The URL can be used to link to this page

01/03/2023 - Work Session - Meeting MaterialsSALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION January 3, 2023 Tuesday 2:00 PM Council meetings are held in a hybrid meeting format. Hybrid meetings allow people to join online or in person at the City & County Building. Learn more at www.slc.gov/council/agendas. Council Work Room 451 South State Street Room 326 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 SLCCouncil.com 7:00 pm Formal Meeting Room 326 (See separate agenda) Welcome and public meeting rules In accordance with State Statute and City Ordinance, the meeting may be held electronically. After 5:00 p.m., please enter the City & County Building through the main east entrance. The Work Session is a discussion among Council Members and select presenters. The public is welcome to listen. Items scheduled on the Work Session or Formal Meeting may be moved and / or discussed during a different portion of the Meeting based on circumstance or availability of speakers. Please note: Dates not identified in the FYI - Project Timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change at the Chair’s discretion. Generated: 09:38:46 Work Session Items 1.Nomination of Council Chair and Vice Chair for Calendar Year 2023 2:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will take a straw poll to nominate the Council Chair and Vice Chair for calendar year 2023. The process includes expressions of interest from Council Members, nominations for each position, and then voting each for the Chair and Vice Chair positions. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 2.Informational: Updates from the Administration 2:15 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 3.Informational: Equity Update 2:45 p.m. 20 min. The Council will hold a discussion about various initiatives led by the City's Office of Equity and Inclusion. These initiatives include, but are not limited to, improving racial equity and justice in policing. Discussion may also include updates on the City's other work to achieve equitable service delivery, decision-making, and community engagement through the Citywide Equity Plan, increased ADA resources, language access, and other topics addressed in the ongoing work of the Human Rights Commission and the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 4.Utah Open Meetings Law Training and Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) Training 3:05 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing from the City Attorney’s Office about the Utah Open Meetings Law, and from the Recorder's Office about the Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA). This briefing will serve as the annual trainings for both the City Council and the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Agency. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 5.Ordinance: Economic Development Loan Fund - Forty Three Bakery/Streusel LLC 3:35 p.m. 10 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would approve a $100,000 loan to Forty Three Bakery/Streusel LLC, at 713 Genesee Avenue from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF.) Forty Three Bakery is a retail and wholesale bakery and cafe. The loan will assist in the creation of 20 new jobs in the next year and retention of 7 current jobs. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 17, 2023 6.Informational: UDOT I-15 study 3:45 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing from the Utah Department of Transportation (UDOT) on an environmental study focused on the I-15 corridor between Farmington and Salt Lake. The study identifies issues, needs, and potential solutions from the public and other stakeholders while evaluating the environmental impacts of those proposed solutions and selecting an alternative that best meets the needs. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 7.Tentative Break 4:15 p.m. 20 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 8.Ordinance: Electric Vehicle Readiness Off-Street Parking Stalls Amendment 4:35 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend and update City code requirements for parking on some new construction projects. New multi-family housing projects like condos and apartments would be required to add electrical capacity on twenty percent of their off-street parking stalls. The electrical capacity would allow the future addition of electric vehicle charging stations at the stalls constructed for them. The proposal would amend the City’s land use code at 21A.44.040. The requirement would also apply to major reconstructions of qualifying properties in multi-family zones. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, February 7, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD 9.Informational: Thriving in Place Follow-up ~ 5:05 p.m. 40 min. The Council will receive a follow-up briefing from the Community and Neighborhoods Department (CAN) about progress on the City’s anti-gentrification and anti-displacement plan, known as Thriving in Place. This will include discussion of proposed policies and programs that are considered feasible and effective, with particular focus on those which can be implemented within two years. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCHousingProposals FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, December 13, 2022 and Tuesday, January 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 10.Ordinance: Quorum for Electronic Meetings ~ 5:45 p.m. 10 min. The Council will receive a briefing amending City Code 2.06.030 governing the calculation of a quorum during hybrid/electronic meetings when a Council member or members are remote. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 11.Board Appointment: Planning Commission -Anaya Gayle ~ 5:55 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview Anaya Gayle prior to considering appointment to the Planning Commission for a term ending January 3, 2027. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 12.Board Appointment: Transportation Advisory Board - John Close ~ 6:00 p.m. 5 min The Council will interview John Close prior to considering appointment to the Transportation Advisory Board for a term ending September 29, 2025. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 13.Board Appointment Interviews for the Racial Equity in Policing Commission ~ 6:05 p.m. 10 min. The Council will interview the following candidates prior to considering their appointment to the Racial Equity in Policing Commission; •Diya Oommen •Uliva Guadarrama •Julia Summerfield •Olivia Joylani Kavapalu •Steven Calbert •Katherine Durante FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, January 3, 2023 Standing Items 14.Report of the Chair and Vice Chair Report of Chair and Vice Chair. 15.Report and Announcements from the Executive Director - - Report of the Executive Director, including a review of Council information items and announcements. The Council may give feedback or staff direction on any item related to City Council business, including but not limited to; •Financial Disclosure; and •Scheduling Items. 16.Tentative Closed Session - - The Council will consider a motion to enter into Closed Session. A closed meeting described under Section 52-4-205 may be held for specific purposes including, but not limited to: a. discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; b. strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; c. strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; d. strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; e. strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: (A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; f. discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and g. investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A closed meeting may also be held for attorney-client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code § 78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. CERTIFICATE OF POSTING On or before 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, December 29, 2022, the undersigned, duly appointed City Recorder, does hereby certify that the above notice and agenda was (1) posted on the Utah Public Notice Website created under Utah Code Section 63F-1-701, and (2) a copy of the foregoing provided to The Salt Lake Tribune and/or the Deseret News and to a local media correspondent and any others who have indicated interest. CINDY LOU TRISHMAN SALT LAKE CITY RECORDER Final action may be taken in relation to any topic listed on the agenda, including but not limited to adoption, rejection, amendment, addition of conditions and variations of options discussed. The City & County Building is an accessible facility. People with disabilities may make requests for reasonable accommodation, which may include alternate formats, interpreters, and other auxiliary aids and services. Please make requests at least two business days in advance. To make a request, please contact the City Council Office at council.comments@slcgov.com, 801-535-7600, or relay service 711. Administrative Updates January 3, 2023 COVID-19 update Cases in Utah are down 31% in the last two weeks. (NYT Coronavirus in the US: Latest Map and Case Count 1/3/2023)current status summary Cases in the US are down 11% in the last two weeks. (NYT Coronavirus in the US: Latest Map and Case Count 1/3/2023) Sources: NYT Tracking Coronavirus in Utah , NYT Coronavirus in the US, CDC COVID-19 Integrated County View COVID-19 Update Source: Salt Lake County Health Department Source: Utah Department of Environmental Quality www.slc.gov/feedback/ Regularly updated with highlighted ways to engage with the City. Community Engagement Highlights Communities and Neighborhoods slc.gov/can •Housing SLC •Finalizing Housing Plan Draft •Transmitted Ordinance Changes •Landscaping •Downtown Building Height & Street Activation Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canTransportation •400 South Bus Stop Improvements (District 4) •Capitol Hill Traffic Calming (District 3) •Construction estimation: Spring 2023 •Transportation Master Plan slc.gov/transportation Public Utilities •City Creek Water Treatment Plant Upgrade •16-week engagement campaign begins this month •Water Reclamation Facility •Winter Construction Flyer being Distributed •Influent Pump Station Action Plan •Will include Councilmember Petro -Eschler slc.gov/utilities Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canLove Your Block •2nd cycle applications are now being accepted! •Closing January 29th •First Cycle included: •200 Hours of deliberating with the community •$10,000 to community-led revitalization projects •Over 750 Volunteers who removed 15,000 pounds of trash and debris from the Westside. slc.gov/transportation Homelessness Update: Single Adult HRC Occupancy 12/19-23 12/26-12/30 Homeless Resource Centers 95.4%96.0% HRC Overflow "Flex" Beds 70.9%69.4% Millcreek Overflow 82.6%90.8% St. Vincent de Paul Overflow 97.5%96.6% Rapid Intervention/ EIM •VOA Outreach focused on basic winter needs for those who are unsheltered across the city •RIT still doing regular scheduled areas for cleaning maintenance Resource Fair •January 13th •9:30 -12:30pm •@Rio Grande Area Homelessness Update Know Your Neighbor Volunteer Program Refugees Impacted Volunteer Hours 18,000+ Volunteer Hours (Program to Date) 250 Volunteers Know Your Neighbor Impact 2022 “Saturday afternoon I received a message from [Gabe] telling me that Tuesday would be his high school graduation, for a long time he has been working on obtaining and fulfilling this goal. In his message he told me that he would be very happy if I could go to his graduation, so I did! He saw me and he was very happy despite the fact that all his friends and family were there for him it was important that I was at his graduation.” -Luis, KYN Volunteer ●Day to Day Operations ●All Volunteer & Refugee recruitment, onboarding and matches ●Coordination for volunteer needs with partner agencies and refugee center programs ●Coordination with City and State staff ●Ongoing projects for increased program efficiency Know Your Neighbor Volunteer Coordinator CRÉDITOS:Esta plantilla para presentaciones es una creación de Slidesgo, e incluye iconos de Flaticon , infografías e imágenes de Freepik Additional Staff Support Policy Advisor for Refugees and New Americans ●Policy focused support ●Relationship building with refugees, minority and ethnic groups and organizations ●Briefs administration on emerging issues Refugee Services Office, State of Utah ●Data Specialist ●Program Coordinator ●Program Management VISTA ●RCBO Coordinator ●RCBO Development VISTA ●Community Team MEMORANDUM TO CITY COUNCIL TO: Salt Lake City Council Dan Dugan, Chair Date: December 29, 2022 From: Katherine Lewis, City Attorney Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder Keith Reynolds, Deputy City Recorder – GRAMA Subject: Annual Open and Public Meeting Act Training & GRAMA Overview Introduction This memorandum and the associated briefing provide an overview of UCA 63G-2 (Government Records Access and Management Act), and UCA 52-4 (Open and Public Meetings Act). These state laws build assurance of access to government business by the public. The Open and Public Meetings Act (OPMA) ensures that the public’s business is conducted openly and Government Records Access and Management Act (GRAMA) details how the public may access records concerning the public’s business. Open and Public Meetings Act (Utah Code Sections 52-4-101 to 305) Goal: Ensure that public bodies deliberate and take actions openly. Consistent with that goal, OPMA provides that meetings of a public body are open to the public, unless as defined as appropriate meeting subjects for Closed meetings. Meetings are defined as the convening of at least a quorum, and meeting for the purpose to discuss, receive comments, or act on a matter over which the Council has jurisdiction. Regular meetings, electronic meetings, retreats, workshops, and field trips are subject to the requirements of OPMA. Transparency to the Public Public Notices of each meeting shall be provided at least 24 hours prior to each meeting and be: 1) Posted at the principal office of the Council (except for an electronic meeting held without an anchor location) and on the Utah Public Meeting Notice website; and 2) Provided to a newspaper of general circulation or a local media correspondent (completed through the posting on the Utah Public Meeting Notice website). Closed Meetings A meeting may be closed only to discuss topics specified in OPMA, which include: • An individual’s character, professional competence of physical or mental health • Collective bargaining strategy • Pending or reasonably imminent litigation • Real property purchase, exchange, lease if the discussion would disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property or prevent the public body from conducting the sale on the best possible terms • Real property sale if the discussion would disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property or prevent the public body from conducting the sale on the best possible terms, the public body gave notice that the property would be offered for sale, and the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before approving the sale • Deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems • Criminal misconduct investigations • Advice of legal counsel An open meeting may be closed following a roll call vote wherein 2/3 of the members present approve the closure of the meeting during an open meeting with a quorum in attendance. Prior to going into a closed meeting, the following shall be announced and entered on the minutes of the open meeting: the reason(s) for closing the meeting, the location of where the closed meeting will be held, and a vote by name of each member of the public body on the motion to hold the closed meeting. Public Comment or Participation State law or city code may require a public hearing in some instances. Advertising for these hearings shall be satisfied by state law requirements or, when possible, by standards established by the Council. Public comment information may be discussed during an open meeting at the discretion of the Chair even though items may not have been listed on the agenda, but no final action on the items raised by public comment may occur. Government Records Access and Management Act (Utah Code Sections 63G-2-101 to 901) The intent of GRAMA is to: i) promote the public’s right of easy and reasonable access to unrestricted public records; ii) specify when the public interest in allowing restrictions on access to records may outweigh the public’s interest in access; iii) prevent abuse of claims of confidentiality by governmental entities by permitting confidential treatment of records only as provided; iv) provide guidelines for both disclosures and restrictions on access to government records; v) favor public access when, in the application of this act, countervailing interests are of equal weight; and vi) establish fair and reasonable records management practices. Request Procedure Persons making a request for a record shall furnish the governmental entity with a written request including the person’s name, mailing address, daytime telephone number and a description of the record requested identified with reasonable specificity. GRAMA requests received via email, the State Records Portal, City portal (GovQA), and by written letters. The City must respond to a request within 10 business days. If a requester asks for an expedited response, the City shall consider an expedited response in 5 business days. Expedited responses are determined to be the benefit of the public rather than the person. Generally, requests from the media are presumed to be for the benefit of the public. If the City denies the request, it must provide a notice of denial to the request. The denial must contain the following: • A description of the record or portions of the record to which access was denied. • Citations to the provisions of GRAMA or other law that exempt the record from disclosure. • A statement that the requester has the right to appeal the denial to the City’s Chief Administrative Officer; and • The time limits for filing an appeal, and the name and business address of the City’s Chief Administrative Officer. A requester has 30 calendar days to appeal a records request, and the City has 10 business days to respond to the appeal. The requester may make a further appeal to the State Records Committee or District. A criminal penalty of a Class B misdemeanor can be imposed there is intentional disclosure of a record that shouldn’t be disclosed or if there is an intentionally refusal to disclose a record that is required by law to be disclosed. 2022 GRAMA Statistics Salt Lake City received more GRAMA requests in 2022 than ever before at 16,427 requests. This is 451 more requests than 2021. The City uses the software GovQA to route and track all GRAMA requests. This program categorizes all requests as either Police, Fire, Airport, or City. City is further broken down into the remaining departments of the City. TFurther statistical breakdown can be seen in the charts below. Total Number of Request (12/15/2021 to 12/15/2022) = 16,427 2022 Records Request Appeals 17 Total Appeals - 8 Police Requests - 6 City Requests - 2 Fire Requests - 1 Airport Request SA LT L A K E CI T Y CO UN CIL/ RDA B OA R D O F D I RE CTORS 20 23 UTAH OPEN AND PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT UTAH CODE SECTIONS 52-4-101 TO 305 OPEN AND PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT •MEETINGS of a PUBLIC BODY are open to the public, unless an EXCEPTION is available under the Act that allows the meeting to be CLOSED. PUBLIC BODY MEETINGS of a PUBLIC BODY are open to the public, unless an EXCEPTION is available under the Act that allows the meeting to be CLOSED. Salt Lake City Council is a PUBLIC BODY. MEETINGS MEETINGS of a PUBLIC BODY must be open to the public, unless an EXCEPTION is available under the Act that allows the meeting to be CLOSED. MEETINGS •Convening of •At least a quorum •To discuss,receive comments, or act on a matter over which the Council has jurisdiction. WHICH GATHERINGS ARE SUBJECT TO THE OPEN AND PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT? YES •Electronic Meetings •Retreats •Workshops •Field Trips NO •Chance Meetings •Social Gatherings •No Quorum TRANSPARENCY TO THE PUBLIC R E Q UIRE MENT S O F T H E O P E N A N D PU B L IC M E E T ING S ACT PUBLIC NOTICEPROVIDING PUBLIC NOTICE •Posted at the principal office of the Council •On the Utah Public Notice website •Published in either the newspaper of general circulation or provided to a local media correspondent HOW? •Post •Publish WHAT? •Annual Meeting Schedule •Every Meeting EMERGENCY MEETINGS PUBLIC NOTICEANNUAL MEETING SCHEDULE •Annually scheduled meetings –Date –Time –Place –Does not need to be revised each time a special meeting is scheduled –Revise if adding new regularly scheduled meeting HOW? •Post •Publish WHAT? •Annual Meeting Schedule •Every Meeting EMERGENCY MEETINGS PUBLIC NOTICE HOW? •Post •Publish WHAT? •Annual Meeting Schedule •Every Meeting EMERGENCY MEETINGS EVERY MEETING •24 Hour Notice •Content –Agenda –Date –Time –Place PUBLIC NOTICE HOW? •Post •Publish WHAT? •Annual Meeting Schedule •Every Meeting EMERGENCY MEETINGS EVERY MEETING •24 Hour Notice •Content –Agenda •Reasonable Specificity •Matters Not on the Agenda –Date –Time –Place PUBLIC NOTICE HOW? •Post •Publish WHAT? •Annual Meeting Schedule •Every Meeting EMERGENCY MEETINGS EMERGENCY MEETINGS •Unforeseen circumstances require consideration of matters of an emergency or urgent nature •Best notice practicable of time, place, and topics •Attempt to notify all Council members •Majority of Council members approve holding the meeting •Final action may be taken at an emergency meeting OPEN AND PUBLIC MEETINGS ACT •MEETINGS of a PUBLIC BODY be open to the public, unless an EXCEPTION is available under the Act that allows the meeting to be CLOSED. CLOSED MEETINGS A M E E T ING M AY B E CL O S ED O NLY TO D IS CUSS SP E CI FIE D TO PI CS CLOSED MEETINGS A MEETING MAY BE CLOSED ONLY TO DISCUSS SPECIFIED TOPICS •An Individual’s Character, Professional Competence or Physical or Mental Health •Collective Bargaining Strategy •Pending or Reasonably Imminent litigation •Real Property Purchase, Exchange, Lease –Disclose appraisal or value or prevent transaction on best possible terms •Real Property Sale –Disclose appraisal or value or prevent transaction on best possible terms –City previously gave notice that the property would be offered for sale –Terms of sale are publicly disclosed before the City approves the sale •Deployment of Security Devices •Criminal Misconduct Investigations •Advice of Legal Counsel CLOSED MEETINGS PROCEDURES •Open Meeting with Quorum Present •2/3 of Council is Present and Approves the Closing •Publicly Announce and Enter Into the Minutes: –Reason for closing the meeting –Location of the meeting –Vote by name MEETING RECORDS OPEN MEETINGS •Recording •Written minutes –Date, time, place –Members present and absent –Substance of all matters proposed, discussed, or decided –Record of each vote –Name of anyone who provided testimony/comments and a summary of the comments –Other information requested •OFFICIAL RECORD = WRITTEN MINUTES CLOSED MEETINGS •Recording •Written minutes optional –Date, time, place –Names of all present and absent (unless disclosure would impair confidentiality necessary for original purpose of closing the meeting •Exception if discussing –Character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual –Deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems •Protected Records under GRAMA ELECTRONIC MEETINGS A RE COV ER ED U N DER T HE ACT ELECTRONIC MEETINGS •Call or FaceTime into a Meeting –Resolution, Rule or Ordinance – City Code 2.06.030E –Majority of a quorum is physically present at anchor location –Usual Notice •Electronic Messages –Council member is not restricted from transmitting an electronic message to other Council members at a time when the Council is not convened in an open meeting. –Other electronic messages – is it convening a quorum for the purpose of discussing matters over which the Council has jurisdiction? ELECTRONIC MEETINGS WITH NO ANCHOR LOCATION •Virtual meetings with no physical presence at the City County Building (anchor location) –Virtual meeting may occur if the chair: •makes a written determination that conducting the meeting with an anchor location presents a substantial risk to the health and safety of those who may be present at the anchor location; •states in the written determination the facts upon which the determination is based; •includes in the public notice for the meeting, and reads at the beginning of the meeting, the information described above; and •includes in the public notice information on how a member of the public may view or make a comment at the meeting. –30-day expiration: The chair’s written determination expires 30 days after the day on which the chair of the public body makes the determination. PUBLIC COMMENT OR PARTICIPATION PUBLIC COMMENT OR PARTICIPATION •State law or City Code may require a public hearing in some instances •Other public comments –At discretion of the Chair, comments may be discussed during open meeting if not on agenda –No FINAL ACTION if not on agenda DISRUPTION OF MEETING •May REMOVE an individual from the meeting if –WILLFULLY DISRUPTS and –The orderly conduct of the meeting is SERIOUSLY COMPROMISED CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATING THE ACT CONSEQUENCES OF VIOLATING THE ACT •Class B misdemeanor to knowingly violate the closed meeting provisions of the Act •Private individuals can bring lawsuit for violation of the Act –Final action may be voidable –Suit must be commenced within 90 days of the final action or 30 days of the final action concerning issuance of bonds QUESTIONS? Thank you! GRAMA Records Retention 2022 Statistics Salt Lake City Recorder’s Office January 2023 Government Records Access Management Act •Title 63G, Chapter 2 •Enacted into law in 1991 •Balancing act between –Public’s right to access –Guidelines for restrictions –Preventing abuse of confidentiality Retention Schedules •Records have retention periods defined by time and value •Records must be retained according to the periods identified by the City Recorders office in coordination with the department records manager(s) •Record identification & destruction (paper and digital) processes assist with the maintenance of records and consideration of space/volume of data Records include: •Books, letters, documents, papers, maps, plans, photographs, films, cards, tapes, recordings, electronic data and other documentary materials that are: Prepared Owned Received Retained •Regardless of physical form or characteristic Classification (63G-2-301 –305) •Public •Private •Controlled •Protected GRAMA –The Specifics! •10 business days to respond –Does NOT count day of receipt, holidays, or weekends •5 business days to respond to expedited requests •Extensions can be requested •Fee waivers are granted by the department pulling the record Denials and Appeals •Denials are issued for a variety of reasons –Private, Controlled, or Confidential records •Requester has 30 calendar days to appeal a denial •City has 10 business days to respond to an appeal •Requester may appeal City decision to –State Records Committee –District Court Key Takeaways •City employees are stewards of records created, received, owned, or retained. •Records can be requested and must be provided unless they classified as private, controlled, or protected. •Represent the City professionally in all records Statistics: 2022 GRAMA Requests Total: 16,427 GRAMA Statistical Breakdown Police, 14770 Fire, 688 Airport, 297 City, 672 2022 GRAMA Requests Police Fire Airport City City Request Breakdown CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Allison Rowland Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:January 3, 2023 RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO FORTY THREE BAKERY/ STREUSEL, LLC, AT 713 GENESEE AVENUE ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will consider approving a loan from the City’s Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) to a business called Forty Three Bakery/Streusel, LLC, a retail and wholesale bakery and café, at 713 Genesee Avenue. The City’s Economic Development Loan Committee recommends the Council approve a $100,000 loan at 8.75% interest over seven years to this business for construction (expansion). This loan will assist in the creation of 20 new jobs in the next year and the retention of 7 current jobs. For context, the median small business commercial and industrial loan rates for the third quarter of 2022, were 5.39% for fixed-rate loans, and 6.25% for variable rate loans, according to the U.S. Federal Reserve’s Small Business Lending Survey.i These rates were 4.14% and 4.32%, respectively in the first quarter of that year, and 4.78% and 5.13% in the second. The application from Forty Three Bakery/Streusel, LLC, meets the following EDLF program goals: •Increases employment opportunities; •Stimulates business development; •Encourages private investment; •Promotes economic development; •Enhances neighborhood vitality; and, •Boosts commercial enterprise. Item Schedule: Briefing: January 3, 2023 Public Hearing: N/A Potential Action: January 17, 2023 Page | 2 The EDLF is a program administered by the Department of Economic Development. Each loan application is pre-screened, and an underwriting analysis and economic impact statement are completed before an application may be recommended for Loan Committee (see below) review. Information on successful applications is transmitted to the Council for final approval. Goal of the briefing: Consider a potential $100,000 loan from the Economic Development Loan Fund to a business called Forty Three Bakery/Streusel LLC, at 713 Genesee Ave. ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION A.EDLF available balance and amount of outstanding loans. The Finance Department reported the available fund balance at $ 7,342,260 on November 17, 2022. Outstanding loans totaled $3,684,187 as of that date. B.EDLF Committee Membership. The Department of Economic Development listed nine members of the EDLF Committee as follows: City Employees 1. Finance Director, Community and Neighborhoods Department 2. Representative of the Mayor’s Office 3. Salt Lake City employee at large 4. Representative of the Division of Housing Stability 5. Director, Department of Economic Development Community Volunteers 1. Salt Lake City Business Advisory Board (BAB) member 2. Banker 3. Community lender 4. Business mentor POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the EDLF Committee considered any other unique information about this business that would help Council Members with their own evaluations of how this application compares to others. For example, are there risk factors that are evaluated for each company, like outstanding loans, years in business, etc.? 2.What outreach does the Department do to ensure a diverse pool of businesses successfully applies to the EDLF? Are applications from diverse owners, particularly those whose businesses are located on the Westside, offered additional support through the application process? Does EDLF staff have ideas for improving access that would benefit from program changes or additional funding? 3. The Council may wish to request a more general update on EDLF use and processes. This could include the number of applications, review criteria used, loan program goals, etc. Page | 3 i Source: Small Business Lending Survey, Federal Reserve, 2028D, item 8.d. Consulted on December 27, 2022, at https://www.kansascityfed.org/surveys/small-business-lending-survey/small-business-lending-declines- as-loan-demand-softens/. DEPARTMENT of ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT ERIN MENDENHALL MAYOR LORENA RIFFO JENSON DIRECTOR CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL _______________________ Date Received: ___________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: ___________ __________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 8, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Director, Department of Economic Development SUBJECT: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund (EDLF) – Forty Three Bakery/Streusel LLC STAFF CONTACTS: Roberta Reichgelt, Business Development Director, Roberta.reichgelt@slcgov.com Peter Makowski, Project Manager, peter.makowski@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Loan Approval RECOMMENDATION: The EDLF Loan Committee recommends approval of $100,000 loan to Forty Three Bakery/Streusel LLC. BUDGET IMPACT: $100,000 from the Economic Development Loan Fund BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On November 10, 2022, a loan request from Forty Three Bakery/Streusel LLC was presented to the EDLF Loan Committee for review and discussion. The Loan Committee voted to recommend the loan for City Council consideration. Forty Three Bakery is a retail and wholesale bakery and café. Basic Loan request Business Name: Forty Three Bakery/Streusel LLC Address: 713 Genesee Ave, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Loan Amount Requested: $100,000 Loan Term: 7 years Interest Rate: 8.75% Use of Funds: Construction Loan Type: Expansion Reasoning behind staff recommendation Lisa Shaffer (Dec 8, 2022 13:35 MST) 12/08/2022 12/08/2022 Applicants of The Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF) go through a thorough application process consisting of a pre-screening, underwriting analysis and economic impact statement. The loan applicant goes through these processes, then the loan is reviewed by the Loan Committee members. Upon the thorough review of the Loan Committee members, the Loan Committee votes whether to make a recommendation to the City Council. If so, the loan is transmitted to the Council for final approval. Because the Loan Committee review process must adhere to the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act (OPMA), DED’s staff has worked closely with the City Attorney’s Office to ensure that applicants’ information is protected and at the same time the public process is followed. In addition, the EDLF loans must meet the goals of the Economic Development Loan Fund as stated in the EDLF program guidelines. This loan meets the EDLF program guidelines in the following areas. 1. Increasing employment opportunities 2. Stimulating business development 3. Encouraging private investment 4. Enhancing neighborhood vitality and 5. Boosting commercial enterprise This loan will assist in the creation of 20 new jobs in the next year and retention of 7 current jobs. This loan was recommended by the EDLF Committee to the City Council for approval. EDLF Loan Balances 1. As reported from The Finance Department on November 17, 2022, the EDLF available fund balance: $7,342,260.20 2. The amount of outstanding loans total is: $3,684,186.81 EDLF Loan Committee There are a total of nine (9) EDLF Committee members. City Employees: 1. Community and Neighborhoods Finance 2. Mayor’s Office 3. Employee at large 4. Housing Stability 5. Economic Development Community Volunteers: 6. Business Advisory Board (BAB) member 7. Banker 8. Community lender 9. Business mentor Attachments: Ordinance and Terms Sheet LOAN TERM SHEET Applicant: Forty Three Bakery/Streusel LLC Address: 713 Genesee Avenue, Salt Lake City, Utah 84104 Proposed Loan Terms Loan Amount: $100,000 Loan Term: 7 Years Interest Rate Calculation Prime Interest Rate: 4.75% (at the time of application on 7/20/2022) EDLF Charge: 8% Less Discount: 4% • Priority Area – 9th South from East Side to West Side Final Interest Rate: 8.75% Use of Funds : Construction Business Type: Food and Beverage Collateral and Guarantees: Equipment, Inventory, Personal Property, Vehicle Personal Guarantees: Andrew Corrao - Owner Conditions for Closing: Obtain all City approvals, execute all loan documents as deemed necessary by City legal counsel and DED staff, such other terms as recommended by City legal counsel and DED staff SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2022 (Ordinance approving a $100,000 loan for Forty Three Bakery/Streusel LLC., at 713 Genesee Avenue from the Economic Development Loan Fund) WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation’s (“City”) Economic Development Loan Fund (“EDLF”) is a program to stimulate local business development, encourage private investment, enhance neighborhood vitality, and boost commercial enterprise in Salt Lake City. WHEREAS, the EDLF is administered by the Department of Economic Development (“DED”) and loan applications are first prescreened by DED staff, and then reviewed by the EDLF Loan Committee. WHEREAS, the EDLF Loan Committee and DED staff recommend the approval of the attached loan term sheet for a $100,000 loan to Forty Three Bakery/Streusel LLC a local business located at 713 Genesee Avenue. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, that: SECTION 1. Loan Approval. The City Council approves the loan outlined in the Term Sheet attached hereto, subject to revisions that do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City hereunder. The City Council authorizes the Mayor to negotiate and execute the loan agreement and any other relevant documents consistent with the Term Sheet, and incorporating such other terms and agreements as recommended by the City Attorney’s office. 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. Dan Dugan, Council Chair ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2022. Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: Sara Montoya, City Attorney December 6, 2022 Alternatives Phase Today’s Topics • I-15 EIS process • Draft Alternatives Overview • How and why to provide feedback • Questions / Discussion Transportation System Planning Environmental Study Timeline Quality of Life Alternatives Screening Process Proposed Walking and Biking Improvements I-15 Mainline Alternatives Reversible Lanes •Southbound in the AM •Northbound in the PM •Barrier separated with access only at endpoints I-15 Mainline Alternatives - Travel Times North Salt Lake/ Woods Cross - Option A New I-215/US-89 local interchange and 2600 S. diamond (includes removal of SB Center St. off-ramp) North Salt Lake/Woods Cross - Option B New I-215/US-89 local interchange and 2600 S. SPUI + Removal of SB Center St. off-ramp North Salt Lake/Woods Cross - I-15 Crossings Salt Lake - Option A 600 N. CD and 2100 N. full diamond interchange Salt Lake - Option B 600 N. SPUI and 1800 N. full diamond interchange New Connections Alternatives Open Houses Public Comments Next Steps Study Team Contact Information Alternatives Phase CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO: City Council Members FROM: Sam Owen, Policy Analyst DATE: January 3, 2023 RE: Electric Vehicle Readiness Off-Street Parking Stalls Amendment ISSUE AT A GLANCE The Administration’s proposal asks the Council to change the zoning code, and require an increased amount of electric infrastructure at twenty percent of the parking spaces in multi-family construction and major reconstruction projects. The infrastructure would support new installation of electric charging stations for electric vehicles. This proposal does not newly require the installation of charging stations. The Council may want to discuss whether to require more electric vehicle charging infrastructure in off-street parking at multi-family construction and major reconstruction projects. KEY ITEMS The existing code requires these same types of projects to install fully-equipped parking spaces reserved for electric vehicle charging, at the ratio of one electric vehicle space per 25 conventional spaces. Site plans for qualifying projects would be screened for meeting these new requirements through the city’s permitting process. The same 20 percent requirement would apply to spaces designated for use of people qualifying under Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). The requirement does not apply to projects with four or less off-street parking spaces. In response to the proposal, one developer provided feedback the cost per space could be as high as $10,000, and this comment is included in the transmittal. Other information, available on the department’s website, indicates cost per space could be under $1,000. The lower figure is consistent Item Schedule: Briefing: January 3, 2023 Public Hearing: February 7, 2023 Potential Action: TBD Page | 2 with anecdotal comparisons made to online examples of cost. Market conditions at the time of construction would be a factor. The cost to retrofit these electric spaces is several times more than some estimates to include them as part of new construction. POLICY QUESTIONS 1.The transmittal includes a range of public feedback. Cost concerns are a theme. Council Members might wish to ask the department about cost increases expected as a result of adopting this ordinance, or something like it. Is the cost likely to burden renters, slow necessary construction or deter investment in the city? 2.Considering the cost could be passed on to the consumer, in this case residents,will people who do not have access to new cars or new electric vehicles end up bearing the burden of that cost? 3.Another theme in the feedback is concern about rates of actual electric vehicle use in the general public. Do Council Members think the ratio of twenty percent is appropriate, in light of information listed above on market share? ADDITIONAL & BACKGROUND INFORMATION A state report presents these findings: 1,016 electric vehicles were newly registered in 2015; 5,401 were newly registered in 2019; and 10,569 were newly registered in 2021. These Tax Commission figures document how electric vehicle registration goes from one tenth of a percent of total new registrations in 2015, to four tenths of one percent in 2019. Total vehicle registrations have increased by about half a million during the same period. Hybrid vehicles were five times more common than strict electric in 2022 registrations. Some estimates put current electric vehicle adoption nationwide around five percent. ELECTRIC VEHICLE READINESS ORDINANCE SALT LAKE CITY SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT PRESENTATION AGENDA 02 03 LOCAL BENEFITS PROPOSED REQUIREMENTS How EV readiness provides economic benefits and improves Salt Lake City’s air quality An overview of the proposed ordinance additions and property types impacted 01 BACKGROUND + CONTEXT An introduction to electric vehicle readiness and current SLC policy What does electric vehicle readiness mean? EV CAPABLE EV READY EVSE INSTALLED Three levels of “electric vehicle supply equipment” (EVSE) infrastructure are often regulated by municipal zoning ordinances: EV CAPABLE What does electric vehicle readiness mean? EV CAPABLE Installed electrical panel capacity with a dedicated branch circuit and a continuous raceway from the panel to the future EV parking space. Utility Distribution Network Transformer Utility Panel What does electric vehicle readiness mean? Installed electrical panel capacity and raceway with conduit to terminate in junction box or 240-volt charging outlet. EV READY EV READY Utility Distribution Network Transformer Utility Panel Charging Outlet at Parking Space Installed Level 2 charging station. EVSE INSTALLED What does electric vehicle readiness mean? EV READY Utility Distribution Network Transformer Utility Panel Charging Outlet at Parking Space EV Charger What does electric vehicle readiness mean? SLC PROPOSED ORDINANCE Utility Distribution Network Transformer Utility Panel Charging Outlet at Parking Space EV Charger One (1) installed EV charging station per 25 required parking spaces Count toward total required parking spaces Must be located near building entrance Signed in a clear and conspicuous manner Specific charging station level not required Existing EV Policy MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES Twenty percent (20%) of required parking spaces constructed as EV-ready Count toward total required parking spaces EV-ready parking spaces shall have electrical conduit and sufficient electrical capacity For new multi-family uses, a minimum of 20% of ADA spaces shall be constructed as EV- ready. Proposed EV Readiness MULTIFAMILY PROPERTIES 0 50 100 150 200 250 84101 84102 84103 84104 84105 84108 84111 84112 84116 Market Trends MARKET SIZE & DEMAND SALT LAKE CITY 1,043 EVs registered in 2020 Data Source: Utah State Tax Commission Market Trends MARKET SIZE & DEMAND UTAH 6,947 EVs as of Q2 2020 (in thousands) 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Data Source: Utah State Tax Commission New vs. Retrofit Costs AN ECONOMIC COMPARISON A study of EV-ready construction costs shows that installing infrastructure during the new construction phase is the most cost-efficient. Data Source: SWEEP (Southwest Energy Efficiency Project). “Cracking the Code on EV-Ready Building Codes.” 2018. New Construction Retrofit $610 Balance of Circuit $1,210 $180 Raceway $1,070 $70 Permitting & Inspection $650 $60 Construction Management $620 $920 Total (per space)$3,550 Charging Behavior PLACE-BASED CHARGING DEMANDS 4,000 U.S. drivers assessed84% 16% Home Away N i s s a n L e a f 87% 13% Home Away C h e v y V o l t 1,800 U.S. drivers assessed Data Source: Idaho National Laboratory. 2015. 84% 16% Home Away 87% 13% Home Away Charging Behavior PLACE-BASED CHARGING DEMANDS Data Source: Idaho National Laboratory. 2015. N i s s a n L e a f C h e v y V o l t 65% 32% 3% Home Work Other 57% 39% 4% Home Work Other Subgroups with access to workplace charging A resilient building stock that is prepared to meet demands for future acceleration of electric vehicle adoption. Economic Benefits PREPARI NG FOR TECHNOLOGY I NNOVATI ON Future-Proof Development Building code standards are moving quickly to keep up with EV technology. Avoid Costly Retrofits Retrofits costs are significantly higher than new construction for EV-ready. Market Competitiveness Properties without installed EV-ready infrastructure will become less viable to specific residents that require home-based charging options. Air Quality BENEFITS TO SLC’S AIRSHED AQ Pollutants are Significantly Reduced Direct Emissions are Eliminated Effects are Compounded with an Increasingly Cleaner Grid Proposed Ordinance Each multifamily use shall provide a minimum of 20% electric vehicle ready parking spaces of total required parking on-site. EV READINESS LANGUAGE EV-ready parking spaces shall have electrical conduit and sufficient electrical capacity for future use of 200 volt charging station. Proposed EV-ready parking spaces shall be submitted on site plans. For new multi-family uses, a minimum of 20% of ADA spaces shall be constructed as EV-ready. EV-ready parking spaces count toward the total required number of parking spaces Parking areas with 4 or fewer parking spaces are not required to identify EV-ready spaces Where no minimum parking is required, EV-ready parking spaces are based on provided parking Electric vehicle parking spaces that exceed those required by Subsection B.1 shall count towards the required number of EV-ready spaces Proposed Ordinance EV READINESS LANGUAGE Additional Provisions: SALT LAKE CITY DEPARTMENT OF SUSTAINABILITY Contact Information Staff: peter.nelson@slcgov.com ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date Sent to Council: TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 6, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Debbie Lyons, Sustainability Director SUBJECT: Electric Vehicle Readiness Off-Street Parking Stalls Amendment STAFF CONTACTS: Peter Nelson Sustainable Business Program Manager Peter.Nelson@slcgov.com | 801-535-6477 DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Adopt the ordinance amending and updating Sections of the Salt Lake City Code for Off-Street Parking, 21A.44.040, relating to electric vehicle readiness parking stall requirements BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Mayor Erin Mendenhall and the Salt Lake City Sustainability Department propose to amend the text of Salt Lake City Code Subsection Chapter 21A.44.040.B.2 (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility and Loading; Required Off Street Parking; Electric Vehicle Parking) to require properties with a multi-family use to implement electric vehicle (EV) readiness infrastructure for 20% of required parking spaces, at the time of new construction or major reconstruction. Policy background In November 2016, the City Council and Mayor adopted a Joint Resolution establishing renewable energy and carbon emissions reduction goals for Salt Lake City. Included in the resolution is a community carbon emissions reduction goal of 80% by 2040, with an interim goal of 50% reduction in greenhouse gases by 2030. Reductions in emissions from energy use and transportation are specifically cited in the resolution, which includes on-road emissions from private vehicles. Lisa Shaffer (Dec 6, 2022 13:55 MST)12/06/2022 12/06/2022 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 In May 2017, the Salt Lake City Council approved an ordinance amendment requiring one EV parking space, equipped with an EV charging station, for every 25 required parking spaces for all multi-family use properties. On December 8th, 2020, City Council and Mayor Mendenhall adopted the joint Electrified Transportation Resolution, establishing a commitment to incorporate and promote clean energy transportation technologies as an important solution to reduce carbon emissions and pollutants that impact air quality. The proposed ordinance aligns directly with the resolution by expanding greater adoption of electric vehicle technology, expanding EV charging infrastructure, accelerating EV adoption rates, and supporting the inclusive development of clean transportation options for community members. In April 2022, Mayor Mendenhall signed a petition initiation request (PLNPCM2022- 00374) for the Sustainability Department to begin the process of amending the zoning ordinance to add requirements that a minimum of 20% of on-site parking spaces in new multifamily construction projects be built electric vehicle-ready (EV-ready). In July 2022, the Salt Lake City Planning Commission held a public hearing regarding PLNPCM2022-00374 and reviewed the corresponding staff report from the Sustainability Department. At the hearing, the Planning Commission unanimously passed a motion to forward a recommendation to the City Council to approve the request to amend the zoning ordinance for Electric Vehicle Readiness (PLNPCM2022-00374). Electric Vehicles and Air Quality The on-road transportation sector accounts for nearly 20% of greenhouse gas emissions in Salt Lake City, contributing to air pollution and climate change and threatening the health and wellbeing of residents and visitors of Salt Lake City. Petroleum-fueled on-road transportation contributes significantly to the air pollution in the Wasatch Front airshed through criteria pollutants emissions. Electric vehicles present a net benefit to the community in terms of air quality improvements. Compared to a gasoline vehicle, electric vehicles offer the following percent reduction in emissions (estimated): 99.7% for volatile organic compounds (VOCs); 76.1% for NOx; 49.3% for PM10; 64.8% for PM2.5; 95.7% for SO2; 99.8% for CO; and 1.8% for GHG (greenhouse gases). EV readiness infrastructure supports the increased adoption of EVs by multi-family tenants, which in turn will lead to reduction in local air quality pollutants, helping Salt Lake City maintain its attainment status for compliance with federal health-based standards for fine particulate matter and ozone. Equitable Access to Charging Opportunities Salt Lake City currently incentivizes electric vehicles by providing accessible public charging at 20 dual-port public EV charging stations at 15 sites within Salt Lake City, with more located at the airport. The charging stations, which are owned and operated by the City, are currently free to use for the posted time limit. Most of these stations were installed in 2017 and help serve short-term charging needs, accessibly and conveniently, across the city. Since the installation of these stations and the adoption of the first EV charging station ordinance requirement in Salt Lake City in 2017, EV registrations have increased statewide by 152%, according to a data request from the Utah State Tax Commission. As of quarter 3 of 2022, ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 electric vehicles represent 5.7% of all vehicle purchases statewide for the year. As of February 2022, 1,665 EVs were registered in Salt Lake City across all applicable zip codes. Furthermore, electric vehicle ownership continues to increase. Many car manufacturers have publicized their goals of making only all-electric vehicles over the next decade. For example, General Motors has committed to only producing all-electric vehicles by 2035. With the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act, ownership of these vehicles is expected to grow dramatically over the next decade and beyond. The Inflation Reduction Act offers expanded $7,500 tax credits, available at the point-of-sale, for certain new electric vehicles, as well as up to a $4,000 tax credit for the purchase of a used EV. These trends make it all the more important that Salt Lake City’s infrastructure is ready to serve residents across the City, including those who rent, giving them the ability to charge their vehicles. This is important because EV charging most commonly takes places at home. In a study by the Idaho National Laboratory (2015 study and press release), it was found that approximately 85% of charging events take place at home; with access to workplace charging, the at -home charging events accounted for approximately 61% on average. The proposed EV readiness ordinance helps to create home-based charging opportunities to residents that live in multi-family dwellings, where EV charging is often less accessible. Adoption of an EV-ready requirement for new construction ensures lower EV charging installation costs in the future, as well as provides residents with increased certainty that charging opportunities will be available when the need arises. The proposed EV readiness ordinance applies to any property with a multi-family use, including mixed-use developments, at the time of new construction or major reconstruction. Twenty percent (20%) of required or provided parking spaces shall be constructed as electric vehicle ready (EV-ready). EV-ready infrastructure includes installed electrical panel capacity and raceway with conduit to terminate in a junction box or 208- or 240-volt charging outlet. The ordinance does not require an installed charging station to comply with regulations; the intention of the proposed ordinance is to prepare parking spaces for the future use of a Level 2 EV charging station. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 Public Process The following timeline lists key events in the public process: Meetings with internal City stakeholders 2019-2020 Posted on Departmental project webpage Sept 2020 – Present Public Comment Period 1 Oct 2020 – January 2021 Salt Lake City Sustainability Public EV Presentation October 2020 Presentation to Utah Commercial Real Estate (UCRE) working group December 2020 Presented at Utah Commercial Real Estate Task Force EV Workshop February 2021 Public Comment Period 2 June 2021 – August 2021 Public Comment Period 3 April 2022 – June 2022 Presentation to the Salt Lake City Planning Commission July 2022 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. ORDINANCE 2. COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM PROJECT PAGE FORM SUBMISSION 3. LETTER RECEIVED FROM SWEEP, UTAH CLEAN ENERGY, AND WRA 4. LETTER RECEIVED FROM TESLA 5. EMAIL MESSAGES SENT TO SUSTAINABILITY DEPARTMENT ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 ATTACHMENT 1 Ordinance – Red Lined Ordinance – Final LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2022 2 3 (Ordinance amending Section 21A.44.040 of the Salt Lake City Code 4 pertaining to EV-readiness for required off street parking) 5 6 WHEREAS, Chapter 21A.44 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility, 7 and Loading) sets forth minimum and maximum requirements for off-street parking spaces for 8 different zoning districts within Salt Lake City; and 9 WHEREAS, Section 21A.44.040(B) of the Salt Lake City Code currently mandates the 10 inclusion of one (1) parking spaces dedicated to electric vehicles and equipped with an electric vehicle 11 (“EV”) charging station for every twenty-five (25) parking spaces for all multi-family use buildings 12 (the “EV Parking Ordinance”); and 13 WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”) is committed to carbon emissions 14 reduction, and pursuant to Resolution No. 33 of 2016, a joint resolution of the Salt Lake City 15 Council and Mayor establishing renewable energy and carbon emissions reduction goals for Salt 16 Lake City, adopted a goal of reducing carbon emissions by 50% by 2030; and 17 WHEREAS, on December 8th, 2020 the City Council and the Mayor adopted Resolution 18 No. 45 of 2020, a joint resolution of Salt Lake City Council and Mayor establishing electrified 19 transportation goals for Salt Lake City, establishing a commitment to support the development of 20 electric vehicle charging infrastructure, plus other programs, policies, and projects that encourage 21 the purchase and use of electric vehicles by local residents; and 22 WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that updates to the EV Parking Ordinance are 23 necessary to require new multi-family use developments or major reconstruction projects of multi-24 family buildings to include electric vehicle readiness infrastructure to support electric vehicle use for 25 Salt Lake City residents in advancement of the City’s carbon emissions reduction goals. 26 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 27 SECTION 1. Amending Section 21A.44.040. Section 21A.44.040(B) of the Salt Lake City 28 Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 29 21A.44.040: REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING: 30 B. Electric Vehicle Parking:31 1.Each multi-family use shall provide a minimum of one (1) parking space dedicated to electric 32 vehicles for every twenty-five (25) parking spaces provided on-site. Electric vehicle parking spaces 33 shall count toward the minimum required number of parking spaces. The electric vehicle parking 34 space shall be: 35 1.a. Located in the same lot as the principal use;36 2.b. Located as close to a primary entrance of the principal building as possible;37 3.c. Signed in a clear and conspicuous manner, such as special pavement marking or signage,38 indicating exclusive availability to electric vehicles; and 39 4.d. Outfitted with a standard electric vehicle charging station.40 2.In addition to Electric Vehicle Parking requirements, each multi-family use shall provide a 41 minimum of 20% electric vehicle ready (EV-ready) parking spaces of required parking spaces 42 provided on-site. EV-ready parking spaces are parking spaces that are equipped with electrical 43 conduit and sufficient electrical capacity for the future use of a minimum 200-volt electric vehicle 44 charging station. The location of proposed EV-ready parking spaces shall be indicated on submitted 45 site plans. 46 a. EV-ready parking requirements shall count toward the minimum required and maximum47 allowed number of parking spaces.   48 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT b. Parking areas with four or fewer vehicle parking spaces are not required to identify an EV-49 ready parking space.  50 c. Where no minimum parking is required, the 20% EV-ready parking space requirement will51 be based on provided parking. 52 d. For new multi-family uses, a minimum of 20% of required Accessible (ADA) parking53 spaces shall be constructed as EV-ready. 54 e. Electric vehicle parking spaces provided in accordance with Subsection B.1 that exceed55 the minimum number of required spaces established in that subsection shall count towards the 56 required number of EV-ready parking spaces required in this Subsection B.2. 57 SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first 58 publication. 59 60 Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of ____________, 2022. 61 62 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT 63 64 CHAIRPERSON 65 ATTEST: 66 67 ______________________________ 68 CITY RECORDER 69 70 71 Transmitted to Mayor on . 72 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 73 74 75 76 MAYOR 77 78 ___________________________ 79 CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM 80 (SEAL) Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office 81 82 Date: 83 Bill No. ________ of 2022 84 Published: ______________. _______________________________ 85 Sara Montoya, Senior City Attorney 86 87 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2022 (Ordinance amending Section 21A.44.040 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to EV-readiness for required off street parking) WHEREAS, Chapter 21A.44 of the Salt Lake City Code (Zoning: Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading) sets forth minimum and maximum requirements for off-street parking spaces for different zoning districts within Salt Lake City; and WHEREAS, Section 21A.44.040(B) of the Salt Lake City Code currently mandates the inclusion of one (1) parking spaces dedicated to electric vehicles and equipped with an electric vehicle (“EV”) charging station for every twenty-five (25) parking spaces for all multi-family use buildings (the “EV Parking Ordinance”); and WHEREAS, Salt Lake City Corporation (“City”) is committed to carbon emissions reduction, and pursuant to Resolution No. 33 of 2016, a joint resolution of the Salt Lake City Council and Mayor establishing renewable energy and carbon emissions reduction goals for Salt Lake City, adopted a goal of reducing carbon emissions by 50% by 2030; and WHEREAS, on December 8th, 2020 the City Council and the Mayor adopted Resolution No. 45 of 2020, a joint resolution of Salt Lake City Council and Mayor establishing electrified transportation goals for Salt Lake City, establishing a commitment to support the development of electric vehicle charging infrastructure, plus other programs, policies, and projects that encourage the purchase and use of electric vehicles by local residents; and WHEREAS, the Salt Lake City Council finds that updates to the EV Parking Ordinance are necessary to require new multi-family use developments or major reconstruction projects of multi- family buildings to include electric vehicle readiness infrastructure to support electric vehicle use for Salt Lake City residents in advancement of the City’s carbon emissions reduction goals. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending Section 21A.44.040. Section 21A.44.040(B) of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 21A.44.040: REQUIRED OFF STREET PARKING: B. Electric Vehicle Parking: 1. Each multi-family use shall provide a minimum of one (1) parking space dedicated to electric vehicles for every twenty-five (25) parking spaces provided on-site. Electric vehicle parking spaces shall count toward the minimum required number of parking spaces. The electric vehicle parking space shall be: a. Located in the same lot as the principal use; b. Located as close to a primary entrance of the principal building as possible; c. Signed in a clear and conspicuous manner, such as special pavement marking or signage, indicating exclusive availability to electric vehicles; and d. Outfitted with a standard electric vehicle charging station. 2. In addition to Electric Vehicle Parking requirements, each multi-family use shall provide a minimum of 20% electric vehicle ready (EV-ready) parking spaces of required parking spaces provided on-site. EV-ready parking spaces are parking spaces that are equipped with electrical conduit and sufficient electrical capacity for the future use of a minimum 200-volt electric vehicle charging station. The location of proposed EV-ready parking spaces shall be indicated on submitted site plans. a. EV-ready parking requirements shall count toward the minimum required and maximum allowed number of parking spaces.   b. Parking areas with four or fewer vehicle parking spaces are not required to identify an EV- ready parking space.  c. Where no minimum parking is required, the 20% EV-ready parking space requirement will be based on provided parking. d. For new multi-family uses, a minimum of 20% of required Accessible (ADA) parking spaces shall be constructed as EV-ready. e. Electric vehicle parking spaces provided in accordance with Subsection B.1 that exceed the minimum number of required spaces established in that subsection shall count towards the required number of EV-ready parking spaces required in this Subsection B.2. 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: ______________________________ 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: Bill No. ________ of 2022 Published: ______________. _______________________________ Sara Montoya, Senior City Attorney December 6, 2022 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 ATTACHMENT 2 COMMENTS RECEIVED FROM PROJECT PAGE FORM SUBMISSION Feedback, Comments, and Questions Date 1 This ordinance is a bit pre-mature, especially for multi- family projects. Most apartment owners cannot afford an electric vehicle and the EV stations installed don't get used. While I like the concept, the ordinance will increase costs for housing at a time when we need to make housing more affordable. 9/23/2020 21:05 2 I certainly appreciate the need to move things in a clean energy direction, however, I cannot support pushing such a high percentage of required EV stalls. Electric vehicles are not a fully viable means of transportation at this point, and won't be for some time. Until owning an electric vehicle makes practical and economic sense, 20% of the population will not be driving these types of vehicles. Implementing reasonable EV station requirements, providing incentives for developers that go beyond the requirements, and/or stepping up requirements over time, all prove that the city is thoughtful on both sides of the situation. It is important to stay ahead of demand, however, having managed properties with EV stations, we are very far from a 20% use of these stations. 1/6/2021 21:25 3 We appreciate the City working to push forward sustainability ordinances, as we all are stewards of our cities. However, requiring 20% of residential parking to cater to electric vehicles appears quite high in relation to the actual users. We do live in an area where ownership of an electric vehicle is a luxury. In addition to being economically prohibitive, residents live in Utah in order to enjoy a state full of natural wonders, in which the current electric vehicle options are not viable. We recognize that this need is forthcoming, however, recommend an incentive program, rather than a % requirement, be initiated. If an EV station requirement ordinance is inevitable, we suggest that the % is substantially reduced and applied to only specific types/sizes of multi-family, matching the actual needs of the potential residents/general public. These requirements could then step as demand increases. 1/7/2021 19:26 4 Hello, I have a question about this ordinance. Is this only applicable to new build? Or does it apply to existing multi-family dwellings? I live in an existing building and would love to push our HOA to install charging stations, two of us own electric vehicles. 1/22/2021 16:03 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 ATTACHMENT 3 LETTER FROM SWEEP, UTAH CLEAN ENERGY, AND WRA 1 Williams, Shannon From:Matt Frommer <mfrommer@swenergy.org> Sent:Friday, November 20, 2020 12:04 PM To:Williams, Shannon Cc:aaron.kressig@westernresources.org; Josh Craft; Travis Madsen Subject:(EXTERNAL) Feedback on Electric Vehicle Readiness Ordinance Attachments:SLC EV Infrastructure Building Codes Letter.docx Hi Shannon, Please find our attached support letter for Salt Lake City’s proposed EV Readiness Ordinance. As you’ll see, our letter includes 3 recommendations to improve the proposed Ordinance: 1. Clarify the ‘EV-Capable parking space’ and ‘EV-Ready parking space’ definitions and infrastructure specifications. 2. Add EV infrastructure requirements for single-family residential and commercial buildings. 3. Make sure the EV infrastructure requirements apply to both new and renovated buildings. I’d suggest reviewing SWEEP’s EV Infrastructure Building Codes Adoption Toolkit for more information on infrastructure costs and sample code language. Let us know if you have any questions. Thanks and have a good weekend! Matt -- Matt Frommer Senior Transportation Associate Southwest Energy Efficiency Project (SWEEP) M: 908-432-1556 mfrommer@swenergy.org Follow us at: @SouthwestEE Sign-up for SWEEP news -- November 20, 2020 Subject: Support the Adoption of Salt Lake City’s Proposed Electric Vehicle Readiness Ordinance Dear Salt Lake City Sustainability Department, The signatories of this letter submit the following comments for consideration by the Salt Lake City Sustainability Department in the development of the City’s Electric Vehicle Readiness Ordinance. We strongly support the City’s proposed Ordinance, which will lower critical barriers to EV adoption by reducing the cost of installing EV charging stations. We also believe the Ordinance could be clarified, strengthened, and expanded to better align with the charging needs of Salt Lake City residents and businesses. To improve the proposed Ordinance, the City should: 1. Clarify the ‘EV-Capable parking space’ and ‘EV-Ready parking space’ definitions and infrastructure specifications. The proposed Ordinance calls for 20% of new parking spaces to be “electric vehicle ready (EV-ready)”, but then describes EV-ready parking spaces to include “electrical conduit and sufficient electrical capacity for the future use of a minimum 200V EV charging station”. This definition better resembles the language for “EV-Capable parking spaces” from the Sustainability Department’s EV Readiness Ordinance presentation on October 14, 2020. The Department should clarify these requirements and add the following technical specifications, which were vetted by the ICC as part of the 2021 IECC code development process and have been adopted by a number of municipalities across the country: EV Capable Space. Electrical panel capacity and space to support a minimum 40-ampere, 208/240-volt branch circuit for each EV parking space, and the installation of raceways, both underground and surface mounted, to support the EVSE. EV Ready Space. A designated parking space which is provided with one 40-ampere, 208/240- volt dedicated branch circuit for EVSE servicing Electric Vehicles. The circuit shall terminate in a suitable termination point such as a receptacle, junction box, or an EVSE, and be located in close proximity to the proposed location of the EV parking spaces. We recommend maintaining the EV-Ready parking requirements, which includes a full 240V/40A circuit terminating in a receptacle, junction box, or EV charging station. A fully operational receptacle will allow residents to quickly and easily charge their EVs with an affordable and portable EV charging cable, which are typically included in the purchase or lease of a new EV. 2. Add EV infrastructure requirements for single-family residential and commercial buildings. The City’s justification for EV infrastructure requirements in multifamily buildings is well-reasoned and the same logic should be extended to single-family residential and commercial buildings. The Sustainability Department’s October 14th presentation includes data showing that well over 80% of EV charging takes place in the home with most of the remaining charging at the workplace. Like charger installations in multifamily buildings, the cost to install EV infrastructure at single-family homes and commercial buildings is significantly more expensive to complete during a stand-alone retrofit versus new construction (See SWEEP’s 2020 EV Infrastructure Building Codes Adoption Toolkit for most information on costs.) EV-Ready infrastructure in commercial buildings drastically improves charging access, especially for residents of existing multifamily residential buildings, where the installation of a home-charger is often cost-prohibitive or logistically unfeasible. According to the U.S. DOE’s Workplace Charging Challenge, employees are six times more likely to drive an EV if their workplace offers EV charging. To better support residential and commercial EV adoption, the Ordinance should include the following requirements: ● One- and two-family dwellings: At least one EV-Ready parking space per dwelling unit. ● Commercial buildings (Groups A, B, E, I, M, S-2): Provide a minimum of 20% EV-ready parking spaces.* The City might also consider a DC Fast-charger provision to allow developers to substitute up to five Level 2 charging spaces with one DC fast-charging space (minimum 20kW). 3. EV infrastructure requirements must apply to both new and renovated buildings. Governments and automakers around the world have signaled a total market transformation to electric transportation over the next 2-3 decades and we’re going to need millions of new plugs in our homes and businesses to charge all these new EVs. EV infrastructure requirements for new buildings is an important first step, but according to a recent study from UC-Berkeley, just 6% of all homes in the U.S. were built in the last 10 years. As a result, the Sustainability Department should consider lowering the threshold for EV infrastructure requirements. The City and County of Denver applies their EV infrastructure requirements to ‘Level 3 Alterations’, “where the work area exceeds 50 percent of the original building area or more than 10 parking spaces are substantially modified are subject to the EV infrastructure requirements listed above.” In conclusion, we applaud Salt Lake City for advancing policies that support greater EV adoption and we recommend extending these important EV infrastructure requirements to new and renovated residential and commercial buildings. Thank you very much for the opportunity to comment. Sincerely, Matt Frommer Senior Transportation Associate Southwest Energy Efficiency Project mfrommer@swenergy.org Aaron Kressig Transportation Electrification Manager Western Resource Advocates aaron.kressig@westernresources.org Josh Craft Government Relations Manager Utah Clean Energy josh@utahcleanenergy.org ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 ATTACHMENT 4 LETTER FROM TESLA 1 Williams, Shannon From:Noelani Derrickson <nderrickson@tesla.com> Sent:Monday, January 25, 2021 10:53 AM To:Council Comments; Williams, Shannon Cc:Craig Hulse; Francesca Wahl Subject:(EXTERNAL) Salt Lake City EV Ready Ordinance - Tesla Letter of Support Attachments:Salt Lake City EV Ready Ordinance - Tesla Letter of Support 1.25.pdf Salt Lake City Council, Please find attached a letter of support from Tesla on Salt Lake City’s proposed Electric Vehicle Ready Parking ordinance for multi-family units. Passage of the proposed ordinance is an important step in supporting higher levels of electric vehicles. Thank you, Noelani Derrickson | Public Policy and Business Development 3500 Deer Creek Rd, Palo Alto, CA 94304 m. (808) 220-8990 | nderrickson@tesla.com Tesla, Inc. 3500 Deer Creek Road, Palo Alto, CA 94304 p +650 681 5100 f +650 681 5101 January 25, 2021 Salt Lake City Council 451 South State Street, Room 304 Salt Lake City, UT 84111 council.comments@slcgov.com RE: Salt Lake City EV Readiness Ordinance – 21.A.44.050.B.3 Salt Lake City Council, I am writing on behalf of Tesla to express our support for Salt Lake City’s proposed electric vehicle (EV) readiness ordinance, which requires that multi-family developments provide a minimum of 20% EV-ready1 parking spaces. Tesla’s mission is to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy, and we are proud to be helping Salt Lake City meet our shared goals. As both a manufacturer of EVs and a provider of charging infrastructure for our customers, Tesla brings a unique perspective to the discussion on EV readiness measures for new buildings and construction on existing buildings. Access to EV charging represents one of the more fundamental challenges impairing demand for electric vehicles. Without easy and convenient access to EV charging, drivers will be less inclined to choose an EV over a conventional vehicle. Since most charging occurs at home or at work (80%), ensuring that Level-2 charging is generally available in residential and workplace parking structures provides an additional sense of reliability and convenience for current and future EV drivers. We commend Salt Lake City for its leadership in accelerating transportation electrification and proposing EV-readiness requirements for multifamily buildings. Salt Lake City will join a growing 1 EV-ready is defined by Salt Lake City as meaning a parking space that is designed and constructed to include an electrical panel capacity with a dedicated branch circuit, a continuous raceway from the panel to the future EV parking space, and conduit to terminate in a junction box or 240-volt charging outlet. Available at http://www.slcdocs.com/slcgreen/Proposed%20EV%20Readiness%20Ordinance%20Presentation%20Slides%20-%20Oct%2014%202020.pdf list of cities across North America including Atlanta, Chicago, and Vancouver, that are adopting EV readiness requirements at 20% or higher for new parking spaces. Given the important role EV charging infrastructure will play in helping Salt Lake City meet its pollution and emission reduction goals, we urge the adoption of this EV-readiness ordinance. Sincerely, Noelani Derrickson Policy and Business Development Advisor nderrickson@tesla.com ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 ATTACHMENT 5 COMMENTS EMAILED TO SUSTAINABILITY DIVISION ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 Williams, Shannon From: Dustin Holt Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:05 AM To: Williams, Shannon Subject: (EXTERNAL) EV Stall Readiness Ordinance - Ms. Williams, As both a Salt Lake City resident and someone who develops multi-family projects in SLC, let me start by saying I am a huge proponent of SLC, and Electric Vehicles. I absolutely support Electric Vehicles and I support the Cities current requirements for projects to provide 1 EV stall per 25 Stalls the project provides (required or not). However, I have concerns about this new proposed ordinance. While it may not seem like a big deal, in a recent 100 unit Multi-Family project, we priced running conduit, upsizing power panels and up-sizing transformers / generators, so that each parking stall could accommodate an EV stall in the future. I can share with you that our findings were in excess of $3,000 per stall just in infrastructure cost. The exact infrastructure this ordinance is proposing. By the time you purchase the EV charging station itself, this could add $6-10K per STALL - depending on which EV station one goes with. Ultimately in a time when affordability is of major concern, having a required burden of an additional $6,000 per unit will force someone looking for a 5-6% return on investment (ROI) to increase rents by $250-300 / yr. While this "MIGHT" promote more EV cars / EV usage in the City, it "WILL" impact affordability. I am not in support of this change as a requirement. Thanks. Dustin E. Holt, Co-Founder dbURBAN Communities 801.573.9054 Williams, Shannon From: Peter Corroon ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 9:36 AM To: Williams, Shannon Subject: (EXTERNAL) RE: Reminder: SLC Electric Vehicle Readiness Ordinance Presentation - October 14th Shannon, Thanks for sending this over. I sent a comment previously but thought I should correspond directly. As someone who builds affordable housing, I have never seen anyone use our EV charging stations that we have installed. I have never actually seen any electric vehicles at our buildings. While I am a big fan of the conversion to electric vehicles, I think requiring additional infrastructure for EV charging stations is probably premature for affordable housing projects. I think that they should be exempted from the proposed ordinance. This adds an additional cost when it is already difficult to make these projects pencil financially. Sincerely, Peter Corroon Real Estate Division Sentry Financial 201 S. Main St. Suite 1400 Salt Lake City, Utah 84111 mobile +1.801.597.7471 office +1.801.303.1114 From: Williams, Shannon <Shannon.Williams@slcgov.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 8:21 AM Subject: RE: Reminder: SLC Electric Vehicle Readiness Ordinance Presentation - October 14th Hello all, ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 I am writing to let you know that the presentation materials for Salt Lake City’s proposed Electric Vehicle Readiness Ordinance are now available. Thank you all who attended the presentation live. Feel free to view the presentation recording or presentation slides at your convenience. There is still an opportunity to provide feedback on the proposed changes! Visit www.slcgreen.com/EVready or email directly shannon.williams@slcgov.com to submit your feedback, comments, and questions. If you are interested in Salt Lake City Sustainability presenting at your organization, please email Shannon Williams at the email above. We are happy to answer questions, collect your feedback, and provide additional information. We hope to hear your feedback on the proposed EV Readiness ordinance. Your voice and ideas are important to us and will help create a stronger and more resilient ordinance. Find more at www.slcgreen.com/EVready. Best regards, Shannon Williams SHANNON WILLIAMS Special Projects Assistant DEPARTMENT of SUSTAINABILITY SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION From: Williams, Shannon Subject: Reminder: SLC Electric Vehicle Readiness Ordinance Presentation - October 14th ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 Developers and Building Professionals, Reminder: Join Salt Lake City’s Sustainability Department on Wednesday, October 14 to learn about the City’s proposed Electric Vehicle (EV) Readiness Ordinance. Learn how the ordinance helps to avoid costly retrofits, promotes clean air in Salt Lake City, and meets increasing EV charging demand. The EV Readiness Ordinance is a proposed addition to the City zoning ordinance chapter for Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading (21A.44) and applies to properties with a multifamily use, including mixed-use developments. In this presentation, Sustainability staff will cover: • Economic and air quality benefits of the ordinance • Proposed ordinance requirements • How to provide feedback to Salt Lake City Find additional information at www.slcgreen.com/EVready. Presentation Details We hope to see you next week. The presentation will be made available as a recording for anyone unable to attend the live event. Presentation: Electric Vehicle Readiness Ordinance Date: Wednesday, October 14 from 2 PM – 3 PM Who Should Attend: Developers and stakeholders of multifamily developments How to Join the Presentation: 1. Click the WebEx link below to join the presentation at the specified time and date: https://saltlakecity.webex.com/saltlakecity/onstage/g.php?MTID=ec94196cbf9470d5 eaa53dea6c2024f80 Password: wqMCvBPY589 2. Choose one of the following audio options: Video Address: 1462090718@saltlakecity.webex.com You can also dial 173.243.2.68 and enter your meeting number. Audio Conference: +1-408-418-9388 (United States Toll) ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 Access code: 146 209 0718 DEPARTMENT of SUSTAINABILITY SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 801.535.7761 Williams, Shannon From: Paul Smith Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 11:02 AM To: Williams, Shannon Cc: Otto, Rachel Subject: (EXTERNAL) RE: Salt Lake City Proposed EV Readiness Ordinance Shannon – Thank you so much for reaching out. I missed your first email in November, Our position on this issue will be similar to the legislature’s position several years ago when a similar thing was tried by Salt Lake City: • It is inappropriate for any municipality to mandate this (the market should guide if there is demand and feasibility for electric charging stations in multi-family) • In an affordable housing crisis it is a particularly bad time to mandate anything that increases cost of housing Even if there is political will in the city, I think the legislature might overrule such a policy, should you put it in effect. What is your timeline here? Thanks again for including us as a stakeholder. We really appreciate it and to the extent we could work together to educate owners about environmentally friendly policies and electric vehicle charging station issues, we would love to help. Perhaps through education and persuasion we could effect more change than a doomed ordinance would bring. Paul Smith Executive Director Utah Apartment Association ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 230 W Towne Ridge Pkwy #175, Sandy, UT 84070 Phone: 801-487- 5619 l www.uaahq.org From: Williams, Shannon <Shannon.Williams@slcgov.com> Sent: Wednesday, December 9, 2020 8:17 AM To: Paul Smith Subject: RE: Salt Lake City Proposed EV Readiness Ordinance Hi Paul, I’m writing to follow-up on the information I provided below. Do you have any questions about the proposed ordinance? Would you or the organizations you work with wish to provide feedback? Please let me know if you’re interested in having further discussion. Best, Shannon Williams SHANNON WILLIAMS Special Projects Assistant DEPARTMENT of SUSTAINABILITY SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION o. 801.535.7761 c. 541.740.5915 From: Williams, Shannon Sent: Wednesday, November 18, 2020 8:39 AM To: Paul Smith ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 Subject: Salt Lake City Proposed EV Readiness Ordinance Hi Paul, I’m writing to let you know about a proposed Salt Lake City ordinance change for electric vehicle readiness. The Salt Lake City Sustainability Department is in the process of collecting feedback from stakeholder groups and would greatly appreciate your review of the proposed language, as well as any comments, questions, and other feedback you have. To provide some context, the EV Readiness Ordinance is a proposed addition to the City zoning ordinance chapter for Off Street Parking, Mobility, and Loading (21A.44) and applies to properties with a multifamily use, including mixed-use developments. For new applicable developments, 20% of required parking spaces will be required to be built to “electric vehicle ready” specifications, in order to prepare for future installation of charging stations. More information, including the proposed language, can be found at www.slcgreen.com/EVready. We presented the proposed ordinance in October, but I am unsure if you or your partners were able to make the event. The recorded presentation and presentation materials are available online. There are a couple of ways for you to submit feedback. You can provide feedback (anonymously, if preferred) at the project page at www.slcgreen.com/EVready. Alternatively you can email your feedback to me directly, at shannon.williams@slcgov.com. If you feel that a presentation or Q&A session might be useful for your organization, I am more that willing to present, field questions, and collect feedback. Your input is important to us and will create a more resilient and informed ordinance. Please reach out with any questions. Best regards, Shannon Williams SHANNON WILLIAMS Special Projects Assistant DEPARTMENT of SUSTAINABILITY SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION o. 801.535.7761 c. 541.740.5915 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 Williams, Shannon From: Tiffany Morris Sent: Wednesday, February 17, 2021 12:10 PM To: Williams, Shannon Subject: (EXTERNAL) Question about EV Ordinance Hi Shannon, I attended the UCRE workshop yesterday about the proposed EV ordinance. I had to leave the call early, but I was wondering if this ordinance will just apply to Salt Lake City or beyond that? I think it is a great initiative and excited to do my part to help. Thank you, Tiffany Morris Asset Manager Triton Investments Inc. www.apartmentsinuta.com www.apartmentsinidaho.com Nelson, Peter August 23, 2021 TO: Salt Lake City Planning Commission FROM: Judi Short, First Vice Chair and Land Use Chair Sugar House Community Council RE: 21A.44.050.B.3 Electric Vehicle Ready Parking Text Amendment We received notification of this proposed Text Amendment, and it was put on our website and in the Sugar House Community Council Newsletter for August. It is also in the newsletter going out tomorrow for September. We have received no written comments, but everyone seems to agree with this concept. If electric vehicles are the wave of the future, we need to make sure that our parking garages are welcoming, and there is no better way to do that than to have charging stations available. We approve of the idea that requiring a minimum of 20% of on-site parking spaces be constructed EV ready, including electrical conduit and sufficient electrical capacity for the future use of a minimum 200- ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 volt electric vehicle charging station. And, that the requirement is in addition to the existing EVSE- related requirement of one electric vehicle charging station per 25 required parking spaces for multi- family properties. The only negative comment came from a developer who complained about the huge expense this would add to the cost of his buildings, but then said it was the right thing to do. Nelson, Peter From: george chapman To: Nelson, Peter Subject: (EXTERNAL) I am against increasing cost of housing for EV charging Date: Thursday, May 19, 2022 3:41:29 PM The text amendment PLNPCM2022-00374 will significantly increase costs of housing in SLC. EV penetration is not close to 5% and Utah is not getting many more EV. The cost almost requires so much money that they buy a home. Don't increase housing costs for a questionable dream of having everyone drive EVs. Nelson, Peter From: george chapman To: Nelson, Peter Subject: (EXTERNAL) Comment against 20% EV infrastructure Date: Monday, June 13, 2022 12:20:15 PM PLNPCM2022-00374 Since EVs in Utah are still around 4%, adding this requirement now will significantly increase the cost of housing without benefits. Maybe in 10 years it may make sense but we can't even buy an EV in Utah (easily). CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF MEMO CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Allison Rowland Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:January 3, 2023 RE: FOLLOW-UP DISCUSSION ON THE ANTI-GENTRIFICATION AND -DISPLACEMENT PLAN, THRIVING IN PLACE Council Members have raised a number of questions since the December 13 Work Session update on the City’s anti-gentrification and -displacement plan, known as Thriving in Place. For reference, the staff report for the December 13 briefing, with its attachments, can be found in Attachment C1. Staff note: Further updates may be made to the list below for additional questions that arise after this writing. Pending questions and policy issues 1. Several sections of the transmittal mention that additional funding and staff will be needed to implement the plan. Would the Council like to request additional information about the level of detail that will be provided in the plan about the additional funding needs anticipated, and when to anticipate receiving related budget requests? The Council may also wish to discuss potential funding sources for these expanded needs. 2. Several elements of the proposed plan are related to what could be considered housing development. Based on the Council’s recent discussions about consolidating housing development in the RDA and housing services in CAN’s Housing Stability, the Council may wish to discuss role clarity in how the plan may be executed. Would the Council like to confirm with the Administration that the RDA is intended to carry out those pieces, even though the plan itself has been stewarded by CAN. 3. Over the years, both CAN and the RDA have expressed their interest in expanding the Community Land Trust. The draft plan alludes to this goal as “Invest in a community ownership model and maximize City- owned parcels through the expansion of the City’s Community Land Trust program to address intergenerational poverty.” Would the Council like to request the Administration elaborate on this goal, including how each department’s work could be coordinated with the other? 4.The Council may wish to ask about the details and elements of the final Thriving in Place document beyond Replacement of the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance. For example, will Page | 2 all ten of the other Near-Term Priorities listed in Appendix 1 be fleshed out to the same degree as this one? Is this work already underway, and what is the timeline for completion? 5.Would the Council like to request additional information on how the Administration expects Thriving in Place to complement Housing SLC, and what kinds of information one will include that the other does not? 6. To ensure that the new City housing plan, Housing SLC, can be adopted by the Council before the State deadline on June 30, 2023, would the Council like to request that CAN identify the critical housing plan pieces required by the State and transmit those to the Council on an accelerated timeline and in a format that can be adopted, leaving any refinements to be processed separately? 7.Would the Council like to request the Administration include a placeholder in the Mayor’s Recommended Budget for housing-related items so that opportunities are not lost based on timing? ATTACHMENT Attachment C1. December 13 Council Staff Report, Informational: Update on the Anti-Gentrification and - Displacement Plan, Thriving In Place CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Allison Rowland Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:December 13, 2022 RE: INFORMATIONAL: UPDATE ON THE ANTI-GENTRIFICATION AND -DISPLACEMENT PLAN, THRIVING IN PLACE ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Council will receive an update from the Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) about work on the City’s anti-gentrification and -displacement plan, known as Thriving in Place. The overarching goal of this project is to identify policy measures that can help current residents remain in Salt Lake City as it grows and changes. The plan will draw on research about gentrification pressures and patterns of involuntary displacement in Salt Lake City, as well as extensive local community input, and research on policies in other cities nationwide. In its final form, this plan aims to present a list of effective anti-displacement policies and programs feasible in Salt Lake City, with particular focus on those which can be implemented within two years. It will also outline the budget and staffing increases, ordinance changes, strategies for State-level advocacy, and new community partnerships that would be required to fully implement the plan. Some of the proposed policies and programs would build on work already underway but add modifications or significantly expand them, while others would be entirely new. The process of formulating this anti-gentrification and -displacement plan got underway in September 2021, and the Council was updated on progress in the April 12 and July 12 work sessions. The Department states in the transmittal that it anticipates incorporating this plan into the forthcoming draft of the new five-year housing plan (dubbed Housing SLC). It expects to present that version to the Planning Commission in early 2023. Staff note: CAN is planning to transmit a draft of Housing SLC to the Council in early 2023. Item Schedule: Briefing: December 13, 2022 Set Date: n/a Public Hearing: n/a Potential Action: n/a Page | 2 Additional information about the plan is available in English and Spanish on the Thriving in Place website. Goal of the briefing: Receive an update and provide feedback on the ongoing work for the City’s gentrification and displacement plan, known as Thriving in Place, in compliance with the Council’s policy on mid-terms plan updates. ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION A.Goals and Near-Term Priority Actions. The Administration has selected three interrelated “outcome goals” for this project (numbers 1-3 below) and three “supporting goals” (numbers 4-6 below): 1. Protect tenants from displacement; 2. Preserve existing affordable housing; 3. Produce additional affordable housing units; 4. Expand funding for tenant support and affordable housing; 5. Partner and collaborate for maximum impact; and 6. Advocate for tenants at the state level. The final version of the plan is anticipated to include a total of 21 proposed priority actions, some of which would advance more than one of the goals above. A subset of 11 of the 21 priority actions are proposed as near-term priorities (see also the one-page graphical summary in Attachment 1 of the transmittal.) These include: o Replace the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance (referred to as 1a in Attachment 1 of the transmittal)—this is discussed more in Section B below; o Create a one-stop shop tenant resource (1b); o Improve and expand tenant resources, access to legal services, and landlord training and incentives (1c); o Factor displacement impacts in master plans, rezonings, and development agreements (2a); o Partner with impacted communities to coordinate action and investment (2d); o Incentivize creation and preservation of affordable housing (3a)–see Policy Question #2 regarding role clarity; o Prioritize and invest in community ownership, and housing that is integrated with support services (3d); o Develop new and increased funding sources (4a); o Expand and invest in Community Land Trust models (4c)–see Policy Question #3; o Be bold, accountable, and transparent (5a); and o Create an SLC Anti-Displacement Coalition (5c). B.Proposed Replacement of the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance. With the rapid pace of new construction in Salt Lake City, both the Council and the Administration have stressed the importance of replacing the City’s Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss ordinance (Section 18.97), since it is widely acknowledged to be ineffective and the development environment has changed significantly since it was first adopted. Proposed strategies to help maintain the City’s existing number of affordable units and help households that may be involuntarily displaced include: 1. Improving City data collection through the business licensing process for rental units and the voluntary Landlord Tenant Initiative (previously known as the Good Landlord program) to document units, affordability levels, and any tenants residing on proposed redevelopment sites. Page | 3 2. Changing City Code to: - Include incentives like increased development intensity to preserve or replace existing housing units at similar levels of affordability. - Define community benefits when an applicant proposes a modification to an adopted plan. - Update the Tenant Relocation Fee ordinance (Section 18.99.040) to include tenants displaced due to redevelopment or demolition of private development, and update the fee, linking it to potential incentives-based developer contribution. 3. Providing relocation assistance, as well as ongoing rental assistance (interim or long-term) when needed, to affected households as part of the demolition permitting process and/or development entitlement process. 4.Prioritizing displaced renter households for returning to the site or neighborhood when new affordable housing units are available. The project team has found that other cities have adopted “community preference policies” that do not violate Fair Housing Law because they do not restrict new affordable units to only these households. Instead, they give first priority (through a preference point system) to displaced households. C.Other Actions to Protect Tenants. CAN acknowledges that “‘Fixing’ the HLM [Housing Loss Mitigation] ordinance will address only a small fraction of the City’s displacement challenges and does not effectively protect or create more affordable units.” Additional proposed priority actions intended to support the plan’s goal of Protecting Tenants include the following: o Improve and Expand Tenant Resources, Access to Legal Services, and Landlord Training and Incentives (Action 1c in Transmittal Appendix 1); o Factor Displacement Impacts in Master Plans, Rezonings, and Development Agreements (Action 2a); o Incentivize Creation and Preservation of Affordable Housing (Action 3a); o Prioritize and Invest in Community Ownership and Housing Integrated with Support Services (Action 3d); and o Develop New and Increased Funding Sources (Action 4a)—The transmittal discusses the possibility of new types of incentives or voluntary agreements for housing developers but acknowledges that these would not amount to enough to expand tenant supports or fund new affordable housing units at the levels needed. The other Near-Term Action Priorities are discussed schematically on pages 12 to 18 of the transmittal, and are listed in its Appendix 1. D.Relationships with Other City Plans and Policies. The Administration plans to transmit a draft of the new five-year housing plan, Housing SLC, in early 2023. That plan has benefited from the data and resident engagement generated for the Thriving in Place project and is expected to “address additional facets of the City’s current housing affordability crisis,” as well as to serve as the City’s mandatory Moderate Income Housing Plan. It will integrate the anti-displacement and - gentrification strategies of Thriving in Place and include the full report as an attachment. It is anticipated that the Council will consider adopting Housing SLC with Thriving in Place as an attachment, in their full forms, in early spring 2023, although the timeline is dependent on Planning Commission action. The City must adopt a new Moderate Income Housing Plan by the end of fiscal year 2023 to comply with recent State code changes. Page | 4 E.Background. 1.June 2020: In the FY21 annual budget, the City Council allocated funding for a Gentrification Assessment and Displacement Mitigation Plan to understand the breadth and depth of involuntary displacement and formulate policies and programs to mitigate any such displacement. 2.December 2020: The Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) presented The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City to the City Council. The intent of that presentation was to discuss various housing policy topics identified as goals in Growing SLC: A Five-Year Housing Plan. 3.September 2021: A consultant team was retained through a City Request for Proposals (RFP). The Administration selected Baird & Driskell to oversee the Gentrification Assessment and Displacement Mitigation Plan, now called Thriving in Place. The full team includes: •Baird & Driskell Community Planning (led by David Driskell); •Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (led by Dr. Tim Thomas); and •A team from the Department of City and Metropolitan Planning, University of Utah (led by Dr. Ivis Garcia and Dr. Alessandro Rigolon). 4.April 2022: The Council received an update from CAN about work on the City’s anti-gentrification and anti-displacement plan, Thriving in Place. It included information on new Utah statutes that are applicable to housing loss mitigation, and an analysis of the City’s existing housing loss mitigation ordinance. 5.July 2022: The Council received an update from CAN about results of the team’s community engagement efforts and “data mapping” to date, as well as refinements to the plans for the next phase. F.2022 Utah State Legislature Updates. Two new laws from the 2022 Utah Legislative session—House Bill 462, Utah Housing Affordability Amendments, and House Bill 303, Local Land Use Amendments—have elements that are related to anti- gentrification and anti-displacement. 1. HB 462 and HB 303 define moderate income housing as 80% AMI or below. These two policies are compatible with the City’s RMF-30, Shared Housing, and Parking Reduction ordinances, which were adopted by the Council in October 2022. They are also compatible with proposals that have not yet been received by the Council including the Affordable Housing Zoning Incentives (formerly known as the Affordable Housing Overlay), and Accessory Dwelling Unit proposals. 2. Elements of these statutes also apply to the establishment of a Housing Loss Mitigation fund and the City’s ability to require moderate-income housing units in a land use decision: a. HB 462 authorizes a city to establish a Housing Loss Mitigation fund to preserve existing, subsidized, and new moderate-income housing (lines 708-710). b. HB 303 states that a city may require moderate income housing units as a condition of approval of a land use application only if the developer and the city enter into a written agreement, or the city provides incentives that are agreed to by the developer (lines 828- 838). It does not specify that the written agreement must be a development agreement. Page | 5 3.Additionally, HB 303 prohibits a city from approving or denying a land use application based on a developer’s decision to incorporate moderate-income housing units in their development. The Administration notes that this change has caused concern for the City's ability to charge a fee for the loss of housing units through a mandatory program. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. Several sections of the transmittal mention that additional funding and staff will be needed to implement the plan. Would the Council like to request additional information about the level of detail that will be provided in the plan about the additional funding needs anticipated, and when to anticipate receiving related budget requests? The Council may also wish to discuss potential funding sources for these expanded needs. 2. Several elements of the proposed plan are related to what could be considered housing development. Based on the Council’s recent discussions about consolidating housing development in the RDA and housing services in CAN’s Housing Stability, the Council may wish to discuss role clarity in how the plan may be executed. Would the Council like to confirm with the Administration that the RDA is intended to carry out those pieces, even though the plan itself has been stewarded by CAN. 3. Over the years, both CAN and the RDA have expressed their interest in expanding the Community Land Trust. The draft plan alludes to this goal as “Invest in a community ownership model and maximize City-owned parcels through the expansion of the City’s Community Land Trust program to address intergenerational poverty.” Would the Council like to request the Administration elaborate on this goal, including how each department’s work could be coordinated with the other? 4.The Council may wish to ask about the details and elements of the final Thriving in Place document beyond Replacement of the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance. For example, will all ten of the other Near-Term Priorities listed in Appendix 1 be fleshed out to the same degree as this one? Is this work already underway, and what is the timeline for completion? 5.Would the Council like to request additional information on how the Administration expects Thriving in Place to complement Housing SLC, and what kinds of information one will include that the other does not? ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Received: 11-29-2022 Date Sent to Council: 11-29-2022 ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: November 28, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community and Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Update on the Thriving in Place efforts to mitigate involuntary displacement. STAFF CONTACT: Blake Thomas, Director, Community and Neighborhoods, 801-718-7949, blake.thomas@slcgov.com Angela Price, Policy Director, Community and Neighborhoods, 385-315-9024, angela.price@slcgov.com Susan Lundmark, Transportation Planner, Transportation Division, 801-535-6112, susan.lundmark@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Written briefing RECOMMENDATION: No action needed BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The Administration, in conjunction with Baird and Driskell, will be providing a briefing to the City Council on Thriving in Place (TIP), Salt Lake City’s Gentrification and Anti-displacement Plan. TIP has entered the final stage of developing recommendations to mitigate involuntary displacement and the Administration is seeking feedback from the City Council on the proposed policy framework. This briefing follows a series of presentations to the City Council through the lifespan of the plan’s community engagement and policy development process to ensure compliance with City Council Resolution 14 of 2020. In April, CAN presented on housing efforts generally and the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance specifically during two separate Council meetings. In July, the TIP project team presented to Council to offer a progress update on the findings from Phase I of th e project. In rachel otto (Nov 29, 2022 07:43 MST) ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director October, the TIP project team met with a variety of stakeholders to discuss the pro ject’s progress and solicit additional feedback. TIP will be transformative by establishing Salt Lake City’s first comprehensive anti- displacement framework. After extensive community outreach, TIP has a heavy focus on protecting tenants by providing programmatic resources including legal services, increasing affordable housing stock, and replacing the City’s Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance. Current policies do not provide the City with an opportunity to maximize public benefit on land use decisions; TIP is proposing an incentive-based approach to upzoning, which includes the development of affordable housing units. To address intergenerational poverty, TIP proposes investment in a community ownership model and maximizing City-owned parcels through the expansion of the City’s Community Land Trust program. The policy framework is bold and recommends new programs and expansion of existing services. This will require financial investment, staffing increases, accountability, and political capital to execute what has been proposed. The policies outlined in TIP reverberate through all City departments and, as such, it has been imperative that representatives from each department have been involved in the development of the framework. There is no silver bullet to solving gentrification, displacement, social inequity, and the housing crisis, which is why the framework is a multifaceted approach. There are many areas where state preemption exists, and the framework must work within the legal parameters. This will be frustrating for residents as the biggest driver of displacement is increasing rents, and there is not a legal option for rent control. Salt Lake City is undoubtedly a leader in the state on creating a more equitable city and combating displacement; however, there is more that can be built upon to strengthen current efforts. These are complex and systemic social issues that will require collaboration, partnerships, and accountability. Housing SLC In conjunction with TIP, the Administration (through the Department of Community and Neighborhoods) is developing a new five-year housing plan to replace Growing SLC, which is set to expire at the end of this year. The new housing plan, which is being called Housing SLC, has incorporated the data and feedback gathered through the TIP process to inform further engagement efforts, policies for inclusion, and recommendations for implementation. Housing SLC and TIP have worked in tandem to develop policy recommendations to address all facets of the City’s current housing affordability crisis. It is anticipated that TIP will be included, in full, as an appendix to Housing SLC, while the policy recommendations will be specifically addressed in the body of the plan and will be included in the implementation portion of the Housing SLC. The inclusion of TIP into Housing SLC allows the recommendations and strategies in TIP to be included in the City’s General Plan, as Housing SLC will fulfill the Moderate-Income Housing portion of the General Plan requirements outlined in HB 462. Inclusion in the General Plan allows the City to allocate funding toward pursuing the strategies outlined in TIP and Housing SLC and sets a policy framework to guide all City housing efforts over the next five years. A full ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director draft of Housing SLC will be ready for public comment and Council review by the end of December 2022. OVERVIEW OF THE DRAFT ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY The TIP team has developed a framework for Salt Lake City’s Anti-Displacement Strategy that outlines 21 proposed priority actions to help counter displacement pressures, mitigate the impacts of displacement, and build a more resilient community over time where lower income residents and tenants can stay in place and thrive. The actions are organized under six interrelated goals, with many of the actions helping to advance more than one goal as well as the strategy’s overall “guiding principles” (see below). The areas of focus have been shaped by extensive analysis of displacement data and trends as well as community input, as summarized in the Phase 1 Report and presented to City Council on July 12, 2022. The strategy is also grounded in the regulatory limits of State preemption as well as resource constraints and capacity, as expressed in the short but important list of “caveats” (also listed below). In its final form, the strategy will outline anti-displacement program priorities and budget needs, with a strong focus on near-term priorities to implement in the coming two years. Guiding Principles The TIP policy framework is guided by five principles that speak to the core values of the Anti- Displacement Strategy, all of which were informed by the project’s extensive community engagement: ●Prioritize tenant protections. Work to strengthen tenant rights and make tenant assistance a top priority, especially for those most at risk. ●Partner with the most impacted. Work with those facing high displacement risks to coordinate comprehensive action beyond housing to keep communities in place and help them thrive. ●Increase housing everywhere. Create more housing overall, and more affordable housing specifically, while minimizing displacement and countering historic patterns of segregation. ●Focus on affordability. Create and preserve diverse rental housing and ownership options for lower and moderate-income households and families in all parts of the city, especially options that are affordable in perpetuity. ●Build an eco-system for action. Work with regional and state partners, the private and nonprofit sectors, and affected communities to coordinate action and advance shared priorities. Caveats There are some important caveats to keep in mind as we craft the action plan, including State preemption that limits what the City can do, as well as the challenge of finite resources and things beyond our control. These include: ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director ●There are no magic fixes; success will be incremental. It will require hard, ongoing work and difficult decisions. ●We will build on what we are already doing; this is a next step. Sequencing and coordination of actions will be key. ●State preemption limits the range of potential action. We will work with the State legislature to make changes where possible. ●We have finite resources and capacity, and there are many things Salt Lake City does not control. ●It’s not just what we do, but how we do it. We must work together, build trust, ensure transparency, and have honest conversations. Goals The framework defines six core goals: three goals focused on desired outcomes, and three focused on supporting actions to achieve the outcomes. Importantly, most actions support more than one goal, and many are interrelated or will need to be implemented in sequence. The six goals are: 1.PROTECT tenants from displacement, especially the most vulnerable 2.PRESERVE the affordable housing we have 3.PRODUCE more housing, especially affordable housing 4.EXPAND FUNDING for tenant support and affordable housing 5.PARTNER + COLLABORATE for maximum impact 6.ADVOCATE for tenants at the state level. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director Anti-Displacement Framework at-a-glance To help provide a high-level overview of the Anti-Displacement Strategy’s full range of proposed policies and actions, the TIP team has developed an “at-a-glance” one page summary, which has been updated iteratively over the past weeks as we hear feedback from the community and our internal and external partners. The latest version of the at-a-glance summary is attached with this memo as Appendix 1. Near-Term Action Priorities The Draft Anti-Displacement Strategy outlines 21 proposed actions. While they are all important, effective implementation of the strategy requires prioritization: we cannot do 21 actions, in full, all at once. Some of the proposed actions build on areas of work already underway, with modifications to specific aspects of the work or requiring a significant up -scaling to meet the level of need. Others represent new areas of work or investment or recommend a change in not just what the City does, but also how we do it. Eleven (11) of the proposed actions are flagged for near-term action as called out in the at-a-glance summary and shown in the table below. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director For this briefing, the Thriving in Place team is seeking Council feedback on a subset of the 11 proposed near-term priorities. In particular, staff is looking for Council feedback on the proposed set of strategies that would replace Ordinance 18.97, Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss (aka: Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance or “HLM”). The full set of actions and complete Anti-Displacement Strategy document will be presented to the Planning Commission and Council in early 2023 along with the Housing SLC plan for full review and consideration. PROTECT TENANTS 1a Replace the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance 1b Create a one-stop shop tenant resource 1c Improve and expand tenant resources, access to legal services + landlord training and incentives PRESERVE + PRODUCE AFFORDABILITY 2a Factor displacement impacts in master plans, rezonings + development agreements 2d Partner with impacted communities to coordinate action and investment 3a Capture value from zoning decisions to create affordability 3d Prioritize and invest in community ownership + housing integrated with support services EXPAND FUNDING / PARTNER + COLLABORATE 4a Develop new and increased funding sources 4c Expand and invest in Community Land Trust models 5a Be bold, accountable + transparent 5c Create an SLC Anti-Displacement Coalition Deep Dive on Proposed Action 1a - Replace the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance Why Is a Different Approach Needed? A key catalyst for the TIP work was Council and community concern about the ineffectiveness of the City’s HLM Ordinance (18.97). On April 12, 2022, the Administration briefed the City Council on HLM and outlined the challenges with the current ordinance (Appendix 2), including the fact that the fee rarely applies and does nothing to address the loss of affordability. In addition to those outlined issues, the City Attorney’s office has communicated concerns that the existing fee structure may not hold up under scrutiny. Since the ordinance was enacte d in 1995, there have been substantive state statute changes limiting fees and inclusionary zoning. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director Additionally, there is case law that raises questions about the legality of collecting a fee for the loss of a housing unit. Community input in Phase 1 of TIP also underscored concern that new development is driving displacement, sometimes through direct demolition of existing units but often indirectly through rising land values and rents in areas undergoing redevelopment. Scale of the Problem Since January 2021, the City’s Building Services Division received 130 applications, each representing a site, to demolish a total of 297 units. However, we don’t know how many were considered affordable or if they resulted in actual loss of units (the application identifies units but does not specify affordability nor do all applications lead to actual development and/or demolition of the units). Of the 130 applications submitted, about 80% identified a single unit on the site, and only eight identified eight or more units on the site, including one with 61 units (however that project did not ultimately proceed with demolition of the units). If the full 297 units had been demolished (which we know is not the case), that would have represented only 0.4% of the city’s housing stock. While that scale of impact is relatively small, the impact on tenants living in units to be demolished is profound, and therefore providing a meaningful response to that impact is important. However, it is also important to keep in mind that rising rents are by far the largest driver of displacement in Salt Lake City, and largely due to a shortage of housing overall, and affordable housing specifically. “Fixing” the HLM ordinance will address only a small fraction of the City’s displacement challenges and does not effectively protect or create more affordable units. It is imperative that work continues to expand the city’s affordable housing supply even as we work to mitigate the loss of existing housing due to new development and address the impact on affected tenants. Proposed Response: Overview There are two main displacement concerns associated with the demolition of housing units due to redevelopment: 1. The potential loss of the unit, especially if it’s an affordable unit (whether through deed restriction or because it is an older unit and “naturally affordable” due to a below- market rent); and 2. The displacement impact on renter households that were living in demolished units. With regard to the potential loss of a unit the proposed strategy to replace the HLM ordinance would: ● Document existing units and their affordability on proposed redevelopment sites; and ● Offer incentives for the preservation or replacemen t of those units at similar levels of affordability. Because they cannot be required to act on these incentives under state law, the use of the incentives would be voluntary. With regard to the displacement impact on renter households due to demolition of units on redevelopment sites, the proposed strategy would: ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director ● Provide relocation assistance to affected households to help them find new housing (whether interim or longer term) to meet their needs. ● Give displaced renter households priority in returning to the site or neighborhood when new affordable housing units are available. These may be units created on-site as a result of the incentives program, or in the neighborhood, created through other means. To support these strategies, the proposed set of actions also recommends methods for improved data tracking through changes to the City’s business licensing for rental units (via the voluntary Landlord Tenant Initiative). The proposed changes to policies and practices that would replace the existing HLM ordinance are illustrated below and explained in more detail in the text that follows. Proposed Response, Part 1: Mitigating the Loss of Units There are two parts of the proposed strategy to address the potential loss of affordable housing units when a property is being redeveloped. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director ● Document the presence and affordability of housing units on proposed redevelopment sites, as well as any impacted tenants. Under current practice, the HLM ordinance and its provisions are triggered in response to a demolition permit, a conditional use for a surface parking lot, or a zoning map amendment for a residential zoning district to a zoning district that permits non-residential uses. The trigger does not address the loss of affordable housing, but rather the net loss of a unit due to one of those conditions. Under the proposed practice, the presence of housing units on a site and their affordability would need to be documented along with tenant contact information when applicable (see discussion below). Documentation of affordability could be in the form of copies of signed lease agreements for residential units on the site over the past five years, accompanied by information on the unit’s size (approximate square footage and number of bedrooms) and occupancy. If a deed restriction (affordable housing agreement) was in place on any affected unit, that information would also be required. Affordability would be determined based on the deed restriction or on recent rent levels in relation to unit size. ● Incentivize the preservation or replacement of existing housing units at similar levels of affordability. State code section 10-9a-535 states that a municipality may only require the development of a certain number of moderate-income housing units as a condition of approval of a land use application if there are incentives offered or if a voluntary agreement between the two parties is in place. It is this preemption that makes it challenging to enforce the existing HLM ordinance even if changes to the existing triggers and fee calculations are made. The City can only require the preservation or replacement of an existing housing unit, including the payment of a fee to mitigate the loss of such a unit, through an incentive-based approach or if a voluntary agreement is enacted. For redevelopment proposals consistent with the established zoning and underlying master plan, the developer could proceed with demolition and redevelopment without any mitigation requirements even if residential units are being lost. However, the City could offer an incentive in the form of increased development intensity in return for mitigat ing the loss of the affected units. Incentives would be defined through a code change that would define community benefits when an applicant is proposing a modification to an adopted plan. For developers opting into the incentive, the resultant development agreement would define the agreed-upon form of unit mitigation: preservation, replacement (on- or off-site), or fee payment (set at a level commensurate with the cost of replacing the unit on-site). For redevelopment proposals seeking to demolish an affordable unit and requesting an increase in intensity or change of use beyond what is allowed under existing zoning and the underlying master plan, the City can request a housing loss mitigation plan that addresses how the unit will be preserved or replaced. The proposed framework would give an applicant the option to preserve or replace the affordable unit by: o Maintaining existing units at affordable rents; ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director o Building new affordable units on the site; or o Paying into a housing fund to create new affordable units elsewhere (linked to a requirement that the funds be used by the City or its partners to support housing affordability within an established period of time). Details regarding the levels of incentive offered and parameters for how the mitigation requirements would be agreed to, documented, and enforced will need to be developed. Proposed Response, Part 2: Assisting Displaced Tenants The second part of the proposed strategy is focused on helping the tenants who are impacted by the demolition of affordable housing units due to property redevelopment. It consists of two key components: ● Document the presence of impacted tenants on proposed redevelopment sites and provide relocation assistance to those living in affordable units lost due to property redevelopment. While the incidence of direct displacement of tenants due to property redevelopment is small, the impact on those tenants can be significant. While rental assistance programs are in place and proposed to be expanded as part of the TIP strategy (actions 1c and 4a), current policies and programs to provide relocation assistance are limited to redevelopment projects that involve federal funding or in situations where tenants are displaced due to a building closure enacted by the City (SLC Code Section 18.99). The draft proposal for supporting tenants displaced by redevelopment includes: ● Identifying impacted tenants as part of the demolition permitting process and/or development entitlement process. This will require collecting tenant information as well as notification of tenants by the City and/or its community partners. Proactive tenant outreach and education should also be prioritized in areas facing redevelopment pressure, recognizing that in many situations tenants might be displaced prior to a demolition application or entitlement process. ● Revising Code Section 18.99.040 - Tenant Relocation Fee to include tenants displaced due to redevelopment/demolition of private development as well as City-led housing closures, update the fee, and link to potential incentives-based developer contribution. In cases where no incentive-based fee payment is made, the assistance would need to be provided from City funds. Based on activity of the past two years, and assuming assistance of approximately $4,000 per qualifying household, the potential budget impact is likely in the range of $150,000 to $250,000 per year. A funding source will need to be identified, which could be partially offset by voluntary developer contributions in response to opt-in incentives; and ● Providing relocation assistance, as well as ongoing rental assistance, when needed, working with and through designated partners. ● Provide the opportunity to return to the site or neighborhood when new affordable housing units become available. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director When new affordable housing units are created, they are made available to income-qualified households to provide secure, long-term affordable housing that can help them remain in the neighborhood. Under Fair Housing Laws, these units must be made available without discrimination. Salt Lake City has a strong commitment to ensuring compliance with Fair Housing Laws in the city. To help ensure that new affordable units help mitigate displacement impacts on existing residents, many cities have adopted “community preference policies” that provide priority for income-qualified households that have been displaced from a property or neighborhood due to redevelopment, rising rents, or other factors. These policies do not restrict new affordable units to only these households; rather, they give first priority (through a preference point system) to displaced households. Another aspect of the proposed approach for replacing the HLM ordinance with something more effective is to adopt a Community Preference Policy in Salt Lake City. The details of recommendations for best ways to frame the local policy, put it into practice, and manage it over time will be included in the final report. Related Efforts to Support Action 1a The proposed Anti-Displacement Strategy includes other actions which will help reinforce the changes to policy and practice outlined above that would replace the existing HLM ordinance. These are listed below and described in more detail in the subsequent section of this memo: ● Action 1c: Improve and Expand Tenant Resources, Access to Legal Services, and Landlord Training and Incentives. Part of this effort would improve data tracking by collecting rent data as part of the rental business license application and equip landlords through the Landlord Tenant Initiative to be partners in mitigating displacement. This will require additional staffing in the Business License Division to enact the tenant portion of the Landlord Tenant Initiative and to increase the scope of the division’s work. ● Action 2a: Factor Displacement Impacts in Master Plans, Rezonings, and Development Agreements. This action works to implement mitigation of units lost through redevelopment, as described above, but applies more broadly to proactively consider displacement impacts during master planning processes and establish displacement factors for consideration in evaluating zoning amendments. This effort would include defining mitigation and anti- displacement measures that can be incorporated in master plans, zoning amendments, and development agreements to address both the direct and indirect displacement of residents through redevelopment. ● Action 3a: Incentivize Creation and Preservation of Affordable Housing. This action is currently being developed by the City through the Affordable Housing Incentives program. While different from the specific application of incentives to mitigate units lost due to property redevelopment (action 1a), its mechanisms are similar, and consideration will need to be given to how the two policies work in relation to each other. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director ● Action 3d: Prioritize and Invest in Community Ownership and Housing Integrated with Support Services. Like Action 2b, this expands upon an existing area of action by the City and its partners and provides a highly suitable near-term opportunity for applying affordable housing funds collected as the result of mitigation plans and related fee payments. ● Action 4a: Develop New and Increased Funding Sources. This action calls for an increase in funding for both development of new affordable housing and expansion of tenant support, including expanded rental assistance, to help alleviate near-term displacement pressures and the provision of relocation assistance under Action 1a. These policy and programmatic recommendations will require funding resources , code amendments and prioritization of said amendments, staffing increases in Business Licensing and other departments, collaboration across City departments, political capital at the legislature to remove state preemption, and partnerships with the development community and residents. The policy changes will need to be phased and layered upon one another to be impactful for the residents who are being involuntarily displaced. Overview of Other Near-term Priority Actions While the focus of this briefing is on outlining the proposed strategies to replace the HLM ordinance, there are also ten other near-term priority actions included in the Draft Anti- Displacement Strategy that staff would like to highlight. They are briefly described below. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director PROTECT TENANTS 1b Create a one-stop shop resource to help prevent evictions and provide easy access to services. This action will be led by the Housing Stability team, requir ing additional staffing resources, to: ● Create a single web portal and hotline where tenants can access all services to help them respond to potential eviction (legal services, rental assistance, etc.). ● Incorporate easy access to other tenant resources that can help people live more affordably (reduced transit fares, utility bill assistance, etc.). ● Partner with community organizations and others to improve awareness of and access to resources and services. This action is focused on how tenant-focused resources and services are accessed, responding to community feedback that sometimes those most in need are unaware of resources that are available, and that it can be time-consuming and frustrating to navigate the array of resource providers and service agencies. While this action does not in itself expand the pool of resources available (that is covered in Action 1c), it helps to leverage all of the resources available (not just from the City, but from partners, too) to ens ure maximum benefit for those most in need, especially low-income tenants who are at-risk of eviction and displacement. 1c Improve and expand tenant resources, access to legal services , and landlord training and incentives to help keep tenants in their housing when faced with rising rents and other financial hardships that can lead to displacement. ● Increase funding for tenant services (see 4a). Work to head-off the impact of losing $2 million/month in current rental funding support from ARPA. ● Work with partners to innovate on how legal services are delivered , so that services can be provided in a more timely and lower-cost manner. ● Provide tenants with support for lease application fees, by providing funds to cover the fees and/or by establishing a master lease application that can be used as a standard for multiple applications. ● Improve the Good Landlord program so that managers know about available tenant resources/services and best practices. ● Incentivize landlords to minimize rent increases through the Landlord Tenant Initiative (Good Landlord Program) or other means. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director This action will also be led by the Housing Stability and Business License teams in close coordination with partners and will require an expansion in funding. The level of proposed budget increase is being developed for consideration with adoption of the stra tegy in 2023 and the upcoming budget process. See also action 4a. PRESERVE + PRODUCE AFFORDABILITY 2a Factor displacement impacts in master plans, rezonings, and development agreements to help ensure that development-related decisions are considering and responding to potential displacement impacts and putting in place appropriate mitigation measur es. This action will be led by the Planning team. Context ● Master plans establish long-term vision and framework for site-specific decision making. They should prioritize affordable housing development and preservation, as well as retention of existing communities even as planning for growth and change. While many master plans were developed years ago, before displacement was an issue, an approach is needed to en able the application of mitigation strategies in development decision making without having to wait for master plan updates . As identified in the displacement analysis, areas of particular concern include most of the Westside, as well as Ballpark, Central City, and the Liberty Wells area. ● Voluntary development agreements create opportunities to preserve and create affordable housing and/or take other anti- displacement actions (such as preserving or creating affordable commercial space or needed community service facilities like daycare or health clinics). Due to state preemption, the City cannot require affordable housing contributions. This limitation shapes the proposed approach to replacing the HLM Ordinance (outlined previously in this memo). In short, developers must opt- in to an incentives-based program that provides additional development capacity (or in some cases, potentially, a financial contribution or other form of incentive from the city) in return for preserving or creating affordable housing or committing to other displacement mitigation actions. See also the discussion under 3a. Mechanisms ● Integrate displacement factors and mitigation measures as a formal part of master plans, master plan and zoning amendments, and, when possible, development review (through use of incentives). ● Define and monitor displacement indicators (see action 5a) and adjust land use plans and policies when possible (especially in high-risk areas) to help counter displacement pressures. Action Steps ● Formalize displacement analysis and mitigation in master plan processes. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director ● Add language to “purpose and intent” section of code for zoning amendments (21A.02.030). ● Add list of displacement factors and potential mitigation measures to be considered in zoning amendments and development agreements (TBD as part of Housing SLC plan). Example Displacement Factors ● Population/Household Vulnerability as measured by proportion of renter households, cost-burdened households, people of color, low-income households, etc. ● Affordable Housing Vulnerability as measured by expiring deed restrictions, pre-WWII housing, rent rates below city average, etc. ● Demand Drivers: new/planned transit or parks, increased private investment, desirable schools, etc. Example Mitigation Measures ● Create or preserve deed -restricted affordable housing in return for increased development capacity, City/partner investment, or other incentives. ● Provide relocation assistance and rental assistance or other tenant-focused services (e.g., mediation/legal s ervices). ● Invest in job training programs, cultural institutions, affordable commercial space, etc. Considerations / Challenges ● Allocating the necessary resources to develop workable strategies, update plans/policies and oversee implementation. ● Establishing clear and objective evaluation criteria (factors), achievable mitigation measures, and clear processes that lead to outcomes that counter displacement impacts. ● Ensuring consistency in how evaluation criteria are interpreted and applied by st aff, developers, and decision-makers. ● Enforcing implementation of policies and agreements in both the near- and long-term. 2d Partner with impacted communities to coordinate action and investment, creating a cross-departmental team to coordinate investments and work in partnership with community organizations and representatives to counter displacement, focusing on Westside communities and in the Ballpark, Central City, and Liberty Wells areas. This action will be led by Community and Neighborhoods in partnership with the Mayor’s Office and partner departments. ● Recognize that displacement impacts are particularly hard felt in lower income areas and focus attention and resources in those areas. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director ● Define area-specific anti-displacement priorities in partnership with the community and in neighborhoods experiencing high displacement risk. ● Form a City team to coordinate investment (housing, transit, parks, services, food access, etc.) in these areas and identify funding priorities. ● Meet regularly with community organizations and representatives to communicate priority actions, identify emerging needs, define opportunities for collaboration, monitor progress, and build trust over time. ● Invest in community-defined priorities that may fall outside of traditional funding streams and/or require a shift from systems- defined priorities, including non-housing priorities to help support the goal of keeping communities in place and helping them thrive. 3a Incentivize the creation and preservation of affordable housing in areas throughout the city. CAN is the lead for this action. ● Allow developers to opt-in for increases in development capacity and in return commit to creating affordable housing units. ● The City is working on an Affordable Housing Incentives policy that is based on this concept. Specifics of how the policy will be structured and implemented are currently being developed. This will offer capacity increases on qualifying residential properties in return for creating affordable units. ● Create flexibility whenever possible to maximize community benefit: on-site units, off-site units, land donation, and/or in-lieu fees (set at a level commensurate with the cost of creating a new unit and linked to an implementation strategy and schedule). ● Distribute new affordable housing throughout the city to avoid an over-concentration in any single area. ● Long-term: Establish linkage fees to ensure contributions toward affordable housing from all new development, creating options for non-residential development (commercial, institutional, etc.) to contribute toward affordable housing, recognizing that many types of development create more affordable housing needs. This will require changes to state law. 3d Prioritize and invest in community ownership and housing integrated with support services, utilizing publicly owned land and partnering with nonprofits and mission-driven developers to build long-term social equity. Community and Neighborhoods is the lead for this action in partnership with the RDA. ● Focus on creating housing that will be affordable in perpetuity and managed as a long-term community asset. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director ● Partner with mission-driven nonprofits, faith-based groups, and others to create high quality housing in multiple forms, including developments that create ownership and other wealth-building opportunities for lower income residents. ● Create affordable housing with integrated support services , including childcare, health services, counseling, etc. ● Grow the Community Land Trust model (see 4c). ● Contribute public lands to achieve community goals (affordable housing and other desired amenities) (see 2d, 3c and 4c). EXPAND FUNDING / PARTNER + COLLABORATE 4a Develop new and increased funding sources to better meet the level of need related to both tenant support and affordable housing development and preservation. Community and Neighborhoods is the lead for this action in collaboration with Finance and the Mayor’s Office. ● Identify and evaluate options and potential revenue generation. This may include reallocation of existing funds to support higher priority anti-displacement investments as well as new revenue generation. ● Ensure funding from multiple sources that can position the City to advance affordable housing, even during economic downturns. ● Continue to compete for state and federal funding and look for opportunities to advance multiple community priorities simultaneously (e.g., seeking energy efficiency funds for affordable housing, thereby helping to provide healthier, more comfortable, and lower cost living for affordable housing residents). ● Partner with community organizations to leverage different funding sources, including philanthropic and private sources. Also partner with them to distribute resources and services to those in need to help overcome trust issues and combine resources for greatest impact. 4c Expand and invest in Community Land Trust models to support long-term affordable housing, community ownership, and social equity goals. Community and Neighborhoods is the lead for this action in collaboration with the RDA. ● Grow the portfolio of CLT properties and expand investment in land that can help achieve affordable housing goals and shared equity housing. ● Partner with community organizations to define priority uses for CLT assets and manage them over time. ● Provide support for cultural institutions and affordable commercial space in mixed-use buildings. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director 5a Be bold, accountable, and transparent in establishing goals and monitoring impact, while remaining nimble in response to changing conditions and new challenges. Community and Neighborhoods will be the lead for this action. ● Establish goals by housing type, income, and area, coordinating between Housing SLC and Thriving in Place. ● Align goals and priorities with partners to achieve goals and leverage resources. ● Establish easy-to-implement data collection systems on key metrics to better know what is happening in as real-time as possible and help quantify the impact of anti-displacement strategies and investments. ● Measure progress over time and provide regular reports to the community and City Council. 5c Create an SLC Anti-Displacement Coalition to bring together key partners from across agencies and sectors for regular meetings to align on priorities, coordinate action, and monitor implementation of the Anti-Displacement Strategy (this is the group that will “own” the strategy). Community and Neighborhoods will be the lead for this action in partnership with the Mayor’s Office. Def ine the group’s membership and formally convene it by invitation of the Mayor in partnership with the City Council. ● Clarify the Coalition’s authority and ability to follow through on actions (give it teeth). ● Define shared priorities for near-term action and clarify roles and responsibilities as well as implementation timelines and clear objectives for measuring outcomes. ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director Next Steps and Timeline December City Council TIP briefing on 12/13/22. January A draft of Housing SLC, including the TIP policy recommendations, ready for public comment in early January 2023. This will commence the 45-day public comment period. Housing SLC and TIP will be presented to the Planning Commission for a briefing on January 25. February Housing SLC and TIP will be presented at a Planning Commission meeting for public hearing on February 22. March Once a recommendation is received from the Planning Commission, Housing SLC and TIP will be presented again to the Council and Council will set a date for a public hearing. Attachments Appendix 1 - Draft Anti-Displacement Framework Appendix 2 - Transmittal to City Council on “Update on the Status of the Thriving in Place plan and the Housing Loss Mitigation (18.97) ordinance”, April 12, 2022 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director Appendix 1 Draft Anti-Displacement Framework THRIVING IN PLACE / SALT LAKE CITY’S ANTI-DISPLACEMENT STRATEGY REVISED DRAFT / NOV 25, 2022 DRAFT Anti-Displacement Framework at-a-glance From the Phase 1 Report: Displacement in Salt Lake City is significant and getting worse. There are no “more affordable” neighborhoods in Salt Lake City where families can move once displaced. Salt Lake City is growing and there aren’t enough affordable units for low-income families. Plus a shortage of units overall is creating more competition for lower cost units Almost half of Salt Lake City households are rent burdened. More than half of all families with children live in displacement risk neighborhoods. Latinx and Black households have median incomes that are lower than what is required to afford rent in the city. Displacement affects more than half of White households in Salt Lake City and disproportionately affects households of color. Many areas experiencing high displacement risk were redlined in the past and are still highly segregated today. Community members are very concerned about displacement and its impacts. They want more affordable housing and support for those being impacted. GUIDING PRINCIPLES: prioritize tenant protections / partner with those most impacted / increase housing everywhere / focus on affordability / build an eco-system for action 1 PROTECT tenants from displacement, especially the most vulnerable 1a Replace the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance 1b Create a one-stop shop resource to help prevent evictions and provide easy access to services 1c Improve and expand tenant resources, access to legal services, + landlord training and incentives 1d Help tenants become owners 1e Promote more affordable living, better jobs, and fair wages Caveats: there are no magic fixes (it will be hard work) / we will build on what we are already doing / state pre-emption creates limits on what we can do / we have finite resources + things we don’t control / we must work together 2 PRESERVE the affordable housing we have 2a Factor displacement impacts in master plans, rezonings + development agreements 2b Expand investment in acquisition + rehabilitation of existing affordable housing 2c Address short-term rental impacts on rental housing 2d Partner with impacted communities to coordinate action + investment to preserve affordability and counter displacement 3 PRODUCE more housing, especially affordable housing 3a Incentivize creation and preservation of affordable housing 3b Make affordable housing easier and less expensive through streamlined review 3c Create more housing choices 3d Prioritize and invest in community ownership + housing integrated with support services 4 EXPAND FUNDING for tenant support + affordable housing 4a Develop new and increased funding sources to better meet the level of need 4b Coordinate + leverage affordable housing investments 4c Expand and invest in Community Land Trust models 5 PARTNER + COLLABORATE 5a Be bold, accountable + transparent – set aspirational goals + metrics; report on progress 5b Continue community leadership, partnership + engagement 5c Create an SLC Anti-Displacement Coalition 5d Strengthen regional coordination 6 ADVOCATE for tenants at the state level 6a Work to strengthen tenant rights and resources at the state level Near-Term Action Priorities Protect Tenants 1a Replace the Housing Loss Mitigation Ordinance Focus on affordable housing; incentivize unit preservation or replacement; provide relocation assistance; support tenant return; improve rent data tracking 1b Create a one-stop shop resource Partner to create a web portal and hotline for tenants to access anti- displacement and “affordable living” resources 1c Improve and expand tenant resources, access to legal services + landlord training and incentives Strengthen and increase rental assistance + other resources; improve access to legal services; provide lease application support; improve the Good Landlord program to include tenant supports Preserve + Produce Affordability 2a Factor displacement impacts in master plans, rezonings + development agreements Establish code criteria for assessing displacement impacts and mitigation measures and when/how they apply 2d Partner with impacted communities to coordinate action and investment Create cross-dept. team to coordinate investments and work in partnership with community, focusing on Westside communities and in the Ballpark / Central City / Liberty Wells area 3a Incentivize creation and preservation of affordable housing Capture value from increases to development capacity to create/ preserve affordable housing; provide flexibility for max benefit; work toward enabling linkage fees 3d Prioritize and invest in community ownership + housing integrated with support services Focus on long-term affordability and social equity Expand Funding + Partner 4a Develop new and increased funding sources Identify and establish multiple funding mechanisms to expand resources for affordable housing and tenant assistance 4c Expand and invest in Community Land Trust models Identify public lands for affordable housing; partner/invest to create long- term community-owned affordable housing 5a Be bold, accountable + transparent Establish clear, quantified goals; ensure alignment with partners; define, track and report on key metrics 5c Create an SLC Anti-Displacement Coalition Convene regularly with key partners, including reps from impacted communities, to agree on / coordinate action and monitor progress SIX INTERRELATED GOALS 3 OUTCOME GOALS: Protect – Preserve – Produce 3 SUPPORTING GOALS: Expand Funding – Partner + Collaborate – Advocate ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director Appendix 2 Transmittal to City Council on “Update on the Status of the Thriving in Place plan and the Housing Loss Mitigation (18.97) ordinance”, April 12, 2022 ERIN MENDENHALL DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY Mayor and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake Thomas Director SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 404 WWW.SLC.GOV P.O. BOX 145486, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5486 TEL 801.535.6230 FAX 801.535.6005 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ________________________ Date Received: _________________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: _________________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: March 28, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Update on the status of the Thriving in Place plan and the Housing Loss Mitigation (18.97) ordinance. STAFF CONTACT: Blake Thomas, Director, Community and Neighborhoods, 385-270 -4638 , blake.thomas@slcgov.com Angela Price, Policy Director, Community and Neighborhoods, 385-315 -9024 , angela.price@slcgov.com Susan Lundmark, Project Manager, Transportation Division, 801-535 -6112, susan.lundmark@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Information item RECOMMENDATION: No action needed BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: In December 2020, the Department of Community and Neighborhoods (CAN) presented The Future of Housing: A Collective Vision for an Equitable Salt Lake City to the City Council. The intent of that presentation was to discuss various housing policy topics identified as goals in Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan. These included the vision for an equitable and holistic city, data analysis, a summary of comprehensive solutions and policies including the Gentrification Mitigation Plan and the Housing Loss Mitigation (HLM) ordinance, among other equitable housing concepts, and identification of next steps for moving forward various housing policies. Since the policy briefing in 2020, the Administration has selected Baird and Driskell to oversee the Gentrification Assessment and Displacement Mitigation Plan or Thriving in Place (TIP). In addition to a robust, community-driven planning process, data analysis and mapping, and policy recommendations to mitigate displacement, the Baird Team will also guide policy changes to the City’s Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss ordinance (18.97). This summary will provide the City Council with an update on: • An overview of Thriving in Place including information on the engagement activities that are currently underway and next steps; • 2022 legislative requirements that are applicable to housing loss mitigation; and • A detailed analysis of the Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss ordinance (18.97), including the history of the ordinance, a summary of the current ordinance, adopted ordinance constraints, technical discrepancies, policy considerations, next steps, a legal analysis of common questions, and an HLM project summary. The TIP Plan and HLM ordinance both address the goal of “increasing housing opportunities for cost burdened households” in Growing SLC: A Five Year Housing Plan and meet several objectives outlined in the plan. The Administration welcomes the opportunity to work with the City Council to present the data and engagement efforts that are happening in the TIP Plan and seek guidance on policy directives to mitigate involuntary displacement and create a more equitable Salt Lake City. The TIP Plan will inform the update to Growing SLC, which will be underway shortly. Both plans will be brought before the City Council throughout the process and will be presented for adoption when completed. Thriving In Place In June 2020, the City Council allocated FY21 funding for a Gentrification Assessment and Displacement Mitigation Plan to understand the breadth and depth of involuntary displacement and formulate policies and programs to mitigate any such displacement that might occur. After a Request for Proposals (RFP) process was initiated and completed, a consultant team was retained in September 2021, which consists of the following researchers and thought leaders in the fields of gentrification and displacement: • Baird & Driskell Community Planning (led by David Driskell); • Urban Displacement Project, University of California Berkeley (UDP; led by Dr. Tim Thomas); and • University of Utah Department of City and Metropolitan Planning (CMP; led by Dr. Ivis Garcia and Dr. Alessandro Rigolon). Together with the consultant team, City staff (together, the Team) are guiding the Plan, now called Thriving in Place, using the following overarching actions: • To understand gentrification pressures in Salt Lake City; • To document patterns of involuntary displacement, including those related to housing costs, eviction, and demolition; and • To find policy solutions to help people choose to stay, live, and thrive in Salt Lake City even as the city grows and changes. This briefing will provide an overview of TIP and what the Team has learned from early community engagement. It is the intent of the Administration and the Consultant team to come back to the City Council in a future meeting with an in-depth analysis of the Listening and Learning phase and to seek guidance before the Crafting Collaborative Solutions phase. • Phase 1: Listening and Learning – Focuses on defining and understanding the problem and includes extensive community engagement and data collection. o Quantitative data collection and analysis is led by UDP. o Qualitative data collection through numerous community engagement activities. o Information gathered in this phase provides context on experiences of displacement, community asset mapping, and neighborhood challenges to ensure policies are aligned to mitigate displacement pressures specific to Salt Lake City neighborhood needs. • Phase 2: Crafting Collaborative Solutions – Develops a Displacement Mitigation Plan that includes actionable policy recommendations. o Recommendations will include a shared framework that can guide action across sectors, including the City, other governmental agencies, and community-based organizations and partners. o Recommendations will be informed by Phase 1 engagement and a review of existing policies, programs, and practices. A second round of input from community and stakeholders will inform priorities for action and recommendations for policy changes. Phase One - Community Engagement From the outset, there has been an effort to have a community-led process that includes extensive and equitable community engagement. The Team is listening to residents and partners through a variety of engagement methods, including online and in-person. The Team reviews engagement efforts and statistics weekly to ensure equitable representation and recalibrates outreach tactics if needed. TIP is currently in the Listening and Learning phase. Details of engagement efforts are outlined below: • City Steering Committee – This committee consists of City staff and includes representatives f rom various departments to ensure collaboration and impactful policy development. • Community Working Group – This 22 -member advisory group was formed to guide the community engagement process and ensure inclusion, provide input and feedback on the process design, outreach materials, and draft strategies as they emerge, and serve as liaisons to groups and organizations in which they are involved. The group has met twice so far, with notes from the meetings posted here. • Project Launch Interviews – These confidential one-on-one interviews with 15 key community representatives helped shape the Team’s engagement strategy and refinement of the Plan’s goals. Interviews were completed in late Fall 2021 and are summarized here . • Public Website and Online Survey – The Thriving in Place website, available in English and Spanish, was launched in February 2022 to provide educational information for residents and to serve as an online engagement tool. To date , the website has seen 3,100 visits from 2,600 unique visitors, 46% of which have been via mobile device. An online survey (English and Spanish) was launched in conjunction with the project website and to-date has been completed by over 1,000 individuals. • Intercept (in-person) Surveys – Two CMP classes are conducting in-person “intercept” surveys at various locations throughout the city , with an emphasis on Westside neighborhoods. The demographics of these survey respondents tend to be younger, more diverse, and more likely to be renters than the population that has responded to the online survey. To date, over 300 interview surveys have been completed. We anticipate over 700 in-person intercept surveys will be conducted. • Community Liaisons – The project team has hired six community liaisons with experience and connections in communities of color, non-English speakers, and lower income neighborhoods to help ensure equitable engagement and input. The liaisons are conducting in -person engagement with small groups in culturally appropriate formats, touching on the same themes and questions as the survey but in a more formal way. While the methodology will not engage as many residents, the value of the input will be significant. • Youth Workshops – The CMP classes have hosted numerous engagement activities for youth to discuss change in their neighborhoods and their perspectives and ideas related to gentrification and displacement. • Community Events - The project team has been participating in a variety of community events (e.g., Neighborhood House Family Fun, tabling with Ventanilla de Salud, and Sunday Mass at Our Lady of Guadalupe Church, among others). They will also be hosting a mural-painting event at Three Creeks Confluence Park on April 16th. • Other engagement efforts by the Team to help ensure people are aware of the project and opportunities for engagement include: o CMP students discussing TIP at Westside Community Council meetings in February and March 2022; o Introducing and discussing TIP at board meeting for University Neighborhood Partners in March 2022; o Presenting at Salt Lake City Human Rights Commission (HRC) and Salt Lake Community Network (SLCN) meetings; o CMP students distributing hundreds of flyers, door hangers, and sidewalk stencils; and o Sending out City Council citywide mailer for housing related efforts to all residential addresses in Salt Lake City during the first week of April 2022. Phase Two - Mapping and Data Analysis Data gathered from the project’s community engagement efforts will be complemented with in- depth analysis of the city’s neighborhoods through a mapping and analysis led by UDP. UDP is developing a map using advanced statistical analysis to identify where the highest rates and risk of displacement are currently occurring in Salt Lake City by analyzing hundreds of variables. These variables include housing markets, property types, population demographics, changes over time, administrative data, and many other variables (see UDP’s Housing Precarity Risk Model as an example of this type of modeling). UDP then maps the model’s output values to identify areas that need the most support and protection. The final map will show four distinct characteristics: areas with low displacement risk, elevated risk, high risk, and extreme risk. Timeline and Next Steps The project is in the final stages of Phase One, Listening and Learning. In May 2022, the Team will summarize the community input received and connect it with the results of UDP’s mapping and data analysis. Phase Two , Crafting Collaborative Solutions, includes the Team working with the Community Working Group and members of the City Steering Committee to share results and identify key take-aways, as well as identify areas for policy recommendations. Phase Two , Craftin g Collaborative Solutions, will run from May through August 2022. A few key dates are outlined below: • April 16 - Mural painting at Three Creeks Confluence Park. • April 18 - Conclusion of Phase One engagement activities. • April 26 - Student presentations (from the two CMP classes) on outreach efforts at Glendale Community Learning Center. • May - Summary of Phase One findings and UDP’s displacement analysis presented to the Team. • May/June - Presentation to Planning Commission on TIP. • May/June - Small group work sessions to distill Phase One findings and agree on direction for Phase Two (we expect to return to City Council in mid to late June to share results). • June/July - Phase Two begins with preliminary policy options and near-term recommendations. • July/August - Evaluation of policy options and refinement of recommendations. • July/August - Presentation to Planning Commission on TIP. • August/September - Planning Commission and City Council process for TIP. Housing Loss Mitigation History In 1994, the City Council commissioned an independent economic evaluation to analyze the impact and loss of affordable housing and potential mitigation measures. The impetus of the study was a substantial shortage of affordable housing in the Central City, University, and Capitol Hill neighborhoods. The driving forces behind the shortage were the demolition of housing stock for commercial and institutional purposes or assemblage of land by speculators. Since inception, the policy has been centered around a land-use transition from residential to commercial or a petition to expand parking. A Housing Mitigation Plan and Statement is required before final approval of a parking conditional-use is granted or a zoning change is approved that would allow commercial use on properties that currently have residential dwelling units (1995 ordinance does not contemplate land use changes but rather demolition of units). The initial plan required an analysis of adverse impacts, dwelling units that will be demolished, fair market value for demolished units, square feet of land to be rezoned, and a mitigation plan that addresses the loss of residential zoned land, residential units, or residential character. To mitigate the identified loss, developers can replace the housing within two years of the entitlement application approval, pay a fee that is the difference between the fair market value and the replacement cost, or pay a flat fee of $3,000 per dwelling unit to be demolished. Adopted Ordinance The c urrent ordinance, Chapter 18.97 Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss, was adopted in 2012, and states: “The purpose of the chapter is to mitigate the loss of affordable housing stock due to new development with due consideration for vested or protected property rights.” The ordinance requires a Housing Mitigation Plan for: • Any application for a demolition permit that will result in a loss of one or more residential units in a residential zone; • A request for a conditional use permit to expand parking in a residential or mixed -use zone; and • Any petition for a zoning change that would permit a non-residential use of land that includes residential dwelling units within its boundaries. A Housing Mitigation Plan and Housing Impact Statement shall be submitted unless the applicant meets certain provisions such as a non-conforming use, a master plan calling for non- residential use, or proposed demolition because of health and safety issues. The Housing Impact Statement must identify adverse impacts on the residential character of the neighborhood, the address of units targeted for demolition, fair market value and state of repair of units targeted for demolition, square footage of land that will be impacted, and a mitigation plan to address the loss of residential zoned land, units, or residential character. Permitted mitigation measures include replacing the lost housing units or paying a fee to the Housing Trust Fund that equals the difference between the fair market value of the housing units to be eliminated or demolished and the replacement cost of building new units of similar square footage. Adopted Ordinance Constraints • Affordability - The adopted ordinance does not include an assessment of the loss of affordable housing in the Housing Impact Statement nor does it require replacement of affordable units. • Purpose - The purpose statement of the Chapter is to mitigate the loss of affordable housing, but the policy does not analyze or mitigate demolition of affordable units. • Trigger - The ordinance is triggered by a demolition permit, a parking conditional use permit, or a zoning amendment from residential to commercial. The trigger does not address the loss of affordable housing. The Housing Impact Statement is required during the e ntitlement process which is challenging because a parcel may be rezoned and not see development or the fee for many years. • Formula - The formula takes the current fair market value of the building (excluding land value) from the Salt Lake County Assessor and subtracts the International Code Council (ICC) square foot replacement costs of the building. The structure of this formula typically yields a negative number and, therefore, the City is not receiving funding to mitigate the loss of residential units. • Process – Currently, an application is submitted to Building Services, then passed to the Planning Division, which creates the report, and is then reviewed and approved by the Director of Community and Neighborhoods. There is no clear ownership over the process as it touches multiple divisions at different stages in the project timeline. 2022 Legislative Requirements There are two new statutory requirements that are applicable to the establishment of a Housing Loss Mitigation f und and the City’s ability to require moderate-income housing units in a land use decision. Those bills are: • HB 462 Utah Housing Affordability Amendments - authorizes the City to establish a Housing Loss Mitigation fund to preserve existing, subsidized, and new moderate-income housing (lines 708-710). • HB 303 Local Land Use Amendments - states that a city may only require moderate income housing units as a condition of approval of a land use application if: o The developer and the city enter into a written agreement (does not specify development agreement); or o The city provides incentives that are agreed to by the developer (lines 828-838). Additionally, HB 303 prohibits a city from approving or denying a land use application based on a developer’s decision to incorporate moderate-income housing units in their development. HB 462 and HB 303 define moderate income housing as 80% AMI or below. These two policies are compatible with the adopted Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance as well as the proposed Affordable Housing Zoning Incentives, RMF-30, Shared Housing, Parking Reduction, and Accessory Dwelling Unit ordinances. Technical Discrepancies • Section 18.64.050 Residential Demolition Provisions does not align with 18.97 Mitigation of Residential Housing Loss. The City Attorney’s Office has done a legal analysis and drafted amendments to clean up technical discrepancies between 18.64.050 and 18.97. • The purpose statement to mitigate the loss of affordable housing in 18.97 does not align with the policy or the mitigation plan as there is no data collected on affordability of units nor is there a requirement to replace the demolished housing with affordable units. • Housing Loss Mitigation touches multiple chapters in the code rather than being contained within a demolition or development section. HLM could be contained within a development code, but this would require substantial amendments to various chapters within the Municipal Code. • If a payment is collected, ordinance 18.97 directs that payment to the Housing Trust Fund. The Housing Trust Fund is being moved from Community and Neighborhoods to the Redevelopment Agency (RDA) and is being changed to the Housing Development Loan Program. • 18.97.040 requires a report to the Housing Advisory and Appeals Board (HAAB) but does not give the HAAB authorizing power to deny the report, mitigation plan, or petition. • The current formula does not yield a positive number and needs to be amended to mitigate the loss of residential units. A fee justification study and an amendment to the consolidated fee schedule to include the HLM will be required. Policy Considerations • Is the policy objective to mitigate the loss of all housing or just affordable housing? If the objective is targeted at affordable housing, the ordinance will need to be amended so the policy is reflective of that objective. • Does the fee constitute an impact, linkage, or flat fee? A fee justification study will need to be conducted to amend the mitigation formula to yield a positive number. • When should the plan be required and the fee collected? Is it beneficial to have the plan during the entitlement process for upzoning legislative decisions? HLM is a demolition - focused ordinance, should this be the policy objective? • What are the policy objectives of the fee? Should the fee be paid to the Housing Development Loan Program, held in the RDA, or another funding source that can be used for the mitigation of displacement? • Should the amended ordinance require affordable units for an upzone? • What constitutes naturally occurring affordable housing? Currently the City does not track affordable housing units unless the units have been subsidized by city, county, state, or federal funds. Is it the intention of the City Council to start tracking affordable units through the entitlement process or business license rental application? • The current ordinance is focused on the loss of housing and does not contemplate the loss of local businesses for the development of housing. Is this a policy objective that should be considered in the amendment to the ordinance? Next Steps The Administration understands the frustration of the public to amend the Housing Loss Mitigation ordinance to preserve and develop affordable housing. The following actions are recommended: • The City Council, working in conjunction with the Administration, can assist in the development of the policy objectives of the new HLM ordinance. • The City Attorney’s Office has conducted a thorough review of the code and has drafted proposed amendments to clean up the technical issues. This does not address the policy considerations outlined above; rather, it cleans up technical inconsistencies. If preferred by the Council, the technical changes to HLM could be transmitted while the TIP study is being completed. The Administration recommends waiting to make any policy changes due to the robust engagement process happening within the TIP Plan. • The Zions Public Finance study that was conducted in Summer 2021 did not produce a specific enough outcome for the City to rely on. The Administration is going to go to bid in Spring 2022 for a consultant to conduct a fee justification study. This study will be running concurrently with TIP. • The TIP study that is currently underway is analyzing displacement metrics and will develop mitigation measures in addition to policy changes to the current HLM ordinance. These policies will need to be adopted by the City Council after they go through the engagement process. • Once the policy considerations are determined, the City Attorney’s Office will draft amendments to the relevant ordinances. Housing Loss Mitigation Legal Analysis of Common Questions • Can the City institute a rent control policy? o Utah Code Section 57-20-1 prohibits the City from enacting an ordinance or resolution that would control rents or fees on private residential property unless it has the express approval of the Legislature. Lease agreements are a contractual matter between private parties and the City does not have jurisdiction to halt an eviction. • Should the City issue a moratorium on development? o A temporary land use regulation, or “moratorium”, can be imposed by the City Council to prohibit a development activity if the Council finds a compelling, countervailing public interest to do so. This is a policy decision that the Council would have to make. However, the temporary regulation cannot exceed six months. The purpose of a temporary land use regulation is to halt (or, in some cases, allow) a development activity immediately for a temporary period while more permanent regulations are developed, presented to the public and the planning commission, and transmitted to the Council for action. Prohibiting development activity while waiting for a study to be produced could possibly be justified by the Council, but it seems unlikely that land use regulations could be ready for adoption within the six -month moratorium period, especially when the findings of the TIP study are not yet known. • Why is the City not requiring the development of affordable units in all new housing projects? o Utah Code Section 10-9a-535 as outlined in HB 303 states that a city may not require moderate income housing units in the approval of a project unless the developer agrees to the incentives. This provision does permit cities to adopt incentive-based policies for the inclusion of moderate-income housing in a new development, though this cannot be a requirement. • Does the current h ousing loss mitigation ordinance protect affordable housing? o The current housing loss mitigation ordinance (18.97.010) states that the “purpose of this chapter is to mitigate the loss of affordable housing stock due to new development with due consideration for vested or protected property rights.” The conditions upon which an applicant would need to comply with the HLM ordinance outlined in 18.97.020 and develop a mitigation plan are when a residential unit (does not state affordable unit) is demolished to expand vehicle parking in a residential zone or when a land use transitions from residential. This ordinance does not prohibit the demolition of affordable housing units but simply protects against the loss of a residential unit. Additionally, it does not prohibit a developer from increasing the number of units on a parcel, nor does it consider the affordability of the existing or new units. These are policy considerations for the amendments to the new ordinance. Housing Loss Mitigation Best Practices There are few analogous ordinances in other municipalities. Most ordinances and fees in other cities are Housing Mitigation Fees, meaning that they are applied to new developments that do not include a minimum percentage of affordable units. The most similar policy to Salt Lake City’s housing loss mitigation ordinance (18.97) is a demolition permit surcharge, which is a current pilot project in Chicago, Illinois. This surcharge, along with other fees from around the country, are outlined below. Chicago, IL Demolition Permit Surcharge • A temporary surcharge (March 29, 2021 - April 1, 2022) in a pilot area. o Applied in addition to other demolition fees, surcharges, and taxes imposed by City, State, or other political subdivisions. o Ordinance requires a written report no later than 150 days prior to expiration identifying:  The amount of revenue generated through the surcharge;  Its observed effect on development activity in the applicable pilot area; and  Any other information that the committee reviewing the surcharge’s impact may require. • A flat fee of $15,000 for the demolition of detached houses, townhouses, or two-flats. • A flat fee of $5,000 per dwelling unit for the demolition of multi-unit residential buildings. • Exemptions: o If replacement development designates 50% of units as affordable at 60% AMI or lower; or o Demolition is determined to be necessary to remedy conditions imminently dangerous to life, health, or property. • Funds from this surcharge are deposited into an Affordable Housing Opportunity Fund. Somerville, MA Project Mitigation Contribution or Linkage Fee Program for Affordable Housing • Requires that linkage fees be collected on any project that: o Requires zoning relief; and o Contains a single-use or combination of uses exceeding a square-foot threshold (30,000 sq ft) set by the Board of Alderman (City Council). • Project mitigation contributions are made to the Somerville Affordable Housing Trust Fund for the purpose of the creation of affordable rental and homeownership units. • The rate per square foot was $10.75 for FY 2021-2022. • The Project Mitigation Contribution is adjusted on March 1 of each year based on the change in the Consumer Price Index for All Urban Consumers over the previous calendar year. Berkeley, CA Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee • Similar to an inclusionary zoning policy. • The Affordable Housing Mitigation Fee per unit of market-rate rental housing is $39,746. o The fee is offset if affordable units are included in the project and is waived if at least 20% of units in a project are affordable.  50% of affordable units must be affordable at 30% AMI with the remaining affordable units affordable at 50% AMI. Avon, CO Employee Housing Mitigation Linkage Fee • The purpose is to create housing for workers generated by new development. • Applies to new multi-family residential (3+ units), commercial, accommodation units, industrial, and other non-residential development within the Town. • A formula is used to calculate the fee. The fee is based on the number of workers required per square foot of new space. Aspen, CO Affordable Housing Impact Fee • A 2012 study suggested calculating the fee for their program by taking the difference between the market price of housing and the price that is affordable to households at targeted income. Seattle, WA Affordable Housing Incentive Program (Chapter 23.58C) • Ordinance applies to development in Seattle that requests extra floor area and includes dwelling units in the following cases: o new construction; o addition to existing structure that increases number of units; o alterations within an existing structure that increases total number of units; and o change of use that increases the total number of units. • In return for extra floor area, ordinance provides a performance option (directly supplying affordable housing units as allowed by code) or a payment option. Performance option must satisfy median income requirements listed in the ordinance. • Payment option includes a fee per square foot (SF) of new construction (units). Fee amount varies by zoning code of the construction. Fee amounts are listed in tables in the ordinance and range from $5.50/SF to $20.75/SF in the downtown zones and from $7.00/SF to $32.75/SF in certain zones outside of downtown. • Payments are deposited into an account managed by the Seattle Director of Housing to support the development of affordable housing. PUBLIC PROCESS: Briefing EXHIBITS: Exhibit 1 – Zions Public Finance Study One South Main Street, 18th Floor, Salt Lake City UT 84133-1904 Telephone: 801.844.7373 Fax: 801.844.4484 23 September 2021 Angela Price Policy and Project Manager Department of Community and Neighborhoods Salt Lake City Corporation Re: Housing Loss Mitigation Analysis Zions Public Finance (ZPFI) examined a sample of 207 properties in and around Salt Lake City and compared the market value determined by the Salt Lake County Assessor to asking prices as currently listed on various real estate services. Results indicate that list prices on for-sale properties are significantly higher than assessed values on the Assessor’s tax rolls. The computed difference seems higher than most would expect. Traditionally, assessors tend to value homes at somewhere between 90 and 110 percent of market value and prefer the lower end of this range. In the graph below, that would be in the first column representing only a small percentage of homes, where the listed value is 11 percent higher than market value. However, market values overall are currently a lot higher than expected. 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 Nu m b e r o f H o m e s Amount Above Assessed Market Value Homes Above Assessed Market Value 2 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | September 2021 Housing Loss Mitigation Analysis | Salt Lake City, Utah Recent migration to Salt Lake County, among other factors, has contr ibuted to a substantial housing shortage, prompting many owners to try to sell for significantly more than prices seen a few years ago. Due to the lack of housing inventory, buyers were more willing to buy at high prices. Additionally, many of the listed homes that ZPFI studied had been on the market for some time. This is evidence that the sellers priced their homes much higher than what the actual market value would be. The assessor’s database is based off the 2020 tax year, where officials likely calculated market value during the year 2019. In 2020, realtors at slrealtors.com report that home prices increased by 11.8 percent. In 2021, Deseret News reported an increase of 17 percent. Together, this represents a potential increase of 30.8 percent since the 2020 tax roll was calculated. As a comparison, if the tax rolls were thirty percent higher, many of the houses sampled fall in the range expected. ZPFI has calculated that the average house on the market is listed $268,701 higher than its assessed value. This translates to a 70.8 percent markup on assessed values. The increase in selling price varies by house price – for homes listed at less than $250,000, listings are at a 58 percent premium. For houses above $1 million, the premium increases to 103 percent above assessed value. Between $250,000 and $1 million, there is a gradual increase from 58 to 103 percent. The following three graphs show the distribution of homes listed at between $250,000 and $500,000, between $500,000 and $1,000,000, and those homes listed above $1 million. 0 5 10 15 20 25 Nu m b e r o f H o m e s Amount Above Assessed Market Value Homes Above Assessed Market Value Listed Between $250,000 and $500,000 3 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | September 2021 Housing Loss Mitigation Analysis | Salt Lake City, Utah 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 Nu m b e r o f H o m e s Amount Above Assessed Market Value Homes Above Assessed Market Value Listed Between $500,000 and $1,000,000 0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 Nu m b e r o f H o m e s Amount Above Assessed Market Value Homes Above Assessed Market Value Listed Above $1,000,000 4 Zions Public Finance, Inc. | September 2021 Housing Loss Mitigation Analysis | Salt Lake City, Utah Other noteworthy findings include that the difference is much smaller for condos, which are on average 47 percent more expensive compared to the 75 percent increase in price for non-condos (including townhomes and single-family homes). Additionally, larger homes are priced 74 percent higher than the assessor’s database while smaller homes (less than 1500 square feet) are priced 63 per cent higher. Despite the difference, larger homes are listed at $120 higher per square foot compared to the database while the increase is $140 for smaller homes. Item E2 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members DATE:January 3, 2023 RE: Ordinance amendment: Quorum definition for electronic meetings MOTION 1 I move the Council suspend the rules and adopt an ordinance amending the City Code pertaining to meetings of the Salt Lake City Council. MEMORANDUM TO CITY COUNCIL _____________________________ Date Received: Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder Date Sent to Council: ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: December 27, 2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder STAFF CONTACT: Thais Stewart, Deputy City Recorder SUBJECT: Electronic Meeting: Quorum Definition DOCUMENT TYPE: Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: Adopt legislation relating to a quorum definition for electronic meetings. BUDGET IMPACT: None BACKGROUND: In the 2022 State Legislative Session a House Bill was introduced and adopted requiring all public bodies to establish how a quorum is calculated for electronic meetings (H.B. 22 Open and Public Meetings Act Modifications, Sponsor: Douglas R. Welton). UCA 52-4-207(2)(b) requires all public bodies to adopt a rule or legislation establishing how a quorum is calculated during electronic meetings, otherwise, the public bodies are not allowed to hold electronic meetings. The proposed ordinance modifies City Code Chapter 2.06 to include an electronic quorum definition. Dec 27, 2022 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE 1 No. _____ of 2022 2 3 (Ordinance amending Section 2.06.030 of the Salt Lake City Code 4 pertaining to meetings of the Salt Lake City Council) 5 6 WHEREAS, Chapter 2.06 of the Salt Lake City Code (City Council) describes the role and 7 operations of the Salt Lake City Council, including requirements for meetings of the City Council; 8 and9 WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.06.030 (Meetings of Council), the City Council may hold 10 an electronic meeting in accordance with the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act (“OPMA”); and 11 WHEREAS, in accordance with OPMA, the City Council desires to adopt an amendment to 12 Section 2.06.030 (Meetings of Council) to define how a quorum is to be calculated during an electronic 13 meeting when a City Council member or members is/are remote. 14 NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 15 SECTION 1. Amending Section 2.06.030. Section 2.06.030 of the Salt Lake City Code 16 shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 17 2.06.030: MEETINGS OF COUNCIL: 18 A. Regular Meetings: The Council is a part time legislative body, but shall meet not less than 19 twice monthly. 20 B. Special Meetings: Special meetings may be called by order of the Chairperson of the Council, 21 by a majority of the Council members or by the Mayor. The order signed by the party calling the 22 meeting shall be filed with the City Recorder and entered in the minutes of the Council. Notice of 23 such special meeting shall be given to the Mayor and all Council members who have not joined in 24 the order, not less than forty-eight (48) hours before the special meeting. The notice shall be served 25 personally or a copy thereof left at the Council member's or Mayor's place of abode, either by 26 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT leaving it with a person of suitable age and discretion or taping a copy thereof to the front door by 27 the City Recorder or his/her designee. 28 C. Emergency Meetings: Emergency meetings of the Council may be called by order of the 29 Mayor or by a majority vote of the Council, to consider unforeseen matters of an emergency or 30 urgent nature. Such meetings may be held without any specific advance notice, but shall be had at 31 a time so as to give the Mayor and all Council members the most opportunity to be present, 32 considering the exigencies requiring the emergency meeting. However, notice of such meeting 33 shall be attempted by the best means practical under the circumstances to the Mayor and each 34 Council member, not joining in the order. 35 D. Open Meetings: All official meetings of the Council shall be open to the public as required 36 by the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act or its successor; provided, however, that executive 37 sessions may be closed by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the Council members present at an 38 open meeting, for discussions of appropriate matters as provided in the Utah Open and Public 39 Meetings Act or its successor. No final decisions shall be made in closed meetings. 40 E. Electronic Meetings: The Council may hold an electronic meeting in accordance with the 41 Open and Public Meetings Act. 42 F. Electronic Quorum: For purposes of determining when a quorum is present during an 43 electronic meeting held in accordance with this Section, a Council member attending the meeting 44 remotely is considered present when they are otherwise connected to the meeting via electronic 45 means and makes their presence known. 46 SECTION 2. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall become effective on the date of its first 47 publication. 48 49 LEGISLATIVE DRAFT Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this __ day of ____________, 2022. 50 51 ATTEST: 52 53 ______________________________ ___________________________________ 54 CITY RECORDER CHAIRPERSON 55 56 57 Transmitted to Mayor on . 58 Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. 59 60 61 62 MAYOR 63 64 ___________________________ 65 CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM 66 (SEAL) Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office 67 68 Date: 69 Bill No. ________ of 2022 70 Published: ______________. _______________________________ 71 Sara Montoya, Senior City Attorney 72 73 74 75 SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. _____ of 2022 (Ordinance amending Section 2.06.030 of the Salt Lake City Code pertaining to meetings of the Salt Lake City Council) WHEREAS, Chapter 2.06 of the Salt Lake City Code (City Council) describes the role and operations of the Salt Lake City Council, including requirements for meetings of the City Council; and WHEREAS, pursuant to Section 2.06.030 (Meetings of Council), the City Council may hold an electronic meeting in accordance with the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act (“OPMA”); and WHEREAS, in accordance with OPMA, the City Council desires to adopt an amendment to Section 2.06.030 (Meetings of Council) to define how a quorum is to be calculated during an electronic meeting when a City Council member or members is/are remote. NOW, THEREFORE, be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Amending Section 2.06.030. Section 2.06.030 of the Salt Lake City Code shall be, and hereby is, amended to read as follows: 2.06.030: MEETINGS OF COUNCIL: A. Regular Meetings: The Council is a part time legislative body, but shall meet not less than twice monthly. B. Special Meetings: Special meetings may be called by order of the Chairperson of the Council, by a majority of the Council members or by the Mayor. The order signed by the party calling the meeting shall be filed with the City Recorder and entered in the minutes of the Council. Notice of such special meeting shall be given to the Mayor and all Council members who have not joined in the order, not less than forty eight (48) hours before the special meeting. The notice shall be served personally or a copy thereof left at the Council member's or Mayor's place of abode, either by leaving it with a person of suitable age and discretion or taping a copy thereof to the front door by the City Recorder or his/her designee. C. Emergency Meetings: Emergency meetings of the Council may be called by order of the Mayor or by a majority vote of the Council, to consider unforeseen matters of an emergency or urgent nature. Such meetings may be held without any specific advance notice, but shall be had at a time so as to give the Mayor and all Council members the most opportunity to be present, considering the exigencies requiring the emergency meeting. However, notice of such meeting shall be attempted by the best means practical under the circumstances to the Mayor and each Council member, not joining in the order. D. Open Meetings: All official meetings of the Council shall be open to the public as required by the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act or its successor; provided, however, that executive sessions may be closed by a two-thirds (2/3) majority vote of the Council members present at an open meeting, for discussions of appropriate matters as provided in the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act or its successor. No final decisions shall be made in closed meetings. E. Electronic Meetings: The Council may hold an electronic meeting in accordance with the Open and Public Meetings Act. F. Electronic Quorum: For purposes of determining when a quorum is present during an electronic meeting held in accordance with this Section, a Council member attending the meeting remotely is considered present when they are otherwise connected to the meeting via electronic means and makes their presence known. 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. ATTEST: ______________________________ ___________________________________ CITY RECORDER CHAIRPERSON Transmitted to Mayor on . Mayor’s Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. MAYOR ___________________________ CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM (SEAL) Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: Bill No. ________ of 2022 Published: ______________. _______________________________ Sara Montoya, Senior City Attorney Dec 27, 2022 Memo to Council - Electronic Quorum Final Audit Report 2022-12-27 Created:2022-12-27 By:Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAgx_PJOUQSNUen-FJP55W4HDU22PfOS0B "Memo to Council - Electronic Quorum" History Document created by Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) 2022-12-27 - 10:42:00 PM GMT Document emailed to Sara Montoya (sara.montoya@slcgov.com) for signature 2022-12-27 - 10:44:00 PM GMT Email viewed by Sara Montoya (sara.montoya@slcgov.com) 2022-12-27 - 11:03:04 PM GMT Document e-signed by Sara Montoya (sara.montoya@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2022-12-27 - 11:03:39 PM GMT - Time Source: server Document emailed to Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) for signature 2022-12-27 - 11:03:40 PM GMT Document e-signed by Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2022-12-27 - 11:07:12 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2022-12-27 - 11:07:12 PM GMT ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 10/31/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 10/31/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 10/31/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Planning Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Anaya Gayle as a member of Planning Commission . ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 October 31, 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 Planning Commission. Anaya Gayle to be appointed for a four year term, ending four years from starting from the date of City Council advice and consent. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 11/17/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 11/17/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 11/17/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Transportation Advisory Board STAFF CONTACT: DOCUMENT TYPE: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com Board Appointment Recommendation: Transportation Advisory Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint John Close as a member of the Transportation Advisory Board. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 November 17, 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 Transportation Advisory Board. John Close to be appointed for a three year term, ending on September 29, 2025. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 11/28/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 11/28/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 11/28/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Diya Oommen as a member of the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 November 28, 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 Racial Equity in Policing Commission. Diya Oommen to be appointed for a two year term, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Monday, December 30, 2024. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 11/28/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 11/28/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 11/28/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Ulvia Guadarrama as a member of the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. . ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 November 28, 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 Racial Equity in Policing Commission. Uliva Guadarrama to be appointed for a two year term, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Monday, December 30, 2024. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 11/28/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 11/28/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 11/28/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Julia Summerfield as a member of the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. . ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 November 28, 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 Racial Equity in Policing Commission. Julia Summerfield to be appointed for a two year term, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Monday, December 30, 2024. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 11/28/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 11/28/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 11/28/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Olivia Joylani Kavapalu as a member of the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. . ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 November 28, 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 Racial Equity in Policing Commission. Olivia Joylani Kavapalu to be appointed for a two year term, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Monday, December 30, 2024. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 11/28/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 11/28/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 11/28/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Steven Calbert as a member of the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. . ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 November 28, 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 Racial Equity in Policing Commission. Steven Calbert to be appointed for a two year term, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Monday, December 30, 2024. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 11/28/2022 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 11/28/2022 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 11/28/2022 Dan Dugan, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Racial Equity in Policing Commission RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Katherine Durante as a member of the Racial Equity in Policing Commission. . ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 November 28, 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 Racial Equity in Policing Commission. Katherine Durante to be appointed for a two year term, starting from the date of City Council advice and consent and ending on Monday, December 30, 2024. I respectfully ask your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor Cc: File City Council Announcements January 3, 2023 Information Needed by Council Staff A. Financial Disclosure (attached) During January of each year, Council Members are given an annual reminder to submit financial disclosure form statement if the Council Member’s position in his/her business entity has changed or if the value of such Council Member’s interest in the entity has materially increased since the last disclosure (SLC Code 2.44.050)  Please let staff know if you need the documents to update your disclosure forms. Return any forms to staff. B. Council District Newsletters for Public Utilities Mailing At the beginning of each calendar year, the Public Utilities Department identifies certain months for Council Members to include Council District newsletters as an insert in residents’ monthly utility bills. Each Council Member may opt to use the Public Utility billing for outreach purposes once per calendar year. The advantage of sharing in the Public Utilities mailings is Council Members only pay for printing expenses out of their communication budget, saving on costs associated with postage. Due to limitations with mail sorting machines, only three Council District newsletters can be accommodated each month.  The following months have been identified for the Council to include a newsletter insert. Please let staff know which month you would like to include a newsletter as part of the Public Utilities billing: o April o August o December SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION DISCLOSURE STATEMENT OF NON-CITY EMPLOYMENT/BUSINESS INTERESTS Salt Lake City Code Sections 2.44.050 and 2.44.060 require you to disclose outside employment and outside business interests, and prohibit you from holding outside employment that is incompatible with your City duties. For more information, please refer to those sections on the City’s Internet site: www.slc.gov. This statement must be filed by all employees, elected officials, and volunteer members of regular or special committees, boards, authorities, agencies and commissions of the City. After you file, if your position in a business entity changes, or the value of your interest in a business entity materially increases, you must file a new disclosure statement in January of the next year. For purposes of the questions below, a “business entity” is a sole proprietorship (such as a consulting business or ownership of real estate held for rental or other business purposes), partnership, association, joint venture, corporation, limited liability company, firm, trust, foundation, or other organization or entity used in carrying on a business. You may answer “No” to any question below if the value of your interest is $2,000 or less. I, _________________________________, certify that I hold the position of_________________________________ with Salt Lake City Corporation, in the Department of _____________________________________, and that the following information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge: 1. Are you currently employed by any business entity other than Salt Lake City Corporation? Yes No 2. Are you currently an officer, director, agent, owner or employer of any business entity? Yes No 3. Do you, your spouse, or your minor children, in combination, own at least ten percent (10%) of the outstanding shares of stock in any corporation? Yes No 4. Do you, your spouse, or your minor children, in combination, have a ten percent (10%) or greater ownership interest in any limited partnership or other business entity? Yes No 5. If you answered “Yes” to question 1, 2, 3, or 4, is the business entity required to have a regulatory license issued by Salt Lake City Corporation? Yes No 6. Do you, your spouse, or your minor children have any sole proprietorships, such as a consulting business or ownership of real estate held for rental or any other business purpose? Yes No 7. If you answered “Yes” to any of the above questions, please provide the following information for each business interest: (a) The name of the business entity: (b) The address of the business entity: (c) The principal activity engaged in by the business entity: (d) The nature of your position or the interest held in the business entity: (e) Is the value of the interest in the business entity $15,000 or more? Yes No Attach additional sheets if necessary I swear and attest under penalty of perjury that the information provided by me in this disclosure statement is true and correct, and that all of my outside employment and outside business interests have been disclosed in writing on this statement. DATED this ______ day of ______________________, _______ _________ Signature _____________________________ This is a financial disclosure statement only. Additional disclosures or restrictions may apply if your financial, business or professional activities conflict with your City responsibilities. Reviewed by: Print Name: ________________________________________________ Signature: ________________________________________________ Date: ____________ SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING I, ____________ , acted as the presiding member of the _______________________________in which met on _________ Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202. A quorum of the Council was present at the meeting and voted by at least a two-thirds vote, as detailed in the minutes of the open meeting, to close a portion of the meeting to discuss the following: §52-4-205(l)(a) discussion of the character, professional competence, or physical or mental health of an individual; §52 -4-205(1 )(b) strategy sessions to discuss collective bargaining; §52-4-205(l )(c) strategy sessions to discuss pending or reasonably imminent litigation; §52-4-205( l )(d) strategy sessions to discuss the purchase, exchange, or lease of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares, if public discussion of the transaction would: (i) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (ii) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; §52-4-205(l )(e) strategy sessions to discuss the sale of real property, including any form of a water right or water shares if: (i) public discussion of the transaction would: ((A) disclose the appraisal or estimated value of the property under consideration; or (B) prevent the public body from completing the transaction on the best possible terms; (ii) if the public body previously gave public notice that the property would be offered for sale; and (iii) the terms of the sale are publicly disclosed before the public body approves the sale; §52-4-205(1)(f) discussion regarding deployment of security personnel, devices, or systems; and §52-4-205(1)(g) investigative proceedings regarding allegations of criminal misconduct. A Closed Meeting may also be held for Attorney-Client matters that are privileged pursuant to Utah Code §78B-1-137, and for other lawful purposes that satisfy the pertinent requirements of the Utah Open and Public Meetings Act. Other, described as follows: ____________________________________________________________ The content of the closed portion of the Council meeting was restricted to a discussion of the matter(s) for which the meeting was closed. With regard to the closed meeting, the following was publicly announced and recorded, and entered on the minutes of the open meeting at which the closed meeting was approved: (a)the reason or reasons for holding the closed meeting; (b)the location where the closed meeting will be held; and (c)the vote of each member of the public body either for or against the motion to hold the closed meeting. The recording and any minutes of the closed meeting will include: (a)the date, time, and place of the meeting; (b)the names of members Present and Absent; and (c)the names of all others present except where such disclosure would infringe on the confidentiality necessary to fulfill the original purpose of closing the meeting. Pursuant to §52-4-206(6),a sworn statement is required to close a meeting under §52-4-205(1)(a) or (f), but a record by tape recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by tape recording and/or detailed written minutes is required for a meeting closed under §52-4-205(1)(b),(c),(d),(e),and (g): A record was not made. A record was made by: : Tape recording Detailed written minutes I hereby swear or affin11 under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Presiding Member Date of Signature Salt Lake City CouncilDaniel Dugan January 3, 2023 4 4 44 Daniel Dugan (Jan 3, 2023 21:02 MST)01/03/2023 Closed Session - Sworn Statement Final Audit Report 2023-01-04 Created:2023-01-04 By:Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAduAld-O4Qfocbhw07swkPlQPKWEO3J3Q "Closed Session - Sworn Statement" History Document created by Michelle Barney (michelle.barney@slcgov.com) 2023-01-04 - 1:01:24 AM GMT Document emailed to Daniel Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-01-04 - 1:03:22 AM GMT Email viewed by Daniel Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com) 2023-01-04 - 4:02:10 AM GMT Document e-signed by Daniel Dugan (daniel.dugan@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-01-04 - 4:02:18 AM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2023-01-04 - 4:02:18 AM GMT