The URL can be used to link to this page

08/09/2022 - Formal Meeting - Meeting Materials r �% • s r0000 two SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA FORMAL MEETING August 9, 2o22 Tuesday 7:00 PM Council Work Room 451 South State Street Room 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com (http://www.slccouncil.com/) CITY COUNCIL MEMBERS: Dan Dugan, Chair Darin Mano,Vice Chair District 6 (http://www.slcdistrict6.com/) District 5 (http://www.slcdistriet5.cOm/) Victoria Petro-Eschler Alejandro Puy Chris Wharton District 1 District 2 District 3 (http://www.slcdistricti.com/)(http://www.slcdistriCt2.com/)(http://www.slcdistrict3.cOm/) Ana Valdemoros Amy Fowler District 4 (http://www.slcdistrict4.cOm/) District 7(http://www.slcdistrict7.cOm/) Generated:14:15:27 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.sle.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. Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI-Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. WELCOME AND PUBLIC MEETING RULES (http://www.sledocs.com/council/WebDoc/PublicMeetingRules.pdf) A. OPENING CEREMONY: 1. Council Member Alejandro Puy will conduct the formal meeting. 2. Pledge of Allegiance. 3• Welcome and Public Meeting Rules. 4• The Council will consider adopting a joint ceremonial resolution with Mayor Mendenhall declaring their commitment with Salt Lake County and Olympic Venue Communities to host future Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. B. PUBLIC HEARINGS: i. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at Rose Park Lane The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property at approximately 1902 North, 1932 North, 1944 North, and 1954 North Rose Park Lane from R-1/7,000 (Single Family Residential District) to OS (Open Space District). This would also amend the Rose Park Small Area Plan Future Land Use Map. The property owner intends to demolish the existing vacant single-family home on 1932 N Rose Park Lane, consolidate the four parcels and incorporate the land into the Regional Athletic Complex to the north. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.: PLNPCM2020- 00152 & PLNPCM2020-00153 FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday,August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday,August 16, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 2. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at 858 West and 86o West Hoyt Place The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property located at 858 West and 86o West Hoyt Place from R-1/5,000 (Single Family Residential District) to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District). The two lots are approximately .39 acres (16,988 square feet). If approved, the property owner's stated intent is to subdivide the property and build two new single family homes at the rear of the property. There are two existing single family homes on the property that are being renovated and will remain as a part of the development. The Master Plan is not being changed. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.: PLNPCM2021- 01073 FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 16, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 3. Ordinance: Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 8o5 South 800 West The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning of property located at 805 South 800 West from M-1 (Light Manufacturing District) to R-MU-35 (Residential/Mixed Use District). The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is intended to allow the property owner to accommodate a multi-family or an attached single-family development. No development plans have been submitted by the applicant at this time. If the amendment is approved the applicant could develop the site in accordance with the R-MU-35 zoning standards. The request did not require a master plan amendment. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.: PLNPCM2021-01077 FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday,August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 16, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 4. Ordinance: Rezone and Master Plan Amendment at 2435 South Soo East The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the general plan land use designation of a property located at 2435 South 50o East from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and the zoning map from R-1-7,00o Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential District. The purpose of the request is to facilitate the construction of townhomes. Consideration may be given to rezoning the property to another zoning district with similar characteristics. Petition No.: PLNPCM2021-01041 &01042. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday,August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday,August 16, 2022 Staff Recommendation- Refer to motion sheet(s). 5. Ordinance: R-2 Text Amendment: Building Coverage The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the zoning text of Subsection 21A.24.lio.F of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to building coverage in the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District. The Zoning Ordinance currently limits the building coverage for single-family homes to 40% of the lot and the building coverage for duplexes to 45% of the lot. The proposed amendment would increase the allowable building coverage to 45% for single-family homes in the R-2 district city-wide. Petition No.: PLNPCM2021-01228 FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday,August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 16, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 6. Resolution: Capital Improvement Program Prqjects The Council will accept public comment and consider adopting a resolution for project funding allocations in the Capital Improvement Program, which involves the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings, parks, streets or other city- owned physical structures. Generally, projects have a useful life of at least five years and cost $50,000 or more. The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual budget process, while project-specific funding is approved by September 1 of the same year. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, June 7, 2022; Tuesday, June 14, 2022; and Tuesday, July 19, 2022; and Tuesday,August 9, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday, June 7, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment -Tuesday, July 12, 2022 and Tuesday, August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 16, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). 7. Grant Application: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant The Council will accept public comment for a grant application request from the Mayor's Office, Housing Stability to the State of Utah Department of Workforce Services. If awarded, the grant would fund One HEART Business and Community Liaison for Downtown and Central 9 district, and Twelve Police Officers to address enforcement needs surrounding the homeless resource centers. 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-Tuesday,August 9, 2022 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a Staff Recommendation - Close and refer to future consent agenda. C. POTENTIAL ACTION ITEMS: NONE. D. COMMENTS• 1. Questions to the Mayor from the City Council. 2. Comments to the City Council. (Comments are taken on any item not scheduled for a public hearing, as well as on any other City business. Comments are limited to two minutes.) E. NEW BUSINESS: NONE. F. UNFINISHED BUSINESS: i. Resolution: General Obligation (GO) Bonds, Series 2022 Streets Reconstruction The Council will consider adopting a resolution authorizing up to $23,600,000 General Obligation bonds of Salt Lake City, Utah; giving authority to certain officers to approve the final terms and provisions of the Bonds within the parameters and providing for related matters. These voter-approved bonds for reconstructing streets were part of the City's 2018 Funding Our Future initiative. This would be the last issuance of the $87 million bond total. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday, July 19, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment- n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday,August 9, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Refer to motion sheet(s). G. CONSENT: i. Ordinance: Budget Amendment No. i for Fiscal Year 2022-23 The Council will set the date of Tuesday,August 16, 2022 at 6 p.m. to accept public comment and consider adopting an ordinance that would amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document for Fiscal Year 2022-23. 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 transportation impact fees for reconstructing streets, public engagement for a potential parks and public lands general obligation bond, pedestrian and bicycle improvements to the 600 North/70o North corridor transformation project among other things. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 16, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date -Tuesday,August 9, 2022 Hold hearing to accept public comment-Tuesday,August 16, 2022 at 6 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, September 6, 2022 Staff Recommendation - Set date. 2. Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No.2) for Fiscal Year 2022-23 The Council will consider approving Grant Holding Account Items (Batch No.2) for Fiscal Year 2022-23. 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 -Tuesday,August 9, 2022 Staff Recommendation -Approve. 3. Board Appointment: Bicycle Advisory Committee — Greta Sommerfeld The Council will consider approving the appointment of Greta Sommerfeld to the Bicycle Advisory Committee for a term ending August 9, 2025. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday,August 9, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 9, 2022 Staff Recommendation -Approve. 4. Board Appointment: Bicycle Advisory Committee — Raymond Reynolds The Council will consider approving the appointment of Raymond Reynolds to the Bicycle Advisory Committee for a term ending August 9, 2025. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 9, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday,August 9, 2022 Staff Recommendation -Approve. 5. Board Appointment: Library Board — Bonnie Russell The Council will consider approving the appointment of Bonnie Russell to the Library Board for a term ending June 30, 2025. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing-Tuesday,August 9, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday, August 9, 2022 Staff Recommendation -Approve. 6. Board Appointment: Art Design Board — Jen Lopez The Council will consider approving the appointment of Jen Lopez to the Art Design Board for a term ending August 9, 2025. FYI — Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing -Tuesday,August 9, 2022 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment- n/a TENTATIVE Council Action -Tuesday,August 9, 2022 Staff Recommendation -Approve. H. ADJOURNMENT: CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday,August 4, 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. I SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION RESOLUTION DECLARING OUR COMMITMENT WITH SALT LAKE s COUNTY AND OLYMPIC VENUE COMMUNITES TO HOST FUTURE OLYMPIC AND PARALYMPIC WINTER GAMES WHEREAS, Salt Lake County successfully hosted the 2002 Olympic Winter Games and Paralympic Winter Games and the communities of Salt Lake City,Kearns Metro Township and West Valley City were critical to this success;and RWEREAS, facilities put in service for the Games continue to be utilized to this day, including the Salt Lake Sports Complex in Salt Lake City, Utah Olympic oval in Kearns,Maverik Center in West Valley City,and many more;and WHEREAS, we are working in partnership with the Salt Lake City-Utah Committee for the Games "SLC-UTCG"in developing beneficial operating principles for Games in Utah's communities; and WHEREAS, we look to ensure that the next Games hosted in our communities prioritizes diversity,equity,inclusion,and access,is climate positive,and net-zero waste, and acts as a catalyst for achieving major community initiatives;and WHEREAS, we believe such a vision will be accomplished in a multitude of ways including: •ensuring everyone employed to help prepare for the Games or employed during the Games will be paid a living wage; I •ensuring the Games are welcoming,inclusive,and accessible for all,with universally accessible venues and events,and disability awareness training for public facing staff and volunteers,and that opportunities should be created for residents of all income levels to participate in the Games and accompanying events; i •prioritizing use of existing infrastructure and venues,developing a carbon- management plan for Games-related activities,striving for a Games that is net- zero waste,and forming a sustainability committee to ensure sustainability goals are achieved for the Games; i •maximizing use of public transportation,including clean and active j transportation modes,for all Games stakeholders; i •ensuring the SLC-UTCG will be a model of transparency,robustly engaging the public in the planning process,making regular meetings open to the public and sharing information. I NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED, I that Salt Lake City Council and Mayor of Salt Lake City join officials in Salt Lake County,Kearns Metro Township,and West Valley looking forward with great anticipation to being selected as the host city for a future Olympic and Paralympic Winter Games. I I i SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, that Salt Lake City shares the commitment of Salt Lake County,Kearns Metro Township,and West Valley officials in working with our community partners and the SLC-UTCG to create a Games that strives far diversity,equity and inclusion in all Games activities,delivers a net-zero waste and climate positive Games,and acts as a catalystfor achieving major community initiatives. Adopted this C;!��day of August 2022—7 NA Erin Mendenhall Dan Dugan,Chair Salt Lake City Mayor Salt Lake City Council Member,District Six V Darin Mano,Vice Chair Victoria Petro-Eschler Salt Lake City Council Member,District Five Salt Lake City Council Member,District One Alejandro Puy Chris Wharton Salt Lake ON Council Meer,District Two Salt Lake City Council Member,District 7hree Ana Valdemoros Amy*Fwl r Salt I Salt Lake City Cou cil Member,District Four Salt Lake ber,District Seven Item 131 .•••`�" " ``• MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE: August 9, 2022 RE: 1902, 1932, 1944, 1954 North Rose Park Lane Zoning Map and Small Area Plan Amendments PLNPCM2020-00152/-00153 MOTION i (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.FOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 i COUNCIL STAFF REPORT �� •i��i CITY COUNCIL Of SALT LAKE CPTY rn= Item Schedule: Briefing:July 19, 2022 TO: City Council Members Set Date:July 19,2022 Public Hearing:August 9,2022 FROM• Brian Fullmer Potential Action:August 16,2022 Policy Analyst DATE: August 9, 2022 RE: 1902, 1932, 1944, 1954 North Rose Park Lane Zoning Map and Small Area Plan Amendments PLNPCM2020-00152/-00153 BRIEFING UPDATE At the July 19, 2022 briefing, Planning staff noted the original intent for this property was to construct an indoor athletic facility.After receiving community feedback, Public Lands stated they will conduct significant public outreach to determine the best use for this land if the zoning map and master plan amendments are adopted by the Council.There is no current development proposal for the property. Council Members'questions were focused on the road's capacity to handle additional traffic, and what infrastructure improvements would be made for pedestrians and cyclists. Planning staff said City department reviews of the application indicated the road could handle additional traffic from a development in the Open Space zone,but said they are not aware of a formal infrastructure study for the road. When asked about a timeline for improvements for the property, Public Lands staff stated the original intent was for a facility complementary to the RAC.They said engagement with the public will be an early step if the Council adopts the amendments,then a feasibility study would need to be conducted. It was noted by Public Lands staff that funding is not currently available for improvements to the property.They suggested CIP funding, GO bond or Reimagine Nature funding could be a possibility. Council staff stated it is late in the process to anticipate bond funding would be possible for a project on this property and cautioned against raising expectations for improvements to begin in the near term. It was noted an opportunity to purchase the land came about and the City chose to do so and hold it,thereby preserving options for a future use. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 i�a The following information was provided for the July 19, 2022 Council briefing.It is provided again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal from Salt Lake City Public Lands to amend the zoning map for parcels located at 1902, 1932, 1944, and 1954 North Rose Park Lane in Council District One from R- 1/7,000 (residential)to OS (Open Space).Additionally,the proposal would amend the Rose Park Small Area Plan Future Land Use Map for the parcels from Low-Density Residential to Open Space. Combined, the parcels total approximately 3.6 acres. Salt Lake City Corporation owns the parcels which were annexed into the city in 2oo8 and are adjacent to the Regional Athletic Complex(RAC), and single-family residential subdivisions.The stated purpose of the rezone and small area plan amendments is to construct an indoor recreation facility on the site,though no specific proposal has been submitted. Under the proposal,the four parcels would be consolidated into one larger parcel.Three of the four parcels are undeveloped.A vacant single-family home is on one of the parcels that has not been legally occupied since 2014 and is in disrepair.The City reportedly faces challenges with illegal occupation of the home. These are the only residentially zoned parcels on the Northwest Master Plan's western border to face Interstate-215. Other residential parcels face north,east, or south.Most of those parcels are accessed from 170o North. It is worth noting each of the subject parcels is approximately.89 acres which is significantly larger than nearby residentially zoned properties. If subdivided and developed, existing zoning would allow approximately 22 individual parcels, not including infrastructure such as roads.The number of potential buildable lots is closer to 15 or 16,which would be outside the existing subdivisions and face Interstate-215. During the Planning Commission briefing,the Administration explained the Regional Athletic Complex property was purchased with Land and Water Conservation funds which limit how the RAC property can be used.An indoor recreation facility cannot be constructed there,which is why the adjacent subject parcels are being considered for that use. The proposed zoning map and small area plan amendments were reviewed at the April 27, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. One person spoke at the public hearing asking for a one year pause to allow further study of the proposal.The Westpointe Community Council emailed Planning staff stating nearby residents participated in a March 2020 community meeting about the proposal. Residents were said to be supportive of demolishing the vacant home on one of the subject parcels.There were also requests for consideration of other options for a facility that would be available to area residents to use. (The proposed indoor recreation facility is intended for soccer tournaments and other uses.)The Commission closed the hearing and voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. 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 Administration about potential for the proposed indoor recreation facility to be available for public use. 2. The Council may wish to ask about the funding for construction and ongoing operations and maintenance for any facility or use of the subject parcels. Page 1 2 N W E S � as r -- N t J a. J It 1 ?0tltl C� --- 0 C Cn Area zoning map with subject parcel outlined. Note-the green shaded area is a portion of the Regional Athletic Complex. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amend the future land use map.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. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified four key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-6 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis,please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Compatibility with Adopted Planning Documents During Planning staff s review,they found the proposed amendments to be compatible with Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC. It was noted a master plan amendment is needed to facilitate the zoning map amendment. The Planning Commission staff report states: While the Rose Park Small Area Plan does not comprehensively address the future land use for the subject properties,the proposal is appropriate given the policies in citywide plans and existing development trends in the neighborhood. The Rose Park Small Area Plan adopted in 2001 updates the 1992 Jordan River/Airport Master Plan.The Rose Park Plan's future land use map would need to be amended prior to rezoning the subject parcels.A policy within the Plan limits new residential development to the area between Redwood Road and Rose Park Lane, and between 170o North and the levee(which is now a freeway offramp). Page 13 Residential uses are supported in the Rose Park Small Area Plan,but the subject parcels are the only ones with a residential zoning designation excluded from the Westpointe Farms Subdivision. If these parcels are developed under the existing R-1/7,000 zoning,they would remain outside the subdivision. Planning staffs opinion is rezoning the parcels to Open Space would provide buffer space between existing housing to the east, and manufacturing and airport uses to the west,as well as the Regional Athletic Complex to the north. Consideration 2-Compatibility with Adjacent Properties As discussed above,the subject parcels are the only remaining residentially zoned parcels on the western border of the Northwest Master Plan that face Interstate-215.They would not be included in the abutting subdivision if developed for residential uses. Planning staff believes the proposed zoning map and small area plan amendments are compatible with the surrounding development pattern. Consideration 3-Existing Zoning Limitations and Proposed Zone It is Planning staffs opinion designating the subject parcels as Open Space is appropriate given the proximity to the freeway and Regional Athletic Complex.Although the proposed use is different than the adjacent low density residential use, Planning believes it will likely act as a buffer as discussed above. The Open Space zone requires a Io-foot landscape buffer when abutting single-family residential districts. The combined parcels would be less than four acres which limits building heights to 35 feet.An additional one foot of landscape buffer is required for each foot of building height above 20 feet. Shade trees are required to be planted at a rate of one tree per 30 linear feet of landscape buffer. In addition,the subject parcels are within the Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay,Zone C,which is exposed to moderate levels of airport noise and has specific height restrictions. Consideration 4-Housing Loss Mitigation Plan Salt Lake City Code requires a housing loss mitigation plan approved by the Community and Neighborhoods Department Director prior to rezoning residentially zoned properties that include a housing unit. Options for mitigation residential housing loss include: • providing replacement housing, • paying a fee to the City's housing trust fund based on the difference between the existing housing value and new replacement housing units,or • paying a flat fee to the housing trust fund if deteriorated housing exists which is not caused by indifference by the property owner. A housing loss mitigation plan was submitted for the house on 1932 North Rose Park Lane.The option to pay a fee based on the difference between housing value and replacement costs was selected. Replacement costs exceed the existing house's value,so no mitigation fee is required.The plan was reviewed and approved by the Community and Neighborhoods Director. It is found in Attachment D(pages 21-26)of the Planning Commission staff report. It is Planning staffs opinion the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments are consistent with citywide plans and compatible with the surrounding development pattern. Page 14 ZONING AND SETBACKS COMPARISON The following table found in Attachment E(page 28 of the Planning Commission staff report) compares zoning and setback standards of the R-1/7,00o and Open Space zoning designations. It is included here for convenience. lkfinilnunlLut ALvdnuun MxdmumBuJ1vdng Area ANT Iddi Building Height Coverage R-il".17,0,00 7,000 sq.ft. 50 ft 40% 28 ft.(pitched roof) 20 ft(flat roof) Open Space None No None jr,ft(lcts four acres or less�wwi&d that for ea&loot of height in exem of 2o feet,each required yard and landscaped y-wd shall be' donelbot 45 ft.(lots greater than four acres) Yard Yard RearYard R-1,1,',7.000 Average of the block Average of the bk)&- 25 ft. Comer lots:o ft. face.If there are no face.Ifthere are no ensnrig buildings on easting buildnigs on Interior lots:0 ft on the block-face the the block face the one side and to ft.on minUzi um setback is mum setback is the other. 20 ft. -o ft. Open Space— 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft 10 ft. lots Four Aares or Less Open Space— 10 ft. 10 ft. 15 tt. 15 ft. is Greater than,Four Acres Open Space— in ft when abutting a singtetmly zomng U� .ffiade tees Eitt be pLuAed at a r—at—e-o-F Landscape one tree per jo linear feet of landscape buffer.A corinnuous;evaWeen or deaduous shrub Buffer hedge 9A be planted along the enbre length oflandscape buffer Thisshrub hedge shall haw a mature beight of not less than 4 feet. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment E(pages 31-33)of the Planning Commission staff report outlines 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. Page 5 Factor Finding Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with Complies the purposes,goals,objectives,and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the Complies specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will Complies affect adjacent properties Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with Complies the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to City services can be serve the subject property,including,but not limited to, provided to the site roadways,parks and recreational facilities,police and fire protection,schools,stormwater drainage systems,water supplies,and wastewater and refuse collection. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • February 26, 202o-Applications submitted and assigned to Amanda Roman, Principal Planner. • March 3, 202o-Notice sent to Westpointe Community Council and surrounding neighbors and property owners. • March 11, 202o-Applicant and Planning staff met with Westpointe Community Council. • April 202o-October 2021-Petition put on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic. • October 14, 2021-Notice sent to Westpointe Community Council informing them the petition was moving forward. • October 27, 2021-Early notification mailed to property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property. • April 15, 2022-Planning Commission public hearing notice mailed to neighbors within Soo feet of the subject property.Notice posted to City and State websites and sent to the Planning list serve. • April 27, 2022-Planning Commission public hearing.The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments. • April 28, 2022-Draft ordinance information sent to Attorney's Office. • May 6, 2022-Planning received signed ordinance from the Attorney's Office. • June 8, 2022-Transmittal received in City Council Office. Page 16 ERIN MENDENHALL L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor � ' and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas ng k1t7 c/1= Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 6/8/2022 Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 6/8/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: June 8, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community &Neighborhoods SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2020-00152 & PLNPCM2020-00153 Rose Park Lane Master Plan& Zoning Map Amendments STAFF CONTACT: Amanda Roman, Principal Planner amanda.roman@slcgov.com or(801) 535-7660 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the proposed Zoning Map amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands initiated a petition to amend the Rose Park Small Area Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map in February of 2020. The request is to rezone the property from R-1/7,000 (Single Family Residential) to OS (Open Space District) and change the future land use designation from Low Density Residential to Open Space. On April 27,2022,the Planning Commission heard the petition and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the Master Plan Future Land Use Map and Zoning Map. The property owner intends to demolish the existing vacant single-family home on 1932 N Rose Park Lane and consolidate the four parcels and incorporate the land into the Regional Athletic Complex to the north. Exhibit 4 provides an updated project description from the Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands. The applicant was required to submit a housing mitigation plan as part of this request, due to Chapter 18.97 of the Zoning Ordinance. Any petition for a zoning change that would permit a SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O.BOX 145487,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269 nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units, may not be approved until a housing mitigation plan is approved by the city. There are three mitigation options for housing loss that include: building replacement housing, paying a fee based on the difference between housing value and replacement costs, and paying a flat mitigation fee. The applicant chose Option B: Paying a fee based on the difference between housing value and replacement costs. The replacement costs exceed the market value of the existing single-family home; therefore, no mitigation fee is required. The Housing Loss Mitigation Report is located in Attachment D of the Planning Commission staff report. The properties to east and south of the subject properties are zoned R-1/7,000 and are developed with single-family homes. The property to the north is the Regional Athletic Complex, which is zoned Open Space, and Interstate-215 and manufacturing zones are to the west. The subject properties do not reflect the existing development pattern, and if developed with residential units,they would not be incorporated into the larger neighborhood since they front Rose Park Lane while the rest of the properties face towards the interior of the Westpointe Farms Subdivision. The OS zoning designation would permit different land uses compared to the low density residential. However, the OS zone would likely act as a buffer between the residential neighborhood to the east and the interstate, manufacturing zone, and airport to the west. If the master plan and zoning map amendments are approved,the property owner would be allowed to redevelop the site in accordance with the OS (Open Space) zoning district standards and permitted land uses. os Subject Properties k Subject Properties 1 3 a f t o � R-1.7000 M-1 ° R-1-7000 R-1.700 I PUBLIC PROCESS: • Petition for the master plan and zoning map amendment was accepted by the Salt Lake Planning Division and assigned to Amanda Roman, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing on February 26, 2020. • Information concerning this petition was sent to the chair of the Westpointe Community Council on March 3, 2020. • 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 on March 3, 2020. • Staff attended the Westpointe Community Council meeting with the applicant to discuss the petitions on March 11, 2020. • The petition was put on hold from April 2020—October 2021 due to the COVID-19 pandemic. • Staff emailed the Chair of the Westpointe Community Council to inform them the petition was moving forward on October 14, 2021. • Staff mailed a second early notification to all property owners and residents within 300 feet of the subject property on October 27, 2021. • Public notification for the Planning Commission Hearing was mailed April 15, 2022 to all neighbors within 300 feet of the subject property. The public notice was also posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve. • The petition was heard by the Planning Commission on April 27, 2022. The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments. o The Westpointe Community Council opposes the amendments. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDS of APRIL 27, 2022: Planning Commission Agenda Planniril-I Minutes 1'1antiing Commission .Staff IZeport EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Department of Public Lands Memo 5. Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2022 (Amending the zoning of property located at approximately 1902 North, 1932 North, 1944 North, and 1954 North Rose Park Lane from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to OS Open Space District and amending the Rose Park Small Area Plan Future Land Use Map) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located approximately 1902 North, 1932 North, 1944 North, and 1954 North Rose Park Lane from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to OS Open Space District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020- 00 15 3 and amending the Rose Park Small Area Plan Future Land Use Map pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00152. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission")held a public hearing on April 27, 2022 on an application submitted by the Salt Lake City Public Lands Department("Applicant"), to rezone property located at 1902 North, 1932 North, 1944 North, and 1954 North Rose Park Lane (Tax ID No. 08-22-100-017, 08-22-100-016, 08-22-100- 015 and 08-22-100-014, respectively) (the "Property") from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to OS Open Space District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00153; and to amend the Northern Sub Area Future Land Use Map of the Rose Park Small Area Plan with respect to the Property from Low Density Residential to Open Space pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2020-00152 (collectively, the "Petitions"); WHEREAS, in addition to the underlying R-1/7,000 zoning, the Property is further zoned with an overlay zoning designation of Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay; WHEREAS, at its April 27, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (the "City Council") on the Petitions; WHEREAS, after holding a public hearing on this matter the City Council has determined that adopting this ordinance to amend the Salt Lake City zoning map and the Northern Sub Area Future Land Use Map of the Rose Park Small Area Plan is in the city's best interests; and WHEREAS, the City Council desires to retain the overlay designation of the Airport Flight Path Protection Overlay and nothing contained herein should be construed to remove that existing designation. 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 Property located at 1902 North, 1932 North, 1944 North, and 1954 North Rose Park Lane, and as more particularly described in Exhibit"A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference, shall be and hereby is rezoned from R-1/7,000 Single Family Residential District to OS Open Space District. SECTION 2. Amending the Rose Park Small Area Master Plan. The Northern Sub Area Future Land Use Map of the Rose Park Small Area Plan shall be and hereby is amended to reflect that the Property located at 1902 North, 1932 North, 1944 North, and 1954 North Rose Park Lane, and as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto and incorporated by reference, shall be and hereby is amended from future land use from Low Density Residential to Open Space. SECTION 3. Effective Date. This Ordinance 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 APPROVED AS TO FORM (SEAL) Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date: 5�6/22 Bill No. of 2022. By: Published: Hannah Vickery,Senior C ty Attorney Ordinance rezoning 1902 N, 1932 N,1944 N and 1954 N Rose Park Lane EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned: 1902 N Rose Park Lane Tax ID No. 08-22-100-017 0303 BEG 1255.9 FT S & 154.5 FT E FR NW COR OF SEC 22, T IN, R IW, S L M; E 289.6 FT; S 135.05 FT; W 289.6 FT; N 135.05 FT TO BEG. 0.898 AC M OR L. 5487-111 5487-0125 9800-9492 1932 N Rose Park Lane Tax ID No. 08-22-100-016 0626 BEG 1255.9 FT S & E 154.5 FT FR NW COR OF SEC 22, T IN, R IW, S L M; N 135.05 FT; E 289.6 FT; S 135.05 FT; W 289.6 FT TO BEG. 0.89 AC M OR L. 5487-111 5487-0125 7548-0314 8979-5* 1944 N Rose Park Lane Tax ID No. 08-22-100-015 1102 BEG 980.54 FT S & 197.66 FT E FR NW COR OF SEC 22, T 1 N, R 1 W, S L M; E 246.44 FT; S 140.31 FT; W 289.6 FT; N 69.9 FT; N 31 A 30'28" E 82.59 FT TO BEG. 0.89 AC M OR L. 5487-111 5487-0* 1954 N Rose Park Lane Tax ID No. 08-22-100-014 1102 BEG 980.54 FTS & 197.66 FTE FRNWCOROFSEC22, T 1N, R 1W, S LM; N 3 1 A 31'28" E 274.41 FT; N 37 A 16'09" E 36.84 FT M OR L; S 37 A 15' E 133.2 FT; S 157.19 FT; W 246.44 FT TO BEG 0.89 A* TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Department of Public Lands Memo 5. Mailing List 1. Project Chronology PROJECT CHRONOLOGY PETITION: PLNPCM2020-00152 and PLNPCM2020-00153— Rose Park Lane Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments February 26, 2020 Petitions for the master plan and zoning map amendments received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division. February 26, 2020 Petitions assigned to Amanda Roman, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. March 3, 2020 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Westpointe Community Council in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. March 3, 2020 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. March 11, 2020 Staff attended the Westpointe Community Council meeting with the applicant to discuss the petitions. April 20, 2020 The 45-day public comment period for Recognized Organizations ended. April 2020—October 2021 The petition was put on hold due to the COVID-19 pandemic. October 14, 2021 Staff emailed the Chair of the Westpointe Community Council informing them that the petition was moving forward and would be heard by the Planning Commission in the upcoming months. October 27, 2021 Staff sent a second notification 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 15, 2022 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of April 27, 2022. Public hearing notice mailed. April 15, 2022 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. April 27, 2022 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on April 27,2022.By a majority vote, the Planning Commission forwarded a Positive recommendation to City Council for the proposed master plan and zoning map amendments. 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2020-00152 & PLNPCM2020- 00153—Rose Park Lane Master Plan&Zoning Map Amendments—The Salt Lake City Public Lands Department has submitted petitions to amend the zoning map pertaining to property located approximately 1902 N, 1932 N, 1944 N, and 1954 N Rose Park Lane from R-117,000 (Single Family Residential District) to OS (Open Space District) and to amend the Rose Park Small Area Plan Future Land Use Map from Low Density Residential to Open Space. The intent of the amendments is to consolidate the four parcels and incorporate them into the Regional Athletic Complex to the north. The property is located within Council District 1, represented by Victoria Petro-Eschler. (Staff contact: Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 or anianda.ronian(tt,slc«ov.com) Case Numbers: PLNPCM2020-00152 & PLNPCM2020-00153 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: 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.00vlcouncillvirtunl-mectinus. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments(ii/,slciyov.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 Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at amanda.rorilan(ct%slcoov.com. The application details can be accessed at https:"citi/enportal.slc�-lov.com,', by selecting the "Planning" tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2020-00152 or PLNPCM2020-00153. 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.comincnts(rx;s�ov.com, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. Original Petition * rff Master Plan Amendment Amend the text Of the Master Plan •❑ ❑ Amend the Land Use Map 'OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project#: Name of Master Plan Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): .�` 1902 to 1954 N Rose Park Ln., SAC F{ Name of Applicant: Phone: Olga Crump 801-535-7184 � ? Address of Applicant: 451 S State St.. Room 425, Salt Lake City E-mail of Applicant: Cell/Fax: olga.crump@slcgov.com 801-690-6122 Applicant's Interest in Subject Property: ^ ❑ Owner ❑ Contractor ❑ Architect ❑ Other: �. Name of Property Owner(if different from applicant): Salt Lake City Corp. • E-mail of Property Owner: Phone: } kristin.riker@slcgov.com 801-535-7804 t Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings,for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION Planners are available for consultation prior to submitting this application. Please call (801)S35-7700 if #' you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application. wax REQUIRED FEE , . Filing fee of$970 plus$121 per acre in excess of one acre. $100 for newspaper notice. Plus additional fee for mailed public notices. SIGNATURE If applicable,a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature o w-ner-or-Agent: Date: a �^ Updated 7/1/19 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Project Description(please attach additional sheets.) F7 Describe the proposed master plan amendment. A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. Declare why the present master plan requires amending. Is the request amending the Land Use Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the master plan? If so, please include exact language to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Mailing Address: Planning Counter In Person: Planning Counter PO Box 145471 451 South State Street, Room 215 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Telephone; (801) 535-7700 INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED '. I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. 1 understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. Updated 7J1f 19 Mysp �N+tom Zoning Amendment of ❑ Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project#: Name or Section of Zoning Amendment: I Re,2oYlp, to of?n CQG PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property(or Area): --- 1902 to 1954 N Rose Park Ln. Name of Applicant: Phone: Olga Crump 801-535-7184 Address of Applicant: 451 S State St., Room 425, Salt Lake City - f E-mail of Applicant: olga.crump@slcgov.com +801-690-6122 Applicant's Interest in Subject Property: ❑ Owner ❑ Contractor ❑ Architect Other: Name of Property Owner(if different from applicant): Salt Lake City Corp. k E-mail of Property Owner: Phone: kristin.riker@slcgov.com 801-535-7805 v . .. Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and t7x made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings,for the purposes of public l review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have an questions regarding the requirements of this application, lease contact Salt Lake City Y any g g q pp , p Y Planning Counter at(801)535-7700 prior to submitting the application. t, w REQUIRED FEE t Map Amendment:filing fee of$1,034, plus$121 per acre in excess of one acre Text Amendment:filing fee of$1,035, plus$100 for newspaper notice. Plus additional fee for mailed public notices. ,SIGNATURE If applicable,a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. y+Y „✓ 8' Signature of ner or Agent: Date: f 0 U�' Updated 7j1J19 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 3 � t 1. Project Description (please attach additional sheets.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. E] 0 Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Mailing Address: Planning Counter In Person: Planning Counter PO Box 145471 451 South State Street, Room 215 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Telephone: (801) 535-7700 INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED' I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. Updated 7/1/19 Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendment - Declare why the present master plan requires amending.The Rose Park Small Area Plan designates these properties as Low Density Residential.These parcels must be rezoned to Open Space for the Public Lands department to design and build a park asset on that property. - A statement declaring the purpose for the zoning and master plan amendment.The Purpose for the zoning and master plan amendment is to rezone and consolidate all four of the parcels into Open Space and build an indoor soccer facility. In previous years, outside parties have shown interest in constructing an indoor soccer facility on the RAC property, but the Land and Water Conservation Act prevents structures from being built there. The rezoning and consolidation of these four properties offers the city an opportunity to either partner with an outside organization or build a city-owned facility to meet this demand. - A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. The proposed use for the property is to build an indoor soccer facility and provide year-round indoor fields for athletic reservations, practices,training, league games, and meeting space. Indoor athletic field space is limited, especially during November through March. - List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area.Three parcels are currently undeveloped, and the existing dwelling unit hasn't been lived in since approximately 2014.The parcels face the 1-215 freeway and are not connected to the adjacent neighborhood. Building an indoor complex on this land would enhance the neighboring residential area. - Parcel numbers to be changed (N to S) 08-22-100-014-0000 08-22-100-015-0000 08-22-100-016-0000 08-22-100-017-0000 �,, 4 � $� �,f'� t, d � i � g �, a i ' ® $ { � A � E.. 5 a ® 1 a , '''.. :.,_.. � e �:T�I:AKE C � �— r �� ' - �1 �. ,� , i � j� � �+ M �, � � �� 1 �'� Zoning and Master Plan Amendment for 1902 and 1932 N Rose Park Lane 4 YH K. m.. t ` .4 + r + ^a � Parcel: 08-22-100-014 1954 N Rose Park Ln. Parcel: 08-22-100-015 1944 N Rose Park Ln. Parcel: 08-22-100-016 1932 N Rose Park Ln Parcel, 08-22-100-017 1902 N Rose Park Ln 1946 Q37 929 ?27 R-1-7000 1923 1920 1910 ibis 193) ISU P47 W H66 1904 1860 1%2 1899 1894 ilml 184 t, 1954 1158 NO 1�146 IS79 1801 1669 1 R63 1976 Wso SRQ, 1884 1672 1171 18, 19777 1965 IQ99 1955 1?47 1933 192S 1017 007 18, R JifOW<r'�2 f I� tlt>` Y � ' 1 a e r razor, a m 9, ."aG• yw rat — re rY f cm mil"^' R� 'r rom • ..w f w re7r a �\„ x�mmu a � = " ro r q a ♦ I<nmV 1F ��`�m V,,• .• a 4 a �, Jt,s:.v � ems l�.,a c m A G09 1» , „ a bra r, a � Nar , y Y W 1 utrox '« a a A Y 8 swx 6 R v i « f` a no nm raw• im+ � i rm m� W m � ( fixmx! Y OR+,Lxr .w m.x , e "qa\., ,vfo, Y ♦nx( rvaee �)8 k.,,x„ a � » a k *� y ,zwe - a nxmr _ •n Y49 yq.I n _ r a,am• k r,avx a c c R a s rtxpra �' r„� a N GANP[R rmr.....- S.H` ( xt •� m. a r„ax �.� s„a, x` a �" � a I'a�., a,.rm. ' ,a,mn g r».n• ,.>mx � ,wa �Tana r a x 'r wwu WK0 t I � z a,=oro,�,rvo» ,� ,nm• 6r n,an r This map is Wert inrenrkd ro rcpreunt ac,ual pfiywcal propernn.In order to awMiah exact phyaical bewndane,a sunray of th<p,aperfy may be nxcaxary Fr paeN Jaan N eceb t'•t00' - S S - •... W 1/2 NW 1/4 See 22 TIN RI W °� o SAt:FLAKE COUNTY,UTAH � a. w r.ka h onanara 08-22-1 l 5. Department of Public Lands Memo u lic Lands I'V Parks I Trails&Natural Lands I Urban Forestry I Golf Memorandum To: Salt Lake City Council From: Makaylah Respicio-Evans, Public Lands Planner CC: Amanda Roman, Planning; Tyler Murdock, Chris Laughlin, Kat Maus, Public Lands Date: May 9th, 2022 Re: Property Rezone- Rose Park Lane Background: The Salt Lake City Department of Public Lands has applied to rezone four parcels along Rose Park Lane from residential to Open Space. Base Parcel Number Associated Address Property size(acres) Landowner 08-22-100-017-0000 1902 N Rose Park Ln .89 SLC Parks and Public Lands 08-22-100-016-0000 1932 N Rose Park Ln .90 SLC Parks and Public Lands 08-22-100-015-0000 1944 N Rose Park Ln .89 SLC Parks and Public Lands 08-22-100-014-0000 1954 N Rose Park Ln .89 SLC Parks and Public Lands These parcels present an excellent opportunity to preserve more open space in close proximity to a highly developed residential area. As stated in the application, the land was initially acquired with the idea of an indoor recreation facility to build on the existing infrastructure available at the RAC. However, the rezone of these properties is the first step on a long road to creating a plan and developing the area. An indoor recreation facility is just one idea, and no plan has been set. The change to open space ensures the long-term protection and preservation of this property. Moving forward, Public Lands intends to consolidate the parcels and conduct a feasibility study. The future of the parcels would be determined primarily by a forthcoming community engagement process that aligns with the recently completed Public Lands Master Plan. Thank you for your consideration. The Planning team is available to answer any further questions or concerns. 1 5. Mailing List OWN—FULL—NAME OWN_ADDR own—unit OWN—CITY OWN_STA"OWN ZIP JAVIER MENDOZA 1972 W BLACK ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MARIA B RODRIGUEZ;ALEJANDRO CHAVEZ DONAN(JT) 1964 W BLACK ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 CARLOS MARTINEZ VALLE;LIZETH MARTINEZ(JT) 1958 W BLACK ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JOSEFINA S GOMEZ 1952 W BLACK ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 BENNY TALLBROTHER;KATHLEEN TALLBROTHER(JT) 1946 W BLACK ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 THERESE V ARBOUR 1945 N CORRAL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ROSIE M PENALOSA 1937 N CORRAL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ARNULFO TOVAR 1929 N CORRAL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SANTINO WILLIAM;LILLY SANTINO(JT) 1923 N CORRAL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 DANIEL A CAMPOS;MONICA PEREZ ESTRADA(1T) 1915 N CORRAL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MELECIO HERNANDEZ;ESTRELLA ORTIZ NAVARRETE;MARINA NAVARRETE MOR 1907 N CORRAL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JORGE ESCALERA;JENNIFER L ESCALERA(JT) 1899 N CORRAL W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JEFF RUSSELL;WILLIAM V NAPIER(1T) 1946 N CORRAL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 GREG DAVIS 1938 N CORRAL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 HTOO LAE;KWAY LEE(JT) 1928 N CORRAL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ESTELLE LEWIS 1920 N CORRAL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ENRIQUE O GARIBAY;ZENAIDA ESTEVEZ(JT) 1912 N CORRAL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JESUS E CASTANEDA 1902 N CORRAL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 OMAR TULE NAVARRO;ANA BERTHA GARCIA ORTIZ(JT) 1892 N CORRAL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MELCHOR COTA;ALMA LOPEZ(JT) 1880 N CORRAL LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 PENNY 1 LOPEZ 1919 N BRANDING CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 EMMANUEL PEREZ 1911 N BRANDING CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JOSE SR LAZALDE;PLACIDA LAZALDE(JT) 1901 N BRANDING CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 KATA DULER 1889 N BRANDING CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 NUNO.KIRK 1879 N BRANDING CIR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 FLAVIO SOSA 1933 W BLACK ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 PONA I MISA;PERENISE MISA(JT) 1925 W BLACK ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MARLA D HARMON;CYRIL T HARMON(JT) 1984 W RED ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 NADEEM REHMAT MASIH;ANITA NADEEM MASIH(JT) 1978 W RED ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 DENA R WILLIAMS;MARK WILLIAMS(JT) 1970 W RED ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 RALPH C FISHER 1962 W RED ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 PATRICIA BLANCO;OCTAVIO BLANCO GOMEZ(JT) 1954 W RED ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JONATHAN KORTMAN;TIFFANY KORTMAN(JT) 1948 W RED ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MOSES WILLIAMS;GRACE MOSES(JT) 1976 W BLACK ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SALT LAKE CITY CORP PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 MARGARITO VIDRIO;RAFAEL OJEDA MARTINEZ(JT) 1977 W BLACK ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 VERONICA RAMIREZ 1971 W BLACK ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MATTHEW BRIAN STRONG 2960 E ROBIDOUX RD SANDY UT 84093 KERRY L BROWN;LORI D BROWN(JT) 1959 W BLACK ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JISA ROBINSON 1953 W BLACK ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JASON BLACKHAM THOMPSON;JESSICA A THOMPSON(1T) 1947 W BLACK ANGUS DR SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 Current Occupant 1879 N BRANDING CIR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1978 W BLACK ANGUS DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 1965 W BLACK ANGUS DR Salt Lake City UT 84116 Item 132 .•••`�" " ``• MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE: August 9, 2022 RE: 858 West&86o West Hoyt Place Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2021-01073 MOTION i (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.FOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 i COUNCIL STAFF REPORT �� •i��i CITY COUNCIL Of SALT LAKE CPTY rn= Item Schedule: Briefing:July 19, 2022 TO: City Council Members Set Date:July 19,2022 Public Hearing:August 9,2022 FROM• Brian Fullmer Potential Action:August 16,2022 Policy Analyst DATE: August 9, 2022 RE: 858 West&86o West Hoyt Place Zoning Map.Amendment PLNPCM2021-01073 BRIEFING UPDATE At the July 19, 2022 briefing, Council Members expressed general support for the proposed zoning map amendment.A few items were raised during the briefing: • A question was asked about Hoyt Place's zoning history. Planning staff noted R-1 j5,000 and R- 1J7,000 zoning designations were added in the 1995 zoning rewrite.Zoning map amendments changing the zoning designations of interior parcels on Hoyt Place began in approximately 2015. • Another question was raised about plans for the private right-of-way connecting Hoyt Place to 200 North(shown in the image below). Following the meeting Planning staff followed up stating the property owner expressed an intent to close the right-of-way as part of development on the abutting parcels. • In response to a question about parking, Planning staff stated 1 on-site parking stall per unit is required in the SR-3 zone. Support was expressed for a development agreement requiring at least the same number of housing units to be maintained on the subject parcels. In addition, Hoyt Place is a private street and property owners are responsible for its maintenance.At times,private streets have caused confusion to abutting property owners,because of maintenance and access issues. For the current proposal, Council staff suggested the Council might consider requesting how to attach more information to each of the subject parcels'titles making it explicit that abutting property owners are responsible for maintaining the private street, and all property owners on the street have equal rights.The Council may want to follow up with the Administration on identifying viable options. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 i�a '843 zoo ads ass a2s 228 859 220 862 219 216 213 878 966 Arrows showing private right-of-way connecting Hoyt Place with Zoo North The following information was provided for the July 19, 2022 Council briefing.R is provided again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for properties located at 858 West and 86o West Hoyt Place in City Council District Two from R-1/5,000 (Single-Family Residential)to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential). Hoyt Place is a private,mid-block cul-de-sac bordered by 200 North and 30o North,and 80o West and goo West as shown in the zoning map below. Combined,the two parcels total approximately 0.39 acres and include two homes under renovation which were built near the turn of the twentieth century.The petitioner's stated intent for rezoning is to subdivide the lots and construct two additional homes on the parcels. Most parcels on Hoyt Place are zoned SR-3 and parcels fronting streets bordering the block are a mix of primarily R-1/5,00o and R-1/7,000. Planned development applications for other Hoyt Place parcels are either approved or in process as of the writing of this report. SR-3 zoning is medium-density,typically found within the interior portions of city blocks.The zoning district standards "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."(Chapter 21A.24.100 Salt Lake City Code) Because some nonresidential uses are permitted in the SR-3 zone, a housing mitigation plan approved by the City is required.The petitioner submitted a plan found in Attachment C(pages 16-21)of the Planning Commission staff report.After reviewing the plan,the Community and Neighborhoods Director found a loss of housing stock is not anticipated, and the petitioner plans to add housing units. It was determined the housing mitigation plan requirement was met and a development agreement would require the petitioner replace loss of either of the existing single-family houses.Although the stated intent is to keep existing housing and add to it,if the properties were sold that could change. Page 1 2 This item was reviewed at the February 23, 2022 Planning Commission meeting. During the briefing, Planning staff stated the petitioner supported entering a development agreement with the City requiring they keep at least the same number of housing units.No one spoke at the Planning Commission public hearing and the Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the Council. 300 N 00 R- R-1-7000 SR- Hoyt Place SR- SR-3 R-1-S000 1 R-1-70 0 N E S 200 N, Area zoning map with the subject parcels outlined in blue. 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. As noted above, Planning staff recommended the developer enter a development agreement with the City requiring them to maintain at least the same number of housing units on the subject Page 13 parcels.Would the Council like to include a development agreement as a condition of the proposed rezone? 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. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified four key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-6 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis,please see the staff report. Consideration 1-Hoyt Place Project Background Planning staff reviewed previous and current rezones and planned developments for parcels on Hoyt Place as infill development progresses on this interior block. Consideration 2-Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Parcels to the east of the subject parcels were previously rezoned to SR-3. During the planned development and preliminary subdivision approval,the petitioner was required to provide utilities and public improvements to the street. Parcels on Hoyt Place are mostly undeveloped,but it is anticipated a development pattern like this proposal will occur throughout the street. R-1/5,000 parcels require a minimum of 5,000 square feet.The SR-3 minimum lot size for single-family attached units is 1,500 square feet per unit; single-family detached is 2,000 square feet; and two-family units require 3,000 square feet. SR-3 zoning allows attached housing units,twin homes, and two-family dwellings not permitted in the R-1/5,000 and R-1/7,000 zones.This coupled with smaller minimum lot sizes would accommodate additional density for the interior block. It is Planning staff s opinion the proposed zoning change is appropriate for the area. Consideration 3-Compliance with Master Plan Policies Planning staff found the proposed zoning map amendment aligns with initiatives and goals outlined in the North Temple Boulevard Plan, 80o West Station Area Plan, and Plan Salt Lake. Consideration 4-R-i/5,000 and SR-3 Zoning Comparison As noted above, SR-3 zoning permits allows single-family detached,single-family attached, and two-family dwellings.The only residential structures allowed within R-1/5,000 zoning districts are single-family. Maximum building height is the same in both zones,while SR-3 has reduced front,rear, and interior side yard setbacks. Planning staff included the following table in the Planning Commission staff report. It is replicated here for convenience. Page 14 R-1/5,000 SR-3 Building Height 28 ft to the ridge of the roof or the 28 ft to the ridge of the roof or the average height of other principal average height of other principal buildings on the block face-20 ft to buildings on the block face-20 ft to the the top of a flat roof top of a flat roof Front Yard Setback Average of the front yards of existing Average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. buildings within the block face. 20 ft where there are no existing 10 ft where there are no existing buildings within the block face.Where buildings within the block face.Where the minimum front yard is specified the minimum front yard is specified in in in the recorded subdivision plat, the recorded subdivision plan,the the requirement specified on the plat requirement specified on the plat shall shall prevail. prevail. Side Yard Setback Corner side yard: 10 ft Corner side yard: 10 ft Interior: 4 ft on one side, 10 ft on the Interior: 4 ft(Single-family detached) other Single-family attached and twin homes: No setback unless next to single-family dwelling,then 4 ft is required. Rear Setback 25%of lot depth or 20 feet,whichever 20%of lot depth—not less than 15 ft not is less more than 30 ft Lot Size Single-family detached: 5,000 SF Single-family attached: 1,500 SF per unit Single-family detached: 2,000 SF Two-family: 3,000 SF In their discussion of the four considerations, Planning staff stated the following: The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map meets the vision of the North Temple Boulevard Master Plan and the Plan Salt Lake neighborhood,housing, and growth initiatives. Furthermore, rezoning the property to SR-3 meets the intent of the zoning district which is to,`provide lot,bulk and use regulations,including a variety of housing types,in scale with the character of development located within the interior portions of city blocks. Uses are intended to be compatible with the existing scale, density 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 subject property is also near transit,parks,and other amenities which are intended to support housing in the city. The proposed rezone is compatible with the surrounding neighborhood and supports the community's vision for neighborhood growth as outlined in the North Temple Boulevard Master Plan. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment D(pages 22-23)of the Planning Commission staff report outlines zoning map amendment factors that should be considered as the Council reviews this proposal.The factors 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 Complies the purposes,goals,objectives,and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the Complies specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Pale 5 The extent to which a proposed map amendment will Complies affect adjacent properties Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with Complies the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards. The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to Complies 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. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • October 22, 2021-Applications submitted. • November 6, 2021-Petition assigned to Amanda Roman, Principal Planner. • December 14, 2021-Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Fairpark Community Council to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. Online open house began. • December 15, 2021-Early notification sent to residents and property owners within 3oo feet of the project site. • February 1, 2022-45-day public comment period for recognized organizations ended. Online open house period ended.No public comments were received by Planning staff. • February 10, 2022-Public hearing notice sent and posted to City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve. Public hearing notice mailed. Planning Commission public hearing notice posted on subject property. • March 23, 2022-Planning Commission public hearing.The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the proposed zoning map amendments. • February 24, 2022-Draft ordinance information sent to Attorney's Office. • April 25, 2022-Planning Division received signed ordinance from the Attorney's Office. • May 13, 2022-Transmittal received in City Council Office. Page 16 ERIN MENDENHALL L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor � � and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas ng k1t7 c/1= Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 5/13/2022 Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 5/13/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 12, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community &Neighborhoods SUBJECT: Petition PLNPCM2021-01073 858 W & 860 W Hoyt Place Zoning Map Amendment STAFF CONTACT: Amanda Roman, Principal Planner amanda.roman@slcgov.com or(801) 535-7660 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation of the Planning Commission to approve the proposed Zoning Map amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Bert Hollard,representing Hoyt Place Development LLC,the property owner of 858 W and 860 W Hoyt Place, initiated a petition to amend the Zoning Map in October of 2021. The request is to rezone the property from R-115,000(Single Family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential). Hoyt Place is a private mid-block street off of 900 West and between 200 and 300 North. On February 23,2022,the Planning Commission heard the petition and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council to amend the Zoning Map. If approved, the property owner intends to subdivide the property and build two new single family homes at the rear of the property. There are two existing single family homes on the property that are being renovated and will remain as a part of the development. The SR-3 zone is a medium density zone that is intended for mid-block streets. It allows additional residential uses that the R-1/5,000 zone does not. These uses include single-family attached, two family and twin homes. The permitted height in both zones is the same, but the SR-3 zone allows SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 445 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145487,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5487 TEL 801.535.7712 FAX 801.535.6269 for reduced front and rear setbacks, lot width, and lot size. The purpose of the SR-3 district is to provide housing options that are in scale and compatible with interior block development, while preserving the existing character of the neighborhood. The proposed change would allow for the subdivision of the property but is not expected to change the character of the neighborhood or have adverse impacts on future growth. The change in zoning would reflect the proposed residential development pattern as described in the North Temple Boulevard Plan and would provide a compatible infill housing opportunity. The applicant was required to submit a housing mitigation plan as part of this request, due to Chapter 18.97 of the Zoning Ordinance,which requires any petition for a zoning change that would permit a nonresidential use of land, that includes within its boundaries residential dwelling units, may not be approved until a housing mitigation plan is approved by the city. While the applicant is not proposing to remove the existing housing units, and plans to build more housing, a housing mitigation plan is required for this petition because the SR-3 zone allows nonresidential uses. Options for mitigating residential housing loss include, providing replacement housing, paying a fee to the City's housing trust fund based on the difference between the housing value and replacement cost of building new units, and where deteriorated housing exists and is not caused by deliberate indifference of the landowner, the petitioner may pay a flat fee to the City's housing trust fund. Typically, when housing units are proposed to be demolished, the City enters into a development agreement with the applicant to ensure replacement housing is built. The applicant is not proposing to remove housing units, but if they did change their proposal in the future, the housing loss mitigation plan would be triggered when they applied for a demolition permit. If the zoning map amendment is approved, the property owner would be allowed to redevelop the site in accordance with the SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential) zoning district standards and permitted land uses. .a Subject Properties '� o � 0 Hoyt Place w � PUBLIC PROCESS: • Petition for the zoning map amendment was accepted by the Salt Lake Planning Division on October 22, 2021. • The petition was assigned to Amanda Roman, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing on November 16, 2021. • The petition was deemed complete on December 13, 2021. • Information concerning this petition was sent to the chair of the Fairpark Community Council on December 14, 2021. o The Fairpark Community Council did not provide formal comments. • The surrounding property owners and residents within 300' of the subject properties received an early notification by mail on December 15, 2021. • Public notification for the Planning Commission Hearing was mailed February 10, 2022 to all neighbors within 300' of the Zoning Map amendment site. The public notice was also posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve. • The petition was heard by the Planning Commission on February 23, 2022. The Planning Commission voted unanimously(7-0) to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council regarding the proposed zoning map amendment. o There was one public comment in opposition received prior to the Planning Commission meeting. PLANNING COMMISSION RECORDS of FEBRUARY 23, 2022: Planning Commission Agenda I'l nnin« Commission Minutes Planning Commission Staff Report EXHIBITS: 1. Project Chronology 2. Notice of City Council Hearing 3. Original Petition 4. Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2022 (Amending the zoning of property located at approximately 858 West and 860 West Hoyt Place from R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located approximately 858 West and 860 West Hoyt Place from R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01073. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission")held a public hearing on February 23, 2022 on an application submitted by Bert Holland ("Applicant"), property owner representative, to rezone property located at 858 West and 860 West Hoyt Place(Tax ID No. 08-35-405-016 and 08-35-405-015), which is more particularly described in Exhibit"A" attached hereto, (the "Property") from R-1/5,000 Single Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01073 (the "Petition"); and WHEREAS, at its February 23, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on the Petition; and WHEREAS, following 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 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-115,000 Single Family Residential District to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential District. SECTION 2. 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 APPROVED AS TO FORM (SEAL) Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date:4/25/22 Bill No. of 2022. By: Published: Hannah Vickery,Senior Cit Attorney Ordinance rezoning 858 W and 860 W Hoyt Place EXHIBIT A Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned: 858 W Hoyt Place Tax ID No. 08-35-405-016 1126 COM 2 RDS N & 175 FT E FR SW COR LOT 4, BLK 70, PLAT C S L C SUR; E 37.5 FT; N 148.5 FT; W 37.5 FT; S 148.5 FT TO BEG 4575-0593 6288-2050 6290-1341 860 W Hoyt Place Tax ID No. 08-35-405-015 0831 BEG 2 RDS N & 100 FT E FR SW COR LOT 4 BLK 70 PLAT C SLC SUR E 75 FT N 9 RDS W 75 FT S 9 RDS TO BEG 5492-2638 6092-2114 6716-2969,2971 8902-3027,3028 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: PLNPCM2021-01079—858 W & 860 W Hoyt Place Zoning Map Amendment October 22, 2021 Petition for the zoning map amendment received by the Salt Lake City Planning Division November 16, 2021 Petition assigned to Amanda Roman, Principal Planner, for staff analysis and processing. December 14, 2021 Information about the proposal was sent to the Chair of the Fairpark Community Council in order to solicit public comments and start the 45-day Recognized Organization input and comment period. December 14, 2021 Staff hosted an online Open House to solicit public comments on the proposal. The Online Open House period started on December 14, 2021 and ended on February 1, 2022. December 15, 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. February 1, 2022 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. February 10, 2022 Public notice posted on City and State websites and sent via the Planning list serve for the Planning Commission meeting of February 23, 2022. Public hearing notice mailed. February 10, 2022 Public hearing notice sign with project information and notice of the Planning Commission public hearing physically posted on the property. February 23, 2022 The Planning Commission held a Public Hearing on February 23, 2022. By a majority vote of 7-0, the Planning Commission forwarded a Positive recommendation to City Council for the proposed zoning map change. 2. Notice of City Council Public Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-01073 — 858 W and 860 W Hoyt Place Zoning Map Amendment— Salt Lake City has received a request from Bert Holland of Hoyt Place Development LLC, representing the property owner, to amend the zoning map for the properties located at 858 W and 860 W Hoyt Place from R-1/5,000(Single-Family Residential) to SR-3 (Special Development Pattern Residential District). The two lots are approximately .39 acres (16,988 square feet). The intent of the rezone request is to allow for the redevelopment of the parcels. The Master Plan is not being changed. The property is located within Council District 2, represented by Alejandro Puy. 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: 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 Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at(801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments(it slcao-,.coo. 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 Amanda Roman at 801-535-7660 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at arilanda.roman(cislc�-,ov.com. The application details can be accessed at hops: citizen )rtal.slcg v.com , by selecting the "Planning" tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2021-01073. 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 coliricil.corrimcnts(u(slcov.eom, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 3. Original Petition Y YY YYYY4 tltJJ JR Zoning Amendment till: ® Amend the text of the Zoning Ordinance Amend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY T� Received By: Date Received: Project#: PLNPCM2021 -01073 Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION Address of Subject Property (or Area): 858 W HOYT PLACE AND 860 W HOYT PLACE Name of Applicant: Phone: Bert Holland 505-303-8579 Address of Applicant: 628 North Pugsley St E-mail of Applicant: Cell/Fax: bert.theaiconsult@gmail.com Fax 801-206-3445 Applicant's Interest in Subject Property: ® Owner ® Contractor ® Architect Q Other: Name of Property Owner(if different from applicant): Hoyt Place Development LLC E-mail of Property Owner: Phone: bert.theaiconsult@gmail.com 505-303-8579 Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings,for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at Loning@slcfov.com prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment:filing fee of$1,075 plus$121 per acre in excess of one acre Text Amendment:filing fee of$1,075, plus fees for newspaper notice. Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Noticing fees will be assessed after the application is submitted. SIGNATURE 4 If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: See Attached October 7, 2021 Updated 8/21/2021 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS Cr v v V1 1. Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) ElI ✓ A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. ✓❑ A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. ✓ List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. IIs the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal.There is a ste -b -ste uide to learn how to submit online. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED BH I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. Updated 8/21/2021 January 20, 2022 Salt Lake City Planning Ms. Amanda Roman 541 South State Street Salt Lake City, UT. 84111 RE: Hoyt Place Zone Change 2021 Introduction Hoyt Place Zone Change 2021 is a continuation of the previously approved Hoyt Place Zone Change. Background The subject properties are the parcels located at 858 West Hoyt Place and 860 West Hoyt Place. The subject properties are part of the Hoyt Place Planned development as described in the Salt Lake City Staff Report from July 6, 2017 Re: PLNSUB2017-00324 Planned Development and PLNSUB2017-00504 Preliminary Subdivision. In the Staff Report Hoyt Place currently provides access to 14 parcels; four of which contained occupied single-family dwellings. The remaining parcels are vacant. Hoyt Place also provides rear access to several properties facing 800 West. Most of the necessary improvements are installed. The street is currently improved with new asphalt, sewer, water, curb, gutter, and the main gas line. Utility access to all existing and vacant parcels has been stubbed and or planned for. Several of the properties at Hoyt Place were previously rezoned to SR-3 Special Development Pattern Residential in 2016 to accommodate the type of development being implemented. Details Hoyt Place Zone Change 2021 includes two (2) parcels that total approximately .39 acres. (See attached in red outline) The subject properties include: - 860 W. Hoyt Place to SR3 o BEG 2 RDS N & 100 FT E FR SW COR LOT 4 BLK 70 PLAT C SLC SURE 75 FT N 9 RDS W 75 FT S 9 RDS TO BEG 5492-2638 6092-2114 6716-2969,2971 8902- 3027,3028 9181-4781 - 858 W. Hoyt Place to SR3 o COM 2 RDS N & 175 FT E FR SW COR LOT 4, BLK 70, PLAT C S L CSUR; E 37.5 FT; N 148.5 FT; W 37.5 FT; S 148.5 FT TO BEG 4575-0593 6288-2050 6290-1341 The purpose of the rezone allows for more flexibility in housing options through development of the inner block. It also implements the guidance found in the 800 West Station Area Plan by changing the zoning to a district created for development of interior residential blocks. The rezone decision 2016 was made by the City Council with the acknowledgement and expectation the Planning Commission will review any proposal for development and meet the requirements and standards for Planned Developments as well as the purposes of SR-3 districts. The proposed development is consistent with the purpose statement of the SR-3 district that calls for a medium-density zoning district that provides "a variety of housing types, in scale with the character of development located within the interior portions of city blocks". This proposal contains single-family homes with multiple floor plan options that can and will meet the needs of the diverse population. The Planned Development objectives and standards are being met by promoting greater efficiency in use of the land, utility services, and transportation systems. The proposed incremental increase in density utilizes the land to a more efficient degree than would otherwise be found in the area. In addition, the location of the proposed development is approximately 1 ,600 feet legal walking distance from the Jackson/Euclid TRAX station and provides access to bicycle lanes on 900 West that connect to 300 North bike lanes that lead to downtown. Conclusion The rezoning and current development proposal on Hoyt Place directly follows the direction set in the North Temple Boulevard1800 West Station Plan. The housing options proposed by the project are identified as examples in the plan for infill of stable areas in the plan area. In addition, the guidance of the 800 West Station Area Plan calls for infill development at the proposed location specifically. That plan includes language that calls for increases in density at an increment that is meant to be compatible with the surrounding neighborhood. In addition, these housing options are also consistent with the goals found in the citywide plan: Plan Salt Lake, with the second initiative of the Plan Salt Lake housing section being to "Increase the number of medium density housing types and options." Not only does the proposed development meet the guidance of these plans closely, it is also important to note Hoyt Place is one block North of the Jackson Euclid TRAX station, bicycle lanes on 900 West that connect to downtown, and multiple shopping amenities, schools, recreation opportunities within one half mile. Thank you for your consideration. Sincerely, Bert Holland Hoyt Place Development LLC Attachments: Maps Labels Em Em Em Em Currently: Rl-5000 r -Proposed-, Hoyt PI ,WYL r, 1 is DO 'k j "AL Wen, WWI , ne Place, Zo-, 1414 Shicer Da R i�&'ins,WoC Datedthl*s -L7da Printed Name* T'.1-d e' , (if ty 0 L .4P A off .01 Y, IL 4. Mailing List OWN_FULL_NAME OWN_ADDR own—unit OWN—CITY OWN_STA'OWN ZIP SALT LAKE NEIGHBORHOOD HOUSING SERVICES,INC 622 W 500 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TUAN TRAN 569 N 300 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 MADDOX FAMILY TRUST 10/24/2018 8250 S 1950 W WEST JORDAN UT 84088 JESUS CASTRELLON 259 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 DANIEL B HANSEN;SHARANN P HANSEN(JT) 255 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 RAUL PINA-S(1T) 251 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 PAUL F HAMILTON 64809 MCDERMOTT RD DEER ISLAND OR 97054 LARRY GALLEGOS;STELLA GALLEGOS(1T) 239 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 LUCIA MIRAMONTES 235 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 DOUGLAS E ANDRUS 61 BENCHMARK VLG TOOELE UT 84074 ELIZABETH ELLEN HAWKE;CRAIG D GRAVES(1T) 221 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SERGIO SANTILLAN;GREGORIA FLORES SANTILLAN(JT) 217 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JAIME E CENDEJAS 271 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 WILLIAM K REAGAN 1775 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JORDAN MENDENHALL;LORI B MENDENHALL(JT) 868 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 WILLIAM J CONROY;MARIN CHRISTENSEN(JT) 864 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 WORLDWIDE GOSPEL CHURCH 4795 S CHENTELLE DR TAYLORSVILLE UT 84129 TRACY K GRAHAM;SHARON C GRAHAM(JT) 854 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TRENTON YOUNG 850 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JOSE T TAFOLLA 962 W 200 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JO ANN O TWISDALE;TOMMY M TWISDALE(TC) PO BOX 16915 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SMITH FAMILY TRUST 10/29/2019 331 PARK VIEW CIR BOUNTIFUL UT 84010 LM TR 246 N 600 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ROSA D NEGRETE;PATTY CARDENAS(1T) 845 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 LLB IRR TR 403 N 1300 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MCCALL CHRISTENSEN 837 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 PERRY E SPIGHT;MARGARET SPIGHT(JT) 846 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JASON S HARDELL 266 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JORDAN K GREENE;AMANDA MALLORY FOSTE(1T) 260 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 258N 900W,A SERIES OF RC1 PROPERTIES,LLC 267 E EAGLE RIDGE DR NORTH SALT LAKE UT 84054 JENNIFER SIMPSON 250 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 EDWARD DEL RIO 246 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 HOYT PLACE DEVELOPMENT LLC 628 N PUGSLEY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84103 TRUMAN MARKETING LLC PO BOX 294 LAYTON UT 84041 APOLO T MAUAI;THELMA MAUAI(JT) 230 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MATT MERTLICH 228 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TANNER KNIGHT 696 E SPRUCE GLEN RD MURRAY UT 84107 JOSE SANCHEZ 216 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 AMBER SECKLETSTEWA;ERIC SECKLETSTEWA(JT) 859 W HOYT PL SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED 8022 S STREAM VIEW DR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84093 878-880 WEST 200 NORTH LLC 1590 N MANDALAY RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 MICHAEL WOLF HOFFMAN 872 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 PETER M LASUO 866 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 RODNEY&MERILEE SABINO LIVING TRUST 05/19/2020 1064 E 400 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84102 ARMANDO MIRANDA;ROSALBA MIRANDA(JT) 858 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ALFONSO JR.ULIBARRI 852 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SARA PARKER 840 W 200 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 J&S PROPERTY DEVELOPMENT,LLC 7318 S RACQUET CLUB DR COTTONWOOD HTS UT 84121 SWW LV TRST 234 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ARAM NASR 236 N 900 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 795 WASATCH PROPERTIES,LLC 4122 S 500 W MURRAY UT 84123 960 W.,LC PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 DURAEL SPIGHT;JESSICA SPIGHT(JT) 821 W 300 N SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 BERNADETTE DESCHINE 257 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ANTONIO J VALDEZ;MELODY A VALDEZ(JT) 121 S JEREMY ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MARICRUZ L VARGAS 247 N 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 PAWPURR UT ALPHA,LLC 11257 S TRENT DR SOUTH JORDAN UT 84095 ORSON T PORTER;MARISA L PORTER(1T) 371 E RENA AVE MIDVALE UT 84047 Current Occupant 285 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 267 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 263 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 247 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 231 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 872 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 862 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 848 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 274 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 867 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 861 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 849 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 841 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 833 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 831 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 258 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 860 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 858 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 824 W HOYT PL Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 220 N 900 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 878 W 200 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 862 W 200 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 834 W 200 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 830 W 200 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 251 N 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 241 N 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 235 N 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84116 Current Occupant 829 W 300 N Salt Lake City UT 84116 Item 133 .•••`�" " ``• MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE: August 9, 2022 RE: 805 South 800 West Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2021-01077 MOTION i (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.FOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 i COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tzfl T Item Schedule: Briefing:July 19, 2022 TO: City Council Members Set Date:July 19,2022 Public Hearing:August 9,2022 Potential Action:August 16,2022 FROM• Brian Fullmer 15i Policy Analyst DATE: August 9, 2022 RE: 805 South 800 West Zoning Map Amendment PLNPCM2021-01077 BRIEFING UPDATE At the July 19, 2022 briefing, Council Members expressed general support for the proposed zoning map amendment. Questions focused on the Planning Commission's recommendation to change the original request for R-MU-45 to R-MU-35, on-site parking, and an anticipated price point of the for-sale homes. The petitioner addressed the Council stating due to overhead electrical lines, a four-story building is not feasible, and he is comfortable with the current proposed R-MU-35 zoning designation. Based on initial plans for the property,four on-site parking stalls are anticipated in the potential development, and homes are expected to be priced at approximately$400,000. It should be noted a site plan has not been submitted to the City to date and this information could change. The following information was provided for the August 17, 2021 Council briefing.R is provided again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for property located at 805 South 800 West in City Council District Two from M-1(Light Manufacturing)to R-MU-35 (Residential Mixed- Use)to potentially construct a multi-family or attached single-family development on the vacant o.11-acre parcel.The petitioner indicated the units would be for sale at an attainable price point. Other parcels on the block bordered by 800 South, 700 West,Genesee Avenue, and 800 West are all zoned M-1. Uses are mainly light commercial and light industrial except for four single-family homes immediately CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 south of the subject parcel. South of Genesee Avenue to goo South parcels are zoned M-1 and R-MU. Welfare Square, owned by The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,is located on the north side of Boo South between 700 West and Boo West. It is also zoned M-1. Parcels west of the subject parcel are a mix of R-MU-35 and R-1/5,000. Please see the area zoning map below. The petitioner originally requested R-MU-45 zoning based on discussions with Planning staff. During the Planning Commission meeting, concerns with R-MU-45 zoning were expressed by Commissioners.The applicant stated he is comfortable with changing the requested zoning designation to R-MU-35,which is what was forwarded to the Council for consideration. No one spoke at the March 23, 2022 Planning Commission public hearing.The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to amend the zoning map for this parcel to R-MU-35• M-1 I I I I � I R-MU- 5 I R- U- 5 � 8OCR S -MU- 5 00 r7 R-1-5000 Genesee Ave LL_ R-1-5000 L -1 N rRW E R-MU- 5 R-1-50 LM_-1 S Area zoning map with the subject parcel outlined in blue 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 petitioner indicated the units would be for sale at an attainable price point.The Council may wish to ask the petitioner about a range of prices the proposed units are anticipated to sell for. Page 1 2 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. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified two key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 4-7 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis,please see the staff report. Consideration i-Existing City Plan Guidance-Westside Master Plan During development of the Westside Master Plan,resident input noted inconsistent development of industrial and residential uses has an impact on perception of the community.The Plan identifies a need for increased housing supply and more dense housing options, and mixed-use infill on vacant parcels within the 700 West Industrial Corridor. Planning staff believes the proposed rezone is consistent with Westside Master Plan goals. Consideration 2-Compatibility with Adjacent Properties Development Characteristics Along 800 South Development on 800 South is primarily two-story commercial and warehouse buildings with minimal setbacks and landscaping.As noted above,Welfare Square is located on the north side of 800 South.To the west and northwest of the subject parcel,properties fronting 800 South are zoned R-MU-35 and are generally small-scale residential uses which transition to small-scale commercial and multi-family uses closer to the 800 South/goo West community node. Development Characteristics Along 800 West The four nonconforming single-family homes noted above are the other parcels facing 800 West on the east side of this block. Parcels on the west side of 800 West are a combination of R-MU-35 and R-1/5,000 zoning. If the subject parcel is ultimately developed with a residential use,all parcels fronting 800 West on this block would be residential. Development Characteristics Along Genesee Avenue Parcels on the adjacent block south of the subject site are zoned M-1 on the west half and primarily R-MU on the east half, except for two parcels owned by the Summum religious organization. Summum's parcels are zoned M-1.The R-MU parcels were rezoned last year to allow construction of a large-scale residential mixed-use development.The block currently includes a mix of commercial and single-family uses, as well as the Summum parcels. Planning staff is of the opinion the R-MU-35 zoning district development standards are compatible with surrounding properties and development potential of the area. Attachment D(pages 27-28 of the Planning Commission staff report)is a review of the proposal's compliance with City master plans and adopted policies.It states in part: "...the proposal generally complies with the master plan policies for the area by providing the opportunity to add more compatible residential infill along the boo W corridor and along 800 S Page 13 which acts as an important gateway into the broader Westside community. The proximity to neighborhood amenities,Downtown, the Jordan River and the 9 Line Trail all make the area attractive to many residents." Please refer to the staff report for the complete analysis. DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON The following table compares development standards of the current M-1 and proposed R-MU-35 zoning designations. M-1(Existing) R-MU-35 (Proposed) Building Height 65 feet 35 feet (Up to 45 feet through design review.) Front Setback 15 feet Minimum 5 feet,maximum 15 feet for single-family attached,and multi-family residential. Corner Side Yard Setback 15 feet Minimum 5 feet,maximum 10 feet for single-family attached.Minimum 5 feet, maximum 15 feet for multi-family residential. Interior Side Yard None Single-family attached:4 feet required for Setback,corner lot interior side yard that is not a common wall between properties. No setback required for multi-family unless abutting single-or two-family residential district. (Subject parcel is not abutting a residential district.) Rear Setback None 25%of lot depth,or 25 feet whichever is less for single-family attached. 25%of lot depth but need not exceed 30 feet for multi-family. Maximum Building None None Coverage Minimum Open Space None required 20%for residential and mixed-use including residential. ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment E(pages 29-31)of the Planning Commission staff report outlines 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 Complies the purposes,goals,objectives,and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the Complies specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. Page 14 The extent to which a proposed map amendment will Complies affect adjacent properties Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with Not applicable the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay (not within any zoning districts which may impose additional standards. zoning overlays) The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to Complies 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. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • November 3, 2021-Applications submitted. • December 6, 2021-Petition assigned to Brooke Olson, Principal Planner. • January 28, 2022-Notice sent to Poplar Grove Community Council and surrounding neighbors and property owners. • February 23, 2022-Applicant and Planning staff met with Poplar Grove Community Council. • March 10, 2022-Sign posted on subject property. • March 11, 2022-Public hearing notice sent and posted to City website. • March 14, 2022-Public input period closed. • March 23, 2022-Planning Commission public hearing.With the applicant's acceptance of the modified request,the Commission forwarded a positive recommendation to amend the zoning map for the subject property from M-1 to R-MU-35 to the City Council. • April 28, 2022-Draft ordinance information sent to Attorney's Office. • May 11, 2022-Signed ordinance received from the Attorney's Office. • May 13, 2022-Transmittal received in City Council Office. Pale 5 ERIN MENDENHALL L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor �` ' and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas ng k1t7 c/1= Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 5/13/2022 Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 5/13/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 12, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community &Neighborhoods SUBJECT: Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 805 South 800 West(Petition Number PLNPCM2021-01077) STAFF CONTACT: Brooke Olson, Principal Planner brooke.olson(c�slc�ov.co or(801)-535-7118 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council follow the recommendation from the Planning Commission and approve the requested zoning map amendment. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUNDIDISCUSSION: This is a request by Jake Billitteri and Jordan Atkin on behalf of the property owner, to amend the Salt Lake City Zoning Map from M-1 Light Manufacturing to R-MU-45 Residential Mixed Use at approximately 805 S 800 W. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is intended to allow the property owner to accommodate a multi-family or an attached single-family development. No development plans have been submitted by the applicant at this time. If the amendment is approved the applicant could develop the site in accordance with the R-MU-45 zoning standards. The request did not require a master plan amendment. The Planning Commission reviewed the request for R-MU-45 at a public hearing on March 23, 2022. The Commission determined the R-MU-35 Zoning District would be a more appropriate zoning designation for the subject property than the requested R-MU-45 zoning. With the applicant's acceptance of the modified request, the Commission voted unanimously to forward a SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION WWW.SLC.GOV 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 404 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 P.O.BOX 145486,SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 p0iitvrecommendation m the City Council m amend the zoning map for the property from M- ! to R-MU-3 805 S 800 W Vicill*tY. Map a � w© f !s } � ! Subject f7� e Property � § , < Zonin»_s f w, w*_ g \ R-1/5,_ agoe-ra%a_ w ` - � R-_ _ bve a + We Salt Lake City P� migDivision,z729: 22 PUBLIC PROCESS: • January 28,2022- An early notification was sent to the Poplar Grove Community Council and all residents and property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. • February 23, 2022 - The applicant and staff met with the Poplar Grove Community Council to present the project and gather feedback from the community. The Community Council provided a letter of opposition for the project. • March 23, 2022 - The Planning Commission held a public hearing and with the applicant's acceptance of the modified request, forwarded a positive recommendation to amend the zoning map for the subject property from M-1 to R-MU-35 to the City Council for their review and decision. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) NC of March 23, 2022 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of March 23 2022 (Click to Access) c) (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Hearing 3) Notice Letter to Recognized Community Organizations 4) Notice Letter to Neighbors 5) Original Petition 6) Mailing List SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2022 (Amending the zoning of property located at approximately 805 South 800 West from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District) An ordinance amending the zoning map pertaining to property located approximately 805 South 800 West from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01077. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission (the "Planning Commission") held a public hearing on March 23, 2022 on an petition submitted by Jake Billitteri and Jordan Atkin to rezone property located at 805 South 800 West (Tax ID No. 15-11-276-001) (the "Property") from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01077 (the "Petition"); WHEREAS, at its March 23, 2022 meeting, the Planning Commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council (the "City Council") on the Petition; and WHEREAS, after holding 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 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 located at 805 South 800 West, and as more particularly described in Exhibit "A" attached hereto, shall be and hereby is rezoned from M-1 Light Manufacturing District to R-MU-35 Residential/Mixed Use District. SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance 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 APPROVED AS TO FORM (SEAL) Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date:5/11/22 Bill No. of 2022. By: Published: Hannah Vickery,Senior City Attorney Ordinance rezoning 805 S 800 W EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description of Property to be Rezoned: 805 S 800 W Tax ID No. 15-11-276-001 COM AT NW COR LOT 5 BLK 2 PLAT C SLC SUR E 39 FT S 125 FT W 39 FT N 125 FT TO BEG 5822-2782 5829-0899 5893-0538 5976-0649 1 . Project Chronology Project Chronoloff Zoning Map Amendment at approximately 805 South 800 West—PLNPCM2021-01077 November 3, 2021 Jake Billitteri on behalf of TAG SLC, LLC filed the Zoning Map Amendment application. The subject property is located at 805 South and 800 West and encompasses approximately 0.11 acres (4,792 square feet). December 6,2021 Application assigned to Brooke Olson,Principal Planner. January 28, 2022 Sent notifications to Popular Grove Community Council and surrounding neighbors and property owners. February 23, 2022 Applicant and Staff met with Poplar Grove Community Council. March 10, 2022 Sign posted on subject property. March 11, 2022 Public hearing notice sent out and posted to city website. March 14,2022 Public input period closed. March 23,2022 The Planning Commission held a public hearing and with the applicant's acceptance of the modified request, forwarded a positive recommendation to amend the zoning map for the subject property from M-1 to R-MU-35 to the City Council for their review and decision. 12022 Signed ordinance received from City Attorney's Office. 2. Notice of City Council Nearing NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-01077—On behalf of TAG SLC, LLC, Jake Billitteri, is requesting to amend the Zoning Map for the property located at approximately 805 S 800 W. The proposal would rezone the property from M-1 Light Manufacturing to R-MU-45 Residential Mixed Use Zoning District. The subject parcel is approximately .11 acres or 4,792 square feet. Future development plans were not submitted with this application. The property is within Council District 2,represented by Alejandro Puy. (Staff contact: Brooke Olson at 801-535-7118 or brooke.olson@slcgov.com). Case number: PLNPCM2021-01077 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: TIME: 7:00 pm 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.sle.gov/counciUvirtual-meetings. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at(801) 535-7654 or sending an email to council.comments@sicgov.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 Brooke Olson at 801-535-7118 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m.,Monday through Friday, or via e-mail at brooke.olson@slcgov.com. The application details can be accessed at https://citizenportal.slcgov.com/,by selecting the "planning"tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2021-01077. 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. 3. Notice Letter to Recognized Community Organizations Recognized Organization Input Notification 805 South 800 West — Zoning Map Amendment TO: Esther Stowell, Poplar Grove Community Council FROM: Brooke Olson,Associate Planner, Salt Lake City Planning Division (brooke,olson,0,Acgov.con) or(801)-535-7118) DATE: January 28, 2022 RE: Zoning Map Amendment (PLNPCM2021-01077) The Planning Division has received the below request and is 805 S 800 W Vicinity Map notifying your organization to solicit comments on the proposal: Request Type: Zoning Map Amendment Location:Approximately 805 South 800 West -0 Current Zone: M-1 Light Manufacturing V Proposed Zone: R-MU-45 Residential Mixed use Request Description: A request by Jake Billetteri, representing the owner of the property, to amend the zoning map for the property located at approximately 805 S 800 W (Parcel 15-11-276-oo1-0000). The proposal would rezone the property from M-1 Light Manufacturing to R-MU-45 Residential Mixed Use Zoning District.The subject lot is approximately.11 acres or 4,792 square feet. The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is intended to allow the property owner to accommodate a multi-family development.Future development plans were not submitted with this application. Zoning Map amendment requests require a recommendation from the Planning Commission and final approval from the City Council. I have attached information submitted by the applicant relating to the project to facilitate your review. Salt lake City Planning D,01 1 T7,2022 Request for Input from Your Recognized Organization As part of this process,the applicant is required to solicit comments from Recognized Organizations. The project is within the boundaries of the Poplar Grove Community Council area.The purpose of the Recognized Organization review is to inform the community of the project and solicit comments/concerns they have with the project. The Recognized Organization may also take a vote to determine whether there is support for the project,but this is not required. Per City Code 2.6o-050-The recognized community organization chair(s)have forty five(45) days to provide comments,from the date the notice was sent. A public hearing will not be held,nor will a final decision be made about the project within the forty five (45) day notice period.This notice period ends on the following day: March 14, 2022 Comment Guidance Public comments will be received up to the date of the Planning Commission public hearing. However, you should submit your organization's comments within 45 days of receiving this notice in order for those comments to be included in the staff report. As a Recognized Organization,we ask that you address the following questions in your comments: • What issues were raised at the meeting and whether any suggestions were made to address the issues. • The number of persons that attended the meeting (not including those with the applicant or City Staff). • Whether a vote was taken on the matter and if so,what the vote tally was. Comment Submission Address You may submit your written comments via e-mail to brookc.olsonl�(j>s�ov.com 21LA. 5o.o5o: Standards for Zoning Map Amendments 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: 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; 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and 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. 4. Notice Letter to Neighbors •t1" t+•.. EARLY NOTIFICATION OF A PROJECT IN THE NEIGHORHOOD n ' Zoning 805 S Soo W (Parcel * 1.5-1.1.-27 a-om-0000 ,'fit ♦, Ja }�$.ry 2 , 2022 SUMMARY OF THE PROPOSAI. Salt Lake City has received a request from Jake Billetteri, property owner representative, to amend the zoning map for the property located at approximately 805 S 800 W. The proposal would rezone the property from M-i Light Manufacturing to R-MU-45 Residential Mixed Use Zoning District.The subject lot is approximately.11 acres or 4,792 square feet.The proposed amendment to the Zoning Map is intended to allow the property owner to accommodate a multi-family development. Future development plans were not submitted with this application. PLANNING STEPS • The Planning Division is in the process of obtaining public comment on this project to help identify concerns and issues from the public. • The project will be posted to the Online Open House webpage on February 7, 2022 where comments maybe submitted httLs:/f ,.Slca ov lannin 11bit.1 slc- openhouse-o1o°73. • This early public input period will expire on Monday March 14,2022.The Planning Commission public hearing will be scheduled at a future date (no earlier than March 14, 2022). You will receive an additional notification at that time. • The Planning Commission will make a recommendation to the City Council. • The City Council will make a final decision on the request. The purpose of this notice is to make you aware of the proposed Rezone and let you know how you may obtain more information about and comment on the project early in the review process. Additionally, notice of this application has been sent to the Poplar Grove Community Council Chair, Esther Stowell. Please contact esther.stowell,,Do)Iargro veslc.Org for more information on whether the Council will discuss the petition at an upcoming meeting. APPROVAL CRITERILA FOR.THE ZONING MAP AMENDMENT REQUEST 21A.50.050: STANDARDS FOR GENERAL AMENDMENTS: 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; 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and 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. If you would like additional information,please contact the project planner, Brooke Olson at(8o1)535-7118 or bt,00ke.olson,trt-j)s]CLY()V,C()M. You may also find information online at by clicking under"Planning"and typing in the petition number referenced below. CASE NUMBER: PLNPCM202:t-O:tO77 805 S 800 W Vicinity Map 751 ti 411 757 55 Z-in D.Mtr�ts W1 Lig"MOwtg RA15,000 SagAe-FavRdtt R-W R&t.1/1Vd U R-W-35 Rdi.11Mid U.. Salt Lake City Planning Division 1/27/2022 5. Original Petition Project Description M-1 to R-MU-45 January 12, 2022 Project Description: Sitting on a .11-acre parcel that is currently unoccupied, the TAG 800 W Development will be multifamily or attached single-family project in an area of the city that is transitioning away from industrial towards residential and mixed uses. TAG 800 W will work closely with a team of architects to ensure that the new structure has a welcoming and worthy design for the neighborhood gateway in which it will be located.The project's scale will be compatible with surrounding properties, while offering additional density in a quickly changing area of the city where it is very much needed. The project's close proximity to public transit, other new developments that will offer shopping opportunities and the Westside recreational hub on the Jordan River, offers a rare chance to develop in a location that has it all without requiring the destruction of any existing structures. As noted in several City Master Plans and documents, the location of TAG 800 W is perceived in a negative light by the Westside community, who no longer want the east-west entries to their neighborhood to necessitate travel through industrial zones. TAG 800 W will contribute to the transition of this area. Units at TAG 800 W will be modest in size and obtainable for young families and those who wish to age in place,thereby contributing to the unique social fabric of the neighborhood context in which the project will be embedded. The current M-1 zoning is not congruent with the stated goals of the city, which has recognized the need for additional housing on the Westside, particularly in 700 W Corridor where the project will be located.The requested zone amendment is supported by the following City documents: Westside Master Plan Growing SLC: A 5 Year Housing Plan Plan Salt Lake Background: The most recent Westside Master Plan composed in 2014 provides a description of a dynamic neighborhood facing growing pains not unlike those seen in the rest of the Salt Lake Valley. However, the Plan also recognizes the unique challenges faced by the area such as physical barriers to the rest of the city and poor placement of industrial development, in the past, which created pockets of industrial zoning that surround Westside neighborhoods on 3 of their 4 sides. Additionally, the Plan discussed current residential land utilization, which is mostly (89%) low and very low-density single family, as a barrier to sustainable growth. Average family size in Westside neighborhoods was 1 member larger than family sizes seen in other parts of the city, a fact that is partially attributable to past development patterns creating a situation where it is difficult for young families to obtain affordable housing. Higher density housing development in parts of the neighborhood that were once zoned for different uses, particularly industrial uses are recognized in the Plan as one way of making a dent in this problem. The Westside of Salt Lake City has traditionally been difficult to access from other parts of the city. This was historically due to the development of railroad tracks effectively cutting off the Westside, a problem that was only exacerbated when the highway system placed elevated sections of roadway in spots that created additional physical barriers to Westside neighborhoods. Proximity to railway and highway access attracted manufacturing businesses to what is now the eastern end of Westside neighborhoods, adding another barrier, that while not physical like the highways or railroads, contributed to a sense of isolation from the rest of the city. In the most recent Master Plan for Westside neighborhoods, strategically altering uses in the gateway areas and encouraging public transit was noted as a means of addressing the literal and figurative sense of separation between the Westside and the rest of the city. In the years since the Westside Master Plan was composed, the explosive growth of the Salt Lake region has continued. Recognizing that the Westside's disadvantageous uses of extensive R-1 zoning has led to stagnation of the population despite growth in other parts of the city, growing the housing stock of the area is necessary. With the pandemic in 2020, the housing market entered an unprecedented crunch as people sought out homes bolstered by low interest rates. The Westside has not been unaffected by these trends, seeing high levels of appreciation, this has been particularly true in areas with large low density lots, making many single-family homes on the Westside unobtainable for folks without equity from a previous home. Adding density on an underutilized lot would contribute to addressing these issues while simultaneously advancing the City's vision of a Westside with welcoming gateways into the community. Proposed Project and Compliance with Salt Lake City Policy Directives: Located on a vacant industrial lot on the corner of 800 S and 800 W, the TAG 800 W development will be built on land that is currently in every sense of the word underutilized. The TAG 800 W development is the ideal use for this parcel as it will create a project that is in alignment with City policies for the area, especially ones that emphasize the conversion of industrial land into development that serves as a more attractive entry into Westside neighborhoods and increases housing stock by providing higher density options. It is our intention to leverage our talented architectural team to design a project that blends modern elements with those that pay homage to the surrounding neighborhood. We will strive to create a project that contributes to the sense of"place" that comes with being on the Westside and encourages residents to interact with the larger neighborhood. The location of the property on a gateway arterial (800 S), with few neighboring properties (1 house and 1 vacant lot) and an abundance of public transit options and amenities make this site well suited for higher density residential development. Our project is aligned with the vision of City master plans both citywide and specifically for Westside neighborhoods. We look forward to moving our project ahead and collaborating with the city to ensure that this development contributes to positive growth in the area. The Westside Master Plan, adopted in 2014, outlines several broad goals and offers suggestions for how to achieve them throughout the document. The TAG 800 W project is located in the 700 West Industrial Corridor, an area highlighted as being in need of redevelopment and heavier utilization by the Master Plan. Moreover,the proximity to a regional, a recreational and two neighborhood nodes will ensure that our project has an abundance of recreational and commercial resources nearby to support resident's work, entertainment, and play. The proposed redevelopment of a vacant industrial lot to create an attractive high-density residential building aligns with the goals, policies, and statements of the Westside Master Plan. Specifically, regarding developments like the TAG 800 W the Westside Master Plan outlines the following: Goals-The most recent Westside Master Plan included several goals that if accomplished would help to achieve the broader vision of the Plan. Our project will make contributions to the community that are relevant to two goals,these are discussed in detail below. • "Protect and encourage ongoing investment in existing, low density residential neighborhoods while providing attractive, compatible and high-density residential development where needed, appropriate or desired."-This will be a moderate-density residential development in an area that is suitable for it. The project is near public transit (509, 513 and 9 Line stops all within 1 mile) which will minimize its impact on traffic in the area and bolster utilization of public transit. Additionally, the project will be located in an area that has seen increasing commercial, mixed and moderate-density residential uses over the last several years. We are confident that this location will provide amenities for future residents to enjoy. Finally, the project abuts another abandoned parcel and a single-family residence that is on a M-1 lot, thereby minimizing the number of parcels that will be directly impacted by a moderate-density neighbor, especially given that the project will be separated from the R-MU-35 parcels across the 800 W by an extra wide street with a landscaped median. The characteristics of our project clearly provide a higher density residential development in an area where it is needed, appropriate and desired according to details provided in the Westside Master Plan.A fact that is further driven home by the parcel being indicated for residential uses in the future land uses map. • "Strengthen the connections both within and between the Westside and other parts of Salt Lake City by improving the community's gateways and corridors and strengthening the transportation network for all modes of travel."- As noted above, our project will be strategically located in an area that optimizes potential for community engagement, public transit utilization and improves 800 S as a gateway into Westside neighborhoods. The building will be a marked improvement from the current vacant lot, serving as a more welcoming entry into a neighborhood that is not well reflected by its industrial entryway. By allowing a moderate-density zoning code near several public transit options, including the 509 Bus which provides regular service along the 900 W Corridor identified as a "Corridor of change" by the Master Plan, our project will increase utilization and connectivity in the Westside of Salt Lake. The Potential-The Westside Master Plan discusses several ways in which the city might consider unlocking the potential of the neighborhood. This section of the document recognizes the challenges that come with continuing to house a growing population in a neighborhood that is dominated by single family homes. Infill is discussed in this section and the proposed project complies with the suggestions of this section. • "Regulations for infill development are guided primarily by compatibility with the existing neighborhood fabric,which includes elements like height, bulk, setbacks, architecture, landscaping and building materials.This development will not change the character of the neighborhood."-TAG 800 W will be designed by a team of talented architects who will ensure that the project serves as a worthy transition from the more industrial/commercial development to the East and the single-family residential development to the West. We are requesting a rezone to a code that has height and bulk typical of the M-1 zone but will use the density this affords to create a high concept development that features modern building materials and architecture. The TAG 800 W Development will meld the influences of its neighbors to the east and west to fit and enhance the character of the broader neighborhood. Moreover,the separation provided by 800 W between the proposed site and single family residences on R-MU-35 zoned properties provides adequate buffering and an appropriate stepdown between the TAG 800 W Development and these properties, especially as they are likely to be redeveloped with greater density over time. A New Vision-700 W Corridor-The Westside Master Plan recognized issues with manufacturing and industrial zoning directly abutting residential neighborhoods, forming an unwelcoming entryway into Westside neighborhood. The proposed project lays on one of the corners of the manufacturing zone and will be a distinct improvement. • "Between 800 S and 1700 S,there are approximately 75 acres of land on either side of this segment of the corridor that are vacant or underdeveloped. Assuming any individual site is not contaminated and with the appropriate building configurations and buffering from the railroad corridor, this land could be redeveloped as multi-family housing."-The proposed project will be built on an abandoned lot located within this zone. Our site will be assessed for contamination prior to the construction of residential units. Given its distance from the railroad, the proposed project is a suitable addition to the corridor according to the Master Plan. Moreover, the proposed increase in density will simultaneously ensure that the land is appropriately utilized while also providing an appropriate building configuration to serve as a transition between industrial/commercial properties to the east and residential properties to the west. The project and the rezone necessary to make it possible are in keeping with the new vision for the 700 W corridor outlined in the Master Plan. Gateways-The Westside Master Plan recognized that there are only a handful of east-west roadways that serve as entryways into the community. TAG 800 W will be located on one of the roads that serves as a Westside community gateway. • "The topic of gateways and their current condition was a frequent point of discussion in public meetings, and some residents believed strongly that the gateways influenced how people felt about their community. The three gateways that were most commonly cited were 800 S, 900 S and 1300 S."-The location of our project on one of the thoroughfares serving as an entry into the Westside offers a unique opportunity to increase housing stock through greater density in an area where doing so will help to improve the aesthetics of the broader neighborhood.The architectural team will work hard to ensure that the project serves as a suitable welcome to the Westside and the elimination of a vacant lot will help to create a greater sense of place in the surrounding area as the Industrial zoning changes and the surrounding properties begin to turn over.TAG 800 W will help to address pressing resident concerns identified in the Master Plan by improving 800 S as an entryway into the Westside. Explore ways to redevelop the 700 W industrial corridor-The Westside Master Plan looks at ways to move forward with the goals of the Plan including exploring ways to develop the 700 W industrial corridor. TAG 800 W will contribute to the redevelopment of this vital area. • "Mixed Use Infill.The Planning Division should consider permitting residential and commercial infill on vacant parcels in the corridor. Any infill development with a residential component shall be contingent upon environmental review. Height and bulk regulations for infill development should be as flexible as they are for other uses in the zoning district in order to achieve high density development (50 or more dwelling units per acre)."-TAG 800 W will be a residential infill project on a vacant parcel in the 700 W industrial corridor.The building will be taller and feature more bulk than the single-family residences to the west, but shorter than what is typically allowed under M-1 zoning, thereby providing another feature which will allow the project to serve as a transition into the neighborhood. By providing a transition into the Westside neighborhood our infill project will provide housing through increased density and will contribute to the reduction of the perceived barrier separating the Westside from the rest of the city. Growing SLC: A 5 Year Housing Plan compiled in 2018, gives an overview into the state of the housing market in Salt Lake City. According to the report, Salt Lake City is facing a dire shortage of housing, particularly housing that allows young people to get started and that allows older residents to age in place in the neighborhoods where they have lived their lives. We are proposing a moderate-density zoning code because the site can support it and that by doing so, we will provide much more housing than alternative options. As we will discuss in greater detail below, TAG 800 W will address several objectives and policy guidelines outlined in the Growing SLC report including ones related to affordability, diverse housing stock and increasing density. • Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city-The pandemic and low interest rates have brought a glut of buyers into the market, spiking prices on the Westside and putting the single-family homes that dominate the Westside out of reach for many residents. TAG 800 W will contribute to the housing stock and by increasing density on the land we will be able to offer a product that is more attainable than what would otherwise be offered. Keeping industrial zoning on a parcel located on a key gateway street does not align with City goals, particularly considering the increasingly dire affordability crisis. Modifying the land-use on TAG 800 W's parcel will contribute to keeping housing more attainable even as the city experiences heavy growth. • Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes (1.1.1).-The TAG 800 W development will be located in close proximity to several significant public transit options, including one that is highlighted in the Master Plan as underpinning a "Corridor of change" on 900 W. Specifically, the project within a mile of the 509, 513 and 9 bus lines. Each of these lines provide access to different parts of the city that provide opportunities for work, play and entertainment. Moreover, the project is close to several pedestrian and bike trails including the Jordan River Trail and the 9 Line Trail.These amenities will allow residents to access other parts of the city via foot and bicycle while minimizing the amount of time on roads with heavy vehicle traffic and poorly protected bike lanes. Nearby transportation amenities will allow residents to access the city without being dependent on their cars. The increased density necessitated by the TAG 800 W will also serve to bolster the utilization of public transit and trails in Salt Lake City. • Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures,while minimizing neighborhood impacts (1.1.2).- Being located in a transition zone separating industrial development to the east and residential development across the extra wide and landscaped 800 W to the west, TAG 800 W is a blank slate that will allow for a meaningful project in a location that has minimal impact on the neighborhood. The city has clearly outlined its intentions of reducing industrial uses in this part of the Westside,TAG 800 W is just one part of that change. As an infill project, TAG 800 W will bring an abandoned lot to life providing single-family attached or multifamily housing, options that while more common in the neighborhood over the last several years, are still far from the dominant housing product available in Westside neighborhoods. The project will accomplish this goal while impacting 1 single-family residence located on an industrially zoned parcel, making it likely to turn over as the area redevelops in line with the vision of the Plan. We will work closely with our construction team to minimize impacts on this neighbor. • Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the city- By allowing for the rezoning of TAG 800 W, the city will facilitate an option for young people and families as well as people desiring to age in place in the community. The project will have the potential to serve as a steppingstone for those leaving the family home for the first time. This is the kind of opportunity that is needed in the area, as highlighted by the Westside Master Plan, average family size on the Westside is larger by 1 member than other parts of the city. This is partially due to the lack of affordable housing options for young families, our project though modest in size will provide an option that is more in reach than single-family homes. The project will also offer an option for older adults by providing a home that has less maintenance than most single- family residences in the area. Thus, our project will truly create an opportunity for lifecycle housing within the Westside community. In Plan Salt Lake a 2015 document outlining policy for the entire city, the need for more dense housing options was discussed in several of the initiatives. The TAG 800 W Development aligns well with goals of Plan Salt Lake, by placing moderate density growth in a place where it is appropriate and will benefit the surrounding area. The TAG 800 W Development will serve to help the city accomplish important citywide goals related to sustainable housing development and growth. Growth Initiatives • Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors. -TAG 800 W will be built in close proximity to existing City infrastructure and amenities. Specifically, the location on 800 W will allow residents access to a major arterial that allows for east-west access under the highway and quick access to highway onramps. Further increasing mobility is the abundance of public transit options available in the area as outlined above. The property is also close to recreational amenities and parks, some of which were highlighted in the Master Plan as the "recreational hub" of the Westside. • Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land. -The land is currently vacant and zoned for industrial in an area of the city where this development pattern is recognized by residents of the community as a detriment to their neighborhood. Being a moderate-density infill project TAG 800 W will allow for a more efficient utilization of the land and provide housing options in an area of the city where they are needed. • Accommodate and promote an increase in the City's population. -The Westside is exhibiting less robust growth than other portions of Salt Lake City, with the Census Tract (1026) where the proposed rezone is located exhibiting a slight decline in population (-.7%). Allowing for greater density in the zoning where TAG 800 W will be built will allow for construction of a project that will better accommodate and promote growth than alternative options. • Provide access to opportunities for a healthy lifestyle (including parks, trails, recreation, and healthy food). -The TAG 800 W Development will be close to resources that allow a healthy lifestyle including the Jordan River Trail,the 9 Line Trail, new mixed- use development, multiple parks, shopping/recreation opportunities and several grocery stores. Housing Initiatives • Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place. -The TAG 800 W project will seek to provide a housing option for Westside residents of all ages. Specifically, the development will attract older residents who seek to age in the neighborhood where they have spent their lives by providing a housing option that is lower maintenance than the single-family homes that dominate the neighborhood. Moreover, the units will be priced in such a way that they will be within reach of this population, especially those selling their current homes. • Direct new growth towards areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented. -The Westside, especially the 700 W industrial corridor is seeing redevelopment including heavy investment in mixed-use, commercial, and higher density residential projects. This trend is creating new potential for residents in the area to engage with a neighborhood that is people-oriented. The location of the TAG 800 W project places it within close distance to other development and areas ripe for future redevelopment that will create a people-oriented entryway into the Westside. • Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.- The parcel on which the TAG 800 W project will be developed is very well suited for an increase in density as it is located on a corner next to another vacant lot where it will minimally disrupt the lives of neighbors. We believe that the location in the 700 W industrial corridor, where the Master Plan acknowledges a transition from traditional uses is necessary, provides an appropriate location for increased density.This density will not disrupt the single family residential on R-MU-35 zoned land to the west but will provide a new housing opportunity in a neighborhood where it is needed. • Promote high density residential in areas served by transit.-The project will be built within a mile of stops for 3 different bus lines.These bus lines provide access to much of the rest of the city. Higher density development near the stops will increase utilization of public transit, while reducing the need of the residents to rely on automobile transportation and mitigating potential parking impacts of the project. Purpose: The purpose of the amendment to the zone map is to work towards better fulfilling the city's stated goals and vision as demonstrated in the Master Plan for the area and other city planning documents. The current zoning code applied to the property is outdated and preventing residential growth in an area that is well suited for it and where it would benefit the city. This is especially true given the characteristics of the lot allowing for more housing without affecting a significant number of neighbors. The proposed development will achieve the goals and purpose of the R-MU-45 zone far more effectively than those of the current M-1 zone. Our team is committed to making this a project that will work not only for future members of the community, but also current community members. Thus, we will be including neighbors in the process of finalizing the formulation of our project to make sure we minimize disturbance and bring as much benefit as possible. We will work with appropriate community bodies to ensure that the project fits the style and intensity of the surrounding neighborhood. Moreover, we will be collaborating with a top-notch architectural team to design a product that the Westside will be proud to have as an addition to their neighborhood. Our team will work with the community to establish that R-MU-45 is the appropriate zoning code for this property. Parcel for Zone Map Amendment: 15-11-276-001 Surrounding Zoning: M-1 Light Manufacturing District; R-MU-35; R-1-5000; R-MU; CB Existing M-1 Zoning Text: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the M-1 Light Manufacturing District is to provide an environment for light industrial uses that produce no appreciable impact on adjacent properties, that desire a clean attractive industrial setting, and that protects nearby sensitive lands and waterways.This zone is appropriate in locations that are supported by the applicable Master Plan policies adopted by the City.This district is intended to provide areas in the City that generate employment opportunities and to promote economic development. The uses include other types of land uses that support and provide service to manufacturing and industrial uses. Safe, convenient and inviting connections that provide access to businesses from public sidewalks, bike paths and streets are necessary and to be provided in an equal way. Certain land uses are prohibited in order to preserve land for manufacturing uses and to promote the importance of nearby environmentally sensitive lands. The use o[the K4-1 zone in this area is not aligned with the city goals laid out in multiple planning documents. The development of industrial uses on the site of TAG 800 W would be far more disruptive to the surrounding neighborhood and provide a more unwelcoming entry to the VVestsidewhen compared to a single-family attached or multifamily project complying with R-MU-45 development requirements. Since the parcel does not abut residentially zoned properties, it could potentially be developed with the minimal setbacks and 65-foot height cap allowed under K4-1 zoning, which would create an appreciable impact on surrounding properties. Moreover, the lot is not large enough for the M-1 code under modern zoning practices adopted in the 90's. The rezone is necessary to ensure that the parcel can serve as a transition into Westside neighborhoods rather than continuing to serve as a barrier. The VVestside is rapidly changing, and a rezone will contribute to more people enjoying the amenities of the area such as the 9-line trail and new restaurants in nearby mixed-use developments. We are asking the city to modernize the zoning on our parcel to align with city plans for the area. Proposed R-MU-45 Zoning Purpose Statement: The purpose statement for the R-K4U-45 zone isasfollows: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose Of the R-W1U-45 Residential/Mixed Use District iSh3 provide areas within the City for mixed use development that pnJ0Ot8S [eSid8DU3| urban neighborhoods containing [eSid8Dd@|. retail, service commercial and small scale office uses. The St@Dd@ndS for the district reinforce the mixed use character of the area and pnD0Ot8 appropriately scaled development that iS pedestrian oriented. The TAG 800 W Development will fit well within the purpose statement of the R-MU-45 zone. The project vvi|| provideanevvhousingtypeinaneighborhoodthatcurrent|yhousesre1ai|, and service commercial within 2 blocks. Moreover, with the introduction of new amenities asthe 9- Line Master Plan is implemented, the area will become increasingly noixed use. Thesite is located in an urban neighborhood that offers proximity totransit options providing access to the rest of the city, as well as nearby commercial nodes. This will allow residents opportunities for work, play, shopping and dining without necessitating a car. The building will be appropriately scaled for the neighborhood, while being taller than some residential properties onR-MU-35 |and, adequaiebuf[eringispnesenttonnitigaietheeffectsoftheproposedheight Moreover, the building's scale will a||nvv it to provide a buffer from industrial/commercial uses while still being shorter than development allowed by the current M-1 zoning code. The developers recognize the importance of 800 S as an arterial and entryway into Westside neighborhoods and as such, will strive to achieve a high concept project. Map Amendments are approved un the basis of several criteria including: w Whether the proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as state through its various adopted planning documents. w The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties w 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 consistency of the proposed amendment with city policies, goals and objectives is discussed above in extensive detail. The amendment is supported by the following documents: VVestside Master Plan Growing SLC: A5 Year Housing Plan Plan Salt Lake The TAG OOOVV project vvi|| providedeve|opmnentthatisbuthsustainab|eandattainab|euna parcel that is currently vacant. This is the latest chapter in the revisioning of the 700 W industrial corridor, as land that was once reserved for industrial uses is repurposed and used to help address the city's increasingly dire housing problem.The location of the proposed development in a gateway corridor that is becoming an increasingly people oriented urban neighburhuudmnaketheparce| idea||ysuitedfortheR-K4U-45zone. K4oreover' addingabuffer between commercial/industrial uses as well as the nearby highway and residences to the west will bring a benefit to nearby neighbors and the broader neighborhood. The current state of the parcel as an abandoned lot has left it open to dumping and other undesirable activities and the development ofa well-designed project comnp|yingvvithR-N4U-45standardsvvuu|drepresent the removal of an eyesore while bringing increased activity and safety to the neighborhood close to several nodes.All of these factors support the rezone by suggesting that a R-MU-45 project on the site would bring significant value by accomplishing city goals and benefit surrounding properties. Though the development team is still in the early phase of formulating the TAG 800 W project, the process of engaging the neighborhood has already started. We have reached out to the owners of the vacant lot to our east via telephone and they are aware of the impacts that our project will have on their property. We will also work with the nearby neighbors to ensure that we minimize the conflicts and problems that active construction often bring. Moreover, we presented about our project at the most recent community council meeting, receiving valuable information about what the community would like to see in the area and what they would like to avoid. We believe that past development viewed negatively by the community council could have been avoided with higher design standards and are ready to hold ourselves to those higher standards. We look forward to continued collaboration with neighbors as the project's design is advanced and will work to ensure that the project will ultimately be something that the neighborhood can be proud of. The current M-1 zoning on the parcel does not advance the city plans outlined in the Westside Master Plan, Growing SLC or Plan Salt Lake. By allowing for a rezone to R-MU-45 the city will modernize the zoning to agree with the goals stated in city documents. As Salt Lake City experiences rapid growth, additional housing will be necessary, and by allowing for density in the 700 W corridor the city will increase attainability of housing while simultaneously minimizing impact on the single-family zoned neighborhoods of the Westside. The TAG 800 W parcel represents an infill opportunity in an area where it is appropriate and desired. By interfacing with other projects nearby to create a more "people-oriented" and engaged neighborhood, the TAG 800 W development will further the purposes of the R-MU-45 code in a way that tremendously benefits the city. 6. Mailing List OWN—FULL—NAME OWN_ADDR OWN_CITY OWN_STAT OWN_ZIP CASSY JONES 766 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 RAYMOND BERTHEAUD 808 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 BRETT M 1EPPSON 843 S 300 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 FAMILY PROMISE-SALT LAKE 814 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 CORP OF PB OF CH JC OF LDS 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST#2225 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 JOSEPH S BARNHURST; LUANAJ BARNHURST(TC) 821 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 HECTOR MARTINEZ-LUGO; MARIA E CENDEJAS(JT) 811 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 RAUL E CERVANTES;JULIA SANTANA(1T) 809 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ADRIANNA GIRON;CECILIA GIRON(JT) 807 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SYLVIA KARINA RIVIAS-SEGURA; RYAN WENDELL GALE(JT) 805 W 800 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 CAMERON BROADBENT 10962 S MANITOU WY SOUTH 1ORDAN UT 84009 MICHAEL D MANNING 816 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 TRUST NOT IDENTIFIED;LYDIA G MCCALL 5674 W PELICAN RIDGE LN WEST VALLEY UT 84118 ROSENDO ZAVALA 801 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 ROBERT B SHELDON PO BOX 520697 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84152 CARLOS FERNANDO VILLA PALOMARES 24 CALLE CRISTINA RIO RICO AZ 85648 ROCKWOOD INVESTMENT GROUP LLC 162 DUNLOP CT PARK CITY UT 84060 MARIA NOVOA 1160 N COLONEL RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 JLC AUTO SALES, LLC 16 E KENSINGTON AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 NICHOLAS R STODDARD 819 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 SALT LAKE COUNTY PO BOX 144575 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 JACOB W SEITZ-SAMPSON;LEIGH-ANDREW T SEITZ-SAMPSON(JT) 825 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 JOSE G D ALEMAN 835 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 EFRAIN CABRERA 837 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 4B PROPERTIES, LLC 748 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 MARIA NOVOA 1160 N COLONEL RD SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 SQUARE KITCHEN,LLC 434 N HODGES LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84116 ARLINE STONE;TRACY BUTTERFIELD;JACOB BUTTERFIELD;IRENE MARTIN; 763 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 D.CAROL SATTERFIELD FAMILY TRUST 01/29/1997 2251 E ALVA CIR MILLCREEK UT 84109 GENESEE, LLC 755 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 LINDA M BEDDICK 851 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 LAWRENCE H IV FRAMME 847 S 800 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 DYLAN HUFF;JOFELYN NAVARRA-HUFF(JT) 360 S 400 W SALT LAKE CITY UT 84101 ARLINE STONE;TRACY BUTTERFIELD;JACOB BUTTERFIELD;IRENE MARTIN; 763 W GENESEE AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84104 Current Occupant 802 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 780 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 830 S 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 808 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 805 S 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 775 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 765 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 755 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 747 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 823 S 800 W Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 756 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 773 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 751 W 800 S Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 757 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 767 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Current Occupant 765 W GENESEE AVE Salt Lake City UT 84104 Item 134 .•••`�" " ``• MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE: August 9, 2022 RE: 2435 South Soo East Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2021-01041/01042 MOTION i (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.FOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 i COUNCIL STAFF REPORT �� •i��i CITY COUNCIL Of SALT LAKE CPTY rn= Item Schedule: Briefing:July 19, 2022 TO: City Council Members Set Date:July 19,2022 Public Hearing:August 9,2022 FROM: Brian Fullmer Potential Action:August 16,2022 Policy Analyst DATE: August 9, 2022 RE: 2435 South Soo East Zoning Map and Master Plan Amendments PLNPCM2021-01041/01042 BRIEFING UPDATE At the July 19, 2022 briefing, Council Members'questions were primarily focused on the potential development's configuration and whether additional units could be constructed. Planning staff explained more units could be added to the site depending on the building type.The petitioner's stated intent is to build townhomes.The lot size would accommodate up to 14 units. The petitioner addressed the Council saying he is anticipating for-sale units.A private,but publicly accessible road is planned for the north side of the property to help mitigate impact from the adjacent freeway. It should be noted a formal site plan has not been submitted to the City. If the zoning map and master plan amendments are approved by the Council configuration of the potential development could change. The following information was provided for the July 19, 2022 Council briefing.It is provided again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend the zoning map for property located at 2435 South 50o East in City Council District Seven from R-1/7,000 (residential)to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi- Family Residential).Additionally,the proposal would amend the Sugar House Master Plan Future Land Use Map for the approximately o.98-acre property from Low-Density Residential(5-10 dwelling units/acre)to Medium-Density Residential(8-2o dwelling units/acre). CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 i�a The applicant stated these amendment requests are to allow future development of for sale townhomes on the subject property which is located just south of Interstate-8o at Soo East as shown in the zoning map below.A vacant,boarded single-family home is on the property and would be demolished under the concept plan. These proposed amendments were reviewed by the Planning Commission at its January 26, 2022 meeting and a public hearing was held. Planning staff recommended and the Planning Commission voted 7-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for both requests.The Commissioner who voted against forwarding a positive recommendation did not indicate why she was opposed. 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 petitioner about a range of prices the proposed units are anticipated to sell for. 2. Given the subject property's proximity to Interstate-80,the Sugar House Community Council raised the issue of freeway noise and pollution and whether there are any steps that could be taken to mitigate those impacts.The Council may wish to ask about this if that is of interest. R-1-7000 R-1-7000 � R-1-7000 JW 7 i �! 1-80E I(.) 8 it F E B FNV R-1-7000 R-1-7000 cc I co N a E W E i E W S Area zoning map with subject parcel outlined in blue Page 2 ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The Council is only being asked to consider rezoning the property and amend the future land use map.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. KEY CONSIDERATION Planning staff identified one key consideration related to the proposal which is found on pages 2-3, and in Attachment D(pages 26-27) of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis,please see the staff report. Consideration i-Existing City Plan Guidance Planning staff reviewed the proposal for compliance with the Sugar House Master Plan, Growing Salt Lake, and Plan Salt Lake.They found the proposed zoning and master plan amendments of the subject parcel generally meet the criteria and initiatives in these plans and considerations in the zoning ordinance. DEVELOPMENT COMPARISON The following table found in Attachment C(page 25 of the Planning Commission staff report)compares development standards of the RMF-35 and CG zoning designations. R-1/7,000 (Existing) RMF-35 (Proposed) Building Height 28 feet for pitched roofs or 35 feet 20 feet for flat roofs Front Setback Equal to the average setback on 20 feet block face or 20 feet Corner Side Yard Setback Equal to the average setback on 10 feet block face or 20 feet Interior Side Yard Setback, 6 feet 4 feet corner lot Interior Side Yard Setback, 6 feet on one side and 10 feet on None required,but if provided interior lot the other side not less than 4 feet Rear Setback 25 feet 25%of lot depth,not less than 20 feet but not more than 25 feet Maximum Building 40% 60 Coverage Maximum Lot Size 10,500 square feet None listed The following uses are not allowed in the R-1/7,00o zoning district but are permitted or conditional uses within the proposed RMF-35 zoning district.This is included in Attachment C of the Planning Commission staff report.The tables are also included here for convenience. New Permitted New Conditional Dwelling,Assisted living facility(small) Community recreation center Dwelling,multi-family Dwelling,assisted living facility(large) Dwelling,single-family(attached) Dwelling,congregate care facility(large) Dwelling,twin home and two-family Dwelling,group home(large) Page 13 Dwelling,residential support(small) Change from Permitted Change from Conditional to Not Allowed to Not Allowed None None Changing from Permitted to Changing from Conditional to Conditional Permitted None Community garden Dwelling,accessory unit Dwelling,assisted living facility(limited capacity) Dwelling,congregate care facility(small) ANALYSIS OF STANDARDS Attachment E(pages 28-29) of the Planning Commission staff report outlines 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 Complies the purposes,goals,objectives,and policies of the city as stated through its various adopted planning documents. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the Complies specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will Complies affect adjacent properties Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with Not applicable the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay (not within any zoning districts which may impose additional standards. zoning overlays) The adequacy of public facilities and services intended to Complies 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. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • October 6, 2021-Applications submitted. • October 25, 2021-Petition assigned to Caitlyn Tubbs, Principal Planner. • November 8, 2021-Notice sent to Sugar House Community Council and surrounding neighbors and property owners. • December 13, 2021-Applicant and Planning staff met with Sugar House Community Council.The community council sent a letter of support to the Planning Commission,while also expressing Page 14 concerns about emissions from the freeway.The letter recommends design and filtration options be used to help mitigate freeway impacts. • January 13, 2022-Sign posted on subject property. Public hearing notice sent and posted to City website. • January 26, 2022-Planning Commission public hearing.Two people spoke at the hearing,one supportive of and one opposed to the proposal.The person expressing support also had concerns with the proposed townhomes'proximity the freeway. She hopes measures will be taken to minimize effects of emissions from the freeway.The person opposed to the proposal felt keeping the property low density would be best for the neighborhood. She also stated losing mature trees on the property would be detrimental.The Planning Commission voted to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for both the zoning map and master plan amendments. • January 28, 2022-Draft ordinance information sent to Attorney's Office. • March 16, 2022-Signed ordinance received by Planning Division from the Attorney's Office. • March 29, 2022-Transmittal received in City Council Office. Page 15 ERIN MENDENHALL L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS �' _ Blake Thomas .„n„� Director C 1 "f� CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received:03/29/2022 Lisa Shaffer,Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 03/29/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 25, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas,Director,Department of Community&Neighborhoods SUBJECT: TAG SLC Master Plan (petition number PLNPCM2021-01041) and Zoning Map Amendments (petition number PLNPCM2021-01042) at approximately 2345 South 500 East STAFF CONTACT: Caitlyn Tubbs, Principal Planner Caitlyn.T�ibbs(r�s�cov.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 2435 South 500 East: • Amend the Sugar House Master Plan's land use map from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential • Amend the Salt Lake City zoning map from R-1,7000 (Single Family Residential)to RMF-35 (Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential) BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: This is a request by Jake Billitteri to amend the Sugar House 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-1-7,000 Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential at 2435 South 500 East. The purpose of the request is to facilitate the construction of townhomes. The Planning Commission reviewed this request at a public hearing on January 26,2022 and voted 7-1 to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council for the amendments. 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 PUBLIC PROCESS: • November 8,2021 -An early notification was sent to the Sugar House Community Council and all residents and property owners within 300 feet of the subject property. • December 13,2021 -The Applicant and Staff met with the Sugar House Community Council to present the project and gather feedback from the community. The Community Council provided a letter of support for the project. • January 26,2022 -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 A-enda of.Tanuary 26, 2022 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of Januar 6,2022(Click to Access) c) 1']annin Commission Staff Report of Januat y 26, 2022(Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Additional Public Comments (Not included in Staff Report) 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 2435 South 500 East from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and the zoning map from R-1-7,000 Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District) An ordinance amending the general plan map pertaining to property located at approximately 2435 South 500 East from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01041 and amending the zoning map pertaining to property located at approximately 2435 South 500 East from R-1-7,000 Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021- 01042. WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing on January 26, 2022 on applications submitted by Jake Billitteri ("Applicant") to change the general plan map and zoning map for property located at 2435 South 500 East(Tax ID No.16-19-428-009- 0000) (the "Property") from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and from R-1-7,000 Residential to RMF-35 Moderate Density Multi-Family Residential District pursuant to Petition Nos. PLNPCM2021-01041 and PLNPCM2021-01042, respectively; and WHEREAS, at its January 26, 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 application; 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 Sugar House 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-1-7,000 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 APPROVED AS TO FORM (SEAL) Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Date:3/1 6/2022 Bill No. of 2022. By: Published: Hannah Vickery,Senior City A torney EXHIBIT "A" Legal Description of Property 2435 South 500 East, Salt Lake City, UT Tax ID No. 16-19-428-009-0000 BEG S OA 12'58"W 507.874 FT FR NW COR LOT 5,BLK 43, lo AC PLAT A, BIG FIELD SUR; S 8 9A 52'39" E 242.996 FT;N 8 9A 45'23"E 240-495 FT; S 32 A 08'57"E 38.238 FT;N OAl2'33" E 32.462 FT;N 105-48 FT; SW'LY 142 FT M OR L; S 23.85 FT;W 44.5 FT;N 17 FT; SW'LY 32o FT M OR L; S 78 FT TO BEG. 0.95 AC M OR L. 6026-1289 5901-944 7051-1821 1 . Project Chronology Project Chronology TAG SLC Nibley Park General Plan Amendment—PLNPCM2021-01041 TAG SLC Nibley Park Zoning Map Amendment—PLNPCM2021-01042 October 6,2021 Jordan Atkin and Jake Billetteri filed the General Plan Map and Zoning Map amendment applications. The subject property is located at 2435 South 500 East and encompasses approximately 0.95 acres(41,382 square feet). October 25, 2021 Application assigned to Caitlyn Tubbs,Principal Planner. November 8, 2021 Sent notifications to Sugar House Community Council and surrounding neighbors and property owners. December 13,2021 Applicant and Staff met with Sugar House Community Council. December 23,2021 Public input period closed. January 13, 2022 Sign posted on subject property.Public hearing notice sent out and posted to city website. January 26, 2022 Planning Commission held public hearing and forwarded a positive recommendation of the requested general plan map and zoning map amendments to the City Council. March 16, 2022 Signed ordinance received from City Attorney's Office. 2. Additional Public Comments From: To: Plannin Public Comments Subject: (EXTERNAL)TAG SLC Nibley Park General Plan comment Date: Wednesday,January 26,2022 6:17:23 PM Hi, I would like to make a public comment about the re-zoning of Nibley Park concerning property 2435 South 500 East. The request to change zoning from Low Density Residential to a Medium Density Residential would have a negative effect on the neighborhood. I live in the neighborhood and often walk by this property and believe that keeping it a Low Density property is best for the community. The lot has many old growth trees on it and it would be devastating to see all the trees cut down. Thank you, Chelsea McGowan 3. Notice of City Council Hearing NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petitions PLNPCM2021-01041 —TAG SLC Niblex Park Master Plan Amendment at 2435 South 500 East and PLNPCM2021-01042—TAG SLC Niblev Park Zoning Man Amendment at 2435 South 500 East—On behalf of the owner of2435 South 500 East Jordan Atkin has requested Salt Lake City amend the Sugar House Master Plan from Low Density Residential to Medium Density Residential and amend the Zoning Map from R-1-7,000 to RMF-35. The subject property is located within Council District 7, represented by Amy Fowler. 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. ovlcouncillvirtual-tneetins. Comments may also be provided by calling the 24-Hour comment line at (801)535-7654 or sending an email to council.cornrnents(ii slcLy,,--, m.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 throughFriday, or via e-mail at The application details can be accessed at https:rlciti7cnportaI.slc ov.com/,by selecting the"planning"tab and entering the petition numbers PLNPCM2021-01041 and PLNPCM2021-01042. 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.commentski;slc2ov.com, (801)535-7600,or relay service711. 4. Notice Letter to Recognized Community Organizations 71 Recognized Organization Input Notification 1117 -Int TO: Landon Clark,Sugar House Community Council, and Judi Short,Sugar House Community Council FROM: Caitlyn Tubbs,Principal Planner,Salt Lake City Planning Division (g�iitlyn.�tubbs�(�)slc o�-v-.eom�or(801)-535-77o6) DATE: November 8,2021 RE: TAG SLC General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments (PLNPCM2021-01041 and PLNPCM2021-01042) The Planning Division has received the below request and is notifyingyour organization to solicit comments on the proposal: Request Type:General Plan and Zoning Map Amendments Location:Approximately 2435 South 50o East Current General Plan:Low Density Residential(5-10 dwelling units/acre) Proposed General Plan:Medium Density Residential(8-2o dwelling units/acre) Current Zone: R-1-7,000 Residential Proposed Zone:RMF-35 Request Description: Site Plan Map A request by Jake Billetteri, representing the owner of the property, to rezone a parcel from R-1-7,000 Residential to RMF-35.To facilitate this zoning change the Applicant has also requested an amendment of the General Plan from Low Density Residential (5-10 dwelling units per acre) to Medium Density Residential (8-2o dwelling units per acre). The property owner intents to construct eighteen (18) townhome units on the property. General Plan and Zoning Map amendment requests require a recommendation from the Planning Commission and final approval from the City Council. I have attached information submitted by the applicant 15 30 60 relating to the project to facilitate your review. 0 M=—F-L Sal[lake QW Request for Input from Your Recognized Organization As part of this process,the applicant is required to solicit comments from Recognized Organizations. The project is within the boundaries of the Central City Community Council,and borders the East Central Community Council area.The purpose of the Recognized Organization reviewis to inform the community of the project and solicit comments/concerns theyhave with the project. The Recognized Organization may also take a vote to determine whether there is support for the project,but this is not required. Per City Code 2.6o.050-The recognized community organization chair(s)have forty five(45)days to provide comments,from the date the notice was sent. A public hearing will not be held, nor will a final decision be made about the project within the forty five(45)day notice period.This notice period ends on the following day: December 23, 2021 Comment Guidance Public comments will be received up to the date of the Planning Commission public hearing. However,you should submit your organization's comments within 45 days of receiving this notice in order for those comments to be included in the staff report. As a Recognized Organization,we ask that you address the following questions in your comments: • What issues were raised at the meeting and whether any suggestions were made to address the issues. • The number of persons that attended the meeting(not including those with the applicant or City Staff). • Whether a vote was taken on the matter and if so,what the vote tally was. Comment Submission Address You may submit your written comments via e-mail to caitivnJubbs(a)s1c M1A7 com or mail them to: ATTN Caitlyn Tubbs Salt Lake City Planning Division 451 S State St Rm 4o6 PO Box 145480 Salt Lake City UT 84114-5480 21A. 5o.o5o: Standards for Zoning Man Amendments 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: 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; 2. Whether a proposed map amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance; 3. The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties; 4. Whether a proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and 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. 2435 S 500 E Master Plan Zoning Map Amendment Background The Sugar House Community Master Plan, composed in 2005, laid out the vision for the future of the community. Written at a time when the population of the area had been relatively stagnant for several decades, the plan included extensive areas of low-density single-family zoning. This was a time when schools in the area were closing as there were no longer enough families to support keeping them open. The environment in which the plan was written was very different from the Sugar House of today. Recent decades have seen explosive growth in the Sugar House neighborhood and prices have rapidly increased as many people have sought to move into the high opportunity neighborhoods of Salt Lake City. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes though modest in size will seek to provide a model for how providing infill with greater density can increase the attainability for families seeking to move into the Sugar House neighborhood. We will outline why our request is reasonable in more detail later in this document, but broadly speaking, the current zoning (including the zoning map) for this parcel is no longer serving the community and is not congruent with the guidelines of several city documents including the Sugar House Community Master Plan, Growing SLC: A 5 Year Housing Plan and Plan Salt Lake. Moreover, the large lot size does not meet the modern requirements of the current R-1-7000 zoning, which states that new lots in the zone must not exceed 10,500 square feet. This is roughly a quarter of the size of the subject lot. Allowing our map amendment will serve the community by increasing density in a location that according to the most recent Master Plan meets all guidelines for Moderate Density. Request We are requesting an amendment to the Future Land Uses Map of the Sugar House Community Master Plan. Our parcel which is located at 2435 S 500 E is currently shown as a site where the city should encourage low-density housing development in the Master Plan's map. We would like to rezone the property to RMF-35 to allow for the development of townhome style condos on the site. To allow for the rezone, the map would need to be altered to allow for greater density. The characteristics of the site abutting the highway are such that it will necessitate the development of a private road, thus our current site plan has 18 units. Medium density zoning in the master plan allows for 8-20 du/acre, this is the density we would strive for, the request for RMF-35 zoning is simply to allow for additional ceiling height in the units. Rationale Sugar House Community Master Plan The Sugar House Community Master Plan calls out location criteria and policies for Medium Density Residential development. These criteria include locations that are close to arterials, close to higher density residential, mixed use and Business District areas, proximity to parks and prohibiting the expansion of non-residential uses into residential areas. Our proposed site fits these criteria well as it is located on an arterial, is within a quarter mile of several higher density districts and within a mile of the Business District, is close to parks in Salt Lake and South Salt Lake and most importantly is a residential use that will minimally disrupt neighboring properties while adding housing stock. The Master Plan also called for policies of allowing new Medium- Density housing where appropriate, encouraging a variety of densities within the medium range, prohibiting boxcar design, encouraging street patterns that connect streets and discouraging gated developments. As a Medium-Density an ungated development that will add variety to the neighborhood with tasteful design choices while connecting two streets TAG Nibley Park will comply with all Medium-Density housing policies laid out in the Master Plan. Physical Characteristics of the Subject Site The subject site is near the highway, changing width as the highway turns. There are sound barriers and trees present, but the influence of the highway on the site is undeniable. We believe that the negative effects of proximity to the highway can be lessened by providing additional filtration for ventilation system intakes and placing rear yards facing away from the highway, something not possible with the layout feasible for R-1-7000 zoned homes. The additional height allowed by RMF-35 zoning will provide additional quiet from highway noise for neighboring properties. Current zoning in the neighborhood includes a mix of densities near our site, including RMF-35 within .2 miles. Moreover, several properties near TAG Nibley Park are non-conforming uses with greater density. This includes the property 2 doors to the south with density of 8.3 du/acre as well as the property directly across 500 E which features density of 13.3 du/acre. Additionally, while most zoning on Warnock abutting the highway is R-1-7000, this area which has very similar characteristics to the site of TAG Nibley Park, is shown as medium-density on the Future Land Uses Map. These factors taken when combined with the suitability of the site for Medium-Density according to the Sugar House Master Plan support our map amendment. Growing SLC: A 5 Year Housing Plan In the most recent housing plan, the impacts of rising home prices on middle-income households are called out. Specifically, middle income households are oftentimes forced to live outside of their preferred areas, accept being house-poor or forced to leave the Salt Lake Community altogether. The role of density limitations in contributing to this problem, particularly on the east side, is recognized in this document. One policy goal outlined in the plan is to increase housing options. The plan suggests doing so by developing flexible zoning tools, particularly along transportation routes. TAG Nibley Park will be in close proximity to transit options including a bus stop and a station on the S-Line within a quarter mile. Another policy goal outlined in the document is to increase diversity in the housing stock and increase units while minimizing neighborhood impacts. TAG Nibley Park will feature a design that represents the missing middle in terms of scale and density. In doing so, on an underutilized lot we will be leveraging precious developable land appropriately and in a manner that creates a product attainable for the Salt Lake workforce. Plan Salt Lake The citywide Master Plan encourages the location of new development in areas with existing transportation, including public transit. It also suggests promoting infill of underutilized land, accommodating an increasing population and providing access to opportunities for a healthy lifestyle. The plan specifically calls out increasing the number of medium density housing types and enabling moderate density increases where appropriate. The location of the TAG Nibley Park project will clearly be well aligned with the city Master Plan as it provides an opportunity to increase density in an area that has characteristics making it an appropriate location to do so according to several city documents. Moreover, the location in Sugar House will allow residents access to grocery stores, recreational opportunities, shopping and employment that is very much congruent with promoting a healthy lifestyle. Summary In conclusion, the current Future Land Uses Map of the Sugar House Community Master Plan no longer lives up to the needs of a growing and increasingly expensive city. By allowing for the development of a project with greater density in an area where it appropriate according to the text of the Sugar House Community Master Plan, the city will advance goals laid out in Growing SLC and Plan Salt Lake. The Future Land Uses Map of the Master Plan was drawn at a time when the population was stagnant and city plans in the time since the drawing of the map have consistently advocated for infill and greater density where appropriate, including criteria for appropriateness that very much align with our site. Land uses next to the highway provide the opportunity for smart design decisions that limit the impact that the highway has on residents and neighbors. Our site is in close proximity (-300 feet) to property with very similar that is highlighted for medium density development. In fact, this area is one of the few areas directly abutting the highway without a buffer that is zoned for single family residential. When all these factors are taken together, we feel that the Map Amendment request is fair and justified. Parcel ID 16-19-428-009 Rezone Narrative R-1-7000 to RMF-35 Zone Map Amendment September 30, 2021 Project Description: Utilizing nearly an acre currently occupied by a condemned single-family dwelling, the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will create a moderate density townhome development that matches the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, the project will mirror surrounding buildings architecturally by paying homage to features that are prevalent in the neighborhood. It will also serve to fill a niche by offering a more attainable and family friendly housing option in a high opportunity neighborhood. The development will include townhomes built in blocks to preserve green space and match the intensity of an area that often includes larger yards. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will be built in close proximity to public-transit options such as the 500 East TRAX Station (.25 miles), as well as a stop for the 205-bus line (2 doors south), providing opportunities for residents to access entertainment and employment, while minimizing traffic impacts on 500 East. For residents that do choose to drive, the project will feature a meandering drive aisle that connects Warnock and 500 East, integrating it with the surrounding community. The current R-1-7000 zoning is not congruent with the housing goals of the city, which has increasingly recognized in housing plans that a lack of density is leaving many residents, particularly young residents, priced out. The zone amendment is supported by the following city documents: Sugar House Community Master Plan Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan Plan Salt Lake Background: The 2005 Sugar House Community Master Plan provides the outline for the future development of a neighborhood that was and is very much in flux. Historically, Sugar House has served as one of the most desirable residential areas in the city, featuring a variety of housing densities and types. Although the neighborhood has pockets of dense development, particularly in the Business District, much of the housing stock in the area has been dominated by single-family residences. When the Sugar House Community Master Plan was released the planning commission was guided by a desire to strengthen existing neighborhoods while supporting new development particularly in the budding Sugar House Business District. At the time, the city enacted policies against un-permitted housing conversions as these unauthorized alterations to properties attracted fewer families and the area faced school closures. In the nearly two decades since the Master Plan was developed, the situation on the ground has changed substantially. According to Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan, "the city has not had a significant update to its zoning code since the mid-1990s" when decisions were guided by "the gradual population decline that occurred over the preceding three decades". In fact, growth patterns have changed dramatically, even from 2005, as noted by Growing SLC, "From 2010-2014, the city gained 4,400 new residents, doubling the pace of growth that was recorded between 2000 and 2010". Over the last several years the population and prices in Salt Lake have spiked. The proposed TAG Nibley Park project, though modest in size, marks a step towards addressing the housing squeeze by adding density on an underutilized lot. Proposed Project and Compliance with Salt Lake City Policy Objectives: Located at 500 E and abutting the highway, the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will be on a lot that changes in size along the contours in the highway. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes are the ideal use for this underutilized parcel and are in alignment with city policies laid out in several city housing documents as well as the Sugar House Community Master Plan. The project will increase density and add a housing option in Sugar House while minimizing the impact on surrounding housing, matching intensity of surrounding residences utilizing breaks of green space. The plan for the project will create a sense of place and connectivity with the surrounding community for the families that will live there. It will do so in a location that is suited for higher density (near an arterial street), creates minimal conflict with neighboring properties and provides a plethora of transit options, services and access to parks. These aspects are aligned with city goals. In the most recent Sugar House Master Plan, the city outlined policy for moderate density development, the proposed project meets all of these policy requirements and does so while also aligning with objectives in Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan. The Sugar House Community Master Plan, adopted in 2005, contains many provisions relating to where future planners should locate more dense development within the Sugar House neighborhood. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes meet all of these requirements, providing a location that is close to arterial streets, areas with higher density development and several parks. Going item by item, the Sugar House Community Master Plan states the following policies in regards to the location moderate density housing: • Proximity to arterial or collector streets-The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes are located on 500 E which is outlined in the Master Plan as a City Arterial. 500 E is a north south street provides access to much of the city, as well as east-west arterials. The development is also close to 700 E (.4 miles) which is a highlighted as a State Arterial, providing access to 1-80. • Proximity to higher density residential areas, mixed-use areas, neighborhood commercial nodes or the urban town center of the Business District-The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will be built in close proximity to other dense development. The nearest RMF-35 development is just .2 miles to the north, with form-based transit development within .25 miles to the north. There are also stretches of RMF-30 along 700 E which is .4 miles east of the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes. A bit further out is the Sugar House Business District which is 1 mile using local roads. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes are situated among several higher density residential areas and also features the intense development of the Business District within 1 mile. • Proximity to existing and proposed parks and open space-The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will be built in close proximity to several parks in Salt Lake and South Salt Lake. Lions Park in South Salt Lake is just .2 miles to the west, while Nibley Park and Fairmont Park in Salt Lake are within .5- and 1-miles distance to the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes respectively. The access to parks provided by the location of the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will help to ensure that the development is engaged with the community and a healthy place to live. The Sugar House Community Master Plan, recognized that the community was growing and would need to accommodate new development, including development classified as moderate density. TAG Nibley Park meets these requirements because the location is appropriate, the high-concept design will fit well with the existing neighborhood, the development will be connected with the surrounding neighborhood and these objectives will be accomplished with minimal conflict with surrounding properties. Going item by item, the Sugar House Community Master Plan states the following policies in regards to the development of moderate density housing: • Encourage new Medium-Density housing opportunities in appropriate locations in Sugar House.-As demonstrated above, the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes meet all of the criteria for the location of a moderate density housing development. The city's stated policy in the Sugar House Community Master Plan is to encourage the construction of this type of development when appropriately situated. • Encourage a variety of densities in the Medium-Density range while ensuring the design of these projects is compatible with surrounding residential structures.- The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will be designed in a manner that is compatible with surrounding structures and may serve as a needed relief from highway noise for neighbors to the south. The planned breaks and scale of the buildings will ensure that although the buildings are larger than surrounding houses, they will feature green space and sense of intensity that is comparable with single family residences in the surrounding neighborhood. • Continue to prohibit the development of"box car design of multi-family dwellings.- The developers of the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will collaborate closely with an architectural team to ensure that the development features an interesting design that fits well within the surrounding neighborhood. • Encourage street patterns that connect with other streets: The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will be situated between 500 E and where Warnock dead ends. The developer is open to having a conversation about potentially connecting 500 E and Warnock via a private road through the development. This would create better access to 700 E to the south of 1-80 and reduce the time/distance that non-car users will have to spend on busier arterials. • Discourage gated developments-The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will not be a gated development. The developer desires to foster a sense of connection with the surrounding community, thus ingress and egress to the townhomes on a private road will be unrestricted. • Support opportunities for conversion and infill development of Medium Density housing while requiring appropriate design and location to minimize conflicts with existing single-family development:The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will involve a project that infills moderate density development into an existing neighborhood. As outlined above, the project will pursue a high concept design in conjunction with the architectural team. The orientation of the lot and border with the highway provide a rare opportunity to infill with higher density, while disturbing neighbors minimally. The project directly borders just one single family residence and a field owned by the LDS church. The Sugar House Community Master Plan, acknowledged the need for a variety of housing types, particularly those that would appeal to and be obtainable by young, single and older people. The Master Plan specifically called out "alley-fed townhomes", like the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes as one option that could provide this variety. The policy adopted by the Master Plan for housing variety is as follows: • Provide a diversity of housing types, sizes, and prices within the community-The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will provide more housing diversity in a part of Sugar House that is lacking attainable and starter home options. Growing SLC: A 5 Year Housing Plan compiled in 2018, details an emerging housing crisis in Salt Lake City. According to the report the crisis is due in part to local barriers to housing development. Specifically, significant portions of the east side of the city being zoned single- family has constrained housing supply, this has been reflected in the housing prices. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will address several objectives and policy guidelines outlined in the report. • Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city-As noted in the Growing SLC housing report, zoning regulations have not undergone major revisions since the mid-90s, a time when the city had seen several decades of moderate population contraction. As discussed above the housing market has changed significantly, even in the years since 2005, when the Sugar House Community Master Plan was compiled. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes fill a concrete need for greater affordability in an area where it is sorely lacking, but in order to do so, the project needs increased density from what is offered by the current zoning code. • Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes (1.1.1).-The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes are located along several significant public transit options. The project is in close proximity to a TRAX station (.25 miles) and a bus stop (<.1 mile). Access to these transportation amenities will allow residents to access work and play opportunities without being dependent on their cars. The increased density necessitated by the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will also serve to bolster the utilization of public transit in the Sugar House neighborhood. • Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts (1.1.2).-The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes are an infill project that will increase the diversity of the housing stock in Sugar House and provide new housing options by redeveloping an underutilized lot. The location along the freeway will allow it to achieve these aims in a way that impacts the neighborhood very minimally and affects few neighbors. • Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the city- By allowing for the development of townhomes in the Sugar House neighborhood, the city will facilitate an option for young people and families as well as people desiring to age in place in the community. Townhomes offer a more affordable option for young and budding families, while simultaneously offering the possibility of downsizing and reduced maintenance responsibilities for those looking to age in the community where they have spent their lives. One goal of the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes is to create a thriving community where people at different points in the life cycle can live in harmony with each other. In Plan Salt Lake a 2015 document outlining policy for the entire city, the need for expanded housing opportunities was recognized in calls for growth and housing initiatives. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes align well with the initiatives outlined in Plan Salt Lake by offering an option to strategically increase density in a location where it is appropriate. Growth Initiatives • Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors:As outlined above the project will be located in an area with abundant access to city infrastructure that promotes healthy work and play, as well as efficient transportation to recreation and employment opportunities. • Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land: In an era when single family homes in the 84106 area code have an average asking price $656,000 over the last 90 days and houses are spending less than 2 weeks on the market, having a single family residence or even several single family residences on the parcel with the characteristics of the proposed site represents an extreme underutilization of the land. • Accommodate and promote an increase in the City's population.-As mentioned in Growing SLC, the city is growing rapidly, and the pace has only increased over recent years. A denser zoning code will allow for the property to accommodate more units, thereby better promoting growth in the City's population. • Provide access to opportunities for a healthy lifestyle (including parks,trails, recreation, and healthy food).-The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will be close to resources that allow a healthy lifestyle including multiple parks, shopping/recreation opportunities and several grocery stores. Housing Initiatives • Increase the number of moderate density housing types and options:The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will provide a moderate density option in an area of the city where it is sorely needed. • Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place:The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will encourage aging in place by offering a lower maintenance option for folks looking to age in place within the Sugar House community by downsizing. • Direct new growth towards areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented.-Sugar House is a highly developed part of the city, therefore it has the infrastructure and services needed to support a high quality of life for the residents of the proposed development. • Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.- The parcel on which the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will be developed is very well suited for an increase in density according to the criteria laid out in the Sugar House Community Master Plan. The minimal disturbance provides a unique opportunity in the Sugar House neighborhood. • Promote high density residential in areas served by transit:The area around the proposed project is served by bus and light rail transit options, all within a quarter mile. Additional density would promote higher utilization of these resources. Equity Initiatives • Support policies that provide housing choices, including affordability, accessibility and aging in place:Sugar House is a high opportunity neighborhood that has a high barrier to entry. Our project will serve to increase equity in the city by providing a housing choice that is more attainable than single family homes on large lots in this area. Moreover, the resources in the area will promote accessibility and aging in place as outlined above. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will advance this equity related initiative as outlined in Plan Salt Lake. Purpose: The purpose of the amendment to the zone map amendment is to work towards better fulfilling the city's stated goals and vision as demonstrated in the Sugar House Community Master Plan and other city planning documents. The current zoning code applied to the property is outdated and preventing growth in an area that is well suited for it, especially given the characteristics of the lot allowing for more housing without affecting a significant number of neighbors. The proposed development will achieve the goals and purpose of the RMF-35 zone far more effectively than those of the current R-1-7000 zone. Our team is committed to making this a project that will work not only for future members of the community, but also current community members. Thus, we will be including neighbors in the process of finalizing the formulation of our project to make sure we minimize disturbance and bring as much benefit as possible. We will work with appropriate community bodies to ensure that the project fits the style and intensity of the surrounding neighborhood. Moreover, we will be collaborating with a top notch architectural team to design a product that Sugar House will be proud to have as an addition to their neighborhood. Our team will work with the community to establish that RMF-35 is the appropriate zoning code for this property. Parcels for Zone Map Amendment: 16-19-428-009 RMF-35 Zoning: The purpose statement for the RMF-35 zone is as follows: 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 TAG Nibley Park Townhomes fit well within the purpose statement for the RMF-35 Zone. The development will be located on an interior block linking together 500 East and Warnock Ave. Additionally, by using smaller blocks of townhomes with green space interspersed throughout the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will mirror the intensity of the surrounding neighborhood. Through thoughtful design the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will preserve the character of the neighborhood, while providing a sustainable development both in terms of attainability and access to surrounding amenities via public transit. Amending zoning follows the Sugar House Community Master Plan by allowing a moderate density development in an area that meets all criteria and policies for moderate density residential. While recognizing that use on the property will be denser than the surrounding single family and non-conforming multifamily homes, the denser development at the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will shield the neighboring properties from the noise of the highway directly abutting the property. The RMF-35 Zone Requirements are as follows: Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Land Use Minimum lot Area Minimum lot Width Multi-family dwellings(3 through 11 units) 9,000 square feet' 80 feet Multi-family dwellings(12 or more units) 26,000 square feetl 80 feet Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and police and fire No minimum No minimum stations Natural open space and conservation areas, public and private No minimum No minimum Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 square feet 140 feet Public pedestrian pathways,trails and greenways No minimum No minimum Public/private utility transmission wires, lines, pipes and poles No minimum No minimum Single-family attached dwellings(3 or more) 3,000 square feet per Interior: 22 unit feet Corner:32 feet Single-family detached dwellings 5,000 square feet 50 feet Twin home dwellings 4,000 square feet per 25 feet unit Two-family dwellings 8,000 square feet 50 feet Utility substations and buildings 5,000 square feet 50 feet Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in section 21A.33.020 of 5,000 square feet 50 feet this title Qualifying provisions: 1. 9,000 square feet for 3 units, plus 2,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit up to and including 11 units. 26,000 square feet for 12 units, plus 1,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit up to 1 acre. For developments greater than 1 acre, 1,500 square feet for each dwelling unit is required. D. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height permitted in this district is thirty five feet (35'). E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: Twenty feet (20'). 2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10'). 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Single-family detached and two-family dwellings: (1) Interior lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. (2) Corner lots: Four feet (4'). b. Single-family attached: No yard is required, however, if one is provided it shall not be less than four feet (4'). c. Twin home dwelling: No yard is required along one side lot line while a ten foot (10') yard is required on the other. d. Multi-family dwellings: (1) Interior lots: Side yard shall be at least ten feet (10'). e. All other permitted and conditional uses: Ten feet (10') on each side. 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than twenty feet (20') and need not exceed twenty five feet /25'i 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in8 required yard subject tO section 21A.36.020, table 2lA.36.02O8, "Obstructions |n Required Yards'', of this title. 6. Existing Yards: For buildings legally existing On April 12, 1995, the required yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building unless the proposed yard encroachment istOaccommodate additional units. New principal buildings must conform tO current yard area requirements, unless the new principal two-family dwelling or twin home has legal conforming status as outlined in SeCtiOn_21A.38.070 of this title. F. Required Landscape Yards: The front yard, corner side and, for interior multi-family lots, one Of the interior side yards shall bemaintained a3 landscape yards. G. Maximum Building Coverage: l. Single-Family Detached: The surface coverage Of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty five percent (45Y6) of the lot area. 2. Single-Family Attached Dwellings: The surface coverage Df all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed sixty percent (6O96) of the lot area. 3. Two-Family And Twin Home Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty percent /5UY6\ of the lot area. 4. Multi-Family Dwellings: The surface coverage Of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed sixty peroent (S0Y6) of the lot area. 5. Existing Dwellings: For dwellings existing On April 12, I995, the coverage Of such existing buildings shall be considered legally conforming. 6. Nonresidential Land Uses: The surface coverage Vf all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed sixty peroent (G0Y6) of the lot area. H. Landscape Buffers: Where a lot abuts 8 lot in3 single-family Or two-family residential district, a landscape buffer shall be provided in accordance with Lhapter 21A,48 o[this title. (Ord. 46-17, 7Ul7: Ord. 6b-l3, 20I3: Ord. l2-ll, 2011: Ord. 62-09 §§ 6, 9, 2OU9: Ord. 01-09 § 7, 20U9: Ord. 35-99 §§ lD, I9, l999: Ord. 26-95 § 2(l2-l2), l995) Surrounding Zoning: R-1-7000 Existing R-1-7000 Text: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential neighborhoods with lots not less than seven thousand (7,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. 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. B. Uses: Uses in the R-1/7,OU0 Single-Family Residential District, as specified in section 21A,33.020, .'Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Land Use Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and police and fire stations No minimum No minimum Natural open space and conservation areas, public and private No minimum No minimum Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 square feet 80 feet Public pedestrian pathways,trails and greenways No minimum No minimum Public/private utility transmission wires, lines, pipes and poles No minimum No minimum Single-family detached dwellings 7,000 square feet 50 feet Utility substations and buildings 7,000 square feet 50 feet Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in section 21A.33.020 of this 7,000 square feet 50 feet title D. Maximum Building Height: 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: a. Twenty eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof; or b. The average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building shall be twenty feet (20'). 3. Maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards shall be twenty feet (20') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. Exterior wall height may increase one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) in height for each foot (or fraction thereof) of increased setback beyond the minimum required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback through a special exception, variance or other process, the maximum allowable exterior wall height decreases by one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) for each foot (or fraction thereof) that the wall is located closer to the property line than the required side yard setback. a. Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may be increased by one-half foot (0.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. b. Exceptions: (1) Gable Walls: Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height necessary to support the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must conform to the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. (2) Dormer Walls: Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall height if: (A) The width of a dormer is ten feet (10') or less; and (B) The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) of the length of the building facade facing the interior side yard; and (C) Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches (18") apart. 4. Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage. Building height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured from finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested. Building height for the R-1 districts, R-2 District and SR districts is defined and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title. 5. Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain, each step shall have a horizontal dimension of at least twelve feet (12'). 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 2. Corner Side Yard: The minimum depth of the corner side yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the existing buildings on the block face. Where there are no other existing buildings on the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum corner side yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Corner lots: Six feet (6'). b. Interior lots: Six feet (6') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five feet (25'). 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B of this title. F. Maximum Building Coverage: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot area. G. Maximum Lot Size: With the exception of lots created by a subdivision or subdivision amendment recorded in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, the maximum size of a new lot shall not exceed ten thousand five hundred (10,500) square feet. Lots in excess of the maximum lot size may be created through the subdivision process subject to the following standards: I. The size of the new lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; 2. The configuration of the lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; and 3. The relationship of the lot width to the lot depth is compatible with other lots on the S3nne block face. H. Standards For Attached Garages: l. Width OfAn Attached Garage: The width Ofan attached garage facing the street may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front facade of the house. The width of the garage iS equal tO the width Vf the garage door, Orin the case Ofmultiple garage doors, the sum of the widths of each garage door plus the width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors. 2. Located Behind Or In Line With The Front Line [lfThe Building: No attached garage shall be constructed forward of the "front line of the bui|dinQ" (33 defined in 32diOn 21A.62.040 Of this title), unless: 3. A new garage is constructed to replace an existing garage that is forward of the "front line of the bui|ding". In this case, the new garage shall be constructed in the same location with the same dimensions aS the garage being replaced; b. At least sixty percent (6O96) of the existing garages on the block face are located forward Of the "front line Ofthe bui|ding"; Or c. The garage doors will face a corner side lot line. ((]rd. 4G-l7, 20l7: Ord. 59-16, 20l6: Ord. 7-l4, 2014: Ord. b0-13, 2Ul3: Ord. 73-11, 2OIl: Ord. l2-l1, 2OlI: Ord. 90-U5 § 2 (Exh. B), 20U5: Ord. 2S-95 § 2(12-5), 1995\ The R-1-7000 zoning on this property does not align with the cities stated goals because it lacks the density needed to ensure attainability in a high opportunity part of the city. A more dense development pattern would offer more tothe city in terms ofsustainabi|ity. Less dense, more dispersed single family zoning was appropriate inthis area when the city was shrinking and schools were closing. In an era when demand is at an all time high and many of the workers in the Sugar House Business District commute in from other parts Of the city Oroutlying communities, it is far more important and sustainable to increase housing options than to keep 3n underutilized parcel next tO the highway zoned R-l-700U. This is especially true when the proposed development will mirror the surrounding community in terms of intensity. In fact, the site plan for the proposed project Current|yh3sCOven]ge |e3Sth3nvxh3ti5typiC3||y3||Oxvedin R-1-7000 (roughly 25%versus 40% allowed) and the lot is currently so large at nearly an acre that it does not comply with modern R-1-7000 code implemented in the 90s which caps lots at 10,500 square feet. The proposed revision to the zoning on this property will allow development on the parcel that is congruent with the modern needs of the city as well as gO3|3 stated in the most recent city plans and guiding documents. Map Amendments are approved based on several criteria including: • Whether the proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as state through its various adopted planning documents. • The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties • 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 consistency of the proposed amendment with city policies, goals and objectives is discussed above in extensive detail. Specifically, there is strong support for this zone amendment in the following documents: Sugar House Community Master Plan Growing SLC: A 5 Year Housing Plan Plan Salt Lake The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will provide a new, more attainable housing option in a high opportunity neighborhood. The location of the site on a narrow lot near the highway makes it very well suited to the type of development possible in the RMF-35 zone. Moreover, by adding a connection between 500 E and Warnock Ave, the project would be well integrated into the community and foster the sense of connectivity that is communicated as being important throughout planning documents for the area. Currently, the parcel is occupied by a condemned house and its depth and proximity to the highway have encouraged campers to frequently take up residence on the property. The construction of the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will provide several benefits to neighboring properties. Most notably amongst these are the removal of an eyesore and increased safety and activity in the neighborhood. Additionally, by engaging a talented architectural team, we hope to contribute to the high quality design people have come to associate with Sugar House. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will contribute to the area and add value to surrounding properties. Stepping into an established area always brings a unique set of challenges. In order to address these challenges we have already started engaging with a very strong architectural team to ensure that the project fits in the area in terms of style and quality. However, the development team also recognizes the importance of engaging with the neighborhood to build a product is something that will benefit the community. We have already started engaging with the only single family neighbor of the project and will work hard to minimize the disruptions that construction often brings. Moreover, we have met with the city by having a pre-submittal meeting with the planning department to get feedback on the project's site plan. We also presented our project to the community council for the area at the most recent land use and zoning meeting. This meeting provided us with feedback about how we might address some of the highway issues and since then we have looked into filtration options to improve indoor air quality close to major highways. Feedback from neighbors will be considered as we continue to advance the project's design. The current zoning code on the parcel does not advance city plans outlined in the Sugar House Community Master Plan, Growing SLC and Plan Salt Lake. Modernizing the zoning on the property will bring land use regulations into agreement with stated city goals. Recent city plans and documents have recognized that as the population of Salt Lake grows, prices are spiking, leaving folks with fewer housing options and pushing some out altogether. TAG Nibley Park provides the unique opportunity to build in an area where it will cause minimal disruption and with the increased density of the project will come increased attainability in pricing. Creative infill projects are needed if Salt Lake wants to create attainable workforce housing and TAG Nibley Park will be an exemplary project furthering the purpose of the RMF-35 zone and city goals and plans alike. '', NOIe:This Cancepkuai IandScape plan is W."e -d to prapoee ideas &layout L S C C ---^'y Revision: DATE: ------ — LANDSCAPE Ui b I O W TYE N CO 2M _ 20-0 20-0° _ 2D-0° (— TH1 TH2 TH3 TH4 TH5 TH6 TH7 TH8 TH9 TH10 TH11 TH1 TH13 TH14 TH15 TH1 TH17 TH18 Lj O oZD p �- - - -- - - - - - - - ----- ------ --------------------_._-- ---------- - WARNOCK .2 Y AVE TOWNHOUSE INFORMATION LEVEL i-206 SO FT \ GA AGE LEVEL 2-608SOFT V LEVEL 3.606 SO FT '.. TOTAL 1.418 SO FT '.. Site Plan Townhouse Concept 1 DATE 08/10/21 —Je. 111=20' DRAWN BY JLN Vim- JOB number. 080922 V j SHEET: NORTH �_ 5. Notice Letter to Neighbors Notification of a Project in Your Oilt Neighborhood Salt Lake City has received a request Site Plan Map for a general plan map and zoning _ map amendment from Jake ' Billetteri, representing the property owner, to change the master plan 'E map for one parcel from Low- Density Residential (5-10 units per acre) to Medium Density - Residential (8-20 units per acre) and to rezone the same parcel from R-1-7,000 to RMF-35. The Applicant intends to construct fourteen (14) 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 A City Council.A public hearing with the 0 15 30��Feet Planning Commission has not been Salt Lake City Plan—gD-lon 1114,2021 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 (8o1)-535-77o6 or caitlyn.tUbbs a slc ov.com. Please refer to petition numbers PLNPCM2021-01041 & PLNPCM2021- 01042 or the "TAG SLC Master Plan and Zoning Map Amendments."You may also find information that includes submitted plans online at https:f 1 aca.slc ov.co__ citi/,en�by clicking under"Planning"and typing in the petition numbers referenced above. Notice of this application has also been sent to the Sugar House Community Council. The Community Council may choose to schedule the matter at an upcoming meeting. Please contact the Sugar House Community Council's Zoning and Land Use Committee Chair Judi Short at judi,short{ ail,com for more information on whether they will review the matter and details at their meeting. This early public input period will expire on Thursday December 23,, 2021. A public hearing will be scheduled after this date and another notice will be sent out with the date and time of the public hearing. Vicinity Map f kn ® f Legend Subject Property - N �,r, 0 5Q 1 QO 2©0 300 Salt Lake City Planning Division 11/4/2021 6. Original Petition Rezone Narrative R-1-7000 to RMF-35 Zone Map Amendment September 30, 2021 Project Description: Utilizing nearly an acre currently occupied by a condemned single-family dwelling, the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will create a moderate density townhome development that matches the character of the surrounding neighborhood. Specifically, the project will mirror surrounding buildings architecturally by paying homage to features that are prevalent in the neighborhood. It will also serve to fill a niche by offering a more attainable and family friendly housing option in a high opportunity neighborhood. The development will include townhomes built in blocks to preserve green space and match the intensity of an area that often includes larger yards. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will be built in close proximity to public-transit options such as the 500 East TRAX Station (.25 miles), as well as a stop for the 205-bus line (2 doors south), providing opportunities for residents to access entertainment and employment, while minimizing traffic impacts on 500 East. For residents that do choose to drive, the project will feature a meandering drive aisle that connects Warnock and 500 East, integrating it with the surrounding community. The current R-1-7000 zoning is not congruent with the housing goals of the city, which has increasingly recognized in housing plans that a lack of density is leaving many residents, particularly young residents, priced out. The zone amendment is supported by the following city documents: Sugar House Community Master Plan Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan Plan Salt Lake Background: The 2005 Sugar House Community Master Plan provides the outline for the future development of a neighborhood that was and is very much in flux. Historically, Sugar House has served as one of the most desirable residential areas in the city, featuring a variety of housing densities and types. Although the neighborhood has pockets of dense development, particularly in the Business District, much of the housing stock in the area has been dominated by single-family residences. When the Sugar House Community Master Plan was released the planning commission was guided by a desire to strengthen existing neighborhoods while supporting new development particularly in the budding Sugar House Business District. At the time, the city enacted policies against un-permitted housing conversions as these unauthorized alterations to properties attracted fewer families and the area faced school closures. In the nearly two decades since the Master Plan was developed, the situation on the ground has changed substantially. According to Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan, "the city has not had a significant update to its zoning code since the mid-1990s" when decisions were guided by "the gradual population decline that occurred over the preceding three decades". In fact, growth patterns have changed dramatically, even from 2005, as noted by Growing SLC, "From 2010-2014, the city gained 4,400 new residents, doubling the pace of growth that was recorded between 2000 and 2010". Over the last several years the population and prices in Salt Lake have spiked. The proposed TAG Nibley Park project, though modest in size, marks a step towards addressing the housing squeeze by adding density on an underutilized lot. Proposed Project and Compliance with Salt Lake City Policy Objectives: Located at 500 E and abutting the highway, the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will be on a lot that changes in size along the contours in the highway. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes are the ideal use for this underutilized parcel and are in alignment with city policies laid out in several city housing documents as well as the Sugar House Community Master Plan. The project will increase density and add a housing option in Sugar House while minimizing the impact on surrounding housing, matching intensity of surrounding residences utilizing breaks of green space. The plan for the project will create a sense of place and connectivity with the surrounding community for the families that will live there. It will do so in a location that is suited for higher density (near an arterial street), creates minimal conflict with neighboring properties and provides a plethora of transit options, services and access to parks. These aspects are aligned with city goals. In the most recent Sugar House Master Plan, the city outlined policy for moderate density development, the proposed project meets all of these policy requirements and does so while also aligning with objectives in Plan Salt Lake and Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan. The Sugar House Community Master Plan, adopted in 2005, contains many provisions relating to where future planners should locate more dense development within the Sugar House neighborhood. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes meet all of these requirements, providing a location that is close to arterial streets, areas with higher density development and several parks. Going item by item, the Sugar House Community Master Plan states the following policies in regards to the location moderate density housing: • Proximity to arterial or collector streets-The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes are located on 500 E which is outlined in the Master Plan as a City Arterial. 500 E is a north south street provides access to much of the city, as well as east-west arterials. The development is also close to 700 E (.4 miles) which is a highlighted as a State Arterial, providing access to 1-80. • Proximity to higher density residential areas, mixed-use areas, neighborhood commercial nodes or the urban town center of the Business District-The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will be built in close proximity to other dense development. The nearest RMF-35 development is just .2 miles to the north, with form-based transit development within .25 miles to the north. There are also stretches of RMF-30 along 700 E which is .4 miles east of the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes. A bit further out is the Sugar House Business District which is 1 mile using local roads. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes are situated among several higher density residential areas and also features the intense development of the Business District within 1 mile. • Proximity to existing and proposed parks and open space-The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will be built in close proximity to several parks in Salt Lake and South Salt Lake. Lions Park in South Salt Lake is just .2 miles to the west, while Nibley Park and Fairmont Park in Salt Lake are within .5- and 1-miles distance to the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes respectively. The access to parks provided by the location of the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will help to ensure that the development is engaged with the community and a healthy place to live. The Sugar House Community Master Plan, recognized that the community was growing and would need to accommodate new development, including development classified as moderate density. TAG Nibley Park meets these requirements because the location is appropriate, the high-concept design will fit well with the existing neighborhood, the development will be connected with the surrounding neighborhood and these objectives will be accomplished with minimal conflict with surrounding properties. Going item by item, the Sugar House Community Master Plan states the following policies in regards to the development of moderate density housing: • Encourage new Medium-Density housing opportunities in appropriate locations in Sugar House.-As demonstrated above, the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes meet all of the criteria for the location of a moderate density housing development. The city's stated policy in the Sugar House Community Master Plan is to encourage the construction of this type of development when appropriately situated. • Encourage a variety of densities in the Medium-Density range while ensuring the design of these projects is compatible with surrounding residential structures.- The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will be designed in a manner that is compatible with surrounding structures and may serve as a needed relief from highway noise for neighbors to the south. The planned breaks and scale of the buildings will ensure that although the buildings are larger than surrounding houses, they will feature green space and sense of intensity that is comparable with single family residences in the surrounding neighborhood. • Continue to prohibit the development of"box car design of multi-family dwellings.- The developers of the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will collaborate closely with an architectural team to ensure that the development features an interesting design that fits well within the surrounding neighborhood. • Encourage street patterns that connect with other streets: The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will be situated between 500 E and where Warnock dead ends. The developer is open to having a conversation about potentially connecting 500 E and Warnock via a private road through the development. This would create better access to 700 E to the south of 1-80 and reduce the time/distance that non-car users will have to spend on busier arterials. • Discourage gated developments-The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will not be a gated development. The developer desires to foster a sense of connection with the surrounding community, thus ingress and egress to the townhomes on a private road will be unrestricted. • Support opportunities for conversion and infill development of Medium Density housing while requiring appropriate design and location to minimize conflicts with existing single-family development:The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will involve a project that infills moderate density development into an existing neighborhood. As outlined above, the project will pursue a high concept design in conjunction with the architectural team. The orientation of the lot and border with the highway provide a rare opportunity to infill with higher density, while disturbing neighbors minimally. The project directly borders just one single family residence and a field owned by the LDS church. The Sugar House Community Master Plan, acknowledged the need for a variety of housing types, particularly those that would appeal to and be obtainable by young, single and older people. The Master Plan specifically called out "alley-fed townhomes", like the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes as one option that could provide this variety. The policy adopted by the Master Plan for housing variety is as follows: • Provide a diversity of housing types, sizes, and prices within the community-The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will provide more housing diversity in a part of Sugar House that is lacking attainable and starter home options. Growing SLC: A 5 Year Housing Plan compiled in 2018, details an emerging housing crisis in Salt Lake City. According to the report the crisis is due in part to local barriers to housing development. Specifically, significant portions of the east side of the city being zoned single- family has constrained housing supply, this has been reflected in the housing prices. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will address several objectives and policy guidelines outlined in the report. • Objective 1: Review and modify land-use and zoning regulations to reflect the affordability needs of a growing, pioneering city-As noted in the Growing SLC housing report, zoning regulations have not undergone major revisions since the mid-90s, a time when the city had seen several decades of moderate population contraction. As discussed above the housing market has changed significantly, even in the years since 2005, when the Sugar House Community Master Plan was compiled. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes fill a concrete need for greater affordability in an area where it is sorely lacking, but in order to do so, the project needs increased density from what is offered by the current zoning code. • Develop flexible zoning tools and regulations, with a focus along significant transportation routes (1.1.1).-The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes are located along several significant public transit options. The project is in close proximity to a TRAX station (.25 miles) and a bus stop (<.1 mile). Access to these transportation amenities will allow residents to access work and play opportunities without being dependent on their cars. The increased density necessitated by the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will also serve to bolster the utilization of public transit in the Sugar House neighborhood. • Develop in-fill ordinances that promote a diverse housing stock, increase housing options, create redevelopment opportunities, and allow additional units within existing structures, while minimizing neighborhood impacts (1.1.2).-The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes are an infill project that will increase the diversity of the housing stock in Sugar House and provide new housing options by redeveloping an underutilized lot. The location along the freeway will allow it to achieve these aims in a way that impacts the neighborhood very minimally and affects few neighbors. • Objective 3: Implement Life cycle Housing principles in neighborhoods throughout the city- By allowing for the development of townhomes in the Sugar House neighborhood, the city will facilitate an option for young people and families as well as people desiring to age in place in the community. Townhomes offer a more affordable option for young and budding families, while simultaneously offering the possibility of downsizing and reduced maintenance responsibilities for those looking to age in the community where they have spent their lives. One goal of the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes is to create a thriving community where people at different points in the life cycle can live in harmony with each other. In Plan Salt Lake a 2015 document outlining policy for the entire city, the need for expanded housing opportunities was recognized in calls for growth and housing initiatives. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes align well with the initiatives outlined in Plan Salt Lake by offering an option to strategically increase density in a location where it is appropriate. Growth Initiatives • Locate new development in areas with existing infrastructure and amenities, such as transit and transportation corridors:As outlined above the project will be located in an area with abundant access to city infrastructure that promotes healthy work and play, as well as efficient transportation to recreation and employment opportunities. • Promote infill and redevelopment of underutilized land: In an era when single family homes in the 84106 area code have an average asking price $656,000 over the last 90 days and houses are spending less than 2 weeks on the market, having a single family residence or even several single family residences on the parcel with the characteristics of the proposed site represents an extreme underutilization of the land. • Accommodate and promote an increase in the City's population.-As mentioned in Growing SLC, the city is growing rapidly, and the pace has only increased over recent years. A denser zoning code will allow for the property to accommodate more units, thereby better promoting growth in the City's population. • Provide access to opportunities for a healthy lifestyle (including parks,trails, recreation, and healthy food).-The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will be close to resources that allow a healthy lifestyle including multiple parks, shopping/recreation opportunities and several grocery stores. Housing Initiatives • Increase the number of moderate density housing types and options:The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will provide a moderate density option in an area of the city where it is sorely needed. • Encourage housing options that accommodate aging in place:The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will encourage aging in place by offering a lower maintenance option for folks looking to age in place within the Sugar House community by downsizing. • Direct new growth towards areas with existing infrastructure and services that have the potential to be people-oriented.-Sugar House is a highly developed part of the city, therefore it has the infrastructure and services needed to support a high quality of life for the residents of the proposed development. • Enable moderate density increases within existing neighborhoods where appropriate.- The parcel on which the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will be developed is very well suited for an increase in density according to the criteria laid out in the Sugar House Community Master Plan. The minimal disturbance provides a unique opportunity in the Sugar House neighborhood. • Promote high density residential in areas served by transit:The area around the proposed project is served by bus and light rail transit options, all within a quarter mile. Additional density would promote higher utilization of these resources. Equity Initiatives • Support policies that provide housing choices, including affordability, accessibility and aging in place:Sugar House is a high opportunity neighborhood that has a high barrier to entry. Our project will serve to increase equity in the city by providing a housing choice that is more attainable than single family homes on large lots in this area. Moreover, the resources in the area will promote accessibility and aging in place as outlined above. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will advance this equity related initiative as outlined in Plan Salt Lake. Purpose: The purpose of the amendment to the zone map amendment is to work towards better fulfilling the city's stated goals and vision as demonstrated in the Sugar House Community Master Plan and other city planning documents. The current zoning code applied to the property is outdated and preventing growth in an area that is well suited for it, especially given the characteristics of the lot allowing for more housing without affecting a significant number of neighbors. The proposed development will achieve the goals and purpose of the RMF-35 zone far more effectively than those of the current R-1-7000 zone. Our team is committed to making this a project that will work not only for future members of the community, but also current community members. Thus, we will be including neighbors in the process of finalizing the formulation of our project to make sure we minimize disturbance and bring as much benefit as possible. We will work with appropriate community bodies to ensure that the project fits the style and intensity of the surrounding neighborhood. Moreover, we will be collaborating with a top notch architectural team to design a product that Sugar House will be proud to have as an addition to their neighborhood. Our team will work with the community to establish that RMF-35 is the appropriate zoning code for this property. Parcels for Zone Map Amendment: 16-19-428-009 RMF-35 Zoning: The purpose statement for the RMF-35 zone is as follows: 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 TAG Nibley Park Townhomes fit well within the purpose statement for the RMF-35 Zone. The development will be located on an interior block linking together 500 East and Warnock Ave. Additionally, by using smaller blocks of townhomes with green space interspersed throughout the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will mirror the intensity of the surrounding neighborhood. Through thoughtful design the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will preserve the character of the neighborhood, while providing a sustainable development both in terms of attainability and access to surrounding amenities via public transit. Amending zoning follows the Sugar House Community Master Plan by allowing a moderate density development in an area that meets all criteria and policies for moderate density residential. While recognizing that use on the property will be denser than the surrounding single family and non-conforming multifamily homes, the denser development at the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will shield the neighboring properties from the noise of the highway directly abutting the property. The RMF-35 Zone Requirements are as follows: Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Land Use Minimum lot Area Minimum lot Width Multi-family dwellings(3 through 11 units) 9,000 square feet' 80 feet Multi-family dwellings(12 or more units) 26,000 square feetl 80 feet Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and police and fire No minimum No minimum stations Natural open space and conservation areas, public and private No minimum No minimum Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 square feet 140 feet Public pedestrian pathways,trails and greenways No minimum No minimum Public/private utility transmission wires, lines, pipes and poles No minimum No minimum Single-family attached dwellings(3 or more) 3,000 square feet per Interior: 22 unit feet Corner:32 feet Single-family detached dwellings 5,000 square feet 50 feet Twin home dwellings 4,000 square feet per 25 feet unit Two-family dwellings 8,000 square feet 50 feet Utility substations and buildings 5,000 square feet 50 feet Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in section 21A.33.020 of 5,000 square feet 50 feet this title Qualifying provisions: 1. 9,000 square feet for 3 units, plus 2,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit up to and including 11 units. 26,000 square feet for 12 units, plus 1,000 square feet for each additional dwelling unit up to 1 acre. For developments greater than 1 acre, 1,500 square feet for each dwelling unit is required. D. Maximum Building Height: The maximum building height permitted in this district is thirty five feet (35'). E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: Twenty feet (20'). 2. Corner Side Yard: Ten feet (10'). 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Single-family detached and two-family dwellings: (1) Interior lots: Four feet (4') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. (2) Corner lots: Four feet (4'). b. Single-family attached: No yard is required, however, if one is provided it shall not be less than four feet (4'). c. Twin home dwelling: No yard is required along one side lot line while a ten foot (10') yard is required on the other. d. Multi-family dwellings: (1) Interior lots: Side yard shall be at least ten feet (10'). e. All other permitted and conditional uses: Ten feet (10') on each side. 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five percent (25%) of the lot depth, but not less than twenty feet (20') and need not exceed twenty five feet /25'i 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in8 required yard subject tO section 21A.36.020, table 2lA.36.02O8, "Obstructions |n Required Yards'', of this title. 6. Existing Yards: For buildings legally existing On April 12, 1995, the required yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building unless the proposed yard encroachment istOaccommodate additional units. New principal buildings must conform tO current yard area requirements, unless the new principal two-family dwelling or twin home has legal conforming status as outlined in SeCtiOn_21A.38.070 of this title. F. Required Landscape Yards: The front yard, corner side and, for interior multi-family lots, one Of the interior side yards shall bemaintained a3 landscape yards. G. Maximum Building Coverage: l. Single-Family Detached: The surface coverage Of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty five percent (45Y6) of the lot area. 2. Single-Family Attached Dwellings: The surface coverage Df all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed sixty percent (6O96) of the lot area. 3. Two-Family And Twin Home Dwellings: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed fifty percent /5UY6\ of the lot area. 4. Multi-Family Dwellings: The surface coverage Of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed sixty peroent (S0Y6) of the lot area. 5. Existing Dwellings: For dwellings existing On April 12, I995, the coverage Of such existing buildings shall be considered legally conforming. 6. Nonresidential Land Uses: The surface coverage Vf all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed sixty peroent (G0Y6) of the lot area. H. Landscape Buffers: Where a lot abuts 8 lot in3 single-family Or two-family residential district, a landscape buffer shall be provided in accordance with Lhapter 21A,48 o[this title. (Ord. 46-17, 7Ul7: Ord. 6b-l3, 20I3: Ord. l2-ll, 2011: Ord. 62-09 §§ 6, 9, 2OU9: Ord. 01-09 § 7, 20U9: Ord. 35-99 §§ lD, I9, l999: Ord. 26-95 § 2(l2-l2), l995) Surrounding Zoning: R-1-7000 Existing R-1-7000 Text: A. Purpose Statement: The purpose of the R-1/7,000 Single-Family Residential District is to provide for conventional single-family residential neighborhoods with lots not less than seven thousand (7,000) square feet in size. This district is appropriate in areas of the City as identified in the applicable community Master Plan. 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. B. Uses: Uses in the R-1/7,OU0 Single-Family Residential District, as specified in section 21A,33.020, .'Table Of Permitted And Conditional Uses For Residential Districts", of this title, are permitted subject to the general provisions set forth in section 21A.24.010 of this chapter and this section. C. Minimum Lot Area And Lot Width: The minimum lot areas and lot widths required in this district are as follows: Land Use Minimum Lot Area Minimum Lot Width Municipal service uses, including City utility uses and police and fire stations No minimum No minimum Natural open space and conservation areas, public and private No minimum No minimum Places of worship less than 4 acres in size 12,000 square feet 80 feet Public pedestrian pathways,trails and greenways No minimum No minimum Public/private utility transmission wires, lines, pipes and poles No minimum No minimum Single-family detached dwellings 7,000 square feet 50 feet Utility substations and buildings 7,000 square feet 50 feet Other permitted or conditional uses as listed in section 21A.33.020 of this 7,000 square feet 50 feet title D. Maximum Building Height: 1. The maximum height of buildings with pitched roofs shall be: a. Twenty eight feet (28') measured to the ridge of the roof; or b. The average height of other principal buildings on the block face. 2. The maximum height of a flat roof building shall be twenty feet (20'). 3. Maximum exterior wall height adjacent to interior side yards shall be twenty feet (20') for exterior walls placed at the building setback established by the minimum required yard. Exterior wall height may increase one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) in height for each foot (or fraction thereof) of increased setback beyond the minimum required interior side yard. If an exterior wall is approved with a reduced setback through a special exception, variance or other process, the maximum allowable exterior wall height decreases by one foot (1') (or fraction thereof) for each foot (or fraction thereof) that the wall is located closer to the property line than the required side yard setback. a. Lots with cross slopes where the topography slopes, the downhill exterior wall height may be increased by one-half foot (0.5') for each one foot (1') difference between the elevation of the average grades on the uphill and downhill faces of the building. b. Exceptions: (1) Gable Walls: Walls at the end of a pitched roof may extend to a height necessary to support the roof structure except that the height of the top of the widest portion of the gable wall must conform to the maximum wall height limitation described in this section. (2) Dormer Walls: Dormer walls are exempt from the maximum exterior wall height if: (A) The width of a dormer is ten feet (10') or less; and (B) The total combined width of dormers is less than or equal to fifty percent (50%) of the length of the building facade facing the interior side yard; and (C) Dormers are spaced at least eighteen inches (18") apart. 4. Building height for initial construction of a building shall be measured as the vertical distance between the top of the roof and the established grade at any given point of building coverage. Building height for any subsequent structural modification or addition to a building shall be measured from finished grade existing at the time a building permit is requested. Building height for the R-1 districts, R-2 District and SR districts is defined and illustrated in chapter 21A.62 of this title. 5. Where buildings are stepped to accommodate the slope of terrain, each step shall have a horizontal dimension of at least twelve feet (12'). 6. a. For properties outside of the H Historic Preservation Overlay District, additional building height may be granted as a special exception by the Planning Commission subject to the special exception standards in chapter 21A.52 of this title and if the proposed building height is in keeping with the development pattern on the block face. The Planning Commission will approve, approve with conditions, or deny the request pursuant to chapter 21A.52 of this title. b. Requests for additional building height for properties located in an H Historic Preservation Overlay District shall be reviewed by the Historic Landmarks Commission which may grant such requests subject to the provisions of section 21A.34.020 of this title. E. Minimum Yard Requirements: 1. Front Yard: The minimum depth of the front yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the front yards of existing buildings within the block face. Where there are no existing buildings within the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum front yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. For buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the required front yard shall be no greater than the established setback line of the existing building. 2. Corner Side Yard: The minimum depth of the corner side yard for all principal buildings shall be equal to the average of the existing buildings on the block face. Where there are no other existing buildings on the block face, the minimum depth shall be twenty feet (20'). Where the minimum corner side yard is specified in the recorded subdivision plat, the requirement specified on the plat shall prevail. 3. Interior Side Yard: a. Corner lots: Six feet (6'). b. Interior lots: Six feet (6') on one side and ten feet (10') on the other. 4. Rear Yard: Twenty five feet (25'). 5. Accessory Buildings And Structures In Yards: Accessory buildings and structures may be located in a required yard subject to section 21A.36.020, table 21A.36.020B of this title. F. Maximum Building Coverage: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty percent (40%) of the lot area. G. Maximum Lot Size: With the exception of lots created by a subdivision or subdivision amendment recorded in the Office of the Salt Lake County Recorder, the maximum size of a new lot shall not exceed ten thousand five hundred (10,500) square feet. Lots in excess of the maximum lot size may be created through the subdivision process subject to the following standards: I. The size of the new lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; 2. The configuration of the lot is compatible with other lots on the same block face; and 3. The relationship of the lot width to the lot depth is compatible with other lots on the S3nne block face. H. Standards For Attached Garages: l. Width OfAn Attached Garage: The width Ofan attached garage facing the street may not exceed fifty percent (50%) of the width of the front facade of the house. The width of the garage iS equal tO the width Vf the garage door, Orin the case Ofmultiple garage doors, the sum of the widths of each garage door plus the width of any intervening wall elements between garage doors. 2. Located Behind Or In Line With The Front Line [lfThe Building: No attached garage shall be constructed forward of the "front line of the bui|dinQ" (33 defined in 32diOn 21A.62.040 Of this title), unless: 3. A new garage is constructed to replace an existing garage that is forward of the "front line of the bui|ding". In this case, the new garage shall be constructed in the same location with the same dimensions aS the garage being replaced; b. At least sixty percent (6O96) of the existing garages on the block face are located forward Of the "front line Ofthe bui|ding"; Or c. The garage doors will face a corner side lot line. ((]rd. 4G-l7, 20l7: Ord. 59-16, 20l6: Ord. 7-l4, 2014: Ord. b0-13, 2Ul3: Ord. 73-11, 2OIl: Ord. l2-l1, 2OlI: Ord. 90-U5 § 2 (Exh. B), 20U5: Ord. 2S-95 § 2(12-5), 1995\ The R-1-7000 zoning on this property does not align with the cities stated goals because it lacks the density needed to ensure attainability in a high opportunity part of the city. A more dense development pattern would offer more tothe city in terms ofsustainabi|ity. Less dense, more dispersed single family zoning was appropriate inthis area when the city was shrinking and schools were closing. In an era when demand is at an all time high and many of the workers in the Sugar House Business District commute in from other parts Of the city Oroutlying communities, it is far more important and sustainable to increase housing options than to keep 3n underutilized parcel next tO the highway zoned R-l-700U. This is especially true when the proposed development will mirror the surrounding community in terms of intensity. In fact, the site plan for the proposed project Current|yh3sCOven]ge |e3Sth3nvxh3ti5typiC3||y3||Oxvedin R-1-7000 (roughly 25%versus 40% allowed) and the lot is currently so large at nearly an acre that it does not comply with modern R-1-7000 code implemented in the 90s which caps lots at 10,500 square feet. The proposed revision to the zoning on this property will allow development on the parcel that is congruent with the modern needs of the city as well as gO3|3 stated in the most recent city plans and guiding documents. Map Amendments are approved based on several criteria including: • Whether the proposed map amendment is consistent with the purposes, goals, objectives, and policies of the City as state through its various adopted planning documents. • The extent to which a proposed map amendment will affect adjacent properties • 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 consistency of the proposed amendment with city policies, goals and objectives is discussed above in extensive detail. Specifically, there is strong support for this zone amendment in the following documents: Sugar House Community Master Plan Growing SLC: A 5 Year Housing Plan Plan Salt Lake The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will provide a new, more attainable housing option in a high opportunity neighborhood. The location of the site on a narrow lot near the highway makes it very well suited to the type of development possible in the RMF-35 zone. Moreover, by adding a connection between 500 E and Warnock Ave, the project would be well integrated into the community and foster the sense of connectivity that is communicated as being important throughout planning documents for the area. Currently, the parcel is occupied by a condemned house and its depth and proximity to the highway have encouraged campers to frequently take up residence on the property. The construction of the TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will provide several benefits to neighboring properties. Most notably amongst these are the removal of an eyesore and increased safety and activity in the neighborhood. Additionally, by engaging a talented architectural team, we hope to contribute to the high quality design people have come to associate with Sugar House. The TAG Nibley Park Townhomes will contribute to the area and add value to surrounding properties. Stepping into an established area always brings a unique set of challenges. In order to address these challenges we have already started engaging with a very strong architectural team to ensure that the project fits in the area in terms of style and quality. However, the development team also recognizes the importance of engaging with the neighborhood to build a product is something that will benefit the community. We have already started engaging with the only single family neighbor of the project and will work hard to minimize the disruptions that construction often brings. Moreover, we have met with the city by having a pre-submittal meeting with the planning department to get feedback on the project's site plan. We also presented our project to the community council for the area at the most recent land use and zoning meeting. This meeting provided us with feedback about how we might address some of the highway issues and since then we have looked into filtration options to improve indoor air quality close to major highways. Feedback from neighbors will be considered as we continue to advance the project's design. The current zoning code on the parcel does not advance city plans outlined in the Sugar House Community Master Plan, Growing SLC and Plan Salt Lake. Modernizing the zoning on the property will bring land use regulations into agreement with stated city goals. Recent city plans and documents have recognized that as the population of Salt Lake grows, prices are spiking, leaving folks with fewer housing options and pushing some out altogether. TAG Nibley Park provides the unique opportunity to build in an area where it will cause minimal disruption and with the increased density of the project will come increased attainability in pricing. Creative infill projects are needed if Salt Lake wants to create attainable workforce housing and TAG Nibley Park will be an exemplary project furthering the purpose of the RMF-35 zone and city goals and plans alike. '', NOIe:This Cancepkuai IandScape plan is W."e -d to prapoee ideas &layout L S C C ---^'y Revision: DATE: ------ — LANDSCAPE Ui b I O W TYE N CO 2M _ 20-0 20-0° _ 2D-0° (— TH1 TH2 TH3 TH4 TH5 TH6 TH7 TH8 TH9 TH10 TH11 TH1 TH13 TH14 TH15 TH1 TH17 TH18 Lj O oZD p �- - - -- - - - - - - - ----- ------ --------------------_._-- ---------- - WARNOCK .2 Y AVE TOWNHOUSE INFORMATION LEVEL i-206 SO FT \ GA AGE LEVEL 2-608SOFT V LEVEL 3.606 SO FT '.. TOTAL 1.418 SO FT '.. Site Plan Townhouse Concept 1 DATE 08/10/21 —Je. 111=20' DRAWN BY JLN Vim- JOB number. 080922 V j SHEET: NORTH �_ 7. Mailing List NAME CARE OF C DAWN HUGHES SAMUEL COOK GRANT G WELLS; PATRICIA C WELLS (1T) TIMOTHEA J BRENNAN ARLA LIEBMANN; MARK H LIEBMANN (JT) JEREMY C SIMMONS KURT EADES; AMANDA EADES (JT) ABBEY M HARPER; STEVEN S HARPER (JT) JEREMY C SIMMONS JEREMY C SIMMONS COREY GUENTHER; LAUREN GUENTHER (1T) ERNESTO PANDO; HULENE PANDO (JT) CHARLES C WANG ERICA DIANE OLIVER JACK L NELSON EVANGELINE BOURDOS VLADIMIR F MARTISKA DANIELLE R FLEMING ESTHER J LONG SLC ASSET 1601 LLC RYAN STARK; DON STARK (JT) DEAN STOCK MARK A BEEKHUIZEN; PATRICIA A BEEKHUIZEN (1T) SJMR TRUST SMITH HARTVIGSEN,PLLC MARK A BEEKHUIZEN; PATRICIA A BEEKHUIZEN (1T) SALT LAKE CITY CORP. PROPERTY MANAGEMENT DAVID C TUCKER RUSSELL C BANCROFT CORP OF PB OF CH JC OF LDS TAX ADM DIV 506-8606 L.C. OSCAR'S STORE KIM ROWLAND MAKAYLA LOEY OLIVER HUGHES MATTHEW J BARILA 1996 WALSH FAMILY TRUST 04/24/1996 AMD 12/03/2019 BARRY D WALSH TODD G PURKEY; ANNA ROSE PURKEY(JT) CATHERINE DELANEY MACOMBER EDWARD E EARLES; MARLENE EARLES MAT SEVEN SEVEN AID GROUP CORP JONATHAN ERIC BRUCE; MEGAN BRUCE (JT) OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT OCCUPANT SALT LAKE CITY PLANNING DIVISION C/O CAITLYN TUBBS STREET CITY STATE ZIP 2393 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 532 E DRIGGS AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 538 E DRIGGS AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 980 E HOLLYWOOD AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84105 5457 HORSESHOE DR STANSBURY PARK UT 84074 560 E DRIGGS AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 562 E DRIGGS AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 572 E DRIGGS AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 560 E DRIGGS AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 7405 S FOX TAIL BAY WEST JORDAN UT 84084 470 E ROBERT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 465 E WARNOCK AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84115 710 S MYRTLE AVE#189 MONROVIA CA 91016 2446 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2458 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2460 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2480 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 434 W ASCENSION WY MURRAY UT 84123 2445 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 3536 WILLIAMS ST DENVER CO 80205 2467 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 529 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 535 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 257 E 200 S SALT LAKE CITY UT 84111 535 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 PO BOX 145460 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 549 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 557 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 50 E NORTHTEMPLE ST#2225 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84150 927 LIZZIE LN ST GEORGE UT 84790 2437 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2445 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2451 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2475 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2478 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2477 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 1397 W 6020 S TAYLORSVILLE UT 84123 560 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2484 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2393 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 532 E DRIGGS AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 538 E DRIGGS AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 550 E DRIGGS AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 552 E DRIGGS AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 560 E DRIGGS AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 562 E DRIGGS AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 572 E DRIGGS AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 552 E DRIGGS AVE# NFF1 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 560 E DRIGGS AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 470 E ROBERT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 465 E WARNOCK AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 478-486 E ROBERT AVE SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2446 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2458 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2460 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2480 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2434 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2445 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2455 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2467 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 529 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 535 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2435 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 543 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2469 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 549 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 557 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2450 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2429 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2437 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2445 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2451 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2475 S 500 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2478 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2477 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2479 S PARK ST SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 560 E DIVISION LN SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 2484 S 600 E SALT LAKE CITY UT 84106 PO BOX 145480 SALT LAKE CITY UT 84114 Item BS .•••`�" " ``• MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE: August 9, 2022 RE: R-2 Zoning Text Amendment: Building Coverage PLNPCM2021-01228 MOTION i (close and defer) I move that the Council close the public hearing and defer action to a future Council meeting. MOTION 2 (continue hearing) I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future Council meeting. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.FOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 i COUNCIL STAFF REPORT �� •i��i CITY COUNCIL Of SALT LAKE CPTY rn= Item Schedule: Briefing:July 19, 2022 TO: City Council Members Set Date:July 19,2022 Public Hearing:August 9,2022 FROM• Brian Fullmer Potential Action:August 16,2022 Policy Analyst DATE: August 9, 2022 RE: R-2 Zoning Text Amendment: Building Coverage PLNPCM2021-01228 BRIEFING UPDATE At the July 19, 2022 briefing, Council Members expressed general support for the proposed text amendment. In response to a Council Member question about additional lot coverage making it feasible to construct an ADU, Planning staff stated there is potential for some single-family home owners in the R-2 zone to build an ADU if the maximum lot coverage is increased. Planning noted ADUs are not allowed on lots with a duplex in this zone. Planning staff said the proposed change would revert to historic maximum lot coverage for single-family homes in the R-2 zone prior to the 1995 zoning update. The following information was provided for the July 19, 2022 Council briefing.It is provided again for background purposes. The Council will be briefed about a proposal to amend a section of the zoning ordinance related to building coverage limits in the R-2 single-and two-family zoning district. Currently the ordinance limits building coverage of single-family homes to 40%of the lot,while duplexes are limited to 45%lot coverage. New single-family developments in the R-2 zone require a minimum of 5,000 square feet of lot area and duplexes require at least 8,000 square feet. However, some existing properties do not meet the current requirements because they were developed prior to current zoning regulations.The petitioner's proposed text amendment would apply to non-complying lots smaller than the current required sizes. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 i�a Planning staff reviewed the proposed text amendment and is of the opinion that the proposed text amendment increasing the lot coverage to 45% should be extended to all single-family parcels in the R-2 zone rather than limiting it to lots less than the current minimum size.This would make the maximum single-family lot coverage consistent across the R-2 zoning district.The petitioner spoke at the Planning Commission public hearing and expressed support for extending the 45%coverage to all single-family parcels in the R-2 zone. The R-2 zoning district is located throughout the city but is more concentrated in the Central City and Capitol Hill areas. Maps of the R-2 zones are included in Attachment A(pages 5-7)of the Planning Commission staff report. If adopted by the Council,the petitioner's proposed text amendment applying only to lots smaller than the current required size would include approximately 400 single-family parcels. The Planning Division's recommendation to include all R-2 single-family parcels would increase this number to approximately 1,300 parcels. Planning staff included a table in the Planning Commission staff report with examples of allowed building square footage differences between 40%and 45%building coverage.The information is replicated here for convenience. Lot Square 40%Building 45%Building Square Footage Footage Coverage Coverage Change 4,000 1,600 1,800 200 5,000 2,000 2,250 250 6,000 2,400 2,700 300 7,000 2,800 3,150 350 8,000 3,200 3,600 400 9,000 3,600 4,050 450 10,000 4,000 4,500 500 It should be noted the proposal does not modify building setbacks or other zoning requirements. It is Planning's opinion little or no impact if the building coverage is increased. No one provided comments at the March 23, 2022 Planning Commission public hearing.The Commission voted unanimously to forward a positive recommendation to the City Council. Goal of the briefing:Review the proposed zoning text amendment, determine if the Council supports moving forward with the proposal. POLICY QUESTION 1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration if 45%lot coverage for duplexes in the R-2 zone is adequate. 2. Does the Council support the original proposal to increase maximum building coverage on single- family R-2 parcels less than 5,000 square feet, or increase the building coverage on all single-family R-2 lots? .ADDITIONAL INFORMATION The petitioner owns a home at 927 East 700 South they stated they had structural issues with the earthen wall foundation.The cellar wall was replaced with a concrete foundation and floor.As part of the work a Page 1 2 "trap door"access to the basement was replaced with a staircase.The new staircase is significantly larger than the previous basement access,making the room it is in unusable as a living space.The homeowner would like to extend the back of the house 8.5 feet,but the current 40%maximum building coverage of this approximately 4,400 square foot parcel would limit extending the back of the house to one-foot.The proposed text amendment would allow the homeowner to proceed with their desired expansion. KEY CONSIDERATIONS Planning staff identified three key considerations related to the proposal which are found on pages 3-4 of the Planning Commission staff report and summarized below. For the complete analysis,please see the staff report. Consideration i-Planning Staffs Recommendation As noted above, Planning recommends expanding the proposed text amendment to allow 45%building coverage for all single-family homes in the R-2 zoning district rather than only for parcels smaller than the minimum 5,000 square feet.This would allow slightly larger homes,but there would be little or no impact as setback requirements,building height, and other requirements would not be changed. Consideration 2-Compliance with Master Plan Policies Plan Salt Lake(2015) Planning staff stated "The proposed zoning text amendment adheres to the initiatives within Plan Salt Lake, a citywide plan that outlines the City's overall vision for the next 25 years. This includes the development of a wide variety of housing types, a mix of uses, and housing options which are essential for sustainable growth and development." It is Planning's opinion the proposed zoning text amendment aligns with initiatives in Plan Salt Lake related to neighborhoods,growth,housing,and preservation. Consideration 3-Compliance with the Standards for General Amendments Planning staff reviewed the proposal and found it generally complies with the following criteria used to analyze a proposed zoning text amendment: 1. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes,goals, objectives, and policies of the City as stated through its various adopted planning documents. 2. Whether a proposed text amendment furthers the specific purpose statements of the zoning ordinance. 3. Whether a proposed text amendment is consistent with the purposes and provisions of any applicable overlay zoning districts which may impose additional standards; and 4. The extent to which a proposed text amendment implements the best current,professional practices of urban planning and design. PROJECT CHRONOLOGY • November 30, 2021-Application accepted. • December 29, 2021-Petition assigned to Meagan Booth, Principal Planner. • January 6, 2022-Petition reviewed internally,and staff provided comments to applicant. • February 7, 2022-Notice mailed to all community councils; application posted for the online open house. • February 7, 2022-Public input period closed. • March 10, 2022-Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the listserv. Page 13 • March 23, 2022-Planning Commission held a public hearing and forwarded a positive recommendation to the City Council. • March 30, 2022-Draft ordinance information sent to Attorney's Office. • April 14, 2022-Planning Division received signed ordinance from Attorney's Office. • April 20, 2022-Transmittal received by City Council Office. Page 14 ERIN MENDENHALL L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor � ' and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas ng k1t7 c/1= Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 5/13/2022 Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 5/13/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 12, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community &Neighborhoods SUBJECT: R-2 Text Amendment: Building Coverage (PLNPCM2021-01228) STAFF CONTACT: Meagan Booth, Principal Planner mea()an.boo thLq.slcgov.com or 801-535-7213 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt the changes to the Zoning Ordinance to allow 45%building coverage for single-family homes in the R-2 zoning district as recommended by the Planning Commission. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Jim Bradley, owner of the property at 927 East 700 South,has submitted a petition to amend a section of the Zoning Ordinance related to building coverage limitations in the R-2 Single and Two-Family zoning district. The subject ordinance currently limits the building coverage for single-family homes to 40% of the lot and the building coverage for duplexes to 45% of the lot. The Planning Commission considered the request in a public hearing and recommended the City Council expand the proposal to allow 45%building coverage for all single-family properties, not just those located on lots less than the required minimum lot size. 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 1 PUBLIC PROCESS: Community Council Notice: A notice of application was sent to all recognized community organizations on February 7,2022,per City Code Chapter 2.60 with a link to the online open house webpage. The recognized organizations were given 45 days to respond with any concerns or to request staff to meet with them and discuss the proposed zoning amendment. The 45-day public engagement period ended on March 23, 2022. No community councils requested that staff attend a meeting to review the proposal. Public Open House: An online open house was held from February 7, 2022, to March 23, 2022. One written comment was submitted to the Planning Division after the publication of the staff report. The comment has been included in Exhibit 4. Planning Commission Meeting: The Planning Commission held a public hearing on March 23, 2022. The public hearing was posted on the Planning Division website, the Utah Public Notice website, and shared through the Planning Division email listserv. No entities have requested mailed notice of this proposal and no mailed notice was provided. Written comments were provided to the Planning Commission and there was no public comment during the public hearing. The minutes of the Planning Commission meeting are linked in this document. The Commission voted unanimously to forward a favorable recommendation to the City Council with Planning Staffs recommended changes. Planning Commission (PC) Records a) PC Agenda of March 23, 2022 (Click to Access) b) PC Minutes of March 23. 2022 (Click to Access) c) Planning Commission Staff lZeport of March 23, 2022 (Click to Access Report) EXHIBITS: 1) Project Chronology 2) Notice of City Council Public Hearing 3) Original Petition 4) Public Comment Received after Planning Commission Staff Report was Published 2 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. of 2022 (Amending the zoning text of Subsection 21 A.24.110.F of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to building coverage in the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District) An ordinance amending the text of Section 21 A.24.110.F of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to building coverage in the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01228. WHEREAS, on November 30, 2021, Jim Bradley("Applicant") submitted an application to amend the text of the Subsection 21A.24.110.F of the Salt Lake City Code to allow 45% Building Coverage in the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District pursuant to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01228; and WHEREAS the Applicant sought to have the text modified consistent with Salt Lake City master plans; and WHEREAS, on March 23, 2022, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding the Applicant's petition; and WHEREAS, at its March 23, 2022 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said application; 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 Zoning Text. That Subsection 21A.24.110.F of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: Single- and Two-Family Residential District: Maximum Building Coverage), shall be and hereby is amended read as follows: F. Maximum Building Coverage: The building coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty-five percent (45%) of the lot for single-family and two- 4 family uses. For lots with buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of existing buildings shall be considered legal conforming. SECTION 2. 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 AND COUNTERSIGN: CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. MAYOR CITY RECORDER (SEAL) APPROVED AS TO FORM Bill No. of 2022. Salt Lake City Attomey's Office Date:Apr% 14, 2 ` 2 By: P ul Ni Ison, enior City Attorney 5 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 1 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 2 No. of 2022 3 4 (Amending the zoning text of Subsection 21A.24.1101 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to 5 building coverage in the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District) 6 7 An ordinance amending the text of Section 21A.24.1101 of the Salt Lake City Code 8 pertaining to building coverage in the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District pursuant 9 to Petition No. PLNPCM2021-01228. 10 WHEREAS, on November 30, 2021, Jim Bradley ("Applicant") submitted an application 11 to amend the text of the Subsection 21A.24.110.F of the Salt Lake City Code to allow 45% 12 Building Coverage in the R-2 Single- and Two-Family Residential District pursuant to Petition 13 No. PLNPCM2021-01228; and 14 WHEREAS the Applicant sought to have the text modified consistent with Salt Lake City 15 master plans; and 16 WHEREAS, on March 23, 2022, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public 17 hearing regarding the Applicant's petition; and 18 WHEREAS, at its March 23, 2022 meeting, the planning commission voted in favor of 19 forwarding a positive recommendation to the Salt Lake City Council on said application; and 20 WHEREAS, after a public hearing on this matter the city council has determined that 21 adopting this ordinance is in the city's best interests. 22 NOW, THEREFORE,be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 23 SECTION 1. Amending the Zoning Text. That Subsection 21A.24.110.17 of the Salt 24 Lake City Code (Zoning: Residential Districts: Single- and Two-Family Residential District: 25 Maximum Building Coverage), shall be and hereby is amended read as follows: 26 F. Maximum Building Coverage: The suf€aee building coverage of all principal and accessory 27 buildings shall not exceed forty-five percent (45%) of the lot for single-family and two- 6 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 28 family&N,elli-ngs uses. and f fyy „ ent (40%) f single family dwel iffg-s. For lots with 29 buildings legally existing on April 12, 1995, the coverage of existing buildings shall be 30 considered legal conforming. 31 32 SECTION 2. Effective Date. This ordinance shall become effective on the date of its 33 first publication. 34 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this day of , 35 2022. 36 37 CHAIRPERSON 38 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: 39 40 41 CITY RECORDER 42 43 Transmitted to Mayor on 44 45 46 Mayor's Action: Approved. Vetoed. 47 48 49 MAYOR 50 51 CITY RECORDER 52 (SEAL) 53 54 Bill No. of 2022. 55 56 57 7 TABLE OF CONTENTS: 1) PROJECT CHRONOLOGY 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 3) ORIGINAL APPLICATION PETITION 4) PUBLIC COMMENT 3 1) PROJECTCHRONOLOGY s ERIN MENDENHALL L DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor � ' and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas ng k1t7 c/1= Director PROJECT CHRONOLOGY Petition: PLNPCM2021-01228 November 30,2021 Application Accepted December 29,2021 Petition assigned to Meagan Booth,Principal Planner January 6,2022 Petition was reviewed internally, and staff provided comments to the applicant. February 7,2022 Notice mailed to all Community Councils February 7,2022 Application posted for the online open house. March 10,2022 Planning Commission agenda posted to the website and emailed to the listserv. March 17,2022 Staff report posted to Planning's website March 23,2022 Planning Commission Meeting and Public Hearing: A positive recommendation was forwarded to City Council with Staff s recommended changes. 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 9 2) NOTICE OF CITY COUNCIL HEARING 10 NOTICE OF PUBLIC HEARING The Salt Lake City Council is considering Petition PLNPCM2021-01228. Jim Bradley, the property owner at approximately 927 East 700 South, has submitted a petition to amend a section of the Zoning Ordinance related to building coverage limitations in the R2 Single and Two-Family Residential District. The subject regulation is found in Section 21A.24.110F. The Zoning Ordinance currently limits the building coverage for single-family homes to 40% of the lot and the building coverage for duplexes to 45% of the lot. The proposed amendment would increase the allowable building coverage to 45% for single-family homes in the R-2 district city-wide. (Staff Contact: Meagan Booth at 801-535-7213) 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 TIME: 7:00 PM PLACE: *Electronic and In-Person Options City and County Building Room 326 451 South State Street, 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(iislcgov.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 Meagan Booth at 801-535-7213 between the hours of 8:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m., Monday through Friday, or via e-mail or rnea)an.boo41,ra slc11o1.co�n)The application details can be accessed at ]laps: citi7enportai.sic ,ov.com/,by selecting the"planning"tab and entering the petition number PLNPCM2021-01228. 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 counci].comnlents(a/',sic�,ov.conl, (801)535-7600, or relay service 711. 11 3) ORIGINAL APPLICATION PETITION 12 ,mac c � Zoning Amendment amp boa El Amend the text Of the Zoning Ordinance Arend the Zoning Map OFFICE USE ONLY Received By: Date Received: Project#: Name or Section/s of Zoning Amendment: 21 A.24.11 OF PLEASE PROVIDE THE FOLLOWING INFORMATION d r ss of b'ect Prop or re - One rheas in loll ��k�e its. { 27 East700 Sctuth, A 102 - Subject Property) Name of Applicant: Phone: Edwin James Bradley Addre , of A licant- 749 4111top oad Salt Lake pity, Utah. 54103 E-mail of Applicant: Cell/Fax: ejamesbradley@corncast.net 801-518-7600 Applicant's Interest in Subject Property: Omer Contractor Architect Other: apmedoo t o Owner(if different from applicant): E-mail of Pro ert Owner: Phone: ejamesbrac�ley�corncast.net 601-51 -7 00 Please note that additional information may be required by the project planner to ensure adequate information is provided for staff analysis. All information required for staff analysis will be copied and made public, including professional architectural or engineering drawings,for the purposes of public review by any interested party. AVAILABLE CONSULTATION If you have any questions regarding the requirements of this application, please contact Salt Lake City Planning Counter at zonin slc ov.com prior to submitting the application. REQUIRED FEE Map Amendment: filing fee of$1,075 plus 121 per acre in excess of one acre Text Amendment: filing fee of$1,075, plus fees for newspaper notice. Plus, additional fee for mailed public notices. Noticing fees will be assessed after the application is submitted. SIGNATURE If applicable, a notarized statement of consent authorizing applicant to act as an agent will be required. Signature of Owner or Agent: Date: Updated 8/21/2021 13 SUBMITTAL REQUIREMENTS 7 x. us 4� 1. Project Description (please electronically attach additional sheets. See Section 21A.50 for the Amendments ordinance.) A statement declaring the purpose for the amendment. V A description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. et' List the reasons why the present zoning may not be appropriate for the area. F&/1 Is the request amending the Zoning Map? If so, please list the parcel numbers to be changed. ( � Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? If so, please include language and the reference to the Zoning Ordinance to be changed. WHERE TO FILE THE COMPLETE APPLICATION Apply online through the Citizen Access Portal,There is a step-by-step wide to learn how to submit online. INCOMPLETE APPLICATIONS WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED I acknowledge that Salt Lake City requires the items above to be submitted before my application can be processed. I understand that Planning will not accept my application unless all of the following items are included in the submittal package. Updated 8/21/2021 14 PROJECT DESCRIPTION Statement declaring the purpose of the amendment. The purpose of this proposed amendment is to amend Ordinance 21A.24.110.F to allow single-family dwellings in a R-2 Zone to use up to a maximum of 45% of the total lot square footage with covered structures on legally existing lots that are less than the current minimum lot size requirement. The existing ordinance allows single-family dwellings in an R-2 Zone to place up to a maximum of 40% of total lot square footage with covered structures which typically would be a home, a garage, and possibly a covered patio or shed. In the past, a number of single- family dwellings in the R-2 zone were legally platted with less than the current legal minimum lot size of 5,000 SF. Single family homeowners with less than a 5,000 SF lot are still subject to the 40% maximum covered structures ordinance. Consequently, those homeowners are more limited in their ability to expand the total square footage of covered structures on their property. This amendment would allow expansions that would enhance the livability of single family dwellings in the R-2 Zone. Increasing the 40% requirement for those homes to 45% would bring it in line with the maximum coverage requirement for a two-family dwelling in the same R-2 Zone. Description of the proposed use of the property being rezoned. The proposed zoning amendment would apply to any single family dwelling in a R-2 Zone that was legally platted on a lot of less than 5,000 SF. It would allow those homes to have 45% of their lot under covered structures. Two-family dwellings in the R-2 Zone are all ready at the 45% threshold. List Reasons by Present Zoning May Not Be Appropriate for the Area Existing policies in Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinances as well as official planning documents support this request to amend Ordinance 21A.24.110F. 11 The Purpose Statement for Ordinance 21A.24.110:R-2 reads as follows: "Purpose of the R-2 Single and Two Family residential district is to preserve and protect for single family dwellings the character of existing neighborhoods which exhibit a mix of single and 2-family dwellings by controlling the concentration of 2-family dwellings.," The Purpose Statement is clear in its intent to preserve the character of existing neighborhoods in favor of single family dwellings "....by controlling the concentration of 2-family dwellings." A single family home in a R-2 Zone can be converted into a 2-family dwelling by adding an apartment in a basement, attic, or main floor. Such a conversion is aided by the existing Ordinance which allows a 2- family dwelling to have a maximum of 45% of its total lot size available for covered structures; a 5% greater allowance than that which is available for single family dwellings. Consequently, a number of single family dwellings in a R-2 Zone have been, and will continue to be, converted into 2- family dwellings which often means two small rental apartments. This appears to be antithetical to the stated goal in the Purpose Statement to "...preserve and protect for single family dwellings the character of existing neighborhoods..." Additionally, the Salt Lake City Community Preservation Plan that was unanimously adopted by the Salt Lake City Council on October 23, 2012, is replete with references for the need to preserve and stabilize neighborhood character. Under the heading of Community Character Preservation on page 1-8 of the Plan, It clearly states the goal of preservation of neighborhood character. It reads as follows: "The need to preserve the unique character of the City"s urban neighborhoods, while allowing for modifications to existing homes to meet today's current living standards for space and convenience are important City policies. The policies are aimed at ensuring the City provides housing choices that continue to attract residents to live in the Capital City." Over the past years and under previous ordinances, a number of single family dwellings were legally permitted on lots less than the current requirement of 5,000 SF. These older homes represent a historical look back at the architectural styles of the times and present an understanding of the character of the 216 neighborhoods in which they are located. The preservation and protection of these homes are vital to our City's heritage and aesthetics. The acceptance of the proposed text amendment would allow modifications to these homes to meet the needs of modern life. Conveniences such as dishwashers, laundry appliances, staircases to basements, and second bathrooms are the necessities needed to maintain a home as a family dwelling. At the time these homes were built, space for these conveniences was not a consideration. Increasing the allowable square footage footprint of covered structures on legally platted lots in a R-2 Zone to 45% allows for modest modifications that would increase their livability and value to the neighborhood as single family homes and would reflect and preserve the historical character of the area. Is the request amending the zoning map? NO Is the request amending the text of the Zoning Ordinance? YES. Ordinance 21A24.110.F would be amended to read as follows: "Maximum Building Coverage: The surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings shall not exceed forty-five percent (45%) of the lot for two-family dwellings and forty percent (40%) for single family dwellings" (proposed added language follows) except for single-family dwellings on legally existing lots that are less square footage than the minimum lot size of 5,000 square feet. Single family dwellings on legally existing lots of less than 5,000 square feet are allowed surface coverage of all principal and accessory buildings not to exceed forty-five percent (45%) of the lot's total SF. 18 ADDENDUM The following is an exarnple of the limitations placed on a single family dwelling in an R-2 Zane subject to Ordinance 21A,24.110-R2, Section F. Y F §y A 927 East 700 South, SLC (R-2 Zone) History This 92 year old home was purchased by its current owner and resident in 2012. It sits on a 4427.2 SF legally platted lot. In 2019, due to structural problems with the original earthen wall foundation, the earthen cellar wall was replaced with a concrete foundation and floor. That work included replacing an old indoor trap door access to the basement with a staircase. This expensive and necessary work to prevent the home from collapsing preserved a charming, single family home that exhibits the historical character of the neighborhoods All work was permitted. Problem Staircase replacing trap door took so much space it made the room it was in useless as a living space. (See photo) Owner wanted to extend back of home 8.5 feet to recapture the lost luring space. The existing ordinance limiting a single family home to a maximum of 40°l coverage of principle and accessory buildings prevents any extension greater than one foot. 18 Calculating the 4 % Regulation; Total Property S.F. - 4427.2 S.F. Existing home and garage - 1752.5 S.F. Percent covered - 39.581 Existing home, garage and proposed addition (189.6S.F.) 1942 S.F. Percent covered - 43.8% The proposed extension of 8.5 feet exceeds the Ordinance requirement of 40% maximum building coverage by 3.8%. There are no exceptions to this requirement nor are there any administrative processes available to allow a review of the merits of the proposed increase. However, note that if this was a two-family dwelling (two small apartments) it would meet the two-family dwelling requirement which allows a maximum of 45% covered with structures within the same R-2 Zone. t 17 , ;3 19 4)PUBLIC COMMENT 20 23 March 2022 Re: PLNPCM2021-01228,Zoning Text Amendment Building Coverage- R-2 Dear Members of the Planning Commission and Staff, My husband and I own a small, 1890s-era cottage in the Bryant neighborhood on a small R-2 lot but one that is larger than current minimum standards. Our property would not be affected directly by the originally proposed text amendment. However, it would be if the staff's revised amendment for all R-2 properties is given a positive recommendation. Given our deep, narrow lot and side setback issues, if we ever chose to add to the house it would possibly give us more options. I do support the narrower text amendment. I support the broader one, with reservations. Given the deluge of other pressing planning, zoning, and development issues in our neighborhood and the city at large,this zoning text amendment is relatively minor—though to the applicant and other property owners in affected districts based on the example case, it is significant. I do have several concerns that I hope the Commission will discuss and consider addressing in any motion to approve or modify. Issue 1-The analysis does not show how many non-conforming structures or non-complying uses there are in current R-2 zones.There are many existing unit-legalized rentals that appear to be single family houses on the surface until you count the mailboxes, some businesses, and even a boarding house or three (an analysis I have had to do on my own since it was not included in the Bueno Avenue Apartments analysis). Before the PC considers an expanded text amendment,this should be mapped and evaluated. How many R-2 lots are in the various size categories? Not shown. How many are currently vacant lots? Boarded buildings?Also not shown. Issue 2- If this amendment helps current owners rehabilitate existing homes with small additions,that is a positive outcome. However, if it leads to a bigger wave of teardowns for mini-garage-mahals and other generally problematic house replacements rather than rehabs,that would be a negative impact. Hopefully the 5% increase in lot coverage would not provide enough incentive but given the current market, its hard to say. I note that Salt Lake City has no compatible infill design standards for R-2, not even in national historic districts. Issue 3- In the 2021 Session,the Legislature effectively eliminated single-family zoning by making internal/attached ADUs allowed by right. How does the staff's recommendation to extend this 45% lot coverage affect single family structures in R-2, if at all, in the context of this change? Does it make them more likely to be feasible? Infill/adding units that also preserves existing structures is beneficial in general from a neighborhood character and sustainability perspective. Issue 4-The purpose of lot coverage standards should be more than providing some outdoor living space, it should be for sustainability and green infrastructure purposes. Salt Lake City suffers from an accelarating heat island effect, an impaired Jordan River watershed and overwhelmed storm sewers, and poor air quality, among other negative environmental impacts, due to hardened, impervious—and often dark-colored—building envelope and landscape surfaces. 21 Can this text amendment be accompanied by stronger green infrastructure requirements like runoff retention and infiltration on site? 1 note that the staff's statement"According to the US Census,the average US house has risen from 1,660 square feet in 1973 to 2,687 square feet today." should not be cause for support or celebration. US homes have ballooned in size on average, negatively affecting sustainability, energy consumption, poor air quality, and fueling the climate emergency. Can this text amendment be accompanied by any additional conditions of no net energy consumption gain? Other green building practices as a trade-off for the flexibility and value increase of properties? I concur with the applicant and staff report that it is far better to allow small, efficient, compatible additions in our historic and older neighborhoods to keep families and residents here rather than moving to South Jordan, Draper, Herriman, or the like for much bigger—if not better—houses. At this point, I would recommend forwarding a positive recommendation the original, more narrow text amendment or briefly tabling the broader one until staff can do a more detailed analysis of R-2 to better understand if the claim of"little or no impact" is likely.Simpler is not always better. Please note that these are my personal comments. Sincerely, Jen Colby, D4 Resident 22 Item B6 PUBLIC HEARING .•••• _ ttttl MOTION SHEET J - y CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY c� tinyurl.com/SLCFY23 ttt t111t qi TO: City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Policy and Budget Analyst DATE: August 9, 2022 RE: FY 2023 Capital Improvement Program(CIP)Budget Staff Note: The Council previously held a CIP public hearing on July 12. The Council is scheduled to continue discussing CIP project-specific funding on August 9. The final vote is tentatively scheduled for August r 6. MOTION 1 — CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.FOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 i COUNCIL STAFF REPORT COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY CITY yurl.com/SLCFY23CIP zi if S., �: TO: City Council Members Project Timeline: Budget Hearings: May 17&June 7,2022 FROM: Ben Luedtke ist Briefing:June 7,2022 • Budget&Policy Analyst Public Hearing:July 12,2022 2nd Briefing:July 19, 2021 DATE: August 9, 2022 3rd Briefing&Public Hearing:August 9, 2022 • 4 th Briefing&Potential Action:August 16, 2022 RE: FY2023 Capital Improvement Program(CIP) Note: The Council approves debt service and overall CIP funding in the annual budget. BUDGET BOOK PAGES: 119-131 Project specific funding is approved by September 1. CIP BUDGET BOOK: Debt Service Overview Starts on Page 25,General Fund Projects Start on Page 33 fill Hill IMPROVING OUR CITY , NEIGI IBORI100DS PARKS NEWINFORMATION At the July 19 meeting,the Council discussed several proposed CIP projects,took a few straw polls on potential funding, and requested more;information on several policy issues and projects.One policy area discussed was the new Livable Streets program for traffic calming which is tentatively scheduled for a separate policy discussion at the August 16 Council meeting. Provided below are summaries and updates of topics. July tq Council Straw Polls The Council took the following straw polls at the July 19 meeting: A. Add S 99,563 from unallocated parks impact fees for#69 Gateway Triangle Park.The discussion included the value of adding a ne-o park to the downtown and to the new Folsom Trail which ends a block away.The impact fees would be officially added to CIP in a budget amendment later this year. The straw poll passed unanimously 6-o with one Council Member absent B. Shift S500,000 from#22 Complete Streets to fund$400,000 for#78 Sunnyside Avenue Pedestrian Safety Improvements AND $100,000 for#26 California Avenue.Safety Improvement Study.The discussion included existing safety concerns,proximity to schools,line of sight issues,resident requests for traffic calming and pedestrian enhancements at both locations. The straw poll passed unanimously 6-o with one Council Member absent CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY.UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 i�a Council Member Pc tro-Eschler's Proposal: $25o,000 for Riverside Park Baseball Field Lighting The proposal would be a Council-added item to the FY2023 CIP If'unding Ivog using 8250,000 of parks impact fees to add four light poles and structures to the northeast baseball field at Riverside Park(the red marker in the below map).There are currently three I)a,,,,cball fields used by the leagues and a fourth practice field.This would be the first city-owned baseball field to receive Lighting.The project is fully eligible for parks impact fees. If approved,then the parks impact fees would be transferred to CIP in a budget amendment. 800 N CL v Meadville Ave Riverside Soccer Field 00 �'0700 0 IV 600 N 600 N M Project #2 Cost Overrun Account The Council discussed increasing need for the Cost Overrun Account which is believed to be partially caused by inflation and supply chain issues. Some Council Members expressed interest in the following potential options': 1. One-Lime T`undime Increase for the Cost Overrun Account —The Administration reports the current available to spend balance is S557,476 which is a combination of remaining appropriations from the last four fiscal years.The Account is proposed to receive$208,143 in new funding which would increase the total available balance to $765,6ig.The Council may wish to note that Budget Amendment #1 includes a Page 1 2 request for over$3 million for street reconstruction projects with costs that exceed the original budget. Transportation impact fees are proposed to cover those;funding gaps. 2. Ongoing Funding Increase for the Cost Overrun Account—The Council could discuss with the Administration increasing funding over multiple;years. For example,setting a higher fixed percentage;of the ongoing General Fund transfer to CIP not covering ongoing commitments like debt payments or when inflation and other cost increases reach a certain threshold. 3. Revisit Formula for Use of Cost Overrun Account—The Council could ask the Administration for recommended changes to the Cost Overrun Account formula which is shown in section 11 of Attachment 1 and copied below for reference.`t'he formula remains unchanged since it was created ill 2004. One approach could be maintaining the percentages but updating the dollar amounts. "Cost overrun funding will be approved based on the following formula: 0 20%or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets of$100,000 or less; > 15%or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets between Si0o,o01 and$250,000; 0 10%or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets over$250,000 with a maximum overrun cost of$100,000." Recent 3r�ending from the Cost Overrun Account The Administration provided the below five-year spending summary from the.Cost Overrun Account.The pipeline of CIP projects is expected to use remaining funds from the account(S557,476 current balance 3 S208,143 FY2023 CIP).The Administration reports recent changes to prior year CIP projects reduced the impact fee eligibility and the Cost Overrun Account could be used to cover the difference.The Administration recommends adding the $152,660 of recaptured funding from completed CIP projects as one-time additional funding to the account.This would create a new balance of S918,279 which is expected to be fully used by already funded CIP projects from the last three years.The Cost Overrun Account is intended to be used by projects ready for construction.CIP projects typically take two or three years to go from appropriation to construction.Therefore,the full impact of price increases from inflation and supply chain impacts is likely to be felt in the next year of CIP project construction. - S186,726 in PY2018 - Sgo,000 in F 2019 - $158,891 in FY2020 - S6o,590 in FY2021 - S161,482 in IIY2022 Project #52 Tenter Park Revamp The Administration stated the;202o Taufer Park and Richmond Park engagement report provides helpful baseline information for preferred park improvements and policies but additional outreach to a wider group of residents is needed to determine specific amenities.The Parks and Public Lands Department would create a vision plan for the park including designs of specific amenities supported by the community. Public engagement to create a vision plan is ineligible for parks impact fees.The Council could discuss whether Taufer Park should be one of the neighborhood parks for improvement with funding from the proposed parks and open space GO bond. Project #57 Reopen Din-woody Park as a Public Park The Administration researched the current lease agreement,zoning, and related legal matters.The proposed project would violate terms in the lease and require the City to terminate the lease.The project would remove existing fencing, add public art and benches.The property,is currently zoned D-1 Central Business District. Rezoning to a public park may have impacts under state;law to nearby businesses such as sale and consumption of alcoholic beverages.The public has access to Dinwoody Park from loam to 6:301)m seven days a week.The Administration has neither recommended funding for the project nor termination of the lease. *86 Sugar House Crosswalk Murals and *92 Harvey Milk BIND rainbow crosswalk Council Members asked whether these two constituent requests for public art could go through the City's existing Arts Council process. Regarding project#92 Rainbow Crosswalk,the Administration stated,"Typically, art projects funded by the Arts Council are original works of art created through an artist commission and,once completed,become part of the City's public art inventory.The,proposed Harvey Milk Rainbow Crosswalks are Page 13 more of an infrastructurc/placemaking project rather than an art project that is complete(]by a commissioned artist and to be included in the Cit-Y's art inventory."The requested project funding Of S459,346 is more than twice the annual 1.5% for Art contribution from CIP to the Arts Council. Regarding project#86 Sugar House Crosswalk Murals,the Administration stated,"As a matter of practice,the, City/Arts Council has typically used CIP binding for moral projects only when the moral is part of a larger construction project for a capital improvement.This is because the City has taken a conservative position that paint alone is not a capitalized asset."Engineering's Six Year Pavement Plan identifies reconstruction of I lighlight, Drive/i ion Fast from goo South to Warnock Avenue in 2023.The Council could fund project #86 Sugar House Crosswalk Murals with the direction that it be part of that upcoming reconstruction project since the two projects are in the same location and this would allow capitalizing the mural asset(s). Chapter 2.30 Salt Luke Act Design Board, Salt Lake City Code,identifies the process where the Board is responsible for""recommending the nature and type of acquisition and placement of works of art and ornamentation to be used in and around the construction projects and to implement the decisions of the mayor Nvith respect thereto." ,policy Questions: CIP Polio-for Art Projects—The Council may wish to request the Administration propose updates to the CIP guiding policies resolution (Attachment i)to clarify how art funding and projects should go through the CIP process. I larve 7 Milk BLVD Funding to Arts Council—11e Council may wish to discuss with the Administration alternative options to add public art along Harvey Milk BLVD such as flexible funding for the Arts Council to determine the type and location under the existing ordinance process. , Complete Streets is Eligible Use for the 20:18 Streets Reconstruction GO Bond Funding During the July 19 briefing,the Council discussion raised the question to what extent can funding from the 2018 voter-approved Streets Reconstruction Bond be used for complete streets.The bond ballot language copied below uses language inclusive of complete streets and is not limited to only reconstructing the pavement portion of a city street. Ballot Language: "Shall Salt Lake City, Utah,be authorized to issue General Obligation Bonds in principal amount not to exceed$87,000,000 and to mature in no more than 21 years from the date or dates of issuance; such bonds will be issued in accordance with Utah law solely to pay all or a portion of the costs to improve various streets and roads throughout the City and related infrastructure improvements." Upcoming Reconstruction projects and Complete Streets The Administration stated under current plans,which could change,that three major street and some local street reconstructions are tentatively planned to use complete streets funding from this cycle of CIP: - Highlight Drive/iloo East from goo South to Warnock Avenue - 2100 South from 700 Flast to 1700 Fast(through the Sugar House Business District - Son North from 300 West to 1000 West - Several local residential side streets tentatively planned for reconstruction in Engineering's Six Year Pavement Plan that may include complete street changes —Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings— As part of the annual budget adoption,the Council transferred$45.7 million into the CIP Fund and approved spending$14 million for debt service payments and critical projects.The Council also recaptured$152,660 of General Fund dollars from completed CIP projects which is available for any new project. Since Council Member Valdemoros is unable to attend the July 19th meeting,she provided a list of potential project funding changes for the Council's consideration.Other Council Members may also wish to share changes and proposals for discussion during the briefing. Following these proposals,are updates on several attachments to this staff report. Page 14 Council Member Valdemoros'Proposals - Project#52 Taufer Park—Add$100,000 of parks impact fees to the CIP fund for new amenities that will encourage positive activities,deter negative uses,alleviate some issues in the neighborhood and reduce the need for police services - Project#57 Dinwoody Park—Requested funding of$71,198 to expand public access to the park and for improvements such as benches and public art o Note there is a lease agreement for Dinwoody Park between the City and an adjacent property. Legal questions about terms in the lease,property zoning and requirements in City Code and state law need more analysis to determine to what extent the proposed CIP project could be compatible. - Project#69 Gateway Triangle Park—Add$499,563 of park impact fees to the CIP fund for creation of a new park.This would now be in District 2,not in District 4 - Project#8.r;Mountain Dell Disc Golf Course—Add$500,000 of park impact fees to the CIP fund for creation of new usable space adjacent to the current golf course and Interstate 80. Providing additional amenities would help maximize access and usage of public lands. Updates to Attachments Attachment 2 is an updated CIP Funding Log including three projects the Administration identified separately from the resident advisory board process: $3 million request for Complete Streets(#22), $2 million increase for parks maintenance(#23)and$500,000 increase for maintenance of vacant city-owned buildings(#24). Projects with mayoral funding recommendations are listed first,then the remaining projects are listed in order of the resident advisory board scores.The last page shows total funding by source and highlighted in green is $152,66o from completed projects which is available for any new projects.Constituent projects are labelled in italics underneath the project name.The requested funding is listed in blue font at the start of each project description which can be different than the recommended funding amounts. Attachment.-,is updated to reflect the Council's straw polls on adjustments to the proposed$8o million Public Lands General Obligation(GO)Bond. Attachment 7 is updated to show cost estimates reported by departments based on recent projects and bids. Costs from 2019 and 2021 are also listed to show the significant price impacts of inflation and supply chain issues. Some items in the construction industry have experienced greater price increases than items typically found in the consumer price index. Attachment 8 is updated with the remaining appropriations and project status for 66 CIP projects older than three years.Most of the nearly$4 million across the accounts is still needed as the projects have shown significant progress to avoid potential funding recapture per the Council's CIP guiding policy resolution (Attachment 1 section 13).The Finance Department confirmed$152,66o was available from completed projects which the Council recaptured for new CIP projects. Attachment 10 was prepared by Council staff as a comparison of total project requests on the CIP funding log over the last seven years.The FY2023 CIP cycle has 90 items which is the most in the last seven years.This year there are 41 constituent proposed projects is a significant increase over the 16 constituent projects averaged over the prior six years. Attachments 11 and 12 are new since the June briefings.Attachment 11 shows the top 10 zones citywide for the Livable Streets Program.Attachment 12 shows the top two zones in each Council District for the program.The Council approved$2 million of one-time funding in the annual budget to begin implementation of the program. The Transportation Division has a data-driven strategy to prioritize which zones will receive traffic calming.The Council could discuss with the Administration whether geographic equity and/or other considerations should also be considered for the prioritization process.Note there are four constituent traffic calming projects in the FY2023 CIP Funding Log(Attachment 2)and listed below.Neither the resident advisory board nor the Mayor recommended funding the four projects this cycle.These projects propose a neighborhood scale approach to avoid pitting residents on adjacent streets against each other.The Livable Streets Program also uses a neighborhood scale approach. - #37 Liberty Wells Traffic Calming requested$420,000 Page 15 #48 Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2 requested$400,000 #79 Yalecrest Traffic Calming requested$240,000 - ##8o East Bench Traffic Calming requested$467,929 Attachment i�was prepared by Council staff as a comparison of frequently asked questions between the sales tax bond and the GO bond.Note the Council held a separate briefing on the two bonds at the July 12 meeting. Attachment 14 is a list of CIP projects by department/division in the City,project name and Council District location which is sometimes multiple and/or TBD. —Information below was provided to the Council at earlier briefings— ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE Each year,the Council appropriates overall funding available for the Capital Improvement Program(CIP)and approves debt payments as part of the annual budget in June.Over the summer,the Council reviews individual projects and per state law must approve project specific funding by September 1. CIP is an open and competitive process where residents,local organizations and City departments submit project applications.The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program(CDCIP)resident advisory board reviews the applications in public meetings and makes funding recommendations to the Mayor and Council.The Mayor provides a second set of funding recommendations to the Council which ultimately decides project specific funding. Overview of the FY2023 CIP Budget The total FY2023 CIP budget is nearly$45 million which is $9.7 million(27%)more than last year.Most of that increase is caused by a$io million year over year increase in the General Fund transfer to CIP which is equivalent to 9%of ongoing revenues.The City has not reached the 9%level is at least a decade and an audit from several years ago recommended that level of annual capital investment.The table below details funding sources for CIP by fiscal year. Other highlights include: $8.1 Million Unrestricted Funds— $8,137,885 of the ongoing transfer from the General Fund are unrestricted funds available for any new projects(the most flexible funding available). $4.9 Million Decrease of Impact Fees Spending—The amount of impact fees in the proposed CIP budget is the smallest amount since FY2019.There are over$23 million of available to spend impact fees across the four types:fire,parks,police, and transportation.Most of the available funds are for parks and transportation. See Additional info section for more. $.-i.1 Million Increase for County1/9 0 Sales Tax for Transportation—This became a new funding source three years ago and is available to transportation projects per state law.As seen in other sales tax revenue line items, this one has experienced significant growth. $1o.8 Million Debt and Lease Payments— $10.7 million(36%)of the General Fund transfer to CIP(including Funding Our Future dollars)is needed to cover debt payments and the Crime Lab lease payment. However,it should be noted that$4,393,161 of this amount is for a first-year payment on a proposed sales tax revenue bond for which the Council has not approved the list of projects.This funding could be used for FY2023 projects if the Council declines to proceed with the bond or approves a smaller bond. Comparison of CIP Funding Sources by Fiscal Year Page 16 Adopted Adopted Proposed FY22 tO FY22 tO CIP Funding Sources FY23 FY23 2020-21 2021-22 2022-23 $Change %Change General Fund $ 14,582,267 $ 15,126,884 $ 25,150,431 $ 10,023,547 66% Funding Our Future* $ 4,880,000 $ 3,580,000 $ 5,100,000 $ 1,520,000 42% Class $ 3,000,000 $ 3,021,706 $ 3,000,000 $ (21,706) -1% Impact Fees** $ 5,058,011 $ 8,276,103 $ 3,360,193 $ (4,915,910) -59% CDBG $ - $ 322,000 $ 722,000 $ 400,000 ONE-TIME Repurpose Old CIP Accounts*** $ 1,149,616 $ 252,271 PENDING - ONE-TIME County 1/4c Sales Tax N/A $ 4,900,000 $ 8,000,000 $ 3,100,000 63% Surplus Land Fund $ 200,000 $ 200,000 $ - $ (200,000) ONE-TIME Smith's Naming Rights Revenue $ 156,000 $ 154,000 $ 154,000 $ - 0% SLC Sports Complex ESCO $ 154,706 $ 148,505 $ 148,505 $ - 0% Memorial House Rent Revenue $ 68,554 $ 68,554 $ 68,554 $ - 0% TOTAL $ 29,226,262 $ 36,0275131 $ 45,703,683 $ 9,676,552 27% TOTAL without ONE-TIME $ 27,876,646 $ 35,252,860 $ 44,981,683 $ 9,728,823 28% *Includes% to CIP"off the top"available to any project and funding for transit and public right of way infrastructure.Also,funding source is ongoing but Council could change the use categories in the future **There are four impactfee types:fire,parks,police and streets ***Includes recaptured funds from multiple funding sources Note: There's a$22,892 debt service rescope reduction not separated out in the table above forFY2021 &FY2022 Two Differences between Advisory Board and Mayoral Funding Recommendations (See Attachment 2 for Funding Log and Attachment 3 for the CIP Budget Book) Board and Mayoral funding recommendations are detailed at the bottom of each project page in the CIP Budget Book and on the CIP Funding Log.The CIP Log is Attachment 2 which first shows projects the Mayor is recommending for funding and then projects which are not recommended for funding. Differences between funding amounts are highlighted pink.This year the funding recommendations from the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program(CDCIP)resident advisory board and the Mayor are nearly identical with two differences listed below. - The Board recommends funding$3.052 million for the 200 South reconstruction transit corridor project.The Mayor recommends $4,254,885 for the project which is$1,202,885 more than the Board. The 2018 voter-approved Street Reconstruction Bond is the primary funding sources for the project which is also receiving funding from several smaller sources.The project webpage is regularly updated and available here: v mti-:s;trcctf'oao ( 2oosouthf - The increased funding for the 200 South reconstruction transit corridor(point above)is proposed to be shifted from the Cemetery Master Plan implementation.The Board recommends$1,202,885 for the Cemetery Master Plan implementation project and the Mayor recommends no funding.Note that the proposed sales tax revenue bond includes $11.2 million for City Cemetery road reconstruction. Use Combined Project Scores from CDCIP Board as Guide if Additional Funding is Available (See Attachment 4 for a summary sheet of Board votes and combined scores) The CDCIP Board scored and voted on each CIP application.The Board recommends that their combined scoring be used as a guide for how to spend additional CIP funding if it becomes available for FY2023 projects. The combined scores are shown in the right-most column and votes in the adjacent column.Note that board members may not have voted on a project because they were unavailable at the time(technical difficulties or not at the public meeting)or they declined to vote. $goo+Million Unfunded Capital Needs Over Next Decade in Context of FY2023 CIP, $65 Million Sales Tax Revenue Bond and$8o Million Parks and Public Lands General Obligation(GO)Bond (See Attachment S for a spreadsheet summarizing all projects in FY2023 CIP and the two proposed bonds) Last year,the Council held briefings about different iterations of a proposed sales tax revenue bond.The Mayor forwarded the recommendations after an approximately$8o million sales tax revenue bond was paid off in Page 17 2021.This removed a$5.3 million annual debt payment from CIP which has been paid using General Fund dollars. Council Members expressed interest in holding further discussions on how best to prioritize use of this funding opportunity(assuming available revenues)given that the City's unfunded capital needs significantly exceed$5.3 million.The Mayor is proposing a new$65 million bond with an estimated$4.4 million annual debt payment and an$8o million G.O.bond for parks and public lands projects.The G.O.bond would need to first be placed on the ballot by the Council and then voters would decide whether to approve it.There is no legal deadline for the Council to approve,modify or decline the sales tax revenue bond.Note that some of the sales tax revenue bond projects would be issued under a tax-exempt bond while others would need to be a separate taxable(more expensive)bond.Also,the total cost of the bond is greater than the sum of the individual projects because it includes the cost of issuance and a contingency up to the$65 million maximum proposed. Below is a short list of the City's unfunded capital needs from large single-site projects to long-term best management of capital assets like buildings,streets,and vehicles.This list is not comprehensive,and some costs may be higher since originally estimated.The total unfunded needs of the below list exceed$300 million and may be closer to$500 million depending on the specifics of new construction projects in the first bullet point. Note that these estimates for new assets do not include maintenance costs.Typically,a Capital Facilities Plan,is the mechanism to identify,track,prioritize and schedule unfunded capital needs over a long-term horizon. While the City does long-term planning in each department,a capital facilities plan typically includes a broader citywide view.The Administration has indicated that there is ongoing work towards this goal.The Council may wish to ask the Administration for an update on this effort. — $TBD new construction and major redevelopments: Fleet Block,eastside police precinct or smaller substations,multiple aging fire stations,The Leonardo(old library),expansion of the S-Line Streetcar, downtown TRAX loop,quiet zones and undergrounding rail lines that divide the City's west and east sides,implementing rest of the 9-Line,Folsom and McClelland urban trails,historic structures like Fisher Mansion and Warm Springs,rehabilitation or full rebuild of vehicle bridges including 200 South and 400 South over the Jordan River,etc. — $133 million over ten years(in addition to existing funding level)to increase the overall condition index of the City's street network from poor to fair — $33.8 million over ten years to bring all City facilities out of deferred maintenance — $25 million for capital improvements at the City Cemetery,of which $12.5 million is for road repairs — $20 million for a new bridge at approx.4900 West from 500 South to 700 South — $20 million above existing funding levels to fully fund the City's fleet needs — $6 million for planned upgrades to the Regional Athletic Complex — $3.1 million for downtown irrigation system replacement — $1.3 million for solar panels,parking canopy and security upgrade at Plaza 349 Recapture Funds from Completed Projects and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years (Attachment 8—Pending at time of publishing this staff report) The CIP and Debt Management Resolution(Attachment 1)requests that remaining funds from completed projects be recaptured and that remaining funds from unfinished projects over three years old also be recaptured.The table in Attachment 9 is staffs attempt to follow up on the Council's policy guidance for CIP projects. 64 projects are listed most of which received General Fund dollars and are over three years old. Several projects also received Class C funds or impact fees.The total funding is just over$4.2 million.Some of this funding could be recaptured by the Council as one-time revenue for General Fund uses,however,the Class C, CDBG and donations have uses limited by law.The table was sent to the Administration to identify whether a project is completed and status updates for unfinished projects.A response and potential funding to recapture by project will be added to one of the Council's upcoming unresolved issues briefings. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Balancing$300+ Million Unfunded Capital Needs, $8o Million Parks and Public Lands G.O.Bond, $65 Million Sales Tax Revenue Bond and FY2023 CIP—The Council may wish to discuss if projects in the proposed bonds and FY2023 CIP align with the Council's policy priorities.The Council may also wish to discuss how to balance the City's $300+ million unfunded capital needs including deferred maintenance for existing assets with funding construction of new assets.The Council is tentatively scheduled to review the bond projects in detail over the summer when also reviewing individual CIP projects. See Attachment 5 for a summary of projects by title and funding source for both bonds and FY2023 CIP. Page 18 2. Five Projects to Approve in June with Annual Budget or Add to Summer Deliberations— The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration whether to approve in June with the annual budget and debt service payments any of the five projects below or add them to capital investment deliberations in July and August.The projects could be added to the Council's deliberations to see the total capital investments proposed and which projects should be in FY2023 CIP,the General Obligation bond and/or the sales tax revenue bond.The five projects were not included in the open and competitive CIP process because they were identified by administrative staff outside separately,so the resident advisory board did not provide recommendations.The Council could ask if there are any legal or operational issues to be aware of. - $3.7 million handheld radios upgrade to next generation - $3 million complete streets - $2 million Funding Our Future Public Lands maintenance(further discussion with the department is needed) - $2 million restoration of City Hall insurance reimbursement - $700,000 maintenance of vacant city owned facilities 3. Inflationary Price Increases and the Cost Overrun Account—The Council may wish to ask the Administration how inflationary price increases have impacted departments utilizing the CIP Cost Overrun Account,and if additional funding may be needed to avoid project scope reductions.The Council could also re-evaluate the funding level for the account and/or the formula for maximum amounts a project may receive(see section 11 of Attachment 1). 4. Updating CIP Policy Guidance Attachment i—The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration if it would be helpful for the Council to provide updated policy guidance such as when to disqualify an application,the Cost Overrun Account formula,project prioritization which could also inform the resident advisory board's deliberations,details to provide for proposed projects,etc.The Council may also wish to discuss if new guidance could advance the Council policy priorities such as equity being considered in CIP. 5. Resources to Support Constituent Applications—The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration the need to address geographic equity issues with additional targeted City resources for neighborhoods that submit few or no constituent applicants. Some Council Members expressed interest in being proactive to support constituent applications from neighborhoods with higher poverty rates. Some constituents and CDCIP Board Members commented at public meetings that they felt like some projects get more support from departments than others. 6. CIP Project Status Reports—The Council may wish to ask the Administration about mechanisms to facilitate the up-to-date sharing of information on current CIP projects. In the past,there were a variety of mechanisms to share information,ranging from topic-by-topic email requests to consolidated monthly reports.Council Members could then quickly provide accurate/timely information to interested constituents. 7. Capital Facilities Plan(CFP) —The Council may wish to ask the Administration for a status update on the CFP(io-Year Comprehensive CIP Plan).It's envisioned as a living document that prioritizes capital needs across City plans and departments within funding constraints.The Council held a briefing in January 2019 about a draft of the plan. See Attachment 6 for the Council's potential policy goals, metrics,and requests. ADDITIONAL&BACKGROUND INFORMATION Definition of a CIP Project As defined in the Council-adopted 2017 Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution(Attachment 1),a CIP project must"involve the construction,purchase or renovation of buildings,parks,streets or other physical structures, ...have a useful life of five or more years, ...have a cost of$50,000 or more, ...or significant functionality can be demonstrated...such as software."The Council also set a three-year spending deadline as part of the guiding policies. CIP accounts older than three years are periodically reviewed for recapture from projects that finished under budget or were not pursued. Surplus Land Fund Page 19 The Surplus Land Fund receives proceeds from the sale of real property(land and buildings).According to City policy the Surplus Land Fund can be spent on purchasing real property and some funds may be diverted into the Housing Trust Fund.The funds are one-time because the real property can only be sold once.The current balance is approx. $2.3 million.The FY2023 budget proposes to discontinue the practice of using$200,000 annually to the Community and Neighborhoods Department for property maintenance expenses such as utilities,security,and minor repairs.This was using one-time funding for an ongoing expense.The change fulfills the Council's legislative intent from FY2020.The ongoing General Fund transfer to CIP is proposed to cover that ongoing expense and is increased to $700,000. Cost Overrun Account The Administration reports the current available to spend balance is $557,476 which is a total of CIP appropriations from the last four fiscal years.The Council established this account for projects that experience costs slightly higher than budgeted.A formula determines how much additional funding may be pulled from the Cost Overrun account depending on the total Council-approved budget.See section 11 of Attachment 1 for the formula.This process allows the Administration to add funding to a project without returning to the Council in a budget amendment.A written notification to the Council on uses is required.The purpose is to allow projects to proceed with construction instead of delaying projects until the Council can act in a budget amendment which typically takes a few months. Updated Cost Estimates for Regular CIP Projects(Attachment 7) Attachment 7 will be updated over the summer to inform the Council's project-specific deliberations in July and August.The Administration provided updated cost estimates for CIP projects that regularly come up.The updated Attachment 7 includes the prior FY2019(calendar year 2o18)cost estimates next to a column showing the 2021 estimates. Some categories have seen significant increases while others have closer to typical inflation rate increases.The Engineering Division provided some context that the City doesn't know to what extent the larger price increases are temporary(such as related to pandemic caused short-term supply chain disruptions) or longer-term trends.Overall,prices are estimated to be up 10%to 14%according to Engineering. 1.5%for New Art and Maintenance of Existing Artworks(See Attachment 9 for the latest report) Attachment 9 is an annual report required by ordinance about maintenance of City artworks in the past fiscal year and planned for the next.The report summarizes eight artworks that received maintenance in FY2022 and 21 artworks planned for FY2023.Note that four artworks are identified for deaccession,that is removal from the City's public art collection. Salt Lake City Code,Chapter 2.3o,established the Percent for Art Fund and designates roles for the Art Design Board and Arts Council related to artist selection,project review and placement.The Public Art Program also oversees projects with funding from the Airport and RDA. In April 2021 the Council amended Chapter 2.30 to make several changes to the ordinance including an increase from 1%to 1.5%of ongoing unrestricted CIP funding for art minimum.There is no ceiling so the Council could approve funding for art above 1.5%. The ordinance also sets a range of 10%-20%for how much of the resulting annual funding is allocated to maintenance.This section of the ordinance also states that before funds are deposited into the separate public art maintenance fund a report from the Administration will be provided to the Council identifying works of art that require maintenance and estimated costs.This creates the first ongoing dedicated funding for conservation and maintenance of the City's public art collection consisting of over 270 pieces.The collection is expected to continue growing.Note that in Budget Amendment*2 of FY20 the Council made a one-time appropriation of $200,000 to establish an art maintenance fund. CIP Debt Load Projections through FY26 (Note an$8o million bond was paid off in FY21 and the Mayor proposed a new$65 million sales tax bond) The Administration provided the following chart to illustrate the ratio of ongoing commitments to available funding through FY2026.Most of these commitments are debt payments on existing bonds.Other commitments include,ESCO debt payments,the Crime Lab lease,capital replacement funding for parks and facilities, contributions to the CIP cost overrun account and the 1.5%for art fund.The CIP Budget Book includes an overview and details on each of the ongoing commitments.79%of the General Fund transfer into CIP was needed for these ongoing commitments in FY21.The percentage significantly decreased to approx.40%after an $8o million bond was paid off.The chart does not reflect the Mayor's proposed$65 million sales tax revenue bond which would add an annual$4.4 million debt payment for 20 years. Page I to The debt load significantly decreased in FY2022 because Series 2014A Taxable Refunding of 2005 bonds matured(paid off).It was approximately$8o million when the bond was originally issued(before refunding). This reduces the debt load from 79%to 40%and removes a$5.3 million annual debt payment.Note that General Obligation(G.O.)bonds are not paid from CIP because they are funded through a separate,dedicated voter-approved property tax increase. Allocation of CIP General Fund TransferAmount,6 Year Projection,assuming 2% revenue growth per year, and continued allocation of 7%of GF revenue to CIP 100% — 90% 80% 70% 60% 50% — NONE= 40% = — 1 30% — 20% — 10% 0% FY 2020-21 FY 2021-22 FY 2022-23 FY 2023-24 FY 2024-25 FY 2025-26 ®Debt Service On Bonds ®Other Debt Service o Other Commitments Pay as You Go Projects Impact Fee Unallocated"Available to Spend"Balances and Refund Tracking The Council approved several million dollars in impact fee projects the past few years.The table below is current as of April 28,2022 and includes a couple adjustments based on Budget Amendment*7 of FY2022.Available to spend impact fee balances are bank account balances subtracting encumbrances and expired funds.The Mayor's recommended CIP budget proposes using$1,838,193 of parks impact fees and$1,522,000 of transportation impact fees.The total amount of the four impact fee types is $23,253,078.Impact fees must be encumbered within six years of the City receiving them. Type Unallocated Cash Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring "Available to Spend" Impact Fees Fire $i,000,885 More than a year away - Parks $14,031,723 More than a year away - Police $564,031 More than a year away - Transportation $7,656439 More than a year away - Note:Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract Impact Fee Eligibility Impact fees are one-time charges imposed by the City on new development projects to help fund the cost of providing infrastructure and services to that new development.This is part of the City's policy that growth Page 1 i should pay for growth.A project,or portion of a project,must be deemed necessary to ensure the level of service provided in the new development area matches what is currently offered elsewhere in the city.As a result,it's common for a project to only be partially eligible for impact fee funding(the growth-related portion)so other funding sources must be found to cover the difference. It is important to note that per state law,the City has six years from the date of collection to spend or encumber under a contract the impact fee revenue.After six years,if those fees are not spent then the fees are returned to the developer with interest. Capital Facilities Plan(CFP)(See Attachment 6) The CFP is a comprehensive 10-year CIP plan.See Attachment 6 for a summary of the Council's requests and guidance during the January 2019 briefing from the Administration and discussion.It's important to note,the Council expressed interest in identifying measurable goals to accomplish through the CFP and guide prioritization of project planning. Regular CIP Project Cost Estimate(See Attachment 7) Attachment 8 lists cost estimates for various types of projects based on actual costs from recent years.The document was developed by Council staff in collaboration with the Administration.The figures may not be up to date cost estimates but provide a ballpark figure when considering project costs.The three categories of project cost estimates are parks,streets,and transportation.The document was last updated July 2019. Updated cost estimates will be provided for the Council's budget deliberations in July and August. County 1/40 Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding The County fourth quarter-cent transportation funding is a new ongoing sales tax funding source dedicated to transportation and streets.The City has taken a progressive view of transportation beyond a vehicle-focused perspective and uses a multi-modal,more inclusive approach(walking,biking,public transit,accessibility and ADA,ride-share,trails,safety,scooters,etc.).The Wasatch Front Regional Council summarized eligible uses for this funding as"developing new roads or enhancing(e.g.widening)existing roads;funding active transportation,including bike and pedestrian projects;or funding transit enhancements. It can also be used for maintenance and upkeep of existing facilities."(SB136 of 2018 Fourth Quarter Cent Local Option Sales Tax Summary June 22,2018).Revenue from the 0.25%sales tax increase is split o.lo%for UTA, o.lo%for cities and 0.05%for Salt Lake County as of July 1, 2019 and afterwards.Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between this funding source and Class C funds(next section). Class C Funds(gas tax) Class C funds are generated by the Utah State Tax on gasoline.The state distributes these funds to local governments on a center lane mileage basis.The City's longstanding practice has been to appropriate Class C funds for the general purpose of street reconstruction and asphalt overlays.The Roadway Selection Committee selects specific street segment locations(See next section below).Note that there is overlap in eligible uses between this funding source and the County 1/40 Sales Tax for Transportation and Streets Funding(previous section). Per state law,Class C funds may be used for: 1. All construction and maintenance on eligible Class B&C roads 2. Enhancement of traffic and pedestrian safety,including,but not limited to: sidewalks,curb and gutter, safety features,traffic signals,traffic signs,street lighting and construction of bicycle facilities in the highway right-of-way 3. Investments for interest purposes(interest to be kept in fund) 4. Equipment purchases or equipment leases and rentals 5. Engineering and administration costs 6. Future reimbursement of other funds for large construction projects 7. Rights of way acquisition,fencing and cattle guards 8. Matching federal funds 9. Equipment purchased with B&C funds may be leased from the road department to another department or agency 10. Construction of road maintenance buildings,storage sheds,and yards.Multiple use facilities may be constructed by mixing funds on a proportional basis ii. Construction and maintenance of alleys 12. B&C funds can be used to pay the costs of asserting,defending,or litigating 13. Pavement portion of a bridge(non-road portions such as underlying bridge structure are not eligible) Roadway Selection Committee Page 1 12 The Roadway Selection Committee determines specific projects for street improvement general purpose appropriations,e.g.,reconstruction or overlay.In recent years this Committee guided use of Class C funds and revenues from the 2018 voter-approved Streets Reconstruction G.O.Bond.The Committee is led by Engineering and includes representatives of Streets,Transportation,Public Utilities,Public Services, HAND, Finance,the RDA and Council Staff.Information provided to the committee to consider in their selection process includes: — Public requests for individual road repair — On-going costs to keep a road safely passable — Existing or planned private development or publicly funded construction activities in a neighborhood or corridor such as the Sugar House Business District or the goo South corridor — Safety improvement goals and crash data — Public Utilities'planned capital projects that would include a variety of underground facilities replacements,repairs,or upgrades — Private utilities'existing infrastructure,planned installations or repairs,e.g.,fiber,natural gas,power — Neighborhood or transportation master plan considerations — Pavement condition survey data for ideal timing of asphalt overlays to extend useful life of a street In reviewing the above-mentioned criteria,open deliberations are held between committee members,and roads are selected for repair by consensus.The number of projects selected is contingent on available funding.Other City projects and master plans sometimes help in extending funds by combining project funding sources. CIP Planning Technology Improvements The Administration reports improvements are ongoing to CIP tracking of projects and applications.The City currently provides a public interactive construction and permits project information map available here: httl)://mal)s,sle,gov.com/niNN,s/pi-Qiccts.htm ATTACHMENTS 1. Capital and Debt Management Guiding Policies Resolution 29 of 2017 2. FY2023 CIP Funding Log—Note the spreadsheet from the Administration is not formatted for printing 3. FY2023 CIP Budget Book 4. FY2023 CDCIP Board Project Scores and Votes 5. Summary Spreadsheet of All Projects in Proposed FY2023 CIP, $65 Million Sales Tax Revenue Bond and$8o Million Parks and Public Lands G.O. Bond 6. Capital Facilities Plan(CFP)Council Requests from January 2019 7. Regular CIP Projects Cost Estimates(July 2021) 8. List of Completed and Unfinished Projects Older than Three Years 9. Art Maintenance Report for FY2022 and FY2023 io. Comparison of CIP Project Requests by Year and Type ii. Top 10 Zones Citywide for Livable Streets Program 12. Top 2 Zones in each Council District for Livable Streets Program 13. Comparison Table of Sales Tax and GO Bond Questions ACRONYMS CAN—Community and Neighborhood Department CDCIP—Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board CFP—Capital Facilities Plan CIP—Capital Improvement Program ESCO—Energy Service Company FTE—Full-time Employee FY—Fiscal Year G.O.Bond—General Obligation Bond Page ( 13 R 17-1 R 17-13 RESOLUTION NO. _2_9_OF 2017 (Salt Lake City Council capital and debt management policies.) WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council ("City Council" or"Council") demonstrated its commitment to improving the City's Capital Improvement Program in order to better address the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs of Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, the analysis of Salt Lake City's General Fund Capital Improvement Program presented by Citygate Associates in February 1999, recommended that the Council review and update the capital policies of Salt Lake Corporation ("City") in order to provide direction to the capital programming and budgeting process and adopt and implement a formal comprehensive debt policy and management plan; and WHEREAS,the City's Capital Improvement Program and budgeting practices have evolved since 1999 and the City Council wishes to update the capital and debt management policies by updating and restating such policies in their entirety to better reflect current practices; and WHEREAS,the City Council desires to improve transparency of funding opportunities across funding sources including General Fund dollars, impact fees, Class C(gas tax)funds, Redevelopment Agency funds, Public Utilities funds, repurposing old Capital Improvement Program funds and other similar funding sources. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: That the City Council has determined that the following capital and debt management policies shall guide the Council as they continue to address the deferred and long-term infrastructure needs within Salt Lake City: Capital Policies 1. Capital Project Definition—The Council intends to define a capital project as follows: "Capital improvements involve the construction, purchase or renovation of buildings,parks, streets or other physical structures. A capital improvement must have a useful life of five or more years. A capital improvement is not a recurring capital outlay item (such as a motor vehicle or a fire engine) or a maintenance expense (such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches). In order to be considered a capital project, a capital improvement must also have a cost of $50,000 or more unless such capital improvement's significant functionality can be demonstrated to warrant its inclusion as a capital project (such as software). Acquisition of equipment is not considered part of a capital project unless such acquisition of equipment is an integral part of the cost of the capital project." 2. Annual Capital Budget Based on 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan—The Council requests that the Mayor's Recommended Annual Capital Budget be developed based upon the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan and be submitted each fiscal year to the City Council for consideration as part of the Mayor's Recommended Budget no later than the first Tuesday of May. 3, Multiyear Financial Forecasts—The Council requests that the Administration: a. Prepare multi-year revenue and expenditure forecasts that correspond to the capital program period; b. Prepare an analysis of the City's financial condition, debt service levels within the capital improvement budget, and capacity to finance future capital projects; and c. Present this information to the Council in conjunction with the presentation of each one- year capital budget. 4. Annual General Fund Transfer to CIP Funding Goal—Allocation of General Fund revenues for capital improvements on an annual basis will be determined as a percentage of General Fund revenue. The Council has a goal that no less than nine percent(9%) of ongoing General Fund revenues be invested annually in the Capital Improvement Fund. 5. Maintenance Standard - The Council intends that the City will maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect the City's capital investment and to minimize future maintenance and replacement costs. 6. Capital Project Prioritization - The Council intends to give priority consideration to projects that: a. Preserve and protect the health and safety of the community; b. Are mandated by the state and/or federal government; and c. Provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in a preservation of the community's prior investment, in decreased operating costs or other significant cost savings, or in improvements to the environmental quality of the City and its neighborhoods. 7. External Partnerships - All other considerations being equal, the Council intends to give fair consideration to projects where there is an opportunity to coordinate with other agencies, establish a public/private partnership, or secure grant funding. 8. Aligning Project Cost Estimates and Funding - The Council intends to follow a guideline of approving construction funding for a capital project in the fiscal year immediately following the project's design wherever possible. Project costs become less accurate as more time passes. The City can avoid expenses for re-estimating project costs by funding capital projects in a timely manner. 9. Advisory Board Funding Recommendations - The Council intends that all capital projects be evaluated and prioritized by the Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board. The resulting recommendations shall be provided to the Mayor, and shall be included along with the Mayor's funding recommendations in conjunction with the Annual Capital budget transmittal, as noted in Paragraph two above. 10. Prioritize Funding Projects in the 10-Year Plan - The Council does not intend to fund any project that has not been included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan for at least one (1) year prior to proposed funding, unless extenuating circumstances are adequately identified. 11. Cost Overrun Process - The Council requests that any change order to any capital improvement project follow the criteria established in Resolution No. 65 of 2004 which reads as follows: a. "The project is under construction and all other funding options and/or methods have been considered and it has been determined that additional funding is still required. b. Cost overrun funding will be approved based on the following formula: L 20% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets of$100,000 or less; ii. 15% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets between $100,001 and $250,000; iii. 10% or below of the budget adopted by the City Council for project budgets over $250,000 with a maximum overrun cost of$100,000. c. The funds are not used to pay additional City Engineering fees. d. The Administration will submit a written notice to the City Council detailing the additional funding awarded to projects at the time of administrative approval. e. If a project does not meet the above mentioned criteria the request for additional funding will be submitted as part of the next scheduled budget opening. However, if due to timing constraints the cost overrun cannot be reasonably considered as part of a regularly scheduled budget opening,the Administration will prepare the necessary paperwork for review by the City Council at its next regularly scheduled meeting." 12. Recapture Funds from Completed Capital Projects - The Council requests that the Administration include in the first budget amendment each year those Capital Improvement Program Fund accounts where the project has been completed and a project balance remains. It is the Council's intent that all account balances from closed projects be recaptured and placed in the CIP Cost Overrun Contingency Account for the remainder of the fiscal year, at which point any remaining amounts will be transferred to augment the following fiscal year's General Fund ongoing allocation. 13. Recapture Funds from Unfinished Capital Projects —Except for situations in which significant progress is reported to the Council, it is the Council's intent that all account balances from unfinished projects older than three years be moved out of the specific project account to the CIP Fund Balance. Notwithstanding the foregoing, account balances for bond financed projects and outside restricted funds (which could include grants, SAA or other restricted funds) shall not be moved out of the specific project account. 14. Surplus Land Fund within CIP Fund Balance — Revenues received from the sale of real property will go to the unappropriated balance of the Capital Projects Fund and the revenue will be reserved to purchase real property unless extenuating circumstances warrant a different use. It is important to note that collateralized land cannot be sold. 15. Transparency of Ongoing Costs Created by Capital Projects —Any long-term fiscal impact to the General Fund from a capital project creating ongoing expenses such as maintenance, changes in electricity/utility usage, or additional personnel will be included in the CIP funding log and project funding request. Similarly, capital projects that decrease ongoing expenses will detail potential savings in the CIP funding log. 16. Balance Budget without Defunding or Delaying Capital Projects — Whenever possible, capital improvement projects should neither be delayed nor eliminated to balance the General Fund budget. 17. Identify Sources when Repurposing Old Capital Project Funds —Whenever the Administration proposes repurposing funds from completed capital projects the source(s) should be identified including the project name,balance of remaining funds,whether the project scope was reduced, and whether funding needs related to the original project exist. 18. Identify Capital Project Details— For each capital project,the capital improvement projects funding log should identify: a. The Community Development and Capital Improvement Program Advisory Board's funding recommendations, b. The Administration's funding recommendations, c. The project name and a brief summary of the project, d. Percentage of impact fee eligibility and type, e. The project life expectancy, f. Whether the project is located in an RDA project area, g. Total project cost and an indication as to whether a project is one phase of a larger project, h. Subtotals where the project contains multiple scope elements that could be funded separately, i. Any savings derived from funding multiple projects together, j. Timing for when a project will come on-line, k. Whether the project implements a master plan, 1. Whether the project significantly advances the City's renewable energy or sustainability goals, in. Ongoing annual operating impact to the General Fund, n. Any community support for the project-such as community councils or petitions, o. Communities served, p. Legal requirements/mandates, q. Whether public health and safety is affected, r. Whether the project is included in the 10-Year Capital Facilities Plan, s. Whether the project leverages external funding sources, and t. Any partner organizations. Debt Management Policies 1. Prioritize Debt Service for Projects in the l0-Year Capital Facilities Plan - The Council intends to utilize long-term borrowing only for capital improvement projects that are included in the City's l0-Year Capital Facilities Plan or in order to take advantage of opportunities to restructure or refund current debt. Short-term borrowing might be utilized in anticipation of future tax collections to finance working capital needs. 2. Evaluate Existing Debt before Issuing a New Debt - The Council requests that the Administration provide an analysis of the City's debt capacity, and how each proposal meets the Council's debt policies,prior to proposing any projects for debt financing. This analysis should include the effect of the bond issue on the City's debt ratios, the City's ability to finance future projects of equal or higher priority, and the City's bond ratings. 3. Identify Repayment Source when Proposing New Debt- The Council requests that the Administration identify the source of funds to cover the anticipated debt service requirement whenever the Administration recommends borrowing additional funds. 4. Monitoring Debt Impact to the General Fund - The Council requests that the Administration analyze the impact of debt-financed capital projects on the City's operating budget and coordinate this analysis with the budget development process. 5. Disclosure of Bond Feasibility and Challenges -The Council requests that the Administration provide a statement from the City's financial advisor that each proposed bond issue appears feasible for bond financing as proposed. Such statement from the City's financial advisor should also include an indication of requirements or circumstances that the Council should be aware of when considering the proposed bond issue (such as any net negative fiscal impacts on the City's operating budget, debt capacity limits, or rating implications). 6. Avoid Use of Financial Derivative Instruments - The Council intends to avoid using interest rate derivatives or other financial derivatives when considering debt issuance. 7. Maintain Reasonable Debt Ratios - The Council does not intend to issue debt that would cause the City's debt ratio benchmarks to exceed moderate ranges as indicated by the municipal bond rating industry. 8. Maintain High Level Bond Ratings—The Council intends to maintain the highest credit rating feasible and to adhere to fiscally responsible practices when issuing debt. 9. Consistent Annual Debt Payments Preferred—The Council requests that the Administration structure debt service payments in level amounts over the useful life of the financed project(s) unless anticipated revenues dictate otherwise or the useful life of the financed project(s) suggests a different maturity schedule. lo. Sustainable Debt Burden—The Council intends to combine pay-as-you-go strategy with long-term financing to keep the debt burden sufficiently low to merit continued AAA general obligation bond ratings and to provide sufficient available debt capacity in case of emergency. 11. Lowest Cost Options—The City will seek the least costly financing available when evaluating debt financing options. 12. Avoid Creating Structural Deficits —The City will minimize the use of one-time revenue to fund programs/projects that require ongoing costs including debt repayments. 13. Aligning Debt and Project Timelines — Capital improvement projects financed through the issuance of bonded debt will have a debt service that is not longer than the useful life of the project. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah,this 3rd day of October , 2017. CIT SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: By. Salt Lake City City Recorder App ed As To Form By: aysen Oldroyd Da e: l 5V;ZA7 HB_ATTY-#64304-0-CIP_and_Debt Management—Policies Attachment 2 - FY2023 CIP Funding Log (recommended projects are listed first; note not formatted for printing) `Note:Deviations between the CDCIP Board and Mayor recommendations are highlighted in PINK CDCIP Recommendations Mayors Recommendations <oxe`e �aa ae�a. ..'1'.aee n aea ew mend. mend. me did aea e<e mend. e<e aae�a. �m aea <e r vne: mew::e vark:Jmpaa red: r n a a«� a. enera aee va,�impaa bee: or meet e, 111ran. aea« a. %ofArt a a5156.102 $111,117 Cort Overran NA $206,143 $208, All zo curb bulb-Dais antl ftecJangular Rapid sated1 ssaferyimprovements OSpno�rpiizingchdd—antl other p. I.,safery in 102 $ 111,311 $ $ $ $ $ $ s � S 513,33$ $ $ $ s s s haspit liati n,itip mcoldent in the lasifrwyears which ouzetl fatalities antl ,el buses per day.211 south will become a de III I—h osa eonJdor Supple1ment o tM1 ex p y sboer g nds,bus she hers an 9$ $ 1,S0o, $ $ 2320 $ - $ S - S $ 1,30d— $ 2,700,242 $ $ 211, $ is block of 1300—th antl a block of 1000 W-along J.d-I—, a1,1— eeI,—we.n aeaaeay.aaa��r.AI—lyeeeaedsewers.will lmpmre mmnmedan 92 s 1,3s9,13o s s s s s s S s 1,359,1 s s s s S S $ .bk.afety aeab i.—delete,e.paetlmgee.ecre..0rtnmenae,ponalma,va a,ponAuence Pan. Add inters r-safety/Complete Street elements 10-30oN ewal et n mction=:,po,ibep,--inlerseczionatlo0o wand 3o0 N; onstru<nonS Opiement ved pedesedan safety at inlersealon,at 900 W,SM W,701 Wand Boo W diid—d bike lane on 300 N. wity garden would be Lev Clty 1111— bbborbootl Ie ter Comm ty Gartlen ase access to(resM1,to p ace&reduce barne ual pmgmm funds rewrislmction or rehabdllt,—of detedorated Gty El wrb antl Butter,sidewalk,and aminageimpmvementas $ $ 3,1-,0 ewal US2/2a23 menu es, will include appropriate bicycle and 89 peaeesnlae,�reesslmpmpp�emeeeo. e p,ene l-1,setae mmm a„el memdee vlamm�g tm g emeiao „ alaeaaal mplacemeet,meewa aaa aefe,ma mamteeaare dada, es s 160,10 s s s s s s S s 1wae9 s s s s S S $ pane ntywiae,meeamg catmgmg as pan auen aad<e.,em e�ailro�,. hl mr vreyaeot made-.ceestmabe,nepa,o slcs,vporced eewaed,e�isea l.aesn mere, e./operen0ea i<, o,aea emereJare legal,ac�s,ime.safe,add me.ereeer,aad may 64 s s s uo,o s s s s 9so, S s s s n9, o s enmefta -h,mfederalgmetm<emea fernamrtnaba(esPeualry zoo s, fete hm,l. ne k33 ie aefed,taa„e1 "Beet ae"ew,a va s4 5 - 5 5 - 5 - $ $ 1,192,357 S s - S S S $ S s 1,192,357 $ s - 3 tare v b,p g t �nalky.el ¢place 11,111 North bddee over the Jordan R—The ,E,i anage aepmcemengeso ,_d 61 a46el by uoorfeaderso rege;re:revlaoememlp,ior to roe s4 $ $ S S S 5 5 s 3,2oo,aoo 5 5 $ 5 5 s s s rth o.er the Jordan awed artnquake.Aw,uuli firm wilh,peuafaea e;:pe,ie�rawih be esed for lh� 3,7.,1 publk way Cona.eThi Il address dlsphremen,s In publicwdy mncre,e,heough saw ewe o22f2023 Crete sidewalks,acressi y aop,urba g e,Betel g Ils,e,c. 84 $ 36, $ `Note:Deviations bet—the CDCIP Board and Mayor recommendations are highlighted in PINK CDCIP Recommendations May,,,Recommendations I R—=- R—=dld---d —..-Od 11—mended a—=d1d —.=— R--nd.d R.-. nd,d l�R,C ---,d,d 1�1...... I.-=d.d C,—W I—, I."1 1.1 1.r 1. G—r.1 1.— 11— I-i.p-F— 101 U-1 Far 0-r 1011 .ft C-1ax $ $ $ 142,919 $ $ $ $ 1,1V y Ih,d,m,.d roe proan f—mg aaa—1,—C,i-bl,I—,O-Oon h,, 11n g Or-Eeasm d—I.p.-at Y p""t 411,.O0 —0 p--t— ".—I .,id,e reserva0an 2—/M3 79 1".. $ $ $ $ $ $ $ b�-on uoois ="doed In ecem 11- 71.,A f pl,markees- pj= d.— i.g 1g. I" -A— Iphased II ftygr—d Ph—11 g.,1—,--d 73 521". $ $ $ $ $ $ —.514 $ ze th(phase 7, "d,. Id=...,I west( 550— , 0,0.= r,s,d,—Ik,Access lo heafth,outdoor recrev,,I p,1 of mmmunM "0,and CIO 90 S—h IN.,Pork S-A., _rb_g I—' an7 ed areafel C., soccer field atIII,I, IWd -k W.th expanse o,upkeep this great place for the TI 287,MS 01 5 2 $ $ $ $ $ $ 117,912 $ —m b,p—1 beyond capacity,11 the-.—y of eex„ FA2 R-- .,J�p_Add_ th1,1-k.f the.,1 —1., 58 597,792 597,792 .�-k pe, —,0. $ 5,-oo-I Fs —5 s3,Q.,DQ0 $ w s ss s oo $ L-10. $ —0. $ 5 M- 5 1 1 $ I I I .......... and ................. ....... .. ... ......... ....... p f mm,r p ..... ........... e8 I "ILI— S S s —L— I I I "'.L— 1 5 .....I 1,-1,b1l, -1,,1-1, ddli,11 pace flr'1�1�1.'1�1�1'1'1',,''llId, 11 $ —".1 111— 1 IL,L/l I ILL, ewes e e Bremen vane a e, error rove es a exec o ow o onwoo er eme er roe ar. 1Ons may S e�3,a z S e�3,a z S S S s S S s 3 antes equirabieaaossro pub�icereen open space. s ......... YLNeh. 1-1 L—LI l.—Ld ,,k, 1 —,i1—,fi,r R--1 piii'll.— R.Lill 11-1-1 L-L,-1,Ld d- —,-1, 11141, 81 s i,asa.o s U14,.Lls s s s s s s I li,-- 1. I.- 11..d 1111 hal 11— L., I 1h, even�e h 11om.a—d—IiLr lh— >noow emora e a h f lia nee 1, lh 81 s ion, s ion, s s s s s s s 1 Ih "I 1-11"In' L-L ne-lf, b, f 81 s 1 1'h'�.................. ewesL.il—..d-k I—I =lt"1111,11 11,111,Tlhl I ho —d1 mere,o 82 s 151 1 111 5 1 5 s 5 1 s 1 E--d .............. . h .......... I'll -11-1,1-1 1. �h.l..l 11. 141 141 4 oval rceetorcaovs —1-11d.---d-ki,110, _d L""L`lb'e'11', = ,rope'/bxeanoea , '1/,rh' I',ll'lL " I s — 4 ELhon ,-lf. d-1 T� 'k 1,11 2.21 =d1l,=,; "I L.'- C21 1-1111-1 '—1 4 1 I—,Phllo 11 r-dl a, 1-Il I——I—III, Ll. C.-,t—1 -...r,l,,I A.lode :— prase'n.,�4—,1 1'�'lf� d L. e.I dos...... eeoa.aedocn =hoe',or,.'l,'L. 8CI s pas s pas tPh,:,� Tr—I1enI,for LL-L P= L-1,P�rk 19 s 11s eo,E s s s s s s s -r—.Ll. TI— lil,,�11'11,ili Llli�Th—,——1,L,--,---t- d .o,',d' h—I........—,,h,-1 L 11 114 5 214 5 T I, T I d i fo— zi. 11-1 lenl,r lh $ s s s s sliL,-i j—i� i�g f ILI "I'%—ti' thal —1,,bl,lomen1'hia I'l, Lo 2 1121 1 L d-,� t demo'name -l- r 11,Il,It—LP 0 �=' ,=i '. —ILI 11 err emn„ T,a 14) g-h Lh— --g�t .11 11ss C, Lonrtme axe raesmrmwater g p e p lbS L-11 S L.1111 1 S S s S S s 1 y— T, 11 be 2110.0 o- oll, h -1, C21 Lonit—t —fol P---1 —ard,,bl. d-,,1. T,.f,,1- v a ve s I.,— s I.,— s s s s s s s a eon ne nrenenroenaeaestb serer—,iblL.11, ,IewaiL dT' 2 ILL hL, 1,—1 f �o, lil,A—L T11 —1- 11 5 '—.1 5 21-1 5 1 1 1 1 1 1 g TI S d arzc Carr tlo ...... I IS S 151 S S S S 5 S S 5 11.— 1 Ng o -ffl (br11.1.11 ,,e.111a111,111,1m.,b,,elg,ad,<1.11.�lI .......... Th,IIII 1h 1111.1—T1111 P11111 Ilh ��Il'hnl'11'17`l"�"p —,1111111 11 IGIIIIII 11 TI,111 1111,11 t..'= III—T—1 ........... 71 S 0 I, —m I, I,I-1-S f,,—,1�t ub C-1111-1 ors ourI p,"" pi— r<ourt n 5 SIIISI 5 -1 15 .......... & p PlSl,h c" state new ree n 1h,-1—1, 11- rnr 1.,11 1 newref g ra p g y Ia S SIS S —SIS S S S 5 S S 5 I III—S,na ntenan<eanaaxossb I,SI1 h-1tit 11,Sl—d,ll,-1,hbG1I..d I—l"'I.pltit S-,I, hb- d-11,TI,rou—1 I IS, ISI"I ,I S U,bS,I—d geut uton I—S 201— $ 5 1 f- —d- p1-1, ibrrnIl-,1—1 —ld bSni ru<c mrn r n sonI. "I S 1S,11S 6-1 II k, —tl I-pl,d-1 IS p,.,,dI 1h.—ld. C.-ISS-1 —1—I T-1,11 1,I,S,,,-k T T-I —563 5 5 5 S 5 5 S a o0 —d —S, "5 25,ISI 1 b,I, -l—d d,l I—, d 1-1- 11nninge Park 0,SI I,—C b,1 154,1. S 154,1. S 5 4 0 LI-1-11-1�l—1: .'."1,—�-kId gogiansare -"'t 66 5 51TISI 5 51TISI 5 5 5 S 5 tlemweus --fIll,b-1 t �Ihtll,l ll Ill bl1� I—A— Th,L—S,Sp-1, 111 1—d,t.d�,lil,hl 1,lil ISI p,.v,d,Ibil I,I S, S1...."f' ..—b, 11.IS I�b Iol I., .d ildlill 11idd—, . .....th 11 R-S-1 I III........... p-.... III 14111 I—et-1 1. b I..=l- 11-1--d, j g — n-b——,Ib-h—d I—,I l.al d—gn 11—�f 11,poll ThS l--11 p-I-dbacl 1,dand—,-11 11 1-11 1-11 4 1——b1l I... ... nae ePatk Comm,P-1 T111k I I,lb,,,, 1,to 1,,k.,,, Ih, p,,,,l—In S-I-I IS 5 asa a 5 asa a 5 5 5 S 5 64 11 R'n-1 T—nll,l,IIS—d ........ .......... 11—ffill 1 and pd tatlatona 11 12 S 1 d. be eve q prov I' =`Z 9'1,111'b —.1 .1111-111,pl.."l III 511 � III,1 41 1.1111a1,1�1.11_ "'f" '1'e 1'a'IhZ se 15 1111 C,tu-1 1-t 1 11-111 d1.1 I, s 3m 6 s 3m 6 s s s s s s s I 1,11,111 11-111111li-1111�d d—. ,I C-111-1 111.1 11/111ndll A f, l, ,d—f -I bIlw C� C-IIIII-I d 11 s suso s —6. R11-1111,11911—1111 .t ll� -P., ,ld IlInl me,ea eslnr1ssu ,-I,a,ln+e,eee, IS C, 44 5 111 5 11 5 5 5 C,�ul I— Clll� T. I-TIll P1.11--ffl ue¢noomooe&honor 13 1, 411111 S s S $ C5 C.-,lu-1 IIII-t 1.—.1 1—t'1—thve sou onwes si e. 5 11,13, 5 131 h d, r d, r • SUMMARY DOCUMENTS • ♦ FY 2022-23 PROJECTS OVERVIEW 1 FY 2022-23 CAPITAL PROJECTS SUMMARY 5 DEBT SERVICE • DEBT SERVICE CIP 17 ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND 21 ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM OTHER FUNDS 21 GENERAL ♦ ♦ PROJECTS Bridge Preservation 2022/2023 25 GENERAL FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS 400 South Safety Improvements 29 200 South Reconstruction/Transit Corridor Supplement 30 Three Creeks West Roadways 31 300 North Complete Street Reconstruction Supplement 32 Rose Park Neighborhood Center Community Garden 33 Street Improvements 2022/2023 34 Public Lands Asset Management Plan 35 Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes/Operational Investments 36 Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY23 37 Bridge Replacement(650 North over Jordan River) 38 Public Way Concrete 2022/2023 39 Alleyway Improvements 2022/2023 40 Urban Farm Development at 2200 West 41 RAC Playground Phase II 42 700 South(Phase 7,4600 W to 5000 W) 43 900 South River Park Soccer Field 44 Memorial Tree Groves Design and Infrastructure 44 Streets Steam Bay Expansion 46 Restoration of CCB Reimburse by Insurance 47 Hand Held Radios 48 Cost Overrun 49 Percent for Art 50 CDBG AND ENTERPRISE FUND CAPITAL PROJECTS CDBG CAPITAL PROJECTS Ballpark Trax Stop Crosswalks on 1300 South 54 400 South Bus Stop Improvements 55 AIRPORT CAPITAL PROJECTS Concourse B- Maintenance Facilities and Shell Space 58 Stairs to Access Pedestrian Bridges Roofs 59 Pump House#9 Renovations(Construction) 60 Cylinder Saddle Tanks for Runway Deicer Fluid 61 Gate 39 Reconstruction(Construction) 62 SkyWest Hangar Taxilane Reconstruction 63 Taxiway E Reconstruction F1-F2 64 South Valley Regional Airport Hangar Site Development 65 South Valley Regional Airport-T-Hangars 66 Skydive Utah Taxilane and Apron 67 South Valley Regional Airport Vitek Hangar Apron Construction 68 Booth 10 Restroom Installation 69 Ground Transportation Staging Lot Study&Modifications 70 Ground Transportation Staging Lot Restroom&EVC Stations 71 Park and Wait Lot Expansion 72 Terminal Front Access Road Improvements 73 Equipment Storage Building(Construction) 74 Replace PVC Roof Membrane on NS1 (Roads&Grounds Maint Bldg) 75 Replace PVC Roof&Greenhouse Panels on NS14 76 Electrical &Communications Duct Bank from AOC to Gate 7 77 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations(FY2023) 78 South Employee Parking Lot Development Program(Design) 79 GOLF CAPITAL PROJECTS Tee Box Leveling 83 Pump Replacement 84 Maintenance Equipment 85 Short Course Design 86 Property Fencing Project 87 New Construction Projects 88 Building Improvements 89 Cart Path Improvements 90 PUBLIC UTILITIES CAPITAL PROJECTS Water Main Replacements 92 Treatment Plant Improvements 93 Deep Pump Wells 94 Meter Change-Out Programs 95 Water Service Connections 96 Storage Reservoirs 97 Pumping Plants&Pump Houses 98 Culverts, Flumes&Bridges 99 Distribution Reservoirs(Tanks) 100 Landscaping 101 Treatment Plants 102 Collection Lines 103 Lift Stations 104 Storm Drain Lines 105 Riparian Corridor Improvements 106 Landscaping 107 Storm Water Lift Stations 108 Street Lighting Projects 109 REDEVELOPMENT AGENCY CAPITAL PROJECTS ]apantom/n 112 Main Street Closure 113 West Capitol Hill Projects 114 I D S mmary M k Documents f �r 8 This page has been intentionally left blank ��U��U U��0��U�� CAPITAL�� IMPROVEMENT" PROGRAM Introduction and Overview Salt Lake [itv's Capital Improvement Program (CIP) is a multi-yearplanning program of capital expendituresneeded to replace or expand the [itv's public infrastructure.The principal element that guides the City in determining the annual infrastructure improvements and budgets schedule is the current fiscal year capital budget. The [ity[|P Budget Process includes a review by the Community Development Capital Improvement Program ([O[|P) Board, consisting of community residents from each district.The CDCIP Board scores projects on a variety of criteria and provides funding recommendations to the Mayor. The Mayor considers the CDCIP recommendations as the Administration prepares its funding recommendations for the City Council as part of the Annual Recommended Budget.The City Council reviews the recommendations of the Mayor and the [D[|P Board and carefully analyzes each of the proposed projects beforea||ncatin funding and adopting the final CIP budget.The details of the recommended FY 2022-23 CIP Budget are included in this book. In considering major capital projects,the City looks at the potential operating impact of each project. New capital improvements often entail ongoing expenses for routine operations. Upon completion or acquisition,the repair and maintenance of new facilities often require additional positions to maintain the new infrastructure. Conversely, a positive contribution, such as a reduction in ongoing repairs and maintenance of a capital project, is factored into the decision-making process. Each project inc|udesasectionforestirnatedfuturennaintenanceond/ornperationsexpenses.vvherethe departments have included projections ofanyincreasestofuturenperatingcosts. The City also reviews all C|P projects to determine the progress. All projects older than three years that do not show significant progress are then considered for recapture, allowing those funds to be used on more shovel-ready projects. The Administration continuously evaluates the [it/sfundin&of its Capital Improvement Program. Because the proceeds from debt financing are considered a source for funding the City's capital improvement projects,the City analyzes the effect issuance that additional debt would have on its debt capacity and current debt ratio. Salt Lake City Resolution No. 29 of 2017/Salt Lake City Council Capital and Debt Management Policies Resolution No. 29of2017 provides the framework for project fundingrecornrnendotinns. |tsguidancehe|psc|arifv the expectations of the City's Capital Improvement Program and the steps the Administration should take in determining how to best address the City's deferred and long-term maintenance needs. Some of the policies guiding the [D[|P Board and the Administration include: - A definition of a capital improvement as having a useful life of five or more years and cannot have a recurring capital outlay such asa motor vehicle orafire engine. |t also clarifies that a capital outlay does not include maintenance expenses such as fixing a leaking roof or painting park benches. - A capital improvement must bea City asset and have a cost of$50'000nr more,with few exceptions. - Salt Lake City aims to maintain its physical assets at a level adequate to protect its capital investments and minimize maintenance and replacement costs. - Priorities given tn projects thatpreserveandprotectthehea|thandsafetvofthecornnnunity; arennondated by the state and/or federal government and provide for the renovation of existing facilities resulting in the preservation of the community's prior investment. - The recapture of Capital Improvement Program funds during the first budget amendment of each year if an existing balance remains nna completed project. - Debt Service(excluding G.O. Bonding) 1 c FY 2022-23 Capital Improvement Allocations Salt Lake City's FY 2022-23 recommended CIP budget appropriates $345,912,595 for CIP, utilizing General Funds, Class"C" Funds, Impact Fee Funds, Quarter Cent Tax Funds, Redevelopment Agency Funds, Enterprise Funds, and other public and private funds. The City's General Fund accounts for all debt service on outstanding Sales and Excise Tax Revenue bonds through a payment from the City CIP contribution, except for the Eccles Theater project. The Library Fund covers the Local Building Authority Lease Revenue bonds for Glendale and Marmalade Libraries while debt associated with the construction of two fire stations is funded through the General Fund. Funds to pay debt service are included in the recommended annual budget of$10,243,296. Outstanding Sales and Excise Tax Revenue bonds financed a variety of the City's capital improvement projects. A total of$17,189,536 was recommended for transportation infrastructure, rehabilitation, and capital improvement of deteriorated streets city-wide. Of this amount, the major budget appropriations are $6,157,034 general fund, $3,000,000 of Class"C"fund, $1,522,000 of Impact Fee funds, and $5,000,000 in '/a Cent Tax funding. Such projects include transportation safety improvements, Complete Streets Reconstruction, alleyway improvements, and bridge replacement. The recommended budget for Parks,Trails, and Open Space capital improvement projects includes a total appropriation of$4,043,393 from various funding sources.This includes a variety of enhancements in RAC, urban farm development, community gardens, memorial tree groves and the development of a Public Lands Asset Management Plan. Public Facilities' capital improvement recommended budget includes a total appropriation of$1,790,149 from the general fund for improvements listed in the Facilities Capital Asset Replacement Program to retire long overdue deferred capital replacement projects and an expansion to the Streets Steam Bay. Capital Projects The CIP pages include details for each recommended project the for the FY 2022-23 Budget.These pages provide a breakout of the funding recommendations and future costs associated with each project. The total for capital projects funded from CIP submissions in the FY 2022-23 budget is $ $21,230,070.Additionally,the budget recognizes $2.0 million for repairs to the City and County Building,from funds that will be reimbursed through the City's insurance provider, and $3.7 million for the citywide radio system from funding set aside in fiscal year 2022. The combined total for CIP is $26,930,070. Maintenance Projects The recommended CIP budget consists of projects that meet the City's definition of CIP of over$50,000(for capitalization) but are ongoing in nature.These funds help maintain capital investments, ensure longevity, and decrease the need for new capital expenditures to replace the City's current valuable assets.The Administration has reviewed each project and determined if it was a new capital expenditure or an ongoing maintenance project.The CIP pages provide any maintenance details.The total funding recommended for FY 2022-23 maintenance projects is $2,173,008. CDBG and Enterprise Fund Projects Community Development Block Grant(CDBG)-The Community Development Block Grant(CDBG) Program supports community development activities to build stronger and more resilient communities.To support community development, activities are identified through an ongoing process.Activities may address needs such as infrastructure, economic development projects, public facilities installation, community centers, housing rehabilitation, public services, clearance/acquisition, microenterprise assistance, code enforcement, homeowner assistance, etc. 2 c In the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget CDBG funds are allocated for CIP infrastructure projects to improve safety and meet ADA requirements.The projects were selected through the FY2022-23 CDBG selection process and are aligned with goals and objectives outlined in Salt Lake City's Housing Plan, Growing SLC, and the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. Enterprise Funds The City's enterprise functions;Airport,Water, Sewer, Storm Water, Redevelopment, Refuse Collection and Golf- are by nature,very capital intensive.The budgets for these activities reflect the need to maintain the integrity and capacity of the current capital infrastructure and its functionality. Airport Fund-The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive any general fund revenues to support the operation of the City's system of airports.The Department of Airports has 619 full-time employee positions and is responsible for managing, developing, and promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel experience. The FY 2022-23 budget is the Airport's first budget that is focused on moving past the financial impacts of Covid-19 as enplanements traffic and revenues are set to exceed those levels prior to the global pandemic.The Salt Lake City International Airport continues to benefit from the American Rescue Plan Act(ARPA)as well as the recently announced Bipartisan Infrastructure Law(BIL). These grants will continue to offset operating and maintenance expenses that will lower the landing fee and terminal rents charged in FY 2022-23 as well as provide much needed and critical funding for airport capital infrastructure projects. Passenger demand continues to increase on a monthly basis, and as such, the Department of Airports will act prudently in managing the FY 2022-23 budget and look for ways to continue to save operating and capital expenses where feasible,while also looking for ways to strengthen our revenues. The developed FY 2022-23 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits with increased passengers and revenues that help offset increased operating expenses.The Department of Airports will continue to fund important capital projects.These projects include the Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP)and the North Concourse Program (NCP),which together are called the New SLC. In addition, critical projects found in the airfield,terminal, and auxiliary airports will continue to be funded to ensure that all Airport owned facilities keep up with critical infrastructure to support the growth we are currently experiencing as well as the growth we are projecting into future years. Public Utilities Funds-Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities(SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities,water, sewer, storm water, and street lighting. Each utility is operated as a separate enterprise fund. Tax money is not used to fund these services. Funding for SLCDPU capital expenditures comes from user fees,fund reserves, revenue bonds, and occasionally a grant. The department is utilizing a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act(WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation facility construction. Customers pay for the services they receive through utility rates that have been established for each fund. The rates were developed on a cost-of-service basis. The City's utilities are infrastructure intensive, and administration of these assets requires long term project and financial planning. The SLCDPU capital budget is shown by fund with subcategory cost centers under each. In FY 2022-23,the department has over 150 capital projects between the four funds as well as continuing work on existing projects. Many of the capital projects in Public Utilities cover multiple fiscal years. It is common for projects designed in one year and be constructed in subsequent years. The budget includes projects rated as a high priority in the Department's Capital Asset Program (CAP). The replacement of the water reclamation facility is the largest project undertaken by SLCDPU. Other elements of our systems are also experiencing aging problems and will require increasing attention in the future. For example, our three water treatment plants were built in the 1950's and early 60's. Planning is underway for each of the three plants to determine the best approaches for their replacement. A unique aspect of capital projects in SLCDPU is that Federal, State, and local regulations affect many of our priorities. Adding to the complexity are water rights and exchange agreement obligations. RDA Funds-The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City(RDA)strengthens neighborhoods and commercial districts to improve livability, create economic opportunity and foster authentic, equitable communities.The RDA 3 c utilizes a powerful set of financial and planning tools to support strategic development projects that enhance the City's housing opportunities, commercial vitality, public spaces, and environmental Sustainability.The RDA's primary source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and program income revenue, depending on the specific budget account. The RDA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned infrastructure projects.As part of the RDA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that anticipates multi-year funding.The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval process and is typically contingent on the RDA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific projects costs and details are known. Depending on the project,the timeline for this process may not follow the City's CIP schedule or requirements for approval. The RDA FY 2022-23 budget process proposes three potential City infrastructure projects. The Japantown project is an allocation of funds to support implementation of the Design Strategy. Improvements could include infrastructure, utility work, lighting, site furniture, public art, etc. The Main Street project is an allocation of funds to support the transition of Main Street to a pedestrian-first promenade. Funds would primarily be used to hire a consultant to provide design/planning work, code analysis, phasing, and stakeholder engagement. The West Capitol Hill project provides additional funds to current projects which includes construction of Marmalade Plaza, a public open space and mid-block connection adjacent to the Marmalade Library. Sustainability Fund- Sustainability operations enable continuing compliance with federal, stand and local regulations related to landfill gas collection, closing portions of the landfill, and constructing a new landfill cell within the permitted footprint included in the master plan. Sustainability proposed no projects for FY 2022-23. Golf Fund-The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding cities and various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily,from excess revenue generated by user fees. Over the past several years, expenses have outpaced revenues and have limited Golfs ability to self-fund most if not all non-emergency Capital Projects. In 2012, a Golf CIP Fund was established that allocates $1 per every 9 holes played and 9%from all annual pass sales toward building funds that can be used exclusively for Capital Projects. Until FY 2018-19, these funds had not been released for use as the fund balance was needed to provide a fund balance offset against a fund deficit.As part of the FY 2021-22 budget proposal,the Golf Division implemented a Golf CIP Fee increase from $1 to $2 per every 9 holes played, beginning in January 2022, in order to bring more capital into the Golf CIP Fund to increase funding from this source for additional future projects. As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses,the Golf Division will be using $856,502 in FY 2022-23 to purchase additional equipment. The Golf Division has budgeted $4,050,000 for Capital Improvement Projects in FY 2022-23.The Golf Division is undertaking a four-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling and re-sodding many of the tee box areas at each course and have allocated $60,000 in FY 2022-23 from the Golf CIP Fund.The Golf Division is undertaking a multi-year project to repair existing cart paths and construct some new carts paths and has allocated $950,000 for FY 2022-23. Other significant projects include new HVAC system at the Mountain Dell clubhouse, Roof improvements at the Nibley Park clubhouse, On-course restrooms at Nibley Park, Forest Dale and Glendale golf courses. The Golf Division is anticipating receiving a matching federal WaterSMART grant to assist in funding a new irrigation system at the Rose Park Golf Course.The award should be announced in May of 2022. If the grant is not awarded, approximately$2 million of CIP projects will be suspended to help fund the Rose Park irrigation system. 4 e® c Salt Lake City General Fund /Class C/ Impact Fee/ Enterprise Fund/Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2023 PROJECT • IMPACT C SALES OTHER TOTAL FEES TAX Debt Service Projects Sales Tax Series $2,500 $2,500 2012A Bond Sales Tax Series $363,660 $363,660 2013B Bond Sales Tax Series $749,937 $749,937 2014B Bond Sales Tax Series $21014,623 $2,014,623 2016A Bond Sales Tax Series $365,285 $365,285 2019 A Bond 41 41 Sales Tax Series M 2021 Bond 0 (Refunding $476,422 $476,422 2013B, LBA2013A &2014A) Sales Tax Series $4,393,161 $4,393,161 2022 Bond B&C Roads $981,208 $981,208 Series 2014 ESCO Debt $896,500 $896,500 Service Debt Service $10,243,296 $- $- $- $- $- $10,243,296 Projects Total Ongoing Projects Crime Lab $600,000 $600,000 Facilities $350,000 $350,000 by Maintenance Public Lands u°D Maintenance $250,000 $2,000,000 $2,250,000 O Community and Neighborhoods- $700,000 $700,000 Maintenance Ongoing Projects $1,900,000 $2,000,000 $- $- $- $- $3,900,000 Total Other Ongoing to Complete Streets $3,000,000 $3,000,000 c Public Services $ 154,000 $154,000 NO Smiths Ballfield 0 Public Services- L- ESCO County $ 148,505 $148,505 s Steiner O� Public Services Memorial House $68,554 $68,554 Other Ongoing $- $- $- $- $3,000,000 $371,059 $3,371,059 5 e® c Salt Lake City General Fund /Class C/ Impact Fee/ Enterprise Fund/Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2023 PROJECT • IMPACT C SALES OTHER TOTAL FEES TAX Bridge Preservation $ 108,008 $65,000 $173,008 a 2022/2023 Maintenance Funded Projects $108,008 $65,000 $- $- $- $- $173,008 Total New/ Maintenance Projects Total 400 South Safety $513,313 $513,313 Improvements 200 South Reconstruction/ $2 700,242 $2,643 $252,000 $ 1,300,000 $4,254,885 Transit Corridor Supplement Three Creeks $ 1,359,130 $1,359,130 West Roadways 300 North Complete Street $500,000 $40,000 $540,000 Reconstruction Supplement Rose Park Neighborhood Center $ 160,819 $160,819 Community Garden Street a Improvements $3,000,000 $3,000,000 u 2022/2023 S Public Lands Asset $ 160,160 $160,160 Z Management Plan Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes/ $990,000 $ 110,000 $1,100,000 Operational Investments Facilities Asset Renewal Plan $ 1,192,357 $1,192,357 FY23 Bridge Replacement(650 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 North overjordan River) Public Way Concrete $436,281 $436,281 2022/2023 Alleyway Improvements $ 142,919 $142,919 2022/2023 Urban Farm Development at $425,040 $425,040 2200 West 6 Salt Lake City General Fund Class/ |mmpact Fee/ Enterprise Fund/Other CUP Summary Fiscal Year 2023 PROJECT GF GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT 1/4C SALES OTHER TOTAL FEES TAX RAC Playground $521 564 �5�� 564 Phase || ' ' 7OO South(Phase 7.4600VVto5000 $850'000 $ 1'120'000 $1'970008 VV) 90O South River $287'848 $2B�048 ParkSoccerHe|d Memorial Tree Groves Design $867.962 $867.962 U and Infrastructure CL^~ Streets Steam Bay $S9779� $�9�792 Expansion ' ' Restoration of w [[8Reimbuoe $2'000.080 $2.000'000 z by|nsurance Hand Held Radios $3'700'000 $3'700'000 New Projects $12��4LM�� $�M��DQO $�UQD8DU $��GO10� ��8DU@OO �' ��G9�DO7O Total ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' ' infrastructure P C|P Emg|neer|ng� Ballpark Tr x5top Crosswalks on $550'000 $550.000 13005outh � 40U South Bus Stop $ 172'000 $172,000 Improvements c Salt Lake City General Fund /Class C/ Impact Fee/ Enterprise Fund/Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2023 PROJECT • IMPACT C SALES OTHER TOTAL OtherFEES TAX Programs Airport CIP Projects Concourse B- Maintenance $5,290,000 $5,290,000 Facilities and Shell Space Stairs to Access Pedestrian $ 153,000 $153,000 Bridges Roofs Pump House#9 Renovations $463,000 $463,000 (Construction) Cylinder Saddle Tanks for Runway $379,000 $379,000 Deicer Fluid Gate 39 Reconstruction $2,318,000 $2,318,000 (Construction) SkyWest Hangar Taxilane $934,000 $934,000 Reconstruction Taxiway E Reconstruction $6,469,000 $6,469,000 F1-F2 Q. South Valley Regional Airport $3,018,000 $3,018,000 Q Hangar Site Development South Valley Regional Airport- $4,235,500 $4,235,500 T-Hangars Skydive Utah Taxilane and $490,000 $490,000 Apron South Valley Regional Airport Vitek Hangar $459,000 $459,000 Apron Construction Booth 10 Restroom $265,000 $265,000 Installation Ground Transportation Staging Lot Study $ 153,000 $153,000 &Modifications Ground Transportation Staging Lot $678,000 $678,000 Restroom &EVC Stations 8 c Salt Lake City General Fund /Class C/ Impact Fee/ Enterprise Fund/Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2023 PROJECT • IMPACT C SALES OTHER TOTAL FEES TAX Park and Wait Lot Expansion $ 1,413,000 $1,413,000 Terminal Front Access Road $2,037,000 $2,037,000 Improvements Equipment Storage Building $3,923,000 $3,923,000 (Construction) Replace PVC Roof Membrane on NS1 (Roads& $337,000 $337,000 Grounds Maint c Bldg) c Replace PVC Roof u &Greenhouse $76,000 $76,000 Panels on NS14 p Electrical& Q- Communications Q Duct Bank from $5,746,000 $5,746,000 AOC to Gate 7 Electric Vehicle Charging Stations $477,000 $477,000 (FY2023) South Employee Parking Lot $2,500,000 $2,500,000 Development Program(Design) Total Airport CIP $41,813,500 $41,813,500 Projects Golf CIP Projects Tee Box Leveling $60,000 $60,000 Pump $20,000 $20,000 Replacement Maintenance $856,502 $856,502 Equipment Short Course $50,000 $50,000 Design w Property Fencing 0 Project $ 100,000 $100,000 New Construction $ 1,525,000 $1,525,000 Projects Building $820,000 $820,000 Improvements Cart Path $ 1,475,000 $1,475,000 Improvements Total Golf CIP $4,906,502 $4,906,502 Projects 9 c Salt Lake City General Fund /Class C/ Impact Fee/ Enterprise Fund/Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2023 PROJECT • IMPACT C SALES OTHER TOTAL FEES TAX Public Utilities CIP Projects Water Main $ 16,893,000 $16,893,000 Replacements Treatment Plant $9,200,000 $9,200,000 Improvements Deep Pump Wells $996,000 $996,000 Meter Change- $3,100,000 $3,100,000 Out Programs Water Service $3,500,000 $3,500,000 Connections Storage Reservoirs $2,125,000 $2,125,000 Pumping Plants& $50,000 $50,000 (A Pump Houses a ; Culverts, Flumes&Bridges $ 1,615,000 $1,615,000 Distribution $ 1,410,000 $1,410,000 Reservoirs(Tanks) Landscaping $ 100,000 $100,000 o. Treatment Plants $178,739,910 $178,739,910 Collection Lines $24,385,000 $24,385,000 Lift Stations $2,760,000 $2,760,000 Storm Drain Lines $4,625,000 $4,625,000 Riparian Corridor $250,000 $250,000 Improvements Landscaping $ 100,000 $100,000 Storm Water Lift $750,000 $750,000 Stations Street Lighting $2,240,000 $2,240,000 Projects Total Public Utilities CIP $252,838,910 $252,838,910 Projects Redevelopment Agency(RDA)CIP Projects Japantown $250,000 $250,000 p Main Street Closure $300,000 $300,000 West Capitol Hill $ 100,000 $100,000 Projects Total RDA CIP $650,000 $650,000 Projects 10 c Salt Lake City General Fund /Class C/ Impact Fee/ Enterprise Fund/Other CIP Summary Fiscal Year 2023 PROJECT • IMPACT C SALES OTHER TOTAL FEES TAX Sustainability CIP Projects M $- c Total `^ Sustainability $- $- CIP Projects Total Enterprise and Other Fund $300,930,912 $300,930,912 CIP 11 • • c Salt Lake City Impact Fee Summary Fiscal Year 2023 ImpactParks Police ImpactImpact PROJECT •. TOTAL Fire Station#3 483,233 Fire Station#14 500,900 400 South Viaduct Trail 90,000 1700 South Corridor Transformation 35,300 Glendale Waterpark Master Plan & 3,200,000 Landscape Rehabilitation&Active Recreation Component Transportation Safety Improvements 44,400 Three Creeks West Bank New Park 150,736 900 South 91-ine RR Crossing 28,000 Urban Trails 6,500 200 South Transit Complete Street 37,422 Supplement Local Link Construction 50,000 Neighborhood Byways 104,500 900 South Signal Improvements 70,000 Corridor Transformations 25,398 SLC Foothills Land Acquisitions 425,000 Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathways 510,000 SLC Foothills Trailhead Development 1,304,682 Downtown Green Loop Implementation: 610,000 Design for 200 East linear Park Historic Structure Renovation &Activation 420,000 at Allen Park RAC Playground with Shade Sails 180,032 12 Salt Lake City Unfunded Projects Organization General Name Proposal Title Project Address Location Fund Impact Fee Total Constituent 3O08 South Sidewalk and 3000S Highland Drto15UOE 449315 449315 Curb Engineering Logan Ave Reconstruction Logan Avenue from 1700East 1'485'000 1,405i000 to20OO East and 2O00East from 17UO South toBryan Avenue Engineering Bridge Replacement(200 2O8 South nverjordanRiver 3'580'000 3'500'000 South over]ordanRiver) (Approx. 122O West 2O0 South) Engineering Brid e Rehabilitation(400 4OO South @65O North over 3.000'000 3.000'000 South and 65O North over Jordan River Jordan River) Engineering YVingpointe Levee Design Jordan RiverSurplus Cana| 800'000 800'000 between 37OO West North Temple Drive and Terminal Drive Constituent Three Creeks West Bank 1300S. 1000YV. 1.158'422 1.158'422 Roadways Facilities De|ong Salt Storage 719SDe|ong S1 1'504'427 1.504`427 Facilities Steam Bay 191U West SOOSouth 363'495 363'495 Fire Mixed-Use Three Story 16OO South Industrial Rd. 815'895 815'895 Prop Fire Training Ground Site 16O0 South Industrial Rd. 694'785 694`785 Improvements Constituent Sunnyside Park Sidewalk Valdez Drive 72'740 72.740 Constituent Winner on Wasatch Dee 1216S.Wasatch Drive 500'000 500'000 G|an Tennis Court Construction l� Constituent Lighting Upgrade at 110SS Constitution Dr. 202'100 IO2.100 Liberty Park Tennis Center Constituent Liberty Park&Wasatch 1185S Constitution Dr. 380'800 300'000 Hills Tennis Court Resurfacing Constituent Harrison Ave and 700E 1300S.700E. 103'500 103'500 Community Garden Constituent 13O0 South Camping 130O South between Main 100'000 100'000 Resistant Landscaping and West Temple Constituent Wingate Walkway 475N. Redwood Road 286'750 286'750 Constituent 12O0 East Median 1200 East bet.So.Temple& 500'000 508.080 2OOS.and 30OS&500S. Parks&Public Parleys Historic Nature 2740 South 27O0East 765'325 765'325 Lands Park Structure Preservation Parks&Public Enhancement of the IOONStreet 790'000 790'000 Lands Cemetery for Visitor Research and Knowledge Parks&Public Cemetery Roadway 2OONStreet 3.838'000 3.838'000 Lands Improvements, Phase 1 Parks&Public 9Line and Rose Park 708 West 90O South & 1.393'600 1.393'600 Lands Asphalt Pump Tracks 9O0 North Cornell Avenue 13 Organization General Name Proposal Title Project Address Location Fund Impact Fee Total Parks&Public Richmond Park 440Eas 680South 690\000 690000 Lands Playground and Park improvements Parks&Public Library Square Feasibility, Block 37' bounded by4OO 225'000 225,000 Lands Civic Engagement and South,30O East,5OOSouth Design Development and 2OOEast Parks&Public Donner&Rotary Glen 285U East Sunnyside&29O3E 650'008 650'000 Lands Park Community Park Kennedy Drive Irrigation&Landscape Design and Construction Constituent Capitol Hill Traffic Calming Various 595'194 59Ei194 UO Constituent Harvard Hu�ht Hamard/�ebet. 1308&1500 1.311'920 1.311'920 Rusidenda| [oncrete East Street Reconstruction Constituent Liberty Wells Traffic Kensington, Bryan,andK4i|ton 400'000 400'000 � Calming Avenues<60O East to700East) and 6OO East(Kensington Ave to 1708South) Constituent Stratford Bike Crossing 1700E.Stratford 200'000 200'000 Constituent Sugar House Safe Side 9OO East on the west,21OO 500'800 500.000 � Streets 5outhonthesouth' 1100East � on the east,and Garfield Avenue on the north Transportation Sunnyside9LineTrail 1805to1851 East Sunnyside 350'000 350.000 Missing Piece Avenue. Transportation k4u|timoda| |ntersec1ions Various 945'000 105'000 1.050'000 &Si8na|s Total Unfunded 14 4 Debt Service Capital Improvement k Program P i This page has been intentionally left blank b Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A 2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $2,500 Sales Tax Revenue June 2012 4-01-2022 RDA Bonds Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2012A,were issued in June 2012 for the purpose of constructing and improving various City roads, including the replacement of the North Temple Viaduct and improving North Temple Boulevard. The bonds were issued with a par amount of$15,855,000. The debt service is currently mostly funded by tax increment revenue from the RDA. General Fund pays debt service when the tax increment revenue does not fully cover the debt service. The 2012A Bonds were fully refunded with the Series 2022A Bonds.. The budget for 2023 is to pay the final arbitrage calculation fees. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B 2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $363,660 Sales Tax Revenue November 2013 10-01-2023 General Fund Bonds Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013B,were issued in November 2013 for the purpose of financing a portion of the costs of the Sugarhouse Streetcar, and to pay for a portion of various improvements to create a "greenway"within the corridor.The total par amount of bonds issued was $7,315,000. A portion of the Series 2013E Bonds were refunded with the Series 2021 Bonds. As of June 30, 2022, $690,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on October 1, 2023. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B 2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $749,937 Sales Tax Revenue September 2014 10-01-2034 General Fund Bonds Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014B,were issued in September 2014 for the purpose of acquiring, constructing, remodeling, and improving of various City buildings, parks, property and roads. The Series 2014B bonds were issued with a par amount of$10,935,000.As of June 30, 2022, $7,955,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on October 1, 2034. 17 b Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A 2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $2,014,623 Sales Tax Revenue June 2016 10-01-2028 General Fund Bonds Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2016A,were issued in June 2016 to refund a portion of the Series 2009A Bonds. The Series 2009A Bonds were originally issued to finance all or a portion of the acquisition, construction, improvement and remodel of the new Public Services maintenance facility, a building for use as City offices and other capital improvements within the City. Fleet contributes 13.9%, Refuse contributes 13%, and the general fund contributes 73.1% of the debt service on the Maintenance Facility Program portion of the bonds. The Series 2016A bonds were issued with a par amount of$21,715,000. As of June 30 2022, $15,920,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on October 1, 2028. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A 2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $365,285 Sales Tax Revenue December 2019 04-01-2027 General Fund Bonds Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019A,were issued in December 2019 to refund a portion of the Series 2007A Bonds. The Series 2007A Bonds were originally issued to fund the TRAX Extension to the Intermodal Hub and Grant Tower improvements to realign rail lines near downtown. The Series 2019A bonds were issued with a par amount of$2,620,000. As of June 30, 2022, $1,555,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature April 1, 2027. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2021 2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $476,422 Sales Tax Revenue December 2019 10-01-2034 General Fund/Library Bonds Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2021,were issued in December 2021 to refund a portion of the Series 2013A Bonds and a portion of the LBA Series 2013A and 2014A Bonds. The Series 2021 bonds were issued with a par amount of$15,045,000. As of June 30, 2022, $15,045,000 in principal remains outstanding. A portion of the debt service is paid by the Library for the LBA 2013A and 2014A(Glendale and Marmalade libraries). 18 b Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature October 1, 2034. Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2022A 2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $4,393,161 Sales Tax Revenue January 2022 10-01-2032 RDA Bonds Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2022A,were issued in January 2022 to refund the Series 2012A Bonds. The Series 2012A Bonds were originally issued to fund the construction and improvement various City roads, including the replacement of the North Temple Viaduct and improving North Temple Boulevard. The Series 2022A bonds were issued with a paramount of$8,900,000. As of June 30, 2022, $8,900,000 in principal remains outstanding. The debt service is currently mostly funded by tax increment revenue from the RDA. General Fund pays debt service when the tax increment revenue does not fully cover the debt service. Principal is due annually on October 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature October 1, 2032. Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014 2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $981,208 Sales Tax Revenue August 2014 04-01-2024 Class C Bonds The Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2014,were issued in August 2014 for the purpose of constructing and repairing 13th South Street from State Street to 4th West, and from State Street to 5th West, and 17th South Street from State Street to 700 East. The Series 2014 bonds were issued with a par amount of$8,800,000. As of June 30, 2022, $1,900,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on April 1, 2024. ESCO Lease Debt Service 2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $82,500 Capital Lease December 2019 March 2026 General Fund This lease provides energy efficient equipment to Public Services Facilities Division. 19 ESCO Steiner Lease Debt Service 2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $148,500 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 County $148,500 Capital Lease January 2013 July 2029 General Fund This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for Steiner. Since the costs of this facility is shared 50%with the County,the County pays 50% of this lease payment. ESCO Parks Lease Debt Service 2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Sourc!d $517,000 Capital Lease August 2012 1 March 2026 General Fund This lease was entered into by Public Services to acquire energy efficient equipment for city parks. Crime Lab Improvements Capital L Debt 2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source $600,000 Capital Lease March 2015 September 2021 General Fund This capital lease provided the funding for the improvements to the leased space for the Crime Evidence Lab. Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 3816A 2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Sourced Bonds The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City(LBA of SLQ issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2016A in March 2016 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #14 Project. The Series Z016A bonds were issued with a par amount nf$6,755,000. Asof June 30, 2022, $5,490,00Oinprincipal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds mature on April 15. 203l Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A 2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Sourced Bonds The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City(LBA of SLQ issued the Lease Revenue Bonds, Series 2017A in April 2017 for the purpose of financing a portion of the construction costs of the Fire Station #3 Project. The Series 2O17A bonds were issued with a par amount of$8,115,000. Asof]une3O, 2022, $7,260,00Oinprincipal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 15. Interest is due semi-annually on April 15 and October 15. The bonds mature on April 15. 2038. 20 b ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM GENERAL FUND Crime Lab Rental Payments 2023 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $600,000 General Fund Yearly Rental payments for Crime Evidence Lab Facilities Maintenance 2023 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $350,000 General Fund The Facilities ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets.The purpose is to stop problems early on and prevent larger catastrophic failures of equipment and systems in the City's building stock. Public Lands Maintenance 2023 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $2,250,000 1 General Fund The Parks ongoing CIP funding will be used to replace a variety of capital assets.The purpose is to stop problems early on and prevent larger failures in the City's park stock. Percent for Art 2023 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $156,107 General Fund To provide enhancements such as decorative pavement, railings, sculptures and other works of art. (1% of CIP) Cost Overrun 2023 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $208,143 1General Fund ONGOING COMMITMENTS FROM OTHER SOURCES Smith Ballfield Naming Rights 2023 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $154,000 Other-Donations Two parts to this request-to establish budget within the 83 fund to accept the revenue received for the naming rights pertaining to Smith Baseball Field and to establish an expense within the 83 fund to continue addressing the deferred maintenance backlog in this facility.This building was completed in 1990 and is now 27 yrs. old. 21 b CIP Memorial House 2023 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $68,554 Other- Rental A revenue cost center has been established to receive revenue payments from the Utah Heritage Foundation. Monthly payments are received and are to be re-invested in the facility to maintain the property. Plans for the use of the funding is to be determined. Real Estate Services-Surplus Land 2023 Budget Origination Date Funding Source $700,000 1General Fund Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B 2023 Budget Type of Debt Origination Date Final Payment Funding Source Don't need for CIP Sales Tax Rev Bonds October 2019 04-01-2038 1 RDA Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds, Series 2013A, were issued in October 2013 for the purpose of financing a portion of the costs of acquiring, constructing and equipping a performing arts center and related improvements.The Series 2013A Bonds were refunded with the Federally Taxable Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Refunding Bonds, Series 2019B. The RDA pays the full amount of the debt service for the Series 2019B bonds. However, if the RDA is unable to pay any of the debt service,the City's General Fund would be responsible for it. The total par amount of bonds issued was $58,540,000. The refunding resulted in a net present value savings of $6,396,905. As of June 30, 2022, $57,270,000 in principal remains outstanding. Principal is due annually on April 1. Interest is due semi-annually on April 1 and October 1. The bonds mature on April 1, 2038. 22 General Fund Maintenance Projects r This page has been intentionally left blank d Project Title: Bridge Preservation 2022/2023 Project Address: Citywide Project Description: The City is responsible for performing appropriate preservation activities on the 31 of the 35 vehicle bridges in Salt Lake City.Engineering manages a strategy to extend periods between major bridge repairs,based on UDOT's biennial condition report. Proposal ID* 378521 Department: Engineering Project Type: Capital Category: Renewal 9A Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $108,008 $108,008 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds FOF Street $65,000 $65,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Preservation of the bridges will keep the maintenance costs at their current levels. 25 This page has been intentionally left blank General Funds ��` Capital Projects � - k 1 This page intentionally left blank b Project Title: 400 S Safety Improvements Project Address: 400 S 1040 W Salt Fake City,UT 84104 Project Description: Add a school zone,crosswalk striping,curb bulb-outs and Rectangular Rapid Flashing Beacons to 400 S prioritizing children and other pedestrian safety in the wake of multiple incidents in the last few years which caused fatalities and hospitalizations. Proposal ID: 372479 Department: Transportation Project Type: capital Category: New,Constituent Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $513,313 $513,313 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned/designed using these funds.These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. 29 b Project Title: 200 South Reconstruction 1 Transit Corridor Supplement Project Address: 200 South:400 West to 900 East Project Description: To support 1,100 local and regional buses per day,200 South will become a de facto Bus Rapid Transit corridor.These funds will supplement 2023's 200 South Reconstruction project with exemplary bus boarding islands,bus shelters and designated bus lanes. a Proposal ID: 377427 *� Department: Transportation Project Type: Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $1,500,000 $2,700,242 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $2S2,000 $2S2,000 1 Cent Tax $1,300,000 $1,300,000 FOF Other $2,643 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned/designed using these funds.These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. 30 31 b ® g Project Title: 300 N Complete Street Reconstruction Supplement Project Address: 300 N:300 W I 1000 W Project Description: Add intersection safety/Complete Streets elements to the 300 N reconstruction project:possible protected intersection at 1000 W and 300 N;improved pedestrian safety at intersections at 900 W,800 W,700 W,and 600 W; buffered bike lane on 300 N. Proposal ID: 377844 Department: Transportation Project Type: Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $500,000 $500,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $40,000 $40,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned/designed using these funds.These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. 32 33 b ® g Project Title: Street Improvements 2022/2023 Project Address: Citywide Project Description: This annual program funds reconstruction or rehabilitation of deteriorated City streets,including curb and gutter, sidewalk,and drainage improvements as necessary.Where appropriate,it will include appropriate bicycle and pedestrian access improvements. .m„ Proposal ID: 377297 Department: Engineering Project Type: Capital µ Category: Renewal . k Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds $3,000,000 $3,000,000 Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Anticipated expenses should be close to zero since we are reconstructing existing roads. 34 Project Title: Asset Management Plan Project Address: Citywide Project Description: Public Lands recognizes the gaps in information that we are working with,including identifying the funding needed for maintenance and asset repairs,current conditions of assets in the department's inventory,and looking at the backlog of replacement needs,many of these questions can be answered through an Asset Management Plan,This plan will also help the department plan for asset replacement prior to failure so we can keep our amenities open to the public and in appropriate condition. Plan development to comprehensively guide future asset condition assessment and asset replacement,renewal,and deferred maintenance needs in our parks citywide,including cataloging all park assets and current conditions.The plan will provide the tools necessary to equitably invest in Parks and assets citywide.Accurate asset renewal and replacement will maximize investment in amenities and increase park safety and user experience citywide.It will also position Public Lands to create more accurate requests for funding on a systematic basis to ensure adequate investment is being made to the over 6,000 assets in Public Lands inventory,It will also highlight gaps in park assets and identify which assets are in need of replacement. Proposal lCh 378640 Department; Public Lands Project Type: Capital Category: Planning _0 Failing Shade Structure Failing Bleachers Jackson Park Surmyside Park Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $160,160 $160,160 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: N/A—Planning Document 35 b ® g Project Title: Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes/Operational Investments Project Address: Citywide Project Description: Funds will construct bus stops so SI-C-supported new and revised transit routes(4,205, 1,200,and others)are legal, accessible,safe,and convenient;and may provide match to federal grants received fortransit hubs(especially 200 S, Westside hubs). Proposal ID. 377843 Department: Transportation Project Type: Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayer Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $110,000 $110,000 FOF Transit $990,000 $990,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Other departments and divisions may have increased operating expenses as a result of projects that would be planned/designed using these funds.These other agencies will be included in the planning and design process. 36 a♦♦ b Project Title: Bridge Replacement(650 North over the Jordan River) Project Address: 650 North bridge over the Jordan River,Salt Lake City,UT 84116 Project Description: This project will replace the 650 North bridge over the Jordan River.The bridge was rated 61.44 BHI by UDOT(under 60 requires replacement)prior to the earthquake.The bridge did sustain earthquake damage.A consulting firm with specialized experience will be used for this project, Proposal ID: 378377 Department: Engineering Yid Project Type: Capital {E Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds cent Tax $3,700,000 $3,700,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None—Replacing the bridge with a like bridge should not increase maintenance expenses. 38 39 b ® gg Project Title: Alleyway Improvements 2022/2023 Project Address: Citywide Project Description: This new annual program funds reconstruction or rehabilitation of deteriorated City alleyways,including pavement and drainage improvements as necessary. Proposal ID: 378345 Department: Engineering Project Type: Capital Category: Renewal Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $142,919 $142,919 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None—The City does not maintain alleys. 40 b Project Title: Urban Farm Development at 2200 West and Cannon Greens Project Address: 773 W 1300 S,Salt Fake City,UT 84104; 2399 N,2200 West,Salt Lake City,UT 84116 Project Description: The demand for urban farming and local,sustainable food production has increased in the past years.This project would fund planning and design for new urban farm development at 2200 West located in Rose Park,and the Cannon Greens located in Glendale.Acquisition of these properties was pursued for farming purposes over a decade ago.The property at 2200 West has sat vacant since,and the site at Cannon Greens has remained underutilized.The Public Lands Master Plan identifies sustainable agriculture as a priority and this property,as well as potentially others,are available for this activity.Urban Agriculture expansion is also included in the Sustainable Salt Lake Plan and in the Mayor's Plan 2021.A portion of the Cannon Greens site is currently being leased to the IRC for urban agriculture use, and Wasatch Community Gardens has expressed interest in farming the remaining parcels.These uses are not currently feasible due to the lack of infrastructure and need for soil remediation. In order to maximize urban agriculture potential on these sites and within Salt Lake City at large,soil remediation,site preparation and infrastructure will need to be addressed,design through construction documents for which will be completed with this project.Finally,in order to maximize the potential for urban farming on city lands,this funding request also includes a site analysis and soil testing for 3-4 other sites in Public Lands'inventory,preparing these properties for urban farming into the future. Proposal ID: 377331 Department: Public Lands reo Project Type: Capital Category: Planning ��j iA:i;4rvndawfcmmssnityf arm � vo-n ft�nix f xry Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $425,040 $425,040 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: N/A—Planning and Design project 41 b Project Title: RAC Playground Phase It Project Address: 2280 Rose Park Ln,Salt Lake City,UT84116 Project Description: The Regional Athletic Complex draws visitors from across the country,and even internationally,for events and tournaments.Currently,the facility lacks amenities for young children.This project would complete the design and construction of a new playground for ages 5-12 and shade sails at the Regional Athletic Complex to supplement CIP funding for design awarded in FY 2021-22 and complete all phases of this project.FY 2021-22 funding was partially awarded to begin this project.With inflation and escalation,the funding allocated will coverthe cost of design and construction documentation and project delivery fees.This current request covers the remaining funding needed to complete the project. There is an opportunity for an additional$127,665 Move With Us Grant through"Play Now Playgrounds,"the company currently assisting with design for the playground,that will allow for leveraging of current funds.This amount has been taken to account in ourfunding request. 1 ' " Proposal ID: 378636 Department: Public Lands VY Project Type: Capital Category: New i, Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $521,564 $521,564 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual Maintenance:$5,000 42 43 44 Project Title: Memorial Tree Groves Design and Infrastructure Project Address- TBD Project Description: This project would provide an opportunity for a collection of memorial trees to be dedicated through a donation and will be shared through a database housed on the Public Lands website.It would include design and implementation of memorial tree groves that provide a more accessible opportunity for a memorial donation,and an opportunity to dedicate trees on public property through a donation by a member of the public. Project may include site alternatives, landscape design,irrigation installation,and signage.Potential sites that could be opportunistic locations for a memorial tree grove include Donner Park,Riverside and Alzheimer's Park,though a formal site analysis will be necessary.A memorial tree grove would satisfy the multiple requests that Public Lands receives for a memorial donation while also improving air quality and providing additional shade. Proposal ID: 378635 Department: Public Lands Project Type: Capital Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds $867,962 $867,962 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Annual Maintenance:$2,500 45 ma=— ik Ilk= FTir,TjMLN=, Restoration of CCB Reimburse by Insurance �te Street,Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Proposal ID: Funding Recommendations $2,000,000 48 Project Title: Cost Overrun Project Address: Citywide Project Description: Funding set aside to cover unforeseen costs of projects. Proposal ID: NA Department: 0 S T Project Type: Overrun 777 Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $208,143 $208,143 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None 49 Project Title: Percent for Art Project Address: Citywide Project Description: Funding set aside to provide art at City developed projects. Proposal ID: NA Department: Project Type: Art Category: New Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $156,107 $156,107 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: None 50 CDBG & Enterprise Fund Capital ® Projects r tt �f ffi 1 4 This page has been intentionally left blank b Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) The Community Development Block Grant (CDBG) Program supports community development activities to build stronger and more resilient communities. To support community development, activities are identified through an ongoing process. Activities may address needs such as infrastructure, economic development projects, public facilities installation, community centers, housing rehabilitation, public services, clearance/acquisition, microenterprise assistance, code enforcement, homeowner assistance, etc. In the Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget CDBG funds are allocated for CIP infrastructure projects to improve safety and meet ADA requirements. The projects were selected through the FY2023 CDBG selection process and are aligned with goals and objectives outlined in Salt Lake City's Housing Plan, Growing SAC, and the 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan. 53 54 -K.- KOM=- .llvrffi�� 1pIjplllpq;lllllpll�l This page has been intentionally left blank d � The Department of Airports The Department of Airports is an enterprise fund of Salt Lake City Corporation and does not receive any general fund revenues to support the operation of the City's system of airports. The Department of Airports has 619 full-time employee positions and is responsible for managing, developing, and promoting airports that provide quality transportation facilities and services, and a convenient travel experience. The Fiscal Year 2022-23 budget is the airports first budget that is focused on moving past the financial impacts of Covid-19 as enplanement traffic and revenues are set to exceed those levels prior to the global pandemic. The Salt Lake City International Airport continues to benefit from the American Rescue Plan Act(ARPA) as well as the recently announced Bipartisan Infrastructure Law (BIL). These grants will continue to offset operating and maintenance expenses that will lower the landing fee and terminal rents charged in FY 2022-23 as well as provide much needed and critical funding for airport capital infrastructure projects. Passenger demand continues to increase on a monthly basis, and as such, the Department of Airports will act prudently in managing the FY 2022-23 budget and look for ways to continue to save operating and capital expenses where feasible, while also looking for ways to strengthen our revenues. The developed FY 2022-23 budget continues to provide positive financial benefits with increased passengers and revenues that help offset increased operating expenses. The Department of Airports will continue to fund important capital projects. These projects include the Terminal Redevelopment Program (TRP) and the North Concourse Program (NCP), which together are called the New SLC. In addition critical projects found in the airfield, terminal, and auxiliary airports will continue to be funded to ensure that all Airport owned facilities keep up with critical infrastructure to support the growth we are currently experiencing as well as the growth we are projecting into future years. 57 d � SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Project Title: Concourse B-Maintenance Facilities and Shell;space Project Description: This project will finish and enclose approximately 21,437 SF of interior space for maintenance shops and future leasable areas on Concourse B. Project Justification: Current space occupied by maintenance shops on Concourse A have been requested by an Airport tenant. Design~start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date J July 2022 January 2023 C�ecember 2023 r$4,213,cOtOO nstruion Design,Construction Es#imated Cost Admin.,&Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Cost to Com letion $506,000 $64,000 $85,000 $422,000 $5,290,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION Y. +At f d. �b y �• ♦y Yf a 58 d � SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Project Title: Stairs to Access Pedestrian Fridges Roofs Project Description; This project will add a fence at the garage to prevent access to the Gateway roof. The project will also install stair accesses from the Gateway roof to the bridge walkway roofs. Project Justification: The existing bridges between the Gateway building and the terminal do not have access to the roofs for maintenance. Design S#art Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2422 September 2422 June 2423 rConstruction Design,Construction Estimated Cost Admin.,&Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Cost at Com letion 114,000 $13,000 $1,444 $2,444 $18,444 $153,444 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION c:;ate .'sy S.�fexy'hair anc9 Faii f'rgxCrtie>n V< 59 d � SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Prajec#Title: Pump Mouse#8 Renavatians{Construction) F scription: t will renovate pump house#9. stification: g pump house needs an additional pump added for capacity due to the increased amount of pavement.A sediment catch basin should also be added. Design S#art Date Cans#ructian S#art Date Project Completion Date July 2022 June 2023 Construction Design,Construction Estimated Cost Admin.,&Inspection Testing Expenses TContingency Cos#at Com letion $363,000 $5,000 510,000 $85,000 $463,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION i 5 't tea , 60 d � SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Project Title: Cylinder Saddle Tanks for Runway Deicer Fluid P t Description: oject will install 20,000 gallon dual wall Saddle Tanks far potassium acetate{runway liquid fluid}. Project Justification: Based on inconsistencies with the global economy as well as national supply chain issues,it is in the best interest of the Airport to have on site a one year supply of potassium acetate to counter these unforeseen circumstances.Strategic inventory planning will be essential for future operations. Design S#art Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2022 February 2t}23 June 2023 r nstruction Design,Cponstruction EstimatedCos# Admin.,COY Inspec#ion Testing Expenses Contingency CoatCom letion 317,000 $32,000 $7,004 $7,000 $16,000 $379,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION q zd 'rtY h 3 Y �'4! {fit y.ffi 5C i� I 61 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET r-------------------------------------------------7-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I Project Title; Gate 39 Reconstruction {Construction) eraProject Description; Pro'ec' This project will reconstruct Gate 39 to allow 2-way airfield traffic access and provide a more direct path to 'I$project will the new terminal area apron. Work will include demolition of existing asphalt pavement, unclassified w terminal excavation, v tio 'v xcavation, placement of engineered fill, placement of new Portland cement concrete pavement, a n g placement constructing constructing a I 0-ft x 30-ft guard enclosure,prefabricated canopy,and installation of CASE and CCTV related equipment.Also included is providing water,sewer,electrical,and communications to the guard shack, Project Justification: Gate 39 provides access to the new terminal area apron from the southwest side of the Airport. With the current demolition of the Airport facilities under the Terminal Redevelopment Program,there is an increased need to provide essential services to the new terminal area apron from the west side of the Airport. Increased commercial vehicle traffic at existing Gate 40 has caused operational and safety issues with vehicles having to wait within the taxilane object free area of Taxilane 1.This project will modify existing Gate 39 to allow for more capacity through the ate and Gate 40 will be eliminated as an airfield access, Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2022 November 2022 Construction Design,Construction Estimated Cost Testing Expenses Contingency Cost ost Admin.,&Inspection Corn letition $1 $1 000 '861,000 A7 nOO .1�1 7A OnO 86, $1,861,000 $56,000 $ 18,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION 62 d � SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Project Title; SkyWest Hangar Taxilane Recons#ruction F ription; s a continuing phase to maintain the Airport's infrastructure.The project will consist of porary taxilane to the SkyWest Hangar to maintain access while the existing taxilane is d.The reconstructed taxilane will include new base course,lean mix concrete,and 16"ent concrete pavement.After the reconstructed taxilane is complete,the temporary taxilane will be removed and the infield area graded. Project Justification: The existing taxilane is failing and continous spalling is creating a FOD hazard for all aircraft in the area. The extent of the damage is to the point where repairs by Airport Maintenance are not lasting because of the pavement condition. Reconstructing this taxilane will provide a new safe entrance for aircraft using the SkyWest maintenance facility and reduce FOD potential for aircraft on Taxiway F in the vicinity of the taxilane. Design Start Da#e Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2022 August 2023 November 2023 Estimated Construction Design,Construction Testing Expenses Contingency Cost at Cost Admin.,&Inspection Co letion $T58,000 $61,000 $16,000 $3,000 $76,000 $934,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION �l i" 3 - 63 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET r---------------------------------------------r---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I Project Title: Taxiway E Reconstruction Fi-F2 Project Description: This project is a continuing phase to maintain the Airport's infrastructure and bring the taxiway geometry to current FAA standards. The project will consist of replacing the pavement on Taxiway E between Taxiways F1 and F2.Work will include demolition of existing concrete pavement and econocrete base, unclassified excavation, placement of engineered fill, placement of new econocrete base course and new Portland Cement Concrete. Also included is pavement marking and reinstalling in-pavement centerline and taxiway edge lights complete with new underground cabling and connectors. Project Justification: Taxiway E connects Runway 16R-34L and Runway 16L-34R with the terminal area.It has a high volume of aircraft use because it serves as a major taxi route for arriving and departing aircraft. The taxiway concrete panels are showing signs of pavement distress including surface spalling, full depth slab cracking,and corner breaking,The Pavement Condition Index(PCI)for this section of pavement has a rating ranging from 57 - 66 indicating that the pavement is in fair condition. This area has received multiple patches where the concrete has settled indicating possible base failure.This project will make a significant contribution to safety and capacity by ensuring that the taxiway pavement integrity is reserved and minimizin FtJCt. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date Construction Design, Estimated Cost Construction Testing Expenses Contingency Cost at Admin.-&Inspection Com letion $5,630,000 $272,000 $113,000 $3,000 $451,000 $6,469,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds BARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION g. 64 d � SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Proeec#Title; Sou#h Valley Regional Airport Hangar Site Development [Airport ect Description: project will widen an existing taxilane north of the existing shade hangars and construct a new ramp plete with underground utilities for a proposed future site for T-hangars at the South Valley Regional {SVRA}. ect Just�eation: An existing taxilane north of the shade hangars will be widened approximately 21'to accommodate Group II aircraft to access a new 280'x 575'ramp where future T-hangars will be constructed. New underground utilities consisting of gas, power, communication, water, storm drain, and sewer will be installed and stubbed up to within 15 feet of the future T-hangars. Design S#art Date Construction Start Date Projec#Completion Date July 2022 April 2023 September 2023 r$2,473,cOtOO nstruion Design,Construction Estima#ed Cost Admin.,&Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Cost to Com letion $247,000 $49,000 $2,000 $247,000 $3,018,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION s . o- 65 d � SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Project Title: South Valley Regional Airport—T-Hangars F ject Description: project will install 21 new 1,400 SF T—Hangars at SVRA,which include a private restroom i eeachgar. Project Justification: The demand for additional hangar space at SVRA has increased and hangars are needed to meet demand. Design Start Date Cons#ruction Start Date Project Comple#ion Date August 2022 ApriE 2023 August 2024 r$3,28,,c5.O nstrution Design,Construction Estimated Cost Admin.,&Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Cos#at Com letion $347,000 $29,000 $70,000 $500,000 $4,235,500 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION 66 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET r-------------------------------------------------7-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I Project Ti#le: Skydive U#ah Taxilane and Apron Description: Project Descnp Project pr oject c'�I"' This project will construct a new 270-foot long x 35-foot wide taxilane and a 75-foot x 100-foot apron for a future augur fee'ill for rain hangar facility for Skydive Utah.This project will include excavation and removal of existing material,storm d installation, imp, nstallation,import of engineered fill,new asphalt pavement,and painting. Project ..i."_1".'if reject Justification: Skydive Utah,one of two tenants currently operating from the Tooele Valley Airport(TVY),is wanting to expand their operations.They currently rent the aircraft they are using and are wanting to purchase it. In order to protect their investment,they want to build a hangar facility large enough to store the aircraft.This project will build a taxilane and apron at a location at TVY that will accomodate the proposed future location of the Skydive Utah hangar,This project will enable the first phase in a series of investments that Skydive Utah is planning to make at the airport. F—Design Start Date — Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2022 023�J�une202�3 ��Se�ptember 2� Construction Design,Construction Estimated Testing Expenses TContmgency Co Cost Admin.&Inspection fl—trip legion stru Cost $ 0 $398,000 $42,000 $8.000 $2,000 $40,000 $490,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds OTHER Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION Project trcation 67 d � P i SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Projec#Ti#le; Sou#h Valley Regional Airport Vitek Hangar Apron Construction r cription; will construct a new 160-foot x 90-foot apron for a future hangar for Vitek.This project will xcavation and removal of existing material,storm drain installation,impork of engineered n of hangar utilities to the lease line of the facility,and construction of a new asphalt apron. tification: Vitek is wanting to expand their operations to the South Valley Regional Airport(SVRA).The are currently negotating their lease and want to break ground on this facility next year.This project will build an apron at SVRA that will accommodate the proposed future location of the Vitek hangar. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2022 Apri12023 September 2023 Construction Design,Construction Estimated Cost Admin. Inspection Testing Expenses TContingency Cost at Com letion $344,000 $39,000 $7,000 $36,000 $34,000 $459,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds OTHER Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION PPi}}ICY x.4C0xi0Yt .t y 3' 68 d � SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Project Title; Booth 10 Restroam Installation Project Description; This project will install agender-neutral restroom facility near Booth 10.Booth 10 is a staffed gate that controls the entry of vehicles to the two commercial lanes in front of the Terminal. It is staffed in order to assist vehicles that need access to quickly enter without blocking other traffic and also to help redirect vehicles that queue at this entrance in error to be rerouted to the public lanes for pickup or dropoff.This restroom will be designed to be a single room with water and sewer hookup and ADA compliant,The project includes costs for a premanufactured structure,foundation,and utility connections to the new facility. Project Justification; Booth 10 is currently staffed by Landside Officers 2417. When restroom breaks are needed, posted personnel must call for relief and walk to the restrooms inside the Terminal.Original Airport Redevelopment Program plans included a restroom at Booth 10 that was value engineered out of the program.This restroom will greatly benefit the operational needs at this staffed gate. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2022 September 2022 February 2023 Estimated Construction Design,Construction Testing Expenses Contingency Cost at Cost Admin.,&Inspection Com letion b200,000 $26,000 $4,Ot}0 $15,000 $ 20,000 265,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION p 69 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET r-------------------------------------------------7-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I Project Title: Ground Transportation Staging t of Study&Modifications g the y Project Description; rd"ec' This project will study the recently completed Ground Transportation(GT)Staging Lot by evaluating the This project will 0 current conditions and designing changes to improve safety and minimize conflicts in the lot.Currently current tic T s rGT,Transportation Network Companies(TNC),and bus traffic all use a central roadway going throught T' r itl the t rf he center of the GT lot,Airport Operations has observed that most vehicles are not obeying posted speedlimit signs speed limit signs in the area.A study will be completed to include all stakeholders.The study will be used to prioritize recommendations to improve safety witin the lot, Project Justification: Both TNC and GT traffic currently use the GT lot and the present design allows for traffic to proceed through the lot at speeds that are much higher that the current 10 MPH posted speed limit.The modifications to the lot resulting from the study will improve safety and traffic flow in the area, Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date Construction Design,Construction Estimated Testing Expenses Contingency Cost a Cost Admin.,&Inspection Corn hetition $83,000 $9,000 .tq nnn 41AI nnn $8'000 6,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION 70 SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET r-------------------------------------------------7-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I Project Title: Ground Transportation Staging t of Restroom&EVC Stations Project Pproject Description: ro C'D sci p This project will design and install a prefabricated restroom building and provide underground electrical i ' ct wit for Electric Vehicle Charging(EVC)stations for use by Ground Transportation(GT) f( vicl s vehicles and taxis, Project Justification; The restroorn and EVC infrastructure will allow GT drivers to stage for longer periods of time on campus and improve service levels for passenger pickup by GT vehicles.The EVC infrastructure will encourage GT and taxi companies to use electric vehicles creating a positive environmental impact, Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date Construction Design,Construction Estimated Construction Testing Expenses Contingency Cost a Admin.,&Inspection Com hetit Cost ion Cost$525,000 $56,000 $11 nnn $33,000 '000 53 '8,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION Pr CtjCc4'Sao 71 d � SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Project Title; Park and Wait Lot Expansion r ect Description; project will expand the Park and Wait Cots parking capacity and reduce traffic congestion and ty concerns. Work will include demolition of existing curb and gutter,and removal of existing scape,irrigation,and berm. New construction will consist of storm drainage installation,imported neered fill,concrete curbing,asphalt paving,pavement marking,and new irrigation and landscaping, electrical,fiber,and parking lot lights and electronic Flight Information Display Sign(FIRS)installation. Project Justification: GateThe parking and usage of the Park and Wait Lot has increased significantly over the past several years and has reached it's maximum capacity at peak passenger pickup times during both day and nightime operations. Additional parking is needed to accommodate peak travel times and help reduce traffic congestion within the Park and Wait Lot and at the Terminal pickup and drop off lanes. This will also discoura a parking and waiting aloe the airport entance roads that is currently ha penin . Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2022 May 2023 October 2023 Estimated Construction Design,Construction Testing Expenses Contingency Cost at Cost Admin.,&Inspection Com letion $1,159,000 $110,000 $23,000 $5,000 $116,000 $1,413,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION t.�rdt.ind .'ti4 I<'r4 k x{-i,-,n*.ira el f's vlttt Situ 72 d � SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Project Title: Terminal Front Access Road Improvements Ftwoonstruction ect Description: project will expand the curb area for the Ground Transportation B Lane and arrivals curb to reduce c congestion and safety concerns.Work will include demolition of existing curb and gutter,barrier landscaping and irrigation,pavement marking removal,and unclassified excavation.New will consist of the placement of engineered fill,asphalt roadway patching,new barrier wall construction,concrete sidewalk,pavement markings,reconfiguration of irrigation lines and restoration of landscaping,and installation of steel fencing. Project Justification: The B Lane is a pick up and drop off lane in front of the Terminal for charter buses,Lyft,and Uber which frequently fills to capacity causing overcrowding and safety concerns.This project will expand the available curb area of both the Commercial Traffic B Lane and the west end of the arrivals curb for vehicle ull out and reduce traffic congestion, Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2022 June 2023 C?ctober 2023 Estimated Construction Design,Construction Testing Expenses Contingency Cost at Cost Admin.,&Inspection Com letion $1,669,000 $167,000 $29,000 $5,000 $167,000 $2,037,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION ProM< Spe.� Y ;h 73 d � SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Projec#Title: Equipment Storage Building{Construction) Project Description: This project will provide a 16,000 square foot equipment storage building that will be used to store a variety of airport equipment,including maintenance trailers,shuttle buses,and a high lift bucket truck. Project Justification: The equipment that will be stored in this building is very expensive.Storing this equipment indoors will protect it from the elements and prolong the expected life of the equipment. Design S#art Date Cons#ruction S#art Date Project Comple#ion Date July 2022 September 2022 December 2023 r$3,386,cOtOO nstruion Design,Construction Estimated Cost Admin.,&Inspection Testing Expenses TContingency Co s#to Com letion $182,000 $34,004 $50,000 $271,000 $3,923,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARF3S Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION 74 d � SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Project Title: Replace PVC Roo#Membrane on hlS1 {Roads&Grounds Maint Bldg} Project Description; Remove and replace the existing roof membrane including cover board and damaged insulation with 80 mil PVC roof Membrane and new accessories. Project Just cation: The current roof membrane is 20+years old and has scrim visible.The existing roof has a 20 year warranty that has expired. As recommended by the airport roofing consultant(JSR),the roof is in poor condition and should be replaced as soon as possible. Design Start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2022 August 2022 December 2022 r$251,000 nstruction Design,Construction Estimated Cost Admin.,&Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Cost at Com letion $38,000 $5,{}00 $5,{}00 $38,000 $337,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION q zd 'rtY h 3 Y �'4! {fit y.ffi 5C i 75 d � SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Project Title: Replace PVC Roo#8 Greenhouse Panels on NS14 F scription; t will remove and replace the existing roof membrane including cover board and nsulation with 80 mil PVC roof Membrane and new accessories,install safety rail for install liner in the"internal gutter",and also remove abandoned vent stack on east roof e project will also replace greenhouse panel roof. Project Justification: The current roof membrane is 24+years old and has scrim visible.The existing roof has a 20 year warranty that has expired. As recommended by the airport roofing consultant(JSR),the roof is in poor condition and should be replaced as soon as possible. Design~start Date Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2022 August 2022 December 2022 r$56,000 nstruction Design,Construction Estimated Cost Admin.,a Inspection Testing Expenses Contingency Cost at Com letion $9,000 $1,000 $1,000 $9A00 $76'000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION 76 d � SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Projec#Title: Electrical&Communications Duct Bank from AOC to Gate 7 Project Description:The Rocky Mountain Power(RMP)has requested the Airport replace damaged sections of the Jordan 14 electrical circuit ductbank so that RMP can install new primary power conductors. This project will install approximately 4,800 LF of 8-way 6-inch electrical ductbank.The ductbank will begin west of Runway 17135 and run westbound just south of the South Electrical Airfield Vault and end southeast of the Airport Operations Center(AOC). Included with this work is the repair of collapsed conduits at the 2200 West and 2400 West intersections with North Temple Street. Along with the electrical ductbank, the project will also install a new 8-way 4-inch communications ductbank parallel to the electrical ductbank.A total of eight each new electrical vaults and communication vaults(3 aircraft rated and 5 non-aircraft rated)will be required along the new ductbank alignment.The project will also include Subsurface Utility Engineering(SUE)with nondestructive digging equipment during design to identify utility conflicts and mitigate associated risks. Project Justification:The Jordan 14 electrical circuit is a critical power feed for the Airport with conductors that have been compromised by collapsed conduits in several locations.The existing conduit damage creates a high level of risk in the event of a conductor failure which would require a complicated repair by making it difficult or impossible to remove and replace the circuit conductors.The result of a failed conductor on the Jordan 14 circuit could be a lengthy power outage(or partial outage)at the Airport while sections of the conduit are being repaired.A new communications ductbank is also required due to existing communcation pathways being full.The communication ductbank will allow for future expansion of the Airport's IT network to rations in the General Aviation(GA)area and other facilities in the snare!area.There wiA be a savin s of time and move b cxa iocatin both ductbanks at the same time. Design S#art Da#e Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2022 November 2022 L$4 ruction Design,Construction Estimated Cost ostAdmin.,&Ins ection Tes#ing Expenses Contingency at Com letion 4,OOo $524,000 $70,000 $11,000 $467,000 $5,746,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION i b 77 d � SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Projec#Ti#le: Electric Vehicle Charging Stations(FY2023) F(EVCS) ct Description: A has created a Master Plan to inform a phased installation program for Electric Vehicle Charging Stations relative to the annual purchase of electric vehicles in Utah. For the past several years,the airport has ved rebates from Rocky Mountain Power and grants from UCAIR which have reimbursed 50%of the cost to ase and install EVCSs on the airport campus.This year the airport will apply for funding incentives to installtructure for eight Level III EVCSs for the Airport Operations fleet. Project Justification: Salt take City is designated as a Serious Nonattainment Area for EPA's 24-hour standard for particulate matter PM2.5. Fine particulate matter,or PM2.5 is an air pollutant resulting from motor vehicle emissions that contribute to respiratory problems. The project will promote additional options for sustainable transportation and will reduce area emissions that contribute to fine particulate matter. The Airport is proposing to install infrastructure and purchase eight Level III EVCSs at the Airport Operations Center.This project will result in significant emissions reduction based on the Operations Division's vehicle use which averages 100-125 miles per day. Design Start Date Construction Start Date �Project Completion Date August 2022 September 2022 ugust 2023 rConstruction Design,Construction Estimated Admin. Inspection Testing ExpensesTContingency Cost leCom letion $54,000 $14,000 - $54,000 $477,000 AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds OTHER Airport Funds - - - $238,500 $238,500 PROJECT LOCATION f _.q 78 d � SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF AIRPORTS CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT FY 2023 BUDGET Projec#Title: Sou#h Employee Parking Lot Development Program(Design) rshownon cription:This program will implement a series of projects over the next 5 years that will allow lopment of the Southern Open Space (Former Golf Course) into an employee parking lot as he new SLCIA ALP. Phase 1 of this project will design the relocation of the surplus canal. is intended to complete the design and permitting requirements set forth by the USACE. ll be to mitigate the wetlands in the area which to allow for the new canal to be relocated.l be to relocate the canal to the south, parallel to the existing TRAX line. Phases 4 and 5 will then design and build the infrastructure, parking lot, roadways, and employee screening facility required to operate the South Employee Parking Lot. Project Justification: The recently completed SLCIA master plan identified that a new employee parking lot will be needed to accommodate the forecasted increase in employee numbers at our facility. The existing South Employee Parking Lot will be reutilized to accommodate the forecasted increase in passenger parking. With passenger numbers already approaching past 2019 numbers and the airlines expecting to increase both their operations and employee numbers at SLCIA, the need to expand our parking has been excelerated.There currently is not enough parking to sustain peak days. This program Design S#art Da#e Construction Start Date Project Completion Date July 2022 July 2025 June 202i3 Construction Design,Construction Estimated Cost Cost Admin.,&Ins eetion Testing Expenses Contingency at Com letion $2,500,000 - - - AIP Funds PFC Funds CFC Funds GARBS Airport Funds PROJECT LOCATION t 79 This page has been intentionally left blank The Salt Lake City Golf Division The Golf Division operates seven full-service golf courses at six Salt Lake City locations providing quality recreational experiences at a competitive price for Salt Lake City residents and visitors from surrounding cities and various out of state locations. Golf Course Capital Projects are funded, primarily, from excess revenue generated by user fees. Over the past several years, expenses have outpaced revenues and have limited Golfs ability to self-fund most if not all non-emergency Capital Projects. In 2012, a Golf CIP Fund was established that allocates $1 per every 9 holes played and 9% from all annual pass sales toward building funds that can be used exclusively for Capital Projects. Until FY 2019, these funds had not been released for use as the fund balance was needed to provide a fund balance offset against a fund deficit. As part of the FY22 budget proposal, the Golf Division implemented a Golf CIP Fee increase from $1 to $2 per every 9 holes played, beginning in January 2022, in order to bring more capital into the Golf CIP Fund to increase funding from this source for additional future projects. As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses, the Golf Division will be using $856,502 in FY 2022-23 to purchase additional equipment. The Golf Division has budgeted $4,050,000 for Capital Improvement Projects in FY 2022-23. The Golf Division is undertaking a four-year project to improve tee box hitting surfaces by re-leveling and re- sodding many of the tee box areas at each course and have allocated $60,000 in FY23 from the Golf CIP Fund. The Golf Division is undertaking a multi-year project to repair existing cart paths and construct some new carts paths and has allocated $950,000 for FY 2022-23. Other significant projects include new HVAC system at the Mountain Dell clubhouse, Roof improvements at the Nibley Park clubhouse, On- course restrooms at Nibley Park, Forest Dale and Glendale golf courses. The Golf Division is anticipating receiving a matching federal WaterSMART grant to assist in funding a new irrigation system at the Rose Park Golf Course. The award should be announced in May of 2022. If the grant is not awarded, approximately $2 million of CIP projects will be suspended in order to help fund the Rose Park irrigation system. 81 ® a t The following table shows a breakdown of proposed projects: Facility Description Estimated Cost Bonneville Tee Box Leveling $10,000 Glendale Tee Box Construction $10,000 Forest Dale Tee Box Leveling $5,000 Mountain Dell Tee Box Leveling $20,000 Nibley Tee Box Leveling $5,000 Rose Park Tee Box Construction $10,000 Mountain Dell Basement HVAC Units/Water $150,000 Heater Bonneville Cart Path Improvements $250,000 Glendale Cart Path Improvements $150,000 Forest Dale Cart Path Improvements $150,000 Mountain Dell Cart Path Improvements $300,000 Nibley Cart Path Improvements $100,000 Forest Dale Clubhouse Painting $40,000 Glendale Irrigation Pump $20,000 Nibley Roof Improvements $30,000 Glendale On Course Restroom $150,000 Rose Park Short Course Design $50,000 Subtotal $1,450,000 Rose Park Irrigation System and Turf $2,075,000 Reduction Project Subtotal $2,075,000 Rose Park Rose Park Irrigation System Cost $525,000 Overruns Subtotal $525,000 Grand Total $4,050,000 82 0 U 7 MM Wiro 84 Project Title: Maintenance Equipment Project Address: All 6 SLC Golf Courses Project Description: As part of a multi-year plan to upgrade vital maintenance equipment at all courses,the Golf Division will be using $856,502 in FY23 to purchase additional used equipment(usually lease-return equipment from high-end private courses).The plan would be to purchase equipment if available such as Grinder,Groundsmaster,Utility Carts, Blower,Greensmaster. Proposal ID: Department: Public Lands-Golf Project Type: Equipment Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf Operating Fund $856,502 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf's annual operational budgets. 85 Project Title: Short Course Design Project Address: Rose Park Project Description: The Golf Division will be hiring a consultant to do a feasibility study for a short-course design at Rose Park golf course($50,000)that would replace the current driving range area.This work will also include master design planning for other parts of the golf course to improve playability and maintenance operations as part of a turf reduction plan. Proposal ID: Department: Public Lands-Golf Project Type: Planning Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Funds $50,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf's annual operational budgets. 86 Project Title: Property Fencing Project Project Address: Nibley Park Project Description: The Golf Division will be replacing property fencing at Nibley Park golf course($100,000). The projects consist of removal of existing damaged fencing along the northern perimeter(2700 south)and the western perimeter(500 east). Proposal ID: Department: Public Lands-Golf Project Type: Improvement Category Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Funds $100,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses forthe replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf s annual operational budgets. 87 ~ Project Type: Construction 88 Project Title: wilding Improvements Project Address: Bonneville,Forest Dale,Mountain Dell,Nibley Park Project Description: The Golf Division will be doing building improvements at Bonneville,Forest Dale,Mountain Dell and Nibley Park golf courses($820,000). The projects consist of a patio expansion at Bonneville,exterior painting of clubhouse at Forest Dale, basement NVAC units/water heater redesign at Mountain Dell and Roof Improvements at Nibley Park. Proposal ID: t Department: Public Lands-Golf Project Type: Improvements Category: Capital Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council Golf CIP Funds $820,000 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Future maintenance and operational expenses for the replacement of these already existing assets are developed within the Golf's annual operational budgets. 89 90 a The Salt Lake City Public Utilities Salt Lake City Department of Public Utilities (SLCDPU) has four distinct utilities, water, sewer, storm water, and street lighting. Each utility is operated as a separate enterprise fund. Tax money is not used to fund these services. Funding for SLCDPU capital expenditures comes from user fees, fund reserves, revenue bonds, and occasionally a grant. The department is utilizing a Water Infrastructure Financing Innovation Act(WIFIA) loan to finance a portion of the water reclamation facility construction. Customers pay for the services they receive through utility rates that have been established for each fund. The rates were developed on a cost of service basis. Our utilities are infrastructure intensive and administration of these assets requires long term project and financial planning. The SLCDPU capital budget is shown by fund with subcategory cost centers under each. In FY 2022-23, the department has over 150 capital projects between the four funds as well as continuing work on existing projects. Many of the capital projects in Public Utilities cover multiple fiscal years. It is common for projects designed in one year and be constructed in subsequent years. The budget includes projects rated as a high priority in the Department's Capital Asset Program (CAP). The replacement of the water reclamation facility is the largest project undertaken by SLCDPU. Other elements of our systems are also experiencing aging problems and will require increasing attention in the future. For example, our three water treatment plants were built in the 1950's and early 60's. Planning is underway for each of the three plants to determine the best approaches for their replacement. A unique aspect of capital projects in SLCDPU is that Federal, State, and local regulations affect many of our priorities. Adding to the complexity are water rights and exchange agreement obligations. 91 92 93 94 Project Title: Meter Change-Out Program Project Address: Various Locations Project Description: The budget includes the continuation of the small meter change out program piloted in 2015 and initiated in 2018. Metering water consumption by customers is the source or our revenue. Approximately 56,000,or 66%, of the system's water meters have been replaced with advanced metering infrastructure(AMI)read meters. The plan is to complete the residential AMI meter change out program in the next 3 years, AMI technology provides hourly usage information instead of relying on monthly data.An online portal provides our customers with information to better manage their water usage and alerts to the status of their water service. Better information will assist us in water conservation efforts. Proposal ID: Department; Public Utilities Project Type: Pu b II c Category: Water Utility CIP Projects Utilities Enterprise -Enterprise Fund Customer Portal $3,100,000 Please Sign in Funds: Priority: Ongoing program Email Address Pa--d C] 51* R, Y..,Account : oor &0148341900 Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense. Negligible 95 96 97 98 ��Im e_ '-1111111111, . t alil hIII IIIIII}II�IIIIII� I x. Project Title: Distribution Reservoirs(Tanks) Project Address: Various Locations Project Description: SLCDPU has over 100,000,000 gallons of finished water storage in 22 tanks and reservoirs. These components require on-going inspection and maintenance. The location and elevation of these facilities is critical to the operation of the water distribution system. The budget includes the following AM—Tank and Reservoir inspections and repairs$80,000,tank painting and corrosion control$80,000,slope stabilization efforts at tank sites for$250,000,and Marcus Reservoir Tank Upgrades for$1,000,000. Proposal ID: Department: Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Water Utility Cl P Projects Enterprise Fund Enterprise Funds: $1,410,000 Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible 100 101 Project Title: Treatment Plants Project Address: 1365 West 2300 North Project Description: The largest budgeted item in this category is for the construction of a new water reclamation facility. The $175,322,910 estimate represents the continuation of a multi-year project and includes design,construction, and program management. Existing plant improvement projects include Capital Asset Rehabilitation and Upgrades for$1,300,000,identified process work of$1,587,000,lab HVAC replacement for$150,000,and facilities projects for$380,000. Proposal ID: Department: Public Utilities Project Type: Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects -Enterprise Fund Enterprise $178,739,910 Funds: Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or operational Expense: Temporary dewatering has an operational impact for FY23 for chemical costs.An increase of$21VI to$41VI for power and chemical costs is currently anticipated when new treatment plant is functional. These estimates will be refined as construction progresses. 102 Project Title: Collection Lines Project Address: Various Locations Project Description: Master plan projects in this category total$15,700,000. This includes$15,000,000 for the 1800 North Sewer Realignment,$200,000 for Emery Street upsizing,and$500,000 for South Temple upsizing project.The budget for regular replacement of collection lines in poor condition is$560,000. Projects in coordination with the City, County and State are estimated at$6,615,000 which includes for Funding our Future street bond related projects.Various other collection line projects are expected to cost$1,510,000. Proposal ID: Department: Public Utilities Project Type: CategorV: Sewer Utility CIP Projects -Enterprise Fund Enterprise $24,385,000 Funds: Priority: Project Spec Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible 103 a Project Title: Lift Stations Project Address: Various Locations Project Description: The FY2023 lift station renewal and replacement program anticipates five projects. 5300 West Lift Station capacity improvements are budgeted for$2,500,000;the Billy Mitchell Capacity Upgrades are budgeted for $120,000;and the Industrial Lift Station Alternatives Evaluation is budgeted for$75,000. The remaining$65,000 includes the 900 North Lift Station Wet Well Improvements and annual pump replacements. Proposal ID: Department: Public Utilities Project Type: E Category: Sewer Utility CIP Projects Enterprise Fund Enterprise $2,760,000 Funds: Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible 104 a Project Title: Storm Drain Lines Project Address: Various Locations Project Description: The largest item in this category is$2,790,000 for projects in coordination with City,County,and State including $2,220,000 in work supporting Funding our Future streets related bond projects. Other projects in this category total$570,000. Four projects totalling$935,000 for various collection lines are planned. Other department defined projects are estimated to cost$300,000 and work to be performed by city crews at various locations is expected to be$600,000. Proposal ID: Department: Public Utilities Project Type: Storm Water Utility CIP Category: Projects-Enterprise Fund v Enterprise r Funds: $4,625,000 4,- Priority: Project specific Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible 105 a Project Title: Ri parian Corgi dor i mprovem ents Project Address: Various Locations Project Description: The planned projectf or FY2023 is Emigration Creek—17005 Cutlet Protection. Riparian vegetation will be restored and awingwall will be installed to reduce erosion, Thiswork will accompanythe rehabilitation of the 1700 S culvert which conveys Emigration Creek through the roadway, Proposal ID: Department: Public Utilities Project Type: Storm Water Utility CIP Category: Projects-Enterprise Fund Enterprise $2S0p000 i Funds: PrlorltV: Project specific Estimated ruture Maintenance andforOperational Expense: Negligible 106 a Project Title: Landscaping Project Address: Various Locations Project Description: The landscaping budget includes$50,000 for various landscaping projects within the storm water system. Northwest Oil Drain canal remediation is budgeted at$50,000 with partial reimbursement from oil companies. Proposal ID: Department: Public Utilities Project Type: Storm Water Utility CIP Category: Projects-Enterprise Fund Enterprise $100,000 Funds: Priority: Project specific k� Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Negligible 107 I IS 11 Project Ti le: Street Lighting Projects Project Address- Various Locations Project Description: The planned projects for FY 2023 are$2,240,000 to upgrade to high efficiency lighting and other system improvements on arterial streets,collector streets,and in neighborhoods. The budget includes improvements for base level lighting services and three enhanced lighting groups. Planning for implementation of the recently completed street lighting master plan is anticipated in FY2023. The master plan determines best practices for upgrades and new lights. Proposal ID: Department: Public Utilities Project Type: Street Lighting Utility CIP Category: Projects-Enterprise Funds Enterprise $2,240,000 Funds: Priority: Ongoing program Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Reduce electricity costs Replacing aging poles and wiring throughout the City Continued research an Smart City and Lighting Control Technology 109 This page has been intentionally left blank a Salt Lake City Redevelopment Agency The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City(RDA) strengthens neighborhoods and commercial districts to improve livability, create economic opportunity and foster authentic, equitable communities. The RDA utilizes a powerful set of financial and planning tools to support strategic development projects that enhance the City's housing opportunities, commercial vitality, public spaces, and environmental sustainability. The RDA's primary source of funds for the projects include property tax increment and program income revenue, depending on the specific budget account. The RDA often participates with Salt Lake City in the redevelopment or construction of city owned infrastructure projects. As part of the RDA Budget Policy, Capital Projects are defined as any project that anticipates multi-year funding. The allocation of funds for these projects is part of the budget approval process and is typically contingent on the RDA Board authorizing appropriation once the specific projects costs and details are known. Depending on the project, the timeline for this process may not follow the City's CIP schedule or requirements for approval. The RDA fiscal year 2023 budget process proposes three potential City infrastructure projects. The japantown project is an allocation of funds to support implementation of the Design Strategy. Improvements could include infrastructure, utility work, lighting, site furniture, public art, etc. The Main Street project is an allocation of funds to support the transition of Main Street to a pedestrian-first promenade. Funds would primarily be used to hire a consultant to provide design/planning work, code analysis, phasing, and stakeholder engagement. The West Capitol Hill project provides additional funds to current projects which includes construction of Marmalade Plaza, a public open space and mid-block connection adjacent to the Marmalade Library. 111 Project Title: Japantown Project Address: Central Business District Project Area Project Description: Appropriation of funds to support implementation of the Design Strategy. Improvements could include infrastructure,utility work,lighting,site furniture,public art,etc. Proposal ID, Department: RDA Project Type: Category: J111lui 71 1 1 Nit Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $250,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Impact will be determined on a case-by-case basis. 112 a Project Title: Main Street Closure Project Address: Central Business District Project Area Project Description: Appropriation of funds to support the transition of Main Street to a pedestrian-first promenade. Funds would primarily be used to hire a consultant to provide design/planning work,code analysis,phasing,and stakeholder engagement. Proposal ID: Department: RDA I Project Type: Category: 44 It 4 144 4 IR It Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $300,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Impact will be determined on a case-by-case basis. 113 a Project Title: West Capitol Hill Projects Project Address: West Capitol Hill Project Area Project Description: Appropriation of funds to use for current projects within the project area that need additional funding due to current market conditions.Current projects which include construction of Marmalade Plaza,a public open space and mid-block connection adjacent to the Marmalade Library. Proposal ID: Qepartment: RDA Project Type: Category: t, ti Funding Recommendations CDCIP Board Mayor Council General Fund $100,000 Class C Funds Impact Fee Funds Estimated Future Maintenance and/or Operational Expense: Impact will be determined on a case-by-case basis. 114 Attachment 4 - FY2023 CDCIP Board Project Scores and Votes 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program[Grand Totals Only(anonymous)] Division(Priority)/App Requested Average Ref Organization Name/Application Title Amount Votes Recommend Committee Score C31 400 S Safety Improvements 513,312.58 6 to 0 392,208.29 101.63 T1 200 South Reconstruction/Transit Corridor Supplement 4,500,000.00 6 to 0 3,041,666.67 94.67 C9 Three Creeks West-Roadways 1,359,130.00 4 to 1 575,000.00 92.13 T5 300 North Complete Street Reconstruction Supplement 600,000.00 6 to 0 454,166.67 91.44 C27 Rose Park Neighborhood Center Community Garden 160,819.00 5 to 0 116,491.40 90.88 C41 California Avenue Safety Improvement Study 100,000.00 5 to 0 70,000.00 90.50 C28 1000 W Fairpark Traffic Circle 569,534.00 5 to 0 401,720.40 90.00 E1 Street Improvements 2022/2023 3,500,000.00 6 to 0 2,145,833.33 89.22 C40 900 West Corridor 1,000,000.00 5 to 0 460,000.00 89.00 T7 2100 South Conceptual Design/Corridor Transformation 250,000.00 6 to 0 177,083.33 88 T3 Livable Streets Implementation 3,000,000.00 4 to 2 1,875,000.00 87.67 T2 Highland Drive/1100 E Complete Street&Parley's Trail Supplement(1700 S-1-80) 3,500,000.00 6 to 01 2,145,833.33 87.56 P19 Public Lands ADA Walkway and Asphalt Replacement 873,062.00 6 to 0 528,843.67 87.22 C20 Jordan River Peace Labyrinth Park Improvements 500,000.00 5 to 0 186,000.00 87.13 P18 Playground Replacement 1,874,063.00 6 to 0 1,274,687.67 86.89 C14 Madsen Park Renewal 500,000.00 5 to 0 240,000.00 86.50 P16 Asset Management Plan 160,160.00 6 to 0 106,720.00 85.22 P9 Folsom Trail Landscaping Phase 1 1,767,908.00 6 to 0 4,167,287.33 85.00 C35 Liberty Wells Traffic Calming 420,000.00 4 to 1 205,000.00 84.50 T4 Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes/Operational Investments 1,100,000.00 6 to 0 652,083.33 84.22 FA1 Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY23 7,400,000.00 6 to 0 4,875,000.00 84.11 E4 Bridge Replacement(650 North over the Jordan River) 3,700,000.00 6 to 0 3,083,333.33 84 E2 Public Way Concrete 2022/2023 750,000.00 6 to 0 447,916.67 83.56 P13 Cottonwood Park Pavilions 756,094.00 6 to 0 447,682.33 82.22 C30 400 North Street Improvement 599,746.29 4 to 1 499,873.00 81.50 P20 Court Resurfacing 1,478,739.00 5 to 1 655,747.80 81.44 T8 Ballpark Study Implementation-Phase 1 500,000.00 4 to 2 475,000.00 81.33 T12 Local Streets 2023 Reconstruction Supplement 200,000.00 6 to 0 127,083.33 80.33 E3 Alleyway Improvements 2022/2023 250,000.00 6 to 0 182,291.67 80.22 C22 SLC Cemetery Infrastructure Repairs 500,000.00 4 to 1 400,000.00 80.13 C29 1000 W intersection upgrades at 300 N and 400 N 539,693.00 3 to 2 346,564.33 80.00 P1 Urban Farm Development at 2200 West and Cannon Greens 425,040.00 5 to 0 298,016.00 79.5 P3 Tree Succession Design for Liberty Park 90,160.00 5 to 0 72,096.00 79.38 E6 Bridge Preservation 2022/2023 300,000.00 5 to 1 207,000.00 79.22 P2 Jordan River Tree Planting and Irrigation 210,834.00 6 to 0 124,444.67 78.67 P7 Riverview Native Plant Center Phase 1 412,160.00 5 to 0 327,296.00 77.38 C38 Sugar House Safe Side Streets Phase 2 400,000.00 5 to 0 240,000.00 76.86 P10 Cemetery Master Plan Project Implementation 2,231,443.00 6 to 0 1,138,573.83 76.78 T13 Replacement Traffic Signals(4) 1,400,000.00 5 to 1 844,000.00 76.78 C6 Brentwood Circle Storm Water Drainage 139,129.001 4 to 11 104,346.75 76.38 T6 Multi-modal Transportation Safety Improvements 300,000.001 6 to 01 195,833.33 76.33 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program[Grand Totals Only(anonymous)] Division(Priority)/App Requested Average Ref Organization Name/Application Title Amount Votes Recommend Committee Score C23 Taufer Park Revamp 50,000.00 5 to 0 40,000.00 76.25 P8 Library Plaza Repair and Improvements 205,755.00 6 to 0 162,170.00 76.22 P4 NW Quadrant Trails and Greenway Planning 257,600.00 5 to 1 194,560.00 75.89 Tll Replacement Traffic Signal;Asset Condition Report 450,000.00 5 to 1 360,000.00 75.89 T9 Future Transformations:Corridor and Area Studies 150,000.00 4 to 2 150,000.00 74.56 C17 Reopen Dinwoody Park as a Public Park 71,198.00 4 to 1 37,799.50 74.38 C19 Folsom Trail-Request on behalf of River District Business Alliance 500,000.00 3 to 2 500,000.00 74.00 E10 Bridge Replacement(200 South over the Jordan River) 3,500,000.00 4 to 2 3,500,000.00 73.22 P12 RAC Playground Phase II 521,564.00 6 to 0 419,115.33 73.11 E8 700 South(Phase 7[Final Phase],4600 West to 5000 West) 1,970,000.00 6 to 0 1,443,333.33 72.67 P14 Public Lands 5-Year Strategic Plan 154,000.00 6 to 0 123,500.00 72.44 C10 900 South River Park Soccer Field 287,848.00 4 to 1 178,924.00 72.38 E9 Bridge Rehabilitation(400 South over the Jordan River) 1,700,000.00 5 to 1 1,700,000.00 72.13 C21 Replace Fairpark Tennis Courts with New Sports Court 496,109.00 3 to 2 398,703.00 71.88 P15 Jordan Park and International Peace Gardens Master Plan and CLR 251,160.00 5 to 1 160,232.00 70.56 C25 1200 East Median,Raise Curb,new irrigation,new tree planting 500,000.00 3 to 3 250,000.00 70 C36 Neighborhood Identification Equity Project 245,215.00 3 to 2 383,333.33 69.5 P6 Urban Wood Reutilization 206,080.00 4 to 1 154,540.00 69.38 F1 Mixed-Use Three-Story Fire Training Prop 856,689.61 5to 1 17,595,130.00 68.44 P17 Memory Grove Master Plan and Cultural Landscape Report 341,320.00 6 to 0 210,220.00 68 C11 Gateway Triangle Property Park 499,563.00 4 to 1 337,390.75 67.88 T10 Multimodal Capital Maintenance 250,000.00 4 to 2 237,500.00 67.22 P5 Rose Park Open Space Concepts 154,560.00 4 to 1 115,920.00 66.38 C2 Back Alley Block Project 500,000.00 4 to 1 150,000.00 65.63 C13 Lindsey Gardens Natural Springs Pollinator Garden 500,000.00 2 to 3 400,000.00 65.38 E7 Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2022/2023 70,000.00 3 to 3 66,666.67 65 C16 337 S 400 E Pocket Park Improvement 54,096.00 5 to 0 26,819.20 64.00 C15 Rose Park Community Pump Track 500,000.00 4 to 1 225,000.00 63.88 F2 Fire Training Ground Site Improvements 755,991.33 4 to 2 716,745.58 63.67 C34 Sunnyside Ave Pedestrian Safety Improvements 502,000.00 2 to 3 267,875.00 63.50 C37 Yalecrest Traffic Calming 240,000.00 2 to 3 170,000.00 61.13 C32 East Bench Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety 467,929.00 3 to 2 329,309.67 61.00 C12 Jefferson Park Walking Path 500,000.00 3 to 2 433,333.33 60.88 P11 Memorial Tree Groves Design and Infrastructure 867,962.00 6 to 0 427,993.67 60.78 E5 Project Management Software Renewal 79,000.00 5 to 1 79,000.00 60.56 Ell Wingpointe Levee Design 800,000.00 3 to 3 800,000.00 59 FA2 Streets Steam Bay Expansion 597,792.00 4 to 1 597,792.00 57.75 C24 Welcome Signage 500,000.00 3 to 2 91,666.67 57.38 C26 Mountain Dell Disc Golf Course 500,000.00 3 to 2 216,666.67 56.63 C33 Sugar House Crosswalk Murals 1 50,000.00 2 to 31 50,000.00 56.13 C18 First Encampment Park 363,916.00 2 to 3 75,000.00 53.25 2022-23 Capital Improvement Program[Grand Totals Only(anonymous)] Division(Priority)/App Requested Average Ref Organization Name/Application Title Amount Votes Recommend Committee Score Cl 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk 237,182.00 2 to 3 218,591.00 53.00 C4 South Belaire Dr road reconstruction 699,650.00 2 to 3 350,000.00 50.50 C8 Repair Alley#4195 after 9th South rebuild project 86,000.00 2 to 3 86,000.00 48 C3 Pave Benchmark Circle 75,000.00 2 to 3 75,000.00 43.50 C7 Harvey Milk Blvd.Rainbow Crosswalk 300,000.00 2 to 3 50,000.00 42.50 C5 Storm drains 1100 east south of Zenith ave 92,735.00 2 to 3 92,367.50 41.00 71,788,941.81 68,955,922.66 Attachment 5 - FY2023 Capital Investments Summary Sheet (GO Bond, Sales Tax Bond and CIP) Names of Projects Departments Sales Tax Bond GO Bond General Fund GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES 1/4c SALES TAX A.R.PA Sales Tax Bonds City Cemetery Road Repairs/Reconstruction Public Lands $11,200,000 Pioneer Park Improvements Public Lands $10,000,000 Eligible 600 North Corridor Transformation Transporation $9,753,000 1o%Eligible Radio Towers IMS $7,500,000 Central Plant Electrical Transformer Upgrade&Emergency Public Services Backup Generators $6,100,000 Westside Railroad Quiet Zones Public Services $6,1oo,000 Warm Spring Historic Plunge Structure Stabilization Public Services $6,000,000 Smith's Ballpark Improvements Public Services $3,000,000 Urban Wood Reutilization Equipment and Storage Additions Public Lands $2,000,000 Fisher Mansion Stabilization Public Services $1,800,000 GO Bond(to be considered by voters-would not impact FY23 property taxes) Glendale Regional Park Public Lands $27,000,000 t00%Eligible Eligible Jordan River Corridor Improvements Public Lands $9,000,000 Partially Eligible Allen Park Public Lands $9,000,000 t00%Eligible Seven Neighborhood Parks,1 per district Public Lands $7,000,000 $3 million Eligible Fleet Block Park Public Lands $5,000,000 t00%Eligible Eligible Liberty Park Playground Public Lands $2,000,000 Folsom Trail Completion Public Lands $5,000,000 t00%Eligible 20%contingency Public Lands $16,000,000 CIP New/Maintenance Projects Recommended for Funding 400 South Safety Improvements Transporation $513,313 200 South Reconstruction/Transit Corridor Supplement Transporation $2,700,242 $2,643 $252,000 $1,300,000 Three Creeks West Roadways Public Lands& Public Utilities $1,359,130 Soo North Complete Street Reconstruction Supplement Transporation $500,000 $40,000 Rose Park Neighborhood Center Community Garden Public Lands $16o,819 Eligible Street Improvements 2022/2023 Public Services $3,000,000 Public Lands Asset Management Plan Public Lands $16o,16o Transit Capital for Frequent Transit Routes/Operational Transporation $990,000 $110,000 Investments Facilities Asset Renewal Plan FY23 Public Services $1,192,357 Bridge Replacement(65o North over Jordan River) Public Services $3,700,000 Public Way Concrete 2022/2023 Public Services $436,281 Alleyway Improvements 2022/2023 Engineering $142,919 Urban Farm Development at 2200 West Public Lands $425,040 Eligible RAC Playground Phase II Public Lands $521,564 700 South(Phase 7,4600 W to 5000 W) Engineering $850,000 $1,120,000 goo South River Park Soccer Field Public Lands $287,848 Memorial Tree Groves Design and Infrastructure Public Lands $867,962 Streets Steam Bay Expansion Public Services $597,792 Restoration of CCB Reimburse by Insurance Public Services $2,000,000 Hand Held Radios IMS $3,700,000 Complete Streets Transporation $3,700,000 Parks Maintenance Public Lands $2,000,000 Maintenance of Vacant City Owned Facilities Public Services $700,000 Totals $63,453,000 $80,000,000 $13,234,877 $5,035,000 $3,000,000 $3,36o,193 $8,700,000 $0 Total Bonds. $143,453,000 Total CIP $33,330,070 Total Investment(Bonds&CIP). $176,783,070 Last Updated June 10, 2022 Attachment 5 - FY2023 Capital Investments Summary Sheet (GO Bond, Sales Tax Bond and CIP) Names of Projects Departments Sales Tax Bond GO Bond General Fund GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES 1/4c SALES TAX A.R.PA CIP Projects NOT Recommeded for Funding(in order of CDCIP Board Scores) California Avenue Safety Improvement Study Transportation $ 100,000 l000 W Fairpark Traffic Circle Transportation $ 569,534 goo West Corridor Transportation& Public Utilities $ 1,000,000 2100 South Conceptual Design/Corridor Transformation Transportation $ 250,000 Livable Streets Implementation Transportation $ 2,700,000 $ 300,000 Highland Drive/iloo E Complete Street&Parley's Trail Supplement(1700 S-I-8o) Transportation $ 245,000 $ 3,255,000 Public Lands ADA Walkway and Asphalt Replacement Public Lands $ 873,o62 Jordan River Peace Labyrinth Park Improvements Public Lands $ 500,000 Eligible Playground Replacement Public Lands $ 1,874,o63 Madsen Park Renewal Public Lands $ 500,000 Folsom Trail Landscaping Phase I Public Lands $ 1,767,9o8 Liberty Wells Traffic Calming Transportation $ 420,000 Cottonwood Park Pavilions Public Lands $ 756,094 40o North Street Improvement Transportation $ 599,746 Court Resurfacing Public Lands $ 1,478,739 Ballpark Study Implementation-Phase 1 Transportation $ 450,000 $ 50,000 Local Streets 2023 Reconstruction Supplement Transportation $ 200,000 SLC Cemetery Infrastructure Repairs Public Lands $ 500,000 l000 W intersection upgrades at Soo N and 40o N Transportation $ 539,693 Tree Succession Design for Liberty Park Public Lands $ go,16o Jordan River Tree Planting and Irrigation Public Lands $ 21o,834 Riverview Native Plant Center Phase 1A Public Lands $ 412,160 Sugar House Safe Side Streets Part 2 Transportation $ 400,000 Replacement Traffic Signals(4) Transportation $ 1,26o,000 $ 140,000 Brentwood Circle Storm Water Drainage Public Utilities $ 16o,129 Partially Eligible Multi-modal Transportation Safety Improvements Transportation $ 270,000 $ 30,000 Taufer Park Revamp Public Lands $ 50,000 Library Plaza Repair and Improvements Public Lands $ 205,755 Replacement Traffic Signal;Asset Condition Report Transportation $ 415,000 $ 35,000 NW Quadrant trails and Greenway Planning Public Lands $ 257,6o0 Future Transformations:Corridor and Area Studies Transportation $ 150,000 Reopen Dinwoody Park as a Public Park Public Lands $ 71,198 Folsom Trail-Request on behalf of River District Business Alliance Transportation $ 500,000 Bridge Replacement(200 South over Jordan River) Public Services $ 3,500,000 Public Lands 5-Year Strategic Plan Public Lands $ 154,000 Bridge Rehabilitation(400 South over the Jordan River) Public Services $ 1,700,000 Replace Fairpark Tennis Courts with New Sports Court Public Lands $ 496,1o9 Jordan Park and International Peace Gardens Master Plan and CLR public Lands $ 251,160 12oo East Median,Raise Curb,new irrigation,new tree planting Public Lands $ 500,000 Neighborhood Identification Equity Project Transportation $ 245,215 Urban Wood Reutilization Public Lands $ 2o6,o80 Mixed-Use Three-Story Fire Prop Fire $ 856,690 Memory Grove Master Plan and Cultural Landscape Report Public Lands $ 341,320 Gateway Triangle Property Park Public Lands $ 499,563 Multimodal Capital Maintenance Transportation $ 225,000 $ 25,000 Last Updated June 10, 2022 Attachment 5 - FY2023 Capital Investments Summary Sheet (GO Bond, Sales Tax Bond and CIP) Names of Projects Departments Sales Tax Bond GO Bond General Fund GF FOF CLASS C IMPACT FEES 1/4c SALES TAX A.R.PA Rose Park Open Space Concepts Public Lands $ 154,560 Back Alley Block Project Public Services $ 517,500 Lindsey Gardens Natural Springs Pollinator Garden Public Lands $ 500,000 Rail Adjacent Pavement Improvements 2022/2023 Public Services $ 70,000 337 S 40o E Pocket Park Improvement Public Lands $ 54,o96 Rose Park Community Pump Track Public Lands $ 498,584 Training Ground Site Improvements Fire $ 755,991 Sunnyside Ave Pedestrian Safety Improvements Transportation $ 514,688 Yalecrest Traffic Calming Transportation $ 240,000 East Bench Traffic Calming and Pedestrian Safety Transportation $ 467,929 Jefferson Park Walking Path Public Lands $ 496,472 Project Management Software Renewal Public Services $ 79,999 Wingpointe Levee Design Public Services $ 800,000 Welcome Signage Transportation $ 500,000 Mountain Dell Disc Golf Course Public Lands $ 500,000 Sugar House Crosswalk Murals Transportation $ 50,000 First Encampment Park Public Lands $ 363,916 1200 E Curb/Gutter/Sidewalk Public Services& Public Utilities $ 275,919 South Belaire Dr Road Reconstruction Public Services $ 699,650 Repair Alley#4195 after 9th South rebuild project Public Services $ 72,450 Pave Benchmark Circle Public Services $ 199,307 Harvey Milk Blvd.Rainbow Crosswalk Transportation $ 459,346 Storm Drains iloo East South of Zenith Ave Public Utilities $ 92,735 Notes: The Public Services Department includes the Facilities Division(city owned buildings)and the Engineering Division(street and alley projects) The GFFOF column includes funding proposed for parks maintenance and an amount"off the top"available to any capital project The Impact Fees column includes transportation im act ees and parks im act ees Last Updated June 10, 2022 ATTACHMENT 6—Capital Facilities Plan(CFP) Council Requests from January 20i9 1. Policy Goals and Metrics—Council Members requested high-level cost estimates for the City to implement the below policy goals as well as any metrics.The Administration was invited to recommend policy goals to the Council.Three cost estimates are included based on prior discussions but may not represent the best currently available information.The table is intended for discussion purposes and does not represent a comprehensive list of policy goals for Council consideration. Potential Policy Goals Potential Metrics High-level Cost Estimate Bring all facilities out of Appropriations vs.funding $6.8 million deferred maintenance need identified in Public annually or$68 Services'Facilities Dashboard million over ten that tracks each asset years Expand the City's urban trail Total paved/unpaved network network with an emphasis on miles; number and funding $21 million for 9- East-West connections for improved trail features; Line percentage of 9-Line implementation completed Increase the overall condition Overall Condition Index $133 million cost index of the City's street (OCI);pavement condition estimate(in addition network from poor to fair survey every five years to existing funding level) Implement the Foothill Trails Distance of improved trails Master Plan completed; number and $TBD funding for improved trailheads Advance the City's Energy savings;carbon sustainability goals through emission reductions $TBD building energy efficiency upgrades Focus on renewal and Number,funding level and maintenance projects over ratio of renewed assets vs. $TBD creating new assets new assets 2. Project Location Mapping—Council Members requested a map of all CFP projects.The idea of multiple maps based on dollar value was discussed such as$50,000- $999,999, $1 million-$5 million,and over$5 million. 3. Measure CFP to CIP Alignment—Council Members expressed support for annually measuring the alignment of how many CIP Funding Log projects were previously listed in the CFP and how many CIP projects receiving appropriations were previously listed in the CFP.A high alignment would indicate the CFP is successfully identifying the City's capital needs. 4. Council Adoption of CFP—The question arose if the Council should adopt the CFP each year with the annual budget or potentially in the summer when reviewing project specific funding. Does the Administration have a preference? Attachment 7 Regular CIP Project Costs General Rules of Thumb NOTE: Costs are estimates based on most recent information available(which may be out of date),vary by project,and do not include on-going maintenance. Parks 12oig Estimate 2o21 Estimate Restrooms (dependent on site and utility work) Trailside Pit Toilet $150,000 S t68,000 Portland Loo (each) Existing Sewer Line $200,000 $224,000 4 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $350,000 $450,000 8 Seat Each Gender. Existing Sewer Line $55oK- $600K $700,000 Studies Site Master Plan $50K- $75K S75,000-S100,000 Cultural Landscape Report ZS75,000-S 150,000 City-wide Comprehensive Stud $15oK- $25oK S200,000-8300-000 Drinking Fountains Installed with sewer connection $15K- $30,000 $35000- $5o,00c1 Pla round Replacement $15oK- $25oK $450,000-8550,000 Multi-purpose Field Improvements Native soil field $150,000 $400,000-S500,000 Sand-based field $400,000 $1,000,000 Softball/Baseball Field Improvements (Each Field) $200,000 $250,000 Fencing(6 ft.vinyl coated chain link) $45.00-$5 5.00/I,F Tennis Court Improvements (2 Courts) Patch,repair and paint $150,000 SiW000 New post tension court $250,000 $3oo,000 Path Trail Improvements Hand-built natural surface single track trail(40" S25 00 S,3o oo/LF width) $6-12/LF Machine-built natural-surface trail(40"width) $20-25/LF 10.00415.00/1,1" Asphalt Trail $3.5o/SF $5.00/SF Concrete Trail (6"thick) $4.5o/SF S8.00/SF Soft Surface-Crushed stone $2.50/SF 86.00-$1o.00/ SF Off-leash Dog Parks $25oK- $35oK S 280,000 $,192,000 Irrigation Systems Per Acre $52,000+ $75,000 + Tree Replacements (Each 2-inch caliper) $350 $750 Natural Area Restoration Per Acre $1ooK- $20oK S 112,000- S224,000 Transportation 2019 Estimate 2021 Estimate Bike-One Mile Cycle Track/Lane Mile(3 lane miles= $6o0 000+ 1.5 actual miles) 500,000+ Bike-One Lane Mile(2 lane miles = 1 mile actual mile) 2,000+ $2,500+ Bike- Protected Lane Mile (200 West 2015) $400,000 85oo,000-1,000,000 Traffic Signals-New $ 250,000 8 350,000.00 Traffic Signals-Upgrades $ 250,000 350,000.00 HAWK Signals $ 130,000 $ 150,000.00 Crosswalk-Flashing $ 6o,000 $75,000 Crosswalk-School Crossing Lights $ 25,000 83o,000 Crosswalk-Colored/Stamped varies based on width of $18 000 $27 000 road $15K- $25K Driver Feedback Sin $ 8,000 $9,500 S eed Table/ Raised Crosswalk $ 25,000 $:3o,000 Pedestrian Refuge Island $ 10,000 $12,000 Curb Extension at Intersection $ 20,000 S,25,000 Crosswalk $ 1,600 $1,800 Streets 201g Estimate 2021 Estimate Asphalt Overla (Lane Mile) $ 28o,000 $ 335,000 Crack Seal (Lane Mile) $ 5,000 $ 6,000 Road Reconstruction-Asphalt(Lane Mile) $ 500,000 $ 600,000 Road Reconstruction-Asphalt to Concrete(Lane Mile) $look- $1.2 M S840,000 S1,440,000 Sidewalk slab jacking(per square foot) $ 4 85 Sidewalk replacement(per square foot) $ 7- $10 $8 - 812 Note: Last updated July 2021 Funding Cost Remaining Source Center Description Appropriation Complete? If Not Complete,Status? 8317359 Gladiola to Indiana gooS Seg C $ 112,658 8317361 Street Reconstruction Im rov $ 49 8314031 Driver Feedback Signs $ 86,320 Class C 8317032 Bridge Maintenance Program $ 18,573 8317036 Street Improvements:Reconstru $ 14,522 8318023 Gladiola goo S Im $ 38,047 8318154 130o E Class C $ 442,501 8319502 Street Overlay 19 $ 287 8315015 Fire Station#14 furnishings $ 158 8315027 Bikeway-Close the gap $ 25,336 8316027 Bikeways,Citywide $ 60 8316046 1300 S Bicycle Bypass( edestr $ 103,182 8316070 Warm Springs Park,84o N 300 W $ 13,195 8317017 Recreation/Open Space GO Bond $ 45,978 8317025 500/700 S Reconstruction $ 408,037 8317029 Bus Stop Enhancements $ 16,990 8317043 Parks and Public Lands Com reh $ 9,661 8317049 UTA TIGER GRANT MATCH $ 21,634 8317055 Capital Facilities Plan $ 4,928 8318027 Public Way Concrete Restoratio $ 7,733 8318028 Bridge Maintenance $ 76,504 8318045 Bikeways Urban Trails $ 90,035 8318047 Rose Park Pedestrian Byway $ 237,581 8318048 Miller Park ADA access $ 367,835 8318049 Jordan R.Flood Control $ 5,908 8318053 Parks and Rec HVAC $ 91900 8318084 PROPERTY MANAGEMENT-CIP $ 110,104 8319406 lath Ave Pavilion and Si na e $ 33,596 8319401 Glendale Park Playground Path $ 43,476 General Fund 8619405 Sugarhouse Pavilion Con to CO $ 112,000 8319701 Library Parking Equipment $ 170,689 8319621 Traffic Signals Upgrade $ 1 8319407 Imperial Park Shade Structure $ (1,400) Why is this negative? 8319622 140o E Sunnyside Intersection $ 64,663 8619603 Saw Cutting Sidewalk $ 1,216 8619604 Proactive Sidewalk $ 984 8619402 City-wide Park Walkway Safety $ 5,386 8619411 Westside Trail Connections $ 249,923 8619624 1700 S Lane Reconfiguration $ 35,322 8619408 Lindsay Garden Concession $ 53,692 86194og Fairmont Stream Access Beautif $ 102,949 8619702 C&C Square Master Plan $ 223 8319619 igoo East Reconsruction $ 68,503 8319616 Whitlock Curb and Gutter $ 18,910 8319403 RAC Shade Structure and Pla r $ 35,575 8319405 Rose Park Multiloo Trail $ 148,007 8319301 Delong&Parks Yard Im rovemen $ 19,931 8319721 Millcreek Su arhouse GF $ 486 8319741 WestsideMultimodal GF $ 29,658 8319751 Life on State CIP $ 82,945 831990o Transportation Acctg SalesTax $ 1,130 84120021 Indiana Ave/goo S Rehab Design $ 124,593 8413001 Study for Fire House#3 $ 15,700 8415002 Fire Station#3 $ 1,568 8416004 1300 S Bicycle Bypass( edestr $ 42,833 8416005 91ine park $ 18,411 8416006 Fire Station#14 $ 44,612 Impact Fees 841600g Fire Station#3 $ 469 8417007 Transportation Safety Im rovem $ 1,444 8418002 Cwide Dog Lease Im $ 530 8418003 Bikeway Urban Trails $ 187,516 8418005 Bridge to Backman $ 275,475 84o600ll Gladiola Street $ 2,244 8418ol3l Police Refunds $ 3,588 TOTAL of ALL SOURCES $ 4,264,564 I?RIN MFNI)FNIIALL :tn , A it BEI IZOL Nr)AR 11-�YC}R J!" :° DIRECTOR IDFPARTNTENTtarFCONONTICDF TLOPMENT CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL yi, Al (1y11,202215 36 MDT) Date Received: 5/11/2022 Lisa Schaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 5/11/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: May 11, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Benjamin Kolendar, Director, Department of Economic Development SUBJECT: New Ordinance Requirements for Art Maintenance Reporting STAFF CONTACTS: Felicia Baca, felicia.baca{c?slct,ov.coni 385-256-5588 Renato Olmedo-Gonzalez, Renato.olmedo-gonzalez (7)slc ov.coln, 8o1-824-9122 DOCUMENT TYPE: Informational RECOMMENDATION: n/a BUDGET IMPACT: Portion of existing CIP budget already designated, no additional impact. COORDINTATION: n/a ORDINANCE CONSIDERATIONS: °2.30.060: FUNDS FOR WORKS OF ART; REQUESTS FOR APPROPRIATIONS: A. WHEN SO DESIGNATED BY THE CITY COUNCIL,IN ITS APPROPRIATION FOR CAPITAL IMPROVEMENTS,ALL CITY DEPARTMENTS SHALL EXPEND,AS A NONDEDUCTIBLE ITEM OUT OF ANY MONIES APPROPRIATED FOR THE PLANNING,DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION OF CONSTRUCTION PROJECTS,AN AMOUNT EQUAL TO ONE AND ONE—HALF PERCENT(1.5%)OF SUCH APPROPRIATIONS FOR THE ACQUISITION AND INSTALLATION OF WORKS OF ART AND ORNAMENTATION,TEN TO TWENTY PERCENT(10-20%)OF WHICH WILL BE DEPOSITED IN THE PUBLIC ART MAINTENANCE FUND AND USED TO PROVIDE MAINTENANCE FOR EXISTING WORKS OF ART.HE 31A YORc SHALL PROVIDE A ICLI'ORCT TO 'ITV COUNCIL O1 Ft'f21{WIOl'ARTTIIATREQUIRENIAI41L.1'A:(.'EANDTILL!:417.14ATIs'IICOSTOFS1,CII:WAINTE'N<1:1'4,"1"PRIOR TO IIIE 11 N0,13 BE'I G I>L110SITE''71 IN I`IIE 1'1`d31.14,"r1d{T:17t171IT;Y`ii:4(f FUND, BACKGROUND: The public art program recommends to the Finance Department that 20% of CIP funds are deposited in FY23 to the maintenance fund based on the following report. This report was also sent to Mary Beth Thompson for the maintenance allocation. We additionally have included a report on FY22 Completed/In-Progress Artwork Maintenance Projects. In the last three years, Salt Lake City has implemented important and necessary revisions to the Salt Lake City Arts Council's Public Art Program. The incredible support and meaningful funding provided by the Mayor and City Council established the foundations of a comprehensive maintenance plan, which effectively secures the future safeguarding and stewardship City's art assets. Since its establishment in 1984, the Salt Lake City Arts Council's Public Art Program has lacked the proper structural and policy procedures, including a source of adequate funding, necessary for the proper care and upkeep of its rich and vast public art collection. These important revisions to the Public Art Program can be summarized in the following: • A significant, one-time allocation of approximately—$200,000 in FY2o by City Council for the Public Art Program to identify its maintenance needs and fully understand the status of its permanent public art collection. Through this funding, the Public Art Program contracted Dodworth &Stauffer Art Appraisal and Consulting and commissioned a Condition &Inventory Assessment Report that surveyed 150 public artworks located in City-owned parks, streets, plazas, and buildings, as well as 92 artworks located at the City&County Building. Each artwork was assigned a Priority Code Ranking from 1 to 4 with notes on each item's installation and condition with recommended actions for maintenance and repair. The criteria for each of the priority codes are as follows: [1] Immediate action: structural issues,visually unsightly; [2] Moderate action: peeling paint, early corrosion, etc.; [3] Cleaning/waxing; and [4] Condition acceptable. This Condition &Inventory Assessment is the guiding document for conducting artwork repairs; • In early 2021, City Council amended Ordinance 2.30, which established the City's Public Art Program in 1984. This amendment established a permanent maintenance and provided a structure for annual funding, which is determined by the Council-approved Capital Improvement Program (10-20% of the total monies given to the program through the 1.5%/Percent-for-Art annual allocation). Furthermore, this amendment enabled the Public Art Program to adopt a deaccession policy(removal of an artwork from the permanent collection).A deaccession policy was officially adopted by the Salt Lake Art Design Board in December 2021. FY22 COMPLETED&IN-PROGRESS ARTWORK MAINTENANCE PROJECTS: During FY22, the Public Art Program conducted a variety of maintenance needs to eight public artworks in its permanent collection for a total cost of$176,o67.047(Attachment A). Through the annual Percent-for-Art funding approved in early 2021, the Public Art Program allocated $20,266 towards the maintenance fund (15% of the total amount funded for public art by City Council). Our program's FY22 maintenance efforts,which ranged greatly in scope, duration, and total cost, established the foundations of our program's maintenance strategy. In FY22 we addressed a combination of Priority 1 artworks (a stolen artwork that was addressed for repaired had been identified as Priority 2 prior to the theft) and other unexpected repairs (UR) due to immediate damage or theft. In total, 4 artworks within the Priority 1 Category were addressed. Two other artworks maintained during FY22 were repaired using funds not in our established maintenance fund (e.g., monies from insurance settlements, etc.). The Public Art Program works closely with the City's Risk Manager in these cases to determine and secure these funding sources. Another artwork,Fire House Fire,was considered by the Art Design Board for deaccession,but this body ultimately voted in favor of refabricating it. These maintenance efforts conducted in FY22 have provided our program with an outlook that illustrates the various needs and obstacles our program will face as it continues to address the maintenance needs of the rest of our permanent collection. Each artwork maintenance project is different,with some requiring more staff time and funding than others. FY23 MAINTENANCE PROJECTIONS: For FY23, the Public Art Program intends to address the maintenance needs of 21 artworks in its permanent collection, for a projected total cost of$11o,825 (the entirety of this funding will come from the Public Art Maintenance Fund).A contingency of $15,000 has been included in this total, in order to plan for future unexpected repairs (Attachment B). After City Council approves the FY23 CIP budget, the Percent-for-Art allocation will be issued to the Arts Council for its Public Art Program. We recommend that 20% of this total will be directed towards the Maintenance Fund. This amount, which will not become known until later this year, has not been included in these projections. Our program aims to use these promised maintenance funds towards any potential deaccession costs (artwork removal) and/or further addressing the needs of the remaining Priority 2 artworks. Our FY23 maintenance workplan and projections will address the needs of all the remaining artworks identified in the Priority 1 category(11 artworks in total) and a significant portion of the Priority 2 artworks (10 out of 31 artworks). Most of our current available funding will be devoted to the artworks in the first category. In total, there are 93 maintenance recommendations identified by the Condition&Inventory Assessment Report (not including replacement of didactic plaques for 36 artworks). Our FY23 maintenance projections, in addition to our FY22 efforts already conducted, will effectively address 22% of these recommendations. We have the ability of addressing a large quantity of these repairs because they will be done by a single contractor. Lastly, up to four different artworks will be considered or have been recommended for deaccession from our permanent collection. KEY CONSIDERATIONS: The findings of the Condition &Assessment Report and the establishment of an adequate maintenance plan have been a significant milestone achieved by our program. During FY22, the Public Art Program made great strides at implementing a maintenance strategy that is responsive to the needs of our public art collection—an invaluable City cultural asset—and adequately considers our staff capacity to handle these. Each artwork requires its own unique strategy for proper maintenance, impacting the number of repairs that can be conducted at any given point. Additionally, the cost, project scope, and availability of materials needed for repairs are variables that continuously impact our ability to make progress on our immediate and future maintenance plans. The FY23 Maintenance Projections will nearly deplete our current maintenance fund (see Attachment B). Although there is now a mechanism in place to guarantee a 10-20% allocation of Percent-for-Art funding for our program's maintenance needs, additional funds will be necessary to address the remaining artworks identified as priorities within our public art collection in future years In addition to the maintenance accomplishments and objectives described throughout this document, the Public Art Program will focus a great deal of its FY23 efforts towards fulfilling Mayor Mendenhall's 2022 goal of address gaps in public arts projects.A number of public artworks currently located in multiple City-owned facilities pre-date the establishment of the Public Art Program in Salt Lake City(e.g., Gilgal Sculpture Garden, International Peace Gardens, etc.) or have been created outside the Percent-for- Art funding structure (RDA funding, for example). Our program will aim to address proper stewardship and care for these important City art assets through a formal acquisition process that also ensures their future care and safeguarding. Overall, the remaining number of unmaintained artworks, and finite funding remain the biggest obstacles impacting our future maintenance efforts. Thanks to the generous support, trust, and funding received from the Mayor and City Council, our Public Art Program developed a comprehensive maintenance strategy that began to address gaps within our public art collection. The full maintenance condition &inventory assessment can be found here. Attachments: Attachment A: FY2022 Completed and in-progress artwork maintenance projects Attachment B: FY2023 Artwork maintenance projections ATTACHMENT A: FY22 Completed&In-Progress Artwork Maintenance Projects FY22 Artwork Maintenance Projects Artwork Funding Priority Artist title District Notes Source Actual cost Repairs to be completed in March Doug Deadly 2022.Artwork damaged during May Maintenance 1 Soelberg Virtues 4 2020 protests demanding racial Fund $20,354 00 justice. Ric Bird in a Completed fall 2021. Object recovered Maintenance 1 4 from storage, repaired, and $ 2,500.00 Blackberry Plane reinstalled. Fund Untitled Completed summer 2021.Various Maintenance 1 Various (Labyrinth) 2 repairs conducted. Fund $ 6,250.00 Refabrication of object will be Ben Jones completed in the coming months. and Cary Fire House This artwork was considered for Maintenance Stevens Fire 6 deaccession by Art Design Board and Fund $ 37'656'47 Jones was ultimately chosen to be refabricated. Traci Maintenance UR* O'Very Imagine 4 Completed in fall 2021. Bottom of Fund $ 620.00 Covey vinyl mural reprinted and replaced Dan Bonneville Reinstallation of object in March Maintenance URA 7 2022. Ob•ect damaged in traffic $ 10,18�7.00 Gerhart Reliquary II � g Fund accident (hit-and-run) in fall 2021. Reinstallation of object in August 2022.Refabrication of 6 bronze cast Jim Jacobs tree grates. Stolen in summer 2021 Insurance URA 2 and Silvia Crystal from Gallivan Center. Refabrication settlement � 4 $ 55,300.00 Grate Davis cost to be paid for a settlement, with RDA remaining funds provided by the RDA. 5 Artwork Funding PrioriV Artist title District Notes Source Actual cost Reinstallation of object in March 2022. Maintenance included extensive repairs to sculpture and Finding the reinstallation of masonry base. Ed Way (Parley Artwork damaged in a traffic accident Insurance URA Fraughton P. Pratt (hit by a semitruck). Refabrication settlement / $43,200.00 monument) cost to be paid for through a reimbursement settlement with insurance company, with remaining funds provided by the RDA. FY22 EXPENSES PAID FROM MAINTENANCE $ 77Z67.47 *UR - Unexpected repair FUND TOTAL EXPENSES FOR FY22 PUBLIC ART MAINTENANCE $176,o67.47 6 ATTACHMENT B: FY23 Artwork Maintenance Projections FY23 Artwork Maintenance Projections Priority Artist Artwork title District Notes Cost Estimate 1 John Swain Untitled 4 Clean, strip, and repaint $ 2,550.00 1 Kinde Nebeker Untitled 3 Cast 14 bronze plaques @ $ 27,790.00 $1,985.0o each 1 Various Garden Silhouettes 4 Refabricate and replace missing $ 7,560.00 silhouettes 1 Robert Ellison Tweak 360 2 Clean and repaint sculpture $ 6,625.00 1 Dave Eddy Red Fans 4 Remove, repaint, and reinstall $ 4,480.00 1 John Hess Eurythmy 5 Relocate to a new, City-owned $ - facilit Day Christensen Various repairs to 1 Landmark Design 500 West Park Blocks 4 infrastructure; site $ 9,000.00 improvements 1 Wayne Chubin Friends of the Park 5 Recommended deaccession $ - 1 Thomas Tessman Pierpont Benches 4 Recommended deaccession $ - 1 Eric I'helander Sugar House Benches 7 Recommended deaccession $ - 1 Various Untitled at Bend in Further assessment needed $ _ the River 2 (potential deaccession) 2 Day Christensen Trees (Maple) 5 Address rust issues and $ 2,470.00 determine further deterioration 2 Holly Christmas Flight of Fancy 4 Repair top and reinstall $ 3,565.00 2 Greg Ragland Three Peas in a Pod 2 Repair ends of three peas $ 2,615.00 elements 2 Cordell Taylor Order to Chaos 4 Repair or replace corroded areas $ 4,575.00 &repaint 2 Sam Allen Untitled 4 Clean and repaint sculpture $ 1,545.00 2 Ethan Barley Anthocyanin 4 Repaint both sculptures to $ 1,800.00 prevent additional loss 2 Lena Konopasek McClelland Trail: 5 Remove graffiti and repaint $ 2,775.00 Spurt 7 Priority Artist Artwork title District Notes Cost Estimate Sculpt, mold, and replace 2 Unknown Herman Franks 5 nussmR bronze bat $ 5,975.00 2 Wayne Chubin, Tim Signal Site 1 Various repairs to infrastructure $ 4,500.00 Galla her 2 Ed Dolinger Untitled 4 Repaint 24 objects $ 8,000.00 Contingency for unexpected repairs 15,000.00 TOTAL EXPENSES FOR FUTURE PUBLIC ART MAINTENANCE* 110,825.00 *All monies to come from .Maintenance Fund Funds available in Maintenance Cost Center 111,762.95 Anticipated balance (not $ 937.95 including FY23 allocation) 8 Attachment to - Comparison of CIP Project Requests by Year and Type Type FY2O17 FY2O18 FY2Oig FY2O2O FY2O21 FY2O22 FY2O23 Constituent 10 13 19 14 0 24 41 Departmental 67 37 35 40 19 50 49 Totals 77 50 54 54 19 74 90 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Total Project Requests by Fiscal Year (FY) 100 90 80 70 60 50 40 30 20 10 0 FY2017 FY2018 FY2019 FY2020 FY2021 FY2022 FY2023 0 Constituent ®Departmental Bond Projects Summary Document General Obligation (GO) Bond Overview The GO Bond funds will provide Salt Lake City with the opportunity to build on our existing investments to expand and enhance our public lands system in line with the goals of the Reimagine Nature Master Plan and the Mayor's 2022 Plan. The following projects were selected for funding based on these priorities: 1. Alignment with the Transformative Projects identified in the Reimagine Nature Master Plan and the Mayor's 2022 Plan 2. Geographic distribution and equity in level of service across the city 3. Community identified priorities through preliminary polling in improving quality of life, specifically air quality,water quality, and access to open space Using these priorities,the following seven projects have been identified for funding in the GO Bond. These projects are listed below in order of Public Lands staff prioritization: 1. Glendale Regional Park 2. Jordan River Corridor Improvements and Activation 3. Allen Park Revitalization and Access 4. Reimagine Neighborhood Parks 5. Fleet Block New Park 6. Liberty Park Playground 7. Folsom Trail Completion and Landscaping All projects listed will require significant public engagement before deciding what work and amenities will be completed.These projects build off existing and planned work by the city. Glendale Regional Park a.t. 4 � c Ask:$27 million Description:The Glendale Regional Park project takes place on the Glendale Water Park site on 1700 S. The site is currently in a master planning process to develop the plan for the final park development. Funding from the bond would substantially build out the vision proposed in the Master Plan. Outcomes:The project is currently funded for Phase One which will complete an active recreation element by spring of 2024, including an all ages playground with accessible design and assistive technologies.The bond funding would substantially complete the build out of the site.The public engagement for the project has informed the design and amenities of highest interest include hiking/biking trails, playgrounds that support play at all levels of ability,water features, a skatepark, food truck infrastructure, basketball and pickleball courts, riverside recreation and access and community gathering space.This project will improve the connectivity and cohesion of the green space in the area, including 17th South Park, Glendale Neighborhood Park, and the Jordan River. Justification:This project is specifically called out in the Master Plan, and it is also supported by the master plan goal to Revive Our River.This project will improve safety and accessibility on the site while also improving air and water quality through increased vegetation.This project is also critical for ensuring that Salt Lake City can continue to provide accessible green spaces as we continue to grow.The 2019 Public Lands Needs assessment called for an additional 94 acres of green space to accommodate expected growth at the current level of service. Current process: Public Lands is currently finalizing the Master Plan document for the site. It is projected for completion and adoption in Fall 2022. Jordan River Corridor Improvements and Activation 9 T# 4 4 k1 ytn Ask:$9 million Description:The Jordan River is a key asset in the valley that touches a diversity of communities and provides unique opportunities to recreate.This project will enhance the trail as well as adjacent park spaces. In addition,the Jordan River lands are adjacent to many underserved communities and investment in high quality maintenance and recreation infrastructure can help bring more equitable service to Westside neighborhoods. Outcomes:This project will improve local water and air quality by installing irrigation systems for trees along the Jordan River trail at five key locations. Stormwater outfall and green infrastructure improvements will also be incorporated.This project will also implement improvements to develop consistent and welcoming park spaces along the Jordan River corridor that foster community gathering and highlight the Jordan River as a desirable recreation destination. Specific projects include, nature play areas, pollinator gardens, public art, paddle share program, bike pumptrack and enhanced natural areas at open spaces along the river.All park improvements will include the addition of multilingual signage. Justification:This project is supported by the Master Plan goal Revive Our River and will focus on the strategies listed in the Plan.This project will improve local water and air quality by enhancing the tree canopy and plant biodiversity along the river,while also installing water-wise irrigation systems. Additions of new amenities along the river will improve our distribution of services and accessibility of the river. Current Process:This project builds on the strategies listed in the Master Plan.This work is also supported by the Emerald Ribbon Master Planning Process that will begin in 2022 which will guide future development of the Jordan River Corridor. Allen Park Revitalization and Access s t _M x y . x Ask:$9 million Description:Allen Park is a recently acquired, 7-acre park located off 1300 E established in 2020.This project would implement a community supported vision and improvements for Allen Park and the preservation of iconic structures and landscapes that exist within the park.This project would improve public park access by restoring historic structures, bridges and the road, and would improve climate resiliency through stream bank,floodplain and landscape restoration. Outcomes:This funding would complete Phase 2 of improvements at Allen Park.The bond would fund stabilization, renovation, and restoration of the main Allen Lodge,to open for public use, preservation of artworks, and stream corridor improvements for air and water quality. Improvements will also include irrigation and native plantings, road repairs and stabilization of other structures as applicable and feasible. Justification:This project is supported by the Master Plan transformative project Sustaining Our Stories. Allen Park is a highly historic and cultural site in need if immediate preservation and rehabilitation to maintain integrity. Waterwise native plantings and trees will improve air quality and lower temperatures of the surrounding urban area. Stream restoration and rehabilitation, as well as removal of potentially hazardous infrastructure can improve stream and environmental quality. Current Process: Public Lands is in the final stages of completion of the Allen Park Cultural Landscape Report. (Anticipated Completion in Fall 2022.) Engagement for the Adaptive Re-use and Management Plan for Allen Park that will guide the future of this unique public park will begin Fall 2022.This project would implement community supported vision and improvements for Allen Park and the preservation of iconic structures and landscapes that exist within the Allen Park. Reimagine Seven Community and Neighborhood Parks 4x Ask:$7 million Description: Neighborhood parks are smaller scale parks located throughout our communities.These parks have a small service area which creates the opportunity for local,targeted revisioning to restore and enhance these parks.This project identifies seven parks, one in each city council district,to undergo a visioning process and make identified improvements.These parks were identified through Public Lands information about the condition and utilization of parks in each district.The proposed parks are: • District 1: Madsen Park • District 2: Poplar Grove Park • District 3: Warm Springs Park • District 4: Reservoir Park • District 5:Jefferson Park • District 6: Donner Trail Park/Rotary Glen Park • District 7: Fairmont Park N. Entry/McClelland Trail Outcomes:This funding would replace failing assets, increase elements of placemaking based on community input and desires, and multilingual wayfinding signage. Justification: Reimagine Neighborhood Parks was one of the most important transformative projects identified by the community in the Master Plan. Investing in these parks throughout the city will improve access and activation while also weaving in elements of community identity offering higher- quality park experience for users. Current Process:This funding would kick off district-specific public engagement to determine the specific amenities, improvements and placemaking elements that will be incorporated into each park. Fleet dock New Park Ask:$5 million Description:The Fleet Block is a 10-acre city block owned primarily by the city.The Granary District is a greenspace desert in one of the lowest served areas in the city.This district has less walkable park access than any other planning area, it has the highest population density and is slated to receive the highest levels of residential growth. In 2020,the unused building on Fleet Block became home to murals of individuals lost locally and nationally to police violence which transformed the space into a key memorial and gathering space.There is an opportunity to preserve and enhance the existing memorial space in the next iteration of Fleet Block through the thoughtful design and creation of a park on the block. Outcomes:This funding will support the creation of a new park, play area and pathways in an area of SLC that currently has few places to play. Public art and sport courts have been identified by current public engagement and will be constructed as part of this bond. In addition,the project will add much needed green space which will increase the level of service for the city and this community. Justification:This project is further supported by the Master Plan transformative project Sustaining our Stories.The Central Community Master planning area is one of the city's highest needs areas with the least access to green space. Integration of a green park space would improve air quality with plantings and trees, reduce temperatures and the effects of urban heat island in the heart of the city, and begin to fulfill the need for access to open space in this area. Further,there has been unanimous desire from the public around the need for significant open space and recreation opportunities on the site. Current Process:A current process is underway from the Mayor's Office to rezone the Fleet Block for development and create a community vision.Years of community engagement have called for significant open space and recreation opportunities on the Fleet Block. Liberty Park Playground h 1 t � p 1.trr J' a Ask:$2 million Description:The current Liberty Park Rotary Playground is nearing the end of its useful life and will be in need of replacement for the safety of the users.This project will seize the opportunity to re-envision this site to ensure it remains a popular and community-serving asset for decades to come.The future of this site will be rooted heavily in community input and will reflect the desires of users citywide. Outcomes:This funding would fully replace the existing playground and associated amenities for the surrounding area.The new flagship playground would be customized for Liberty Park and state-of-the- art design to honor the popularity and use of the site. Justification: This project is supported by the Master Plan transformative project Coming to a Park Near You.This project will improve safety for users and give Salt Lake City the opportunity to incorporate a unique playground that stands out in the state. Liberty Park is the most utilized park in the city by far and will continue to be a beloved community asset for years to come. Current Process: Community engagement will guide the vision and redevelopment of this play space and will be conducted upon funding to determined specific amenities and playground design. Folsom Trail Completion and Landscaping ik t 1 1 t Ask:$5 million Description:The Folsom Trail is an off-street, paved walking and bicycling path.Significant sections of this trail were completed in 2021, but due to issues with Union Pacific property the section of trail from 1000 W to the Jordan River was not completed.This phase would complete the final phase and fund additional landscaping improvements throughout the corridor.This project will improve east-west connection across the city and will provide easier access to public spaces for those utilizing alternative transportation. In addition,the landscaping and tree plantings of Phase 1 will be drought tolerant, native plants and trees that take into consideration our arid climate to conserve water and improve air quality. Outcomes:Completion of the paved walking/biking path from 1000 West to the Jordan River Parkway (approximately .5 miles), and Phase 1 landscaping along street intersections at 600 W, 800 W,Jeremy, 900 W and 1000 W along the trail. Justification:This project was identified in the Master Plan.The Folsom Trail will provide key walking and biking opportunities. Planting native and drought tolerant species will improve air quality while conserving water. Current Process: Daylighting feasibility and preliminary designs are underway, including cost estimating, and anticipated to be completed by Oct 2022. Daylighting is not included in this project--anticipated daylighting costs are$15-$20 Million. Revenue Bond Pioneer Park INENHANCED DOG PARK Y..1 MARKET WALI( ;1 I SHAOS OROVE LAWN ti.✓ SIGNATURES All AGE PLAYGROUND AND FITNESS CIE-H P—A (pS^�) EYgiT E-FIANCEK At4AGE 4�✓ PtAYGkQUN6 A FITNESS CIRCUIT CAPE 'AN4E H sM( RANGER HU£I 0OA66 AR COAgiTYARP � . � MUtTmuarosE a MW '" �� STINGI RA w PICKtE LL COURTS. CW ODURT RT Cd TION POLLINATOR ,_'Zoo N GARDENS 80TANI1 WALK 1°.'1 'THE SOURCE` MIST FEATURE A@Og � SIGNAGE t SIGNATURE NAGE Tees io prcnerre � 4 ANSN smnoNE :ELF LEAN I RopAsetl Shnde Trees nI" 1,.I d- Ask:$10 million Description:The Pioneer Park vision plan identified specific projects for improvements and amenities at Pioneer Park based on robust community engagement.The vision plan was complete in 2021 with over 1000 participants weighing in on the vision. As funding becomes available, phased implementation of the community priorities outlined in the vision plan will be possible. Outcomes: Public Lands currently has just over$3 million for Phase 1 of implementation.The bond funding would allow for expansion of Phase 1 and would make significant progress towards the complete build-out of the vision plan. Potential amenities that were ranked highly among participants of public engagement included a misting water feature, improved dog park, playground and state-of-the- art custom pavilion.This project will increase climate resiliency with native, waterwise plantings, increase access to active recreation and open space through park development, and incorporation of new tree plantings will work towards improving air quality. Justification:The Public Lands Master Plan identifies a need for investment in Pioneer Park to transform it into a vibrant,flagship downtown park.The 2019 adopted Public Lands Needs Assessment found that the downtown and central city neighborhoods have the fastest rate of population growth with the lowest level of park service. In fact,the average level of service throughout the city is 3.5 acres of parkland and 8.6 acres of natural land per 1,000 residents. In the downtown/Central City area,that number is 2.8 acres of parkland and 0.0 acres of natural lands. Pioneer Park is the only community-sized park in downtown Salt Lake City.The acres of parks we do have in this area have a larger weight to carry, with 37,000 employees commuting into the city every day, and should be designed to encourage use and accommodate many different needs. Pioneer Park can meet these needs for green space with investments that will improve activation and combat community dissatisfaction in the park. Current Process:The Pioneer Park Vision Plan has been completed and funding has been secured for Phase 1. Public engagement for the vision plan is complete, and the park is ready for construction document design. Cemetery Roads & Irrigation Ask:$11.2 million Description:The Salt Lake City Cemetery is in need of infrastructure replacement that has been identified both in the Cemetery Master Plan and in the Reimagine Nature Public Lands Master Plan.This project would consist of an irrigation overhaul, including replacement of mainlines, control wiring and valves on the east portion of the Cemetery, and would additionally replace approximately 70%of the failing roads within the Cemetery, equating to approximately 5.4 miles of new road. Outcomes:Completion of these projects would improve access to the Cemetery, as well as climate resilience. Currently,the irrigation at the cemetery is outdated and is not efficient in conserving water and keeping vital vegetation alive during draught.The new irrigation system would allow for more water-conscious watering practices while keeping trees in the nationally accredited arboretum, alive. Additionally,the roads have the potential to pose safety risks into the future as they are failing and in need of repair. Justification:Community engagement was conducted through the Cemetery Master Planning process and has informed these specific priority projects within the Cemetery. Additionally,the Public Lands Master Plan identifies this work as providing a connection between the public and accessible green space.The plan specifically calls for the city to protect the cemetery as an iconic site and invest to promote it as a public, open space asset. Current Process:Cost estimating for these projects has been outlined in the Cemetery Master Plan and has resulted in an $11.2 million request. Public engagement is complete and both projects are ready for construction document design. Urban Wood Reutilization Program Ask:$2 million Description:The Public Lands Urban Wood Reutilization Program will allow the city to begin the process of reusing wood from fallen and removed trees throughout the city, as playground mulch and building materials, etc.to minimize landfill impacts, and provide sustainable reuse of materials and result in cost savings. Outcomes:The completion of this project would include construction of site and storage for the equipment needed to operate a wood reutilization program,which may include a horizontal grinder, sawmill, mini loader, storage and operations structure,fleet awning and forestry yard. Bond funding would not be used for the purchase of operations equipment and separate one-time funding would be needed to complete the project. Ongoing costs include the addition of one FTE and basic office supplies and equipment. Completion of the project would result in cost savings for the city(in hauling and dumping as well as purchase of mulch) and would decrease waste in city landfill and increase the sustainability of our Urban Forestry practices. Justification:This project was specifically identified in the Master Plan. Additionally, with repurposing of wood, reducing trips to the landfill, and repurposing materials in-house,this project will contribute to better air quality and more sustainable operations for Public Lands. Current Process: Public Lands has been investigating this program for several years.The 40 acres adjacent to the Public Lands building has been identified as a preferred location for the Urban Wood Reutilization Program. However, recent development proposals of this property have prompted investigation into alternative sites. If the Urban Wood Reutilization Program is not able to be housed at the Public Lands building,the alternative preferred location would be at the Salt Lake City Modelport (7595 West California Avenue). Item B7 titti rigs (fy -LOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL Of SALT LAKE CITY f 11!{t{t TO: City Council Members Project Timeline: FROM: Sylvia Richards, Policy Analyst Public Hearing:August 9,2022 DATE: August 9, 2022 RE: MOTION SHEET FOR PUBLIC HEARING The Council will conduct a Public Hearing and may consider the following motion: Motion 1 — Close and Refer I move that the Council close the Public Hearing and refer Item B7 to a future Consent Agenda for action. Page 1 ,,,,,. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL Of SALT LAKE CITY S. r - `�� "Vxv,.IccouncilxoillIcit}_-bud et TO: City Council Members FROM: Sylvia Richards, Budget Analyst 7Set JECT TIMELINE: efing:Not required. DATE: August 9, 2022 Date:Not required.lic Hearing:Aug.9,2022 RE: PUBLIC HEARING FOR GRANT Potential Action:TBD APPLICATION SUBMISSION ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration has submitted one grant application. In an effort to ensure that the City Council, Council staff and the public has adequate opportunity to see and comment on it, the grant application notification will be included in the Council meeting agendas under Public Hearings. There won't be a set date since this is not a required hearing. 1. 2022 UDWS (Utah Department of Workforce Services) Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant (Re-Application) Purpose/Goal of the Grant: The State of Utah changed the process of this grant from a competitive grant to a formula grant, and asked cities to re-apply.According to the transmittal, the services previously funded by the grant will continue with the addition of 13 NEW FTE positions to increase services. If awarded, the grant monies will be used to fund the salary and benefits of 1 FTE One Heart Business and Community Liaison for the Downtown and Central 9tn District (Volunteers of America). Additionally, the grant will fund salary and benefits for twelve new police officers, equipment, and twelve new vehicles. Grant Amount: $2,750,000 Requested by: Mayor's Office, Housing Stability Funding Agency: Workforce Services, State of Utah Match Requirement: $-o- Collaborating Agencies: Salt Lake City Police Department and Volunteers of America NOTE: Because of a timing issue, the Administration is requesting that this grant be CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 COUNCIF.SFCGOV.COM iP P.O.BOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 approved Tuesday night under the Consent Agenda in the formal meeting. The transmittal indicates that when the new officers are recruited and placed on patrol, the Department will transfer 10 officers and two existing sergeants to the specialized units to address the specific law enforcement needs surrounding the Homeless Resource Centers. In addition, the City is sub awarding $265,577 to Volunteers of America to continue services previously funded by the grant. Funding Housing Stability $ 173,358 SLCPD $,310,647 VOA $ 265,577 TOTAL $2,749,583 (the discrepancy reflects actual costs) Additional information provided by the Administration in answer to questions from Council staff: 1. Is the Administration planning to submit a grant for FY2024 to continue fully funding the 13 new FTEs? If yes, then is the next grant expected to be for a smaller amount (since the FY2023 grant includes significant one-time costs like new vehicles that wouldn't be needed in FY2024)? The police department anticipates applying for on-going salary/benefits and equipment/supplies to support the original 12 employees in FY2024. Additionally, the department intends to apply for three additional FTFs (2.0 officers, 1 .0 sergeant) and new equipment/supplies to support the additional FTFs in FY2024. 2. If the grant is awarded, then when would the new police units be available for patrols around the two HRCs? To ask another way, are existing officers planned to be diverted away from patrol to focus on the two HRCs and surrounding neighborhoods, or will the newly funded officers have to go through the academy and then field training before being available to patrol around the HRCs? It would be helpful for the Council and public to understand if the increased police presence would quickly follow grant funding or be several months to a year out because of hiring and training processes. The HRC officers will go through the academy and field training before being available for patrol around the HRCs. 3. What is the ongoing cost to the General Fund once the grant runs out? The police department is planning to apply for continuation grant funding to support the HRC officers and doesn't anticipate any ongoing cost to the General Fund. Anticipated costs in 1=Y24 are below, the on-going portion are the lines in bold. YearT210 Officers+2 sergeants(existing)F$1,380,0301.08 FY24 Page 2 Equipment&Supplies(existing) $260,809.20 2 officers (new- 10 months) $157,878.86 1 sergeant(new- 10 months) $122,814.12 Equipment&Supplies (new) $289,603.10 OTAL $2,211,135.36 4. When is the State expected to announce the Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant awards? The Utah Homelessness Council finalized the City's FY23 grant award on May 12, 2022. Meeting minutes, https:I/www.utah. ov/pmn/files/t353091.pdf. FY23 Mitigation Applications Final Awards https://www.utah.giov/pmn/files/846463.Dd . 5. What is the formula used for the grant? Is the City guaranteed a certain amount? The following information was provided during the March 23, 2022 Utah Homelessness Council meeting: In the 2022 general legislative session, H.B. 440 was passed and takes effect on July 1, 2022. It makes significant changes to the way funding is distributed to eligible municipalities for the Mitigation account by establishing a new formula for the disbursement of funds. The bill adds 5 million in state funding to the account, in addition to approximately $5.7 million in local sales and use tax revenue which is deposited into the account on an annual basis. FY23 funding totals approximately 10,700,000. First-tier eligible municipalities are located in a county of the first or second class and have a homeless shelter that operates year- round and has the capacity to provide temporary shelter to at least 30 individuals per night. Salt Lake City is a first-tier municipality. 92.5% of the total funds to be distributed to first-tier eligible municipalities with a maximum of $2,750,000 to any one municipality, or 25% of the total amount in the first-tier formula. https.//www.utah. ov/pmn/files/346461. df 6. Is the Administration planning to submit a grant for FY2024 to continue fully funding the 13 new FTEs? Yes, the Administration intends to submit an application for FY24 to support and continue funded activities in FY23. The FY23 award calls for 14 FTFs for the City: 12 new police officers, one existing FTF on the HEART team, and one new FTF on the HEART team. Additionally, this award includes a subaward to Volunteers of America for 4 FTFs which includes two existing FTFs on their outreach team as well as two new positions. 7. If yes, then is the next grant expected to be for a smaller amount (since the FY2023 grant includes significant one-time costs like new vehicles that wouldn't be needed in FY2024)? A collaborative and responsive application for FY24 will reflect one-time expenses funded in FY23 and seek to fill current gaps in homelessness-related needs for the City. Based on the formula described above, the amount that the City is eligible to apply for is expected to remain the same in FY24. Page 13 Grant Application Submission Notification TO: Jennifer Bruno,Cindy Gust-Jensen, Rachel Otto, Lisa Shaffer, Mary Beth Thompson CC: Ann Garcia,Elizabeth Gerhart,Sandee Moore,SLC Recorder,Sylvia Richards, DeeDee Robinson, Linda Sanchez,Jordan Smith,John Vuyk, Lehua Weaver,Sarah Behrens, Michelle Hoon,Andrew Johnson FROM: Sarah Behrens`~ DATE 18 April 2022 SUBJECT: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FUNDING AGENCY: Workforce Services,State of Utah GRANT PROGRAM: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant-reApplication AMOUNT REQUESTED: $2,750,000 DEPARTMENT APPLYING: Mayor's Office, Housing Stability COLLABORATING AGENCIES: SLC Police Dept.,Volunteers of America DATE SUBMITTED: April 15,2022 SPECIFICS: ❑Technical Assistance(Training) ❑Equipment Only ❑Provides 13 FTE Position(s) ❑Existing ®New ❑Overtime ❑Requires Funding After Grant Explanation: Please see below ❑Match Required NA ❑In-Kind and ❑Cash ❑New Program (City not performing function now) GRANT DETAILS: The state changes the process for distributing funds from a completive grant to a formula grant.Cities were asked to reapply with a new application.The services previously funded by the Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation grant will continue with the addition of 13 FTES to increase services. Salt Lake City is requesting. 1. One HEART Business and Community Liaison for Downtown and Central 9 district 2. Twelve Police Officers a. The Department will recruit and train 12 new officers. b. The budget also includes equipment and 12 vehicles. c. When the new officers are placed on patrol,the Department will transfer 10 officers and two existing sergeants to the specialized units to address the specific law enforcement needs surrounding the Homeless Resource Centers. The City is subawarding$265,577 to VOA to continue services previously funded by the grant. Funding Housing Stability $173,358.48 SLCPD $2,310,647.88 VOA $265,577.00 TOTAL $2,749,583.36(the discrepancy reflects actual costs) Item FZ PUBIC HEARING MOTION SHEET fl r j�fy CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAIZE CITY -, www.fundingourfutureslc.com TO: City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Policy and Budget Analyst DATE: August 9, 2022 RE: Resolution: General Obligation Street Reconstruction Bonds,Series 2022 Staff Note: These voter-approved bonds for reconstructing streets were part of the City's 2ol8 Funding Our Future initiative. This would be the last issuance of the$87 million bond total. MOTION i —ADOPT I move that the Council adopt the resolution authorizing up to$23.6 million of the City's General Obligation Bonds and providing for related matters. MOTION 2 — NOT.ADOPT I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 304 SLCCOUNCIL.COM P.O.FOX 145476,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114-5476 TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 i ERIN MENDENHALL MARY BETH THOMPSON Mayor Chief Financial Officer rps CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: 07120/2022 Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 07/20/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: July 20, 2022 Daniel Dugan, Chair %�em�ae U FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer Sow SUBJECT: General Obligation Bonds (Street Reconstruction), Series 2022 STAFF CONTACT: Marina Scott, City Treasurer 801-535-6565 DOCUMENTTYPE: Resolution • RECOMMENDATION: That the City Council adopt a Bond Resolution on August 9, 2022 approving the issuance and sale of up to $23,600,000 principal amount of Salt Lake City, Utah, General Obligation Bond (Street Reconstruction) and give authority to certain officers to approve the final terms and provisions of and confirm the sale of the Bonds within certain parameters set forth in the attached Bond Resolution. BUDGET IMPACT: None. Tax collections resulting from the issuance of voter-authorized general obligation bonds for the Street Reconstruction Project will be sufficient to cover debt service costs for the period in which the bonds are outstanding. BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The bonds are the fourth and final block of bonds to be issued from the November 6, 2018 voted authorization. Exhibit 1, prepared by Engineering and attached to the transmittal, details street projects selected for this final bond issuance. The current plan calls for the Bonds to be sold on September 14, 2022. The Designated Officers defined in the attached Bond Resolution are authorized to approve the DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 245 SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114 TEL 801-535-6403 Salt Lake City General Obligation Bonds,Series 2022 Resolution Transmittal to City Council interest rate(s) and other terms and provisions relating to the Bonds by executing the Certificate of Determination, which is also attached. An estimated debt service, a draft copy of the Bond Resolution and most of its attachments are included for your review. Please keep in mind that these are preliminary drafts and are subject to change. PUBLIC PROCESS: N/A EXHIBITS: 1. Bond Projects 2. Agenda and Motion Language 3. Estimated debt service 4. Bond Resolution and its attachments July 20,2022 Page 2 of 2 TO: Marina Scott, City Treasurer FROM: Engineering RE: Fourth Road Bond Issuance Projects with Scopes of Work DATE: June 28, 2022 Salt Lake City Streets Bored 4th Road Issuance Projects Construction Year Street From To Cost 1300 East 2100 S City Limit $3,000,000 2024 Virginia Street South Temple St 11th Ave $1,300,000 West Temple South Temple St 200 South $2,000,000 Local Streets $3,000,000 1700 East(900 S) 2100 South 2700 South $1,500,000 2025 2100 S 700 East 1300 East $8,000,000 Local Streets $2,000,000 1100 East/ Highland Dr Augment 2023 $$ $2,500,000 Issuance Total $23,300,000 Roadway reconstruction projects involve the removal of the existing failed roadway section followed by full-depth replacement with a new roadway structural system using new and sometimes recycled materials. Some road sections will be a partial depth reconstruction. The Salt Lake City's bond reconstruction street projects are programmed, for the most part, to fit within current existing rights-of-way and follow existing alignments. Reconstruction projects address street defects, including roadway base materials, asphalt or concrete pavement, curb and gutter, drive approaches, sidewalks, accessibility ramps, and drainage improvements. In addition, complete streets elements such as pedestrian or bicycle facilities are added or enhanced per ordinance and master plans. Also, very important to reconstruction efforts is coordination with utility providers to ensure the new pavement surface remains intact for as long as possible. Additional project information is available in the following pages, including lists of the local streets. Project Name: 1300 East (2100 South to City Limit) Page 2 Council District: District 7 Community Council(s): Sugarhouse Street Type: Arterial Project Length: 1.80 miles Scope: Design and reconstruction of an arterial street. Corridor pavement will be upgraded to accommodate complete street elements including bus transit route facilities, cycle track/bike lanes and improved and consistent sidewalks. All useable sidewalks, ramps, curb and gutter will be brought up to current standards and/or replaced as needed. New street surface, utility replacement as identified by Public Utilities, striping and signage will be incorporated. Cost Estimate: $3,000,000 Schedule: Design Summer 2022— November 2023, Construction Documents and Bidding November 2023- Jan 2024, Construction March —October 2024 and most likely extending into the 2025 construction season. Project Name: Virginia Street (South Temple to 11 t" Avenue) Council District: District 3 Community Council(s): Greater Avenues Street Type: Local Project Length: 0.61 miles Scope: Design and reconstruction of a local street. All useable sidewalks, ramps, curb and gutter will be brought up to current standards and/or replaced as needed. New street surface, complete street elements, utility replacement as identified by Public Utilities, striping and signage will be incorporated. Cost Estimate: $1,300,000 Schedule: Design Spring 2023 — November 2023, Construction Documents and Bidding November 2023- Jan 2024, Construction March —October 2024. Page 3 Project Name: West Temple (South Temple to 200 South) Council District: District 4 Community Council(s): Downtown Street Type: Arterial/Collector Project Length: 0.30 miles Scope: Design and reconstruction of an arterial street. Corridor pavement will be upgraded to accommodate complete street elements including bus transit route facilities, cycle track and improved and consistent sidewalks. All useable sidewalks, ramps, curb and gutter will be brought up to current standards and/or replaced as needed. New street surface, utility replacement as identified by Public Utilities, striping and signage will be incorporated. If other funds are available, reconstruction of West Temple could extend to 400 South. Cost Estimate: $2,000,000 Schedule: Design Spring 2023 — November 2023, Construction Documents and Bidding November 2023- Jan 2024, Construction March —October 2024. Project Name: Local Streets 2024 Local Street Reconstruction Candidates Council Total for Year Street From To District Cost Year 18TH AVE LITTLE VALLEY RD TERRACE HILLS DR 3 $156,924 BONNEVIEW DR 1500 E MICHIGAN AVE 6 $305,250 PARLEYS CANYON 7 COUNTRY CLUB CIR BLVD TERMINUS $133,833 DE SOTO ST GIRARD AV N TERMINUS END 3 $317,145 DEVONSHIRE DR SUNSET OAKS DR LANCASTER DR 6 $623,231 KENSINGTON AVE WASATCH DR INDIAN HILLS CIR 6 $274,482 $3,194,638 2024 KRISTIANNA CIR VIRGINIA ST E COLD AC END 6 $292,344 OQUIRRH DR OAK HILLS WY ST MARYS WY 6 $581,727 PERRY AVE TRAFFIC -Y- SIGSBEE TRAF CIR 3 $116,446 PERRY AVE VIRGINIA ST LAUREL ST 3 $144,856 PERRYS HOLLOW NEW BONNEVILLE 3 RD TOMAHAWK DR PL (PVT) $75,171 SIGSBEE AVE SIGSBEE TRAF CIR SIGSBEE TRAF CIR 3 $112,533 WEST CAPITOL ST ZANE AV GIRARD AV 3 $60,695 Page 4 Community Council(s): Greater Avenues, Yalecrest, Wasatch Hollow, Bonneville Hills, Sugarhouse Street Type: Local Project Length: Varies Scope: Design and reconstruction of local or residential street. All useable sidewalks, ramps, curb and gutter will be brought up to current standards and/or replaced as needed. New street surface, utility replacement as identified by Public Utilities, striping and signage will be incorporated. Cost Estimate: $3,000,000 (Class C funds may be used to make up the potential difference between the local street cost estimates and the allocated budget of $3,000,000). Schedule: Design Summer 2023 — November 2023, Construction Documents and Bidding November 2023- Jan 2024, Construction March —October 2024. Project Name: 1700 East (2100 South to 2700 South) Council District: District 7 Community Council(s): Sugarhouse Street Type: Arterial/Collector Project Length: 0.69 miles Scope: Design and reconstruction of an arterial street. Corridor pavement will be upgraded to accommodate complete street elements including bus transit route facilities, cycle track/bike lanes and improved and consistent sidewalks. All useable sidewalks, ramps, curb and gutter will be brought up to current standards and/or replaced as needed. New street surface, utility replacement as identified by Public Utilities, striping and signage will be incorporated. 1700 East was proposed to be reconstructed as part of the first bond issuance, but due to County funds being available for the 900 South project and with the RDA working on a segment of 900 South, staff switched the two road projects. 900 South was moved up in schedule and is currently under construction and 1700 East was moved back to this 4th bond issuance. Cost Estimate: $1,500,000 Schedule: Design Spring 2024— November 2024, Construction Documents and Bidding November 2024- Jan 2025, Construction March —September 2025. Page 5 Project Name: 2100 South (700 east to 1300 East) Council District: District 7 Community Council(s): Sugarhouse Street Type: Arterial/Collector Project Length: 0.90 miles Scope: Design and reconstruction of an arterial street. Corridor pavement will be upgraded to accommodate complete street elements including bus transit route facilities, cycle track/bike lanes and improved and consistent sidewalks. All useable sidewalks, ramps, curb and gutter will be brought up to current standards and/or replaced as needed. New street surface, utility replacement as identified by Public Utilities, striping and signage will be incorporated. Cost Estimate: $8,000,000 Schedule: Design Summer 2022— November 2023, Construction Documents and Bidding November 2023- Jan 2024, Construction March —October 2024 for the first phase and March — September 2025 for the second phase. Project Name: Local Streets 2025 Local Street Reconstruction Candidates Council Total for Year Street From To District Cost Year 600 S 900 W 800 W 2 $746,984 EMILY CIR S TERMINUS END 800 N 1 $48,876 GARNETTE CIR W CULDESAC END GARNETTE ST 1 $65,516 GOODWIN CIR W CULDESAC END GARNETTE ST 1 $54,420 IRVING ST S CULDESAC END 800 N 1 $96,787 2025 NEBULA WAY W TERMINUS END SILVER STAR DR 1 $70,430 $2,260,130 PARK ST BROWNING AV SHERMAN AV 5 $222,546 PARAMOUNT AVE 300 W TERMINUS 5 $262,167 PRINCETON AVE 1100 W DOUGLAS ST 5 $389,756 REDONDO AVE 600 E 700 E 5 $210,658 VAN NESS PL 400 E E TERMINUS END 5 $91,990 Community Council(s): Greater Avenues, Yalecrest, Wasatch Hollow, Bonneville Hills, Sugarhouse Street Type: Local Project Length: Varies Page 6 Scope: Design and reconstruction of local or residential street. All useable sidewalks, ramps, curb and gutter will be brought up to current standards and/or replaced as needed. New street surface, utility replacement as identified by Public Utilities, striping and signage will be incorporated. Cost Estimate: $2,000,000 (Class C funds may be used to make up the potential difference between the local street cost estimates and the allocated budget of $2,000,000). Schedule: Design Spring 2024— November 2024, Construction Documents and Bidding November 2024- Jan 2025, Construction March —September 2025. Project Name: Continuation of 1100 East/Highland Drive (900 South to Warnock Avenue) Council District: Districts 5 and 7 Community Council(s): East Central, East Liberty Park, Sugarhouse Street Type: Arterial/Collector Project Length: 2.30 miles Scope: Design and reconstruction of an arterial street. Corridor pavement will be upgraded to accommodate complete street elements including bus transit route facilities, cycle track and improved and consistent sidewalks. All useable sidewalks, ramps, curb and gutter will be brought up to current standards and/or replaced as needed. New street surface, utility replacement as identified by Public Utilities, striping and signage will be incorporated. The original estimate for this road segment was $6,800,000. This project is included in the 3rd bond issuance. With the project nearing 70% design completion, the project consultants have updated the cost estimate, which has increased significantly. Other funding sources will be used to cover the potential costs of this project. Cost Estimate: $2500,000 addition Schedule: Design Summer 2022— November 2022, Construction Documents and Bidding November 2022- Jan 2023, Construction March —October 2023. Construction may extend into the 2024 construction season. Salt Lake City Council Agenda Item for August 9, 2022 UNFINISHED BUSINESS: Suggested Agenda Language relating to the bond resolution for the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2022, to be considered by the City Council at its meeting on August 9, 2022: Resolution: Authorizing the Issuance and the Sale of General Obligation Bonds Consideration of a resolution authorizing up to$23,600,000 General Obligation Bonds; delegating authority to certain officials and officers of the City; and providing for related matters. Staff Recommendation: Adopt Suggested Motion Language is as follows: I move that the City Council adopt the resolution authorizing up to $23,600,000 of the City's General Obligation Bonds. 2022 Go Agenda Language vl 8711202/RDB/ Preliminary;subject to change. SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH $21,470,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 2022 (October 5, 2022) Sources & Uses Dated 10/05/2022 1 Delivered 10/05/2022 Sources Of Funds Par Amount of Bonds $21,470,000.00 Reoffering Premium 1,991,094.55 Total Sources $23,461,094.55 Uses Of Funds Deposit to Project Construction Fund 23,300,000.00 Costs of Issuance 105,134.50 Total Underwriter's Discount (0.250%) 53,675.00 Contingency 2,285.05 Total Uses $23,461,094.55 SLC 2022 NM 4th Tranche 6 1 SINGLE PURPOSE 1 6/27/2022 1 2*06 PM Stifel Prepared by Stifel,Nicolaus&Company,Inc.(EJR) Page 1 Preliminary;subject to change. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH $21,470,000 GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 2022 (October 5,2022 ) Debt Service Schedule Date Principal Coupon Interest Total P+I Fiscal Total 10/05/2022 - - 12/15/2022 197,934.72 197,934.72 06/15/2023 2,365,000.00 5.000% 508,975.00 2,873,975.00 3,071,909.72 12/15/2023 - 449,850.00 449,850.00 06/15/2024 630,000.00 5.000% 449,850.00 1,079,850.00 1,529,700.00 12/15/2024 - 434,100.00 434,100.00 06/15/2025 660,000.00 5.000% 434,100.00 1,094,100.00 1,528,200.00 12/15/2025 - 417,600.00 417,600.00 06/15/2026 690,000.00 5.000% 417,600.00 1,107,600.00 1,525,200.00 12/15/2026 - 400,350.00 400,350.00 06/15/2027 725,000.00 5.000% 400,350.00 1,125,350.00 1,525,700.00 12/15/2027 - 382,225.00 382,225.00 06/15/2028 765,000.00 5.000% 382,225.00 1,147,225.00 1,529,450.00 12/15/2028 - 363,100.00 363,100.00 06/15/2029 800,000.00 5.000% 363,100.00 1,163,100.00 1,526,200.00 12/15/2029 - 343,100.00 343,100.00 06/15/2030 840,000.00 5.000% 343,100.00 1,183,100.00 1,526,200.00 12/15/2030 - 322,100.00 322,100.00 06/15/2031 885,000.00 5.000% 322,100.00 1,207,100.00 1,529,200.00 12/15/2031 - 299,975.00 299,975.00 06/15/2032 925,000.00 5.000% 299,975.00 1,224,975.00 1,524,950.00 12/15/2032 - 276,850.00 276,850.00 06/15/2033 975,000.00 5.000% 276,850.00 1,251,850.00 1,528,700.00 12/15/2033 - 252,475.00 252,475.00 06/15/2034 1,025,000.00 5.000% 252,475.00 1,277,475.00 1,529,950.00 12/15/2034 226,850.00 226,850.00 06/15/2035 1,075,000.00 5.000% 226,850.00 1,301,850.00 1,528,700.00 12/15/2035 199,975.00 199,975.00 06/15/2036 1,125,000.00 5.000% 199,975.00 1,324,975.00 1,524,950.00 12/15/2036 171,850.00 171,850.00 06/15/2037 1,185,000.00 5.000% 171,850.00 1,356,850.00 1,528,700.00 12/15/2037 142,225.00 142,225.00 06/15/2038 1,245,000.00 5.000% 142,225.00 1,387,225.00 1,529,450.00 12/15/2038 111,100.00 111,100.00 06/15/2039 1,305,000.00 4.000% 111,100.00 1,416,100.00 1,527,200.00 12/15/2039 85,000.00 85,000.00 06/15/2040 1,360,000.00 4.000% 85,000.00 1,445,000.00 1,530,000.00 12/15/2040 57,800.00 57,800.00 06/15/2041 1,415,000.00 4.000% 57,800.00 1,472,800.00 1,530,600.00 12/15/2041 29,500.00 29,500.00 06/15/2042 1,475,000.00 4.000% 29,500.00 1,504,500.00 1,534,000.00 Total $21,470,000.00 $10,638,959.72 $32,108,959.72 Yield Statistics Bond Year Dollars $233,049.72 Average Life 10.855 Years Average Coupon 4.5651029% Net Interest Cost(NIC) 3.7337698% True Interest Cost(TIC) 3.5300381°/u Bond Yield for Arbitrage Purposes 3.3681890% All Inclusive Cost(AIC) 3.5845607% IRS Form 8038 Net Interest Cost 3.4161987% Weighted Average Maturity 10.790 Years SLC 2022 NM 4th Tranche 6 1 SINGLE PURPOSE 1 6/27/2022 1 2:06 PM Stifel Prepared by Stifel,Nicolaus&Company,Inc.(EJR) Page 2 Draft of 6/2'7/22 SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH Resolution No. of 2022 Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of up to $23,600,000 General Obligation Bonds, Series 2022 Adopted August 9, 2022 Delegating Bond Resolution No._of 2022 v5 8711202/RDB/mo TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION HEADING PAGE ARTICLE DEFINITIONS .................................................................................................2 SoctinnlVl. Definitions..............................................................................................2 Sectonl02. Rules of Construction ............................................................................5 Sectionl03. Authority for Bond Resolution..............................................................5 ADT{CLEll AUTHORIZATION,TERMS AND ISSUANCE OF BONDS.....................................5 Secton20l. Authorization of Bonds, Principal Amount, Designation and Series ....5 Scodon2U2. Purpose---------------------------------h Section203. Issue Date...............................................................................................h Section204. Bond Details; Delegation of Authority----------------'6 Section 2V5. Denominations and Numbers.................................................................7 Sectkon206. Paying Agent and Bond Registrar ------------------.7 Section 207. Redemptionand Redemption Price; Notice of Redemption------8 Scotion2U8. Issuance, Sale and Delivery of Bonds.................................................. U Section209. Execution of Bonds..............................................................................|O Section2|0. Delivery of the Bonds; Application of Proceeds .................................ll Section 2|i Disclosure Agreements------------------------l| Secton2l2. Further Authority---------------------------ll Secton2l3. Establishment of Accounts ----------------------l2 ARTICLE III TRANSFER AND ExCUANGn0F BONDS;BOND REGISTRAR.........................l2 Sectkon30l. Transfer of Bonds ................................................................................ 2 Scotion3U2. Exchange oJ Bonds..............................................................................|3 Section303. Bond Registration Books.....................................................................\3 Section304. List of&3ondovvnery..............................................................................l3 Section 3V5. Duties ofBond Registrar -----------------------l3 ARTICLE IV SYSTEM;LIMITED OBLIGATION 0P ISSUER;LETTER OF REPRESENTATIONS----------------------------..l4 Secton40l. B Limited Obligation of Issuer..............................l4 Sectkon402. Letter of Representations ----------------------.]5 Scotion4U3. Transfers Outside Book-Entry ----------------|5 Section404. Payments to Cede.................................................................................\5 ARTICLE COVENANTS AND UNDERTAKINGS--------------------.]5 Section50l. Covenants of Issuer..............................................................................l5 Section502. Levy of Taxes; Bond Account............................................................. 6 Section 5V3. Arbitrage Covenant and Covenant 1nMaintain ---lh ARTICLE VI FORM O9 BONDS.........................................................................................|8 - / - Delegating Bond Resolution SECTION HEADING PAGE Sectionb0l. Form of Bonds .....................................................................................|8 ABTI[LE \/ l MISCELLANEOUS ........................................................................................25 Secdon70l. Final Official Statement.......................................................................25 Section 702. Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final.....................................25 Section 7V3. Notice of Bonds hobo Issued...............................................................25 Section 704. Ratification...........................................................................................26 Sectkon705. Sevcra6ilitv-----------------------------...26 Scotion7Uh. Conflict ................................................................................................26 Section707. Captions-------------------------------..26 Section700. Effective Date ......................................................................................26 EXHIBIT -- Form ofContinuing Disclosure Undertaking EXHIBIT -- Form of Official Statement, including Official Notice ofBond Sale EXHIBIT -- Form of Certificate of Determination EXHIBIT -- Notice of Bonds iobeIssued EXHIBIT -- Form of Dissemination Agency Agreement -�i- Delegating Bond Resolution RESOLUTION No._OF 2022 A Resolution authorizing the issuance of up to $23,600,000 general obligation bonds of Salt Lake City, Utah; fixing the maximum aggregate principal amount of the Bonds, the maximum number of years over which the Bonds may mature, the maximum interest rate that the Bonds may bear and the maximum discount from par at which the Bonds may be sold;providing for the levy of taxes to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds; authorizing the circulation of an Official Statement; giving authority to certain officers to approve the final terms and provisions of the Bonds within the parameters set forth herein; and providing for related matters. WHEREAS, at the Bond Election, the issuance of$87,000,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds was authorized for the purpose of, among other things, raising money for improving various streets and roads throughout the Issuer and related infrastructure improvements; WHEREAS, the Issuer has previously issued $[55,945,000] of the bonds voted at the Bond Election and the Issuer has determined to authorize the issuance and sale at this time of up to $23,600,000 principal amount of the bonds voted at the Bond Election; WHEREAS, (a) if the Bonds are sold pursuant to a competitive bid a notice inviting electronic bids for the purchase of the Bonds will be advertised by electronic dissemination through the PARITY® electronic bid submission system and (b) if the Bonds are sold pursuant to a negotiated sale or a direct purchase,a formal or informal request for proposals will be distributed; WHEREAS, in the opinion of the Issuer, it is in the best interests of the Issuer that (a) the Designated Officers be authorized to (i) determine the method of sale for the Bonds, which may be by competitive sale, negotiated underwriting or direct purchase; (ii) accept or reject the bids or proposals received for the Bonds and determine the best bid or proposal received that conforms to the parameters, deadlines and procedures set forth herein and in the applicable sale document prepared in connection with the solicitation of bids or proposals for the Bonds; and (iii) approve the final principal amount, maturity amounts, interest rates, dates of maturity and other terms and provisions relating to the Bonds and to execute the Certificate of Determination containing such terms and provisions and (b) if necessary, the Mayor be authorized to execute the Official Statement with respect to the Bonds; WHEREAS,based upon current municipal bond market conditions,the Issuer believes it will receive more bids for the purchase of the Bonds and the most favorable cost of capital and is therefore in the best interests of the Issuer if the Issuer does not restrict the amount of premium bidders may pay for the Bonds; Delegating Bond Resolution WHEREAS, Section 11-14-316 of the Utah Code provides for the publication of a Notice of Bonds to be Issued, and the Issuer desires to cause the publication of such a notice at this time with respect to the Bonds; and WHEREAS, the Issuer deems it necessary and advisable that it take such action as may be required under applicable provisions of federal tax law to authorize and issue the Bonds to finance the cost of the project to be financed with the proceeds of the Bonds; Now, THEREFORE, Be It Resolved by the City Council of Salt Lake City,Utah, as follows: ARTICLE I DEFINITIONS Section 101. Definitions. As used in this Bond Resolution (including the preambles hereto), unless the context shall otherwise require, the following terms shall have the following meanings: "Act" means, collectively, the Local Government Bonding Act, Chapter 14 of Title 11 of the Utah Code and the Registered Public Obligations Act, Chapter 7 of Title 15 of the Utah Code. "Bond Account"means the Bond Account established in Section 213 hereof. "Bond Counsel"means Chapman and Cutler LLP or another attorney or a firm of attorneys of nationally recognized standing in matters pertaining to the tax-exempt status of interest on obligations issued by states and their political subdivisions, duly admitted to the practice of law before the highest court of any state of the United States. "Bond Election"means the special bond election duly and lawfully called and held in the Issuer on November 6, 2018, at which the issuance and sale by the Issuer of$87,000,000 principal amount of general obligation bonds was authorized for the purpose of, among other things,raising money for paying all or a portion of the costs of improving various streets and roads throughout the Issuer and related infrastructure improvements, the results of which election were declared by the City Council, sitting as a Board of Canvassers, on November 20, 2018. "Bond Registrar" means each Person appointed by the Issuer as bond registrar and agent for the transfer, exchange and authentication of the Bonds. Pursuant to Section 206 hereof, the initial Bond Registrar is U.S. Bank Trust Company,National Association of Salt Lake City,Utah. "Bond Resolution" means this Resolution of the Issuer adopted on August 9, 2022, authorizing the issuance and sale of the Bonds. "Bondowner" or "owner" means the registered owner of any Bond as shown in the registration books of the Issuer kept by the Bond Registrar for such purpose. - 2 - Delegating Bond Resolution "Bonds" means the Issuer's General Obligation Bonds, Series 2022, authorized by the Bond Resolution. "Cede"means Cede& Co.,the nominee of DTC,and any successor nominee of DTC with respect to the Bonds pursuant to Section 401 hereof. "Certificate of Determination" means the Certificate of Determination, a form of which is attached hereto as Exhibit 3, of the Designated Officers delivered pursuant to Article II of this Bond Resolution, setting forth certain terms and provisions of the Bonds. "City Council"means the City Council of the City, as the governing body of the Issuer. "City Recorder"means the City Recorder or any Deputy City Recorder of the Issuer. "City Treasurer" means the City Treasurer of the Issuer or, in the absence or disability of the City Treasurer, the Deputy City Treasurer or such other official as shall be duly authorized to act in the City Treasurer's stead. "Closing Date"means the date of the initial issuance of the Bonds. "Code"means the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended. "Continuing Disclosure Undertaking"means the Continuing Disclosure Agreement of the Issuer, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit 1, dated the Closing Date, for the purpose of providing continuing disclosure information under Rule 15c2-12 adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as may be amended from time to time. "Depository Account" means the Depository Account established in Section 213 hereof. "Designated Officers" means (a) the (i) Mayor of the Issuer; or (ii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Mayor,the Mayor's Chief of Staff; or(iii)in the event of the absence or incapacity of both the Mayor and the Mayor's Chief of Staff, the City Treasurer; or (iv) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Mayor,the Mayor's Chief of Staff and the City Treasurer, the Deputy Treasurer of the Issuer and (b) (i) the Chair of the City Council; or(ii) in the event of the absence or incapacity of the Chair of the City Council, the Vice Chair of the City Council; or (iii)in the event of the absence or incapacity of both the Chair and Vice Chair of the City Council, any other member of the City Council. "Dissemination Agency Agreement" means the Dissemination Agency Agreement, dated the Closing Date, between the Issuer and the Dissemination Agent, in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit 5. "Dissemination Agent"means each Person appointed by the Issuer as dissemination agent with respect to the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking and the Dissemination Agency Agreement. The initial Dissemination Agent is U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association. - 3 - Delegating Bond Resolution "DTC" means The Depository Trust Company,New York, New York, and its successors and assigns. "Exchange Bond"means any Exchange Bond as defined in Section 209 hereof. "Fitch"means Fitch Ratings,Inc.,its successors and their assigns, and,if such corporation shall be dissolved or liquidated or shall no longer perform the functions of a securities rating agency,"Fitch"shall be deemed to refer to any other nationally recognized securities rating agency designated by the Issuer to the Paying Agent. "Issuer"means Salt Lake City Utah. "Letter of Representations" means the Blanket Issuer Letter of Representations from the Issuer to DTC, dated October 16, 2019. "Mayor" means the Mayor of the City, or in the absence or disability of the Mayor, such other official as shall be duly authorized to act in the Mayor's stead. `Moody's" means Moody's Investors Service, Inc., its successors and their assigns, and, if such corporation shall be dissolved or liquidated or shall no longer perform the functions of a securities rating agency, "Moody's" shall be deemed to refer to any other nationally recognized securities rating agency designated by the Issuer to the Paying Agent. "Official Statement" means the Official Statement with respect to the Bonds, in substantially the form of the Preliminary Official Statement attached hereto as Exhibit 2. "Participants"means those broker dealers,banks and other financial institutions from time to time for which DTC holds Bonds as securities depository. "Paying Agent" means each Person appointed by the Issuer as paying agent with respect to the Bonds. Pursuant to Section 206 hereof, the initial Paying Agent is U.S. Bank Trust Company,National Association of Salt Lake City, Utah. "Person" means natural persons, firms, partnerships, associations, corporations, trusts, public bodies and other entities. "Project Account" means the Project Account established in Section 213 hereof. "Purchaser" means the initial purchaser or purchasers of the Bonds from the Issuer, including, if applicable, the Best Bidder(defined below). "Rating Agencies" means Moody's, if the Bonds are then rated by Moody's, Fitch, if the Bonds are then rated by Fitch, and S&P, if the Bonds are then rated by S&P. -4 - Delegating Bond Resolution "Record Date" means the day that is fifteen (15) days preceding each interest payment date, or if such day is not a business day for the Bond Registrar, the next preceding day that is a business day for the Bond Registrar. "Regulations" means United States Treasury Regulations dealing with the tax-exempt bond provisions of the Code. "S&P" means S&P's Global Ratings, its successors and their assigns, and, if such corporation shall be dissolved or liquidated or shall no longer perform the functions of a securities rating agency, "S&P" shall be deemed to refer to any other nationally recognized securities rating agency designated by the Issuer to the Paying Agent. "Tax Certificate" means any agreement or certificate of the Issuer that the Issuer may execute in order to establish and maintain the excludability of interest on the Bonds from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes. "United States" means the government of the United States of America. "Utah Code"means Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended. Section 102. Rules of Construction. Unless the context otherwise requires: (a) references to Articles and Sections are to the Articles and Sections of this Bond Resolution; (b) the singular form of any word, including the terms defined in Section 101, includes the plural, and vice versa, and a word of any gender includes all genders; and (c) the terms "hereby," "hereof, " "hereto, " "herein, " "hereunder" and any similar terms as used in this Bond Resolution refer to this Bond Resolution. Section 103. Authority for Bond Resolution. This Bond Resolution is adopted pursuant to the provisions of the Act. ARTICLE II AUTHORIZATION,TERMS AND ISSUANCE OF BONDS Section 201. Authorization of Bonds, Principal Amount, Designation and Series. In accordance with and subject to the terms, conditions and limitations established by the Act and in the Bond Resolution, a series of general obligation bonds of the Issuer is hereby authorized to be issued in the aggregate principal amount of $23,600,000, which shall be designated "General Obligation Bonds, Series 2022". If the Designated Officers determine pursuant to Sections 204(b)(i) and 209 hereof that the principal amount to be issued shall be less than $23,600,000,then the principal of such series of bonds shall be limited to the amount so determined by the Designated Officers. - 5 - Delegating Bond Resolution Section 202. Purpose. Up to $23,600,000 aggregate principal amount of the Bonds are hereby authorized to be issued under authority of the Act for the purpose of raising money for paying all or a portion of the costs to improve various streets and roads throughout Salt Lake City and related infrastructure improvements, as authorized at the Bond Election, and paying certain costs related to the issuance and sale of the Bonds. Section 203. Issue Date. The Bonds shall be dated as of the Closing Date. Section 204. Bond Details; Delegation of Authority. (a) The Bonds shall mature on June 15 of the years and in the principal amounts, and shall bear interest (calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days consisting of twelve 30-day months) from the Closing Date, payable semiannually on June 15 and December 15 of each year at the rates per annum as provided in the Certificate of Determination. (b) There is hereby delegated to the Designated Officers, subject to the limitations contained in the Bond Resolution,the power to determine and effectuate the following with respect to the Bonds and the Designated Officers are hereby authorized to make such determinations and effectuations: (i) the principal amount of the Bonds necessary to accomplish the purposes of the Bonds set forth in Section 202 herein and the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds to be executed and delivered pursuant to Section 209 herein; provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall not exceed Twenty-three million six hundred thousand dollars ($23,600,000); (ii) the maturity date or dates and principal amount of each maturity of the Bonds to be issued; provided, however, that the final maturity of all Bonds shall not be more than twenty-one (21) years after the issuance of the Bonds; (iii) the initial interest payment date and the interest rate or rates of the Bonds, provided, however, that the interest rate or rates to be borne by any Bond shall not exceed six percent (6.00%)per annum; (iv) the sale of the Bonds to the Purchaser and the purchase price to be paid by the Purchaser for the Bonds; provided, however, that the discount from par of the Bonds shall not exceed two percent (2.00%) (expressed as a percentage of the principal amount); (v) the Bonds, if any, to be retired from mandatory sinking fund redemption payments and the dates and the amounts thereof, (vi) the optional redemption date of the Bonds; provided, however, the first optional redemption date shall not be later than ten and a half years from the Closing Date; (vii) the use and deposit of the proceeds of the Bonds; - 6 - Delegating Bond Resolution (viii) the method of sale for the Bonds, which sale may be by competitive sale, negotiated underwriting or direct purchase; (ix) if different than those set forth in Section 205, the denominations for the Bonds and the related provisions regarding a partial redemption; and (x) any other provisions deemed advisable by the Designated Officers not materially in conflict with the provisions of the Bond Resolution. Immediately following (a) the date and time specified in an Official Notice of Bond Sale (attached to the form of the Official Statement attached hereto as Exhibit 2) for the receipt of bids for the purchase of the Bonds or(b) the pricing of the Bonds, the Designated Officers shall obtain such information as they deem necessary to make such determinations as provided above and, in the case the Bonds are sold pursuant to competitive bids, to determine the bid of the responsible bidder that results in the lowest effective interest rate to the Issuer(the "Best Bidder"). Thereupon, the Designated Officers shall make such determinations as provided above, shall (i) award the bid to the Best Bidder or(ii) execute a bond purchase contract, a continuing covenant agreement,term sheet or similar document selling the Bonds or agreeing to sell the Bonds to the Purchaser thereof, as applicable, and shall execute the Certificate of Determination containing such terms and provisions of the Bonds,which execution shall be conclusive evidence of the awarding of such bid to the Best Bidder or selling such Bonds to the Purchaser thereof and the action or determination of the Designated Officers as to the matters stated therein. The provisions of the Certificate of Determination shall be deemed to be incorporated herein. In the case that the Bonds are sold pursuant to competitive bid, if the Designated Officers determine that it is in the best interest of the Issuer, the Designated Officers may (a) waive any irregularity or informality in any bid or in the electronic bidding process; and (b)reject any and all bids for the Bonds. (c) Each Bond shall bear interest from the interest payment date next preceding the date of registration and authentication thereof unless (i) it is registered and authenticated as of an interest payment date, in which event it shall bear interest from the date thereof, or (ii) it is registered and authenticated prior to the first interest payment date, in which event it shall bear interest from its date, or(iii) as shown by the records of the Bond Registrar, interest on the Bonds shall be in default, in which event it shall bear interest from the date to which interest has been paid in full. The Bond Registrar shall insert the date of registration and authentication of each Bond in the place provided for such purpose in the form of Bond Registrar's certificate of authentication on each Bond. The Bonds shall bear interest on overdue principal at the respective rates provided in the Certificate of Determination. Section 205. Denominations and Numbers. Except as otherwise set forth in the Certificate of Determination, the Bonds shall be issued as fully-registered bonds, without coupons, in the denomination of$5,000 or any whole multiple thereof,not exceeding the amount of each maturity. The Bonds shall be numbered with the letter prefix "R-" and from one (1) consecutively upwards in order of issuance. Section 206. Paying Agent and Bond Registrar. U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association of Salt Lake City, Utah, is hereby appointed the initial Paying Agent and Bond - 7 - Delegating Bond Resolution Registrar for the Bonds. The Issuer may remove any Paying Agent and any Bond Registrar, and any successor thereto, and appoint a successor or successors thereto. The Mayor and the City Recorder are hereby authorized and directed to enter into an agreement or agreements with each Paying Agent(a "Paying Agent Agreement"), which may establish certain duties and obligations of the Paying Agent and the Issuer, including, without limitation those duties and obligations set forth in Section 502 hereof. Each Paying Agent and Bond Registrar shall signify its acceptance of the duties and obligations imposed upon it by the Bond Resolution by executing and delivering to the Issuer a written acceptance thereof, which written acceptance may be contained in a Paying Agent Agreement. The principal of, and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds shall be payable in any coin or currency of the United States of America that, at the respective dates of payment thereof, is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts. Principal of and premium, if any, on the Bonds shall be payable when due to the owner of each Bond upon presentation and surrender thereof at the principal corporate trust office of the Paying Agent. Payment of interest on each Bond shall be made to the Person that, as of the Record Date, is the owner of the Bond and shall be made by check or draft mailed to the Person that, as of the Record Date,is the owner of the Bond, at the address of such owner as it appears on the registration books of the Issuer kept by the Bond Registrar, or at such other address as is furnished to the Bond Registrar in writing by such owner on or prior to the Record Date. Section 207. Redemption and Redemption Price; Notice of Redemption. (a) The Bonds shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity, at the election of the Issuer, on the date specified in the Certificate of Determination (the "First Redemption Date"), and on any date thereafter, in whole or in part,from such maturities or parts thereof as shall be selected by the Issuer,upon notice given as provided below,at a redemption price equal to 100%of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed,plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption. Bonds maturing on or prior to the First Redemption Date are not subject to optional redemption. (b) The Bonds may be subject to mandatory redemption by operation of sinking fund installments as provided in the Certificate of Determination. If the Bonds are subject to mandatory sinking fund redemption and less than all of the Bonds then outstanding are redeemed in a manner other than pursuant to a mandatory sinking fund redemption, the principal amount so redeemed shall be credited at 100% of the principal amount thereof by the Bond Registrar against the obligation of the Issuer on such mandatory sinking fund redemption dates for the Bonds in such order as directed by the Issuer. (c) If less than all of the Bonds of any maturity are to be redeemed, the particular Bonds or portion of Bonds of such maturity to be redeemed shall be selected at random by the Bond Registrar in such manner as the Bond Registrar in its discretion may deem fair and appropriate. Except as otherwise set forth in the Certificate of Determination, the portion of any registered Bond of a denomination of more than $5,000 to be redeemed will be in the principal amount of $5,000 or a whole multiple thereof, and in selecting portions of such Bonds for redemption, the Bond Registrar will treat each such Bond as representing that number of Bonds of $5,000 denomination that is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such Bond by $5,000. (d) Notice of redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar by registered or certified mail, not less than thirty (30) nor more than forty-five (45) days prior to the redemption date, to - 8 - Delegating Bond Resolution the owner of each Bond that is subject to redemption, at the address of such owner as it appears in the registration books of the Issuer kept by the Bond Registrar, or at such other address as is furnished to the Bond Registrar in writing by such owner. Each notice of redemption shall state the principal amount, the redemption date, the place of redemption, the redemption price and, if less than all of the Bonds are to be redeemed, the distinctive numbers of the Bonds or portions of Bonds to be redeemed, and shall also state that the interest on the Bonds in such notice designated for redemption shall cease to accrue from and after such redemption date and that on the redemption date there will become due and payable on each of the Bonds to be redeemed the principal thereof and interest accrued thereon to the redemption date. Each notice of optional redemption may further state that such redemption shall be conditional upon the receipt by the Paying Agent, on or prior to the date fixed for such redemption, of moneys sufficient to pay the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on such Bonds to be redeemed and that if such moneys shall not have been so received said notice shall be of no force and effect and the Issuer shall not be required to redeem such Bonds. In the event that such notice of redemption contains such a condition and such moneys are not so received, the redemption shall not be made and the Bond Registrar shall within a reasonable time thereafter give notice, in the manner in which the notice of redemption was given, that such moneys were not so received. Any notice mailed as provided in this Section shall be conclusively presumed to have been duly given, whether or not the owner receives such notice. Failure to give such notice or any defect therein with respect to any Bond shall not affect the validity of the proceedings for redemption with respect to any other Bond. (e) In addition to the foregoing notice under subsection (c) above, further notice of such redemption shall be given by the Bond Registrar as set out below, but no defect in such further notice nor any failure to give all or any portion of such further notice shall in any manner affect the validity of a call for redemption if notice thereof is given as prescribed above. (i) Each further notice of redemption given hereunder shall contain the information required above for an official notice of redemption plus (A) the CUSIP numbers of all Bonds being redeemed; (B) the date of issue of the Bonds as originally issued; (C) the rate of interest borne by each Bond being redeemed; (D) the maturity date of each Bond being redeemed; and(E) any other descriptive information needed to identify accurately the Bonds being redeemed. (ii) Each further notice of redemption shall be sent at least thirty-five (35) days before the redemption date to DTC in accordance with the operating procedures then in effect for DTC, and to all other registered securities depositories then in the business of holding substantial amounts of obligations of types comprising the Bonds designated to the Bond Registrar by the Issuer,to the Rating Agencies and to any other nationally recognized information services as designated by the Issuer to the Bond Registrar. (f) If notice of redemption shall have been given as described above and the condition described in Section 207(d) hereof, if any, shall have been met, the Bonds or portions thereof specified in said notice shall become due and payable at the applicable redemption price on the redemption date therein designated, and if, on the redemption date, moneys for the payment of the redemption price of all the bonds to be redeemed, together with interest to the redemption date, - 9 - Delegating Bond Resolution shall be available for such payment on said date, then from and after the redemption date interest on such bonds shall cease to accrue and become payable. (g) Upon the payment of the redemption price of Bonds being redeemed, each check or other transfer of funds issued for such purpose shall bear the CUSIP number or numbers identifying, by issue and maturity, the Bonds being redeemed with the proceeds of such check or other transfer. (h) The Bond Registrar shall also give any notice of the "defeasance" or redemption of the Bonds that may be required by the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking provided that the Issuer shall provide to the Bond Registrar any documents or other information that the Bond Registrar requests to provide such notice. Section 208. Issuance, Sale and Delivery of Bonds. Under authority of the Act,the Bonds shall be issued by the Issuer for the purposes set forth in Section 202 hereof. The Bonds shall be delivered to the Purchaser and the proceeds of sale thereof applied as provided in Section 210 hereof. Section 209. Execution of Bonds. The Bonds shall be executed on behalf of the Issuer by the Mayor and attested and countersigned by the City Recorder (the signatures of the Mayor and City Recorder being either manual or by facsimile,including electronic signatures)and the official seal of the Issuer or a facsimile thereof shall be impressed or printed thereon in an aggregate principal amount necessary to accomplish the purpose of the Bonds specified in Section 202 herein;provided that the aggregate principal amount of the Bonds shall not exceed $23,600,000. The use of such manual or facsimile signatures, including electronic signatures, of the Mayor and the City Recorder and such facsimile or impression of the official seal of the Issuer on the Bonds are hereby authorized, approved and adopted by the Issuer as the authorized and authentic execution, attestation, countersignature and sealing of the Bonds by said officials on behalf of the Issuer. The Bonds shall then be delivered to the Bond Registrar for manual authentication by it. Only such of the Bonds as shall bear thereon a certificate of authentication, manually executed by the Bond Registrar, shall be valid or obligatory for any purpose or entitled to the benefits of the Bond Resolution, and such certificate of the Bond Registrar shall be conclusive evidence that the Bonds so authenticated have been duly authenticated and delivered under, and are entitled to the benefits of,this Bond Resolution and that the owner thereof is entitled to the benefits of this Bond Resolution. The certificate of authentication of the Bond Registrar on any Bond shall be deemed to have been executed by it if (i) such Bond is signed by an authorized officer of the Bond Registrar, but it shall not be necessary that the same officer sign the certificate of authentication on all of the Bonds issued hereunder or that all of the Bonds hereunder be authenticated by the same Bond Registrar, and (ii) the date of registration and authentication of the Bond is inserted in the place provided therefor on the certificate of authentication. The Mayor and the City Recorder are authorized to execute, countersign, attest and seal from time to time, in the manner described above, Bonds (the "Exchange Bonds") to be issued and delivered for the purpose of effecting transfers and exchanges of Bonds pursuant to Article III hereof. At the time of the execution,countersigning,attestation and sealing of the Exchange Bonds by the Issuer, the payee, principal amount, maturity and interest rate may be in blank. Upon any - 10 - Delegating Bond Resolution transfer or exchange of Bonds pursuant to Article III hereof, the Bond Registrar shall cause to be inserted in appropriate Exchange Bonds the appropriate payee, principal amount, maturity and interest rate. The Bond Registrar is hereby authorized and directed to hold the Exchange Bonds and to complete,authenticate and deliver the Exchange Bonds for the purpose of effecting transfers and exchanges of Bonds;provided that any Exchange Bonds authenticated and delivered by the Bond Registrar shall bear the same series,maturity and interest rate as Bonds delivered to the Bond Registrar for exchange or transfer and shall bear the name of such payee as the Bondowner requesting an exchange or transfer shall designate; and provided further that upon the delivery of any Exchange Bonds by the Bond Registrar a like principal amount of Bonds submitted for transfer or exchange, and of like series and having like maturity dates and interest rates, shall be canceled. The execution, countersignature, attestation and sealing by the Issuer and delivery to the Bond Registrar of any Exchange Bond shall constitute full and due authorization of such Bond containing such payee, principal amount, maturity and interest rate as the Bond Registrar shall cause to be inserted, and the Bond Registrar shall thereby be authorized to authenticate and deliver such Exchange Bond in accordance with the provisions hereof. In case any officer whose signature or a facsimile of whose signature shall appear on any Bond(including any Exchange Bond) shall cease to be such officer before the issuance or delivery of such Bond, such signature or such facsimile shall nevertheless be valid and sufficient for all purposes, the same as if such officer had remained in office until such issuance or delivery, respectively. Section 210. Delivery of the Bonds;Application of Proceeds. The City Treasurer is hereby authorized and instructed to make delivery of the Bonds to the Purchaser and to receive payment therefor in accordance with the terms of sale and to set the proceeds of sale of the Bonds aside for deposit into the Project Account to be used for the purpose for which the Bonds are issued as set forth in Section 202 hereof. Section 211. Disclosure Agreements. If necessary, the Mayor is hereby authorized, empowered and directed to execute and deliver, and the City Recorder to seal, countersign and attest, the Continuing Disclosure Agreement and the related Dissemination Agency Agreement (collectively, the "Disclosure Agreements") in substantially the same form as now before the Issuer and attached hereto as Exhibits 1 and S, or with such changes therein as the Mayor shall approve,with the execution thereof by the Mayor to constitute conclusive evidence of the approval of such changes. When the Disclosure Agreements are executed and delivered on behalf of the Issuer as herein provided,the Disclosure Agreements will be binding on the Issuer and the officers, employees and agents of the Issuer, and the officers, employees and agents of the Issuer are hereby authorized, empowered and directed to do all such acts and things and to execute all such documents as may be necessary to carry out and comply with the provisions of the Disclosure Agreements as executed. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Bond Resolution, the sole remedies for failure to comply with the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking shall be the ability of the beneficial owner of any Bond to seek mandamus or specific performance by court order, to cause the Issuer to comply with its obligations under the Continuing Disclosure Undertaking. Section 212. Further Authority. The Mayor,the City Treasurer and the City Recorder and other officers of the Issuer are, and each of them is, hereby authorized to do or perform all such - 11 - Delegating Bond Resolution acts and to execute all such certificates, documents and other instruments as may be necessary or advisable to provide for the issuance, sale,registration and delivery of the Bonds and to fulfill the obligations of the Issuer hereunder and thereunder, including any documents or agreement selling the Bonds or agreeing to sell the Bonds to the Purchaser. Section 213. Establishment of Accounts. (a) The following accounts on the accounting records of the Issuer are hereby created, which are to be held as follows: (i) Bond Account, to be held by the Issuer; (ii) Depository Account, to be held by the Paying Agent; and (iii) Project Account, to be held by the Paying Agent. (b) Pending application for the purposes contemplated hereby, moneys on deposit in the Bond Account, Depository Account and Project Account shall be invested as permitted by law in investments approved by the City Treasurer or other authorized officer of the Issuer. (c) Amounts held in the Project Account shall be held by the Paying Agent and shall be disbursed by the Paying Agent to the Issuer upon receipt of a written request of the City Treasurer or any other authorized officer of the Issuer. ARTICLE III TRANSFER AND EXCHANGE OF BONDS;BOND REGISTRAR Section 301. Transfer of Bonds. (a) Any Bond may, in accordance with its terms, be transferred,upon the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar pursuant to Section 303 hereof, by the Person in whose name it is registered,in person or by such owner's duly authorized attorney, upon surrender of such Bond for cancellation, accompanied by delivery of a duly executed written instrument of transfer in a form approved by the Bond Registrar. No transfer shall be effective until entered on the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar. The Issuer, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the Person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner thereof for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal or redemption price thereof and interest due thereon and for all other purposes whatsoever. (b) Whenever any Bond or Bonds shall be surrendered for transfer, the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver a new fully-registered Bond or Bonds (which may be an Exchange Bond or Bonds pursuant to Section 209 hereof) of the same series, designation, maturity and interest rate and of authorized denominations duly executed by the Issuer, for a like aggregate principal amount. The Bond Registrar shall require the payment by the Bondowner requesting such transfer of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such transfer. With respect to each Bond,no such transfer shall be required to be made after the Record Date or after notice of redemption has be given by the Bond Registrar. - 12 - Delegating Bond Resolution (c) The Bond Registrar shall not be required to register the transfer of or exchange any Bond selected for redemption, in whole or in part, except the unredeemed portion of Bonds being redeemed in part. Upon surrender of any Bond redeemed in part only, the Issuer shall execute, and the Bond Registrar shall authenticate and deliver to the Bondowner at the expense of the Issuer, a new Bond or Bonds (which may be an Exchange Bond or Bonds pursuant to Section 209 hereof) of the same series, designation, maturity and interest rate and of authorized denominations equal in aggregate principal amount to the unredeemed portion of the Bond surrendered. Section 302. Exchange of Bonds. Bonds may be exchanged at the principal corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of fully-registered Bonds(which may be an Exchange Bond or Bonds pursuant to Section 209 hereof) of the same series, designation, maturity and interest rate of other authorized denominations. The Bond Registrar shall require the payment by the Bondowner requesting such exchange of any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such exchange. With respect to each Bond, no such exchange shall be required to be made after the Record Date or after notice of redemption has be given by the Bond Registrar. Section 303. Bond Registration Books. This Bond Resolution shall constitute a system of registration within the meaning and for all purposes of the Registered Public Obligations Act, Chapter 7 of Title 15 of the Utah Code. The Bond Registrar shall keep or cause to be kept, at its principal corporate trust office, sufficient books for the registration and transfer of the Bonds, which shall at all times be open to inspection by the Issuer; and, upon presentation for such purpose, the Bond Registrar shall, under such reasonable regulations as it may prescribe,register, or transfer or cause Bonds to be registered or transferred on those books as herein provided. Section 304. List of Bondowners. The Bond Registrar shall maintain a list of the names and addresses of the owners of all Bonds and upon any transfer shall add the name and address of the new Bondowner and eliminate the name and address of the transferor Bondowner. Section 305. Duties of Bond Registrar. If requested by the Bond Registrar,the Mayor and the City Recorder are authorized to execute the Bond Registrar's standard form of agreement between the Issuer and the Bond Registrar with respect to the compensation,obligations and duties of the Bond Registrar hereunder, which may include the following: (a) to act as bond registrar, authenticating agent, paying agent and transfer agent as provided herein; (b) to maintain a list of Bondowners as set forth herein and to furnish such list to the Issuer upon request, but otherwise to keep such list confidential; (c) to give notice of redemption of Bonds as provided herein; (d) to cancel and/or destroy Bonds that have been paid at maturity or upon earlier redemption or submitted for exchange or transfer; - 13 - Delegating Bond Resolution (e) to furnish the Issuer at least annually a certificate with respect to Bonds cancelled and/or destroyed; (f) to furnish to the Issuer, at its request, at least annually an audit confirmation of Bonds paid, Bonds outstanding and payments made with respect to interest on the Bonds; and (g) to comply with all applicable provisions of DTC's operational arrangements, as provided in Section 402 hereof. ARTICLE IV BOOK-ENTRY SYSTEM; LIMITED OBLIGATION OF ISSUER; LETTER OF REPRESENTATIONS Section 401. Book-Entry System; Limited Obligation of Issuer. (a) The Bonds shall be initially issued in the form of a separate, single, certificated, fully-registered Bond for each of the maturities set forth in the Certificate of Determination. If the Bonds are publicly offered the provisions relating to DTC's book-entry system shall apply and upon initial issuance, the ownership of each such Bond shall be registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in the name of Cede, as nominee of DTC. Except as provided in Section 403 hereof, all of the outstanding Bonds shall be registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in the name of Cede, as nominee of DTC. (b) With respect to Bonds registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in the name of Cede, as nominee of DTC, the Issuer, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent shall have no responsibility or obligation to any Participant or to any Person on behalf of which such a Participant holds an interest in the Bonds. Without limiting the immediately preceding sentence, the Issuer, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent shall have no responsibility or obligation with respect to (i) the accuracy of the records of DTC, Cede or any Participant with respect to any ownership interest in the Bonds, (ii) the delivery to any Participant or any other Person, other than a Bondowner, as shown in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar, of any notice with respect to the Bonds, including any notice of redemption, or (iii) the payment to any Participant or any other Person, other than a Bondowner, as shown in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar, of any amount with respect to the principal of or premium, if any, or interest on the Bonds. The Issuer,the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the Person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner of such Bond for the purpose of payment of principal, premium and interest with respect to such Bond and other matters with respect to such Bond, for the purpose of registering transfers with respect to such Bond, for the purpose of giving notices of redemption and for all other purposes whatsoever. The Paying Agent shall pay all principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds only to the respective Bondowners, as shown in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar, or their respective attorneys duly authorized in writing, as provided in Section 206 hereof, and all such payments shall be valid and effective to fully satisfy and discharge the Issuer's obligations with respect to payment of principal of and premium, if any, and interest on the Bonds to the extent of the sum or sums so paid. No Person - 14 - Delegating Bond Resolution other than a Bondowner, as shown in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar, shall receive a certificated Bond evidencing the obligation of the Issuer to make payments of principal, premium, if any, and interest pursuant to the Bond Resolution. (c) Upon delivery by DTC to the Issuer of written notice to the effect that DTC has determined to substitute a new nominee in place of Cede, and subject to the provisions herein with respect to Record Dates,the word "Cede"in this Bond Resolution shall refer to such new nominee of DTC; and upon receipt of such a notice the Issuer shall promptly deliver a copy of the same to the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent. Section 402. Letter of Representations. The Issuer's prior execution and delivery of the Letter of Representations shall not in any way limit the provisions of Section 401 hereof or in any other way impose upon the Issuer any obligation whatsoever with respect to Persons having interests in the Bonds other than the Bondowners, as shown on the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar. In the written acceptance of each Paying Agent and Bond Registrar referred to in Section 206 hereof, such Paying Agent and Bond Registrar, respectively, shall agree to take all action necessary for all of DTC's operational arrangements pertaining to the Paying Agent and Bond Registrar,respectively, to at all times be complied with. Section 403. Transfers Outside Book-Entry System. If the Bonds are sold pursuant to a direct placement, at the option of the Issuer or upon receipt by the Issuer of written notice from DTC that DTC is unable or unwilling to discharge its responsibilities, and no substitute depository willing to undertake the functions of DTC hereunder can be found that is willing and able to undertake such functions upon reasonable and customary terms, the Bonds shall no longer be restricted to being registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar in the name of Cede, as nominee of DTC, but may be registered in whatever name or names Bondowners transferring or exchanging Bonds shall designate, in accordance with the provisions of Article III hereof. Section 404. Payments to Cede. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Bond Resolution to the contrary, so long as any Bond is registered in the name of Cede, as nominee of DTC, all payments with respect to principal of and premium,if any, and interest on such Bond and all notices with respect to such Bond shall be made and given,respectively,in the manner provided in the Letter of Representations. ARTICLE V COVENANTS AND UNDERTAKINGS Section 501. Covenants of Issuer. All covenants, statements, representations and agreements contained in the Bonds and all recitals and representations in the Bond Resolution are hereby considered and understood, and it is hereby confirmed that all such covenants, statements, representations and agreements are the covenants, statements, representations and agreements of the Issuer. - 15 - Delegating Bond Resolution Section 502. Levy of Taxes; Bond Account. The Issuer covenants and agrees that to pay the interest falling due on the Bonds as the same becomes due, and also to provide a sinking fund for the payment of the principal of the Bonds at maturity, there shall be levied on all taxable property in the Issuer in addition to all other taxes, a direct annual tax sufficient to pay the interest on the Bonds and to pay and retire the same. These taxes when collected shall be applied solely for the purpose of the payment of the interest on and principal of the Bonds, respectively, and for no other purpose whatsoever until the indebtedness so contracted under the Bond Resolution, principal and interest, shall have been fully paid, satisfied and discharged, but nothing herein contained shall be so construed as to prevent the Issuer from applying any other funds that may be in the Issuer's treasury and available for that purpose to the payment of such interest and principal as the same respectively become due and mature. The levy or levies herein provided for may thereupon be diminished to that extent. The sums herein provided for to meet the interest on the Bonds and to discharge the principal thereof when due are hereby appropriated for that purpose, and the required amount for each year shall be included by the Issuer in its annual budget and its statement and estimate as certified to the County Council of Salt Lake County, Utah, in each year. Principal or interest falling due at any time when there shall not be available from the proceeds of the levies described in this Section money sufficient for the payment thereof shall, to the extent of such deficiency, be paid from other funds of the Issuer available for such purpose, and such other funds shall be reimbursed when the proceeds of such levies become available. The taxes or other funds that are referenced in the foregoing paragraph and that are to be used to pay the principal of or interest on the Bonds shall be deposited into the Bond Account. On or prior to the business day next preceding each principal or interest payment date for the Bonds, the Issuer shall transfer from the Bond Account to the Paying Agent for deposit into the Depository Account an amount sufficient to pay principal of and interest on the Bonds on such payment date. On each principal or interest payment date, the Paying Agent shall pay out of the Depository Account the principal of or interest on the Bonds then coming due. Moneys remaining on deposit in the Bond Account immediately after each such payment date,including any investment earnings thereon earned during the period of such deposit, shall be immediately withdrawn from the Bond Account by the Issuer and commingled with the general funds of the Issuer. Moneys remaining on deposit in the Depository Account immediately after each such payment date, including any investment earnings thereon earned during the period of such deposit, shall be immediately withdrawn from the Depository Account by the Paying Agent and paid to the Issuer and commingled with the general funds of the Issuer. The Bond Account and the Depository Account have been established primarily to achieve a proper matching of revenues and debt service on the Bonds. The Bond Account and the Depository Account shall be depleted at least once each year by the Issuer, except for a reasonable carryover amount not to exceed the greater of one year's earnings on the Bond Account or one-twelfth of the annual debt service on the Bonds. Section 503. Arbitrage Covenant and Covenant to Maintain Tax-Exemption. (a) The Mayor, the City Treasurer, the City Recorder and other appropriate officials of the Issuer are hereby authorized and directed to execute such Tax Certificates as shall be necessary to establish that(i)the Bonds are not"arbitrage bonds"within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code and the Regulations,(ii)the Bonds are not and will not become"private activity bonds"within the meaning of Section 141 of the Code, (iii) all applicable requirements of Section 149 of the Code are and will be met, (iv) the covenants of the Issuer contained in this Section will be complied with and - 16 - Delegating Bond Resolution (v) interest on the Bonds is not and will not become includible in gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes under the Code and applicable Regulations. (b) The Issuer covenants and certifies to and for the benefit of the owners from time to time of the Bonds that: (i) it will at all times comply with the provisions of any Tax Certificates; (ii) it will at all times comply with the rebate requirements contained in Section 148(f) of the Code and the Regulations, including, without limitation, the entering into any necessary rebate calculation agreement to provide for the calculations of amounts required to be rebated to the United States,the keeping of records necessary to enable such calculations to be made, the creation of any rebate fund to provide for the payment of any required rebate and the timely payment to the United States of all amounts, including any applicable penalties and interest,required to be rebated, except to the extent that the Bonds are not subject to such arbitrage rebate requirements; (iii) no use will be made of the proceeds of the issue and sale of the Bonds, or any funds or accounts of the Issuer that may be deemed to be proceeds of the Bonds, pursuant to Section 148 of the Code and applicable Regulations, which use, if it had been reasonably expected on the date of issuance of the Bonds,would have caused the Bonds to be classified as "arbitrage bonds"within the meaning of Section 148 of the Code; (iv) it will not use or permit the use of any of its facilities or properties in such manner that such use would cause the Bonds to be "private activity bonds" described in Section 141 of the Code; (v) no bonds or other evidences of indebtedness of the Issuer (other than the Bonds)have been or will be issued, sold or delivered within a period beginning fifteen(15) days prior to the sale of the Bonds and ending fifteen (15) days following the delivery of the Bonds, other than the Bonds; (vi) it will not take any action that would cause interest on the Bonds to be or to become ineligible for the exclusion from gross income of the owners of the Bonds as provided in Section 103 of the Code, nor will it omit to take or cause to be taken in timely manner any action, which omission would cause interest on the Bonds to be or to become ineligible for the exclusion from gross income of the owners of the Bonds as provided in Section 103 of the Code; (vii) it recognizes that Section 149(a)of the Code requires the Bonds to be issued and to remain in fully registered form in order that interest thereon is excludable from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes under laws in force at the time the Bonds are initially delivered and the Issuer agrees that it will not take any action to permit the Bonds to be issued in, or converted into, bearer or coupon form without an opinion of Bond Counsel to the effect that such action will not adversely affect the - 1 7 - Delegating Bond Resolution excludability of interest on the Bonds from the gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes; and (viii) it acknowledges that,in the event of an examination by the Internal Revenue Service of the exemption from federal income taxation for interest paid on the Bonds,under present rules,the Issuer may be treated as a"taxpayer"in such examination and agrees that it will respond in a commercially reasonable manner to any inquiries from the Internal Revenue Service in connection with such an examination. Pursuant to these covenants, the Issuer obligates itself to comply throughout the term of the issue of the Bonds with the requirements of Section 103 of the Code and the Regulations proposed or promulgated thereunder. ARTICLE VI FORM OF BONDS Section 601. Form of Bonds. Each fully-registered Bond shall be, respectively, in substantially the following form, with such insertions or variations as to any redemption or amortization provisions and such other insertions or omissions, endorsements and variations as may be required (including, but not limited to, such changes as may be necessary if the Bonds at any time are no longer held in book-entry form as permitted by Section 403 hereof- - 18 - Delegating Bond Resolution [FORM OF BOND] [Unless this certificate is presented by an authorized representative of The Depository Trust Company, a New York corporation ("DTC'), to the Issuer or its agent for registration of transfer, exchange, or payment, and any certificate issued is registered in the name of Cede&Co. or in such other name as is requested by an authorized representative of DTC(and any payment is made to Cede& Co. or to such other entity as is requested by an authorized representative of DTQ, ANY TRANSFER,PLEDGE, OR OTHER USE HEREOF FOR VALUE OR OTHERWISE BYOR TO ANY PERSON IS WRONGFUL inasmuch as the registered owner hereof, Cede & Co., has an interest herein.] Registered Registered UNITED STATES OF AMERICA STATE OF UTAH SALT LAKE COUNTY SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH GENERAL OBLIGATION BOND SERIES 2022 Number R- $ INTEREST RATE: MATURITY DATE: DATED DATE: CUSIP: % June 15, , 2022 REGISTERED OWNER: PRINCIPAL AMOUNT: ------------------------------------- DOLLARS------------------------------------------ KNOW ALL MEN BY THESE PRESENTS that Salt Lake City, Utah (the `Issuer"), a duly organized and existing municipal corporation and a political subdivision of the State of Utah, acknowledges itself indebted and for value received hereby promises to pay to the registered owner identified above, or registered assigns, on the maturity date identified above, upon presentation and surrender hereof, the principal amount identified above (the `Principal Amount"), and to pay the registered owner hereof interest on the balance of the Principal Amount from time to time remaining unpaid from the interest payment date next preceding the date of registration and authentication of this Bond, unless this Bond is registered and authenticated as of an interest payment date, in which event this Bond shall bear interest from such interest payment date, or unless this Bond is registered and authenticated prior to the first interest payment date, in which event this Bond shall bear interest from the dated date identified above (the "Dated Date"), or unless, as shown by the records of the hereinafter referred to Bond Registrar, interest on the - 19 - Delegating Bond Resolution hereinafter referred to Bonds shall be in default, in which event this Bond shall bear interest from the date to which interest has been paid in full, at the interest rate per annum (calculated on the basis of a year of 360 days consisting of twelve 30-day months) identified above (the "Interest Rate"), payable semiannually on June 15 and December 15 in each year, commencing 15, 202_, until payment in full of the Principal Amount, except as the provisions set forth in the hereinafter defined Bond Resolution with respect to redemption prior to maturity may become applicable hereto. This Bond shall bear interest on overdue principal at the Interest Rate. Principal of and premium, if any, on this Bond shall be payable upon presentation and surrender hereof at the principal corporate trust office of U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, of Salt Lake City,Utah, as Paying Agent for the Bonds, or at the principal corporate trust office of any successor who is at the time the Paying Agent of the Issuer, in any coin or currency of the United States of America that at the time of payment is legal tender for the payment of public and private debts; and payment of the interest hereon shall be made to the registered owner hereof and shall be paid by check or draft mailed to the person who is the registered owner of record on the Record Date. This Bond is one of the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2022 of the Issuer(the "Bonds limited to the aggregate principal amount of $ , dated as of the Dated Date, issued under and by virtue of the Local Government Bonding Act, Chapter 14 of Title 11, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended (the "Utah Code") and the Registered Public Obligations Act, Chapter 7 of Title 15 of the Utah Code (collectively, the "Act"), and under and pursuant to a resolution of the Issuer adopted on August 9, 2022, including as a part of such resolution that certain Certificate of Determination, dated , 2022 (the "Bond Resolution"), after having been authorized at an election held on November 6, 2018,in Salt Lake City,Utah by a vote of the qualified electors thereof, for the purpose of, among other things,paying all or a portion of the costs to improve various streets and roads throughout the Issuer and related infrastructure improvements. U.S.Bank Trust Company,National Association of Salt Lake City,Utah, is the initial bond registrar and paying agent of the Issuer with respect to the Bonds. This bond registrar and paying agent, together with any successor bond registrar or paying agent, are referred to herein, respectively, as the "Bond Registrar" and the "Paying Agent." The Issuer covenants and is by law required to levy annually a sufficient tax to pay interest on this Bond as it falls due and also to constitute a sinking fund for the payment of the principal hereof as the same falls due. This Bond is transferable, as provided in the Bond Resolution, only upon the books of the Issuer kept for that purpose at the principal corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar, by the registered owner hereof in person or by such owner's attorney duly authorized in writing. Such transfer shall be made upon surrender of this Bond, together with a written instrument of transfer satisfactory to the Bond Registrar, duly executed by the registered owner or such duly authorized attorney and upon the payment of the charges prescribed in the Bond Resolution, and thereupon the Issuer shall issue in the name of the transferee a new registered Bond or Bonds of authorized denominations of the same aggregate principal amount, series, designation, maturity and interest rate as the surrendered Bond, all as provided in the Bond Resolution. No transfer of this Bond - 20 - Delegating Bond Resolution shall be effective until entered on the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar. The Issuer, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name this Bond is registered on the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner hereof for the purpose of receiving payment of,or on account of,the principal or redemption price hereof and interest due hereon and for all other purposes whatsoever, and neither the Issuer, the Bond Registrar nor the Paying Agent shall be affected by any notice to the contrary. The Bonds are issuable solely in the form of registered Bonds in the denomination of $5,000 or any whole multiple thereof. The Bonds are subject to redemption prior to maturity as further described in the Bond Resolution. Except as otherwise provided herein and unless the context clearly indicates otherwise, words and phrases used herein shall have the same meanings as such words and phrases in the Bond Resolution. This Bond and the issue of Bonds of which it is a part are issued in conformity with and after full compliance with the Constitution of the State of Utah and pursuant to the provisions of the Act and all other laws applicable thereto. It is hereby certified and recited that all conditions, acts and things required by the Constitution or laws of the State of Utah and by the Act and the Bond Resolution to exist, to have happened or to have been performed precedent to or in connection with the issuance of this Bond exist, have happened and have been performed and that the issue of Bonds,together with all other indebtedness of the Issuer,is within every debt and other limit prescribed by the Constitution and laws referenced above, and that the full faith and credit of the Issuer are hereby irrevocably pledged to the punctual payment of the principal of and interest on this Bond according to its terms. This Bond shall not be valid until the Certificate of Authentication hereon shall have been manually signed by the Bond Registrar. - 21 - Delegating Bond Resolution IN WITNESS WHEREOF, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, has caused this Bond to be signed in its name and on its behalf by its Mayor and countersigned and attested by its City Recorder and has caused its official seal or a facsimile thereof to be impressed or imprinted hereon, all as of the Dated Date. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH By Mayor [SEAL] ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: By City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM By Senior City Attorney - 22 - Delegating Bond Resolution [FORM OF BOND REGISTRAR'S CERTIFICATE OF AUTHENTICATION] This Bond is one of the Bonds described in the within-mentioned Bond Resolution and is one of the General Obligation Bonds, Series 2022 of Salt Lake City, Utah. U.S. Bank Trust Company,National Association, as Bond Registrar By Authorized Officer Date of registration and authentication: , 2022. Bond Registrar and Paying Agent: U.S. Bank Trust Company,National Association 170 South Main Street, Suite 200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 - 23 - Delegating Bond Resolution [FORM OF ASSIGNMENT] The following abbreviations, when used in the inscription on the face of the within Bond, shall be construed as though they were written out in full according to applicable laws or regulations. TEN COM as tenants in common UNIF TRAN MIN ACT TEN ENT as tenants by the entirety Custodian JT TEN as joint tenants with right (Cult) (Minor) of survivorship and not as under Uniform Transfers to Minors Act of tenants in common (State) Additional abbreviations may also be used though not in the above list. FOR VALUE RECEIVED the undersigned sells, assigns and transfers unto Insert Social Security or Other Identifying Number of Assignee (Please Print or Typewrite Name and Address of Assignee) the within Bond of SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH, and hereby irrevocably constitutes and appoints attorney to register the transfer of the Bond on the books kept for registration thereof, with full power of substitution in the premises. DATED: SIGNATURE: SIGNATURE GUARANTEED: NOTICE: Signature(s) must be guaranteed by an "eligible guarantor institution" meeting the requirements of the Bond Registrar, which requirements include membership or participation in STAMP or such other"signature guarantee program"as may be determined by the Bond Registrar in addition to, or in substitution for, STAMP, all in accordance with the Securities and Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. NOTICE: The signature to this assignment must correspond with the name as it appears upon the face of the within Bond in every particular, without alteration or enlargement or any change whatever. - 24 - Delegating Bond Resolution ARTICLE VII MISCELLANEOUS Section 701. Final Official Statement. The Official Statement of the Issuer is hereby authorized in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit 2, with such changes, omissions, insertions and revisions as the Mayor shall deem advisable, including the completion thereof with the information established at the time of the sale of the Bonds by the Designated Officers and set forth in the Certificate of Determination. The Mayor shall sign and deliver such Official Statement to the Purchaser for distribution to prospective purchasers of the Bonds and other interested persons. The approval of the Mayor of any such changes, omissions,insertions and revisions shall be conclusively established by the Mayor's execution of the Official Statement. Section 702. Preliminary Official Statement Deemed Final. The use and distribution of the Official Statement in preliminary form(the `Preliminary Official Statement"),in substantially the form presented at this meeting and in the form attached hereto as Exhibit 2,is hereby authorized and approved, with such changes, omissions, insertions and revisions as the City Treasurer shall deem advisable. The Mayor, the City Treasurer and the City Recorder are, and each of them is, hereby authorized to do or perform all such acts and to execute all such certificates, documents and other instruments as may be necessary or advisable to deem final the Preliminary Official Statement within the meaning and for purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission, subject to completion thereof with the information established at the time of the sale of the Bonds. The Mayor, the City Treasurer and the City Recorder are, and each of them is,hereby authorized to do or perform all such acts and to execute all such certificates, documents and other instruments as may be necessary or advisable to provide for the issuance, sale and delivery of the Bonds, and any actions taken thereby for purposes of deeming the Official Statement to be final for purposes of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission are hereby authorized, ratified and confirmed. Section 703. Notice of Bonds to be Issued. In accordance with the provisions of Sections 11-14-316 and 45-1-101 of the Utah Code, the City Recorder shall cause a "Notice of Bonds to be Issued," in substantially the form attached hereto as Exhibit 4, to be published one time in The Salt Lake Tribune], a newspaper of general circulation in the Issuer, and shall cause a copy of this Resolution to be kept on file in the City Recorder's office for public examination during the regular business hours of the Issuer until at least thirty (30) days from and after the date of publication thereof. For a period of thirty (30) days from and after publication of the Notice of Bonds to be Issued, any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of this Bond Resolution or the Bonds hereby authorized or any provision made for the security and payment of the Bonds. After such time,no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity,formality or legality 1 As part of the publication, The Salt Lake Tribune will post the Notice of Bonds to be Issued on the public legal notice website as required by Section 45-1-101 of the Utah Code. - 25 - Delegating Bond Resolution of this Bond Resolution or the Bonds or any provision made for the security and payment of the Bonds for any cause. Section 704. Ratification. All proceedings, resolutions and actions of the Issuer and its officers taken in connection with the sale and issuance of the Bonds are hereby ratified, confirmed and approved, including, without limitation, the publication of the notice of sale for the Bonds as set out in the preambles hereto. Section 705. Severability. It is hereby declared that all parts of this Bond Resolution are severable, and if any section,paragraph, clause or provision of this Bond Resolution shall for any reason be held to be invalid or unenforceable,the invalidity or unenforceability of any such section, paragraph, clause or provision shall not affect the remaining sections, paragraphs, clauses or provisions of this Bond Resolution. Section 706. Conflict. All resolutions, orders and regulations or parts thereof heretofore adopted or passed that are in conflict with any of the provisions of this Bond Resolution are,to the extent of such conflict, hereby repealed. Section 707. Captions. The table of contents and captions or headings herein are for convenience of reference only and in no way define, limit or describe the scope or intent of any provisions or sections of this Bond Resolution. Section 708. Effective Date. This Bond Resolution shall take effect immediately. (Signature page follows.) - 26 - Delegating Bond Resolution ADOPTED AND APPROVED August 9, 2022. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH By Chair, City Council [SEAL] ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: By City Recorder APPROVED: By Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: By 5&8 Senfor City At orney - 27 - Delegating Bond Resolution EXHIBIT 1 [ATTACH FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE UNDERTAKING] Exhibit 1 Delegating Bond Resolution EXHIBIT 2 [ATTACH FORM OF OFFICIAL STATEMENT] Exhibit 2 Delegating Bond Resolution EXHIBIT 3 [ATTACH FORM OF CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION] Exhibit 3 Delegating Bond Resolution EXHIBIT 4 NOTICE OF BONDS TO BE ISSUED NOTICE Is HEREBY GIVEN pursuant to the provisions of Sections 11-14-316 and 45-1-101, Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended, that on August 9, 2022, the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"), adopted a resolution (the "Resolution") in which it authorized and approved the issuance of its general obligation bonds (the "Bonds"), in an aggregate principal amount of not to exceed $23,600,000, to bear interest at a rate or rates of not to exceed 6.00%per annum, to mature over a period not to exceed 21 years from their date or dates and to be sold at a discount from par, expressed as a percentage of the principal amount, of not to exceed 2.00%. Pursuant to the Resolution,the Bonds are to be issued for the purpose of raising money for paying all or a portion of the costs to improve various streets and roads throughout the City and related infrastructure improvements. The Bonds will be secured by the full faith and credit of the City. The City currently has $114,105,000 par amount of bonds currently outstanding that are secured by the full faith and credit of the City. More detailed information relating to the City's outstanding bonds can be found in the City's most recent Comprehensive Financial Reports that are available on the Office of the Utah State Auditor's website (www.auditor.utah.gov). Assuming a final maturity for the Bonds of approximately 20 years from the date hereof and that the Bonds are issued in an aggregate principal amount of$ and are held until maturity, based on the City's currently expected financing structure and interest rates in effect around the time of publication of this notice, the estimated total cost to the City of the proposed Bonds is $ The Bonds are to be issued and sold by the City pursuant to the Resolution. A copy of the Resolution may be examined during regular business hours (8:30 am — 5:00 pm) at the office of the City Recorder, City and County Building, 451 South State Street, Room 415, Salt Lake City, Utah. To request a protected, pdf copy of the Resolution please call (801) 535-7671 or email slcrecorder@slcgov.com. The Resolution shall be so available for inspection for a period of at least 30 days from and after the date of the publication of this notice. NOTICE Is FURTHER GIVEN that pursuant to law for a period of 30 days from and after the date of the publication of this notice, any person in interest shall have the right to contest the legality of the above-described Resolution of the City Council or the Bonds authorized thereby or any provisions made for the security and payment of the Bonds. After such time,no one shall have any cause of action to contest the regularity, formality or legality of the Resolution, the Bonds or the provisions for their security or payment for any cause. Exhibit 4 - I Delegating Bond Resolution DATED this 9th day of August, 2022. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH By City Recorder [SEAL] Exhibit 4 - 2 Delegating Bond Resolution EXHIBIT 5 [ATTACH FORM OF DISSEMINATION AGENCY AGREEMENT] Exhibit 5 Delegating Bond Resolution Draft of 6/2'7/22 CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT FOR THE PURPOSE OF PROVIDING CONTINUING DISCLOSURE INFORMATION UNDER PARAGRAPH(b)(5)OF RULE 15C2-12 DATED: ,2022 This Continuing Disclosure Agreement (the "Agreement") is executed and delivered by Salt Lake City, Utah (the `Issuer") in connection with the issuance of $ General Obligation Bonds, Series 2022(the "Bonds"). The Bonds are being issued pursuant to a resolution adopted by the City Council of the Issuer on August 9, 2022 (the "Resolution"). In consideration of the issuance of the Bonds by the Issuer and the purchase of such Bonds by the beneficial owners thereof, the Issuer covenants and agrees as follows: Section 1. PuRposE of TxisAGREEMENT. This Agreement is executed and delivered by the Issuer as of the date set forth below, for the benefit of the beneficial owners of the Bonds and in order to assist the Participating Underwriter in complying with the requirements of the Rule (as defined below). The Issuer represents that it will be the only obligated person with respect to the Bonds at the time the Bonds are delivered to the Participating Underwriter and that no other person is expected to become so committed at any time after issuance of the Bonds. Section 2. DEFINITIONS. The terms set forth below shall have the following meanings in this Agreement, unless the context clearly otherwise requires. "Annual Financial Information" means the financial information and operating data described in Exhibit I. "Annual Financial Information Disclosure" means the dissemination of disclosure concerning Annual Financial Information and the dissemination of the Audited Financial Statements as set forth in Section 4. "Audited Financial Statements" means the audited financial statements of the Issuer prepared pursuant to the standards and as described in Exhibit I. "Commission"means the Securities and Exchange Commission. "Dissemination Agent" means any agent designated as such in writing by the Issuer and which has filed with the Issuer a written acceptance of such designation, and such agent's successors and assigns. "EMMA" means the MSRB through its Electronic Municipal Market Access system for municipal securities disclosure or through any other electronic format or system prescribed by the MSRB for purposes of the Rule. Continuing Disclosure Agreement v3 8711202/RDB/mo "Exchange Act"means the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. "Financial Obligation" means (a) a debt obligation, (b) a derivative instrument entered into in connection with, or pledged as security or a source of payment for, an existing or planned debt obligation, or (c) a guarantee of (a) or (b) in this definition; provided however, the term Financial Obligation shall not include municipal securities as to which a final official statement has been provided to the MSRB consistent with the Rule. `MSRB"means the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board. `Participating Underwriter- means each broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer acting as an underwriter in the primary offering of the Bonds. "Reportable Event" means the occurrence of any of the Events with respect to the Bonds set forth in Exhibit II. "Reportable Events Disclosure"means dissemination of a notice of a Reportable Event as set forth in Section 5. "Rule" means Rule 15c2-12 adopted by the Commission under the Exchange Act, as the same may be amended from time to time. "State"means the State of Utah. "Undertaking"means the obligations of the Issuer pursuant to Sections 4 and 5. Section 3. CUSIP NumBERIFINAL OFFICIAL STATEMENT. The CUSIP Numbers of the Bonds are as follows: JUNE 15 CUSIP JUNE 15 CUSIP OF THE YEAR NUMBER OF THE YEAR NUMBER The Final Official Statement relating to the Bonds is dated , 2022(the "Final Official Statement"). The Issuer will include the CUSIP Number in all disclosure described in Sections 4 and 5 of this Agreement. -2- Continuing Disclosure Agreement Section 4. ANNUAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION DISCLOSURE. Subject to Section 8 of this Agreement, the Issuer hereby covenants that it will disseminate its Annual Financial Information and its Audited Financial Statements(in the form and by the dates set forth in Exhibit I)to EMMA in such manner and format and accompanied by identifying information as is prescribed by the MSRB or the Commission at the time of delivery of such information and by such time so that such entities receive the information by the dates specified. MSRB Rule G-32 requires all EMMA filings to be in word-searchable PDF format. This requirement extends to all documents to be filed with EMMA, including financial statements and other externally prepared reports. If any part of the Annual Financial Information can no longer be generated because the operations to which it is related have been materially changed or discontinued, the Issuer will disseminate a statement to such effect as part of its Annual Financial Information for the year in which such event first occurs. If any amendment or waiver is made to this Agreement, the Annual Financial Information for the year in which such amendment or waiver is made (or in any notice or supplement provided to EMMA) shall contain a narrative description of the reasons for such amendment or waiver and its impact on the type of information being provided. Section S. REPORTABLE EVENTS DISCLOSURE. Subject to Section 8 of this Agreement, the Issuer hereby covenants that it will disseminate in a timely manner (not in excess of ten business days after the occurrence of the Reportable Event) Reportable Events Disclosure to EMMA in such manner and format and accompanied by identifying information as is prescribed by the MSRB or the Commission at the time of delivery of such information. MSRB Rule G-32 requires all EMMA filings to be in word-searchable PDF format. This requirement extends to all documents to be filed with EMMA, including financial statements and other externally prepared reports. Notwithstanding the foregoing, notice of optional or unscheduled redemption of any Bonds or defeasance of any Bonds need not be given under this Agreement any earlier than the notice (if any) of such redemption or defeasance is given to the Bondholders pursuant to the Resolution. Section 6. CONSEQUENCES OF FAILURE OF THE ISSUER TO PROVIDE INFORMATION. The Issuer shall give notice in a timely manner to EMMA of any failure to provide Annual Financial Information Disclosure when the same is due hereunder. In the event of a failure of the Issuer to comply with any provision of this Agreement, the beneficial owner of any Bond may seek mandamus or specific performance by court order, to cause the Issuer to comply with its obligations under this Agreement. The beneficial owners of 25% or more in principal amount of the Bonds outstanding may challenge the adequacy of the information provided under this Agreement and seek specific performance by court order to cause the Issuer to provide the information as required by this Agreement. A default under this Agreement shall not be deemed a default under the Resolution, and the sole remedy under this Agreement in the event of any failure of the Issuer to comply with this Agreement shall be an action to compel performance. -3 - Continuing Disclosure Agreement Section 7. AMENDMENTS; WAIVER. Notwithstanding any other provision of this Agreement, the Issuer by resolution authorizing such amendment or waiver, may amend this Agreement, and any provision of this Agreement may be waived, if: (a) (i) the amendment or waiver is made in connection with a change in circumstances that arises from a change in legal requirements, including without limitation, pursuant to a"no-action" letter issued by the Commission, a change in law, or a change in the identity, nature, or status of the Issuer, or type of business conducted; or (ii) this Agreement, as amended, or the provision, as waived, would have complied with the requirements of the Rule at the time of the primary offering, after taking into account any amendments or interpretations of the Rule, as well as any change in circumstances; and (b) the amendment or waiver does not materially impair the interests of the beneficial owners of the Bonds, as determined by parties unaffiliated with the Issuer(such as Bond Counsel). In the event that the Commission or the MSRB or other regulatory authority shall approve or require Annual Financial Information Disclosure or Reportable Events Disclosure to be made to a central post office, governmental agency or similar entity other than EMMA or in lieu of EMMA, the Issuer shall, if required, make such dissemination to such central post office, governmental agency or similar entity without the necessity of amending this Agreement. Section 8. TERMINATION OF UNDERTAKING. The Undertaking of the Issuer shall be terminated hereunder if the Issuer shall no longer have any legal liability for any obligation on or relating to repayment of the Bonds under the Resolution. The Issuer shall give notice to EMMA in a timely manner if this Section is applicable. Section 9. DISSEMINATIONAGENT. The Issuer may, from time to time, appoint or engage a Dissemination Agent to assist it in carrying out its obligations under this Agreement, and may discharge any such Dissemination Agent, with or without appointing a successor Dissemination Agent. Section 10. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION. Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed to prevent the Issuer from disseminating any other information, using the means of dissemination set forth in this Agreement or any other means of communication, or including any other information in any Annual Financial Information Disclosure or notice of occurrence of a Reportable Event, in addition to that which is required by this Agreement. If the Issuer chooses to include any information from any document or notice of occurrence of a Reportable Event in addition to that which is specifically required by this Agreement, the Issuer shall have no obligation under this Agreement to update such information or include it in any future disclosure or notice of occurrence of a Reportable Event. If the Issuer is changed, the Issuer shall disseminate such information to EMMA. -4- Continuing Disclosure Agreement Section 11. BENEFICIARIES. This Agreement has been executed in order to assist the Participating Underwriter in complying with the Rule; however, this Agreement shall inure solely to the benefit of the Issuer, the Dissemination Agent, if any, and the beneficial owners of the Bonds, and shall create no rights in any other person or entity. Section 12. RECORDKEEPING. The Issuer shall maintain records of all Annual Financial Information Disclosure and Reportable Events Disclosure, including the content of such disclosure, the names of the entities with whom such disclosure was filed and the date of filing such disclosure. Section 13. ASSIGNMENT. The Issuer shall not transfer its obligations under the Resolution unless the transferee agrees to assume all obligations of the Issuer under this Agreement or to execute an Undertaking under the Rule. Section 14. GovERNiNG LA w. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State. (Signature page follows.) -5 - Continuing Disclosure Agreement DATED as of the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH By Mayor Address: 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: By City Recorder APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Senior City Attorney -6- Continuing Disclosure Agreement EXHIBIT I ANNUAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION AND TIMING AND AUDITED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS "Annual Financial Information" means financial information and operating data of the type contained in the Official Statement under the following captions: CAPTION PAGE DEBT STRUCTURE OF SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH........................................................... Outstanding Debt Issues..................................................................................... Overlapping General Obligation Debt............................................................... General Obligation Legal Debt Limit and Additional Debt Incurring Capacity FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH.......................... Sources of General Fund Revenues ................................................................... Five-Year Financial Summaries......................................................................... Taxable and Fair Market Value of Property ...................................................... TaxCollection Record....................................................................................... Some of the Largest Taxpayers in the City........................................................ All or a portion of the Annual Financial Information and the Audited Financial Statements as set forth below may be included by reference to other documents which have been submitted to EMMA or filed with the Commission. If the information included by reference is contained in a Final Official Statement, the Final Official Statement must be available on EMMA; the Final Official Statement need not be available from the Commission. The Issuer shall clearly identify each such item of information included by reference. Annual Financial Information exclusive of Audited Financial Statements will be submitted to EMMA, not later than 210 days after the end of each fiscal year of the Issuer, beginning with the fiscal year ended June 30, 2022. Audited Financial Statements as described below should be filed at the same time as the Annual Financial Information. If Audited Financial Statements are not available when the Annual Financial Information is filed, unaudited financial statements shall be included. Audited Financial Statements will be prepared pursuant to generally accepted accounting principles applicable to governmental units in general and Utah cities, in particular. Audited Financial Statements will be submitted to EMMA within 30 days after availability to Issuer. If any change is made to the Annual Financial Information as permitted by Section 4 of the Agreement, the Issuer will disseminate a notice of such change as required by Section 4. EXHIBIT I Continuing Disclosure Agreement EXHIBIT II EVENTS WITH RESPECT TO THE BONDS FOR WHICH REPORTABLE EVENTS DISCLOSURE IS REQUIRED 1. Principal and interest payment delinquencies 2. Non-payment related defaults, if material 3. Unscheduled draws on debt service reserves reflecting financial difficulties 4. Unscheduled draws on credit enhancements reflecting financial difficulties 5. Substitution of credit or liquidity providers, or their failure to perform 6. Adverse tax opinions, the issuance by the Internal Revenue Service of proposed or final determinations of taxability, Notices of Proposed Issue (IRS Form 5701-TEB) or other material notices or determinations with respect to the tax status of the security, or other material events affecting the tax status of the security 7. Modifications to the rights of security holders, if material 8. Bond calls, if material, and tender offers 9. Defeasances 10. Release, substitution or sale of property securing repayment of the securities, if material 11. Rating changes 12. Bankruptcy, insolvency, receivership or similar event of the Issuer* 13. The consummation of a merger, consolidation, or acquisition involving the Issuer or the sale of all or substantially all of the assets of the Issuer, other than in the ordinary course of business, the entry into a definitive agreement to undertake such an action or the termination of a definitive agreement relating to any such actions, other than pursuant to its terms, if material 14. Appointment of a successor or additional trustee or the change of name of a trustee, if material 15. Incurrence of a Financial Obligation of the Issuer, if material, or agreement to covenants, events of default,remedies,priority rights, or other similar terms of a Financial Obligation of the Issuer, any of which affect security holders, if material 16. Default, event of acceleration, termination event, modification of terms, or other similar events under the terms of a Financial Obligation of the Issuer,any of which reflect financial difficulties * This event is considered to occur when any of the following occur: the appointment of a receiver, fiscal agent or similar officer for the Issuer in a proceeding under the U.S. Bankruptcy Code or in any other proceeding under state or federal law in which a court or governmental authority has assumed jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the Issuer, or if such jurisdiction has been assumed by leaving the existing governing body and officials or officers in possession but subject to the supervision and orders of a court or governmental authority, or the entry of an order confirming a plan of reorganization, arrangement or liquidation by a court or governmental authority having supervision or jurisdiction over substantially all of the assets or business of the Issuer. EXHIBIT 11 Continuing Disclosure Agreement Draft of 6/27/22 PREL NUNARY OFFICIAL TA"TEMEN"T DATED ,2022 NEW ISSUE—Issued in Book-Entry Form Only RATINGS: Moody's — Fitch c See "BOND RATINGS"herein. Subject to compliance by the City with certain covenants, in the opinion of Chapman and Cutler LLP, Bond v' Counsel, under present law, interest on the Bonds is excludable from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes and is not included as an item of tax preference in computing the federal alternative minimum tax for individuals. In the opinion of Bond Counsel, under the existing laws of the State of Utah, as presently enacted and construed, interest on the Bonds is exempt,from taxes imposed by the Utah Individual Income Tax Act. See "TAX TREATMENT"herein for a more complete discussion. U SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 2022 DATED: Date of Original Issuance and Delivery DUE: June 15,as shown below The$ *General Obligation Bonds,Series 2022(the `Bonds"),dated the date of original issuance and delivery thereof, are issuable by Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City") as fully-registered bonds and, when initially issued,will be in book-entry form only,registered in the name of Cede& Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company,New York,New York("DTC"). DTC will act as securities depository for the Bonds. Principal of and interest on the Bonds(interest payable June 15 and December 15 of each year,commencing June 15, 202_) are payable by U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, Salt Lake City, Utah, as Paying Agent,to the registered owners thereof, initially DTC. See"THE BONDS—Book-Entry System"herein. The Bonds are subject to optional redemption prior to maturity as described more fully under the heading "THE BONDS—Redemption Provisions"herein. The Bonds will be general obligations of the City payable from the proceeds of ad valorem taxes to be levied without limitation as to rate or amount on all of the taxable property in the City,fully sufficient to pay the Bonds as 7, to both principal and interest. ° Maturity Schedule (see inside cover) The Bonds will be awarded pursuant to competitive bidding to be held via the PARITY® electronic bid submission system on 2022, as set forth in the Official Notice of Bond Sale (dated the date of this Preliminary Official Statement). r Stifel,Nicolaus&Company,Incorporated,Salt Lake City,Utah,is acting as Municipal Advisor. The Bonds are offered when,as and if issued and received by the successful bidder(s),subject to the approval of legality by Chapman and Cutler LLP,Bond Counsel to the City,and certain other conditions. Certain legal matters will be passed upon for the City by Katherine N. Lewis, City Attorney. Certain legal matters regarding this Official Statement will be passed upon for the City by Chapman and Cutler LLP, Disclosure Counsel. It is expected that the - Bonds will be available for delivery,in book-entry form only,through the facilities of DTC on or about 2022. This cover page contains certain information for quick reference only. It is not a summary of this issue. Investors must read the entire Official Statement to obtain information essential to the making of an informed investment decision. This Official Statement is dated 2022 and the information contained herein speaks only as of that date. * Preliminary;subject to change. Official Statement v5 8711202/RDB/mo MATURITY SCHEDULE' SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 2022 DUE PRINCIPAL INTEREST CUSIP JUNE 15 AMOUNT RATE YIELD 795574 * Yield to par call on 15,20_. * Preliminary; subject to change. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 2022 Salt Lake City City and County Building 451 South State Street Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 (801) 535-7946 CITY COUNCIL DanielDugan............................................................................................................................Council Chair Darin Marto......................................................................................................................Council Vice Chair AmyFowler.........................................................................................................................Council Member Victoria Petro-Eschler..........................................................................................................Council Member Alejandro Puy......................................................................................................................Council Member AnaliaValdemoros..............................................................................................................Council Member ChrisWharton......................................................................................................................Council Member CITY ADMINISTRATION ErinJ. Mendenhall................................................................................................................................Mayor RachelOtto...............................................................................................................................Chief of Staff KatherineN. Lewis...................................................................................................................City Attorney CindyLou Trishman.................................................................................................................City Recorder Marina Scott.............................................................................................................................City Treasurer BOND COUNSEL INDEPENDENT AUDITORS Chapman and Cutler LLP Eide Bailly LLP 215 South State, Suite 560 5 Triad Center, Suite 600 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 Salt Lake City, Utah 84180 (801) 533-0066 (801)532-2200 MUNICIPAL ADVISOR BOND REGISTRAR AND PAYING AGENT Stifel,Nicolaus& Company, Incorporated U.S. Bank Trust Company,National Association 15 West South Temple, Suite 1090 170 South Main Street, Suite 200 Salt Lake City,Utah 84 101 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 (385)799-7231 (801) 534-6083 Preliminary; subject to change, This Official Statement does not constitute an offer to sell or the solicitation of an offer to buy,nor shall there be any sale of,the Bonds by any person in any jurisdiction in which it is unlawful for such person to make such offer, solicitation or sale. No dealer, broker, salesman or other person has been authorized to give any information or to make any representations other than those contained herein, and if given or made, such other information or representations must not be relied upon as having been authorized by either the City or the successful bidder(s). All information contained herein has been obtained from the City,DTC and from other sources which are believed to be reliable. The information and expressions of opinion herein are subject to change without notice and neither the delivery of this Official Statement nor the issuance, sale, delivery or exchange of the Bonds, shall under any circumstance create any implication that there has been no change in the affairs of the City or in any other information contained herein since the date hereof. The Bonds have not been registered under the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, or any state securities laws in reliance upon exemptions contained in such act and laws. Any registration or qualification of the Bonds in accordance with applicable provisions of the securities laws of the states in which the Bonds have been registered or qualified and the exemption from registration or qualification in other states cannot be regarded as a recommendation thereof. Neither the Securities and Exchange Commission nor any state securities commission has passed upon the accuracy or adequacy of this Official Statement. Any representation to the contrary is unlawful. The yields at which the Bonds are offered to the public may vary from the initial offering yields on the inside cover page of this Official Statement. In addition,the successful bidder(s)may allow concessions or discounts from the initial offering prices of the Bonds to dealers and others. In connection with the offering of the Bonds, the successful bidder(s) may engage in transactions that stabilize, maintain, or otherwise affect the price of the Bonds. Such transactions may include overallotments in connection with the purchase of Bonds, the purchase of Bonds to stabilize their market price and the purchase of Bonds to cover the successful bidder(s)'s short positions. Such transactions,if commenced,may be discontinued at any time. Cautionary Statements Regarding Forward—Looking Statements. Certain statements included in this Official Statement constitute"forward—looking statements"within the meaning of the federal securities laws. Such statements are generally identifiable by the terminology used, such as "plan," "project," "forecast," "expect," "estimate," "budget"or other similar words. The achievement of certain results or other expectations contained in such forward- looking statements involve known and unknown risks,uncertainties and other factors which may cause actual results, performance or achievements described to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. Except as required by its Continuing Disclosure Agreement for the Bonds,the City does not plan to issue any updates or revisions to those forward-looking statements if or when its expectations change or events, conditions or circumstances on which such statements are based occur. The CUSIP (the Committee on Uniform Securities Identification Procedures) identification numbers are provided on the cover page of this Official Statement and are being provided solely for the convenience of bondholders only, and the Board does not make any representation with respect to such numbers or undertake any responsibility for their accuracy. The CUSIP numbers are subject to being changed after the issuance of the Bonds as a result of various subsequent actions including,but not limited to,a refunding in whole or in part of the Bonds. The information available at the internet sites referenced in this Official Statement has not been reviewed for accuracy or completeness. Such information is not incorporated by reference into this Official Statement and may not be relied upon by investors in determining whether to purchase the Bonds and is not a part of this Official Statement. - ii - TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE INTRODUCTION .................................................................................................................................1 TheBonds...............................................................................................................................1 TheCity..................................................................................................................................1 Security and Source of Payment.............................................................................................1 Authorityand Purpose ............................................................................................................1 Redemption Provisions...........................................................................................................2 Registration, Denominations and Manner of Payment...........................................................2 TaxStatus................................................................................................................................3 Conditions of Delivery, Anticipated Date, Manner and Place of Delivery............................3 BasicDocumentation..............................................................................................................3 ContactPersons.......................................................................................................................3 Public Sale/Electronic Bid......................................................................................................4 THEBONDS.......................................................................................................................................4 General....................................................................................................................................4 Sources and Uses of Funds.....................................................................................................5 Security and Sources of Payment ...........................................................................................5 RedemptionProvisions...........................................................................................................5 Registration and Transfer........................................................................................................6 Book-Entry System.................................................................................................................7 DebtService Requirements...................................................................................................10 SALTLAKE CITY,UTAH .................................................................................................................10 CityOfficials.........................................................................................................................10 CityAdministration ..............................................................................................................11 Employee Workforce and Retirement System; Postemployment Benefits ..........................12 Population.............................................................................................................................13 Property Value of Pre-Authorized Construction in the City.................................................13 Sales and Building in Salt Lake County...............................................................................13 Income and Wages in Salt Lake County...............................................................................14 Business and Industry...........................................................................................................14 Labor Market Data of Salt Lake County...............................................................................16 Rate of Unemployment Annual Average.........................................................................16 DEBT STRUCTURE OF SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH...............................................................................17 OutstandingDebt Issues .......................................................................................................17 Debt Service Schedule of Outstanding General Obligation Bonds......................................18 FutureDebt Plans..................................................................................................................18 Overlapping General Obligation Debt..................................................................................20 DebtRatios............................................................................................................................20 General Obligation Legal Debt Limit and Additional Debt Incurring Capacity..................21 NoDefaulted Obligations.....................................................................................................21 FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH....................................................21 - iii - PAGE Fund Structure; Accounting Basis........................................................................................21 FinancialControls.................................................................................................................22 Budget and Appropriation Process .......................................................................................22 Insurance Coverage...............................................................................................................23 InvestmentPolicy..................................................................................................................24 PropertyTax Matters ............................................................................................................26 TaxLevy and Collection.......................................................................................................2'7 Public Hearing on Certain Tax Increases..............................................................................29 Sources of General Fund Revenues......................................................................................29 Five-Year Financial Summaries ...........................................................................................30 Historical City Tax Rates......................................................................................................35 Comparative Property Tax Rates Within Salt Lake County.................................................35 Taxable and Fair Market Value of Property.........................................................................36 Historical Summaries of Taxable Values of Property..........................................................3'7 TaxCollection Record..........................................................................................................38 Some of the Largest Taxpayers in the City...........................................................................38 Recent Developments ...........................................................................................................38 INVESTMENT CONSIDERATIONS ......................................................................................................40 Potential Impact of the Coronavirus.....................................................................................40 ClimateChange.....................................................................................................................40 Cybersecurity........................................................................................................................40 TAXTREATMENT............................................................................................................................41 UtahIncome Taxation...........................................................................................................43 LITIGATION.....................................................................................................................................43 CONTINUINGDISCLOSURE..............................................................................................................44 APPROVAL OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS...............................................................................................44 BONDRATINGS...............................................................................................................................45 MUNICIPALADVISOR......................................................................................................................45 INDEPENDENT AUDITORS................................................................................................................45 MISCELLANEOUS ............................................................................................................................46 APPENDIX A SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2021 ............................................................A-1 APPENDIX B FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT.........................................B-1 APPENDIX C PROPOSED FORM OF OPINION OF BOND COUNSEL.........................................C-1 - iv - SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS SERIES 2022 INTRODUCTION This introduction is only a brief description of the Bonds, as hereinafter defined, the security and source of payment for the Bonds and certain information regarding Salt Lake City, Utah (the "City"). The information contained herein is expressly qualified by reference to the entire Official Statement. Investors should make a full review of the entire Official Statement. See the following appendices that are attached hereto: "APPENDix A SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED TUNE 30, 2021;" "APPENDIX B FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT" and "APPENDIX C PROPOSED FORM OF OPINION OF BOND COUNSEL." THE BONDS This Official Statement, including the cover page, introduction and appendices, provides information in connection with the issuance and sale by the City of its $ * General Obligation Bonds, Series 2022(the "Bonds"),each dated the date of original issuance and delivery thereof, initially issued in book-entry form only. THE CITY The City is a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of Utah (the "State") and is the capital of the State. The City is the most populous city in the State with the census 2020 population of 199,723 residents. The City has a council-mayor form of government. For more information with respect to the City see "SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH." SECURITY AND SOURCE OF PAYMENT The Bonds will be general obligations of the City,payable from the proceeds of ad valorem taxes to be levied,without limitation as to rate or amount, on all of the taxable property in the City, fully sufficient to pay the Bonds as to both principal and interest. See "THE BONDS Security and Sources of Payment" and "FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH Tax Levy and Collection." AUTHORITY AND PURPOSE The Bonds are being issued pursuant to(a) the Local Government Bonding Act,Chapter 14 of Title 11 (the "Local Government Bonding Act")of the Utah Code Annotated 1953, as amended * Preliminary; subject to change, (the "Utah Code"),the Registered Public Obligations Act,Chapter 7 of Title 15 of the Utah Code, and the applicable provisions of Title 10 of the Utah Code(collectively,the "Act"), (b) Resolution No. _-2022 of the City adopted on August 9, 2022 (the "Resolution"), which provides for the issuance of the Bonds, and(c) other applicable provisions of law. The Bonds were authorized by an affirmative vote of 67.51%of the voters at a special bond election held for that purpose on November 6, 2018. The proposition submitted to the voters was as follows: City Proposition Number 1 Shall Salt Lake City, Utah, be authorized to issue General Obligation Bonds in a principal amount not to exceed $87,000,000 and to mature in no more than 21 years from the date or dates of issuance; such bonds will be issued to pay all or a portion of the costs to improve various streets and roads throughout the City and related infrastructure improvements? The Bonds are the fourth [and final block] of bonds to be issued from the November 6, 2018 voted authorization. After the sale and delivery of the Bonds, the City will have approximately $ of authorized,but unissued,bonds from the November 6, 2018 voted authorization. The Bonds are also being issued for the purpose of paying certain costs of issuance. See "THE BONDS Sources and Uses of Funds." REDEMPTION PROVISIONS The Bonds are subject to optional redemption prior to maturity as described more fully under the heading "THE BONDS Redemption Provisions"herein. REGISTRATION,DENOMINATIONS AND MANNER OF PAYMENT The Bonds are issuable only as fully-registered bonds and, when initially issued, will be registered in the name of Cede&Co., as nominee for The Depository Trust Company,New York, New York ("DTC"), which will act as securities depository of the Bonds. Purchases of Bonds will be made in book-entry form only, in the principal amount of$5,000 or any whole multiple thereof, through brokers and dealers who are, or who act through, DTC participants. Beneficial owners of the Bonds will not be entitled to receive physical delivery of bond certificates so long as DTC or a successor securities depository acts as the securities depository with respect to the Bonds. Principal of and interest on the Bonds (interest payable June 15 and December 15 of each year, commencing 15, 202_) are payable by U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, Salt Lake City,Utah, as Paying Agent(the "Paying Agent"),to the registered owners of the Bonds. So long as DTC is the registered owner, it will, in turn, remit such principal and - 2 - interest to its participants, for subsequent disbursements to the beneficial owners of the Bonds, as described in "THE BONDS Book-Entry System." TAX STATUS Subject to compliance by the City with certain covenants, in the opinion of Chapman and Cutler LLP, Bond Counsel, under present law, interest on the Bonds is excludable from gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes, is not included as an item of tax preference in computing the federal alternative minimum tax for individuals. In the opinion of Bond Counsel, under the existing laws of the State, as presently enacted and construed, interest on the Bonds is exempt from taxes imposed by the Utah Individual Income Tax Act. See "TAX TREATMENT" for a more complete discussion. CONDITIONS OF DELIVERY,ANTICIPATED DATE,MANNER AND PLACE OF DELIVERY The Bonds are offered when, as and if issued and received by the successful bidder(s), subject to the approval of legality of the Bonds by Chapman and Cutler LLP, Bond Counsel, and certain other conditions. Certain legal matters will be passed upon for the City by the City Attorney. Certain legal matters regarding this Official Statement will be passed upon for the City by Chapman and Cutler LLP, Disclosure Counsel. It is expected that the Bonds, in book-entry form only, will be available for delivery through the facilities of DTC on or about Wednesday, October 5, 2022. BASIC DOCUMENTATION The "basic documentation," which includes the Resolution, the closing documents and other documentation authorizing the issuance of the Bonds and establishing the rights and responsibilities of the City and other parties to the transaction, may be obtained from the "contact persons" listed below. CONTACT PERSONS As of the date of this Official Statement, the chief contact person for the City concerning the Bonds is: Marina Scott, City Treasurer 451 South State Street, Room 228 P.O. Box 145462 Salt Lake City, Utah 84114-5462 (801) 535-6565 marina.scott@slcgov.com - 3 - Additional requests for information may be directed to the City's Municipal Advisor as follows: John Crandall, Executive Director Elizabeth Read, Director Stifel,Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated 15 West South Temple, Suite 1090 Salt Lake City, Utah 84101 (385) 799-7231 crandallj@stifel.com reade@stifel.com PUBLIC SALE/ELECTRONIC BID The Bonds were awarded pursuant to competitive bidding held via the PARITY® electronic bid submission system on , 2022, as set forth in the Official Notice of Bond Sale(dated ,2022)to of , (the `Purchaser"), at a "true interest rate"of %. THE BONDS GENERAL The Bonds will be dated the date of original issuance and delivery thereof and will mature on June 15 of the years and in the amounts as set forth on the inside cover page of this Official Statement. The Bonds will bear interest from their date at the rates set forth on the cover page of this Official Statement. Interest on the Bonds is payable semiannually on each June 15 and December 15, commencing 15, 202. Interest on the Bonds will be computed on the basis of a 360-day year of twelve 30-day months. U.S. Bank Trust Company, National Association, Salt Lake City, Utah, is the Bond Registrar for the Bonds under the Resolution (the `Bond Registrar"). The Bonds will be issued as fully-registered bonds,initially in book-entry form only, in the denomination of$5,000 or any whole multiple thereof,not exceeding the amount of each maturity. The Bonds are being issued within the constitutional debt limit imposed on the City. See "DEBT STRUCTURE OF SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH General Obligation Legal Debt Limit and Additional Debt Incurring Capacity." -4 - SOURCES AND USES OF FUNDS The sources and uses of funds in connection with the issuance of the Bonds are estimated to be as follows: SOURCES: Par amount of Bonds $ Original issue premium TOTAL $ USES: Purchaser's Discount $ Project Construction Account Costs of issuance(l) TOTAL $ (1) Includes Municipal Advisor fees,legal fees,rating agency fees,registrar and paying agent fees,printing and other miscellaneous costs of issuance. SECURITY AND SOURCES OF PAYMENT The Bonds will be general obligations of the City,payable from the proceeds of ad valorem taxes to be levied without limitation as to rate or amount on all of the taxable property in the City, fully sufficient to pay the Bonds as to both principal and interest. See "FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH Property Tax Matters." REDEMPTION PROVISIONS Optional Redemption. The Bonds maturing on or after June 15, 203, are subject to redemption prior to maturity, at the election of the City, on 15, 203_ (the "First Redemption Date"), and on any date thereafter, in whole or in part, from such maturities or parts thereof as will be selected by the City, upon notice given as provided in the Resolution and described below, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption. Bonds maturing on or prior to the First Redemption Date are not subject to optional redemption. Selection for Redemption. If less than all of the Bonds of any maturity are to be redeemed, the particular Bonds or portion of Bonds of such maturity to be redeemed will be selected at random by the Bond Registrar in such manner as the Bond Registrar in its discretion may deem fair and appropriate. The portion of any registered Bond of a denomination of more than $5,000 to be redeemed will be in the principal amount of $5,000 or a whole multiple thereof, and in selecting portions of such Bonds for redemption, the Bond Registrar will treat each such Bond as - 5 - representing that number of Bonds of $5,000 denomination that is obtained by dividing the principal amount of such Bond by $5,000. Notice of Redemption. Notice of redemption will be given by the Bond Registrar by registered or certified mail, not less than 30 nor more than 45 days prior to the redemption date, to the owner thereof, as of the Record Date, as defined in"THE BONDS Registration and Transfer," of each Bond that is subject to redemption, at the address of such owner as it appears in the registration books of the City kept by the Bond Registrar, or at such other address as is furnished to the Bond Registrar in writing by such owner on or prior to the Record Date. Each notice of redemption will state the Record Date, the principal amount, the redemption date, the place of redemption, the redemption price and, if less than all of the Bonds are to be redeemed, the distinctive numbers of the Bonds or portions of Bonds to be redeemed, and will also state that the interest on the Bonds in such notice designated for redemption will cease to accrue from and after such redemption date and that on the redemption date there will become due and payable on each of the Bonds to be redeemed the principal thereof and interest accrued thereon to the redemption date. Each notice of optional redemption may further state that such redemption will be conditioned upon the receipt by the Paying Agent,on or prior to the date fixed for such redemption, of moneys sufficient to pay the principal of and premium, if any, and interest on such Bonds to be redeemed and that if such moneys have not been so received said notice will be of no force and effect and the City will not be required to redeem such Bonds. In the event that such notice of redemption contains such a condition and such moneys are not so received, the redemption will not be made and the Bond Registrar will within a reasonable time thereafter give notice, in the manner in which the notice of redemption was given,that such moneys were not so received. Any notice mailed as described above will be conclusively presumed to have been duly given, whether or not the Bondowner receives such notice. Failure to give such notice or any defect therein with respect to any Bond will not affect the validity of the proceedings for redemption with respect to any other Bond. In addition to the foregoing notice, further notice of such redemption will be given by the Bond Registrar to certain registered national securities depositories and national information services as provided in the Bond Resolution, but no defect in such further notice or any failure to give all or any portion of such further notice will in any manner affect the validity of a call for redemption if notice thereof is given as prescribed above and in the Bond Resolution. For so long as abook-entry system is in effect with respect to the Bonds, the Bond Registrar will mail notices of redemption to DTC or its successor. Any failure of DTC to convey such notice to any DTC participants or any failure of the DTC participants or indirect participants to convey such notice to any beneficial owner will not affect the sufficiency of the notice or the validity of the redemption of the Bonds. See "THE BONDS—Book-Entry System. " REGISTRATION AND TRANSFER In the event the book-entry system is discontinued, any Bond may, in accordance with its terms, be transferred, upon the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar, by the person in whose name it is registered, in person or by such owner's duly authorized attorney,upon surrender of such Bond for cancellation, accompanied by delivery of a duly executed written instrument of - 6 - transfer in a form approved by the Bond Registrar. No transfer will be effective until entered on the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar. Whenever any Bond is surrendered for transfer, the Bond Registrar will authenticate and deliver a new fully-registered Bond or Bonds of the same series, designation, maturity and interest rate and of authorized denominations duly executed by the City, for a like aggregate principal amount. Bonds may be exchanged at the principal corporate trust office of the Bond Registrar for a like aggregate principal amount of fully-registered Bonds of the same series, designation,maturity and interest rate of other authorized denominations. For every such exchange or transfer of the Bonds, the Bond Registrar must make a charge sufficient to reimburse it for any tax or other governmental charge required to be paid with respect to such exchange or transfer of the Bonds. The Bond Registrar will not be required to transfer or exchange any Bond (a) after the Record Date, as defined below, with respect to any interest payment date to and including such interest payment date, or (b) after the Record Date with respect to any redemption of such Bond. "Record Date"means the day that is 15 days preceding each interest payment date, or if such day is not a business day for the Bond Registrar, the next preceding day that is a business day for the Bond Registrar. The City, the Bond Registrar and the Paying Agent may treat and consider the person in whose name each Bond is registered in the registration books kept by the Bond Registrar as the holder and absolute owner thereof for the purpose of receiving payment of, or on account of, the principal or redemption price thereof and interest due thereon and for all other purposes whatsoever. BOOK-ENTRY SYSTEM The Depository Trust Company(`DTC"),New York,NY,will act as securities depository for the Bonds. The Bonds will be issued as fully-registered securities registered in the name of Cede&Co. (DTC's partnership nominee)or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. One fully-registered Bond certificate will be issued for each maturity of the Bonds, each in the aggregate principal amount of such maturity, and will be deposited with DTC. DTC, the world's largest depository, is a limited-purpose trust company organized under the New York Banking Law, a "banking organization" within the meaning of the New York Banking Law, a member of the Federal Reserve System, a "clearing corporation" within the meaning of the New York Uniform Commercial Code,and a"clearing agency"registered pursuant to the provisions of Section 17A of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. DTC holds and provides asset servicing for over 3.5 million issues of U.S. and non-U.S. equity issues, corporate and municipal debt issues, and money market instruments (from over 100 countries) that DTC's participants (Direct Participants") deposit with DTC. DTC also facilitates the post-trade settlement among Direct Participants of sales and other securities transactions in deposited securities, through electronic computerized book-entry transfers and pledges between Direct - 7 - Participants' accounts. This eliminates the need for physical movement of securities certificates. Direct Participants include both U.S. and non-U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, clearing corporations, and certain other organizations. DTC is a wholly-owned subsidiary of The Depository Trust & Clearing Corporation ("DTCC). DTCC is the holding company for DTC, National Securities Clearing Corporation and Fixed Income Clearing Corporation, all of which are registered clearing agencies. DTCC is owned by the users of its regulated subsidiaries. Access to the DTC system is also available to others such as both U.S. and non-U.S. securities brokers and dealers, banks, trust companies, and clearing corporations that clear through or maintain a custodial relationship with a Direct Participant, either directly or indirectly("Indirect Participants"). DTC has a Standard&Poor's rating of AA+. The DTC rules applicable to its Participants are on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission. More information about DTC can be found at www.dtcc.com. Purchases of the Bonds under the DTC system must be made by or through Direct Participants, which will receive a credit for the Bonds on DTC's records. The ownership interest of each actual purchaser of each Bond("Beneficial Owner") is in turn to be recorded on the Direct and Indirect Participants' records. Beneficial Owners will not receive written confirmation from DTC of their purchase. Beneficial Owners are,however,expected to receive written confirmations providing details of the transaction,as well as periodic statements of their holdings,from the Direct or Indirect Participant through which the Beneficial Owner entered into the transaction. Transfers of ownership interests in the Bonds are to be accomplished by entries made on the books of Direct and Indirect Participants acting on behalf of Beneficial Owners. Beneficial Owners will not receive certificates representing their ownership interests in the Bonds, except in the event that use of the book-entry system for the Bonds is discontinued. To facilitate subsequent transfers, all Bonds deposited by Direct Participants with DTC are registered in the name of DTC's partnership nominee, Cede & Co., or such other name as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. The deposit of the Bonds with DTC and their registration in the name of Cede & Co. or such other DTC nominee do not effect any change in beneficial ownership. DTC has no knowledge of the actual Beneficial Owners of the Bonds; DTC's records reflect only the identity of the Direct Participants to whose accounts such Bonds are credited,which may or may not be the Beneficial Owners. The Direct and Indirect Participants will remain responsible for keeping account of their holdings on behalf of their customers. Conveyance of notices and other communications by DTC to Direct Participants,by Direct Participants to Indirect Participants, and by Direct Participants and Indirect Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by arrangements among them, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Beneficial Owners of the Bonds may wish to take certain steps to augment transmission to them of notices of significant events with respect to the Bonds, such as redemptions,tenders,defaults, and proposed amendments to the Bond documents. For example, Beneficial Owners of the Bonds may wish to ascertain that the nominee holding the Bonds for their benefit has agreed to obtain and transmit notices to Beneficial Owners. In the alternative, Beneficial Owners may wish to provide their names and addresses to the Bond Registrar and request that copies of notices be provided directly to them. - 8 - Redemption notices shall be sent to DTC. If less than all of the Bonds within an issue are being redeemed, DTC's practice is to determine by lot the amount of the interest of each Direct Participant in such issue to be redeemed. Neither DTC nor Cede & Co. (nor any other DTC nominee) will consent or vote with respect to the Bonds unless authorized by a Direct Participant in accordance with DTC's MMI procedures. Under its usual procedures, DTC mails an omnibus proxy to the City as soon as possible after the record date. The omnibus proxy assigns Cede & Co.'s consenting or voting rights to those Direct Participants to whose accounts the Bonds are credited on the record date (identified in a listing attached to the omnibus proxy). As long as the book-entry system is in effect, redemption proceeds, distributions, and dividend payments on the Bonds will be made to Cede & Co., or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC. DTC's practice is to credit Direct Participants' accounts upon DTC's receipt of funds and corresponding detailed information from the City or the Paying Agent, on payable date in accordance with their respective holdings shown on DTC's records. Payments by Participants to Beneficial Owners will be governed by standing instructions and customary practices, as is the case with securities held for the accounts of customers in bearer form or registered in "street name," and will be the responsibility of such Participant and not of DTC, the Paying Agent, or the City, subject to any statutory or regulatory requirements as may be in effect from time to time. Payment of redemption proceeds,distributions,and dividend payments to Cede & Co. (or such other nominee as may be requested by an authorized representative of DTC) is the responsibility of the City or the Paying Agent, disbursement of such payments to Direct Participants will be the responsibility of DTC, and disbursement of such payments to Beneficial Owners will be the responsibility of Direct and Indirect Participants. DTC may discontinue providing its services as depository with respect to the Bonds at any time by giving reasonable notice to the City or the Paying Agent. Under such circumstances, in the event that a successor securities depository is not obtained,Bond certificates are required to be printed and delivered. The City may decide to discontinue use of the system of book-entry transfers through DTC (or a successor securities depository). In that event,Bond certificates will be printed and delivered to DTC. The information in this section concerning DTC and DTC's book-entry system has been obtained from sources that the City believes to be reliable, but the City takes no responsibility for the accuracy thereof. - 9 - DEBT SERVICE REQUIREMENTS The following table shows the debt service requirements for the Bonds for each fiscal year: FISCAL YEAR ENDING FISCAL YEAR JUKE 30 PRINCIPAL* INTEREST TOTAL TOTAL**: * Preliminary;subject to change. ** Amounts may not add due to rounding. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH CITY OFFICIALS The City has a Council-Mayor form of government. The City Council consists of seven members, who are elected by voters within seven geographic districts of approximately equal population. The Mayor is elected at large by the voters of the City and is charged with the executive and administrative duties of the government. The seven-member,part-time City Council is charged with the responsibility of performing the legislative functions of the City. The City Council performs three primary functions: it passes laws for the City, adopts the City budget and provides administrative oversight by conducting management and operational audits of City departments. - 10 - Term information concerning the Mayor and the members of the City Council is set forth below: YEARS IN EXPIRATION OF OFFICE DISTRICT PERSON SERVICE CURRENT TERM Mayor Erin J. Mendenhall 20) January 2024 Council Chair #6 Daniel Dugan 2 January 2024 Council Vice Chair #5 Darin Mano 2 January 2026 Council Member #7 Amy Fowler 4 January 2026 Council Member #1 Victoria Petro-Eschler(2) January 2026 Council Member #2 Alejandro Puy(2) January 2024 Council Member #4 Analia Valdemoros 3 January 2024 Council Member #3 Christopher Wharton 4 January 2026 (1) Mayor Mendenhall previously served 6 years as a council member before being elected mayor. (2) Council Member Petro-Eschler was appointed on November 9,2021 to fill the seat of James Rogers who resigned effective October 4, 2021. At the November 2021 election, Council Member Petro-Eschler was elected to serve a four-year term beginning January 3,2022.. (3) Council Member Puy was elected to serve a two-year term beginning January 3,2022. CITY ADMINISTRATION The offices of Chief of Staff, City Attorney, City Recorder and City Treasurer are appointive offices. Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff, was appointed to her position in November 2019. Before becoming Mayor Mendenhall's chief of staff Ms. Otto worked as Government Relations Director for the Utah League of Cities and Towns. In that capacity, she developed policy and advocated for local government at the State Legislature. Ms. Otto, trained as an attorney, also served as a deputy city attorney for West Jordan, assistant city attorney for South Jordan, and worked in private practice for several years after graduating from the University of Utah's College of Law in 2008. Katherine N. Lewis, City Attorney, was appointed as the City Attorney in January 2020. Ms. Lewis received her law degree from the University of Utah S.J. Quinney College of Law in 2007 and received her undergraduate degree from Colorado State University in 2001. Ms. Lewis was a Senior City Attorney in the Salt Lake City Attorney's Office from 2013-2020 prior to being appointed the City Attorney. She worked in private practice at Parsons Behle & Latimer prior to joining the Salt Lake City Attorney's Office. Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder,was appointed on June 3,2020. Prior to this position, Ms. Trishman was employed by the Salt Lake City Council. Her duties included team management, inauguration and transition of newly elected officials, elected official vacancy coordination, enhancing government transparency efforts and building process improvements. Ms. Trishman holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Business and English. - 11 - Marina Scott, City Treasurer, was appointed to her position on June 4, 2013. From December 2006 until her appointment, Ms. Scott was Deputy Treasurer for the City; and from September 2005 until December 2006 she served as an Accountant III for the Public Services Department. Ms. Scott holds a Bachelor of Science degree in Accounting, and a Master of Professional Accountancy from Weber State University. She also holds a Master of Arts in Library and Information Science from Vilnius State University. EMPLOYEE WORKFORCE AND RETIREMENT SYSTEM;POSTEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS Employee Workforce and Retirement System. The City currently employs approximately 3,054 full-time employees and approximately 239 hourly and part-time employees for a total employment of approximately 3,293 employees. The City participates in three cost-sharing multiple-employer public employee retirement systems and one multiple-employer agent system which are defined benefit retirement plans covering public employees of the State and employees of participating local governmental entities (the "Systems"). The Systems are administered under the direction of the Utah State Retirement Board whose members are appointed by the Governor of the State. See"APPENDIX B— SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021 —Notes to Financial Statements —Note 6—Long-Term Obligations,""—Note 12—Pension Plans"and"—Note 13 —Defined Contribution Savings Plans." Retirement Liability. The City participates in the Utah Retirement System("URS"). URS is funded and administered by the State. Each year, as approved by the State Legislature, URS sets rates, enacts rules, and implements policies related to the pensions and benefits the City retirees receive. Starting in Fiscal Year 2015, GASB Statement Number 68 requires URS to pass on pension and retirement liability to public entities it serves, including the City. Working with the City's independent auditors and State specialists, this liability has been recorded on the City's financial statements for the Fiscal Year ending June 30, 2021 in the amount of$65,738,582. Additional information regarding the City's retirement system can be found in the City's financial statements, which are available on the City's website. No Other Post-Employment Benefits. The City does not offer post-employment benefits. - 12 - POPULATION %INCREASE SALT %INCREASE %INCREASE THE FROM PRIOR LAKE FROM PRIOR THE FROM PRIOR YEAR CITY PERIOD COUNTY PERIOD STATE PERIOD 2020 Census 199,723 (0.42)% 1,185,238 2.14% 3,271,616 2.05% 2019 Estimate 200,567 0.07 1,160,437 1.02 3,205,958 1.66 2018 Estimate 200,435 (0.25) 1,148,692 1.05 3,153,550 1.69 2017 Estimate 200,932 3.21 1,136,719 1.48 3,101,042 1.95 2016 Estimate 194,680 1.31 1,120,109 1.62 3,041,868 2.01 2015 Estimate 192,163 0.17 1,102,273 1.13 2,981,835 1.53 2014 Estimate 191,837 (0.15) 1,090,005 0.98 2,936,879 1.35 2013 Estimate 192,121 1.02 1,079,392 1.45 2,897,640 1.55 2012 Estimate 190,183 1.02 1,063,956 1.56 2,853,375 1.39 2011 Estimate 188,265 0.98 1,047,610 1.74 2,814,384 1.83 2010 Census 186,440 2.58 1,029,655 14.61 2,763,885 23.77 2000 Census 181,743 13.63 898,387 23.75 2,233,169 29.62 1990 Census 159,936 (1.90) 725,956 17.27 1,722,850 17.92 1980 Census 163,034 (7.31) 619,066 34.99 1,461,037 37.93 1970 Census 175,885 - 458,607 - 1,059,273 - (Source: U.S. Census Bureau,as revised and subject to periodic revision) PROPERTY VALUE OF PRE-AUTHORIZED CONSTRUCTION IN THE CITY ADDITIONS, TOTAL NEW ALTERATIONS AND REPAIRS CONSTRUCTION Non- Non- %Change Number Residential residential Residential residential from Dwelling Value Value Value Value Value Prior Year Units ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) ($000) Period 2021 4,131 $765,117.50 $467,325.40 $48,870.30 $717,998.40 $1,999,311.60 37.6% 2020 2,282 309,034.00 418,296.00 105,562.20 620,532.80 1,453,425.00 2.6 2019 3,894 589,888.26 458,798.94 40,935.10 326,724.32 1,416,346.63 72.1 2018 877 126,957.58 430,249.04 37,988.97 227,906.72 823,102.31 (2.4) 2017 648 99,053.93 428,214.54 35,050.72 280,826.61 843,145.78 (43.1) (Source: Kem C.Gardner Policy Institute,University of Utah Ivory-Boyer Construction Database.) SALES AND BUILDING IN SALT LAKE COUNTY SALES AND BUILDING 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 Gross Taxable Sales $31,377,750 $30,093,152 $28,846,015 $27,084,521 $25,415,491 Permit Authorized Construction $4,043,270.6 $3,838,632.5 $3,015,289.6 $2,899,665.5 $3,266,939.5 New Dwelling Units 10,553 9,798 8,150 6,602 8,328 New Residential Value 1,929,212.7 1,804,752.7 1,470,556.5 $1,288,967.8 $1,406,216.3 (Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services and Kent C. Gardner Policy Institute, University of Utah-Ivory-Boyer Construction Database.) - 13 - INCOME AND WAGES IN SALT LAKE COUNTY INCOME AND WAGES 2019 2018 2017 2016 2015 Total Personal Income($000) $64,341,937 $60,971,412 $56,946,401 $53,946,312 $51,331,831 Per Capita Income $55,446 $53,079 $50,097 $48,162 $45,569 Median Household Income Estimates $79,941 $73,619 $71,396 $68,404 $65,549 Average Monthly Nonfarm Wage $4,724 $4,513 $4,337 $4,211 $4,120 (Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.) BUSINESS AND INDUSTRY TAXABLE SALES AND LOCAL OPTION SALES TAX ALLOCATION THE CITY YEAR ENDED GROSS TAXABLE %CHANGE OVER LOCAL OPTION SALES %CHANGE OVER TUNE 30 SALES* PRIOR YEAR TAXES RECEIVED PRIOR YEAR 2020 $8,866,974,472 (3.4)% $66,363,398 2.3% 2019 9,178,096,008 3.6 64,897,442 4.9 2018 8,862,086,472 7.7 61,864,444 8.3 2017 8,229,084,282 8.0 57,119,114 6.4 2016 7,615,725,610 -- 53,668,768 -- Source: Utah State Tax Commission. - 14 - SEVERAL OF THE LARGEST EMPLOYERS IN SALT LAKE COUNTY The following is a list of some of the largest employers in Salt Lake County. APPROXIMATE NUMBER FIRM NAME INDUSTRY OF EMPLOYEES University of Utah Colleges,Universities,&Professional Schools 20,000+ State of Utah Government 20,000+ Intermountain Health Care General Medical& Surgical Hospitals 15,000-19,999 U.S. Government Government 10,000-14,999 LDS Church Religious Agencies Religious Organizations 7,000-9,999 Zions Bank Financial Services 7,000-9,999 Wal-Mart Warehouse Clubs/Supercenters 7,000-9,999 Granite School District Public Education 7,000-9,999 Jordan School District Public Education 5,000-6,999 Salt Lake County Local Government 5,000-6,999 Amazon Fulfillment Services Delivery Service 4,000-4,999 Canyons School District Public Education 4,000-4,999 Delta Airlines Transportation 4,000-4,999 ARUP Laboratories Medical Research 3,000-3,999 United Parcel Service Delivery Service 3,000-3,999 Smiths Grocery Stores 3,000-3,999 Discover Financial Services 3,000-3,999 Department of Veterans Affairs Health Care 3,000-3,999 Salt Lake City School District Public Education 3,000-3,999 Wells Fargo Financial Services 3,000-3,999 Salt Lake Community College Higher Education 3,000-3,999 U.S.Postal Service Postal Service 2,000-2,999 Goldman Sachs Financial Services 2,000-2,999 L3 Technologies Manufacturing 2,000-2,999 McDonalds Restaurants 2,000-2,999 Utah Transit Authority Public Transportation 2,000-2,999 Kennecott Utah Copper Mining 2,000-2,999 Salt Lake City Local Government 2,000-2,999 Merit Medical Systems Manufacturing 2,000-2,999 (Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services. As of April 2022.) - 15 - LABOR MARKET DATA OF SALT LAKE COUNTY 2020 2019 2018 2017 2016 Civilian Labor Force 642,357 634,741 619,396 614,498 601,470 Employed 609,766 618,767 601,161 595,348 582,448 Unemployed 32,591 15,974 18,235 19,150 19,122 Total Private Sector(average) NA NA 612,635 595,855 581,825 Mining 2,704 2,645 2,853 2,408 2,428 Construction 45,883 42,773 40,034 38,052 35,760 Manufacturing 56,540 57,836 56,653 55,951 54,487 Trade,transportation and utilities 145,125 145,881 143,262 138,920 136,787 Information 20,247 20,567 20,031 20,204 18,979 Financial activities 61,313 59,900 58,727 56,982 55,414 Professional and business services 128,950 129,758 125,720 122,209 120,654 Education,health and social services 83,301 84,687 82,534 81,174 78,557 Leisure and hospitality 51,823 62,712 60,804 58,811 57,521 Other services 20,477 22,401 21,859 21,295 21,041 Government 103,455 104,456 105,383 102,654 100,223 (Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services.) RATE OF UNEMPLOYMENT ANNUAL AVERAGE YEAR SALT LAKE COUNTY THE STATE UNITED STATES 2022* 2.1% 1.9% 3.6% 2021 2.8 2.7 5.3 2020 5.1 4.7 8.1 2019 2.5 2.6 3.7 2018 2.8 2.9 3.9 2017 3.1 3.3 4.4 * Preliminary;subject to change. As of April 2022(seasonally adjusted). (Source: Utah Department of Workforce Services;U.S.Department of Labor.) - 16 - DEBT STRUCTURE OF SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH For purposes of the information set forth under this section under the headings entitled "Outstanding Debt Issues," "Debt Service Schedule of Outstanding General Obligation Bonds," "Overlapping General Obligation Debt," "Debt Ratios," and "General Obligation Legal Debt Limit and Additional Debt Incurring Capacity," the Bonds are considered issued and outstanding. OUTSTANDING DEBT ISSUES(EXPECTED AS OF CLOSING DATE OF THE BONDS) AMOUNT OF FINAL PRINCIPAL ORIGINAL ISSUE MATURITY DATE OUTSTANDING General Obligation Bonds: Series 2010B(Public Safety Facilities) $100,000,000 6/15/2031 $ 49,885,000 Series 2013(Refunded a portion of Series 2004A) 6,395,000 6/15/2024 1,440,000 Series 2015A Refunding(Taxable Sports Complex) 14,615,000 6/15/2028 6,795,000 Series 2015B Refunding(Open Space) 4,095,000 6/15/2023 320,000 Series 2017B Refunding(Refunded portion of Series 2010A) 12,920,000 6/15/2030 10,775,000 Series 2019 Improvement and Refunding(Refunded a portion of Series 2017A) 22,840,000 6/15/2039 15,405,000 Series 2020(Streets) 17,745,000 6/15/2040 12,675,000 Series 2021 (Streets) 20,660,000 6/15/2041 16,810,000 Series 2022(Streets)12) * 6/15/204_ Total $ Water and Sewer Revenue Bonds: Series 2009(Taxable) $ 6,300,000 2/1/2031 $ 2,835,000 Series 2010 Revenue Bonds 12,000,000 2/1/2031 5,965,000 Series 2011 Revenue Bonds 8,000,000 2/l/2027 2,780,000 Series 2012 Improvement and Refunding Bonds 28,565,000 2/l/2027 6,535,000 Series 2017 Improvement and Refunding Bonds 72,185,000 2/l/2037 62,435,000 Series 2020 Improvement Bonds 157,390,000 2/l/2050 157,390,000 Series 2020B Improvement Bonds(WIFIA loan)(3) 348,635,000 8/l/2058 13,112,999 Series 2022 Improvement Bonds 329,025,000 2/l/2052 329,025,000 Total $580,077,999 Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds: Series 2013B 7,315,000 10/1/2033 $ 690,000 Series 2014B 10,935,000 10/1/2034 7,955,000 Series 2016A 21,715,000 10/1/2028 15,920,000 Series 2019A 2,620,000 4/l/2027 1,555,000 Series 2019B(Federally Taxable) 58,540,000 4/l/2038 57,270,000 Series 2021 (Federally Taxable) 15,045,000 10/1/2034 15,045,000 Series 2022A 8,900,000 10/1/2032 8,900,000 Total $107,335,000 Motor Fuel Excise Tax Revenue Bonds: Series 2014 $8,800,000 4/l/2024 $ 1,900,000 Airport Revenue Bonds: Series 2017A $826,210,000 7/l/2047 $ 825,105,000 Series 2017B 173,790,000 7/l/2047 173,755,000 Series 2018A 753,855,000 7/1/2048 753,855,000 Series 2018B 96,695,000 7/l/2048 96,695,000 Series 2021A 776,925,000 7/1/2051 776,925,000 Series 2021B 127,645,000 7/1/2051 127,475,000 Total $2,753,810,000 Local Building Authority Lease Revenue Bonds0): Series 2013A $7,180,000 10/15/2034 $ 650,000 Series 2014A 7,095,000 4/15/2035 310,000 Series 2016A 6,755,000 4/15/2037 5,490,000 Series 2017A 8,115,000 4/15/2038 7,260,000 Total $13,710,000 (1) The Redevelopment Agency of Salt Lake City,a separate entity,has issued bonds,but such bonds are not obligations of the City and are therefore not included in this table. See "APPENDIx B—SALT LAKE.CITY CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2021 Notes to the Financial Statements Note 6—Long-Terra Obligations." (2) For the purposes of this Official Statement,the Series 2022 Bonds are considered issued and outstanding. (3) Amount shown is the amount drawn down from the WIFIA Loan as of the date of this Official Statement. (4) The Local Building Authority of Salt Lake City is a separate entity. Lease Revenue Bonds are not obligations of the City,but are paid from annually appropriated rental payments made by the City. - 17 - DEBT SERVICE SCHEDULE OF OUTSTANDING GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS (As of , 2022) Fiscal Outstanding Totals Year Bonds General Obligation Bonds Total Ending Total Total Debt June 30 Principal* Interest Principal Interest Principal Interest Service 2023 $ $ $ 10,140,000 $ 4,084,862 $ $ $ 2024 10,190,000 3,717,345 2025 9,755,000 3,376,942 2026 10,115,000 3,016,635 2027 10,495,000 2,639,760 2028 10,875,000 2,245,975 2029 10,040,000 1,835,275 2030 9,750,000 1,449,402 2031 8,455,000 1,087,944 2032 2,330,000 802,150 2033 2,420,000 716,250 2034 2,495,000 636,350 2035 2,580,000 553,950 2036 2,665,000 468,700 2037 2,750,000 380,550 2038 2,840,000 289,550 2039 2,945,000 195,500 2040 2,080,000 97,950 2041 1,185,000 35,550 Total* $ $ $114, 005,000 $27,630,640 $ $ $ * Amounts may not add due to rounding. FUTURE DEBT PLANS The special bond election held on November 6, 2018 gave voter authorization to the City to issue up to $87 million in general obligation bonds to fund all or a portion of the costs of improving various streets and roads throughout the City and related infrastructure improvements. After the issuance of the Bonds,the City currently has approximately$ of authorized, but unissued, bonds from the November 6, 2018 voted authorization, which the City anticipates issuing within the next 5-6 years. The City is also considering issuing one or more series of Sales and Excise Tax Revenue bonds to pay for various capital improvement projects and to refund certain outstanding Sales and Excise Tax Revenue Bonds and certain Lease Revenue Bonds. The total par amount is estimated at$82 million. - 18 - The City will issue approximately$506 million in additional general airport revenue bonds in the future to complete the $4.5 billion airport reconstruction program. The reconstruction program is currently expected to be completed by 2024. The City applied for a $7,000,000 infrastructure loan to finance a portion of the cost of a neighborhood parking structure through a revolving fund called the Utah State Infrastructure Bank Fund. The loan will bear interest of 1.96%, and the term is 15 years. To secure the repayment of the loan, the City will pledge the funds allocated by the State of Utah, by HB 244 (First Class County Highway Road Funds.) Public utilities revenue bonds of approximately$503 million are expected to be issued over the next seven years to fund the Department of Public Utilities ("Public Utilities") capital improvement program. A major focus of Public Utilities' budget is the rehabilitation and replacement of aging infrastructure. The largest planned projects are the new water reclamation facility to meet regulatory requirements, improvements to three water treatment plants, phased construction of a new water conveyance line to expand service and provide redundancy, and water, sewer and storm water utility infrastructure work necessitated by street improvements projects pursuant to the City's passage of the general obligation bond for that purpose. Public Utilities will also be utilizing proceeds from a $348,635,000 Water Infrastructure Finance and Innovation Act (WIFIA) loan secured to finance the construction of the water reclamation facility. The loan will be drawn through 2024. The City analyzes the potential value of refunding bond issues,particularly during periods of lower than normal interest rates or on an as needed basis and may issue refunding bonds at such times. - 19 - OVERLAPPING GENERAL OBLIGATION DEBT CITY'S ENTITY'S CITY'S 2020 TAXABLE PORTION OF CITY'S GENERAL PORTION OF TAXING ENTITY(i) VALUE(') TAXABLE VALUE(2) PERCENTAGE OBLIGATION DEBT(�) G.O.DEBT CUWCD(4)...................... $201,485,463,338 $34,767,046,397 17.26% $154,005,000 $ 26,574,120 Salt Lake City School District.......................... 34,714,496,946 34,678,000,000 99.89 12,360,000 12,347,005 Salt Lake County............ 129,217,418,831 34,767,046,397 26.91 172,455,000 46,400,478 Total Overlapping General Obligation Debt........................................................................................................... $ 85,321,603 Total Direct General Obligation Bonded Indebtedness........................................................................................... $127,185,000 Total Direct and Overlapping General Obligation Debt.......................................................................................... $212,506,603 (1) The State's general obligation debt is not included in overlapping debt because the State currently levies no property tax for payment of its general obligation bonds. (2) Taxable Value used in this table excludes the taxable value used to determine uniform fees on tangible personal property. See"FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH—Property Tax Matters—Un7fOrm Fees"and"FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH—Taxable and Fair Market Value of Property." (3) Entity's General Obligation Debt used in this table is as of June 30,2021 in the case of CUWCD and Salt Lake City School District,and December 31,2020 in the case of Salt Lake County. (4) Central Utah Water Conservancy District("CUWCD')encompasses all or a portion of eight State counties,including,among others,Salt Lake County. CUWCD's outstanding general obligation bonds are limited ad valorem tax bonds. By law,CUWCD may levy a tax rate of up to 0.000400 to pay for operation and maintenance expenses and any outstanding general obligation indebtedness. (Source: Property Tax Division,Utah State Tax Commission(as to Taxable Value)and entity financial information(as to outstanding general obligation debt).) DEBT RATIOS The following table sets forth the ratios of general obligation debt of the City and the taxing entities listed in the table above entitled "Overlapping General Obligation Debt" that is expected to be paid from taxes levied specifically for such debt(and not from other revenues) on the taxable value of property within Salt Lake City, the estimated fair market value of such property and the population of Salt Lake City. The State's general obligation debt is not included in the debt ratios because the State currently levies no property tax for payment of general obligation debt. COMPARED COMPARED COMPARED TO 2020 To 2020 To 2020 POPULATION TAXABLE ESTIMATED FAIR ESTIMATE VALUE(I) MARKET VALUE PER CAPITA(3) Direct General Obligation Debt......... 0.37% 0.28% $637 Direct and Overlapping General Obligation Debt............................. 0.61% 0.46% $1,064 (1) Based on 2020 Taxable Value of$34,767,046,397,which value excludes the taxable value used to determine uniform fees on tangible personal property. (2) Based 2020 Fair Market Value of$45,901,481,982,which value excludes motor vehicle values. (3) Based on a 2020 population census of 199,723 persons. - 20 - See "FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Property Tax Matters Uniform Fees" and"FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH Taxable and Fair Market Value of Property." GENERAL OBLIGATION LEGAL DEBT LIMIT AND ADDITIONAL DEBT INCURRING CAPACITY The general obligation indebtedness of the City is limited by State law to 8% of taxable property in the City (4% for general purposes and an additional 4% for sewer, water and electric purposes)as computed from the last equalized assessment rolls for State or County purposes prior to incurring the debt. The legal debt limit and additional debt incurring capacity of the City are based on the estimated fair market value for 2020 and are calculated as follows: 2020 Fair Market Value(t).................................................................................................... $46,151,478,923 LEGAL GENERAL WATER,SEWER, DEBT PURPOSES AND LIGHTING TOTAL MARGIN 4% 4% 8% General Obligation Debt Limit $1,846,059,157 $1,846,059,147 $3,692,118,314 Less: Outstanding General Obligation Bonds 127,185,000 -0- 127,185,000 Legal Debt Margin $1,718,874,157 $1,846,059,147 $3,564,933,314 t The full 8%may be used for water,sewer and electric purposes but if it is so used,then no general obligation bonds may be issued in excess of 8%for any purpose. (1) For debt incurring capacity only,in computing the fair market value of taxable property in the City,the fair market value of all tax equivalent property(which value includes the taxable value used to detennine unifonn fees on tangible personal property)has been included as a part of the fair market value of the taxable property in the City. NO DEFAULTED OBLIGATIONS The City has never failed to pay principal of and interest on its financial obligations when due. FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH FUND STRUCTURE;ACCOUNTING BASIS The accounts of the City are organized on the basis of funds, each of which is considered to be a separate accounting entity. The operations of each fund are accounted for by providing a separate set of self-balancing accounts that comprise its assets, liabilities, fund balance or net assets,revenues, and expenditures or expenses. The various funds are grouped by type in the basic financial statements. Revenues and expenditures are recognized using the modified accrual basis of accounting in all governmental funds. Revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they become both measurable and available. "Measurable" means that amounts can be reasonably determined within the current period. "Available" means that amounts are collectible within the current period or soon enough thereafter to be used to pay liabilities of the current period. The - 21 - City uses 60 days as a cutoff for meeting the available criterion. Property taxes are considered "measurable" when levied and available when collected and held by Salt Lake County. Any amounts not available are recorded as deferred revenue. Franchise taxes are considered "measurable" when collected and held by the utility company, and are recognized as revenue at that time. Other revenues that are determined to be susceptible to accrual include grants-in-aid earned and other intergovernmental revenues, charges for services, interest, assessments,interfund service charges, and proceeds of the sale of property. Property taxes and assessments are recorded as receivables when assessed; however,they are reported as deferred revenue until the"available" criterion has been met. Sales and use taxes collected by the State and remitted to the City within the"available"time period are recognized as revenue. Revenues collected in advance are deferred and recognized in the period to which they apply. In proprietary funds, revenues and expenses are recognized using the accrual basis of accounting. Revenues are recognized in the accounting period in which they are earned and become measurable and expenses are recognized in the period incurred. FINANCIAL CONTROLS The City utilizes a computerized financial accounting system which includes a system of budgetary controls. State law requires budgets to be controlled by individual departments,but the City also maintains computerized control by major categories within departments. These computerized controls are such that a requisition cannot be entered into the purchasing system unless the appropriated funds are available. The system checks for sufficient funds again,prior to the purchase order being issued, and again before the payment check is issued. Voucher payments are also controlled by the computer for sufficient appropriations. BUDGET AND APPROPRIATION PROCESS The budget and appropriation process of the City is governed by the Uniform Fiscal Procedures Act for Utah Cities, Title 10, Chapter 6, of the Utah Code (the "Fiscal Procedures Act"). Pursuant to the Fiscal Procedures Act, the budget officer of the City is required to prepare budgets for the General Fund, Special Revenue Funds, Debt Service Funds and Capital Improvement Fund. These budgets are to provide a complete financial plan for the budget(ensuing fiscal)year. Each budget is required to specify, in tabular form, estimates of anticipated revenues and appropriations for expenditures. Under the Fiscal Procedures Act, the total of anticipated revenues must equal the total of appropriated expenditures. On or before the first regular meeting of the City Council in May of each year, the budget officer is required to submit to the City Council tentative budgets for all funds for the Fiscal Year commencing July 1. Various actual and estimated budget data are required to be set forth in the tentative budgets. The budget officer may revise the budget request submitted by the heads of City departments, but must file these submissions with the City Council together with the tentative budget. The budget officer is required to estimate in the tentative budget the revenue from nonproperty tax sources available for each fund and the revenue from general property taxes required by each fund. The tentative budget is then provisionally adopted by the City Council, with any amendments or revisions that the City Council deems advisable prior to the public - 22 - hearings on the tentative budget. After public notice and hearing, the tentative budget is adopted by the City Council, subject to further amendment or revisions by the City Council prior to adoption of the final budget. Prior to June 30th of each year, the final budgets for all funds are adopted by the City Council. The Fiscal Procedures Act prohibits the City Council from making any appropriation in the final budget of any fund in excess of the estimated expendable revenue of such fund. The adopted final budget is subject to amendment by the City Council during the Fiscal Year. However, in order to increase the budget total of any fund, public notice and hearing must be provided. Intra- and inter-department transfers of appropriation balances are permitted upon compliance with the Fiscal Procedures Act. The amount set forth in the final budget as the total amount of estimated revenue from property taxes constitutes the basis for determining the property tax levy to be set by the City Council for the succeeding tax year. INSURANCE COVERAGE The City is largely self-insured for general liability exposures, except for liability incurred on premises owned, rented, or occupied by the Department of Airports (the "Airport"). The City carries commercial excess liability insurance with $1,000,000 self-insured retention per occurrence. Limits of coverage are as follows: $2,000,000 per occurrence general liability; $4,000,000 general aggregate; $2,000,000 combined single limit commercial auto liability; $2,000,000 public officials and employment practices liability; and $2,000,000 law enforcement liability. The City also carries cyber liability insurance. The Airport carries commercial general liability insurance with a $500,000,000 policy limit and no deductible. The Governmental Immunity Fund (an internal service fund) has been established to pay liability claims other than those covered by the Airport policy, along with certain litigation expenses. The City carries an all risk property insurance policy (the "Policy") with a $500,000,000 aggregate limit and a $100,000 deductible, except for earthquake, which carries a 1% deductible per location; and flood, which carries a$250,000 or $500,000 deductible, depending on location. Sub-limits include: (1) earthquake limit of $125,000,000 aggregate; (2) flood limit of $100,000,000 aggregate; and (3) dams and appurtenant structures limit of$30,000,000 aggregate except for Mountain Dell, which carries a $60,000,000 aggregate limit. (4) Business interruption and extra expense are covered at $10,000,000. (5) Terrorism loss is covered at $5,000,000. The City is self-insured for property loss above the limits and below the deductibles. The operating departments of the General Fund or proprietary funds assume financial responsibility for risk retained by the City for property damage. The Airport is covered by a separate all risk property insurance policy with a $1,000,000,000 limit, subject to sub-limits and a $100,000 deductible. Locations covered include Salt Lake City International Airport, South Valley Regional Airport, and Tooele Valley Airport. Boiler and machinery carry a deductible of$100,000. Flood carries a sub-limit of$150,000,000 and Earth movement carries sub-limit of$100,000,000 with a 2% deductible per unit, subject to a $100,000 minimum and $5,000,000 maximum in any one occurrence (defined as a 168-hour - 23 - period). Windstorm or hail carries a $1,000,000,000 limit, subject to a minimum $100,000 deductible per occurrence. Time element including business interruption, extra expense, rental value, and rental income is covered at $200,000,000 with a $100,000 deductible. Sub-limits apply for debris removal($25,000,000),valuable papers and records($25,000,000),errors and omissions ($10,000,000), and named storm ($1,000,000,000). The Treasurer, Deputy Treasurer, and Chief Financial Officer are each covered under $10,000,000 public official bonds. The City also has a government crime policy covering (1) employee theft with a $1,000,000 limit and $20,000 deductible; (2) forgery or alteration with a $25,000 limit and $1,000 deductible; (3) theft of money and securities with a $50,000 limit and $2,500 deductible; (4) robbery or safe burglary with a $50,000 limit and $2,500 deductible; (5) money orders and counterfeit money with a$50,000 limit and$2,500 deductible; and(6)computer fraud and funds transfer fraud, each carrying $1,000,000 limits and $20,000 deductibles. The City purchases excess workers' compensation insurance with a$30,000,000 limit and $1,000,000 self-insured retention per occurrence for Fire and Police employees and$750,000 self- insured retention per occurrence for all other employee classifications. The City is self-insured for losses above the limits and below the deductibles. Further, the City is self-insured for unemployment. The Risk Management Fund(an internal service fund)has been established to pay these claims along with health insurance premiums and certain administrative expenses. During the past three fiscal years,there have been no settlements that exceeded the self-insured retentions. See "APPENDIX A— SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021 —Notes to Financial Statements —Note 11 —Risk Management." INVESTMENT POLICY City Policy. It is the policy of the City to invest public funds in accordance with the principles of sound treasury management and in compliance with State and local laws,regulations, and other policies governing the investment of public funds, specifically, according to the terms and conditions of the State Money Management Act of 1974 and Rules of the State Money Management Council as currently amended(the "Money Management Act"), and the City's own written investment policy. The following investment objectives, in order of priority, are met when investing public funds: safety of principal, need for liquidity, and maximum yield on investments consistent with the first two objectives. The City may use investment advisers to conduct investment transactions on its behalf as permitted by the Money Management Act and local ordinance or policy. Investment advisers must be certified by the Director of the Utah State Division of Securities of the Department of Commerce (the "Director"). Broker/dealers and agents who desire to become certified dealers must be certified by the Director and meet the requirements of the Money Management Act. Only qualified depositories as certified by Utah's Commissioner of Financial Institutions are eligible to receive and hold deposits of public funds. The State Money Management Council issues a quarterly list of certified investment advisers, certified dealers, and qualified depositories authorized by State statute to conduct transactions with public treasurers. Transactions involving - 24 - authorized deposits or investments of public funds may be conducted only through issuers of securities authorized by Section 51-7-11(3) of the Utah Code, qualified depositories included in the current State list, and certified dealers included in the current State list. The City Treasurer must take delivery of all investments purchased, including those purchased through a certified investment adviser. This may be accomplished by the City Treasurer taking physical delivery of the security or delivering the security to a bank or trust company designated by the City Treasurer for safekeeping. The City Treasurer may use a qualified depository bank for safekeeping securities or maintain an account with a money center bank for the purpose of settling investment transactions and safekeeping and collecting those investments. City policy provides that not more than 25% of total City funds or 25% of the qualified depository's allotment, whichever is less, can be invested in any one qualified depository. Not more than 20% of total City funds may be invested in any one certified out-of-state depository institution. However, there is no limitation placed on the amount invested with the Utah Public Treasurer's Investment Fund ("PTIF") and other money market mutual funds, provided that the overall standards of investments achieve the City's policy objectives. All funds pledged or otherwise dedicated to the payment of interest on and principal of bonds or notes issued by the City are invested in accordance with the terms and borrowing instruments applicable to such bonds or notes. City policy also provides that the remaining term to maturity of an investment may not exceed the period of availability of the funds invested. The investment of City funds cannot be of a speculative nature. The City's entire portfolio is currently in compliance with all of the provisions of the Money Management Act. The Utah Public Treasurers'Investment Fund. The PTIF is a local government investment fund, established in 1981, and managed by the State Treasurer. Generally, substantial portion of the City's funds are on deposit in the PTIF(currently approximately$1.5 billion). All investments in the PTIF must comply with the Money Management Act and rules of the State Money Management Council. The PTIF invests primarily in money market securities. Securities in the PTIF include certificates of deposit, commercial paper, short-term corporate notes, obligations of the U.S. Treasury and securities of certain agencies of the federal government. By policy, the maximum weighted average adjusted life of the portfolio is not to exceed 90 days and the maximum final maturity of any security purchased by the PTIF is limited to five years. Safekeeping and audit controls for all investments owned by the PTIF must comply with the Money Management Act. All securities purchased are delivered versus payment to the custody of the State Treasurer or the State Treasurer's safekeeping bank, assuring a perfected interest in the securities. Securities owned by the PTIF are completely segregated from securities owned by the State. The State has no claim on assets owned by the PTIF except for any investment of State moneys in the PTIF. Deposits are not insured or otherwise guaranteed by the State. Investment activity of the State Treasurer in the management of the PTIF is reviewed monthly by the State Money Management Council and is audited by the State Auditor. - 25 - The information in this section concerning the current status of the PTIF has been obtained from sources the City believes to be reliable, but the City takes no responsibility for the accuracy thereof. See "APPENDIX A— SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30, 2021 —Notes to the Financial Statements—Note 2—Cash, Cash Equivalents and Investments"below. PROPERTY TAX MATTERS The Property Tax Act, Chapter 2, Title 59 of the Utah Code (the "Property Tax Act"), provides that all taxable property is required to be assessed and taxed at a uniform and equal rate on the basis of its "fair market value" as of January 1 of each year, unless otherwise provided by law. "Fair market value" is defined in the Property Tax Act as "the amount at which property would change hands between a willing buyer and a willing seller, neither being under any compulsion to buy or sell and both having reasonable knowledge of the relevant facts." Pursuant to an exemption for residential property provided for under the Property Tax Act and Article XIII of the State Constitution, the "fair market value" of residential property is reduced by 45%. The residential exemption is limited to one acre of land per residential unit and to one primary residence per household, except that an owner of multiple residential properties may exempt his or her primary residence and each residential property that is the primary residence of a tenant. The Property Tax Act provides that the Utah State Tax Commission (the "State Tax Commission")shall assess certain types of property("centrally-assessed property"),including(a) properties that operate as a unit across county lines that must be apportioned among more than one county or state, (b) public utility (including railroad) properties, (c) airline operating properties, (d) geothermal resources and (e) mines, mining claims and appurtenant machinery, facilities and improvements. All other taxable property("locally-assessed property")is required to be assessed by the county assessor of the county in which such locally-assessed property is located. Each county assessor must update property values annually based upon a systematic review of current market data by using a mass appraisal system and must also complete a detailed review of property characteristics for each parcel of property at least once every five years. The Property Tax Act requires that the State Tax Commission conduct an annual investigation in each county to determine whether all property subject to taxation is on the assessment rolls and whether the property is being assessed at its "fair market value." The State Tax Commission and the county assessors utilize various valuation methods, as determined by statute,administrative regulation or accepted practice,to determine the"fair market value" of taxable property. Uniform Fees. An annual statewide uniform fee is levied on tangible personal property in lieu of the ad valorem tax. The uniform fee is based on the value of motor vehicles, watercraft, recreational vehicles, and all other tangible personal property required to be registered with the State. The current uniform fee is established at 1.5% of the fair market value of motor vehicles that weigh 12,001 pounds or more; watercraft; motorcycles, recreational vehicles and all other tangible personal property required to be registered with the State, excluding exempt property such - 26 - as aircraft, commercial vehicles and property subject to a fixed age-based fee. Motor vehicles weighing 12,000 pounds or less are subject to an age-based fee that is due each time the vehicle is registered. The age-based fee is for passenger type vehicles and ranges from $7.75 to $150, depending on the age of the vehicle. Recreation vehicles, motorcycles, watercraft (except large watercraft), snowmobiles, certain small motor vehicles and motor homes required to be registered with the State are also subject to an aged-based fee that ranges from $4.00 to $700, depending on the age of the vehicle. The revenues collected from the various uniform fees are distributed by the county to the taxing entity in which the property is located in the same proportion in which revenue collected from ad valorem real property tax is distributed. Property Tax Valuation Agency Fund. The State Legislature requires each county to annually impose a multicounty assessing and collecting levy to fund a Property Tax Valuation Agency Fund (the "PTVAF") and a Multicounty Appraisal Trust (the "Multicounty Trust"). Disbursements to counties from the PTVAF are to be used to offset costs of assessing and collecting property taxes; improve the accurate valuation and uniform assessment levels of property and improve the efficiency of the property tax system and are based on various administrative rules. Funds deposited into the Multicounty Trust are to be used to provide funding for a statewide property tax system that is intended to promote, among other things, the accurate valuation of property,the establishment and maintenance of uniform assessment levels within and among counties, and the efficient administration of the property tax system, including the costs of assessment, collection and distribution of property taxes. A county may levy an additional tax to (a) promote the accurate valuation and uniform assessment levels of property, (b) promote the efficient administration of the property tax system, including the costs of assessment, collection and distribution of property taxes, (c) fund state mandated actions and (d) establish reappraisal programs. TAX LEVY AND COLLECTION The State Tax Commission must assess all centrally-assessed property by May 1 of each year. County assessors must assess all locally-assessed property before May 22 of each year. The State Tax Commission apportions the value of centrally-assessed property to the various taxing entities within each county and reports such values to county auditors before June 8. The governing body of each taxing entity must adopt a proposed tax rate or, if the tax rate is not more than the certified tax rate, a final tax rate, before June 22; provided if the governing body has not received the taxing entity's certified tax rate at least seven days prior to June 22, the governing body of the taxing entity must, no later than 14 days after receiving the certified tax rate from the county auditor, adopt a proposed tax rate or, if the tax rate is not more than the certified tax rate, a final tax rate. County auditors must forward to the State Tax Commission a statement prepared by the legislative body of each taxing entity showing the amount and purpose of each levy. Upon determination by the State Tax Commission that the tax levies comply with applicable law and do not exceed maximum permitted rates, the State Tax Commission notifies county auditors to implement the levies. If the State Tax Commission determines that a tax levy established by a taxing entity exceeds the maximum levy permitted by law, the State Tax Commission must lower the levy to the maximum levy permitted by law, notify the taxing entity that the rate has been lowered and notify the county auditor (of the county in which the taxing entity is located) to implement the rate established by the State Tax Commission. - 27 - On or before July 22 of each year,the county auditors must mail to all owners of real estate shown on their assessment rolls notice of, among other things, the value of the property, itemized tax information for all taxing entities and the date their respective county boards of equalization will meet to hear complaints. Taxpayers owning property assessed by a county assessor may file an application within statutorily defined time limits based on the nature of the contest with the appropriate county board of equalization for the purpose of contesting the assessed valuation of their property. The county board of equalization must render a decision on each appeal in the time frame prescribed by the Property Tax Act. Under certain circumstances, the county board of equalization must hold a hearing regarding the application, at which the taxpayer has the burden of proving that the property sustained a decrease in fair market value. Decisions of the county board of equalization may be appealed to the State Tax Commission,which must decide all appeals relating to real property by March 1 of the following year. Owners of centrally-assessed property, or any county with a showing of reasonable cause, may, on or before the later of August 1 or a day within 90 days of the date the notice of assessment is mailed by the State Tax Commission, apply to the State Tax Commission for a hearing to contest the assessment of centrally-assessed property. The State Tax Commission must render a written decision within 120 days after the hearing is completed and all post-hearing briefs are submitted. The county auditor makes a record of all changes, corrections and orders, and delivers before November 1 the corrected assessment rolls to the county treasurers. On or before November 1, each county treasurer furnishes each taxpayer a notice containing, among other things,the kind and value of the property assessed to the taxpayer, the street address of the property, where applicable, the amount of the tax levied on the property and the year the property is subject to a detailed review. Without an extension by a county legislative body, taxes are due November 30, or if a Saturday, Sunday or holiday, the next business day. Each county treasurer is responsible for collecting all taxes levied on real property within that county. There are no prior claims to such taxes. As taxes are collected, each county treasurer must pay to the State and each taxing entity within the county its proportionate share of the taxes, on or before the tenth day of each month. Delinquent taxes are subject to a penalty of 2.5% of the amount of the taxes or $10, whichever is greater. Unless the delinquent taxes and penalty are paid before January 31 of the following year, the amount of delinquent taxes and penalty bears interest at the federal funds rate target established by the Federal Open Markets Committee plus 6% from the January 1 following the delinquency date until paid(provided that said interest may not be less than 7%or more than 10%) If delinquent taxes have not been paid by March 15 following the lapse of four years from the delinquency date, the affected county advertises and sells the property at a final tax sale held in May or June of the fifth year after assessment. The process described above changes if a county or other taxing entity proposes a tax rate in excess of the certified tax rate(as described under"FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Public Hearing on Certain Tax Increases" below). If such an increase is proposed, the taxing entity must adopt a proposed tax rate before June 22. In addition, the county auditor must include certain information in the notices to be mailed by July 22, as described above, including information concerning the tax impact of the proposed increase on the property and the time and place of the public hearing described in "FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH Public Hearing on Certain Tax Increases" below. In most cases, notice of the public hearing must also be advertised by publication. After the public hearing is held, the - 28 - taxing entity may adopt a resolution levying a tax in excess of the certified tax rate. The final tax notice is then mailed by November 1. PUBLIC HEARING ON CERTAIN TAX INCREASES Each taxing entity that proposes to levy a tax rate that exceeds the "certified tax rate"may do so, by resolution, only after holding a properly noticed public hearing. Generally, the certified tax rate is the rate necessary to generate the same property tax revenue that the taxing entity budgeted for the prior year, with certain exclusions. For purposes of calculating the certified tax rate, county auditors are to use the taxable value of property on the assessment rolls, exclusive of eligible new growth. With certain exceptions, the certified tax rate for the minimum school levy, debt service voted on by the public and certain state and county assessing and collecting levies are the actual levies imposed for such purposes and no hearing is required for these levies. Among other requirements, on or before July 22 of the year in which such an increase is proposed, the county auditor must mail to all property owners a notice of the public hearing. In most cases, the taxing entity must also advertise the notice of the public hearing by publication in a newspaper. Such notices must state, among other things, the value of the property, the taxable value of the property, the deadline to make application to appeal the valuation or equalization of the property, and the tax impact of the proposed increase. SOURCES OF GENERAL FUND REVENUES Set forth below are brief descriptions of the various sources of revenues available to the City's general fund. The percentage of total general fund revenues represented by each source is based on the City's audited June 30, 2021 fiscal year period: Sales, use and excise taxes — Approximately 36.45% of general fund revenues are from sales, use and excise taxes. General property taxes—Approximately 33.73%of general fund revenues are from general property taxes. Licenses and Permits—Approximately 10.82% of general fund revenues are from licenses and permits. Franchise taxes—Approximately 7.12%of general fund revenues are from franchise taxes. Interfund service charges — Approximately 6.23% of general fund revenues are from interfund service charges. Intergovernmental — Approximately 1.42% of general fund revenues are from other governmental entities. Charges for Services — Approximately 1.20% of general fund revenues are from charges for services. - 29 - Miscellaneous — Approximately 0.83% of general fund revenues are from miscellaneous revenues. Parking meter—Approximately 0.57% of general fund revenues are from parking meters. Fines and forfeitures—Approximately 0.55% of general fund revenues are from fines and forfeitures. Parking tickets—Approximately 0.51% of general fund revenues are from parking tickets. Interest—Approximately 0.34% of general fund revenues are from interest income. Rental and other income—Approximately 0.24% of general fund revenues are from rental and other income. FIVE-YEAR FINANCIAL SUMMARIES The summaries contained herein were extracted from the City's financial statements for the fiscal years ended June 30, 2017 through June 30, 2021. The summaries are unaudited. See also "APPENDIX A— SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2021." - 30 - SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION,UTAH STATEMENT OF NET POSITION—GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES (FISCAL YEARS ENDED TUNE 30) Unaudited FISCAL YEAR ENDED TUNE 30 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 ASSETS: Current assets: Cash and cash equivalents Unrestricted(')........................................ $297,001,895 $205,140,649 $173,296,451 $ 136,508,084 $130,570,538 Restricted.............................................. 39,665,829 34,188,038 30,558,462 45,632,659 51,048,361 Receivables: Property,franchise and excise taxes...... 142,366,046 126,757,993 121,878,908 110,378,720 109,649,106 Assessments.......................................... 1,599,173«I 3,781,533131 3,923,40214) 1,426,875(5) 4,519,45316) Loans and other receivables.................. 196,292 7,198,376 16,323,694 15,854,701 14,434,319 Due from other governments................... 2,001,577 1,485,561 900,768 606,427 1,215,253 Due from other governments for cash overdraft.................................................. - 2,746,105 5,166,500 - 14,285,147 Other,principally accrued interest........... 363,028 - 360,735 604,183 664,244 Prepaid Expenses..................................... 2,752,662 2,984,933 2,926,066 2,493,423 2,640,895 Inventories............................................... 869,627 774,660 817,167 741,940 726,497 Internal balances...................................... 10,736,114 9,822,080 7,429,743 7,354,925 7,332,026 Total current assets..................... 497,552,243 394,879,928 363,581,896 321,601,937 337,086,080 Noncurrent assets: Restricted cash and cash equivalents...... - - 8,561 27,239 693,089 Property and equipment,at cost: Land and water rights............................ 214,979,203 213,141,701 206,641,702 204,616,025 205,840,121 Infrastructure......................................... 348,923,890 334,200,249 328,205,613 318,900,140 296,789,287 Buildings............................................... 422,133,087 421,593,611 418,267,960 391,967,029 383,489,329 Improvements other than buildings....... 116,303,900 114,148,172 112,998,914 98,476,480 50,795,891 Machinery and equipment..................... 147,970,756 144,054,928 134,125,031 121,884,657 114,839,558 Construction in progress........................ 15,885,212 13,156,742 7,925,802 44,532,285 99,709,556 Accumulated depreciation..................... (427,457,704) (400,438,206) (374,321,872) (351,033,657) (331,203,791) Net property and equipment................ 838,738,344 839,857,197 833,843,150 829,342,959 820,259,951 Loans and other long-term receivables.... - - 6,503 - - Investment in joint venture...................... 929,006 1,005,459 1,020,755 1,048,804 864,755 Net pension asset..................................... 36379,901 16,662,414 - 5,757,520 35,771 Total noncurrent assets............... 876,047,251 857,525,070 834,878,969 836,176,522 821,853,566 Total assets........................ 1373,599,494 $1,252,404.998 $1,198,460,865 $1,157,778,459 $1,158,939,605 Deferred Outflows of Resources: Deferred gain on the refunding of debt. 6,439,819 6,802,878 - 2,614,501 Deferred outflows—Pension................. 28,310,693 28,187,987 63,670,921 61,495,100 56,504,765 Total deferred outflows............. 34,750,512 34,990,865 63,670,921 61,495,100 59,119,266 Total assets and deferred outflows of resources.... $1,408 350 006 $1.287, 995,865 $1,262,131 786 $1.219 273 559 $1.218, 558 871 (1) The changes in unrestricted and restricted cash and cash equivalents are due,for the most part,to the timing ofthe release of bond proceeds from restricted accounts until such proceeds are actually spent. (2) Including$1,997,733 of delinquent assessments (3) Including$1,997,733 of delinquent assessments (4) Including$1,997,733 of delinquent assessments (5) Including$1,892,192 ofdelinquent assessments (6) Including$384,417 of delinquent assessments (Source: Information is taken from the City's audited financial statements. This summary itseifhas not been audited.) - 31 - SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION,UTAH STATEMENT OF NET POSITION—GOVERNMENTAL ACTIVITIES (FISCAL YEARS ENDED TUNE 30) (continued) Unaudited FISCAL YEAR ENDED TUNE 30 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 LIABILITIES: Current Liabilities: Accounts payable............................... $ 18,596,608 $ 11,004,215 $ 8,971,850 $ 9,464,358 $ 10,479,354 Accrued liabilities................................. 16,098,048 17,113,193 14,102,810 24,413,747 11,844,403 Due to other funds for cash overdraft.... 2,746,105 5,166,500 - 14,285,147 Current portion of long-term compensated absences......................... 3,132,026 2,243,741 2,474,761 445,411 359,141 Current portion of estimated claims payable................................................ 19,592,573 - 2,325,578 - 2,503,457 Current portion of long-term debt: payable from unrestricted assets.......... - 25,978,959 23,575,176 28,445,083 4,162,343 Other liabilities payable from restricted assets................................................... 766,878 3,446,127 4,311,679 1,773,111 3,399,134 Current deposits and advance rentals..... 5A34,989 5,788,342 6,296,651 2,972,167 3,737,924 Total current liabilities............... 63,621.122 68,320,682 67,225,005 67,513,877 50,770,903 Noncurrent liabilities: Long-term compensation absences liability............................................. 20,709,179 19,817,132 16,062,411 15,524,877 14,265,703 Estimated claims payable...................... 12,927,192 7,581,192 6,866,805 8,755,597 8,708,566 Revenues collected in advance.............. 46,428,092 243,201,008 256,924,802 274,161,402 308,816,271 Bonds payable....................................... 240,097,483 243,201,008 256,924,802 274,161,402 308,816,271 Notes payable........................................ 7,259,226 8,263,371 9,225,733 9,513,211 10,877,434 Net pension liability........................ 63,037,523 101,798,719 158,219,805 100,432,991 121,947,164 Total noncurrent liabilities......... 390,458,695 380,661,422 447,299,556 408388,078 464,615,138 Total liabilities................... 454,079,817 448,982,104 514,524,561 475,901,955 515,386,041 Deferred Inflows of Resources: Deferred property tax revenues...... 106,291,546 104,983,955 99,797,016 95,222,510 97,560,814 Deferred Inflows-revenue collected in advance.............................................. 5,000 5,817,413 - - - Unavailable grant revenue............... - - - 1,187,321 - Deferred Inflows-Pension................ 68,431,541 37,820,944 6,820,594 49,737,469 17,312,004 Total deferred inflows............. 174,728,087 148,622,312 106,617,610 146,147,300 114,872,818 NET POSITION: Net investment in capital assets............. 579,048,288 563,202,691 668,907,410 642,013,234 621,193,874 Restricted for: Debt service........................................ 19,592,573 24,435,870 19,161,674 17,400,982 1,828,871 Capital projects................................... 82,484,787 58,860,342 39,468,770 39,969,704 44,152,125 Unrestricted........................................ 98,416,454 43,292,546 (86,548,239) (102,159,615) (79,374,858) Total net position........................ 779,542,102 689,791,449 640,989,615 597,224,232 587,800,012 Total liabilities and net position.. $1,408,350 006 $1,287 395 865 $1.262 331 786 $1.219 273 559 $1.218, 558 871 (Source: Information is taken from the City's audited financial statements. This summary itselfbas not been audited.) - 32 - SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION,UTAH BALANCE SHEET—GOVERNMENTAL FUNDS—GENERAL FUND (FISCAL YEARS ENDED TUNE 30) Unaudited 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 ASSETS Cash and cash equivalents: Unrestricted $102,997,255 $ 81,186,718 $ 66,930,200 $ 49,087,093 $ 41,534,741 Restricted 1,445,291 1,479,040 1,214,680 119,303 794,556 Receivables Property,franchise and excise 136,947,857 125,990,575 121,146,223 109,657,724 109,140,970 Accounts Receivable* 680,170 410,798 585,327 754,799 1,529,553 Taxes Receivable 4,643,313 6,508,528 9,637,005 7,282,610 7,687,027 Current portion of loans receivables 78,027 91,228 105,658 719,155 143,258 Other,principally accrued interest 4,091 - 3,595 4,048 3,948 Prepaids 2,212,414 2,295,517 2,222,173 2,108,725 2,067,816 Noncurrent assets: Restricted cash and cash equivalents - - - 457,090 Total Assets 249 008 418 217 662 404 201 444.861 169,7 33,457 163,3 88,959 LIABILITIES Accounts payable 5,313,254 4,422,547 3,804,768 3,947,162 3,834,497 Accrued liabilities 14,406,745 12,859,977 11,173,580 10,428,440 8,892,089 Due to other funds for cash overdraft - - 2,033,955 - Current deposits and advance rentals 4,005,053 4,478,386 5,016,747 1,823,210 2,702,137 Current portion of long-term compensated absences 2,705,850 1975,363 2,243,741 179,411 58,476 Total liabilities 26,430,902 23,736,273 22,238,836 IK412,178 15A87,199 DEFERRED INFLOWS OF RESOURCES Receivables not meeting available criterion 106,291,546 104,983,955 99,792,016 95,217,010 97,200,765 Total deferred inflows 106,291,546 104,983,955 99,792,016 95,217,010 97,200,765 FUND BALANCES Nonspendable 2,212,414 9,302,914 12,550,163 10,865,289 11,427,654 Restricted 12,139,443 - - - - Assigned - 9,899,196 15,891,696 8,731,775 7,298,041 Unassigned 101,934,113 70,040,066 51,372,150 36,507,205 31,945,300 Total fund balances 116,285,970 89,242,176 79,814,009 56304,269 50,670,995 Total Liabilities and Fund Balances $249.0 88 418 $217. 662,404 $201, 444 861 $169 733 457 $163 358 959 * Less allowance for 2017 of$78,000. (Source: The City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the indicated years. The summary above has not been audited.) - 33 - SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION,UTAH STATEMENT OF REVENUES,EXPENDITURES AND CHANGES IN FUND BALANCE—GENERAL FUND (FISCAL YEARS ENDED JUNE 30) Unaudited Revenues And Expenditures 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 Revenues: General property tax $113,495,125 $112,588,053 $104,938,706 $101,731,444 $100,322,860 Sales,use and excise taxes 122,654,953 116,199,002 99,403,846 67,940,454 62,776,248 Franchise taxes 23,952,168 26,863,146 27,238,435 27,286,331 28,418,423 Licenses 11,418,021 13,106,709 16,448,180 15,592,788 15,194,896 Permits 25,004,393 19,490,500 20,417,302 15,015,980 19,792,317 Fines and forfeitures 1,837,591 2,567,145 3,316,215 3,457,569 3,524,067 Interest 1,141,861 2,996,417 4,604,973 2,263,772 805,997 Intergovernmental 4,781,753 5,086,254 6,006,496 5,791,774 6,855,998 Interfund service charges 20,971,348 20,574,064 16,363,849 11,413,982 11,450,521 Parking meter collections 1,915,888 2,771,331 3,509,898 3,404,582 3,463,592 Parking tickets 1,701,881 1,186,561 1,824,561 2,110,245 3,204,769 Rental and other income 816,715 760,012 4,618,165 916,512 1,035,637 Charges for services 4,026,186 3,523,747 955,516 4,755,198 4,323,241 Miscellaneous 2,800,718 4,554,707 5,308,035 6,025,249 5398,235 Total Revenues 336,518,601 331267,648 314,954,177 267,705,880 266,566,801 Expenditures: City Council 3,910,937 3,759,472 3,573,889 3,137,125 3,201,795 Mayor 3,495,653 3,862,232 3,121,458 2,856,010 2,752,337 City Attorney 6,840,902 6,788,279 6,643,806 5,896,933 5,549,139 Finance 7,872,632 7,827,573 7,596,941 6,758,236 6,645,796 Fire 40,360,501 42,336,507 42,266,968 39,165,845 38,251,674 Combined Emergency Services 7,557,911 7,953,949 8,066,766 7,377,133 6,861,592 Police 80,751,205 82,368,338 74,956,306 66,609,711 64,158,367 Community and Neighborhoods 23,616,595 23,407,408 22,291,042 21,409,611 19,903,151 Economic Development 2,243,608 1,985,238 1,689,398 1,650,691 1,190,020 Justice Court 4,340,743 4,428,065 4,389,467 4,276,010 4,183,738 Human Resources 2,576,008 2,663,132 2,614,565 2,524,603 2,330,599 Public Services 44,240,773 44,472,172 45,525,224 42,344,796 41,871,303 Nondepartmental 37,572,779 35,162,898 29,585,365 27,602,288 26,450,242 Interest and other fiscal charges 675,866 583,117 371,509 Total Expenditures 265,380,247 267,015,263 252,997,061 232,192,109 223,721,262 Revenues Over(Under)Expenditures 71,138,354 65,252,385 61,957,116 35,513,771 42,845,539 Other Financing Sources(Uses): Proceeds from sale of property 38,996 6,484 43,697 9,756 47,703 Transfers in 8,447,676 6,800,493 7,564,419 8,345,810 7,307,161 Transfers out (52,581,232) (62,631,195) (45,8 55,553) (38,436,099) (40,621,305) Total Other Financing Sources(Uses) (44,094,560) (55,824,218) (38,247,437) (30,080,533) (33,266,441) Net Change in Fund Balances 27,043,794 9,428,167 23,709,740 5,433,238 9,579,098 Fund Balance Prior Year(July 1) 89,241176 79,814,009 56,104,269 50,670,995 41,091,897 Fund Balance Year End(June 30) $116. 885,970 $89,242,176 $79,8 44,009 $56,1 44,269 $50,6 00,995 (Source: The City's Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the indicated years. This summary has not been audited.) - 34 - HISTORICAL CITY TAX RATES TAx RATE PURPOSE 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 General Purposes 0.002854 0.002942 0.003205 0.003236 0.003482 Interest&Sinking Fund 0.000556 0.000583 0.000648 0.000692 0.000772 Library 0.000652 0.000683 0.000745 0.000766 0.000834 Judgment Recovery 0.000014 0.000015 0.000025 0.000049 0.000032 Total Levy 0.004076 0.004223 0.004623 0.004743 0.005120 COMPARATIVE PROPERTY TAX RATES WITHIN SALT LAKE COUNTY TAX RATE Tax Levying Entity 2021 2020 2019 2018 2017 Alta Town 0.000760 0.001260 0.001292 0.001231 0.00163 Bluffdale City 0.001519 0.001695 0.001783 0.001442 0.001751 Cottonwood Heights City 0.001740 0.001898 0.002002 0.002088 0.001961 Draper City 0.001141 0.001227 0.001268 0.001352 0.001460 Herriman City 0.001997 0.000280 0.000287 0.000307 0.000326 Holladay(City of) 0.001605 0.001169 0.001235 0.001311 0.001380 Midvale City 0.000987 0.001043 0.001107 0.001166 0.001309 Millcreek City 0.001699 0.001841 0.001897 0.002012 0.000068 Murray City 0.002026 0.002128 0.002249 0.002383 0.001759 Riverton City 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 0.000000 Salt Lake City 0.003424 0.003540 0.003878 0.003977 0.004286 Sandy City 0.001174 0.001279 0.001337 0.001144 0.001229 South Jordan City 0.001628 0.001738 0.001802 0.001880 0.001900 South Salt Lake City 0.001536 0.001597 0.001715 0.001878 0.002032 Taylorsville(City of) 0.000825 0.000904 0.000943 0.001003 0.001090 West Jordan City 0.001788 0.001899 0.001999 0.002132 0.001975 West Valley City 0.002995 0.003263 0.003508 0.003706 0.004151 (Source: Property Tax Division,Utah State Tax Commission.) (The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.) - 35 - TAXABLE AND FAIR MARKET VALUE OF PROPERTY SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH Excluding Fee-In-LieulAge Based Valuation TAXABLE %CHANGE OVER FAIR MARKET %CHANGE OVER YEAR VALUE(') PRIOR YEAR VALUE(') PRIOR YEAR 2021 $37,504,946,034 7.87% $49,859,154,148 8.62% 2020 34,767,046,397 10.24 45,901,481,982 10.62 2019 31,537,760,702 11.06 41,493,433,320 11.37 2018 28,398,218,663 10.65 37,255,665,617 10.16 2017 25,664,463,461 7.24 33,819,886,283 7.75 Including Fee-In-LieulAge Based Valuation TAXABLE %CHANGE OVER FAIR MARKET %CHANGE OVER YEAR VALUE(') PRIOR YEAR VALUE(2) PRIOR YEAR 2021 $37,784,707,793 7.90% $50,138,915,907 8.64% 2020 35,017,043,338 10.02 46,151,478,923 10.45 2019 31,827,671,801 10.91 41,783,344,419 11.26 2018 28,698,075,594 10.57 37,555,522,547 10.10 2017 25,953,591,266 7.17 34,109,014,088 7.70 (1) Source: Property Tax Division,Utah State Tax Commission. (2) Estimated fair market value has been calculated by dividing the taxable value of primary residential property by .55, which eliminates the 45% exemption on primary residential property granted under the Property Tax Act. See"FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH—Property Tax Matters." See "FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH Historical Summaries of Taxable Values of Property." (The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.) - 36 - HISTORICAL SUMMARIES OF TAXABLE VALUES OF PROPERTY SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH HISTORICAL SUMMARIES OF TAXABLE VALUES OF PROPERTY TAX CALENDAR YEARS 2017 THROUGH 2O21 2024 2020 2019 2018 2047 TAXABLE %OF TAXABLE TAXABLE TAXABLE TAXABLE VALUE T.V. VALUE VALUE VALUE VALUE Set by State Tax Commission— Centrally Assessed Total centrally assessed.......... $2,442,951,372 6.5% $2,422,315,180 $2,175,533,785 $2,126,963,506 $1,903,990,023 Set by County AssessorLocally Assessed Real property: Primary residential..................... 15,096,889,577 40.0 13,605,944,285 12,165,153,807 10,822,801,372 9,964,627,562 Secondary residential................. 253,010,810 0.7 233,713,080 205,015,920 192,528,490 194,075,460 Commercial and industrial......... 16,263,210,490 43.0 15,289,711,240 13,909,955,600 12,595,446,540 11,101,906,410 Unimproved Non-FAA-Vacant.. 2,662,640 * 2,529,190 2,252,380 4,792,980 1,984,120 Agricultural................................ 179,140 * 157,940 80,200 86,410 119,640 Total real property.................... 31,615,952,657 83.7 29,132,055,735 26,282,457,907 23,615,655,792 21,262,713,192 Personal property: Primary mobile homes............... 2,698,118 * 2,810,319 2,890,504 2,967,127 3,111,443 Secondary mobile homes............ 6,997,215 * 7,231,872 7,231,515 9,102,863 6,013,731 Other business personal property 3,436,311,697 9.1 3,201,589,833 3,068,613,703 2,642,478,295 2,487,439,219 SCME(')..................................... 34975 * 1,043,458 1,033,288 1,051,080 1395,853 Total personal property............. 3,446,042,005 9.1 3,212,675,482 3,079,769,010 2,655,599,365 2,497,760,246 Fee in lieu/age based property(-).... 279,761,759 249,996,942 289,911,099 299,856,931 289,127,895 Total locally assessed............... 35,341,756,421 93.5 32,594,728,158 29,652,138,016 26,571,112,088 24,049,601,243 Total taxable value................... $37,784,707,793 100.0 $35,017,043,338 $31,827 671,801 $28,698,075,594 $25953,591,266 Total taxable value(less fee in lieu/age based property).. $37.50 9946 034 99.3 $34,767,046 397 $31.53 7760,702 $28.39 224 8 663 $25,664,436 464 (1) Semiconductor Manufacturing Equipment. (2) See"FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH—property Tax Matters." (Source: Property Tax Division,Utah State Tax Commission.) (The remainder of this page has been intentionally left blank.) - 37 - TAX COLLECTION RECORD FISCAL TOTAL TAX COLLECTED WITHIN THE COLLECTION IN TOTAL COLLECTIONS YEAR LEVY FOR FISCAL YEAR OF THE LEVY q SUBSEQUENT TO DATE ENDED FISCAL YEAR AMOUNT PERCENTAGE YEARS AMOUNT PERCENTAGE JUNE 30 ($000) ($000) OF LEVY ($000) ($000) OF LEVY 2021 $124,271,831 $121,629,772 97.87% $1,555,042 $123,184,814 99.13% 2020 122,801,447 120,692,895 98.28 1,696,723 122,389,618 99.66 2019 113,989,191 111,401,720 97.73 2,192,490 113,594,210 99.65 2018 110,750,729 108,500,440 97.97 2,188,565 110,689,005 99.94 2017 110,330,514 107,585,253 97.51 2,664,136 110,249,389 99.93 (1) Payments are not considered delinquent until after November 30. SOME OF THE LARGEST TAXPAYERS IN THE CITY 2020 %OF THE CITY'S TAXABLE 2020 TAXABLE TAXPAYER TYPE OF BUSINESS VALUE(1) VALUE LDS Church(Property Reserve,City Creek Reserve,Deseret Title) Real Estate Holding $1,066,641,878 3.38% PacifiCorp Electric Utility 545,349,037 1.73 Delta Airlines Air Transportation 368,700,450 1.17 Wasatch Plaza Holdings LLC Real Estate Holding 235,472,900 0.75 MPLD Husky LLC Machining,Fabrication 212,352,900 0.67 Sky West Airlines Air Transportation 211,961,850 0.67 KBSIII,LLC Real Estate Holding 200,962,800 0.64 Questar Gas Natural Gas 195,331,617 0.62 Verizon Communications Inc. Communication 173,737,213 0.55 AT&T Inc. Communication 147,985,384 0.49 $3,358,496,029 (1) Taxable Value used in this table excludes all tax equivalent property associated with motor vehicles,watercraft,recreational vehicles, and all other tangible personal property required to be registered with the State. See "FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH—Taxable and Fair Market Value of Property." (Source: Salt Lake City Corporation Comprehensive Annual Financial Report for the year ended June 30,2021.) RECENT DEVELOPMENTS General. Fiscal year 2021 general fund expenses are expected to end very close to budget. Due to COVID-19 and the September 2020 Windstorm there have been unusual and unexpected changes in spending. The administration and council have provided additional emergency funding, and it is expected that these departments will be very close to budget on June 30, 2021. Overall revenue for fiscal year 2021 is projected to be $9.0 million over budget. Permit and License revenue is expected to be higher than budgeted due to increases in construction related permitting. Total sales tax revenues are approximately $8.0 million over budget. Fines & Forfeitures, Parking Meter Revenue and Miscellaneous Revenue are all under budget due to the COVID-19 pandemic. - 38 - Fund balance for the end of fiscal year 2020 was $67.2 million or 20.85%of total revenues for the year. The City Council and administration have an internal goal to keep the fund balance above 14% of total revenue for each fiscal year. In fiscal year 2019 the total fund balance was $43.5 million (16.0%) and a conservative fund balance estimate for fiscal year 2021 is $47.5 million (14.5%). Fiscal year 2021 budget grew by approximately 10%, an increase of $28.4, million as compared to the previous year. Major general fund expense increases were $5.7 million mostly associated with salary and benefit cost increases, 66 new positions at a budgeted cost of $3.4 million, a transfer of 68 police officers from the Salt Lake City International Airport at a cost of $7.7 million funded by the Airport, $4.7 million of transportation initiatives funded through a new sales tax and an increase in the transfer to the fleet fund of just over$4.3 million. COVID-19. As the regional employment center, tourism destination, and entertainment hub for the State of Utah, Salt Lake City has experienced a significant loss of revenues in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic. General fund estimated losses through Dec 31, 2020 exceed $48 million. The fiscal year 2021 general fund put into place some reduction strategies, which include a hiring freeze for six months, while the rest of the general fund's expenditure budget remained flat. The City's administration took a conservative approach on the revenues projected with some of the major sources being decreased by 15% for 6 months of fiscal year 2021. The City has incurred an estimated $6.5 million in unbudgeted local expenses in response to this crisis. The City has received $12,001,476 million from the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security (CARES)Act funding allocated to the State and/or County and will receive an additional installment of CARES funding in Fall of 2021. The City has also received $7,987,257 in Rental Assistance and$42,705,786 (first 50% installment) from The American Rescue Plan. September 2020 Windstorm. On Sept 8, 2020 Salt Lake City experienced hurricane force winds which caused thousands of trees and limbs to fall, causing property damage,power outages and road and business closures. Downed trees blocked critical emergency routes throughout the city as well as many thoroughfares preventing first responder access and critical daily residential refuse collection. The windstorm created a state of local emergency under Utah Code and City Code. With the help of the National Guard, State, County, and local jurisdictions, and volunteer organizations, Salt Lake City removed and disposed of over 9,000 tons of debris. The current estimate of losses from the windstorm exceeds $8 million. This projection could change as the City continues to clean up and repair damaged buildings, sidewalks, and irrigation systems. It currently appears that some windstorm related damages will be covered by the city's property insurance less a $100,000 deductible. The City is seeking FEMA Public Assistance to help with the uninsured and underinsured damages. - 39 - INVESTMENT CONSIDERATIONS POTENTIAL IMPACT OF THE CORONAVIRUS The Coronavirus Disease 2019 ("COVID-19") global pandemic continues to affect the nation and the State with ongoing concerns related to health and safety, appropriate preventative protocols, fiscal and economic issues. The City's continuity of operations and service level have not been materially impacted. The City's continuity of operations during the pandemic include a myriad of actions to (1)protect public health; (2)protect employees; and(3) continue all essential functions. The City does not currently anticipate the collection of Revenues and the ability of the City to pay the Bonds to be materially adversely affected by the continued existence of COVID-19. The City,however, can predict the effect the on-going spread of COVID-19 (including COVID-19 variants such as the Delta and Omicron variants or future, similar variants) or the various governmental or private actions taken in response to COVID-19 will have on the finances or operations of the City. See "FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH— Recent Developments—COVID-19" for additional information. CLIMATE CHANGE Climate change caused by human activities may have adverse effects on the City. As greenhouse gas emissions continue to accumulate in the atmosphere as a result of economic activity, climate change is expected to intensify, increasing the frequency, severity and timing of extreme weather events such as coastal storm surges, drought, wildfires, floods and heat waves, and rising sea levels. The future fiscal impact of climate change on the City is difficult to predict, but it could be significant and it could have a material adverse effect on the City's finances by requiring greater expenditures to counteract the effects of climate change or by changing the business and activities of City residents. The City considers the potential effects of climate change in its planning. CYBERSECURITY The risk of cyberattacks against commercial enterprises, including those operated for a governmental purpose, has become more prevalent in recent years. At least one of the rating agencies factors the risk of such an attack into its ratings analysis, recognizing that a cyberattack could affect liquidity, public policy and constituent confidence, and ultimately credit quality. A cyberattack could cause the informational systems of the City to be compromised and could limit operational capacity, for short or extended lengths of time and could bring about the release of sensitive and private information. Additionally, other potential negative consequences include data loss or compromise, diversion of resources to prevent future incidences and reputational damage. To date, the City has not been the subject of a successful cyberattack. The City believes it has made all reasonable efforts to ensure that any such attack is not successful and that the information systems of the City are secure. However,there can be no assurance that a cyberattack will not occur in a manner resulting in damage to the City's information systems or other - 40 - challenges. The City has insurance coverage for cyber liability. See "FINANCIAL INFORMATION REGARDING SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH—Insurance Coverage"herein. TAX TREATMENT Federal tax law contains a number of requirements and restrictions which apply to the Bonds, including investment restrictions, periodic payments of arbitrage profits to the United States, requirements regarding the proper use of bond proceeds and the facilities financed therewith, and certain other matters. The City has covenanted to comply with all requirements that must be satisfied in order for the interest on the Bonds to be excludable from gross income for federal income tax purposes. Failure to comply with certain of such covenants could cause interest on the Bonds to become includable in gross income for federal income tax purposes retroactively to the date of issuance of the Bonds. Subject to the City's compliance with the above-referenced covenants, under present law, in the opinion of Bond Counsel, interest on the Bonds is excludable from the gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes and is not included as an item of tax preference in computing the federal alternative minimum tax for individuals under the Internal Revenue Code of 1986, as amended (the "Code"). In rendering its opinion,Bond Counsel will rely upon certifications of the City with respect to certain material facts within the City's knowledge. Bond Counsel's opinion represents its legal judgment based upon its review of the law and the facts that it deems relevant to render such opinion and is not a guarantee of a result. Ownership of the Bonds may result in collateral federal income tax consequences to certain taxpayers, including, without limitation, corporations subject to the branch profits tax, financial institutions, certain insurance companies, certain S corporations, individual recipients of Social Security or Railroad Retirement benefits and taxpayers who may be deemed to have incurred (or continued) indebtedness to purchase or carry tax-exempt obligations. Prospective purchasers of the Bonds should consult their tax advisors as to applicability of any such collateral consequences. The issue price for original issue discount(as further discussed below)and market discount purposes (the "OID Issue Price")for each maturity of the Bonds is the price at which a substantial amount of such maturity of the Bonds is first sold to the public(excluding bond houses and brokers and similar persons or organizations acting in the capacity of underwriters, placement agents or wholesalers). The OID Issue Price of a maturity of the Bonds may be different from the price set forth, or the price corresponding to the yield set forth, on the inside cover page hereof. If the OID Issue Price of a maturity of the Bonds is less than the principal amount payable at maturity, the difference between the OID Issue Price of each maturity, if any, of the Bonds (the "OID Bonds") and the principal amount payable at maturity is original issue discount. For an investor who purchases an OID Bond in the initial public offering at the Issue Price for such maturity and who holds such OID Bond to its stated maturity, subject to the condition that the City complies with the covenants discussed above,(a) the full amount of original issue discount - 41 - with respect to such OID Bond constitutes interest which is excludable from the gross income of the owner thereof for federal income tax purposes; (b) such owner will not realize taxable capital gain or market discount upon payment of such OID Bond at its stated maturity; (c) such original issue discount is not included as an item of tax preference in computing the alternative minimum tax for individuals under the Code and(d)the accretion of original issue discount in each year may result in certain other collateral federal income tax consequences in each year even though a corresponding cash payment may not be received until a later year. Owners of OID Bonds should consult their own tax advisors with respect to the state and local tax consequences of original issue discount on such OID Bonds. Owners of the Bonds who dispose of Bonds prior to the stated maturity (whether by sale, redemption or otherwise), purchase Bonds in the initial public offering, but at a price different from the OID Issue Price or purchase Bonds subsequent to the initial public offering should consult their own tax advisors. If a Bond is purchased at any time for a price that is less than the Bond's stated redemption price at maturity or, in the case of an OID Bond, its OID Issue Price plus accreted original issue discount (the "Revised Issue Price"), the purchaser will be treated as having purchased a Bond with market discount subject to the market discount rules of the Code(unless a statutory de minimis rule applies). Accrued market discount is treated as taxable ordinary income and is recognized when a Bond is disposed of(to the extent such accrued discount does not exceed gain realized) or, at the purchaser's election, as it accrues. Such treatment would apply to any purchaser who purchases an OID Bond for a price that is less than its Revised Issue Price. The applicability of the market discount rules may adversely affect the liquidity or secondary market price of such Bond. Purchasers should consult their own tax advisors regarding the potential implications of market discount with respect to the Bonds. An investor may purchase a Bond at a price in excess of its stated principal amount. Such excess is characterized for federal income tax purposes as"bond premium"and must be amortized by an investor on a constant yield basis over the remaining term of the Bond in a manner that takes into account potential call dates and call prices. An investor cannot deduct amortized bond premium relating to a tax-exempt bond. The amortized bond premium is treated as a reduction in the tax-exempt interest received. As bond premium is amortized, it reduces the investor's basis in the Bond. Investors who purchase a Bond at a premium should consult their own tax advisors regarding the amortization of bond premium and its effect on the Bond's basis for purposes of computing gain or loss in connection with the sale, exchange, redemption or early retirement of the Bond. There are or may be pending in the Congress of the United States legislative proposals, including some that carry retroactive effective dates, that, if enacted, could alter or amend the federal tax matters referred to above or adversely affect the market value of the Bonds. It cannot be predicted whether or in what form any such proposal might be enacted or whether, if enacted, it would apply to bonds issued prior to enactment. Prospective purchasers of the Bonds should consult their own tax advisors regarding any pending or proposed federal tax legislation. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any pending or proposed federal tax legislation. - 42 - The Internal Revenue Service (the "Service") has an ongoing program of auditing tax-exempt obligations to determine whether, in the view of the Service, interest on such tax-exempt obligations is includable in the gross income of the owners thereof for federal income tax purposes. It cannot be predicted whether or not the Service will commence an audit of the Bonds. If an audit is commenced, under current procedures the Service may treat the City as a taxpayer and the Bondholders may have no right to participate in such procedure. The commencement of an audit could adversely affect the market value and liquidity of the Bonds until the audit is concluded,regardless of the ultimate outcome. Payments of interest on, and proceeds of the sale, redemption or maturity of, tax-exempt obligations, including the Bonds, are in certain cases required to be reported to the Service. Additionally, backup withholding may apply to any such payments to any Bond owner who fails to provide an accurate Form W-9 Request for Taxpayer Identification Number and Certification, or a substantially identical form, or to any Bond owner who is notified by the Service of a failure to report any interest or dividends required to be shown on federal income tax returns. The reporting and backup withholding requirements do not affect the excludability of such interest from gross income for federal tax purposes. UTAH INCOME TAXATION In the opinion of Bond Counsel, under the existing laws of the State of Utah, as presently enacted and construed,interest on the Bonds is exempt from taxes imposed by the Utah Individual Income Tax Act. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion with respect to any other taxes imposed by the State or any political subdivision thereof. Ownership of the Bonds may result in other state and local tax consequences to certain taxpayers. Bond Counsel expresses no opinion regarding any such collateral consequences arising with respect to the Bonds. Prospective purchasers of the Bonds should consult their tax advisors regarding the applicability of any such state and local taxes. LITIGATION The City Attorney reports the following matters involving potential financial liability of the City: Lawsuits are periodically filed against the City and/or its employees, involving tort and civil rights matters. The City has a statutory obligation to defend and indemnify its officers and employees in relation to lawsuits arising from acts or failures to act of the officers or employees while in the scope and course of employment. The City maintains a governmental immunity fund for claims against the City. In the event the fund is not sufficient to pay any outstanding judgment or judgments, the City has the ability under State law to levy a limited ad valorem tax to pay such judgments. This tax levy is separate and apart from the other taxing powers of the City. The City also has contract claims, condemnation proceedings and environmental matters, none of which is expected to materially adversely affect the City's financial condition. - 43 - CONTINUING DISCLOSURE The City will enter into a Continuing Disclosure Agreement (the "Agreement"), in substantially the form attached hereto as APPENDIX B, for the benefit of the beneficial owners of the Bonds to send certain information annually and to provide notice of certain events to the Municipal Securities Rulemaking Board pursuant to the requirements of Section (b)(5) of Rule 15c2-12 (the `Rule") adopted by the Securities and Exchange Commission (the "Commission")under the Securities Exchange Act of 1934. The City has entered into a number of continuing disclosure undertakings pursuant to the Rule with respect to the bonds it has issued and has contracted with a number of dissemination agents to file annual information and notices of certain events on behalf of the City. In the previous five years the City provided its annual financial information and audited financial statements to the applicable dissemination agent in advance of the deadline specified in the applicable continuing disclosure undertaking.Dissemination agents for certain of the City's bonds filed such information late; however, the information was filed within 10 days of the deadline. Additionally, with respect to certain water and sewer bonds, during the previous five years the City filed the audited financial statements of the City's utilities system,but did not include the audited financial statements of the City. Corrective filings have been made and the City has taken steps to ensure that in the future the City's audited financial statements will be filed for such water and sewer revenue bonds as required. At the time of the initial corrective filings the City determined that such filings were immaterial with respect to certain maturities of the water and sewer revenue bonds that had already matured, and corrective filing were not made for such maturities. In connection with a prior purchase of certain of the City's general obligation bonds, the purchaser requested that corrective filings be made for such previously matured water and sewer revenue bonds. The City complied with such request despite having determined that such filings were not material. The City has adopted continuing disclosure policies and procedures to help ensure compliance with its continuing disclosure undertakings. A failure by the City to comply with the Agreement will not constitute a default under the Resolution and beneficial owners of the Bonds are limited to the remedies described in the Agreement. A failure by the City to comply with the Agreement must be reported in accordance with the Rule and must be considered by any broker, dealer or municipal securities dealer before recommending the purchase or sale of the Bonds in the secondary market. Consequently, such a failure may adversely affect the transferability and liquidity of the Bonds and their market price. See "FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT" attached hereto as APPENDIX B for the information to be provided, the events which will be noticed on an occurrence basis and the other terms of the Agreement, including termination, amendment and remedies. APPROVAL OF LEGAL PROCEEDINGS The authorization and issuance of the Bonds are subject to the approval of Chapman and Cutler LLP, Bond Counsel to the City. Certain legal matters will be passed upon for the City by - 44 - the City Attorney and by Chapman and Cutler LLP, as the City's Disclosure Counsel. The approving opinion of Bond Counsel will be delivered with the Bonds in substantially the form set forth in APPENDIX C of this Official Statement and will be made available upon request from the contact persons as indicated under"INTRODUCTION Contact Persons." The various legal opinions to be delivered concurrently with the delivery of the Bonds express the professional judgment of the attorneys rendering the opinions as to the legal issues explicitly addressed therein. By rendering a legal opinion, the opinion giver does not become an insurer or guarantor of that expression of professional judgment, of the transaction opined upon, or of the future performance of parties to the transaction. Nor does the rendering of an opinion guarantee the outcome of any legal dispute that may arise out of the transaction. BOND RATINGS As of the date of this Official Statement,the Bonds have been rated" " and" "by Fitch Ratings, Inc. and by Moody's Investors Service, Inc., respectively. Any explanation of the significance of the ratings may only be obtained from the rating service furnishing the same. There is no assurance that the ratings given will be maintained for any period of time or that the ratings will not be revised downward or withdrawn entirely by the rating agency if, in its judgment, circumstances so warrant. Any such downward revision or withdrawal of such ratings may have an adverse effect on the market price of the Bonds. MUNICIPAL ADVISOR The City has entered into an agreement with Stifel, Nicolaus & Company, Incorporated (the "Municipal Advisor"), whereunder the Municipal Advisor provides financial recommendations and guidance to the City with respect to preparation for sale of the Bonds,timing of the sale, tax-exempt bond market conditions, costs of issuance and other factors related to the sale of the Bonds. The Municipal Advisor has participated in the preparation of and provided information for certain portions of the Official Statement, but has not audited, authenticated or otherwise verified the information set forth in the Official Statement, or any other related information available to the City, with respect to accuracy and completeness of disclosure of such information, and the Municipal Advisor makes no guaranty, warranty or other representation respecting accuracy and completeness of the Official Statement or any other matter related to the Official Statement. INDEPENDENT AUDITORS The basic financial statements of Salt Lake City Corporation as of and for the Year Ended June 30, 2021 included in APPENDIX A to this Official Statement,have been audited by Eide Bailly LLP, independent auditors, as stated in their report appearing herein. - 45 - MISCELLANEOUS All quotations contained herein from and summaries and explanations of the State Constitution, statutes, programs and laws of the State, court decisions and the Resolution, do not purport to be complete, and reference is made to the State Constitution, statutes, programs, laws, court decisions and the Resolution for full and complete statements of their respective provisions. Any statements in this Official Statement involving matters of opinion, whether or not expressly so stated, are intended as such and not as representation of fact. The appendices attached hereto are an integral part of this Official Statement and should be read in conjunction with the foregoing material. This Preliminary Official Statement is in form deemed final for purposes of paragraph (b)(1) of Rule 15c2-12 of the Securities and Exchange Commission. This Official Statement and its distribution and use have been duly authorized by the City. SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH - 46 - APPENDIX A SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION FINANCIAL STATEMENTS FOR THE FISCAL YEAR ENDED JUNE 30,2021 A-1 APPENDIX B FORM OF CONTINUING DISCLOSURE AGREEMENT B-1 APPENDIX C PROPOSED FORM OF OPINION OF BOND COUNSEL C-1 Draft of 6/2'7/22 CERTIFICATE OF DETERMINATION PURSUANT TO RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE ISSUANCE AND SALE OF GENERAL OBLIGATION BONDS,SERIES 2022 DATED: ,2022 1. Authority; Definitions. Pursuant to Resolution No. _ of 2022 Authorizing the Issuance and Sale of up to $ General Obligation Bonds, Series 2022, adopted by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah (the "Issuer"), on August 9, 2022 (the "Resolution"), the Issuer has authorized the issuance of its General Obligation Bonds, Series 2022 (the "Bonds"). This certificate is executed pursuant to and in accordance with the delegation of authority contained in the Resolution,as authorized by law. All terms used herein and not otherwise defined herein shall have the meanings specified in the Resolution. 2. Acceptance of Bid. The bid of (the "Purchaser"), conforms to the parameters, deadlines and procedures set forth in the notice of sale prepared in connection with the advertisement for sale of the Bonds and is the best bid received for the purchase of the Bonds, resulting in the sale of the Bonds at the lowest obtainable interest rate (a copy of the bid, together with a list of bids received for the Bonds, is attached hereto as Exhibit A). The bid of the Purchaser for the purchase of the Bonds, which is set out in full in Exhibit hereto,is hereby accepted,it being hereby found,determined and declared that the Bonds bear interest at the lowest obtainable interest rate. The Bonds shall be issued by the Issuer for the purpose set forth in the Resolution. The sale of the Bonds to the Purchaser at the price of $ (representing the par amount of the Bonds, plus $ net original issue premium and less $ Purchaser's discount) is hereby confirmed. The Bonds shall be delivered to the Purchaser and the proceeds of sale thereof applied as provided in the Resolution and as set forth below. 3. Aggregate Principal Amount and Maturity of Bonds. The Bonds shall be issued for the purpose specified in Section 202 of the Resolution in the aggregate principal amount of $ . The Bonds shall mature on the dates and in the principal amounts, and shall bear interest payable semiannually on June 15 and December 15, commencing 15, 202_ at the respective rates per annum, shown below: Certificate of Determination v3 8711202/RDB/mo AMOUNT INTEREST JUNE 15 MATURING RATE $ 4. Use of Proceeds and Legally Available Funds of the Issuer. All of the proceeds of the sale of the Bonds shall be deposited in the Project Account established pursuant to the Resolution. 5. Authorized Denominations. The Bonds shall be issued in the Authorized Denomination of$5,000 or any whole multiple thereof. 6. Redemption Provisions. The Bonds maturing on or after June 15, 203_, shall be subject to redemption prior to maturity, at the election of the Issuer, on 15, 203(the "First Redemption Date"), and on any date thereafter,in whole or in part, from such maturities or parts thereof as shall be selected by the Issuer,upon notice given as provided in the Resolution, at a redemption price equal to 100% of the principal amount of the Bonds to be redeemed plus accrued interest thereon to the date fixed for redemption. Bonds maturing on or prior to the First Redemption Date shall not be subject to optional redemption. 7. Book-Entry Bonds. The Bonds shall be initially issued as Book-Entry Bonds. (Signature page follows.) - 2 - Certificate of Determination IN WITNESS WHEREOF, I have hereunto set my hand as of the day and year first above written. By Mayor By Chair, Salt Lake City Council APPROVED AS TO FORM: By Senior City Attorney - 3 - Certificate of Determination EXHIBIT A Copies of Winning Bid and List of Bids Received for the Bonds Signature: r(°atterscr Jd)0,20 > ,49 MDT) Email: april.patterson@slcgov.com Exhibit A Certificate of Determination ERIN MENDENHALL MARY BETH THOMPSON Mayor Chief Financial Officer DEPA12'T=or FINANCE CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received. 8/2/2022 Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: 8/2/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: August 2, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Budget Amendment#1 - 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 FY2022-23 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND $ 0.00) $ 475,000.00 FLEET FUND 120,000.00 4,011,360.00 DONATION FUND 20,000.00 20,000.00 CIP FUND 5,530,916.00 9,842,251.00 TOTAL $ 5,670,916.00 $ 14 348 611.00 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET,ROOM 238 PO SOX 145467,SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 841 1 4-54 55 TEL 801-535-6394 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2022-23 Budget Adiustments The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2023. FY22-23 Amended Variance Annual Revised Favorable Revenue Budget Forecast (Unfavorable) Property Taxes 125,012,927 125,012,927 - Sales and Use Tax 105,050,018 105,050,018 - Franchise Tax 11,657,129 11,657,129 - PILOT Taxes 1,638,222 1,638,222 - TOTAL TAXES 243,358,296 243,358,296 - License and Permits 40,736,114 40,736,114 - Intergovernmentai 4,644,622 4,644,622 - Interest Income 2,071,154 2,071,154 - Fines&Forfeiture 3,765,174 3,765,174 - Parking Meter Collection 2,635,475 2,635,475 - Charges and Services 4,432,794 4,432,794 - Miscelianeous Revenue 3,438,710 3,438,710 - Interfund Reimbursement 24,431,717 24,431,717 - Transfers 28,821,993 28,821,993 - TOTAL W/OUT SPECIAL TAX 358,336,049 358,336,049 - Sales and Use Tax- 1/2 cent 44,364,490 44,364,490 - TOTAL GENERAL FUND 402,700,539 402,700,539 - Because of the timing of this budget amendment no updates for fiscal year 2023 projections are available. The City has begun closing out fiscal year 2022 and will provide updates to Council as the audit progresses. cri cv 0 cv w 3 0 v .o Q., a� d 0 a� o U � O LU U .o U � F.•({1 U i�I — f6 N Vl y •H N U W C N 4.1 � `^ `n �' h � h Q., w nn ai °� ai w ¢ ¢ ¢ 6 ¢ ¢ < 6 6 d 0.7 ¢ c c c c c c c c c c w w U w M ¢ a Z z w z w w c w L w w W cxi m m w v a 'O fi U N N to = m .,�_, •a > :s. m ¢ U Yt 4t U U 4t U U Yt 4t U U U U cc C 0 >- cc �' x as ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ ¢ v v w O � � o � � � •o .Q o '-O� The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $5,670,916.00 of revenue and expense of$14,348,611.00. The amendment proposes changes in four funds, with no new FTEs. The amendment also includes the use of$475,000.00 from the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes fifteen 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 (First amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-2023) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2022 and Ending June 30, 2023. In June of 2022, 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, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023, 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 2022. 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 July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023, 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 Salt Lake City Attorney's Office Approved As To Form (SEAL) Taysen OCcdro�cC Bill No. of 2022. Jaysen Oldroyd Published: 2 G O ❑ O �' C O C O O ❑ ❑ C O ° G C G O 0 coo 0 0 0 0 O O O 0 0 0 O O O 'o m 0 a � o � v �i °o °o °o °o o °o ++ 0 06 0 � o 0 o d o 0 0 0 0 O O O O LO O co M N N N ~ It co N CA ti 00 M W _ M N ° N p" N o °o °o 0 0 ° 0 0 0 y � NN c o " o ° p O V 16 1�1 ❑❑ Fr r u u u v u nn n z c Qn 0 0 � U aU a c cW. ti dU w = ° ° w a•o O .p y '� Cc, c-, U UC4 O d > '� w _ C a m 3 o o Z Z d PadrAd o o a ° o � i. O w F ai nn ° fib s0. o in, F A G d' rn° F C7'm •� U o; b k7 Ca W G i:.i q 0 i. o o O `� O O O .paaQaaCa � � w �7 w x 'p 'G 'p Nov N N M 7 Lf)10 LV, C/1 C/l Vj ,.y N co 7 Lf) 00 0 0 0 c c 0 c 0 c 0 c c c c 0 c c c c 0 c 0 0 c c c 0 0 c c 0 c 0 c c c c c c 0 0 0 c c 0 c c c 0 0 06 a ,C N 00' r", A C, in Z' --' j C, V, X, --' 0' A A d 06 0 q c m 4, c p c a I, c e.- 0 1 c in x c lj c - c k in- in oc X m in C �q'D in 00 Aj z 1,4 :n v In 4 rp • • O O iJ Ln GA O 1! O N C(l ol 10 C5 1 coO Cq co LO to z 00 0 0 0 cq cc r, co 0 Li'7 10 0 cq n 0 Ell cc 0 0 0 C, r- co 0 N �c 0 m 0 2 L- O 0' U, 3, 0 m 0 00 00 Cq 0 c! c9 ';' '�z 'C� a6 C� 15 o6 r, CO N 0 N 10 0 oC, 10 " L, co `0 Z N Cq o N CO 10 '0 L�l r,-- L9 oc� co O1 cV C� 'T C 00 Ln le N zl- 00 c NN Nm co t- N co m LO co OW ti cz 00 00 r tm — v tn to 0 00 00 z CN ro w VA ts IZ 0 p = r im tm 0 Q Q �d &� to r IJ 0 gz N NCC rZ z 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 0 0 0 c c 0 0 0 0 0 c 0 0 c c 0 0 0 0 a 0 0 c c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 c m m m m un m bA LO 00 d. CO 0 0 0 LO LO cq v 'c cq L, 00 co co 0 0 co 00 0 10 0 N x CA L- Go n co 0 LO LO U-) 00 'o C) Ln 0 Go I- lz� C? C� IT 4 C; q 11 1�1 C? c! L" C6 0 c 00 C, r� C� 00 o cn 1LO 'o Ln x m 10 �Z C, N 'D L? Ni Li, - C� L's co Ln co Ln x C� co c) co V co cq co LO in ,I- N N ri In 00 w 0041 co In in th in bC t v° twwww Qn Ij W IT, Salt Lake City FY2022-23 Budget Amendment #1 Number/NameInitiative Section A:New Items A-1: Bridge to Backman Community Open Space Donation Allocation CIP $20,000.00 Donation $20,000.00 Department:Public Lands Prepared By:Kat Maus, Gregg Evans For Questions Please Include:Kristen Riker, Gregg Evans,Kat Maus Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to allocate a$20,000 donation from the Salt Lake Education Foundation specifically to the Backman Open Space project,currently ongoing.Salt Lake Education Foundation received a$1o,000 Governor's Office of Outdoor Recreation grant specifically for the Backman Community Open Space Project,which was matched with$1o,000 by the Tony Finau Foundation.The desire is now for these funds to be donated to the City to be used for the project.To fulfill the requirements of the grant,the donation will have to be used for this specific project. The Backman Community Open Space Project is developing a piece of Public Lands owned property just west of Backman Elementary and the Jordan River,at approximately 600 N.and 1500 W.This project follows the installation of a bridge between the Community Open Space and Backman Elementary,providing direct access to the school from a nearby nonprofit housing development.The open space,which is currently unutilized as park space and is overtaken by invasive vegetation,will be developed into an outdoor classroom that is also open to the public as a park.The project includes installation of irrigation to allow for native plantings and trees,a looped path connecting the site to access points to the park,an outdoor,naturalized gathering and seating area with a shade structure,and associated amenities such as benches and picnic tables.This project is projected to be completed in Fall 2022.The full scope of this project will not be able to be fulfilled without this donation,and to maximize efficiency of funding and construction,the project team sees great benefit in completing this project in one phase. Public Lands has done due diligence and finds no reason to reject this donation proposal and specifically allocate the funding to the Backman Community Open Space project. A-2:Vehicles for New CAN Positions GF $120,000.00 Fleet $120,000.00 Department:CAN Prepared By:Ken Thomas/Brent Beck For Questions Please Include:Blake Thomas,Brent Beck,Ken Thomas The three vehicles that are requested are for the three new positions we received in the 2023 budget.Two positions are for Building Inspections and one position is for Civil Enforcement.These vehicles were requested by CAN but not transferred into the original budget request.The numbers that have been provided are estimates due to the continual increase in cost and the lack of availability. Estimated cost for 3 vehicles(from Fleet) Inspections: $45,000 ea.x2 = $90,000 (4 wd needed)(2)Ford Hybrid Civil Enforcement: $30,000—(1)Chevrolet Volt Total: $120,000 A-3: Forestry Director Reclassification GF $0.00 Department:Public Lands Prepared By:Gregg Evans For Questions Please Include:Kristen Riker, Gregg Evans Department of Public Lands is requesting a FY23 a$o housekeeping budget amendment to reclassify the current Forestry Division Director to an appointed position(grade 35). Public Lands will reallocate existing budget to fund this item. The Forestry Division Director is a crucial position that manages all aspects of the City's urban forest growth and preservation needs. 1 Salt Lake City FY2022-23 Budget Amendment #1 Number/NameInitiative The Urban Forestry Division Director manages a multi-million dollar budget and team of skilled trade professionals that provide individualized customer service to thousands of city residents every year. The position requires expertise in a specialized biological science and the ability to apply and relate that knowledge to diverse city priorities and challenges. Aside from working directly and regularly with numerous other City Departments and Divisions(including Public Utilities, Building Services,Planning,Public Services and Engineering)on City projects and priorities,the Urban Forestry Director must see to the delivery of professional grade productivity and quantifiable residential service. The combination of skills,productivity,publicity attached to the Urban Forestry Division Director position should merit a compensation class consistent with Division Directors throughout the City's Public Services,Community&Neighborhoods, and Public Lands Departments. A-4: GO Bond Public Outreach and Engagement GF $150,000.00 Department:Public Lands Prepared By:Kristen Riker/Gregg Evans For Questions Please Include:Lisa Shaffer, Kristen Riker,Gregg Evans The Public Lands Department is requesting a budget amendment of$150,000 to hire a consultant to provide public engagement efforts related to the general obligation bond,or GO bond. This general obligation bond,is a municipal bond to raise money for City Parks projects to be voted on by Salt Lake City residents on the November 2022 ballot. The terms of the GO bond will be to repay the entire funded amount in 20 years through a tax on residential properties and business owners. The City may spend funds promoting the proposed GO bond by providing factual information about the proposition,delivering a voter information pamphlet,with neutral encouragement to get SLC residents out to vote. Public Lands is seeking engagement assistance to advocate and educate the public about how the GO bond will meet current and future open space,air and water quality needs of the City as well as relating the benefits to the Reimagine Nature Master Plan.The efforts of this engagement will create City-wide understanding and talking points around the bond,why it is important and the benefits the bond will bring to residents. This project will help mitigate any confusion about why the City is interested in a bond and our intentions in how the funds will be spent. Engagement Methods(Must be bilingual): 1. Online survey,project web page,FB Live(s),Community Council presentations,event tabling,intercept surveys in parks,business group presentations,stakeholder meetings,op-eds,board and commissions messaging 2. Video/Social on value of Public Lands 3. Ads,signage,paint stencils,logo,social media hashtag Requested funding amount mirrors the Funding our Future effort with an adjustment(reduction in$$)to the time available to complete education engagement efforts.Approximately$400,000 was spent to assist the City with education about Funding our Future tax dollars. A-5:Allocate Impact Fees for Road Project CIP $3,111,335.00 Department: Prepared By:Dustin Peterson For Questions Please Include:Jorge Chamorro,Dawn Valente,Dustin Peterson The following road projects are included in Engineering's six-year plan and are primarily funded by the$87 Million Road Bond. These road segments are all eligible for Impact Fees and are included in the amendment to the Impact Fee Facility Plan(IFFP)adopted by Council in the fall of 202o. The impact fees will help to supplement the projects as they exceed their original budget. Following is a list of the projects along with the eligible amount as listed in the IFFP and the percentage of the project that is eligible for use of Impact Fees. Project Name Eligible Amount Percent 200 South $ 915,151.00 9.00% 30o North $ 154,739.00 8.00% 2 Salt Lake City FY2022-23 Budget Amendment #1 Number/NameInitiative iloo East/Highland Drive $ 500,728.00 7.00% Virginia Street $ 141,663.00 9.00% 130o East $ 812,805.00 7.00% West Temple $ 338,633.00 7.00% goo South $ 171,944.00 6.00% 170o East $ 158,570.00 7.00% 2100 South $ 660,410.00 8.00% Sub Total $3,854,643.00 Less Existing Cost Cemter 8420125 $ 743,308.00 TOTAL REQUEST: $ 3411,335.00 A-6: Pulled Prior to Submission $0.00 A-7: Rail Spur Removal GF $205,000.00 Department:CAN Prepared By:Shellie Peterson/Tammy Hunsaker For Questions Please Include:Blake Thomas,Tammy Hunsaker,Shellie Peterson, Brent Beck The property on which this rail spur is located was conveyed in 1997 by the City to a private party,with partial consideration for this conveyance being an easement to construct,operate,and maintain a railroad spur and associated facilities.Pursuant to an Amended and Restated Easement and Boundary Line Agreement,executed on July 3, 2000,the easement shall terminate if the City ceases to use the rail spur for more than one year,and that the City shall remove the related infrastructure at the City's expense.Since the rail spur has not been used for over one year,the City is contractually obligated to remove it. Section B:Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section D: Housekee in D-1: 200 South Transit Corridor and Complete Street CIP $1,314,900.00 Department:CAN Prepared By:Brent Beck For Questions Please Include:Blake Thomas,Brent Beck, Salt Lake City is reconstructing 200 South in 2022 (Phase 1: goo East to Zoo East)and 2023(Phase 2: 20o East to 400 West).UTA has participated in the planning and design activities of the project and has agreed to support the project by providing direct financial reimbursement to SLC for construction expenses that UTA has requested to include in the Project,such as installation of conduit/junction boxes for electric power and fiber optic communication to the bus boarding platforms.The contribution from UTA to cover these added expenses is estimated to be$1,314,900. As the current Interlocal is not yet signed,we would like to request Council post budgets to a holding account if the agreements are not signed by the time the budget amendment is reviewed by Council. 3 Salt Lake City FY2022-23 Budget Amendment #1 Number/NameInitiative D-2: CIP Transfer for GF Security CIP $1,200,000.00 Department:Finance Prepared By:John Vuyk For Questions Please Include:Mary Beth Thompson,John Vuyk As part of the budget adoption the City Council used funds that were transferred to CIP in BA*7 of FY22 for Building security.The transfer from the CIP fund back to the general fund was not included in the budget adoption.This amendment is to correct that. D-3: Dee Glen Tennis Surety Company CIP $705,016.00 Reimbursement Department:Public Services Prepared By:Dustin Peterson For Questions Please Include: Jorge Chamorro,Dustin Peterson,Dawn Valente In the Summer of 2020 the City hired Pine Tree Construction(Pine Tree)to build the Dee Glen Tennis Center. The project was funded by a grant from Salt Lake County. Unfortunately, Pine Tree struggled from the beginning of the project. The City put forth their best effort to help Pine Tree succeed on the project,but unfortunately the City had to terminate their contract with Pine Tree in the Fall of 2021 as it became apparent that Pine Tree would no longer be able to fulfill their contractual obligations. The City immediately notified the Surety,Western National Mutual Insurance Company (WNMIC),holding the performance bond,as it intended to file a claim on the bond. Working with WNMIC,the claim was approved in early-2022. WNMIC,via their Consultant,J.S.Held,facilitated a bidding effort to identify a replacement contractor. Bids were received on April 28,2022,and WNMIC recommended the City proceed to enter into a contract with Paulsen Construction(Paulsen). WNMIC,via a Tender Agreement with the City,provided this additional funding to the project to pay the City for the additional cost to have Paulsen complete the project as well a compensation the City for a few,minor expenses incurred by the City as a direct result of the Pine Tree termination. At the time of this BA submittal, the City is nearly complete with the Paulsen agreement,and will use what exists in the remaining project funding to partially award the contract to Paulsen. This additional money received from WNMIC will be used to fund the remaining contract with Paulsen as well as pay for the remaining soft costs associated with the project. D-4: Remaining FY22 Fleet Vehicle Purchases Fleet $3,891,360.00 Department:Public Services (Fleet) Prepared By: Dustin Peterson/Denise Sorenson For Questions Please Include:Jorge Chamorro,Nancy Bean, Dustin Peterson,Denise Sorenson Public Services Fleet is requesting for encumbrance rollover funds for FY22 vehicle purchases.These vehicles were unavailable to source in FY22 due to supply chain issues.Vehicles are still needed and will be ordered as soon as they become available. D-5: Foothill Sunnyside CIP $91,000.00 Department:CAN Prepared By:Lynn Jacobs/Brent Beck For Questions Please Include:Blake Thomas,Lynn Jacobs,Brent Beck Salt Lake City is partnering with UDOT and the University of Utah(Research Park)to reconstruct the northeast corner of Foothill Drive/Sunnyside Avenue intersection. We are completing this project to improve pedestrian comfort and safety at this critically important location. This area is currently part of the Sunnyside Trail and will be part of the 9-Line trail in the future. UDOT has committed to contribute funding towards this project as demonstrated in the attached cooperative agreement. This budget amendment item is intended to reimburse our trails funding source for the portion of the project that UDOT contributed to. As the current Interlocal is not yet signed,we would like to request Council post budgets to a holding account if the agreements are not signed by the time the budget amendment is reviewed by Council. 4 Salt Lake City FY2022-23 Budget Amendment #1 Number/NameInitiative D-6: UTA Contribution to Orange Street Mobility CIP $s,000,000.00 Hub Department:CAN Prepared By:Julianne Sabula/Brent Beck For Question Please Include:Blake Thomas, Tammy Hunsaker,Julianne Sabula,Brent Beck The Orange Street Mobility Hub is being constructed by Salt Lake City to support several frequent east-west bus routes that City Council identified as top priorities from the Transit Master Plan.The facility provides a location for buses to lay over for electric charging,operator breaks and to reverse direction,as well as for passengers to transfer between bus routes and other modes,such as the Westside On-Demand service and GreenBike.UTA has agreed verbally and via email to a contribution of$1 million for the facility,and we have been working with them in earnest to finalize a cost-sharing agreement.This amendment will accept that contribution into the City's budget. As the current Interlocal is not yet signed,we would like to request Council post budgets to a holding account if the agreements are not signed by the time the budget amendment is reviewed by Council. _T D-7: Rescope Allen Park Renovation and Facilities CIP $0.00 Roofing Project Department:Public Lands Prepared By:Gregg Evans/Dawn Valente For Questions Please Include:Kristen Riker, Gregg Evans This budget amendment requests a funding source rescope for two CIP projects;the Allen Park Renovations Project (8321404)and the Parks Building Roofing Project within the Facilities Capital Renewal fund(8322700). This budget amendment requests a change to project funding sources from bond funds to general funds to better align project deadlines with funding deadlines on these projects. Changing the funding source will allow the bond funds to be spent before the final bond expiration period. The amendment proposes to move the Facilities Parks Building Roofing Project funding to bond funding.This project is beginning and will be able to meet the time critical portion of the bond funding.The project has been determined to be bond eligible.The Allen Park Renovations Project will then be moved from bond funding to general funds allowing for the necessary time to complete the project in FY23. The Allen Park Projects in process include structural assessment of critical structures,roof repair of failing historic structure(s),and design and construction of water lines to provide critical irrigation,water and sewer,and fire suppression to the site. D-8: Road Bond Adjustments CIP $0.00 Department:Public Services Prepared By:Dustin Peterson For Questions Please Include: Jorge Chamorro, Dawn Valente, Dustin Peterson Local Streets Project-Cost Center 8320205-These local street projects are complete and there are remaining funds in the amount of$178,623.04 in the cost center. Staff is requesting to move these remaining funds to the goo South cost center 8320209 so they can be used on that project specifically. goo East Project-Cost Center 8320207-This project is nearing completion and does have remaining bond funds in the amount of$13,274.42 in the cost center. Staff is requesting to move these remaining funds to the goo South cost center 8320209 so they can be used on that project specifically. too South Project-Cost Center 8320208 -This project is nearing completion and does have remaining bond funds in the amount of$501,513.olin the cost center. Staff is requesting to move these remaining funds to the goo South cost center 83202109 so they can be used on that project specifically. Section E:Grants Re uirin No New Staff Resources E-1: Utah Dept. of Transportation, 600/70o N CIP $2,400,000.00 Active Transportation Improvements Department: Finance Prepared By:Ann Garcia 5 Salt Lake City FY2022-23 Budget Amendment #1 Number/NameInitiative For Questions Please Include:John Vuyk,Mary Beth Thompson,Ann Garcia,Melyn Osmond Salt Lake City Division of Transportation nominated 600/70o North Active Transportation Improvements(2200 West to 300 West)for$2,400,000 from the TIF:Transit Projects funding. The project installs four mid-block pedestrian crossings, curb extensions at three intersections,and raised separated bicycle lanes. This grant has a match requirement of$1,600,000.The match will be funded through the cost center 83-22627 earmarked for the reconstruction project. Total funding for the project will be$4,000,000. A public hearing was held 02/18/2020 for the original grant application for this award. Section F: Donations Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda Section I: Council Added Items 6 Impact Fees - Summary Data pulled 07/01/2022 Unallocated Budget Amounts:by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee-Police 8484001 $ 846,150 A Impact fee-Fire 8484002 $ 1,156,234 g Impact fee-Parks 8484003 $ 15,216,578 c Impact fee-Streets 8484005 $ 8,061,854 D $ 25,280,816 E=A+B+Ca D Expiring Amounts:by Major Area,by Month QuarterCalendar Fiscal Total Month 202107(Ju12021) 2022Q1 $ - $ - $ - 202108(Aug2021) 2022Q1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202109(Sep2021) 2022Q1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202110(Oct2021) 2022Q2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - N 202111(Nov2021) 2022Q2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - O 202112(Dec2021) 2022Q2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202201(Jan2022) 2022Q3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ _ 202202(Feb2022) 2022Q3 $ $ $ $ $ 202203(Mar2022) 2022Q3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202204(Apr2022) 2022Q4 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202206(Jun2022) 2022Q4 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202207(Ju12022) 2023Q1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202208(Aug2022) 2023Q1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202209(Sep2022) 2023Q1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202210(Oct2o22) 2023Q2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - M 202211(Nov2022) 2023Q2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - O 202212(Dec2022) 2023Q2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202301(Jan2023) 2023Q3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ _ 202302(Feb2023) 2023Q3 $ $ $ $ $ 202303(Mar2023) 2023Q3 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202304(Apr2023) 2023Q4 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202305(May2023) 2023Q4 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202306(Jun2023) 2023Q4 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202307(Ju12023) 2024Q1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202308(Aug2023) 2024Q1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202309(Sep2023) 2024Q1 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202310(Oct2023) 2024Q2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - 202311(Nov2023) 2024Q2 $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - O 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 2024 $ 0 $ - $ - $ - $ 0 Impact Fees Corfice,ilial Data pulled 07/01/2022 AAA 1388 CCC DDD=AAA-BBB-CCC UnAlloCated Budget Allocation Allocation YTD Expenditures Remaining Allocation Bud 8 Police Budget Amended Encumbrances Amount Sum of Police Allocation Sum of Police Allocation Sum of Police Allocation Descri lion Cost Center Budget Amended Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures Remaining Appropriation ReimbExoessPoliceCa ci IF 8422800 $ 1,898,497 $ - $ 1,898,497 $ - Police'sConsultant'sCon[ract 8419205 $ 3,565 $ - $ 3,565 $ - Public Safe Buildin Re Icmn 8405005 $ 14,0668 $ 14,068 $ - $ 0 Eas[side Precint 8419201 $ 21,639 $ - $ - $ 21,639 846�150 Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 $ 338,448 $ - $ 100,842 $ 237,606.45 $ Grand Total 2,276,217 14,068 2,002,903 259,246 8484001 A Allocation Allocation Allocation Fire Budget Amended Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Remaining Appropriation Sum of Fire Allocation Sum of Fire Allocation Sum of Fire Allocation Description Cost Center Budget Amended Encumbrances Sum of Fire Allocation YTD Expenditures Remaining Appropriation Fire'sConsultant'sContract 18,119202 $ 4,941 $ 3,021 $ 1,862 $ 58 FY20 FireTrainin Fac. 8421431 $ 56,03, $ - $ - $ 56,031 Fire Station.3 Deb[Service 8422NO $ 483,233 $ - $ 483,233 $ - Grand Total 1,045,105 3 021 9S5 995 56,089 $1,156,234 �.484002 B Allocation Allocation YTD Expenditures Remaining Parks Bud et Amended Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation Sum of Parks Allocation Sum of Parks Allocation Descri lion Cost Center Budget Amended Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation YTD Expenditures Remaining Appropriation Cn ft2 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420426 $ 88 $ - $ 88 $ - Warm Springs Off Leash 8420132 $ 20,411 $ - $ 20,411 $ - Fis Impr 49752 Famr a , $ $ 49,752 $ ria - 8420130 $ 1,098,764 $ 261,187 $ 837,577 $ - Park'sCOnsultant'sContract 8419204 $ 4,857 $ 2,596 $ 2,219 $ 42 Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 $ 23,530 $ 23,000 $ - $ 530 Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 $ 1,110 $ - $ - $ 1,110 ]ordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 $ 1,570 $ - $ - $ 1,570 Water rk Redevel0 ment Plan 8421402 $ 224,247 $ 92,027 $ 130,574 $ 1,646 Jordan R Trail Land Ac uisitn 8417017 $ 2,946 $ - $ - $ 2,946 Im rialParkShadeAcct' 8919103 $ 10,830 $ - $ 4,433 $ 6,398 Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 $ 12,795 $ 4,328 $ - $ 8,467 Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 $ 9,350 $ - $ - $ 9,350 rk 8416005 $ 2195 $ 855 2,692 16,410191i A 842006 $ 5,04 $ - 19019IF 5 $ 58 F5 216 57UTG-Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 $ 135,084 $ 21,169 $ 12,803 $ 101,112 7fFisher House Ex loration Ctr 8421401 $ 523,889 $ 374,573 $ 39,040 $ 110,276FY20 Brid atoBackman8420430 $ 722,920 $ 116,388 $ 480,599 $ 125,933 3 C Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 $ 150,736 $ - $ - $ 150,736 9Line Orchard 8420136 $ 195,045 $ 12,423 $ 28,477 $ 154,145 RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 $ 180,032 $ - $ - $ 180,032 Cn #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 842G424 $ 388,477 $ 16,762 $ 117,939 $ 253,777 Trailhead Pro Ac uisition 8421403 $ 275,000 $ - $ - $ 275,000 Bridge to Backman 8418005 $ 290,276 $ 10,285 $ 4,515 $ 275,475 SLC Foothills Land Ac uisition 8422413 $ 425,000 $ - $ 105:861 $ 319,139 Parle's Trail Desi n&Constr 8417012 $ 327,678 $ - $ - $ 327,678 )ordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 $ 431000 $ 24,953 $ - $ 406,047 Historic Renovation AIIenPa,K 8422410 $ 420:000 $ - $ - $ 420,000 Wasatch Hollow Im rovements 8420142 $ 489,688 $ 29,235 $ 35,098 $ 425,355 Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 $ 510,000 $ 44,362 $ - $ 465,638 Green lo0 200 E Desi n 8422408 $ 610,000 $ - $ - $ 610,000 Emi ration O n S ce AC 8422423 $ 700,000 $ - $ - $ 700,000 Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 $ 1,094,430 $ 33,364 $ 47,318 $ 1,013,749 SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevel mnt 8422412 $ 1,304,682 $ - $ - $ 1,304,682 Pioneer Park 8419150 $ 3,343,904 $ 86,260 $ 179,148 $ 3,078,497 GlendaleWtr rk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 $ 3,200000 $ 17,400 $ 22,152 $ 3,160,449 Grand Total 0,281,i23 1 174 504 2 142 322 13 964 297 Allocation Allocation Allocation Streets Budget Amended Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Remaining Approprilafinn Sum of Street Allocation Sum of Street Allocation Sum of Street Allocation Descri lion Cost Center Budget Amended Encumbrances Sum of Street Allocation YTD Expenditures Remaining Appropriation 9 Line Ceirtral Ninth 8418011 $ 152,500 $ 68,924 $ 83,576 $ - 700 South Reconstruction 84,5004 $ 2,449 $ - $ 2,449 $ - Trans Master Plan 8419006 $ 13,000 $ 13,000 $ - $ - TransSafe Im rovements 8419007 $ 95,653 $ 12,768 $ 82,180 $ 705 Trans ortation Safet Im rovem 8417007 $ 1,444 $ - $ - $ 1,444 Gladiola Street 8406001 $ 16,109 $ 13,865 $ - $ 2,244 Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 $ 6,500 $ - $ - $ 6,500 8,061,854 Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 $ 29,817 $ 17,442 $ - $ 12,374 500 to 700 5 8418016 $ 96,637 $ - $ 73,893 $ 22,744 Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 $ 25,398 $ - $ - $ 25,398 900 South 91.ine RR Cross IF 8422604 $ 28,000 $ - $ - $ 28,000 Trans ortam Safe Im rvmt IF 8422620 $ 44,400 $ 13,090 $ - $ 31,310 84MOS D 17005 Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 $ 35,300 $ - $ - $ 35,300 Com lete Street Enhancements 8420120 $ 35,392 $ - $ - $ 35,392 200STransitCm ItStrtSu IIF 8422602 $ 37,422 $ - $ - $ 37,422 Transp Sadety Improvements 8420110 $ 58,780 $ 20,697 $ - $ 38,083 1300 5 Bic cle Bvpass edestr 8416004 $ 42,833 $ - $ - $ 42,833 Local Link Construction IF 8422606 $ 50,000 $ - $ - $ 50,000 400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 $ 90,000 $ - $ - $ 90,000 Nei hborhood B was IF 8422614 $ 104,500 $ - $ - $ 104,500 Indiana Ave 900 S Rehab Design 8412002 $ 124,593 $ - $ - $ 124,593 Sikewa Urban Trails 8418003 $ 200,000 $ - $ 18,154 $ 181,846 Trans ortationsafe Im rov IF 8421500 $ 302,053 $ 53,713 $ 9,608 $ 238,732 Street Im rove Reconstruc 20 8420125 $ 2,250:220 $ 396,873 $ 1,470,038 $ 383,309 IF Comp l $ $ $ 625,000 Sl Traffic ni d 8419008 $ 221,238 450U ades Traffic U rie 8420105 $ 300000 $ 77,706 $ 222,294 $ - Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 $ 875:000 $ 67,474 $ 19,589 $ 787,937 Grand Total 5,967,404 840,578 2,220,710 2,906,116 total 26,566,261 2,032,171 7,348,343 17,185,7481 $25,280,816 E=A+B+C+D TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE ERIN MEN FEN H AL MARY BETH TH OM PSON Mayor Chief Financial Officer CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL 7"7�A(—;,;,, , ,; 8/02/2022 Date Received: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Adm histrative Officer Date sent to Council: 8/02/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council Dan Dugan, Chair DATE: July 29, 2022 FROM: M ary Beth Thom pon, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Council Consent Agenda#2 Items Fiscal Year 2022-23 STAFF CONTACTS: M ry Beth Thom pson (801) 535-6403 or J ohn Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 DOCUMENTTYPE: Consent Agenda/Establish Grant Projects from Grant Holding Account RECOMMENDATION: The Adm histration recom m eds that the City Council consent to the transfer of these grants and donations from the holding account and establish a project budget for them . BUDGET IMPACT: Grant Holding Account ($ 1,639,915.00) New Grant Project 1,639,915.00 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The grant holding account was established to fund grants between budget amendm ants with the understanding that the grants would be subm tted as part of the next budget opening. Item stransm tted are placed on a Council Consent agenda and then form dly approved during the following budget am andm ent. On occasion, a situ lar process is em Ooyed for donations to the City. W here necessary, resolutions were previously passed authorizing the M Nor to sign and accept these grants and donations. EXHIBITS: Consent Agenda Detail Consent Agenda Sum m ay DEPARTIM ENT O FFINANCE 451 SO ULH STATE STREET,RC O KC45 SALT LAKE CITY,UTAH 84114 TEL 801-535-6403 Section G:Council Consent Agenda #2 - G rant A w zds G is Executive O ffice of the President, O ffice of National D lug Control Misc. G rants $ 587,915.00 -2023 R ocky Mountain High Intensity D mg Trafficking A rea (H ID TA)G rant D epartment:Police D epartment P repared B y Jordan Smith/A m G arcia The Salt Lake City Police Department received a grant of$587,915 from the H gh Intensity Drug Trafficking Areas (H IDTA)program.Of this award$172,36o is approved for salaries and$58,799 is approved for fringe benefits for an administrative employee,K-9 officer,and a contracted finance manager. $140,000 for investigative overtime, $45,000 for investigative/operational and administrative travel, $15,656 for vehicle leases and services contracts, $11,700 for supplies, and$144,400 for other administrative costs and confidential informant funds. A public hearing was held on 5/17/22 for the grant application on this award. G-2:Teen Afterschool Prevention(TA P)G rant,State of U 1ah, Misc. Grants $ i,008,000.00 D epartment of Workforce Services D epartment:Public Services(Youth&Family) P repared B y K in Thomas/A m G arcia The Youth and Fam ily Services Division applied for and received a grant award of$336,000 per year for a three-year period,from Utah State Department of Work Force Services through the Teen Afterschool Prevention Grant.These funds have been awarded to fund YouthCity Teen sites: Glendale,Central City,Library,N arthwest and Sorenson Teen program operating expenses. The allocation of these funds will be over three years and will help fund two new full-tim e equivalent(FTE)Com m unity Program Managers,and eight existing positions for Teen Specialists,in addition to General Operating expenses,and Professional Services expenses. N om arch is required by the funding agency. A public hearing was held on o6/14/2022 on the grant application. G-3: U 1ah State D epartment of Public Safety-2022 Emergency Misc. Grants $38,000.00 Management Performance G rant(EMPG) D epartment:Emergency Management P repared B 3.Audrey Pierce/A m G arcia The Em ergency Managem ent Services Division received a$38,000 FY2022 EM PG grant from the State of Utah, Department of Public Safety. This grant is awarded on an annual basis to jurisdictions to help offset costs of planning and updating emergency preparedness plans,conduct emergency preparedness exercises and produce materials and other media for public educational outreach and training pertaining to em ergency preparedness. These funds will offset costs in providing N ational Incident Management System(N 1MS)training to SLC staff with em ergency response responsibilities during a disaster or other significant event. The funds will be used to fund com m unity preparedness activities,purchase training m aerials,supplies and equipm ent including books,brochures,handouts,etc. The grant requires a 50%m arch which will be satisfied with the Comm unity Preparedness Coordinator's time and budgeted for within Emergency Managements general fund. A public hearing was held for this grant application on 6/14/22. G-4: Utah Commission on Criminal and Juvenile Justice(CCJJ), State A sset Forfeiture G rant(SA IG) Msc.G rants $6,000.00 D epartment:Police D epartment P repared B yr Jordan Smith/A m G arcia The Salt Lake City Police Department applied for and received a$6,000 grant award from the State of U hh,Commssion on Criminal and Juvenile Justice(CCJJ),under the State Asset Forfeiture Grant(SAFG)program.The SAFG program funds crim e prevention and law enforcem ent activities within specific guidelines.CCJJ developed the SAFG program as a means of evaluating and distributing state forfeiture funds. The funds will be used for confidential informant funds to enhance investigations in narcotics-related cases. A public hearing was held on 07/19/22 for this grant application. 1 n ( ( ( ( o \ / \ } { { \ ° 3 7 $ ■ k 4 2 c = $ ) ? § § § § e » » » » 4 d } } } } k o > � A 2 % » � / / 9 - \ [ \ \ &2 (CA ® CIO \ \ \ , a � \\ \ / \ \ \ \\ \\ , /\ 5 $ - ® ° A Signature: Signature: Email: tina.nee@slcgov.com Email: april.patterson@slcgov.com ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL { t Date Received: 7/22/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 7/22/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 7/22/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Bicycle Advisory Committee RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Great Sommerfeld as a member of the Bicycle Advisory Committee. P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM SALT LAKE CITY, UT 841 14-5474 TEL 801-535-7704 ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor July 22, 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 Bicycle Advisory Committee. Greta Sommerfeld - to be appointed for a three year term, 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 P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM SALT LAKE CITY, UT 841 14-5474 TEL 801-535-7704 ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL { t Date Received: 7/22/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 7/22/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 7/22/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Bicycle Advisory Committee STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Bicycle Advisory Committee RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Raymond Reynolds as a member of the Bicycle Advisory Committee. P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM SALT LAKE CITY, UT 841 14-5474 TEL 801-535-7704 ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor July 22, 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 Bicycle Advisory Committee. Raymond Reynolds - to be appointed for a three year term, 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 P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM SALT LAKE CITY, UT 841 14-5474 TEL 801-535-7704 ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL { t Date Received: 7/22/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 7/22/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 7/22/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Library Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Library Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Bonnie Russell as a member of the Library Board P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM SALT LAKE CITY, UT 841 14-5474 TEL 801-535-7704 ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor July 22, 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 Library Board. Bonnie Russell - to be appointed for a three year term, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent until June 30, 2025. 1 respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall,Mayor Cc: File P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM SALT LAKE CITY, UT 841 14-5474 TEL 801-535-7704 ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL { t Date Received: 7/22/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 7/22/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 7/22/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Art Design Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment: Art Design Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Jeri Lopez as a member of the Art Design Board. P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM SALT LAKE CITY, UT 841 14-5474 TEL 801-535-7704 ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor July 22, 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 Art Design Board. Jen Lopez - to be appointed for a three year term, 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 P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM SALT LAKE CITY, UT 841 14-5474 TEL 801-535-7704 r:_ -.. Inland Port 400 Ft Interior Buffer : .. I •I " • •, •: -I L :... ...._ Inland Port Jurisdiction Change over time 05 2013-07 2022 0.5 1 I I I 2 Miles I " □Inland Port Overlay • 7 Change Severity 20130524-20220728 Landsat 8 • 8 •9 •10 -I-80 <><Natural Area - •• ,I .,. ..... •= .. ' .... . ► j . • • 1 . .. M.Kimbrough 08/4/2022