added). (7) In-fill ordinances provide both property owners and developers with options to increase the number of units on particular parcels throughout the city. Such options would alsohelprestore the“missingmiddle” housingtypes where new construction has principally been limited to single-family homes and multi- story apartment buildingsfor decades. Missingmiddle housingtypes arethose that current zoning practices have either dramatically reduced or eliminated altogether: accessory dwelling units, duplexes, tri-plexus, small multi-plexus, courtyard cottages and bungalows, row houses, and small apartment buildings. Finding a place for these housing types throughout the city means more housing options in Salt Lake City and restoring choices for a wider variety of household sizes, from seniors to young families. Apart from traditional infill ordinances, responding to the unusual age, form, and shape of housing stock should beaddressed andleveragedto addincremental density in existing structures. This would include options for lot subdivision where there is ample spaceto build anadditional home ona property or alternatively Page 4 of 2 expand rental opportunities in existing structures. This solution responds to the strong preference for single-family homes that was captured in the Salt Lake Live Work Survey. Allowing landowners to subdivide their large, underutilized lots createsa path to building more single-familyhomes in a city that has limited space left for them under its current land-use regulations. See City Housing Plan, Section 3, Objective 1.1.2, Page 19 (Emphasis added). The Project creates a real opportunity to respond to and satisfy many of the City’s stated goals and objectives to find places to enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods to provide for a wider variety of housing types. The Property is a corner lot and is currently vacant. Developer is not requesting demolition of an existing single-family home. The Project will provide 8 residential townhomes to enhance the character of the neighborhood. The Project will create new “missing middle” housing growth on a small scale at a price point more affordable than currently exists in this area. (c) Further Purposes of Zoning Ordinance. Developer will establish CC&R’s (and, if necessary, an HOA) for the development and use of the Project in order to protect and enhance the value and desirability of the Project and to provide a clean and safe neighborhood for its residents. (d). The Project will not materially affect adjacent properties. Developer recognizes that the Property is located in the Central Community district and subject to, among other planning documents, the Central Master Plan which provides for “preservation of historic structures and neighborhoods” as an important goal. Yet we note that the Central Master Plan was created and adopted in 2005 when market dynamics were much different and may even conflict with more modern goals and policies of the City as adopted in the Master Plan and City Housing Plan as they relate to creating a diversity of housing types in the city to address growth. Developer believes that the Project will not fundamentally change the residential nature of the neighborhood and is willing to engage with the City on “form-based zoning” (i.e., ensuring that the form of a building fits into the neighborhood surrounding it, rather than focusing regulation on the specific use of that building as traditional zoning code requires) to tweak height, depth and general shape of the Project to best utilize the space on the Property and ensure that the residential neighborhood character is preserved and enhanced. Working with the City, the Project will be context sensitive to the existing character of the neighborhood while providing opportunities for new growth and to enhance the sense of place. (e). Consistent Land Use. The land use of the Property will remain residential and not mixed use. Moreover, the Project is consistent with land uses immediately surrounding the Property. The St. Josheph’s project is zoned RMF-35 and allows for moderate multifamily residential development. Additionally, a drive through of the surrounding neighborhoods also show various multi-family duplexes, tri-plexus and apartments that have been built over the years. (f). Adequate Public Facilities and Services. The Project is small scale and limited to 8 residential units/lots and will have a minimal impact on traffic and other required public facilities. Page 5 of 2 We believe the Project is consistent with the City’s development goals and objectives to provide diversity of housing types and to support attractive and well-maintained neighborhoods. We appreciate the City’s consideration of these matters and look forward to working with you. Best regards, YORK HOWELL & GUYMON M. Thomas Jolley cc: Paul Dowland John Davis The drawings, designs, ideas, arrange m en ts and plans indicated or represent e d are the sole property of Layton Davis Architect s and are subject to the copyright of Layton Davis Architect s or its assigns. They were created, evolved and develope d for use on, and in conjuncti o n with the specified project. Any use of the drawin gs , designs, material s or informati on containe d herein, including but not limited to copying or reprodu cti o n, which is not expressly authoriz e d by Layton Davis Architec ts , is strictly prohibite d as an infringe me n t of its copyrigh t and may result in liability DOWLAND TOWNHOMES 1902 S 400 E SLC, UT ----- PROGRESS SET PRINTED DATE 04.30.2021 CHRONOLOGY PROJECT NO 21.038 DWN BY/ CHK BY / TITLE ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 1 ARCHITECTURAL - SITE PLAN 24X36 SHEET # A001 A001 SCALE: 1"=10' The drawings, designs, ideas, arrange m en ts and plans indicated or represent e d are the sole property of Layton Davis Architect s and are subject to the copyright of Layton Davis Architect s or its assigns. They were created, evolved and develope d for use on, and in conjuncti o n with the specified project. Any use of the drawin gs , designs, material s or informati on containe d herein, including but not limited to copying or reprodu cti o n, which is not expressly authoriz e d by Layton Davis Architec ts , is strictly prohibite d as an infringe me n t of its copyrigh t and may result in liability DOWLAND TOWNHOMES 1902 S 400 E SLC, UT ----- PROGRESS SET PRINTED DATE 04.30.2021 3 LEVEL 3 - FLOOR PLAN 4 LEVEL 4 - FLOOR PLAN A002 A002 SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" SCALE : 1/4" = 1'-0" CHRONOLOGY PROJECT NO 21.038 DWN BY/ CHK BY / TITLE ARCHITECTURAL SITE PLAN 24X36 SHEET # A002 LEVEL 1 - FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" LEVEL 2 - FLOOR PLAN SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" BUILDING SECTION SCALE: 1/4" = 1'-0" 1 A002 2 A002 5 A002 7. Mailing List NAME CARE OF STREET VALERIE P PRICE 1864 S 400 E CARRIE LEIGH ROGNAN 1868 S 400 E SAM SEMCHUCK 1872 S 400 E STACEY M PEARSON 1884 S 400 E CHRISTOPHER STIMMLER 1005 W 7TH AVE DR SANDRA SUSAN FRAZIER 11253 S 1370 E JULIE MAUGHAN; JILLIAN E DALLON (JT) 365 E WESTMINSTER AVE BARBARA A LAMBERT; TREVOR R LAMBERT (JT) 371 E WESTMINSTER AVE HENRY JOSEPH BECKER 377 E WESTMINSTER AVE ADAM A GLOS REVOCABLE TRUST 09/20/2021 381 E WESTMINSTER AVE BRENDA RUGER; DANIEL H RUGER 387 E WESTMINSTER AVE MARY J F AUSTIN 358 E WESTMINSTER AVE LORI K PETTUS 364 E WESTMINSTER AVE ROBERT D. BAILEY; MARION U. BAILEY 2303 W LEDGEWOOD DR PJJD ENTERPRISES, LLC PO BOX 980513 SPIN PROPERTIES, LLC 361 E RAMONA AVE SAMUEL HARRISON SALTZMAN 365 E RAMONA AVE MILAN MICICH; MAHO OSANO (JT) 369 E RAMONA AVE SHARLENE A KIUHARA 373 E RAMONA AVE ANDREA MITCHELL TRUST 01/11/2021 1918 S 400 E DREW WYAND; CAMIE RINGHEIMER (JT) 1922 S 400 E AMBER HAWKINS 10128 N RIVERSIDE LN DOROTHY MOLINAR; PETE SALAZAR (JT) 1863 S 400 E ZULY CHENG; MELVIN KUO (JT) 1768 VOORHEES AVE TRACEY GINES; STEPHANIE PACHECO (JT) 1879 S 400 E PAUL TAMOUA; SELITA V TAMOUA 1889 S 400 E JEFF P BURNS 418 E GARFIELD AVE SAMUEL S LOPEZ 420 E GARFIELD AVE TYLER P EVERETT; DAVID MICHAEL EVERETT (JT) 415 E WESTMINSTER AVE TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED JUDY CURTIS 3000 S 300 E WILLIAM H NESSE; MELISSA HELQUIST (JT) 425 E WESTMINSTER AVE SCOTT CHAPPLE 11 RIDGE LINE CT JOHN J MCHUGH; KIRSTEN M MCHUGH (JT) 433 E WESTMINSTER AVE ROSIE M RAMIREZ 1905 S 400 E JASON S VOYLES; CONNIE A VOYLES (JT) 2419 E 6710 S BRIAN ORLEANS 426 E WESTMINSTER AVE MARTHA WOLCOTT 432 E WESTMINSTER AVE MISSION CCRC LLC THE ENSIGN GROUP PO BOX 128109 JEFFREY S JUIP; LORI C BARRETT (JT) 1903 S 400 E JASON S VOYLES; CONNIE A VOYLES (JT) 2419 E 6710 S OCCUPANT 1864 S 400 E OCCUPANT 1868 S 400 E OCCUPANT 1872 S 400 E OCCUPANT 1884 S 400 E OCCUPANT 357 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 361 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 365 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 371 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 377 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 381 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 387 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 358 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 364 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 370 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 372 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 1902 S 400 E OCCUPANT 361 E RAMONA AVE OCCUPANT 365 E RAMONA AVE OCCUPANT 369 E RAMONA AVE OCCUPANT 373 E RAMONA AVE OCCUPANT 1918 S 400 E OCCUPANT 1922 S 400 E OCCUPANT 1928 S 400 E OCCUPANT 1863 S 400 E OCCUPANT 1865 S 400 E OCCUPANT 1867 S 400 E OCCUPANT 1879 S 400 E OCCUPANT 1889 S 400 E OCCUPANT 418 E GARFIELD AVE OCCUPANT 420 E GARFIELD AVE OCCUPANT 415 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 417 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 425 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 427 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 433 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 1905 S 400 E OCCUPANT 420 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 426 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 432 E WESTMINSTER AVE OCCUPANT 451 E BISHOP FEDERAL LN OCCUPANT 1903 S 400 E OCCUPANT 418 E WESTMINSTER AVE SLC PLANNING DIVISION C/O CAITLYN TUBBS PO BOX 145480 CITY STATE ZIP SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 BROOMFIELD CO 80020 SANDY UT 84092 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129 PARK CITY UT 84098 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 HIGHLAND UT 84003 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 MANHATTAN BEACH CA 90266 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SOUTH SALT LAKE UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 OROVILLE CA 95966 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 NASHVILLE TN 37212 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:April 19, 2022 RE: Intermountain Wood West Temple Rezone and Master Plan Amendment (1948/1950 South West Temple) PLNPCM2021-00291/292 The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for property located at 1950 South West Temple, and a portion of the property located at 1948 South West Temple within the Ballpark neighborhood in City Council District Five. Combined, the parcels total approximately 4.25 acres. The 1948 South West Temple property is “split-zoned” between RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) and CG (General Commercial) zoning designations as shown in the area zoning map below. The entirety of 1950 South West Temple is zoned RMF-35. Additionally, the proposal would amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the properties from Medium-Density Residential to Medium Residential/Mixed Use. Intermountain Wood Products has been located on the subject parcels for many years. The requests are included in efforts to expand storage space and construct a new office building with uniform zoning on the properties, which would be consolidated. Existing RMF-35 zoning would not allow the proposed expansion or office uses. The Planning Commission held a public hearing at its August 11, 2021 meeting. The applicant spoke during the meeting and stated they are amenable to a development agreement that limits building height on the property to 35 feet, and to consolidate the parcels. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council with the following recommendations: Approval is conditioned on consolidating the parcels into one. Item Schedule: Briefing: April 19, 2022 Set Date: April 19, 2022 Public Hearing: May 3, 2022 Potential Action: May 17, 2022 Page | 2 The petitioner and City enter a development agreement to limit the height of any future development and approve the final site plan for the rezoned parcel. (It should be noted the City Council does not approve site plans for parcels.) Area zoning map with subject properties outlined in red and yellow Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed zoning and future land use map amendments, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. The Council may wish to discuss if height limitations and other requirements such as consolidating the two parcels might be included in a development agreement. 2. Because this property is located in the State Street project area, the Council may wish to discuss with the Administration if this is consistent with planning and redevelopment efforts in the area, or if aspects of the development agreement could anticipate adjacent redevelopment to ensure compatibility. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property. No formal site plan has been submitted to the City nor is it within the scope of the Council’s authority to review the plans. Because zoning of a property can outlast the life of a building, any rezoning application should be considered on the merits of changing the zoning of that property, not simply based on a potential project. Page | 3 Planning staff identified four key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-5 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis, please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Zoning compatibility with Adjacent Properties Properties fronting on West Temple in this area are predominantly zoned residential. As shown in the area zoning map above, properties on the east side of West Temple are zoned R-1/5000; adjacent properties to the north are also R-1/5000. A parcel at the northeast corner of the subject property is zoned RMF-35 and is used for multi-family residential. These residential uses exist within a larger commercial and industrial area of the city. Okland Construction Company is adjacent to the south and the property is used for the company’s offices, as well as material and equipment storage. This parcel was rezoned in 2017 from a split zoning of RMF-35 to CG, very similar to conditions on the subject property. Okland built new offices closer to West Temple on the rezoned property. Intermountain Wood is limited in its options for locating offices much like Okland Construction was before its property was rezoned. While CG zoning could allow more intense uses than RMF-35, the applicant’s expressed intent is to construct a new office on the property. Planning staff noted uses allowed in the CG zoning district have existed on most of the property for many years. Consideration 2-Change in Zoning to CG (General Commercial) for the Entire Parcel The petitioner requested the zoning change to CG for uniformity and to expand existing office space. The RMF-35 portion is less than 15% of the 4.24 acres combined parcels’ total. Existing split-zoning requires the current (or future) property owner to be subject to different land use and building regulations. Requirements for setbacks, open space, and others may be different for one part of the property than another. This makes development on the property more difficult than with uniform zoning. Consideration 3-Master Plan and Current Zoning Considerations The Central Community Master Plan designates the front portion of the property as “Medium Density Residential” and the remainder of the property “Medium Residential/Mixed Use.” Planning staff stated The master plan supports a business-friendly environment that limits planning and zoning restrictions to those instance that provide clear and substantial benefits to residents (Central Community Master Plan, 2005 – Vision – Vital and Sustainable Commerce – Page 3). Given the overall commercial and industrial character of the area and the majority of the property already being zoned CG, no substantial benefits would be provided to neighboring residents through a denial of the changes to the master plan and zoning map amendment. Approximately 85% of the combined properties has been zoned CG since 1995, and it is Planning’s opinion a change to the remaining portion would do little to change the overall character and area impact of the site. Consideration 4-Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts Planning staff considered several potential alternate zoning districts (R-MU, R-MU-35, R-MU-45 (Residential Mixed-Use), MU (Mixed Use), RO (Residential Office), and CB (Community Business). Each would allow expansion of the office and parking, while limiting building height and some more impactful uses allowed in the CG zone. However, other limitations such as reduced non-residential building height, extra process steps required to build an office building, or additional residential building height were Page | 4 mentioned. Planning staff noted changing the zoning district to something other than the requested CG would perpetuate the property’s split-zoning and make development more cumbersome due to dissimilar standards and requirements on different portions of the property. Planning does not recommend an alternate zoning designation than the requested CG. DEVELOPMENT STANDARDS The following table compares some development standards of the RMF-35 and CG zoning designations. Zoning Max. Building Height Lot Coverage Front Yard Rear Yard Side Yard Landscape Yards RMF-35 35 feet 45-60% depending on land use. 20 feet 25% of lot depth or 20 feet, and need not exceed 25 feet. Corner side: 10 feet Interior: 4 feet to 10 feet depending on use. Front and corner required. On multifamily, one interior side yard required. CG 60 feet Allowed up to 30 feet higher (90 feet total) through design review process. No maximum specified. 10 feet 10 feet Corner side: 10 feet Interior: none Landscape yard of 10 feet required on front and corner side yards. Additional landscaping required if height is going above 60 feet. Where a lot in CG abuts a lot in the residential district, a landscape buffer of 15 feet is required. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment E (pages 20-22) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines master plan and zoning map amendment standards that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal. The standards and findings are summarized below. Please see the Planning Commission staff report for additional information. Master Plan Amendments State law requires municipalities to have a master plan but does not include criteria for master plan amendments, nor does the City. However, Salt Lake City Code Section 21A.02.040 – Effect of Adopted Master Plans of General Plans addresses the issue in this way: Page | 5 All master plans or general plans adopted by the planning commission and city council for the city, or for an area of the city, shall serve as an advisory guide for land use decisions. Amendments to the text of this title or zoning map should be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable adopted master plan or general plan of Salt Lake City. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1-4), 1995) Planning staff found in this instance the master plan is being amended to provide consistency between the Central Community Master Plan and the subject property’s zoning designation. The request is to allow rezoning the property to a zoning district which will permit office expansion. Zoning Map Amendments Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Complies with master plan policy statements and other documents and policies adopted by the City. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. This has been considered and the proposal furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties The map amendment will facilitate additional development in the area, specifically expansion of the existing office building. While this may create additional impacts on neighboring properties, those impacts will be reviewed in relation to any specific future development proposal. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. Complies The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. The City has the ability to provide services to the subject property. The infrastructure may need to be upgraded at the owner’s expense in order to meet specific City requirements. Page | 6 PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • March 30, 2021-Applications submitted. • April 7, 2021-Petition assigned to David Gellner, Principal Planner. • April 14, 2021-Notification sent to the Ballpark Community Council to solicit public comments and start the 45-day recognized organization input and comment period. • April 14, 2021-Early notification sent to property owners and residents within 300’ of the subject parcel. • April 14, 2021-Online open house to solicit public comments on the proposal. • May 6, 2021-Planning staff attended online Ballpark Community Council • June 1, 2021-45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended. No formal comments on the proposal were submitted to Planning staff by the recognized organizations as of that date. • July 29, 2021-Property posted with signs for the August 11, 2021 Planning Commission hearing. Listserv notification of Planning Commission agenda emailed. Agenda posted on the Planning Division and State websites. • August 11, 2021-Planning Commission public hearing. One person spoke stating the neighborhood strongly supports a height limit for structures on the property. The Commission voted unanimously in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation for both proposals to the City Council with the following conditions: o Consolidating parcels owned by the applicant o The applicant and City enter a development agreement to limit height of future development and approve the final site plan for the rezoned lot • September 21, 2021-Sent to Attorney’s Office. • January 12, 2022-verified legal description received from applicant and verified by City Surveyor. • February 16, 2022-Finalized transmittal verified by Attorney’s Office. • March 8, 2022-Transmittal received by City Council Office. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 406 WWW.SLCGOV.COM PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5480 TEL 801-5357757 FAX 801-535-6174 PLANNING DIVISION DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Staff Report To: Salt Lake City Planning Commission From: David J. Gellner, AICP, Senior Planner; 385-226-3860; david.gellner@slcgov.com Date: August 11, 2021 Re: Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00292) Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00291) Master Plan & Zoning Map Amendments PROPERTY ADDRESS: 1948 and 1950 South West Temple PARCEL ID: 15-13-478-035 and 15-13-478-031 MASTER PLAN: Central Community Master Plan ZONING DISTRICT: RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential and CG (General Commercial) REQUEST: The requests are part of an effort to expand the existing Intermountain Wood Products operation to meet company needs and to have uniform zoning on their properties which would be consolidated. This project requires the following applications: 1. Master Plan Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00292) - The associated future land use map in the Central Community Master Plan currently designates the subject portion of the properties as "Medium Density Residential" while the remainder of the property is designated as "Medium Residential/Mixed Use." The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map so that the entire property is designated as "Medium Residential/Mixed Use". 2. Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-00291) - The main property is currently split-zoned between RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) and GC (General Commercial) zoning on the west portion while the smaller parcel along South West Temple is fully zoned RMF-35. The petitioner is requesting to amend the zoning map designations for the properties or portions that are zoned RMF-35 to GC. This would make the zoning of the consolidated parcel uniform. The Planning Commission’s role in this application is to provide a recommendation to the City Council, who will make the final decision on the requested zoning map and master plan amendments. ⚫ Page 2 RECOMMENDATIONS: Based on the information presented in the staff report, and the analysis and findings of fact, Planning Staff recommends that the Planning Commission forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed master plan amendment and zoning map amendments as requested. ATTACHMENTS: A. Future Land Use Map B. Applicant Information C. Existing Condition & Site Photos D. Master Plans and Zoning E. Analysis of Standards F. Public Process and Comments G. Department Comments VICINITY MAP PROJECT DESCRIPTION: Reason for Request These requests are part of an overall effort to expand storage space on the property and build a new office in order to meet company needs. The property is currently split-zoned between the GC – General Commercial and RMF-35 – Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential zoning districts. In their narrative, the applicant references the Okland Construction property immediately to the south that went through a similar rezoning several years ago in order to build a new office on the portion of their property closest to South West Temple. ⚫ Page 3 The applicant has indicated a similar desire to build office space on the eastern portion of their property closer to South West Temple. The total property parcel at 1948 South West Temple is approximately 3.93 acres or 171,200 square feet in size while the smaller parcel at 1950 South West Temple is approximately 0.311 acres or 13,550 square feet in size. The eastern portion of the larger parcel (approx. 0.311 acres/13,500 SF or 8%) is zoned RMF-35 while the rest of the property (92% - 3.62 acres/157,650SF) is zoned CG. The smaller parcel at 1950 South West Temple is zoned entirely RMF-35. The RMF-35 zoning district would not allow the proposed expansion as it does not allow office uses. The intent of the proposal is to rezone the smaller eastern portion of the property and adjacent smaller parcel from the current RMF-35 zoning to GC to make the parcel zoning uniform which would allow for the changes. The project is located within the boundaries of the Ballpark Community which lies within the Central Community Master Plan area. The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map so that the entire property is designated as "Medium Residential/Mixed Use". This project requires both a Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendment. The applicant’s narrative explaining the rationale for the zoning map amendment request and conceptual plans can be found in Attachment B of this report. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: The key considerations associated with this proposal are: 1. Change in Zoning and Compatibility with Adjacent Properties 2. Change to CG Zoning for the Entire Parcel 3. Master Plan and Current Zoning Considerations 4. Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts Key considerations are discussed further in the following paragraphs and were identified through the analysis of the project (Attachment D) and department review comments (Attachment F). Consideration 1: Zoning Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Properties along West Temple are predominantly zoned residential along the street face. On the east side of the street near the project area the zoning is R-1/5000 (Single-family Residential). To the north of the project area, lies Macarthur Avenue, a street of single-family residential development that is also zoned R-1/5000. To the south and west the properties are zoned CG and have been developed for a variety of commercial and light industrial uses. On the north-east corner of the subject property is a single parcel zoned RMF-35 that has been developed for multi-family uses. This property fronts on South West Temple. While the CG zoning district potentially allows more intense uses, the applicant has expressed a desire to build a new office on the property which would be allowed and supported by the CG zoning. It is also notable that the use has already existed on the majority of the property for a long time. This issue is analyzed in more detail in Attachment E: Analysis of Standards. Consideration 2: Change in Zoning to CG (General Commercial) for the Entire Parcel The applicant asked for a zone change to the CG – General Commercial zoning district in order to uniformly zone the parcel and accommodate an expansion to the existing office use. The portion of the parcel that is zoned RMF-35 together with the addition parcel zoned RMF-35 represents approximately 14.7% of the entire area of the combined parcels. This equates to approximately 0.622 acres/27,000 square feet of the total combined 4.24 acres/184,700 square foot parcel area. The current split-zoning of the property requires that ⚫ Page 4 redevelopment of the parcel for the current owner (or for a different owner in the future) would be subject to different land use and building regulations and may have different requirements for things such as open space and maximum street setback on one portion of the property compared to the other. This makes future development of the parcel more cumbersome through the imposition of non-uniform zoning and building rules on the property. Zoning the entire parcel uniformly CG would eliminate this issue. Consideration 3: Master Plan and Current Zoning Considerations The associated future land use map in the Central Community Master Plan currently designates the front portion of the property as "Medium Density Residential" while the remainder of the property is designated as "Medium Residential/Mixed Use." The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map so that the entire property is designated as "Medium Residential/Mixed Use". This change would apply to approximately 23% of the total 2.4 acre parcel. The master plan supports a business-friendly environment that limits planning and zoning restrictions to those instance that provide clear and substantial benefits to residents (Central Community Master Plan, 2005 – Vision – Vital and Sustainable Commerce – Page 3). Given the overall commercial and industrial character of the area and the majority of the property already being zoned CG, no substantial benefits would be provided to neighboring residents through a denial of the changes to the master plan and zoning map amendment. Staff is recommending approval of the change to the future land use map in the Master Plan to designate the property as Medium Residential/Mixed Use from the current Medium Density Residential designation. A change to CG zoning from the current RMF-35 would allow additional commercial and light industrial uses on the subject portion of the parcel that are not currently allowed. As the majority (85%) of the total combined parcel area already allows for mixed use and many more impactful commercial uses through the CG zoning district than the current zone. Changing to the CG zone to allow for the office expansion will likely do very little to change the overall character of the site. The majority of the site is already zoned CG and has been zoned CG since 1995. Rezoning the remaining property to CG would not create new impacts to the area because most of the property is already zoned CG. Staff is recommending approval of the zone change from the RMF-35 to the CG zoning district for both the portion of the CG property and the additional parcel. Consideration 4: Consideration of Alternate Zoning Districts Planning Staff considered and analyzed different zoning districts for the subject portion of the property in lieu of a change to the requested CG zoning district. A number of mixed use and other zones would allow for the expansion of the office and parking, while limiting the maximum building height and limiting some of the potentially more impactful uses allowed under the CG zoning. The other districts considered included the R- MU, R-MU-35 and R-MU-45 (Residential/Mixed Use), the MU - Mixed Use, the RO- Residential Office, and, the CB – Community Business zoning districts. While each of these districts would allow for an office on the subject portion of the property, there were notable limitations on the maximum building height allowed for non-residential buildings (limited to 20-feet in the R-MU-35/45), additional process steps required for building an office (Planning Commission approval) or they allowed additional residential building height (up to 75-feet in the R-MU zone). More notable was that a change to a district other than CG would also perpetuate the issues associated with the current split-zoning of the property. Split-zoning makes future development of the property cumbersome through the imposition of different standards and requirements on different portions of the property. For these reasons and the issues identified in the Key Issues and Analysis of Standards sections of this report, a change to an alternate zoning district in lieu of the original request is not being recommended by staff. ⚫ Page 5 DISCUSSION: The applicant has proposed to rezone a portion of their main property and an adjacent parcel from RMF-35 to GC in order to allow an expansion to their office space on the site. While the applicant has expressed a desire to expand the existing business and office, consideration must be given toward a future scenario where the entire property could be redeveloped under the CG zoning designation if the property were to be sold. The GC zoning district allows a mix of land uses including retail sales and services, entertainment, offices, heavy commercial and low intensity manufacturing and warehouse uses. It is generally located along major arterials. Some of the uses allowed in the CG zoning district may be potentially impactful to surrounding properties due to their nature and the more intense scale of activities that take place through regular operational noise, odors from operations, increased traffic for deliveries and shipping of goods, and impacts from customer traffic. However, the overall area is not low density residential in nature, and the residential component exists within a larger commercial and industrial area of the city. This area includes a number of heavy commercial/industrial uses. The property immediately to the south of this site is used for the office and some operations of Okland Construction. Their own use includes material and equipment storage that is more intense than the envisioned office uses on the subject area of the property. The Okland site was rezoned in 2017 from a split zoning of RMF-35 to CG that was very similar to the conditions on the subject property. Upon rezoning, Okland constructed a new office closer to South West Temple on the rezoned portion of their property. The Intermountain Wood property has essentially the same limitations as was present on the adjacent property and the owners have expressed a desire to rezone for similar reasons and construct new office closer to South West Temple in order to meet company needs. Given the nature of the site and that the majority of the property already allows more impactful uses in the CG zone to take place, changing the front of the property and additional parcel to uniformly zone it and allow for the office expansion will do little to change the overall character of the site and will not substantially increase current or potential impacts. NEXT STEPS: The Planning Commission’s recommendation will be forwarded to the City Council for their consideration as part of the final decision on these petitions. If ultimately approved, the applicant may proceed with the submission of plans for the project. If ultimately denied, the applicant would still be eligible to develop the properties in accordance with the respective zoning regulations for each existing zoning. ⚫ Page 6 ATTACHMENT A: Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map ⚫ Page 7 ⚫ Page 8 ATTACHMENT B: Applicant Information The narrative and other exhibits found on the following pages were submitted by the applicant in relation to the requested zoning map and master plan changes. ⚫ Page 9 ATTACHMENT C: Existing Conditions & Site Photographs This proposal involves two parcels, the larger one which is approximately 3.93 acres in size and a smaller adjacent parcel of approximately 0.311 acres. The larger parcel is currently split-zoned between GC and RMF-35 zoning while the smaller parcel is entirely zoned RMF-35. On the larger parcel, approximately 92% of the parcel is already zoned CG while the remaining 8% is zoned RMF-35. Adjacent land uses and zoning include: North: Single-family residential development on MacArthur Avenue – zoned R-1/5000 (Single- family Residential). South: Zoned CG (General Commercial). This property has been developed for commercial purposes and houses the offices and some operations of Okland Construction. East: On the east side of South West Temple properties are zoned R-1/5000 (Single-family Residential) and have been developed as single-family homes. To the immediate east of the subject property on the same side of South West Temple is a single parcel zoned RMF-35 that has been developed for multi-family housing. West: To the west of the subject property, properties are zoned CG (General Commercial) and have been developed for a variety of commercial and industrial uses. The overall development pattern of the area is not strictly a residential neighborhood, but is a mix of commercial, industrial and residential uses based on the existing development and uses. While there is some residential development, it exists within a larger area that is generally not predominantly residential in nature. This is illustrated on the Zoning Map and Future Land Use Map in Attachment A of this report. View looking east toward SW Temple from subject property ⚫ Page 10 View from SW Temple looking west toward subject properties – offices of Okland Construction on neighboring property to south in view. View of SW Temple looking south along property frontage ⚫ Page 11 Existing development and current office on the CG zoned portion of the property at 1948 South West Temple View toward SW Temple along existing driveway with small neighboring multi-family development abutting ⚫ Page 12 ATTACHMENT D: MASTER PLANS & ZONING PLAN SALT LAKE ELEMENTS & CONSIDERATIONS Plan Salt Lake (December 2015) outlines an overall vision of sustainable growth and development in the city. This includes the development of a diverse mix of uses which is essential to accommodate responsible growth. At the same time, compatibility, that is how new development fits into the scale and character of existing neighborhoods is an important consideration. New development should be sensitive to the context of surrounding development while also providing opportunities for new growth. Guiding Principles specifically outlined in Plan Salt Lake include the following: • Growing responsibly while providing people with choices about where they live, how they live, and how they get around. • A beautiful city that is people focused. • A balanced economy that produces quality jobs and foster an environment for commerce, local business, and industry to thrive. The proposed zoning map amendment and overall project will help to implement the vision contained in Plan Salt Lake and are supported by the policies and strategies in that document cited above. CENTRAL COMMUNITY MASTER PLAN ELEMENTS The subject area is discussed in the Central Community Master Plan (CCMP - 2005). More specifically, it is located with the People’s Freeway Neighborhood Planning Area, a district characterized by a mixture of low- density residential, and major manufacturing and commercial uses. The location of I-15 and railway lines through the area supports many commercial and industrial uses. The future land use map in the CCMP shows the subject area of the parcel as being medium density residential which allows for 15-30 dwelling units per acre. This corresponds to the current RMF-35 zoning. The map also shows the west part of the property as medium residential/mixed use which would allow for 10-50 dwelling units per acre. This corresponds to the majority of the property which is currently zoned CG. The CCMP includes this vision statement related to vital and sustainable commerce: Limiting planning and zoning restrictions on businesses to those instances that provide clear and substantial benefits to residents to sustain a business-friendly environment. The residential land use policies in the CCMP include RLU 1.5 which speaks to using residential mixed use zones to support commercial and small-scale office uses while monitoring the mix of uses to preserve the residential component. The Commercial Land Use policies in the CCMP (CLU-4.0 – Ensure commercial land uses are compatible with neighboring properties) include items relating to ensuring that commercial land development does not disrupt existing low-density residential neighborhoods and to the preservation of viable residential structures that contribute to the fabric and character of the neighborhood. In this case, the overall area is not low-density residential in character but rather part of a larger overall commercial and industrial area. The master plan recognizes the mix of manufacturing and commercial uses that predominate in the area while also including some low-density residential uses. This pattern is expected to continue. The project is in alignment with the predicted future land uses in the area as reflected in the master plan. ⚫ Page 13 ZONING COMPARISON SUMMARY Existing Zoning – RMF-35 – Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential Purpose Statement: The purpose of the RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District is to provide an environment suitable for a variety of moderate density housing types, including single-family, two-family, and multi-family dwellings with a maximum height of thirty five feet (35'). This district is appropriate in areas where the applicable Master Plan policies recommend a density of less than thirty (30) dwelling units per acre. This district includes other uses that are typically found in a multi-family residential neighborhood of this density for the purpose of serving the neighborhood. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale and intensity of the neighborhood. The standards for the district are intended to provide for safe and comfortable places to live and play, promote sustainable and compatible development patterns and to preserve the existing character of the neighborhood. The RMF-35 zoning district allows for multi-family, single-family and twin-home development but prohibits retail and office uses as defined in Chapter 21A.33.020. RMF-35 Development Standards (21A.24.130) MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE FRONT YARD REAR YARD SIDE YARD LANDSCAPE YARDS 35-feet 45-60% depending on land use 20-feet 25% of lot depth or 20 feet and need not exceed 25-feet Corner side: 10 feet Interior: 4 feet to 10 feet depending on use. Front and corner required. On multifamily, one interior side yard required. Proposed Zoning – CG – General Commercial Zoning District Purpose Statement: The purpose of the CG General Commercial District is to provide an environment for a variety of commercial uses, some of which involve the outdoor display/storage of merchandise or materials. This district provides economic development opportunities through a mix of land uses, including retail sales and services, entertainment, office, residential, heavy commercial and low intensities of manufacturing and warehouse uses. This district is appropriate in locations where supported by applicable master plans and along major arterials. Safe, convenient and inviting connections that provide access to businesses from public sidewalks, bike paths and streets are necessary. Access should follow a hierarchy that places the pedestrian first, bicycle second and automobile third. The standards are intended to create a safe and aesthetically pleasing commercial environment for all users. The CG zoning district allows for a wide variety of commercial uses including warehouses, outdoor storage, food production and larger scale retail operations among other uses as defined in Chapter 21A.33.030. ⚫ Page 14 CG Development Standards (21A.24.070) MAX. BUILDING HEIGHT LOT COVERAGE FRONT YARD REAR YARD SIDE YARD LANDSCAPE YARDS 60 feet. Allowed to go up to 30 feet higher (to 90 feet) through Design Review process. No maximum specified. 10-feet 10-feet Corner side: 10 feet Interior: None Landscape yard of 10-feet required on front and corner side yards. Additional landscaping required if height is going above 60-feet. Where a lot in CG abuts a lot in the residential district, a landscape buffer of 15-feet is required. ⚫ Page 15 ATTACHMENT E: ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS MASTER PLAN AMENDMENTS State Law, Utah Code Annotated, Title 10 Chapter 9a, requires that all municipalities have a master plan. However, there is no specific criteria relating to master plan amendments. The City does not have specific criteria relating to master plan amendments. However, City Code Section 21A.02.040 – Effect of Adopted Master Plans or General Plans addresses this issue in the following way: All master plans or general plans adopted by the planning commission and city council for the city, or for an area of the city, shall serve as an advisory guide for land use decisions. Amendments to the text of this title or zoning map should be consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives and policies of the applicable adopted master plan or general plan of Salt Lake City. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1- 4), 1995) In this case, the master plan is being amended in order to provide consistency between the Central Community Master Plan and the zoning designation of the subject property. This request facilitates a rezoning of the property to a district that will allow the office expansion on the subject property. State Law does include a required process in relation to a public hearing and recommendation from the Planning Commission in relation to a master plan amendment. The required process and noticing requirements have been met. ⚫ Page 16 ZONING MAP AMENDMENTS 21A.50.050: A decision to amend the text of this title or the zoning map by general amendment is a matter committed to the legislative discretion of the city council and is not controlled by any one standard. In making a decision to amend the zoning map, the City Council should consider the following: Factor Finding Rationale 1. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents; Complies with Master Plan policy statements and other documents and policies adopted by the City. The Central Community Master Plan (CCMP) speaks to limiting planning and zoning restrictions on businesses to those instances that provide clear and substantial benefits to residents to sustain a business- friendly environment. Consideration must be given in regard to the appropriateness of the CG zoning district and the potential impacts it may have for this area if the CG zoning were to be expanded. Staff believes that based on the existing land uses and the adopted master plan, that rezoning the front of the parcel to CG as requested is appropriate for the following reasons: • The property is located within a larger commercial and industrial of the city that accommodates a number of heavy commercial and industrial uses. The area is not solely residential in nature. • The majority of the property is already zoned CG. The split- zoning on the property makes future development cumbersome through the imposition of different standards and requirements on different portions of the property. • Since the majority of the property allows for CG uses, changing the front of the property to uniformly zone it and allow for the office expansion will do little to change the overall character of the site and will not substantially increase current or potential impacts. A change to the CG zoning district is supported by the proposed amendments to the master plan. 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. This has been considered and the proposal furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. The proposed zone change from RMF-35 to CG would support the specific purposes of the zoning ordinance. The change would help protect the tax base (E.) while helping to support the city’s business development (G.) The purpose of the Zoning Ordinance is to promote the health, safety, morals, convenience, order, prosperity and welfare of the present and future inhabitants of Salt Lake City, to implement the adopted plans of the city, and, in addition: A. Lessen congestion in the streets or roads; B. Secure safety from fire and other dangers; C. Provide adequate light and air; D. Classify land uses and distribute land development and utilization; E. Protect the tax base; F. Secure economy in governmental expenditures; G. Foster the city's industrial, business and residential development; and H. Protect the environment. (Ord. 26-95 § 2(1-3), 1995) ⚫ Page 17 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; The map amendment will facilitate additional development in the area, specifically expansion of the existing office building. While this may create additional impacts on neighboring properties, those impacts will be reviewed in relation to any specific future development proposal. The proposed GC zoning district would allow a mix of land uses including heavy commercial and low intensity manufacturing and warehouse uses along with residential uses. Some of the uses allowed in the CG zoning district may be potentially impactful to surrounding uses due to their nature and the more intense scale of activities that take place through regular operational noise, odors from operations, increased traffic for deliveries and shipping of goods, and impacts from customer traffic. It should be noted that the area is not low density residential in nature and that the use has already existed on the majority of the property for a long time and that the community and neighboring property owners have expressed support for the proposal to rezone the property and allow an expansion of the existing office building. 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards Complies The property is not located within an overlay zoning district that imposes additional standards. 5. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to serve the subject property, including, but not limited to, roadways, parks and recreational facilities, police and fire protection, schools, stormwater drainage systems, water supplies, and wastewater and refuse collection. The city has the ability to provide services to the subject property. The infrastructure may need to be upgraded at the owner’s expense in order to meet specific City requirements. The proposed development of the subject properties was reviewed by the various city departments tasked with administering public facilities and services, and the Public Utilities Department identified some issues that are outlined in Attachment G: Department Comments that relate to the water, sewer and storm water connections and infrastructure on the site. If the rezone is approved, the proposal will need to comply with the applicable requirements. Public Utilities and other departments will also be asked to review any specific development proposals submitted at that time. ⚫ Page 18 ATTACHMENT F: Public Process and Comments Public Notice, Meetings, Comments The following is a list of public meetings that have been held, and other public input opportunities, related to the proposed project: • Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the Ball Park Community Council on April 14, 2021. • Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site on April 14, 2021 providing notice about the project and information on how to give public input on the project. • Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on April 14, 2021 and ended on June 1, 2021. • Staff and the applicant attended an online meeting of the Ball Park on May 6, 2021. • The 45-day recognized organization comment period expired on June 1, 2021. Notice of the public hearing for the proposal included: • Public hearing notice mailed on: July 29, 2021 • Public hearing notice sign posted on property: July 29, 2021 • Public notice posted on City & State websites and Planning Division list serve: July 29, 2021 Public Input: As of the date of this staff report, the following comments were submitted in regard to the proposed changes. • Steven Miles – via email 04/30/2021: I live near Intermountain Wood. I am worried about more noise at night from them if they are expanded. • George Chapman – via email 5/11/2021: I am against the proposal since there is no guarantee that the rezone will not negatively impact the single family homes on the street. The potential negative impacts are increased traffic going into or parking on the street and there is a proposal to remove parking on West Temple for the cycle track in 2024. In addition, the rezone would allow monster class heights and without a limit of 40 feet, the rezone is inappropriate for the adjacent single family home areas. Adjacent properties should not have a large increase in zoning or height. That is why there is supposed to be a gradual rise in height from single family areas. The nearby Okland building works since the parking lot is more convenient than parking on the street and the building and entrance is set up so that neighbors are not impacted. I believe that the neighbors, if and when they understand the potential negative impact of this proposal, will be against it without a significant guarantee that the building height and design will not impact the street and neighbors. • Jana Kelsch – phone call approximately 07-13-2021 Had questions about the process and what was being planned as well as the general impact of changes. ⚫ Page 19 At the Ball Park CC meeting of May 6, 2021, several attendees expressed concern about the potential maximum height of any new development on the property and suggested that City Council consider a maximum height limit if the zoning were to be changed. Councilman Darin Mano was in attendance at the Ball Park CC meeting and suggested that such a height limit could be accommodated through a development agreement. A development agreement is a City Council matter and decision and not under the purview of the Planning Commission. It is mentioned here for the purposes of documenting the public input and comments made at the Ball Park CC meeting of May 6, 2021. ⚫ Page 20 ATTACHMENT G: Department Comments CITY DEPARTMENT COMMENTS Engineering: No objections. Sustainability No objections from Sustainability. Transportation No comments provided. Fire No comments provided. Public Utilities No concerns. Further review at the Building Permit and upgrades may be needed depending on the type of construction. •RMF-35 to CG on a split-zoned property & stand-alone parcel •Corresponding Master Plan amendment •Total subject area: 0.63 acres/27,000 SF •Intent is to build a new office and uniformly zone the parcel Intermountain Wood Products 1948 & 1950 S West Temple -Rezone &Master Plan Amendments Intermountain Wood Products 1948 and 1950 South West Temple Intermountain Wood Products Rezone and Master Plan Amendment ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 8, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Intermountain Wood South West Temple Rezoning (PLNPCM2021-00291 & PLNPCM2021-00292) STAFF CONTACT: David J. Gellner, AICP, Senior Planner, david.gellner@slcgov.com 801-535-6107 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve an Ordinance to amend the zoning map for the subject properties, changing them from RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) to CG (General Commercial), and, to amend the Future Land Use Map in the Central Community Master Plan from "Medium Density Residential" to "Medium Residential/Mixed Use." Note: The recommendation of the Planning Commission raised some policy questions in relation to a suggested Development Agreement pertaining to the maximum height and site development. This is outlined in more detail in the Planning Commission recommendation in the Public Process section of this memo. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Banks Group, LLC, property owner is requesting that the City amend the zoning map and associated future land use map for the property located at 1950 South West Temple and a portion of the property located at 1948 South West Temple. The property at 1948 South West Temple is currently split-zoned between the RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) zone and the CG (General Commercial) zone. The entire parcel Lisa Shaffer (Mar 8, 2022 15:18 MST)03/08/2022 03/08/2022 at 1950 South West Temple is zoned RMF-35. The requests are part of an effort to expand the existing Intermountain Wood Products operation into a new office building with uniform zoning on their properties. Through the zoning amendment request the identified properties would be amended from RMF-35 to CG – General Commercial. The Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map designates the properties as "Medium Density Residential". The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map for the parcels to "Medium Residential/ Mixed Use". No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time. The subject properties are highlighted on the map exhibit below. PUBLIC PROCESS: • Notice of the project and request for comments sent to the Chair of the Ball Park Community Council on April 14, 2021. • Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners located within 300 feet of the project site on April 14, 2021 providing notice about the project and information on how to give public input on the project. • Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on April 14, 2021 and ended on June 1, 2021. • Staff attended an online meeting of the Ball Park CC on May 6, 2021. • No formal comments were submitted by the Ball Park Community Council. • Several public comments were submitted to staff in advance of the Planning Commission Hearing. The comments related to concerns about the potential impact of the proposed changes through additional development and activities on the site. The public comments can be found in the Planning Commission Records – Attachment C – Planning Commission Staff Report of August 11, 2021. • A Planning Commission Public Hearing was held on August 11, 2021. By unanimous vote, the Planning Commission forwarded a Positive recommendation to City Council for the proposed zoning map and master plan changes with the following recommendations: a) The approval is conditioned upon the consolidation of the parcels owned by the applicant. b) The applicant and City Council enter into a Development Agreement to limit the height of any future development and approve the final site plan for the rezoned parcel. Note: Staff and the Attorney’s Office is looking for additional guidance from City Council as to what should be included in the Development Agreement suggested by the Planning Commission if one is required. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of August 11, 2021 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of August 11, 2021 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff Report of August 11, 2021 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2022 (Amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map and the zoning of property located at 1950 South West Temple and a portion of a parcel located at 1948 South West Temple) An ordinance amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map and amending the zoning map pertaining to a parcel located at 1950 South West Temple and a portion of a parcel located at 1948 South West Temple (the “properties”) to a rezone the properties from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to CG General Commercial District and amend the Future Land Use Map from Medium Density Residential to Medium Residential/Mixed Use pursuant to Petition numbers PLNPCM2021-00292 and PLNPCM2021-00291, respectively. WHEREAS, Banks Group, LLC, the property owner, submitted an application to rezone a the parcel of property located at 1950 South West Temple and a portion of the split-zoned parcel at 1948 South West Temple Street from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to CG General Commercial District pursuant to Petition numbers PLNPCM2021-00292 and an application to amend the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map with respect to the properties from Medium Density Residential to Medium Residential/Mixed Use pursuant to petition number PLNPCM2021-00291; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the “Planning Commission”) held a public hearing on August 11, 2021 on the two petitions, had a discussion, and voted to forward a positive recommendation of approval to the Salt Lake City Council (the “City Council”) to approve the zoning map amendment and future land use map amendment pursuant to the petitions subject to the following conditions: (1) consolidation of the subject parcels owned by the applicant, and (2) the City and the applicant entering into a development agreemeBnt to limit the height of future development and agreement of the final site plan for the properties. WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter, the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance to amend the Salt Lake City zoning map to change the underlying zoning as set forth herein is in the city’s best interests; and NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Map. The Salt Lake City zoning map, as adopted by the Salt Lake City Code, relating to the fixing of boundaries and zoning districts, shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the parcel located at 1950 South West Temple (Tax ID No. 15- 13-478-031-0000) and a portion of the parcel located at 1948 South West Temple (Tax ID No. 15-13-478-035-0000), as more particularly described in Exhibit “A,” attached hereto and incorporated by reference, shall be and hereby are rezoned from RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District to CG General Commercial District. SECTION 2. Amending the Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map. The Central Community Master Plan Future Land Use Map of Salt Lake City shall be and hereby is amended to change the land use designation of the properties identified in Exhibit “A” from Medium Density Residential to Medium Residential/Mixed Use. SECTION 3. Conditions. The approval of this ordinance is conditioned upon the following: 1. The owner of the properties consolidating the parcels located at 1948 and 1950 South West Temple. 2. The owner of the property entering into a development agreement, in the form attached as Exhibit B, with Salt Lake City to set the maximum allowable development height as ___ feet, and to designate an approved site plan. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect immediately after it has been published in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-711 and recorded in accordance with Utah Code §10-3-713. The City Recorder is instructed not to publish or record this ordinance until the conditions are satisfied as certified by the Salt Lake City Planning Director or his designee. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this ______ day of ______________, 2022. ______________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2022. Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date:__________________________________ By: ___________________________________ Hannah Vickery, Senior City Attorney 1/28/2022 Exhibit “A” Legal description of the properties: Tax ID: 15-13-478-035-0000 Address: A portion of 1948 South West Temple Beginning at the at the Northeast corner of Lot 19, Block 7, Five Acre “A” Big Field Survey and running thence West 192.70 feet; thence South 72.55 feet; thence East 192.70 feet; thence North 72.55 feet; to point of beginning. Tax ID No. 15-13-478-031-0000 Address: 1950 South West Temple Commencing 72.55 feet south from the Northeast corner of Lot 19, Block 7, Five Acre “A” Big Field Survey; and running thence South 71 feet; thence West 192.70 feet; thence North 71 feet; thence East 192.70 feet; to point of commencement. EXHIBIT B TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List 1. Project Chronology PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PETITION: PLNPCM2021-00291 & 00292 - Intermountain Wood South West Temple Rezoning & Master Plan Amendments March 30, 2021 Petition for the zoning map and master plan amendments received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division April 7, 2021 Petition assigned to David Gellner, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. April 14, 2021 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Ball Park Community Council in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. April 14, 2021 Staff sent an early notification announcement of the project to all residents and property owners living within 300 feet of the project site providing information about the proposal and how to give public input on the project. April 14, 2021 Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on April 14, 2021 and ended on June 1, 2021. May 6, 2021 Staff attended an online meeting of the Ball Park CC on May 6, 2021. June 1, 2021 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. No formal comments were submitted to staff by the recognized organizations to date related to this proposal. July 29, 2021 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of August 11, 2021. Public hearing notice mailed. July 29, 2021 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the properties. August 11, 2021 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on August 11, 2021. By unanimous vote, the Planning Commission forwarded a Positive recommendation to City Council for the proposed zoning map and master plan changes. 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2021-00291 & PLNPCM2021- 00292 – Zoning Map Amendment and Master Plan Amendments for the Properties Located at 1948 and 1950 South West Temple Street – The Banks Group, LLC, property owner is requesting that the City amend the zoning map and associated future land use map for their property located at 1950 South West Temple and a portion of their property located at 1948 South West Temple. The requests are part of an effort to expand the existing Intermountain Wood Products operation to meet company needs and to have uniform zoning on their properties. The subject property or portions thereof are currently zone RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential). The petitioner is requesting to amend the zoning map designation to CG – General Commercial. The associated future land use map in the Central Community Master Plan currently designates the property as "Medium Density Residential". The petitioner is requesting to amend the future land use map for the parcels to "Medium Residential/ Mixed Use". No specific site development proposal has been submitted at this time. The properties are located within Council District 5, represented by Darin Mano. (Staff contact: David J. Gellner at (385) 226-3860 or david.gellner@slcgov.com ) As part of their study, the City Council is holding an advertised public hearing to receive comments regarding the petition. During this hearing, anyone desiring to address the City Council concerning this issue will be given an opportunity to speak. The hearing will be held electronically: DATE: TIME: 7:00 p.m. PLACE: This will be an electronic meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Emergency Proclamation No.2 of 2020(2)(b). Please visit https://www.slc.gov/council/news/featured-news/virtually-attend-city- council-meetings/ to learn how you can share your comments live during electronic City Council meetings. If you would like to provide feedback or comment, via email or phone, please contact us at: 801-535-7654 (24- Hour comment line) or by email at: council.comments@slcgov.com . If you have any questions relating to this proposal or would like to review the file, please call David Gellner at 385-226-3860 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday or via e-mail at david.gellner@slcgov.com People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711.(P 19-19) 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STATE OWN_ZIPSAM'S REAL ESTATE BUSINESS TRUST PO BOX 8042               BENTONVILLE AR 72716@2100 APARTMENTS, LLC 1525 N MAIN ST            BOUNTIFULUT 840102100 SOUTH APARTMENTS, LLC 6740 S 1300 E             SALT LAKE CITY UT 84121BONNIE L GABRIELSON 176 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115JENNIFER A BANKS 172 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115GRACE L ULIBARRI; GRACE L ULIBARRI; JASON D CHAVEZ 166 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115ERIC M WOOLLEY; COLE WOOLLEY (TC) 158 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115152 MACARTHUR LLC 4408 S DUNRAVEN DR        WEST VALLEY UT 84119SUSAN R MAGIN 146 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115MOHAMMAD KHODADAD 6575 S CANYON CREST DR    HOLLADAY UT 84121AMANDA J PUMPHREY 132 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115REBECCA A PACK; MILES PACK (JT) 126 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115MICHAEL LOCKWOOD 120 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115TERRENCE C ASH 114 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115CORP OF PB OF CH OF JC LDS50 E NORTHTEMPLE # FL‐22  SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150DUSTIN LYONS 6378 S SENOMA DR          HOLLADAY UT 84121TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 76 W GROVE AVE            SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115JANICE E SPETSAS TRUST 11‐21‐2017 70 W GROVE AVE            SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115CAROLINE E HARGRAVES 64 W GROVE AVE            SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 180 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115JOSEPH N WISE; LAURA NICHOLES (JT) 175 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115ESTHER Z LOZANO; STEVEN D CHAVEZ (JT) 171 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115ELDEN D COWAN; CLARA G COWAN (JT) 165 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115LEMONTREE LLC 157 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115CARLIN MINER; JESSICA MINER (JT) 151 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115CAROLYN V JENSEN TRUST 08/06/2018 145 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115EDWARD C BURTON; TRACEY E BONIN (JT) 139 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115PHYLLIS B NELSON, LLC917 N SKIPTON DR          NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054JANA G KELSCH 125 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115JONATHAN STRICKLAND; DANIELLE RUVOLO (JT) 3020 W SIERRA GRANDE CT   TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129AARON D HUGHES 178 W WESTWOOD AVE        SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115WESTLEY K MICKELSEN 172 W WESTWOOD AVE        SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115LUCIA SANCHEZ RODRIGUEZ 166 W WESTWOOD AVE        SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115EXECUTIVE COMPANION L.L.C. 160 W WESTWOOD AVE        SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115MILES C BAGLEY; KARINA R IZARRARAZ (JT) 154 W WESTWOOD AVE        SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115LC WILKINS FAMILY PROPERTIES 3006 E 2965 S             MILLCREEK UT 84109REH TR 142 W WESTWOOD AVE        SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115RANDEE LUEKER 136 W WESTWOOD AVE        SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115CAMI L SCOTT 130 W WESTWOOD AVE        SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115BRITTANY SUE BUCKNER 124 W WESTWOOD AVE        SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 CHARLES M. CARPENTER; MARY D CARPENTER 118 W WESTWOOD AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115JOYE D SCHACK 105 W MACARTHUR AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115SEAN L HARDWICK; JAIME HARDWICK (JT) 1918 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115JAMES MAURICE SIPHERD TRUST 09/12/2012 4626 REGINA LN           CONCORD CA 94521HOUSING ASSISTANCE MANAGEMENT ENTERPRISE 1776 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115BANKS GROUP LLC, PO BOX 65970              SALT LAKE CITY UT 84165OKLAND ASSOCIATES LLC 1978 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115MICHAEL S MATSON 12690 S OLD FORT CIR      RIVERTON UT 84065SELENA RAE JOHNSON FAMILY TRUST 04/15/2019 1917 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115RONNIE LOPEZ; NORA PRICE (JT) 1921 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115CHANTEL LARSON 1925 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115BRADLY IRWIN 1931 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115KELLY D BYRNES; COURTNEY O MOSER (JT) 1935 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115JOAN C KESTER 3676 E AURORA CIR         MILLCREEK UT 84124JOHN J STEWART 65 W GROVE AVE            SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115JAMES STEWART (JT) 2761 E 3185 S             SALT LAKE CITY UT 84109MARY ALSOP 55 W GROVE AVE            SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115MANUELA CHETTI 70 W HARTWELL AVE         SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115LAKEY SL PROPERTIES LLC 1314 W 1480 N             OREM UT 84057STEVEN G MILES REVOCABLE LIVING TRUST 11/13/2018 PO BOX 1044               PARK CITY UT 84060BLOSWICK JOINT LIVING TRUST 07/19/2018 6320 EMIGRATION CANYON RDEMIGRATN CYN UT 84108ROBERT A HELLYER; JAMIE L HELLYER (JT) 180 W WESTWOOD AVE       SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115MICHAEL KIM OSKEY 1945 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115ANGELINA V APADACA 1951 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115JASON STOTT; MARY STOTT (JT) 1955 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115DAVID GIARDINELLI 1965 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115TRAVIS A TAMOWSKI 1969 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115KEITH I HOWARD; SHELLEY D HOWARD (JT) 1973 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115TOM F ALIRES; TINA K ALIRES (JT) 1985 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115KG FM TR 1993 S WESTTEMPLE ST      SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115CASEY CHAPPELL 4709 TREADSTONE CT        RALEIGH NC 27616TERRY HANEY; KAREN HANEY (TC) 787 E LACEY WAY           NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054MICHAEL P OPALEK 61 W HARTWELL AVE         SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115COATES FAMILY INVESTING, LLC PO BOX 526344             SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 1964 S RICHARDS ST        SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115SCOTT K MILLER; ALEXI D NAFF (JT) 1968 S RICHARDS ST        SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115ROBERT J COMSTOCK; MAUREEN P COMSTOCK (JT) 1980 S RICHARDS ST        SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115Current Occupant 1905 S 300 W  Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1977 S 300 W  Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 152 W MACARTHUR AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 140 W MACARTHUR AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115 Current Occupant 1883 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1901 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 131 W MACARTHUR AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 119 W MACARTHUR AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 148 W WESTWOOD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1918 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1922 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1926 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1950 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1980 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 106 W WESTWOOD AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1948 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1978 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1913 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1917 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1921 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1925 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1931 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1935 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 69 W GROVE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 61 W GROVE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 64 W HARTWELL AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 60 W HARTWELL AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 56 W HARTWELL AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1945 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1951 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1955 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1965 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1969 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1973 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1985 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1993 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 1997 S WEST TEMPLE ST Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 69 W HARTWELL AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 65 W HARTWELL AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115Current Occupant 55 W HARTWELL AVE Salt Lake City UT 84115Salt Lake City Planning ‐  David GellnerPO BOX 145480 Salt Lake City  UT 84114 MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: ________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 30, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Salt Lake City Library Budget Amendment #1 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY 2021-22 Library Fund adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE LIBRARY FUND $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 LIBRARY CAPITAL PROJECTS FUND 0.00 0.00 TOTAL $ 500,000.00 $ 500,000.00 Lisa Shaffer (Mar 30, 2022 10:19 MDT) BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Library Administration is requesting a $500,000 increase to the FY22 general fund budget. This increase is required to budget and account for pass-through property tax revenue collected by Salt Lake County and remitted directly to the Utah Inland Port Authority and the Convention Facility. PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2022 (Amending the Final Budget for the Library Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah for Fiscal Year 2021-22) An ordinance amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 33 of 2021 which adopted the final budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022. PREAMBLE On June 15, 2021, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 33 of 2021. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget for the Library fund of Salt Lake City, Utah for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2021 and ending June 30, 2022, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128, of the Utah Code. 2 SECTION 3. Certification to Utah State Auditor. The City’s Policy and Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments with the Utah State Auditor. SECTION 4. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 5. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect on its first publication. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _______________, 2022. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2022. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form _________________________ Jaysen Oldroyd Date:____________________ MEMO | March 11, 2022 To: Salt Lake City Public Library Board of Directors, Salt Lake City Administration and City Council From: Deborah Ehrman, Interim Executive Director Re: Budget Amendment 1 for FY2021-22 Library Administration is requesting a $500,000 increase to the FY22 general fund budget. This increase is required to budget and account for pass-through property tax revenue collected by Salt Lake County and remitted directly to the Utah Inland Port Authority and the Convention Facility. Neither of these entities has taxing authority, so the respective governments with taxing authority to which the tax revenues would have gone must show the revenue and a corresponding expenditure in their financial statements as required by Governmental Accounting Standards Board Statements 33 and 77. This requirement was noted as part of the Salt Lake City’s FY 2020 audit, and the issue has been discussed with Paul Skeen, the Library’s independent auditor, and Seth Oveson from the Office of the State Auditor of Utah, both of whom confirmed this requirement. A similar budget amendment was requested at the end of FY21. An estimate of these pass-through funds has been included in the FY23 proposed budget, but knowledge of this requirement came at the end of FY21 after the FY22 budget had been approved by the Board and submitted to the Salt Lake City Administration and City Council. Administration is requesting that this amendment be approved at the March 28, 2022 meeting, so the amendment can be forwarded to the Salt Lake City Administration and City Council. The amendment is time sensitive and needs to be approved by both the Library Board and Salt Lake City Council prior to the end of FY2022. General Fund – Proposed increase of $500,000 Account Name Budget Amount Requested Amount Amended Amount Funding Sources CY Property Taxes-Pass Through $0 $500,000 $500,000 Totals $0 $500,000 $500,000 Expenditures Payments to Other Governments $0 $500,000 $500,000 Totals $0 $500,000 $500,000 Recommended Motion: Move to approve an increase to the Library’s FY22 general fund budget of $500,000. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget and Policy Analyst DATE: April 19, 2022 RE: Written Briefing: THE BLOCKS Year Four Overview and Year Five Budget and Plan ________________________________________________________________________________ ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration has provided a transmittal which includes an overview of the City’s THE BLOCKS (formerly known as the Cultural Core) Year Four overview and Year Five budget and plan. As Council Members may recall, the City and Salt Lake County formed a partnership to promote and develop arts and culture in the Cultural Core, and a twenty-year taxing district was created to fund this effort. The City and County’s Interlocal Agreement for the THE BLOCKS is governed by a six-member advisory budget committee, with direct oversight from City and County staff. A public RFP process resulted in a five-year contract with ‘Downtown SLC Presents’ which is active through July 2022. The purpose of this briefing is to fulfill the requirement of the Interlocal Agreement which requires a City Council briefing. Council Members may wish to ask whether the contract with ‘Downtown SLC Presents’ will be renewed at the end of the contract period in July. BUDGET AND POLICY ISSUES Each entity, (the City and County), contributes $250,000 annually per the Interlocal Agreement. The Council may recall that for Year 4, the County did not contribute due to the economic effects of COVID-19. However, the County Council has since voted to restore the funding for year 5 of the contract. THE BLOCKS budget committee has reviewed and approved the plans and budget for Year 5. Below is a summary of Year 4. Marketing and Promotional Efforts: Program adjustments continued during Year 4 as a result of the COVID-19 Pandemic. Specific emphasis was placed on digital ads, social media and online streaming content. According to the Administration, total campaign impressions in Year Four were 24,841,816 since July 2020, an increase of 525,000 year-over-year. The people, spaces, places, and opportunities were highlighted to engage with the arts during the closure of key venues. Investments were made in placemaking, programming and partnerships to reinforce downtown as the cultural core of the intermountain west. Project Timeline: Written Briefing: April 19, 2022 Page | 2 As venues, programs and events were cancelled or postponed, the Main Street Kiosks were repurposed to provide advertising for more than 20 art exhibits and programs. Annual in-person events were reimagined as hybrid events with in-person and online participation. Large scale art installations were brought to the Gallivan Center and were especially popular during the holidays. Open Streets was piloted last Fall and created a pedestrian-friendly area allowing businesses to expand their venues and safely serve additional customers. Utah Arts and Museums, the State’s art agency, helped by connecting the Arts Council with additional local arts agencies that previously had not engaged with THE BLOCKS. Note: Additional details regarding Year 4 and Year 5 expenses, metrics and programming can be found in the Cultural Core Year 4 Overview & Year 5 Budget and Plan, which is included in the Administration’s transmittal. The Cultural Core Action Plan Implementation Manager Agreement is attached for the Council’s reference. Year Five Operating Budget for (7/1/21 – 6/30/22) Personnel, Office and Administration Expenses (Program Development and Arts Group Engagement (47%), Promotions (33%), and Administration (20%) $232,000 Marketing and Promotion Expenses (Program Advertising: $96,000 and Content Production: $104,000 $200,000 Programming Expenses (Events, Programs, Projects) $103,000 Total Expenses $535,000 Benchmark Study: Council staff requested a copy of the annual benchmark survey. In response, the Administration provided the following information: “For eight consecutive years, Downtown Alliance conducted a telephone survey of 600 Utah residents to understand their opinions of downtown as a destination for arts and other amenities. We have concluded that actual visitation is a more meaningful metric than self-assessed visit frequency or residents’ speculation about visiting in the future. Telephone surveys also have inherent biases and typically do not capture opinions of underserved communities. The Arts Council has committed to the following benchmark efforts: 1.We will measure public opinion of the downtown Cultural Core by gathering visitation metrics using Placer.ai data. Downtown Alliance subscribes to the Placer.ai data set. We compare visitation in specific areas, time of day, and events to understand visitor trends. 2.We will measure audience diversity by examining Cultural Core visitors’ neighborhoods of origin, and spending using Zartico data. This will provide insights on Cultural Core patrons and their economic impact. This data will inform how we adjust programming and promotions to Page | 3 expand and diversify the audience. We have access to this powerful data source through our strategic partner Visit Salt Lake. 3.We will seek a collaboration with primary ticket sellers in the core to collect and publish ticket sales data. We will collect and aggregate monthly ticket sales data for venues in the cultural core in order to measure progress. This will include raw monthly ticket sales data (not performance- specific ticket sales) for venues serviced by ArtTix, 24tix and Vivint Arena. We recognize that there may be other venues (e.g. UMOCA) that could provide monthly attendance data that could be aggregated here. We feel strongly that ticket sales cannot be a singular metric because it does not capture the diversity of artistic content nor the diversity of audience at hundreds of free arts offerings every month in the Cultural Core. 4.We will continue to track our employment of artists and specifically report the number of artists from BIPOC and marginalized communities. 5.We will continue to report marketing engagement data from our social, digital and mass media channels. 6.We will publish quarterly data, visitation trends, ticket sales and artist employment by the Cultural Core to the Cultural Core Budget Committee and arts stakeholders. We also look forward to adapting other measurement sources (i.e. Kem C. Gardner Institute, Americans for the Arts Economic Impact Calculator) that the Cultural Core Budget Committee deems to be an appropriate expenditure.” CY 2018 2019 2020 2021 Sales Revenue 4,501,874 4,843,255 2,923,388 4,544,624 Sales Credit 6,186,361 6,620,154 3,862,505 5,845,633 SLCO Est. 1,546,590 1,655,038 965,626 1,461,408 As indicated by the Administration, in previous years the Finance Department completed these calculations (above) through a manual process and a data dump. Since then, Finance and IMS have developed a software database so that sales tax allocations can be accurately calculated. Appendix A Language from the Interlocal: Page | 4 Salt Lake County Contract No. 0000001607 CONTRACT NO. 08-1-17-9279 District Attorney No. 20-16354 Amendment No. 1 to the CULTURAL CORE ACTION PLAN IMPLEMENTATION MANAGER AGREEMENT THIS FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE CULTURAL CORE ACTION IMPLEMENTATION is effective as of the date the Salt Lake City Recorder , and is between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION, a Utah municipal corporation , also individually as d DOWNTOWN SLC PRESENTS, a Utah nonprofit corporation Contractor . O . RECITALS A. City and County entered into an Interlocal Agreement dated December 3, 2010 (the for the sharing of revenues in a joint effort to enhance funding for the marketing, branding, development and improvement of arts and cultural activities within a defined area of . B. City and County selected Contractor to serve as the Cultural Core Action Plan implementation manager and the Parties entered into that certain Cultural Core Action Plan Implementation Agreement C. n-appropriation of its contribution for its fiscal year beginning July 27, 2020 and to clarify that the Parties do not wish to terminate the Agreement due to such non-appropriation by the County. AGREEMENT In consideration of the promises and covenants hereinafter contained, the Parties agree as follows: 1. The second paragraph of Section 1 is deleted in its entirety and replaced with the following: If funds are not appropriated for a succeeding year to fund performance by either or both of the Owners under this Agreement, each Owner not appropriating funds shall promptly notify Contractor of said non-funding and whether such Owner elects to terminate this Agreement accordingly. If only one Owner elects not t previously-appropriated funds are still available for use, then both Owners may participate in renegotiating or modifying this Agreement. If only one Owner elects to appropriate funds for a Page 2 of 3 new fiscal year and the other Owner both elects not to appropriate new funds and has no remaining previously-appropriated funds at issue, then the Owner appropriating new funds may elect to terminate, renegotiate, or modify this Agreement. 2. The first sentence of paragraph II. FEES, is deleted in its entirety and replaced as follows: The annual budget for all costs associated with this Agreement is anticipated to be $250,000 to $500,000, subject to appropriation of funds by the Owners. 3. Counterparts. This Amendment may be executed in any number of counterparts, each of which will be deemed an original, but all of which together will constitute one and the same instrument. Signed copies delivered by facsimile, e-mail or other means of electronic transmission shall be deemed to have the same legal effect as delivery of an original signed copy of this Amendment. 4. All Parts, Paragraphs, Attachments and other provisions of the Agreement and any prior amendments thereof not specifically modified by this amendment shall be the same and remain in full force and effect. ********************************************************************************* (Signature page follows) Page 3 of 3 The parties are signing this Agreement effective as of the Effective Date. SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION By _______________________________ Title ______________________________ ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: _______________________ _______________ City Recorder Recordation Date APPROVED AS TO FORM Date _______________________________ Sign _______________________________ Senior City Attorney SALT LAKE COUNTY By ________________________________ Title Mayor or Designee APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake County District _______________________________ Craig Wangsgard, August 19, 2020 Deputy District Attorney DOWNTOWN SLC PRESENTS By ________________________________ Title _______________________________ Cultural Core - Amendment 1 Downtown SLC Presents/SL Cnty 08-1-17-9279-1 Megan Depaulis Felicia Baca49261 no $ Oct 27, 2020 NA Note: The City is signing first. Purchasing will get the County's signature last. ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, RDA DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL BEN KOLENDAR DIRECTOR Date Received: 08/04/2021 Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 8/12/2021 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 4, 2021 Amy Fowler, Chair FROM: Benjamin Kolendar, Director, Department of Economic Development SUBJECT: Cultural Core (The Blocks) Year 4 Overview and Year 5 Budget Plan STAFF CONTACTS: Felicia Baca, felicia.baca@slcgov.com, 385-256-5588 DOCUMENT TYPE: Written Briefing RECOMMENDATION: n/a BUDGET IMPACT: n/a COORDINTATION: The Blocks, Salt Lake County Arts & Culture BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In 2010, the City and County of Salt Lake formed a partnership to promote and develop arts and culture in the Cultural Core and established a taxing district to provide a reliable revenue source for a 20-year period. In 2011, a series of community conversations with stakeholders established foundational goals for the plan including creative placemaking - physical development of the district, and Creative programming - marketing, promotions, and audience development. The City and County’s Interlocal Agreement for the Cultural Core is governed by a six-member advisory Budget Committee, with direct oversight from City and County staff. A public RFP process resulted in a 5-year contract with Downtown SLC Presents (The Blocks) which is active through July 2022. The annual appropriation from Salt Lake City (approved for FY22) is $250,000 with Salt Lake County also contributing $250,000 annually. This briefing on budget and plans is a requirement of the Interlocal Agreement. Additionally, the County Council has since voted in favor of restored funding for year 5 of the contract, after a temporary pause in year 4 due to the economic effects of COVID-19. 4 YEAR PERFORMANCE AND YEAR 5 PLAN The Cultural Core Budget Committee has reviewed and approved the plans and budget for Year Lisa Shaffer (Aug 4, 2021 14:35 MDT) Five of the Cultural Core initiative which is part of the approved FY22 budget. Below is an executive summary of year-4 performance and year-5 plans. From Lucas Goodrich, The Blocks, Program Director YEAR-4: July 1, 2020 through June 30, 2021 Though campaign tactics, placement, timing, and format was adjusted due to the pandemic, THE BLOCKS continued to heavily invest in marketing and promoting arts and culture programming in the cultural core. During the pandemic a specific focus was put on digital ads, social media, and online and streaming content. These efforts resulted in consistent growth of public awareness of cultural offerings, THE BLOCKS programming, and drove a 525,000 increase in total campaign impressions year over year. Total campaign impressions in year 4 came in at 24,841,816. Success was validated with data collected through our website, media partners and social media channels as well as feedback from the creative community, the Cultural Core Arts Advisory Committee, and venues. THE BLOCKS worked hard to highlight the people, spaces, places, and opportunities to engage with the arts during the closure of key venues. Video shoots at UMOCA and Fice Alley that were then shared online, increased physical banners across our city, and highlighting artists and arts groups that were reimagining programming during the pandemic, increased brand awareness and gained market share for THE BLOCKS. THE BLOCKS invested in placemaking, programming and partnerships to reinforce downtown as the cultural core of the intermountain west. We continued to invest in THE BLOCKS Public Art and Mural Trail app with videos, photos and artist information on over 60 pieces of public art and murals within THE BLOCKS. We recently added County venues to the app and are working to add additional venues as well as place QR code stickers in all cultural core venues. These efforts resulted in a 25% growth of new and returning users to our app. We invested in street pole banners to promote organizations producing programming within the cultural core and partnered with the Utah Cultural Alliance on a campaign aimed at reigniting visibility for arts, culture, and entertainment. As venues shuttered and programs and events were cancelled or postponed, we quickly repurposed our Main Street Kiosks. These kiosks provide more than $80,000 in advertising value each year for cultural core programmers. Rather than keep the windows bare, we created Exhibitions on Main, an opportunity for artists to showcase their bodies of work. This was an opportunity to increase the visibility, quality, and quantity of visual art in our city. This new program featured artists from across Salt Lake City. Year over year we doubled the number of direct artist support to over 200 artists, makers, and creators creating content downtown. Last Hurrah, an annual legacy event was reimagined as a hybrid event with in-person and online participation opportunities. Over 600 attendees in person and 3000 viewers tuned in via YouTube. Going forward we hope to keep the online streaming component to more broadly share the opportunity. Locally Made, Locally Played, a new partnership with KUAA radio to feature local musicians was created. This program, airing twice a week, reached viewers internationally, nationally, and throughout our state. 48% of listeners tuned in from Salt Lake City. Large scale art installations were brought to the Gallivan Center. These installations were especially popular during the holidays. Combined efforts with downtown holiday lighting drove audiences to the cultural core. Finally, Open Streets was piloted in the fall. The closure of Main Street, creating a pedestrian promenade and allowing businesses to expand their premises to safely serve additional customers was a huge success. THE BLOCKS programmed heavily during the event and were proud to not only feature the breadth and depth of our creative community, but to provide an opportunity for artists from across the county to showcase their talents. For a majority of them this was their first paid performance since the pandemic broke out. We continued our outreach and engagement with arts and culture stakeholders and identified needs within the creative community so that we may provide targeted marketing and promotion support and programming and event support. This outreach also enabled us to shore up our physical assets so that programmers and organizations have the needed materials to produce events and programs. Utah Arts and Museums, the State’s art agency, was very helpful in connecting us with additional local arts agencies that previously had not engaged with THE BLOCKS. Year-5: July 1, 2021 through June 30, 2022 Though programming within Salt Lake’s Cultural Core was significantly impacted due to COVID-19, reactivation is quickly taking place. Continued investment in the individuals, organizations, and venues programming in the core continues to be a priority. We will focus efforts on building audiences and growing awareness of the vast arts, culture, and entertainment opportunities in THE BLOCKS. Not only is it vital to the creative community and the substantial legacy of world class offerings, itis crucial to the economic vibrancy of our City, County, and entire state. Throughout the pandemic, the creative community showed their ability to innovate, reimagine offerings, and find impactful and meaningful ways to ensure the rich artistic and cultural heritage is maintained. These efforts will continue to be supported by THE BLOCKS in year 5 and beyond. In year 5 THE BLOCKS will focus on promoting existing arts organizations’ programming and investing in placemaking throughout the cultural core. Our marketing and promotion strategies will continue to target audiences across the County, State, and Intermountain west. As more and more organizations recognize the viability of online content and virtual programming, we will continue to invest in photographic and video assets. This will ensure not only a rich asset bank for use in our ongoing promotions and marketing campaigns, but will help THE BLOCKS and the creative community have a greater online presence. Program and event expenses are focused on increasing artist opportunities, supplementing existing arts organization programming, working closely with arts organizations to curate content and offerings, audience development, and providing opportunities for our creative community to program through the continuation of various placemaking projects and strategic deployments of the BLOCKS Truck and assets. THE BLOCKS moved quickly to adapt over the last 18 months and reimagined much of what we do. We emerged out of this pandemic better than when we went in and gained market share through our marketing and promotion efforts. We also achieved growth in partnerships, artist support, programming. The work completed, investments made and overall impact in year four of THE BLOCKS have had great support from our creative community stakeholders, Cultural Core Budget Committee Representatives, downtown businesses and audiences. THE BLOCKS reach, brand awareness, and overall impact continues to grow and the implementation of the Cultural Core Master Plan is on target. The partnerships that have been forged will continue to strengthen and grow, creating exciting opportunities for Arts and Culture to flourish and guide THE BLOCKS over the coming years. Thank you for your support. Attachments: Cultural Core Year 4 Overview Year 5 Budget and Plan Year 5 Cultural Core Proposed Budget (City & County) Year 5 Cultural Core Salt Lake City Budget Cultural Core Year 4 Overview & Year 5 Budget and Plan 111111• ton,,,,,,, .,, ~~ ~i t>Jff .! ,, SALT LAKE COUNTY The Cultural Core Budget Committee has reviewed and approved the plans and budget for year-five of the Cultural Core Initiative. Year 5 Cultural Core Operating Budget: $535,000 Personnel: $200,000* Marketing and Promotion: $200,000 Programming: $103,000 Office & Administrative: $32,000 *80 percent of personnel expenses are programmatic Personnel, Office & Administration $232,000 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT & ARTS GROUP ENGAGEMENT: 47% (Planning, placemaking, events operations) PROMOTIONS: 33% (Advertising, Website, social media, ad agency management) ADMINISTRATION: 20% (Accounting, meeting management, compliance and contractor management) Marketing and Promotion: $200,000 Program Advertising $96,000 Web and mobile ads, social media, broadcast media, outdoor advertising Content Production $104,000 Photographic and video assets, blogs, social media content 24.8 million campaign impressions since July 2020 525,000 increase over same period in 2019! ALT MEf.lCA ESTI VAL 11. IIII .................. IH GET DETAILS UTAH PRIDE CENTER PRESENTS AT WASHINGTON SQUARE ii II, F 1 - 7 - UTAH PRIDE WEEK BLOCKS UpTAH Sat.,ly exper,erice downl:Jwn Sc:JI! Lu,1, c,,y s h,stor IL Ma,n St, eel w,H, open O!' d·n1nq, arlrsts pC'rfnrmprs ond r Prluc pc_j vPhtr Ip tr nft, ---------- 6 -10 pm Thursday-Saturday ---------- EVERY WEEKEND ----Jllll{)U6H -OCTOBER 10'1, --- BLOG #’s 30 blog posts this year With 7,500 views on average If you've ever strolled downtown New Orleons, Nashville or Son Francisco, you're aware of how street performers-aka b uskers-add to the cultural richness of those cities . This weekend , Salt Lake's heart will thrum with a similar ene rgy wh en more than 60 buskers descend on downtown as part of the third annual SLC Busker Fest . "The lineup of performers for this year's event is really the best we've had," says Kim Angeli, owner of Primrose Productions, SLC Busker Fest presenter, which was held previously in 2018 and 2019. "I think it will not only be on amazin g experience for attendees but a really va luable learning experi ence for local talent as well." Singing and/or playing an inst rument is probably the most common form of busking But t he really cool port about !..!:ll.i~ is how much more diverse its genres tend t o be compared to what you'd typically see in a brick-and-mortar setting. In addition to musicians and vocalists, performers booked for SLC Busker Fest include sword swallowers, puppeteers, aerialists, mimes, jugglers, hula hoopers, lassoists, comedians and magicians 0 Radio ads drove an 18.5% increase in website traffic • • -.. ··-··· ·--. BROADWAY ... ,,,, .. KUAA 99 .IFII 103.9 LAA,,tAH ~ D YouTube 9 Kvnu 610 AM • 102.1 FM Locally Made, Locally Played Partnership with KUAA 52 live shows 52 artists and arts groups 40% of listeners were outside Salt Lake City, but within Salt Lake County Programmatic Expenses $103,000 EVENTS: $36,000 Urban Plein Air, Open Streets, Last Hurrah PROGRAMS: $30,000 Main Street Kiosks, Exhibitions on Main, support for artists, Mural Trail, Locally Made, Locally Played PROJECTS: $20,000 Busking initiatives, temporary art installations ADDITIONAL SPENDING: $17,000 THE BLOCKS truck, cube activations, artist supplies, asset maintenance Y4 Overview Main Street Kiosks ➔ Advertised 20+ events, and programs = $80,000 in advertising value Y5 Vision ➔ Promote 40+ programs ➔ Outdoor Exhibition Gallery ➔ Mural Trail QR code promos 'Raytures of Inaia '.By 'Durga 'Ekam6aram I believe that any form of art is a n exp re ss io n of unspoken words. My art ist ic pursu it s s t arte d at a young age, admiring and lea rni ng from my moth e r, who is an art is t in India. I der ive inspiratio n from anyth in g and everythin g around me. My work inclu d es drawing, paint i ng, mixed me dia, and chalk art. I lo ve to express my et hnicity an d culture through my art. I be lie ve art evolves as a person evo lves in life. Creativity is a paralle l universe , where expre ssion s cannot be contained by hurd les of the rea l world. The harmo ny I e xperie nce betwee n the brush and my fi nge rs while creating my work al ways gives me joy and sat isfact io n, As an arti st, I fe e l that there is nothing mo re gratifying than watching paint dry. C!J rl strofies_d:urga " Kiilt h.ikilli" is iln lndiiln dance form that falls under the st ary plily 1enre . Kiilthiilkilli orililineted ln the 17th century and has its roots in Hindu mytho lo c:ies . It is performed predomina ntly in th• b@a ut iful st,11t• of Ku • l,111 in South India . This art form is uniqu• 1y distingu is h• d by th ■ colorful m,11ke-up, costum•s, ,1nd face mHks worn by the -1rtists, Typic -1lly, ,1 Kiilt h-1k ii1l i traupe tilkes severill haur s to prepiilre fo r iii pley, I n t he olden diilys, the performencas stilrted ilt dusk and cont inued throu1h dawn. The modern kathakali perfor mances ■nl!!! much shorter. '.Bfiaratanatyam dancer 'veena Bh;1r.it;m iltyiil m is iil n ilncie nt dilnce form niltive ta the stat • of Tamil Na du in southern Ind ia . It is one of the old @st dance fo rms in In dia. Th• danc a rs depict ri!'li,ious thl!'mes and spiritual idl!'as, usin, symbols and facial •xpr ■11ion1. Th• psturas used in Bha 111bina ty.llm ara callad Mudru. TMda nc■ra p4irform to th■ C..rniltlc style of music. orchnnt.d bylnstrurn■nts suc:h •• Vlolln, Vn na, •nd Mlnulhanpm. "The My5,0re Palaceu is o ne of th e most beaut ifu l pa laces in Ind ia. This palace is kx ate d in the city of Myso re. Mysore is popularly known as t he '"City of Pa lace s".The domes in t he pa la ce .ire built in the "l ndo-S arace nic." style . This is a ble nd of I ndia n a nd Goth ic .styles . The pala£e is en tir e ly lit duri ng the Dasara fest ival e ach year. The beautiful archite cture of this palace draws more t ha n 6 millio n visitors eac:h year. ~ strofies_diLrga Gallivan Installations Y4 Overview Direct Artist Support ➔ 200 artists and arts groups ➔ 100% year-over-year increase Y5 VISION ➔ Maintain direct support ➔ Increase partnerships and programs Y4 Overview Public Art and Mural Trail ➔ 65 murals featured on app ➔ 25 % increase in users ➔ County venue pages added Y5 VISION ➔ Add new works ➔ Increase awareness ➔ QR code stickers in venue windows :ast West Central The Gateway County Venues • The Rose was born from a dream by the Performing Arts Coalition, a group of local arts organizations in 1997. The Rose is a vibrant, active hub for emerging and established artists and arts. Performances range from edgy to elegant and provocative to traditional. In addition, the Rose is an active film venue, hosting Utah Film Year 5 Cultural Core Operating Budget: $535,000 Personnel: $200,000* Marketing and Promotion: $200,000 Programming: $103,000 Office & Administrative: $32,000 *80 percent of personnel expenses are programmatic QUESTIONS? Year 5 Disbursement Request: $500,000 $250,000 Salt Lake City $250,000 Salt Lake County Year 4 Carryover: $35,000 Year 5 Budget: $535,000 PERSONNEL EXPENSES: $200,000 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT & ARTS GROUP ENGAGEMENT: Planning, placemaking, events operations PROMOTIONS: Advertising, website, social media, ad agency management, content development OFFICE & ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES: $32,000 ADMINISTRATION: Rent and shared services, office supplies, accounting, budget preparation, meeting management, compliance and contractor management MARKETING & PROMOTION EXPENSES: $200,000 Marketing expenses July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022 are focused on promoting existing arts organization programming through the continuation of digital, broadcast, print, environmental and outdoor/transit advertising. The continuation of an innovative arts coverage program is also planned and budgeted. There are also investments for the continuation of capturing photographic and video assets to build a rich asset bank for use in our ongoing promotions and marketing campaigns. PROGRAM ADVERTISING: A. Digital Advertising (Display & Mobile) - $45,000 B. Social media content-Haley - $8,500 C. Reactivation Projects-Emphasis on Placemaking - $8,000 D. Broadcast Media - $12,000 E. Salt Lake Tribune Arts Coverage: Previews, Reviews and Articles - $22,500 Cultural Core Action Plan Implementation and Management Services Contract No. 08-1-17-9279 Downtown SLC Presents Year Five Contractor Services for: July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022 THE BLOCKS SALT LAKE 'S CULTURAL CORE CONTENT PRODUCTION: F. Photographic and Video assets - $15,000 a. $7,500 earmarked for Reactivation Projects-Emphasis on Placemaking G. Benchmark Report and Research Survey - $8,000 H. Agency Fees - $60,000 I. Blog/Content Production-Melissa- $16,500 J. Liiingo Hosting - $4500 PROGRAMMATIC EXPENSES: $103,000 Programmatic expenses July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022 are focused on supplementing existing arts organization programming and audience development and providing opportunities for our creative community to program in THE BLOCKS. Funding for direct artist payments and interactions are prioritized. EVENTS: $36,000.00 A. Urban Plein Air 2022 B. Open Streets #3 C. Last Hurrah 2021 D. State of Downtown 2021 PROGRAMS: $30,000.00 A. Supplemental Support for Artists and Arts Groups B. Main Street Kiosks - Advertising C. Main Street Kiosk Artwork D. Exhibitions on Main E. Public Art and Mural Trail F. Locally Made, Locally Played PROJECTS: $20,000.00 A. Busking initiatives B. Temporary Arts Installations OTHER SPENDING: $17,000.00 A. Artist Cubes B. THE BLOCKS Truck / Assets C. Contractors D. Other expenses Year 5 Disbursement Request: $250,000 PERSONNEL, OFFICE & ADMINISTRATIVE EXPENSES: $98,500 PROGRAM DEVELOPMENT & ARTS GROUP ENGAGEMENT: Planning, placemaking, events operations PROMOTIONS: Advertising, website, social media, ad agency management, content development ADMINISTRATION: Rent and shared services, office supplies, accounting, budget preparation, meeting management, compliance and contractor management MARKETING & PROMOTION EXPENSES: $100,000 Marketing expenses July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022 are focused on promoting existing arts organization programming through the continuation of digital, broadcast, print, environmental and outdoor/transit advertising. The continuation of an innovative arts coverage program is also planned and budgeted. There are also investments for the continuation of capturing photographic and video assets to build a rich asset bank for use in our ongoing promotions and marketing campaigns. PROGRAM ADVERTISING A. Digital Advertising (Display & Mobile) B. Social media content C. Reactivation Projects-Emphasis on Placemaking D. Broadcast Media E. Salt Lake Tribune Arts Coverage: Previews, Reviews and Articles CONTENT PRODUCTION F. Photographic and Video assets G. Benchmark Report and Research Survey H. Agency Fees I. Blog/Content Production J. Liiingo Hosting Cultural Core Action Plan Implementation and Management Services Contract No. 08-1-17-9279 Salt Lake City, Year 5 Downtown SLC Presents Year Five Contractor Services for: July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022 THE BLOCKS SALT LAKE 'S CULTURAL CORE PROGRAMMATIC EXPENSES: $51,500 Programmatic expenses July 1, 2021 - June 30, 2022 are focused on supplementing existing arts organization programming and audience development and providing opportunities for our creative community to program in THE BLOCKS. Funding for direct artist payments and interactions are prioritized. EVENTS A. Urban Plein Air 2022 B. Open Streets #3 C. Last Hurrah 2021 PROGRAMS A. Supplemental Support for Artists and Arts Groups B. Main Street Kiosks - Advertising C. Main Street Kiosk Artwork D. Exhibitions on Main E. Public Art and Mural Trail F. Locally Made, Locally Played PROJECTS A. Busking initiatives B. Temporary Arts Installations OTHER SPENDING A. Artist Cubes B. THE BLOCKS Truck / Assets C. Contractors D. Other expenses *The Cultural Core Budget Committee has approved the above budget and disbursement. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 3/4/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 3/4/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 3/4/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission. STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan jessi.eagan@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Planning Commission. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Levi De Oliveira as a member of the Planning Commission. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 March 4, 2022 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Dugan, Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Planning Commission Levi De Oliveira - to be appointed for a four year term ending, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 2/11/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 2/11/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 2/11/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Business Asvisory Board. STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan jessi.eagan@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Business Adviosry Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Jocelyn Kearl as a member of the Business Advisory Board ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 February 11, 2022 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Dugan, Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Business Advisory Board Jocelyn Kearl - to be appointed for a four year term ending December 28, 2026, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File .. Ji. .. '• / ;\ trfj \ .. l ,,,,, u111 ,v·' ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Received: 3/8/2022 Date Sent to Council: 3/8/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 3/8/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Accessibility and Disability Commission. STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan jessi.eagan@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Accessibility and Disability Commission. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Amy Carmen as a member of the Accessibility and Disability Commission. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 March 8, 2022 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Dugan, Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Accessibility and Disability Commission. Amy Carmen - to be appointed for a two year term ending Monday, December 30, 2024, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Received: 3/8/2022 Date Sent to Council: 3/8/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 3/8/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Accessibility and Disability Commission. STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan jessi.eagan@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Accessibility and Disability Commission. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Todd Claflin as a member of the Accessibility and Disability Commission. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 March 8, 2022 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Dugan, Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Accessibility and Disability Commission Todd Claflin - to be appointed for a four year term ending Monday, December 28, 2026, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Received: 3/8/2022 Date Sent to Council: 3/8/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 3/8/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Accessibility and Disability Commission. STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan jessi.eagan@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Accessibility and Disability Commission. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Karolyn Campbell as a member of the Accessibility and Disability Commission. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 March 8, 2022 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Dugan, Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Accessibility and Disability Commission. Karolyn Campbell - to be appointed for a two year term ending Monday, December 30, 2024, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Received: 3/8/2022 Date Sent to Council: 3/8/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 3/8/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Accessibility and Disability Commission. STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan jessi.eagan@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Accessibility and Disability Commission. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Leah Lobato as a member of the Accessibility and Disability Commission. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 March 8 2022 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Dugan, Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Accessibility and Disability Commission. Leah Lobato - to be appointed for a two year term ending Monday, December 30, 2024, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Received: 3/8/2022 Date Sent to Council: 3/8/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 3/8/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Accessibility and Disability Commission. STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan jessi.eagan@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Accessibility and Disability Commission. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Pamela Mower as a member of the Accessibility and Disability Commission. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 March 8, 2022 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Dugan, Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Accessibility and Disability Commission. Pamela Mower - to be appointed for a two year term ending Monday, December 30, 2024, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Received: 3/8/2022 Date Sent to Council: 3/8/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 3/8/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Accessibility and Disability Commission. STAFF CONTACT: Jessi Eagan jessi.eagan@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Accessibility and Disability Commission. RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Jeffery Kenyon as a member of the Accessibility and Disability Commission. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 March 8, 2022 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114 Dear Councilmember Dugan, Listed below is my recommendation for membership appointment to the Accessibility and Disability Commission. Jeffery Kenyon - to be appointed for a four year term ending Monday, December 28, 2026, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File