Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
05/02/2023 - Work Session - Meeting Materials
SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL AGENDA WORK SESSION May 2, 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. The Website addresses listed on the agenda may not be available after the Council votes on the item. Not all agenda items will have a webpage for additional information read associated agenda paperwork. Generated: 09:05:40 Note: Dates not identified in the project timeline are either not applicable or not yet determined. Item start times and durations are approximate and are subject to change. Work Session Items 1.Informational: Updates from the Administration ~ 2:00 p.m. 15 min. The Council will receive information from the Administration on major items or projects in progress. Topics may relate to major events or emergencies (if needed), services and resources related to people experiencing homelessness, active public engagement efforts, and projects or staffing updates from City Departments, or other items as appropriate. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Recurring Briefing Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 2.Informational: Equity Update ~ 2:15 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 3.Informational: Planning Director’s Local Historic District Reports ~ 2:35 p.m. 20 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the Local Historic District Designation reports. The proposed boundaries are the Princeton Heights Local Historic District at approximately 1323 Princeton Avenue to 1500 East along Princeton Avenue. As well as the Yalecrest – Laird Heights Local Historic District from approximately 1300 East to 1500 East, including both the northern and southern sides of Laird Avenue. The Planning Division is requesting acceptance of the report by the City Council in order to continue the designation process. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 4.Ordinance: Budget Amendment No.6 for Fiscal Year 2022- 23 ~ 2:55 p.m. 45 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-23. Budget amendments happen several times each year to reflect adjustments to the City’s budgets, including proposed project additions and modifications. The proposed amendment includes funding for adapting the Seven Canyons Fountain at Liberty Park into a dry art piece, a roof replacement for the Steiner Aquatics Center, and several proposals to use American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) funding for revenue replacement and a $10 million contribution to the Perpetual Housing Fund of Utah among other items. For more information on this item visit https://tinyurl.com/SLCFY23 FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - Tuesday, April 18, 2023 Hold hearing to accept public comment - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 at 7 p.m. TENTATIVE Council Action - TBD 5.Informational: Proposal for Investing in the Perpetual Housing Fund of Utah ~ 3:40 p.m. 40 min. The Council will receive a briefing about the Administration’s proposal to use $10 million from the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars to invest with the Perpetual Housing Fund of Utah to facilitate the development of affordable rental housing units in Salt Lake City under an equity sharing model. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 6.Tentative Break ~ 4:20 p.m. 20 min. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - n/a Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 7.Informational: Review of Department of Public Lands Report Adequately Maintaining SLC's Public Lands ~ 4:40 p.m. 30 min. The Council will be briefed on a report that the Department of Public Lands produced in response to a Fiscal Year 2022 Legislative Intent. It estimates future maintenance funding needs based on a complex framework that includes full staffing, replacement of failing infrastructure, and unfunded responsibilities, including tasks like weed abatement and tree maintenance. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 8.Informational: Police Department Crime Reduction Strategies ~ 5:10 p.m. 30 min. The Council will receive a briefing from the University of Texas at San Antonio professors working with the Salt Lake City Police Department on crime reduction strategies. The Police Department’s 2022 Crime Control Plan was informed by the group’s research, particularly to address violent crime. One of the evidence-based strategies is hot spot policing which increases police visibility in the short-term in areas where violent crime is concentrated. Another strategy is problem oriented placed based policing over the medium term to address underlying conditions contributing to crime-prone areas, such as civil enforcement, nuisance abatement, and environmental design changes. Data is tracked to compare before and after interventions to help evaluate the effectiveness of strategies. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - n/a 9.Ordinance: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund – Trackland, LLC ~ 5:40 p.m. 10 min. The Council will receive a briefing about an ordinance that would approve a $350,000 loan for Trackland, LLC., at 2117 East Wilson Avenue from the Economic Development Loan Fund (EDLF). Trackland, LLC is a Sugar House based software as a service (SaaS) company that is an add on to Salesforce that improves its function. This loan will assist in the creation of 20 new jobs in the next year and retention of 8 current jobs. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 16, 2023 10.Resolution: Local Emergency Declaration Extension – Flooding ~ 5:50 p.m. 10 min. The Council will be briefed about a proposed resolution that would extend the Mayor’s April 12, 2023 proclamation declaring a local emergency relating to flooding from spring runoff. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 11.Resolution: Interlocal Agreement and Memorandum for 2023 Election Services Written Briefing - The Council will receive a written briefing about a resolution for an election services interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County. It defines the services the County will provide the City for the 2023 General Election, through the Ranked Choice Voting method, on November 7, 2023. The City will be responsible for any additional charges exceeding the estimated cost such as a recount which would be invoiced to the City after the election. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 12.Informational: Naming the Salt Lake International Airport Greeting Room the Senator Garn Greeting Room Written Briefing - The Council will receive a written briefing about the proposal from Mayor Mendenhall in naming the Salt Lake International Airport Greeting Room the “Senator Garn Greeting Room” after former Salt Lake City Mayor and Utah Senator Jake Garn. Senator Jake Garn was elected Salt Lake City Commissioner in 1967 and Mayor in 1971. He went on the serve three terms as a United States Senator from 1974-1992. FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 13.Board Appointment Interviews for the Sister Cities Board ~ 6:00 p.m. 10 min The Council will interview the following candidates prior to considering their appointment to the Sister Cities Board: •John Wilson •Matilyn Mortensen •Ross Chambless •Annie Quan FYI – Project Timeline: (subject to change per Chair direction or Council discussion) Briefing - Tuesday, May 2, 2023 Set Public Hearing Date - n/a Hold hearing to accept public comment - n/a TENTATIVE Council Action - Tuesday, May 2, 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; •Inland Port Travel; •Agenda Packet Days; 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 2:00 p.m. on Friday, April 28, 2023, 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 May 2, 2023 www.slc.gov/feedback/ Regularly updated with highlighted ways to engage with the City. Community Engagement Highlights Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canLove Your Block slc.gov/mayor/love-your -block/ Planning slc.gov/planning •One more week to apply for a mini-grant •Projects underway •Upcoming site visit from Cities of Service and the Bloomberg Center for Public Innovation SLC Corps slc.gov/mayor/slc-corps/ •Emergency Sandbagging •Earth Day River Cleanup Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canCity Wide Plans slc.gov/council Planning slc.gov/planning •City Wide Transportation Plan •Draft circulating internally •Housing SLC •Adoption Recommended by PC 4/26 www.slc.gov/feedback/ Sustainability slc.gov/sustainability •The Other Side Village (Environmental) (D2) •Remedial plan submitted to Division of Environmental Quality Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com Planning slc.gov/planning www.slc.gov/feedback/ Planning slc.gov/planning •Affordable Housing Incentives •Adoption recommended by PC 4/26 •Sugar House Drive Through Text Amendments (D7) •Adoption recommended by PC 4/26 •Reorganization of Local Historic District Chapter •HLC May 4th •Ballpark Station Area Zoning Map Amendments (D5) •45-day engagement started •Adaptive Reuse Ordinance •Preliminary engagement started Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBallpark NEXT / RDA Ballparknext.com Planning slc.gov/planning www.slc.gov/feedback/ Transportation slc.gov/transportation •400 South, 600 North, and 100 North Bus stop improvements (D1/2) •2100 South Reconstruction (D7) •Final design coming middle of May – 2100SSLC.org •Capitol Hill Calming (D3) •Construction package out to Bid for first phase •West Temple Reconstruction (D3/4) •Public Engagement wrapped up – construction 2024 •Kensington Neighborhood Byway (D 5/6) •Concept plans coming soon! •1000 West Intersection Improvements and Traffic Calming(D1/2) •600 / 700 North Reconstruction (D1) •Refining vision and community engagement •Livable Streets •Early engagement started Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canMayor’s Office slc.gov/mayor May Community Office Hours Location Date Time Publik Coffee Roasters May 9 9am - 11am Taufer Park May 13 10am-12pm Fairmont Park (near skate park)May 15 2:30pm-4:30pm Café on 1st May 19 9am-11am Jolley's May 22 3pm-5pm Glendale Library May 24 4:30pm-6:30pm www.slc.gov/feedback/ HRC / Winter Overflow Utilization April 10- 14: HRC's: 96.7% Overall: 89.1% Last winter overflow beds closed Monday Rapid Intervention/ EIM EIM- Folsom Trail area & Warm Springs Park area 30 HEART-tracked camps RIT locations: •VOA Outreach Engagement: 8 •RIT Site Rehabilitations: 12 (+18) Resource Fair:May 12th 9:30 - 12:30 @ Library Square Taufer Park Block Party- Friday May 13th HEART + Central City CC Next Kayak Court: May 19th- will be modified due to elevated river Homelessness Update for more information contact: Salt Lake Valley Coalition to End Homelessness (SLVCEH) endutahhomelessness.org/ salt-lake-valley Utah Office of Homeless Services (OHS) jobs.utah.gov/homelessness/ index.html Point at Fairpark •Address: 130 N 2100 W •HHGP Award: $2,000,000 •Number of Units: 94 •Timeline: Phased occupancy beginning in May 2023 Ville 1659 •Address: 1659 W North Temple •HHGP Award: $2,000,000 •Number of Units: 197 •Timeline: Phased occupancy beginning in June 2023 Medically Vulnerable Project (MVP) •Address: Outside of Municipal Boundaries •HHGP Award: $2,000,000 •Number of Units: 98 •Timeline: Occupancy to begin August 2023 Homeless Housing Grant Update Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canPolice Civilian Review Board The Police Civilian Review Board is a volunteer board that provides independent civilian oversight on excessive use of force and other complaints regarding the Salt Lake City Police Department. Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canPolice Civilian Review Board Duties The board accepts all cases involving police use of force whether the victim files a complaint or not. The board automatically accepts allegations of discrimination, profiling, harassment, abuse of power, or any conduct that is egregious in nature. Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canPCRB composition •21 member board – expanded from 14 in 2020 •Each council district has three positions •Terms are three years, but under City Code 2.07.050(C)a board member whose term has expired may continue to serve until a replacement board member is appointed. Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canBoard member requirements •Nomination by the Mayor and final appointment by the City Council •Extensive background check to ensure that members may have access to Bureau of Criminal Investigations and other sensitive information •Ride-alongs with an officer of the SLCPD in each of the city’s three precincts •Training by SLCPD Internal Affairs •Attendance at the Citizen’s Academy •Meetings with community groups Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canPlanned improvements •Background checks that are more commensurate with the board's work, which will streamline the onboarding process and reduce intimidation. •Allow onboarding requirements to be completed concurrently or after the board member is seated on the board. •Improve public access to PCRB reports by updating the PCRB website as soon as a report is ready to be publicly released. •Updates to the PCRB website that reflect the onboarding process timeline, and both board member and applicant status with the board. Community & Neighborhoods slc.gov/canApply for the board www.slc.gov/boards WELCOMING INTERACTIVE 2023 •SAN JOSE CALIFORNIA, WELCOMING AMERICA •600+ ATTENDEES •IMMIGRANT INCLUSION •WELCOMING POLICIES, AND PARTNERSHIPS •GOVERNMENT LEADERSHIP, CIVIC ENGAGEMENT •“LANGUAGE ACCESS IS A RIGHT, WE HAVE RESPONSIBILITIES” •BUDGETS, SCREENINGS, ASSESSMENTS •SLC –ALREADY MEMBER OF WELCOMING AMERICA NETWORK WELCOMING CERTIFIED -SLC •FORMAL DESIGNATION FOR CITIES AND COUNTIES THAT HAVE CREATED POLICIES AND PROGRAMS REFLECTING THEIR VALUES AND COMMITMENT TO IMMIGRANT INCLUSION •A ROADMAP FOR LOCAL GOVERNMENT •WELCOMING STANDARD •MUST BE A LOCAL GOVERNMENT •CERTIFIED WELCOMING DESIGNATION; COMMUNITIES DISTINGUISH THEIR LOCAL EFFORTS, BUILD A COMPETITIVE ADVANTAGE, AND GAIN ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITIES TO SHARE THEIR WELCOMING PRACTICES ON A REGIONAL, NATIONAL, AND GLOBAL STAGE. 3 •GOVERNMENT AND COMMUNITY LEADERSHIP •EQUITABLE ACCESS •CIVIC ENGAGEMENT •CONNECTED COMMUNITIES •EDUCATION •ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT •SAFE COMMUNITIES AREAS OF ASSESSMENT NEXT STEPS SELF-ASSESSMENT APPLICATION AUDIT REPORT CERTIFICATION •6-12 MONTH PROCESS (DATA COLLECTION) •IDENTIFY PARTNERS AND STAKEHOLDERS •VALID FOR 4 YEARS •WORK WITH SALT LAKE COUNTY (CERTIFIED) 4 THANK YOU CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 SLCCOUNCIL.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:May 2, 2023 RE: Planning Director’s Report to the City Council on the Proposed Laird Heights, and Princeton Heights Local Historic Districts in the Yalecrest Neighborhood PLNHLC2023-00074 and PLNHLC2023-00044 The Council will be briefed about the initiation of proposed Laird Heights and Princeton Heights Local Historic Districts (LHDs) in the Yalecrest neighborhood, the Planning Director’s reports, and the LHD creation process. Boundaries of the proposed LHDs are: •Laird Heights Local Historic District - 1300 East to 1500 East including both sides of Laird Avenue, Laird Circle and Uintah Circle •Princeton Heights Local Historic District - ~1323 East to 1500 East including both sides of Princeton Avenue There are several steps to LHD creation as outlined below and in a graphic at the end of this report. The Planning Director’s report is the City Council’s first review of proposed LHDs. A second City Council briefing followed by a public hearing, and vote are the final steps to creating an LHD. LHD Creation Process •Pre-application meeting. •Initial letter mailed to all property owners within proposed district. •Application submittal. •Notice of application letter mailed. •Planning Director’s report to the City Council (current stage) Item Schedule: Briefing: May 2, 2023 Set Date: N/A Public Hearing: N/A Potential Action: N/A Page | 2 •Property owner meeting seeking input from and informing owners about the process and requirements. •Open house seeking input from and informing immediate neighborhood and general public about the proposal. •Historic Landmark Commission public hearing, review, and recommendation. •Planning Commission public hearing, review, and recommendation. •Property owner ballot to determine support of LHD creation. •City Council review, public hearing, and decision. Map of proposed Princeton Heights and Laird Heights Local Historic Districts and existing Harvard Heights Local Historic District Courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division A minimum of 33% of property owners are required to sign a petition in support of applying for local historic district designation. This threshold was exceeded for both proposed LHDs, with 66% of Laird Heights owners, and 60% of Princeton Heights owners signing the petition. If the process continues, following Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission public hearings and recommendations to the Council, ballots will be sent to all property owners in the proposed LHDs to gauge the level of support for the proposals at that point. This is one of the last steps prior to the City Council review, public hearing, and vote. Page | 3 The Planning Director’s reports found the proposed LHDs are generally consistent with criteria for designation, are in the public interest, and consistent with other plans and adopted planning documents. A more in-depth review will occur if the City Council accepts the reports, and the process continues. Goal of the briefing: Review the Planning Director’s Reports and determine if the Council would like the Laird Heights and Princeton Heights local historic district designation process to continue. POLICY QUESTIONS 1. The Council may wish to ask for more information about whether establishing a Historic District will conflict with other Citywide policies, such as the recently passed Accessory Dwelling Unit (ADU) ordinance, or the upcoming multi-family residential overlay. If the Historic Districts create some obstacle to increasing density throughout the City, does the Council want to discuss whether density is appropriate citywide, or whether there are exceptions? 2. In the past, the creation of Historic Districts created some contention. The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether they have received any concerns or anticipate any substantive objections. 3. Does the Council wish to have the Laird Heights and Princeton Heights local historic district designation process continue? LHD Designation Process Flowchart Image courtesy of Salt Lake City Planning Division • – • • • • • • – • • • • • • 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: April 5, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Proposed Princeton Heights Local Historic District Designation (Petition PLNHLC2023-00044) STAFF CONTACT: Aiden Lillie, Senior Planner (801) 535-7263, aiden.lillie@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Planning Director’s Report to the City Council of Proposed Local Historic District RECOMMENDATION: The Council “accept” the report to move forward with the local historic designation process BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: On January 22, 2023, Paula Harline submitted a petition to designate a new local historic district within the Yalecrest neighborhood of the City. The proposed boundaries of the Princeton Heights Local Historic District are approximately 1323 Princeton Avenue to 1500 East along Princeton Avenue. Lisa Shaffer (Apr 5, 2023 13:16 MDT)04/05/2023 04/05/2023 Figure 1. Proposed Princeton Heights Local Historic District Boundary Attached is the Planning Director’s Report that identifies initial information about the request as required by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Division is requesting acceptance of the report by the City Council to begin the designation process. Stages in the Process • Pre-application meeting (November 14, 2022) • Initial letter mailed to all property owners within proposed district (February 3, 2023) • Application submitted (January 22, 2023) • Notice of application letter mailed (February 2, 2023) • Planning report to City Council (current stage) • Property Owner Meeting to seek input from and inform owners about the designation process and ordinance requirements. (pending) • Open house to seek input from and inform the immediate neighborhood and general public about the proposal. (pending) • Historic Landmark Commission Public Hearing, Review and Recommendation. (pending) • Planning Commission Public Hearing, Review and Recommendation. (pending) • Determination of Property Owner Support by Ballot. (pending) • City Council Public Hearing, Review, and Decision. (pending) Figure 2. Local Historic District Designation Process Flow Chart EXHIBITS 1. Planning Director’s Report 2. Property Owner Notice 3. Application Exhibit 1 Planning Director’s Report Proposed Princeton Heights Local Historic District General information: Is there a current historic survey? Yes A Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) was completed in 2005 and is still valid. The survey shows that of the 43 principal structures, 42 are rated as contributing (98%), for a total of 1 noncontributing structure. On February 8, 2022, State Historic Preservation Office staff, along with Planning Staff, evaluated the proposed local historic district and confirmed that the 42 structures listed in the 2005 RLS retain their contributing status. The historic survey associated with the subject properties will be reviewed as part of the designation process and will be included for consideration as part of the City Council’s final action on the proposed designation. Are there adequate funds and staffing to process the application and administer the new district if it is adopted? There are sufficient funds at this time to process the application. Depending on the number of new properties designated in local districts, the Planning Division and Building Services Division may request (in the future) additional funding and staff resources to process new applications and review and inspect physical changes to properties within local historic districts. Proposed District Boundaries Approximately 1323 Princeton Avenue to 1500 East along Princeton Avenue. Total Properties 43 principal structures are included in the designation. 45 total parcels. Zoning All residential zoned (R-1/7,000) Support Forms 27 of 45 property owners signed in support of submitting the application for designation (60%) – includes the majority representing each parcel that signed. The minimum signature threshold is 33%. National Historic District? All properties are located in the Yalecrest National Historic District Figure 3. Proposed Princeton Heights and Laird Heights Local Historic District Map Petition Processing: The approximate cost of processing the proposed local historic district applications includes costs relating to personnel costs, supplies, and mailing notices. The estimated cost for eight previously proposed local historic districts in Yalecrest is approximately $39,842.00 (for 526 total parcels). There is a pending application for Laird Heights and the Planning Division estimates the cost of processing that petition will be approximately $5,150.00 for 68 parcels or $75.74 per parcel. The Planning Division estimates the cost of processing the Princeton Heights petition will be approximately $3,296.25 for 45 parcels. To date, the Planning Division has spent the following amount of money from its existing budget to process the 11 applications for the proposed districts: Supplies – The average cost of supplies spent on previous local historic district applications in Yalecrest was approximately $288.00. The supply costs include posters, copies of the application, sign-in sheets, comment forms, website cards, and copies of the Economic Impact of Historic Preservation Report. Noticing – The noticing requirements included (1) initial notification of potential local historic district application, (2) notice of application submittal, (3) notices to property owners for the neighborhood meeting, (4) notices to tenants and owners within 300 feet of the proposed district for the Historic Landmark Commission, (5) notices to tenants and owners within 300 feet of the proposed district for the Planning Commission, (6) balloting notices to property owners, (7) reminder notice to property owners to vote, (8) certified letters to property owners disclosing the balloting results. Prior to publication of the Planning Director’s Report, staff also mailed an initial letter, map and a two-page list of “Pros and Cons” to all property owners within the proposed district. The estimated noticing cost for the Princeton Heights petition is approximately $230.24. This year the City Council allocated approximately $18,000 to the Planning Division for public engagement costs. This money is in addition to general noticing costs the Division receives. This money is used for public engagement relating to master plans and other large long range types of projects. In the future, the Division may request additional pub lic engagement funds to help pay for these types of applications. Administering the Historic Preservation Program The Planning Division has 10 staff planners who can work on historic preservation projects. Since the beginning of 2014, there have been 178 properties designated within various local historic districts in Yalecrest. If the City Council adopts all pending local historic districts, wh ich include Laird Heights, the number of designated properties in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District in Salt Lake City would increase by 109 properties (or 2.2%) to 5,054 properties. On an annual basis, historic preservation applications consist of approximately 32% of all applications the Division receives. Most of the applications are for simple changes and 89% of them are administratively approved. In other words, they do not require a lot of staff time to complete, probably between 1-5 hours of staff time per administrative application. Typically, 50% of all HLC applications are approved over the counter. The applications that are forwarded to the Historic Landmark Commission consist of demolitions, new construction, enforcement cases and more complex proposals. In addition, the building activity in the Yalecrest neighborhood is relatively high compared to the activity of existing local historic districts. Between 2019 and 2022, 1,676 building permits were issued for the area within the Yalecrest National Historic District. Since 2019, the number of building permits issued for the entire City was 59,215. The building activity in the Yalecrest neighborhood accounted for approximately 3% of the building permits issued. The Yalecrest neighborhood is an active building area. In addition to the level of building activity, residents have also been highly active, involved, and inquisitive regarding the current proposed designation processes. We anticipate building activity will remain high and the residents will remain active. The Yalecrest neighborhood also experiences a higher number of complaints to the Building Services Division than other areas in the city. In the case that this Princeton Heights application is designated, we do not expect a remarkable increase in the number of historic preservation applications, inspections or complaints. Therefore, it isn’t anticipated that the Planning Division and Building Services Divisions will need additional staff resources to handle any increase in work. Is the Designation Consistent with other plans and adopted planning documents? Yes-The Community Preservation Plan assigns a High Priority to considering stronger protections within the Yalecrest neighborhood to control demolitions and teardowns through the adoption of one or more of the identified community preservation tools, such as l ocal historic district designation. The East Bench Community Master Plan (April 1987 – Page 14) states, “The older Harvard-Yale area contains many buildings of architectural and historical significance. Conditions may warrant creating a conservation or historic district in this area where the city would review all new buildings, additions, or alterations for compatibility with established neighborhood character.” Additionally, Plan Salt Lake (2015) states, “Salt Lake City’s Historic Preservation Program aims to preserve the best examples of the City’s historic architecture, buildings, landmarks, and landscapes. Our historic preservation tools and resources protect assets that are uniquely historic and best represent the story of the City’s past. As a City, we value neighborhood character and the defining elements that make up our neighborhoods and City. The historic development patterns, including building, composition and landscaping, details and elements all play important roles in defining the character of our places.” Plan Salt Lake continues to provide initiatives to further both the preservation and sustainable growth. Is the proposed designation generally in the public interest? Yes-Salt Lake City has identified historic preservation as being important to the public interest since the City Commission first adopted historic preservation regulations and policies in 1976. Historic Preservation policies can be implemented by many tools. Local Designation is one tool to accomplish this goal. This petition was initiated by property owners in the area, which indicates this portion of the public is interested in local regulation for this area. Property owners are required to get a minimum of 33% of property owners signatures to move forward with submitting a designation application. In this case, 27 of 45 property owners signed in support of submitting the application for designation (60%) Property owners have shown a consistent interest in the preservation of the historic character of their homes in recent years, witnessed by the number of successful tax credit applications, only available for the sensitive rehabilitation of contributing properties. Since 2007, when the area was designated as a National Register Historic District, 185 properties have earned state historic tax credits, representing a total investment in excess of $19.1 million for the whole Yalecrest National Historic District. Is the proposed designation generally consistent with the criteria for designation? Yes-Pending a more thorough analysis that will occur prior to the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission public hearings, generally, this application appears to be consistent with the criteria for local historic district designation. Exhibit 2 Property Owner Notice December 1, 2022 Dear Property Owner, The Salt Lake City Planning Division has been notified by a property owner on your street who is interested in designation of a new local historic district in the city (see enclosed map). The proposed district includes your property, which is currently lis ted on the National Register of Historic Places. The intent of this letter is to notify the affected property owners of the next steps. The property owner has 90 days to gather signatures from the date of this letter. You will be notified if enough signatures were gathered in support of starting the process for local historic district designation. Additionally, you will receive notice if this effort is abandoned. What Happens Next? The following list details the process of designating a new local historic district. 1. Signature Gathering: The petitioner will gather property owner signatures in support of initiating a petition for the new local historic district. To initiate a petition , more than 33% of property owners of lots or parcels within the proposed boundaries need to support initiating the petition. (90-day period) 2. Petition Initiated: An HP: Designation Application is submitted and demonstrates, in writing, support of more than 33% of the property owners of lots or parcels within the proposed boundaries of an area proposed to be designated. 3. Notice of Designation Application Status Letter: Once the petition is initiated, an additional notice will be mailed to owner(s) of record for each property affected by said application, along with an additional copy of the informational pamphlet. 4. Director’s Report: A report that identifies initial information about the request is presented to City Council for their acceptance. Acceptance of the report begins the city outreach process and public hearings to determine if a local historic district meets the zoning ordinance standards for designation. 5. Property Owner Meeting: The city will hold a “property owner” meeting in your neighborhood to explain the proposal, and answer any questions. 6. Public Open House: Next, the city will hold a public “virtual open house” where anyone can visit the public house webpage to learn more about the proposal and ask questions. 7. Public Hearings: Then, the Historic Landmark Commission, and the Planning Commission, will each conduct a “public hearing” at City Hall where property owners, residents, and members of the public are encouraged to comment on the proposal. Both Commissions will make a positive or negative recommendation to the City Council concerning the proposed local historic district. 8. Opinion Ballot: The city will then mail a ballot to every property owner within the proposed district to gauge the level of support for the proposal. Property owners will have 30 days to cast their ballot. The City Recorder will not publish the response of individual ballots—only the final tally of ballots received will be published. 9. City Council: The Planning Division will then transmit to the City Council a copy of 1) all public comments received, 2) the recommendations from both Commissions, and 3) the ballot results. The City Council will review the petition, hold a public hearing, and make the final decision. 10. Designation: If the proposed district is approved by the Salt Lake City Council, your property would be in the “Princeton Heights” local historic district. For More Information The Planning Division has enclosed a “Pros and Cons of a Local Historic District” for your review. Additional information on historic preservation in Salt Lake City is available online at the following website: • www.slcgov.com/historicpreservation You may also call or email me at any time. Sincerely, Aiden Lillie Senior Planner (801) 535-7263 aiden.lillie@slcgov.com Salt Lake City Local Historic District Pros and Cons What does designation as a Local Historic District mean? Local Historic Districts protect neighborhood character by limiting building demolitions and preventing out-of-character alterations. To achieve this, all proposed demolitions, new construction, and exterior alterations are reviewed using adopted standards and design guidelines. Property owners would need to go through a review process. What type of work is reviewed if my property is in a local historic district? The City must approve all work on the exterior of a property prior to beginning construction. However, repainting and performing routine maintenance, such as replacing the glass in a broken window, does not require approval. If you are unsure, e- mail the Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com or call 801-535-7700. You can also visit the Planning Counter in Room 215 of the City and County Building, at 451 S. State Street in downtown Salt Lake City. No appointment is necessary. Typically, most applications are reviewed and approved at the Planning Counter. However, depending upon the type and extensity of the alteration there may be added review time. Is work on the interior of a building reviewed for historic preservation? No. Historic preservation standards only apply to the exterior of a property. However, if the interior work affects the exterior of a building, such as filling in a window opening or moving a doorway, property owners will need to obtain approval before doing the work. Do changes to yard or landscape features need historic preservation approval? Yes. In some circumstances, landscaping features contribute to the established character of a neighborhood; work such as changes to grades, walkways, steps, and fences require historic preservation approval. How do I get approval to make changes to my property? Before Building Services can issue a Building Permit, the Planning Division must approve the plans to ensure it meets historic preservation standards. Once approved, the Planning Division issues a “Certificate of Appropriateness” for the change. To receive a Certificate of Appropriateness, an applicant submits a petition with required documentation to the Planning Counter. The Planning Division reviews the petition to ensure that it meets adopted historic preservation standards. The Planning Staff may approve minor alterations to a building or site, like repairing a roof or building a fence. The Historic Landmark Commission is required to hear and decide all complex issues, like major alterations or new construction. How long does it take to get approval to do work on my property if it is in a local historic district? On average, the Planning Division administratively approves ninety percent (90%) of all applications. 50% of those applications the same day they are received, while the other 50% may be approved within 2-10 days depending on complexity. The Historic Landmark Commission reviews approximately 10% of all applications received, including 1) new construction of principal buildings, 2) demolitions of historic structures, and 3) major alterations. If a project requires approval of the Historic Landmark Commission, it usually takes about six weeks from the time a complete application is submitted to receive a decision. Can I put an addition on my house? Locating an addition at the front of a historic building is usually inappropriate. As a general rule, additions should be sensitive to the historic building and it is preferable that an addition be to the rear if possible. The adopted Residential Design Guidelines offer further advice and guidance on additions. Additions have been consistently approved in local historic districts as residents needed more space. Can I change my windows to make my home more energy efficient? Windows are a character-defining feature of most historic structures, especially windows on the front of a building. Generally, property owners should maintain or repair original windows whenever possible, and consider replacement only if a window exhibits significant deterioration. Windows that are in disrepair or not original nor readily visible from the street, like the rear of a structure, are generally easier to replace than original windows on the front of a structure. Replacing original windows for energy efficiency is the last priority to consider. Do I need approval to paint the exterior of my house? No – as long as the structure had been previously painted. The design guidelines view paint as a temporary application that is appropriate for wood surfaces. There are no design guidelines relating to changing colors. Brick, stone or masonry facades that have never been painted should not be painted because it will trap moisture and cause extensive damage over time. Brick has a protective finish or “glazing” that is very important to its physical integrity. Unpainted brick will need to remain unpainted, as well as unpainted stone foundations. Can I use new types of materials on my home? The Historic Landmark Commission periodically analyzes new construction materials and determines where they are appropriate for use in historic districts. In the past, the Commission has found that fiberglass columns and composite decking materials may be appropriate for porch renovations, and cement board siding may be appropriate for new additions. Using traditional materials is typically approved and some new types of materials on a historic building may be denied. What types of materials are not allowed in a local historic district? Aluminum and vinyl siding are not allowed in local historic districts when applied over or in place of historic materials because it changes the historic integrity of the building. These materials, when applied over original materials, traps moisture, which leads to physical deterioration and failure of building materials over time. Exhibit 3 Application Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 1 of 24 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Project Description 1. Written Description of the Proposal 3 Significance of area in local, regional, state or national history Physical Integrity of houses in the area Commercial Properties Notable Developers, Builders, Architects Properties Recommended for National Register Level Research Significant persons in the area Distinctive characteristics of the type/period/method of construction Importance to Salt Lake City history 2. Physical Integrity 9 Contributing Status of Houses Building Dates Architectural Types in the Residential Structures Exterior Construction Materials 3. Eligibility Listing on the National Register of Historic Places 12 4. Notable examples of elements in Salt Lake City’s History 12 5. Consistent Designation Of Proposed LHD Designation With Adopted City Planning Policies 13 6. Public Interest in Proposed LHD Designation 16 B. Photographs (attached separately) 17 C. Research Materials 17 D. Landmark Sites 17 E. Boundary Adjustment 17 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 2 of 24 Page APPENDICES A. Maps 1. Normandie Heights Subdivision within Yalecrest 19 2. Princeton Heights LHD within other establish LHDs in Yalecrest Neighborhood 20 3. Expanded view of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD 21 B. Contrary Documentation in 2005 RLS and Salt Lake County Assessor 22 C. Photographs of houses in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD (Original vs.2022) 23 See photos in a separate attached document 1323 -1490 E Princeton Ave 1150 S 1400 E 1136 S 1500 E D. Research Materials (References) 24 Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 3 of 24 1. Project Description Significance of area in local, regional, or state history In the mid 1800’s, Salt Lake City was platted and developed with public buildings in the center of Salt Lake City surrounded by residential lots and farmland to the south and west. The Big Field Survey in 1848 divided the land to the south of the Salt Lake City settlement (900 South today) into five and ten acre plots to be used for farming for the “mechanics and artisans” of the city. 1 The Yalecrest survey area is located on the northeastern section of land that was initially set apart as Five-Acre Plat “C” of the Big Field Survey 1 The land was divided into 100-acre blocks, each of which was again divided into 20 lots of 5 acres each. Yalecrest occupies Blocks 28, 29, and 30. The original blocks are bordered by the major north-south streets of the survey area: 1300, 1500, 1700 and 1900 East and the east-west streets of 900 and 1300 South. (The Utah Historic Sites Database). The area north of 2100 South was a Five-Acre Plat “A” and the area south was a Ten-Acre Plat. The majority of Yalecrest with the exception of strips along the north and west sides are part of Five Acre Plat “C”. 1 Property within the area was distributed by the LDS church authorities, by lot, for use in raising crops and farming. 1 Dividing the plots for land speculation was discouraged: 1875 maps of Salt Lake City show no development in the southeast section of the city beyond 1000 East or 900 South. The earliest identified residents in the Yalecrest area begin to appear in the 1870s 1 . Yalecrest boundaries are represented by 840 South (Sunnyside Ave) to 1300 South and 1300 East to 1900 East. The 1920s were a period of tremendous growth in Yalecrest with 22 subdivisions platted by a variety of developers. The Bowers Investment Company, a branch of the Bowers Building Company, filed the subdivision papers for Normandie Heights in 1926 with 140 lots, and its houses were built primarily from 1926-35. It is distinctive because of its picturesque rolling topography with landscaped serpentine streets, regular promotions, prominent homeowners, deep setbacks, and large irregularly shaped lots. A number of factors contributed to the Yalecrest development in the early twentieth century; 1) the population of Salt Lake City almost doubling from 1900 to 1910, 2) air pollution in the valley from coal burning furnaces led residents to seek higher elevations East of 1300 East for cleaner air to breathe for their residences recently developed by in-state and out-of-state land developers. Transportation options made the Yalecrest area easily accessible to the downtown area. The primary means of transportation in the early part of this era was the streetcar line along 1500 East. 1 The streetcars serving the Yalecrest area traveled from downtown to 1300 East in front of East High, traveling East along 900 South to 1500 East, then south on 1500 East to the State Prison located at 2100 S. The former State Prison on Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 4 of 24 2100 South is the current site of Sugar House Park. 1960’s and Beyond (1960-2005) The Yalecrest neighborhood, in general, and Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD specifically, avoided the blight common in many urban residential neighborhoods during this era. There was no population pressure as the population of Salt Lake City slightly decreased during this time period. 12 No major roads were built through the neighborhood although traffic increased on the border streets of 1300 South, 1300 East and Sunnyside Ave. Zoning ordinances restricted commercial building to a few spots on the major streets. While there are 51 original duplexes in Yalecrest, there are none in the proposed boundaries of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD. The original Uintah Elementary School located on 1300 S (outside the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD boundaries) was demolished and replaced by a new structure in 1993. The attractive neighborhoods of Yalecrest have mature street trees, single-family owner-occupied, well-maintained houses with landscaped yards and continue to be a desirable residential area. 1 The current practice of razing an existing small historic structure and replacing it with a residence several times the size of the original house in established neighborhoods galvanized some residents into action in the years 2000-2005. A zoning overlay ordinance called the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay ordinance was passed by the Salt Lake City Council in 2005. The purpose of the ordinance is: to encourage compatibility between new construction, additions or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. That infill overlay zoning regulated building height, minimum front yard size, and several aspects of garages or accessory structures. Due to liberal interpretation of the current City and State demolition ordinances, houses in Yalecrest continue to be demolished above ground and replaced with out-of-size, mass and architectural incompatibility. The currently proposed SLC “Affordable Housing Incentive” (AHI) City (2022) aims to increase multifamily housing within ¼ mile of high frequency (every 15 minutes) transportation corridors. UTA has recently changed the frequency of bus route #220 on 1300 E to a 15-minute frequency. All 1300-1500 Blocks of Yalecrest are impacted by this zoning overlay. The AHI zoning overlay allows demolition of single-family housing to create new multifamily housing construction thus making historic single-family houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD endangered to demolition. The listing of Yalecrest on the National Register of Historic Places does not protect against this local zoning. This application seeking a Local Historic District designation is the only current legal option to minimize demolition of historic single-family houses in this established, mature, and historic neighborhood. The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights Local Historic District (LHD) is located on Block Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 5 of 24 30 and encompasses the following properties: 1323 E Princeton Ave on the north side of the Princeton as the West boundary, 1136 S 1500 East on the west side of 1500 E as the East boundary and all Princeton Ave properties on the north and south sides of Princeton Ave street face as the North and South boundaries, respectively. The property located at 1150 S 1400 E lies between Princeton Ave and the Harvard Heights LHD ( see APPENDIX A ). Thus, 43 single- family houses are contained within the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD. Physical Integrity of Houses in the Area An Architectural and Historic Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) of Yalecrest was conducted in 2005 1 by Beatrice Lufkin of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Salt Lake City in preparation for the National Register of Historic Places application for the Yalecrest neighborhood. Much of the information in this document comes from that survey. The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD area contains houses constructed over the time period from 1917(1475 E Princeton Ave) and extending through 1953 (1387 E Princeton Ave) in the historic era. There is a very high degree of retained historic integrity in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD according to the 2005 RLS. The vast majority of houses (42/43) were eligible/significant and eligible contributing (97.7%): 69.8% were considered eligible and significant (A) and 27.9% were considered eligible and contributing (B). Only one house, a large 1917 Prairie School house located at 1475 East Princeton Ave, and originally built and owned by JW Phinney, was considered non-contributing (C) or 2.3%. To date, no residential properties have been demolished with new construction houses in the Princeton Heights LHD , but the contributory status of each property may have changed since the last assessment in 2005. Commercial Properties There are no commercial properties in the Princeton Heights LHD. Notable Developers, Builders, Architects The name “Princeton Ave first appears in 1908 in the Polk directory and is associated with development of that street in Normandie Heights subdivision (see Significant persons in the area section below). Normandie Heights subdivision was platted for 140 properties in 1926 by the Bowers Investment Co. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD contains 43 single-family residences of the 140 platted parcels in the greater Normandie Heights subdivision. The builder Gaskell Romney was involved in developing Normandie Heights subdivision. He built 10 houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD: 1370, 1404, 1410, 1426,1442,1445,1449, 1450 and 1458, 1465 E Princeton Ave. He was active in Utah, Idaho, California, and worked in Mexico before coming to Utah in 1921. G. Maurice Romney, his son, also did speculative building. Gaskell Romney and his wife, Amy, lived at Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 6 of 24 1442 Yalecrest and later at 1469 E Princeton Avenue. He is father to George Romney, former Governor of Michigan and presidential candidate and father to current Utah Senator Mitt Romney, former Governor of Massachusetts, former presidential candidate, and current Senator to Utah. Another building company, Bowers Building Co. built 7 houses in the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD: 1333, 1343, 1348, 1353, 1360, 1376 and 1466 E Princeton Ave. The proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD are outlined in red ( APPENDIX A-1) . It will join 6 other LHDs created in Yalecrest: Harvard Park, Princeton Park, Yale Plat A/Upper Harvard, Harvard Heights, Normandie Circle and Douglas Park-I, outlined in blue. Properties Recommended for National Register Level Research 1465 E Princeton Ave (built 1926). The bowed roof over French doors on an English Cottage architecture was suggested in the 2005 RLS for further research investigation. Significant Persons in the Area Yalecrest-Princeton Heights has been home to a variety of early residents who shaped the City’s development and economic base: businesspersons, educators, immigrants, widows, senators, lawyers, shopkeepers, physicians, architects, and builders , described below by street address. 1340 E Princeton Ave State Senator Paul Quayle Callister (1895-1967) and wife Mary Adeline Bramwell (1899-1984) lived in this English Cottage with their four children for 10 yrs (1939-1948). After serving in World War I, Paul Q. Callister was President of Associated Oil and Gas, renamed Premium Oil and Gas. His investors included Jack Vincent, Fred C. Staines, and the Bamberger Group. The company purchased land throughout Utah, Idaho, and Nevada to open 48 service stations. The 1940 US census lists his salary at $50,000. He was elected State Senator (R) from 1940-1944. During WWII, he started a second company, Premoco, to deal with rationed fuel supplies to maximize fuel allocations. 1345 E Princeton Ave This 1929 English Tudor and 1349 E Princeton Ave was built by well-known East Bench contractor Samuel Campbell. The James G. McDonald, Jr. family lived here for 10 yrs from 1929 to 1939. James Jr. was treasurer and vice president of J.G. McDonald’s Chocolate Company, a wholesale and retail grocery and confectionary business which was founded by his grandfather, John T. McDonald in 1863. James Jr.’s father, James Sr., took over the business at the age of 18 and in 1912 began to specialize in boxed chocolates and cocoa. They innovated the paper-wrapped candy bar. This was the beginning of a new Utah Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 7 of 24 industry on a large-scale production level. J.G. McDonald Candy Company became world-renowned and was the recipient of over forty-four gold medals and awards, including the highest international award possible, the "Grand Prix for excellence and quality." 1361 E Princeton Ave LeGrand Pollard Backman and family lived in this 1929 English Tudor for 36 years. Mr. Backman was a prominent Salt Lake City attorney and a senior partner in Backman, Clark, and Marsh Law Firm. He was a member of the Salt Lake City Board of Education for 20 years and president from 1945-56. He was also a member and president of the Utah State Board of Education for 18 years (1952-1970). 1370 E Princeton Ave Built by Gaskell Romney, this 1926 English Tudor was owned by two notable widowed women who persevered to become notable businesswomen of their own. First, after living in the house for three years, Helen Taylor became a 28 year old widow with a four-year-old daughter. She took over her husband’s (Heber C Taylor) job as part-owner of the Taylor-Richards Motor Co. Ford automobile/tractor dealership and continued living here until she remarried, about 14 years later. Second, in 1943 Georgia Papanikolas was already a widow when she moved into this house. She was born in Greece (1912) and immigrated to the United States, most likely as a “picture bride,” when she was 18 yrs old and married Emmanuel “Mike” Papinikolas, a successful businessman in Bingham, Garfield,and Magna with coal, lumber, hardware and real estate companies. She was widowed at age 39 with 7 children in Magna. Ten years later she bought 1370 E Princeton Ave with the help of her son, Gus, for $5,000 and raised 5 of her children here. Her son Nick, married Helen Zeese, who later became Utah’s premier ethnic historian and our country’s expert on Greek immigrants. 1377 E Princeton Ave This 1927 house built by Samuel Cottam is a beautiful and unusual example of a period revival Jacobethan French Tudor. In May 1928 he sold the home to William E. and Louise Day who lived there until William’s death in1947. Mr. Day moved to Salt Lake City from Ohio to become Superintendent of Physical Education for the Salt Lake City Board of Education. The entryway of this house has a fanlight transom and terra cotta surrounds in a quoin pattern (small tabs of cut stone called ‘ashlar‘, projecting into the surrounding brickwork giving it a ‘quoin’ (pronounced ‘coin’) effect. This house has a “twin” built by a different builder on 1445 E 900 S. 1404 E Princeton Ave This 1927 English Tudor was owned by William Cassidy who lived here with his wife Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 8 of 24 Florence and daughter Mary Lou for 28 yrs. William Cassidy was initially hired as a traffic manager by the family-owned Sweet Candy Co in 1915. He became Vice President of the company in 1941 and President and General Manager in 1947. He holds 2 patents. The Sweet Candy Co is the world’s largest manufacturer of salt water taffy but also manufactures 250 different candies, including their innovation, cinnamon bears. Fifteen million pounds of their products are shipped annually. The original business office and manufacturer site at 224 South and 200 West is a Salt Lake City tour stop with an historic bronze plaque . 1405 E Princeton Ave The Cowan family has lived in this 1938 English Cottage house exhibiting “random course ashlar masonry’ for 82 years. Drs. Robert Leland Cowan (1894-1976) and his son, Leland R Cowan (1924-2022) each practiced surgical oncology in SLC. The house is built using “Ashlar masonry,” the finest type of stone masonry. It uses finely tooled (dressed) sandstone or limestone in rectangular, cuboid shapes laid in a random course. Leland R. Cowan founded the Leland R Cowan Cancer Clinic in Salt Lake City. 1429 E Princeton Ave This 1926 “Cape Dutch Colonial” is a unique architectural style house called “Cape Dutch Colonial,” a modification of the Amsterdam Cape style and favored in the Western Cape of South Africa. Hugh Barker, Sr. lived here with his family for 6 yrs (1932-1939). He was one of the celebrated first airmail pilots (aerial pony express) in the 1920’s servicing mountainous areas in Idaho, Utah, and Nevada. He later became a lawyer and head of his own law firm. 1458 E Princeton Ave The 1926 English Cottage, built by Gaskell Romney, was home to Lorenzo Snow Young—the grandson of two LDS Presidents, Brigham Young and Lorenzo Snow. He lived here with his wife Ailene and children for 5 yrs (1927-32). He was a locally famous architect designing over 700 buildings over his 40 yr practice. Most notable are those listed on the National Register of Historic Places, including the University of Utah’s Kingsbury Hall on President’s Circle, and the Granite Stake Tabernacle in Idaho. He also designed the Harold B. Lee Library and Marriot Center (with Bob Fowler 1968) at Brigham Young University, the University of Utah Law and Library building, Olympus and Highland High Schools and The Daughters of the Utah Pioneers Memorial (DUP). 1475 E Princeton Ave This 1917 Prairie School architecture is a unique architecture style in the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD. Built in 1917, it was owned by Eugene W Kelly 10 yrs from 1932-1942. He was manager of a retail clothing store in SLC. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 9 of 24 Distinctive Characteristics of the Type/Period/Method of Construction Yalecrest-Princeton Heights contains many notable examples of brick English Cottages and English Tudors from famous builders in Salt Lake City. Importance to Salt Lake City History Yalecrest-Princeton Heights might be the last block in Yalecrest that has not experienced teardowns, helping it tell the story of Salt Lake City almost a century ago. Historic houses might lack the convenience of modern homes, but living in one and knowing something of the residents who lived there before you, connects you to the neighborhood and to the City. In my house at 1340 E. Princeton, for example, I know that former residents had their wedding receptions in the living room, served in World Wars I and II, sang for events all over the neighborhood, served the community as dentist and doctor, died in childbirth, and played on the back patio with other neighborhood children. I have found their wallpaper and walk on their hardwood floors. The block where I live is a beautiful example of residential living close to downtown Salt Lake City. Every house on the block is unique and draws a constant stream of admiring dog-walkers, bikers, and runners. Street lights provide safety, and huge mature trees–Ash, Elm, Sycamore, and Norwegian Maple–create a pleasing shaded tree-lined block. Situated between 9th-and-9th and 15th-and-15th commercial areas, and with close access to I-15 and I-80, this block showcases the integrated infrastructure necessary for successful residential living: commercial neighborhood zoning districts that host grocery, pharmacy, restaurants, library, public parks, and schools within walking distance. The residents are proud of this successful planned community and wish to preserve it as an example for generations to come. Please note that this block was the site of the 6 th Annual KEEPYalecrest Historic Home Walking Tour (7 October 2022) which witnessed the largest attendance of any prior walking tour. This widespread interest in and appreciation for historic houses and the persons who lived in those houses continues to build each year as many historic areas throughout the City are lost to demolition. 2. Physical Integrity The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is located in a mature tree-lined, rolling-hills western section of Yalecrest. Contributing Status of Houses in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD retains a very high degree of historic and physical integrity. The vast majority of houses (97.7%) are eligible/significant (29/43 = Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 10 of 24 69.8%) and eligible contributing (12/43 = 27.9%) 1 . There is only 1 ineligible non-contributing house, or C (1/42 or 2.3%) listed in the 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey. The majority of houses are of architecturally notable English Cottages (37.2%) and English Tudors (30.2%) built 1920-1930’s. To our knowledge, no houses in the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD have been demolished. The number of contributing and non-contributing houses and their eligibility status on each street in the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is tabulated below. Contributing Structure Status of Single-Family Residential Properties in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD a,c Street A b B b C b D b X b Total Princeton Ave 28 12 1 0 0 41 1400 East 1 0 0 0 0 1 1500 East 1 0 0 0 0 1 TOTAL % Total 30 (69.8%) 12 (27.9% ) 1 (2.3%) 0 (0.0%) 0 (0.0%) 43 a (100%) a according to the 2005 RLS, there are 43 single family residential structures included in this analysis. b A= eligible significant, B= eligible/contributing, C= ineligible/noncontributing, D=out of period, X=demolished c 1926 plat of Normandie Heights lists 104 properties. The Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD contains 43 of those 104 parcels, all used as single-family houses. The number of currently (2022) eligible significant (A) plus eligible contributing structures (B) may have changed due to remodeling projects that alter the street face including; windows, porches, dormers, house heights, roofing materials and/or exterior materials that have altered their contributing status. The number of contributing structures in 2022 remains to be verified by the City Planning Department / Preservation Office and Historic Landmarks Commission. Building Dates Houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD were built from 1919 through 1953 in the current historic era. The majority of single-family residences in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD were built in the late 1920’s (67.4%) and 1930’s (25.6%). The distribution of houses built in different decades from 1910 to 1950’s as a function of streets with the proposed LHD are shown in the table below. Construction Years a of Original Single-Family Residences in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD b Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 11 of 24 Street 1910’s 1920’s 1930’s 1940’s 1950’s Total Princeton Ave 1 29 9 1 1 41 1400 East 0 0 1 0 0 1 1500 East 0 0 1 0 0 1 TOTAL 1 29 11 1 1 43 % Total 2.3% 67.4% 25.6% 2.3% 2.3% ~100% a according to Salt Lake County Assessor website (www.slco.org/assessor) b 1428 E Princeton Ave is listed in RLS but no house is associated with the land parcel Architectural Types Houses of the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD contain a variety of architectural style types including English Cottage (37.2%), English Tudor (30.2%), Colonial Revival (13.9%), Cape Dutch and Dutch Colonial (4.6%), Jacobethan/French Norman (4.6%), Period/other (2.3%), Prairie School (2.3%), Minimal Traditional/Ranch (4.6%). Tabulation of the house styles as a function of street within the Yalecrest-Princeton Height LHD is shown below. Architectural Types in Residential Structures a Type Princeton Ave 1400 East 1500 East TOTAL %TOTAL English Cottage 16 0 0 16 37.2% English Tudor 13 0 0 13 30.2% Colonial Revival 5 0 1 6 13.9% Cape/Dutch Colonial 2 0 0 2 4.6% Jacobethan/French Norman 2 0 0 2 4.6% Period Revival/Other 1 0 0 1 2.3% Prairie School 1 0 0 1 2.3% Minimal Traditional 1 1 0 2 4.6% TOTAL 41 1 1 43 100% a according to RLS 2005. Exterior House Materials Exterior construction materials of houses in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD are primarily striated brick (58.1%), regular brick (34.9%), stucco/paster (4.7%) and stone (2.3%), with various accompanying materials including half timbering, clapboard, stucco/paster, wood and aluminum/vinyl siding. The distribution of the various exterior construction materials is tabulated below. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 12 of 24 Exterior Construction Materials of Residential Structures in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD a Type Princeton Ave 1400 East 1500 East Total %Total Striated Brick 7 0 1 8 +Half Timber 13 0 0 3 + Stucco/plaster 3 0 0 3 +Alum/vinyl/wo od 1 0 0 1 subtotal 24 0 1 5 58.1% Regular Brick 6 1 0 7 +Half timber 5 0 0 5 +Clapboard siding 1 0 0 1 +stucco/stone/ veneer 1 0 0 1 +Terra cotta/half timber 1 0 0 1 subtotal 14 1 0 5 34.9% Stucco/Plaste r 1 0 0 1 +B other 1 0 0 1 subtotal 2 0 0 2 4.7.% Stone 0 0 0 0 +clapboard 1 1 1 1 2.3% TOTAL 41 1 1 43 ~100% a 2005 RLS assessment 3. Eligibility Listing on the National Register of Historic Places As previously stated, the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is located within the boundary of the existing Yalecrest National Register Historic District established in 2007 (#07001168) and thus is eligible for Local Historic District designation. 4. Notable examples of elements in Salt Lake City’s History The proposed area contains a diverse collection of historically contributing architecture styles: English Cottage, English Tudor, Colonial Revival, Prairie School, Cape and Dutch Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 13 of 24 Colonial, Ranch, Jacobethan/ French Norman, and Minimal Traditional. In addition, these homes were developed, designed, built, and owned by renowned individuals who contributed to cultural, defense, business, medical, education, and legal aspects of the city, state, and country. An Intensive Level Survey was completed of Yalecrest by Beatrice Lufkin, of the Utah State Historic Office (SHPO) in 2005. Exterior and interior photographs, a title search, genealogical and other information are on file at the Utah State Preservation Office. 5. Consistent Designation Of The Proposed LHD Designation With Adopted Planning City Policies Historic Preservation Overlay 21A.34.020.A (click here for a link to the Historic Preservation Overlay zoning provisions) A. Purpose Statement : In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity, and education of the people of Salt Lake City, the purpose of the Historic preservation overlay district is to: 1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the city and individual structures and sites having historic, architectural, or cultural significance; 2. Encourage new development, redevelopment, and the subdivision of lots in historic districts that is compatible with the character of existing development of historic districts or individual landmarks; 3. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures; 4. Implement adopted plans of the city related to historic preservation; 5. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City; 6. Protect and enhance the attraction of the city's historic landmarks and districts for tourists and visitors; 7. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation; and 8. Encourage social, economic, and environmental sustainability. Adopted Master Plans and City Policies Community Preservation Plan : The City Council adopted the Community Preservation Plan in October 2012. The Plan is the key strategic document that will guide Salt Lake City’s preservation efforts into the future. The purpose of the plan is to address the important goals of historic preservation and community character preservation to ensure the continued preservation of the City’s neighborhoods. The Plan provides vision and established policies that will help preserve those areas of the City that are uniquely historic and tell the story of the City’s historic past. ( Click this link to view the Community Preservation Plan ) Relevant Community Preservation Plan Policies Policy 3.1a: Identify historic resources in the City through the use of surveys that are consistent with the adopted State Historic Preservation Office survey criteria. Policy 3.2a : Local designation of historic resources should occur where the primary purpose is to protect the historic resources for the public interest and not where the primary purpose is something other than that such as to stabilize a neighborhood or preserve neighborhood character. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 14 of 24 Policy 3.2b : The pursuance of new locally designated historic resources should focus on protecting the best examples of an element of the City’s history, development patterns and architecture. Local historic districts should have logical boundaries based on subdivision plats, physical and / or cultural features and significant character defining features where possible. Policy 3.2c: Protect exemplary groupings of historic properties as local historic districts. Policy 3.2d : Local designation should only occur after the City has an understanding of the degree of property owner and public support for the proposed designation. Policy 3.2e: Local designation of historic properties should only occur, after the City expends resources to inform property owners of the reasons for the proposed designation and what regulations will be included and the incentives offered for local designation. Policy 3.2h : Prior to local designation, national designation should be pursued to ensure financial incentives are in place for those historic resources that are regulated locally. Policy 3.2i: Professional reconnaissance level survey work should be completed prior to designating a local historic district because it identifies the number and type of historic resources in an area and provides the information needed when determining the appropriateness for change to a specific historic resource. Other Adopted City Policy documents addressing the role of Historic Preservation East Bench Community Master Plan (2017) : (click this link to view the East Bench Master Plan) The proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Height Local Historic District is located within the area covered by the East Bench Community Master Plan. A stated goal of the Urban Design section of the plan is to “enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities and create a sense of visual unity within the community.” The Plan identifies the following elements which detract from the residential character: - Building remodeling or additions that are not compatible with the design of the original structure or neighboring homes, and - New structures that are not compatible with the design of surrounding homes. In the1987 East Bench Master Plan, Yalecrest is specifically identified for preservation. “The older Harvard-Yale area contains many buildings of architectural and historic significance. Conditions may warrant creating a conservation or historic district in this area where the city would review all new buildings, additions, or alterations for compatibility with established neighborhood character. The city is in the process of conducting a survey of the community to document sites of architectural and historic significance and to evaluate the potential for establishing a historic district.” In the 2017 version of the East Bench Master Plan, Yalecrest is noted for being the oldest historically contributing neighborhood on the East Bench and encourages residents to find a common voice to preserve it using either Local Historic Districts or Conservation Districts. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 15 of 24 Urban Design Element (1990 ): The Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City’s image, neighborhood character, and maintaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. The Plan includes the following concepts: -Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the City. - Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvements and stability. - Ensure that building restoration and new construction enhance district character. - Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design policies of the city, regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. - Treat building height, scale, and character as significant features of a district’s image. - Ensure that features of building design such as color, detail, materials, and scale are responsive to district character, neighboring buildings and the pedestrian. Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan (2000): Provide historic preservation education to developers and property owners, including information on technical and financial assistance and incentives. City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993) - Restore and adaptively reuse historic resources. - Develop programs to enhance and preserve the City’s cultural history and character as expressed in the built environment. - Offer strong economic incentives to stop housing unit deterioration. Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission (1998) - Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods. - Rehabilitate historic buildings for cultural uses wherever possible. The proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is also currently zoned under the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay (YCIO) zoning ordinance adopted by the City in 2007 3 . The purpose of the ordinance is to “encourage compatibility between new construction, additions, or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood.” The YCIO regulates building height, minimum front yard size, and several aspects of garages or accessory structures, but does not protect against demolitions or out-of-mass, scale and architecture character of additions or new structures. The proposed boundaries of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD ( Appendix A ) represents the southeast corner in Normandie Heights subdivision and the greater Yalecrest neighborhood that is nationally recognized for its historic value (National Register of Historic Places 2007). Recognizing this resource and protecting it via a Local Historic District designation is consistent with the City's preservation goals. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 16 of 24 6. Public Interest in the Proposed LHD Designation To date, 31/43 of the single-family homeowners within the proposed area of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD have signed an application petition in support of opening the process to create a Local Historic District. The overall support on the application is 72%, which greatly exceeds the minimum support of 33% required by the LHD designation ordinance guidelines. Property owners at 1150 S 1400 East were contacted and do not support the local historic designation, but were included at the suggestion of the city Historic Preservation Office. Residential Support for Local Historic District Designation in Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Street # Property Parcels # Signatures Supporting a % Support Princeton Ave 41 a 30 73% 1400 East 1 0 0% 1500 East 1 1 100% TOTAL 43 31 72% a one signature was collected on the application signature form for property parcels that have Joint tenants (JT) and the appropriate trustee signature was obtained for Trusts on associated property parcels. Designating the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights as Local Historic District (LHD) zoning overlay would minimize the frequent teardowns and demolitions (56 permit filings over the past 27 years) that have plagued Yalecrest in recent years. In addition, the recent Affordable Housing Incentive (AHI) which allows demolition of historic houses for new multi-family housing installation within ¼ mile of high frequency bus transportation (1300 East) has concerned residents of this quiet street. Designation of Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD would maintain the historic character and mass/scale of the street face architecture while providing homeowners and district residents the only legal method to minimize demolition and dismantling of intact historic structures that result in loss of neighborhood character. These services are not offered from Salt Lake City to the National Register of Historic Place designation, nor the local City Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay (YCIO) zoning ordinance. A Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD designation would also provide the citizens of Salt Lake City and the state of Utah with an additional protected heritage resource for future generations from which to learn and appreciate the cultural and City history of notable residents and fine, well-maintained, diverse architectural examples of English Cottage, English Tudor, Cape Dutch, Dutch Colonial, Prairie, and Jacobethan French Norman architectural styles. In addition, the area will teach future urban developers/builders the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 17 of 24 value and sustainability of smaller well-built homes with quality materials that have stood the test of time (100 yrs), the successful layout design of new neighborhoods that include different housing options for singles, empty-nesters, couples, and families that include both small- and medium-sized single-family and multi-family duplexes at various prices. It will aid in the education of designing new successful neighborhoods that include such elements as sidewalks, green space, streetlights, mature shade trees, and proximity to infrastructure necessities such as libraries, grocery stores, restaurants, schools, and child care that encourage walkability and enhance safety from crime. These are the elements that have made Yalecrest a successful and highly desirable neighborhood. B. Photographs Original and current photographs of the individual homes in the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD are listed with addresses in APPENDIX C . The original photographs were downloaded from the Salt Lake County Tax Assessor site. Current photographs were collected by the Lynn Kennard Pershing, resident in Yalecrest, using an iPhone 11 camera.. C. Research Material The Reconnaissance Level Survey was completed by Salt Lake City in 2005 in preparation for the Yalecrest National Register of Historic Places designation, which was awarded in 2007. Much of the information in this document about the area’s architecture, history, builders, and building dates comes from that survey and the Salt Lake County Assessor website. Additional information is on file at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Family Search website, and newspaper archives (Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News). Research material used to prepare this application are listed in APPENDIX C . See (http://utahhistory.sdlhost.com/#/item/000000011019963/view/146 D. Landmark Sites Not applicable E. Boundary Adjustment: Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is located to the immediate south of Yalecrest-Harvard Heights LHD. The new Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD is parallel to Yalecrest-Harvard Heights LHD and both traverse the 1300-1500 blocks of their respective streets, while also including 2 properties; 1150 S 1400 E and 1136 S 1500 E that lie between those streets. The boundaries of the Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD containing 43 property parcels are listed below: West boundary is 1323 E Princeton Ave Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 18 of 24 East boundary is demarcated by1136 South 1500 East and 1490 E Princeton Ave North boundary contains the north side of Princeton Ave containing the odd numbered houses (1323-1475 E Princeton Ave) and 1150 E 1400 East South Boundary contains the south side of Princeton Ave with the even numbered houses of 1340-1490 E Princeton Ave. APPENDIX A-1 Original plat of Normandie Heights Subdivision July 1, 1926, Pr. Lots 2-3, Block 28 Bowers Investment Company Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 19 of 24 The Normandie Subdivision lies in the southwestern most corner of. The Normandie subdivision is outlined in purple. Bottom of Form APPENDIX A-2 All LHDs in Yalecrest Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 20 of 24 Existing Yalecrest LHDs Douglas Park-I Normandie Circle Harvard Heights Upper Harvard Yale Park Plat A Harvard Park Princeton Park Princeton Heights (proposed) outlined in red APPENDIX A-3 Expanded street map view of the proposed Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD boundary adjustment (red outline) within the East Bench Yalecrest Neighborhood Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 21 of 24 .. Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD (43 parcels) includes the following property addresses Princeton Ave (41 parcels): 1323-1490 E Princeton Ave 1500 East: 1 parcel, 1136 S 1500 East 1400 East: 1 parcel, 1150 E 1400 East APPENDIX B Contrary Documentation in RLS 2005 and Salt Lake County Assessor Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 22 of 24 1. Missing photographs: Original house photographs were not available from the State Historic Preservation Office, nor the SLCounty Assessor website (www.slco.org/assessor) a. 1348 E Princeton Ave b. 1458 E Princeton Ave c. 1466 E Princeton Ave d. 1490 E Princeton Ave 2. Inaccurate original photos on SLCounty Assessor website a. 1422 E Princeton Ave b. 1426 E Princeton Ave c. 1442 E Princeton Ave d. 1450 E Princeton Ave APPENDIX C Photographs of Princeton Heights LHD Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 23 of 24 See separate attached document 1323-1490 E Princeton Ave 1150 S 1400 East 1136 S 1500 East Yalecrest-Princeton Heights LHD Page 24 of 24 APPENDIX D Research Materials (References) 1. Lufkin, Beatrice. Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey 2005 . Utah State Historic Preservation Office. 2. Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay. Sterling Codifier 21A.34.120. December 2005. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/getBookData.php?id=&chapter_id=49078&ke ywords=#s928586 3. Salt Lake City Community Preservation Plan. October 2012 4. Polk directories 1925-1976, State Historic Preservation Office, www.ushpo.utah.gov 5. Family Search app online 6. Salt Lake County Assessor: House information: parcel number, build date, exterior materials, original house photos, www.slco.org/assessor . ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor DEPARTMENT of COMMUNITY and NEIGHBORHOODS Blake H. 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: April 5, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Blake Thomas, Director, Department of Community & Neighborhoods __________________________ SUBJECT: Yalecrest – Laird Heights – Local Historic District (Petition PLNHLC2023-00074 ) STAFF CONTACT: Lex Traughber, Senior Planner (801) 535-6184, lex.traughber@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Planning Director’s Report to the City Council of Proposed Local Historic District RECOMMENDATION: The Council “accept” the report to move forward with the local historic designation process BUDGET IMPACT: N/A BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Issue Origin: On February 1st, 2023, Kelly McAleer submitted a petition to designate a new local historic district within the Yalecrest neighborhood of the City. The proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest – Laird Heights Local Historic District are generally from 1300 East to 1500 East including both the northern and southern sides of Laird Avenue. Attached is the Planning Director’s Report that identifies initial information about the request as required by the Salt Lake City Zoning Ordinance. The Planning Division is requesting acceptance of the report by the City Council to begin the designation outreach process. Lisa Shaffer (Apr 5, 2023 13:14 MDT)04/05/2023 04/05/2023 Stages in the Process • Pre-Application Meeting (December 22, 2022) • Initial letter mailed to all property owners within proposed district (January 5, 2023) • Application Submitted (February 1, 2023) • Notice of Application letter mailed (February 9, 2023) • Planning report to City Council (current stage) • Property Owner Meeting to seek input from and inform owners about the designation process and ordinance requirements. (pending) • Open House to seek input from and inform the immediate neighborhood and general public about the proposal. (pending) • Historic Landmark Commission Public Hearing, Review and Recommendation. (pending) • Planning Commission Public Hearing, Review and Recommendation. (pending) • Determination of Property Owner Support by Ballot. (pending) • City Council Public Hearing, Review, and Decision. (pending) EXHIBITS Exhibit 1 – Director’s Report Exhibit 2 – Information Letter Sent to Owners Exhibit 3 – Application Exhibit 1 Planning Director’s Report Proposed Yalecrest – Laird Heights – Local Historic District General information: Is there a current historic survey? Yes A Reconnaissance Level Survey was completed in 2005 and is still valid. The survey shows that of the 66 structures, 63 are rated as contributing (95%). Staff acknowledges that surveys can become outdated. That said, planning staff and State Historic Preservation Office staff walked the subject district in 2015 and 2023 and noted any historic status rating changes that might be warranted to the 2005 survey. The above referenced number of contributing and noncontributing stuctures is a result of this informal reconnaissance survey. The survey will be reviewed and any proposed changes to historic status rating of structures will be included for consideration as part of the City Council’s final action on the proposed designation. Are there adequate funds and staffing to process the application and administer the new district if it is adopted? There are sufficient funds at this time to process the application. Depending on the number of new properties designated in local districts, the Planning Division and Building Services Division may request (in the future) additional funding and staff resources to process new applications and review and inspect physical changes to properties within local historic districts. Proposed District Boundaries Between 1300 East and 1500 East on Laird Avenue. Total Properties 66 principal structures included in the designation (66 homes), 68 total parcels (two are vacant). Zoning All residentially zoned (R-1/7,000). Support Forms 45 of 68 property owners representing at least 50% ownership in the parcel signed in support of submitting the designation application (66%). This exceeds the minimum threshold of 33%. National Historic District? All properties are located in the Yalecrest National Historic District Petition Processing: The approximate cost of processing the proposed local historic district application includes costs relating to personnel costs, supplies, and mailing notices. The estimated cost for the 11 previously proposed local historic districts in Yalecrest was approximately $39,842.00 (for 526 total parcels). The Planning Division estimates that the cost of processing the Yalecrest – Laird Heights LHD will be approximately $5,150.00 for 68 parcels or $75.74 per parcel. To date, the Planning Division has spent the following amount of money from its existing budget to process the 11 applications for the proposed districts: Supplies – The average cost of supplies spent on previous local historic district applications in Yalecrest was approximately $288.00. The supply costs include posters, copies of the application, sign-in sheets, comment forms, website cards, and copies of the Economic Impact of Historic Preservation Report. Noticing – The noticing requirements included (1) initial notification of potential local historic district application, (2) notice of application submittal, (3) notices to property owners for the neighborhood meeting, (4) notices to tenants and owners within 300 feet of the proposed district for the Historic Landmark Commission, (5) notices to tenants and owners within 300 feet of the proposed district for the Planning Commission, (6) balloting notices to property owners, (7) reminder notice to property owners to vote, (8) certified letters to property owners disclosing the balloting results. Prior to publication of the Planning Director’s Report for the Yalecrest – Douglas Park - I Petition, staff also mailed an initial letter, map and a two-page list of “Pros and Cons” to all property owners within the proposed district. The estimated noticing cost for the Yalecrest – Laird Heights petition is approximately $274.56. This year the City Council allocated approximately $18,000 to the Planning Division for public engagement costs. This money is in addition to general noticing costs the Division receives. Generally this money is used for public engagement relating to master plans and other large long range types of projects. In the future, the Division may request additional public engagement funds to help pay for these types of applications. Administering Historic Preservation in the Planning Division The Planning Division has ten staff planners who can work on historic preservation projects. Since the beginning of 2014, there have been 178 properties designated within various local historic districts in Yalecrest. If the City Council adopts Yalcrest – Laird Heights, the number of designated properties in the H Historic Preservation Overlay District in Salt Lake City would increase by 68 properties to 5,011 properties. On an annual basis, historic preservation applications consist of approximately 32% of the total amount of the applications the Division receives. Most of the applications are for simple changes and 89% of them are administratively approved. In other words, they do not require a lot of staff time to complete, probably between 1-5 hours of staff time per administrative application. Typically, 50% of all HLC applications are approved over-the-counter. The applications that are forwarded to the Historic Landmark Commission consist of demolitions, new construction, enforcement cases and more complex proposals. The building activity in the Yalecrest National Historic District in general is relatively high compared to the activity of the majority of existing local historic districts. Since 2018, 1,676 building permits were issued for the area generally between Sunnyside Avenue and 1300 South and 1300 East to 1900 East. Since 2018 to date, the number of building permits issued for the entire City was 59,215. The building activity in the Yalecrest neighborhood accounted for approximately 3% of the building permits issued. In addition to this level of building activity, residents have also been highly active, involved, and inquisitive regarding the current proposed designation process. We anticipate building activity will remain high and the residents will remain active. The Yalecrest neighborhood also experiences a higher number of complaints to the Building Services Division than other areas in the city. In the case that this Yalecrest – Laird Heights application is designated, we do not expect a remarkable increase in the number of historic preservation applications, inspections or complaints. Therefore, it isn’t anticipated that the Planning Division and Building Services Divisions will need additional staff resources to handle any increase in work. Is the Designation Consistent with other plans and adopted planning documents? Yes-The Community Preservation Plan (2012) assigns a High Priority to considering stronger protections within the Yalecrest neighborhood to control demolitions and teardowns through the adoption of one or more of the identified community preservation tools, such as local historic district designation. The East Bench Community Master Plan (February 2017 – Page 32 & 35) states, “The Yalecrest neighborhood contains some of the oldest residential development in the East Bench Community and exhibits a variety of period revival architectural styles dating back to the first few decades of the 20th Century. Communities within the East Bench are encouraged to continue the dialogue regarding community preservation. If the values of people in certain areas coincide, new overlay zones can emerge. Several tools and ordinances now exist that may assist communities fulfilling their desires to create such zones.” Additionally, Plan Salt Lake (2015) states, “Salt Lake City’s Historic Preservation Program aims to preserve the best examples of the City’s historic architecture, buildings, landmarks, and landscapes. Our historic preservation tools and resources protect assets that are uniquely historic and best represent the story of the City’s past. As a City, we value neighborhood character and the defining elements that make up our neighborhoods and City. The historic development patterns, including building, composition and landscaping, details and elements all play important roles in defining the character of our places.” Plan Salt Lake continues to provide initiatives to further both the preservation and sustainable growth. Is the proposed designation generally in the public interest? Yes-Salt Lake City has identified historic preservation as being important to the public interest since the City Commission first adopted historic preservation regulations and policies in 1976. Historic Preservation policies can be implemented by many tools. Local Designation is one tool to accomplish this goal. This petition was initiated by a property owner in the area, which indicates this portion of the public is interested in local regulation for this area. Property owners are required to get a minimum of 33% of property owner signatures to move forward with submitting a designation application. In the case of this application, 45 of 68 property owners signed in support of designation (66%). Property owners have shown a consistent interest in the preservation of the historic character of their homes in recent years, witnessed by the number of successful tax credit applications, only available for the sensitive rehabilitation of contributing properties. Since 2007, when the Yalecrest area was designated as a National Register Historic District, through 2019, 185 properties have earned state historic tax credits, representing a total investment in historic homes in excess of $19,178,167. Is the proposed designation generally consistent with the criteria for designation? Yes-Pending a more thorough analysis that will occur prior to the Historic Landmark Commission and Planning Commission public hearings, generally, this application appears to be consistent with the criteria for local designation. Exhibit 2 Information Letter Sent to Owners February 9, 2023 Dear Property Owner, The Salt Lake City Planning Division has received a petition from a property owner on your street to designate a new local historic district in the city (see map below). The proposed district includes your property, which is currently listed on the National Register of Historic Places. The intent of this letter is to notify the affected property owners of the next steps. The petitioner has gathered signatures from more than 33% of property owners of lots or parcels within the proposed boundaries who are in support of the petition which meets the ordinance threshold requirements to move forward with the application process. What Happens Next? The following list details the process of designating a new local historic district. 1. Director’s Report: A report that identifies initial information about the request is presented to City Council for their acceptance. Acceptance of the report begins the city outreach process and public hearings to determine if a local historic district meets the zoning ordinance standards for designation. 2. Property Owner Meeting: The city will hold a “property owner” meeting in your neighborhood to explain the proposal and answer any questions. 3. Public Open House: Next, the city will hold a public “virtual open house” where anyone can visit the public house webpage to learn more about the proposal and ask questions. 4. Public Hearings: The Historic Landmark Commission and the Planning Commission will each conduct a “public hearing” at City Hall where property owners, residents, and members of the public are encouraged to comment on the proposal. Both Commissions will make a positive or negative recommendation to the City Council concerning the proposed local historic district. 5. Opinion Ballot: The city will then mail a ballot to every property owner within the proposed district to gauge the level of support for the proposal. Property owners will have 30 days to cast their ballot. The City Recorder will not publish the response of individual ballots—only the final tally of ballots received will be published. 6. City Council: The Planning Division will then transmit to the City Council a copy of 1) all public comments received, 2) the recommendations from both Commissions, and 3) the ballot results. The City Council will review the petition, hold a public hearing, and make the final decision. 7. Designation: If the proposed district is approved by the Salt Lake City Council, your property would be in the “Yalecrest – Laird Heights” local historic district. For More Information The Planning Division has enclosed a “Pros and Cons of a Local Historic District” for your review. Additional information on historic preservation in Salt Lake City is available online at the following website: • www.slcgov.com/historicpreservation You may also call or email me at any time. Sincerely, Lex Traughber Senior Planner (801) 535-6184 lex.traughber@slcgov.com Salt Lake City Local Historic District Pros and Cons What does designation as a Local Historic District mean? Local Historic Districts protect neighborhood character by limiting building demolitions and preventing out-of-character alterations. To achieve this, all proposed demolitions, new construction, and exterior alterations are reviewed using adopted standards and design guidelines. Property owners would need to go through a review process. What type of work is reviewed if my property is in a local historic district? The City must approve all work on the exterior of a property prior to beginning construction. However, repainting and performing routine maintenance, such as replacing the glass in a broken window, does not require approval. If you are unsure, e-mail the Planning Counter at zoning@slcgov.com or call 801-535-7700. You can also visit the Planning Counter in Room 215 of the City and County Building, at 451 S. State Street in downtown Salt Lake City. No appointment is necessary. Typically, most applications are reviewed and approved at the Planning Counter. However, depending upon the type and extensity of the alteration there may be added review time. Is work on the interior of a building reviewed for historic preservation? No. Historic preservation standards only apply to the exterior of a property. However, if the interior work affects the exterior of a building, such as filling in a window opening or moving a doorway, property owners will need to obtain approval before doing the work. Do changes to yard or landscape features need historic preservation approval? Yes. In some circumstances, landscaping features contribute to the established character of a neighborhood; work such as changes to grades, walkways, steps, and fences require historic preservation approval. How do I get approval to make changes to my property? Before Building Services can issue a Building Permit, the Planning Division must approve the plans to ensure it meets historic preservation standards. Once approved, the Planning Division issues a “Certificate of Appropriateness” for the change. To receive a Certificate of Appropriateness, an applicant submits a petition with required documentation to the Planning Counter. The Planning Division reviews the petition to ensure that it meets adopted historic preservation standards. The Planning Staff may approve minor alterations to a building or site, like repairing a roof or building a fence. The Historic Landmark Commission is required to hear and decide all complex issues, like major alterations or new construction. How long does it take to get approval to do work on my property if it is in a local historic district? On average, the Planning Division administratively approves ninety percent (90%) of all applications. 50% of those applications the same day they are received, while the other 50% may be approved within 2-10 days depending on complexity. The Historic Landmark Commission reviews approximately 10% of all applications received, including 1) new construction of principal buildings, 2) demolitions of historic structures, and 3) major alterations. If a project requires approval of the Historic Landmark Commission, it usually takes about six weeks from the time a complete application is submitted to receive a decision. Can I put an addition on my house? Locating an addition at the front of a historic building is usually inappropriate. As a general rule, additions should be sensitive to the historic building and it is preferable that an addition be to the rear if possible. The adopted Residential Design Guidelines offer further advice and guidance on additions. Additions have been consistently approved in local historic districts as residents needed more space. Can I change my windows to make my home more energy efficient? Windows are a character-defining feature of most historic structures, especially windows on the front of a building. Generally, property owners should maintain or repair original windows whenever possible, and consider replacement only if a window exhibits significant deterioration. Windows that are in disrepair or not original nor readily visible from the street, like the rear of a structure, are generally easier to replace than original windows on the front of a structure. Replacing original windows for energy efficiency is the last priority to consider. Do I need approval to paint the exterior of my house? No – as long as the structure had been previously painted. The design guidelines view paint as a temporary application that is appropriate for wood surfaces. There are no design guidelines relating to changing colors. Brick, stone or masonry facades that have never been painted should not be painted because it will trap moisture and cause extensive damage over time. Brick has a protective finish or “glazing” that is very important to its physical integrity. Unpainted brick will need to remain unpainted, as well as unpainted stone foundations. Can I use new types of materials on my home? The Historic Landmark Commission periodically analyzes new construction materials and determines where they are appropriate for use in historic districts. In the past, the Commission has found that fiberglass columns and composite decking materials may be appropriate for porch renovations, and cement board siding may be appropriate for new additions. Using traditional materials is typically approved and some new types of materials on a historic building may be denied. What types of materials are not allowed in a local historic district? Aluminum and vinyl siding are not allowed in local historic districts when applied over or in place of historic materials because it changes the historic integrity of the building. These materials, when applied over original materials, traps moisture, which leads to physical deterioration and failure of building materials over time. Exhibit 3 Application Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 1 of 34 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page A. Project Description 1. Written Description of the Proposal ..................................... 3 Significance of Area in Local, Regional, State or National History Physical Integrity of houses in the area Commercial Properties Developers, Builders, Architects Properties Recommended for National Register Level Research Significant Persons in the Area Distinctive characteristics of the type/period/method of construction Importance to Salt Lake City history 2. Physical Integrity .................................................................... 11 Location, Design, Setting, Materials, Workmanship, Feeling and Association 3. Eligibility Listing on the National Register of Historic Places 15 4. Notable Examples of Elements in Salt Lake City’s History 15 5. Consistent Designation Of Proposed LHD Designation With Adopted City Planning Policies ............................................ 22 6. Public Interest in Proposed LHD Designation .................... 25 B. Photographs (attached separately) ........................................... 27 C. Research Materials ...................................................................... 27 D. Landmark Sites ............................................................................. 27 E. Boundary Adjustment .................................................................. 27 Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 2 of 34 Page APPENDICES A. Maps 1. Original Plat Normandie Heights Subdivision within Yalecrest . 29 2. Laird Heights LHD within other establish LHDs in Yalecrest Neighborhood ............................................................ 30 3. Expanded view of Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD ....................... 31 B. Contrary Documentation in 2005 RLS ........................................... 32 C. Photographs of houses in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD (original vs. 2023) ............................................................................ 33 See photos in a separate attached document 1185-1227 S 1300 East ............................................................ 1305-1480 E Laird Ave ............................................................. 1407-1425 E Laird Circle .......................................................... 1447-1465 E Uintah Circle........................................................ 1174-1200 S 1500 E ................................................................. D. Research Materials (References) .................................................... 34 Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 3 of 34 1. Project Description Significance of Area in Local, Regional or State History In the mid 1800’s, Salt Lake City was platted and developed with public buildings in the center of Salt Lake City surrounded by residential lots and farmland to the south and west. The Big Field Survey in 1848 divided the land to the south of the Salt Lake City settlement (900 South today) into five and ten acre plots to be used for farming for the “mechanics and artisans” of the city.1 The Yalecrest survey area is located on the northeastern section of land that was initially set apart as Five -Acre Plat “C” of the Big Field Survey1 The land was divided into 100-acre blocks, each of which was again divided into 20 lots of 5 acres each. Yalecrest occupies Blocks 28, 29, and 30. The original blocks are bordered by the major north-south streets of the survey area: 1300, 1500, 1700 and 1900 East and the east-west streets of 900 and 1300 South. (The Utah Historic Sites Database). The area north of 2100 South was a Five -Acre Plat “A” and the area south was a Ten-Acre Plat. The majority of Yalecrest with the exception of strips along the north and west sides are part of Five Acre Plat “C”.1 Property within the area was distributed by the LDS church authorities, by lot, for use in raising crops and farming.1 Dividing the plots for land speculation was discouraged: 1875 maps of Salt Lake City show no development in the southeast section of the city beyond 1000 East or 900 South. The earliest identified residents in the Yalecrest area begin to appear in the 1870s1. Yalecrest boundaries are represented by 840 South (Sunnyside Ave) to 1300 South and 1300 East to 1900 East. The 1920s were a period of tremendous growth in Yalecrest with 22 subdivisions platted by a variety of developers from 1911 to 1938. The Bowers Investment Company, a branch of the Bowers Building Company, filed the subdivision papers for Normandie Heights in 1926 with 140 lots, and its houses were built primarily from 1926-35. It is distinctive because of its picturesque rolling topography with landscaped serpentine streets, regular promotions, prominent homeowners, deep setbacks, and large irregularly shaped lots. In August 1928, the Uintah Heights Addition located in Block 30 of the 5 - Acre Plat C of the Big Field Survey of 1848 and consists of 35 lots. The area was developed by Uintah Realty Co. and other builders and houses were constructed primarily in the late 1920s and early 1930s, many by Herrick Bros. and the Gaddis Investment Company. N.L. Herrick was a partner in the Gaddis Investment Co mpany as well as an individual builder. Herrick and Company provided both design and construction services. The Gaddis Investment Company was founded in 1922 to deal in real estate, investments and insurance. Both of its partners lived in Yalecrest; N.L. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 4 of 34 Herrick at 1603 Harvard Avenue and Thomas E. Gaddis at 1465 Laird Avenue in a French Norman house built in 1929. Thomas Gaddis was involved in real estate and investments in Salt Lake City from 1909 to his death in 1967. The initial street names of Princeton, Laird and Harvard Aves were Kelsey, Edith, and Hampton, respectively. View of Laird Ave 1933 A number of factors contributed to the Yalecrest development in the early twentieth century; 1) the population of Salt Lake City almost doubling from 1900 to 1910, 2) air pollution in the valley from coal burning furnaces led residents to seek higher elevations East of 1300 East for cleaner air to breathe for their residences recently developed by in- state and out-of-state land developers. Transportation options made the Yalecrest area easily accessible to the downtown area. The primary means of transportation in the early part of this era was the streetcar line along 1500 East.1 The streetcars serving the Yalecrest area traveled from downtown to 1300 East in front of East High, traveling East along 900 South to 1500 East, then south on 1500 East to the State Prison located at 2100 S. The former State Prison on 2100 South is the current site of Sugar House Park. 1960’s and Beyond (1960-2005) The Yalecrest neighborhood, in general and Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD specifically, avoided the blight common in many urban residential neighborhoods during this era. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 5 of 34 There was no population pressure as the population of Salt Lake City slightly decreased during this time period.12 No major roads were built through the neighborhood although traffic increased on the border streets of 1300 South, 1300 East and Sunnyside Ave. Zoning ordinances restricted commercial building to a few spots on the major streets. While there are 51 original duplexes in the Yalecrest neighborhood, there are 4 in the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD. The original Uintah Elementary School located on 1300 S (outside the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD boundaries) was demolished and replaced by a new structure in 1993. The attractive neighborhoods of Yalecrest have mature street trees, single-family owner-occupied, well-maintained houses with landscaped yards and continue to be a desirable residential area .1 The current practice of razing an existing small historic structure and replacing it with a residence 3-4 times the size of the original house in established neighborhoods galvanized some residents into action in the years 2000 -2005. A zoning overlay ordinance was created called the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay ordinance was passed by the Salt Lake City Council in 2005. The purpose of the ordinance is: to encourage compatibility between new construction, additions or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood. That infill overlay zoning regulated building height, minimum front yard size, and several aspects of garages or accessory structures. Due to liberal interpretation of the current City and State demolition ordinances, houses in Yalecrest continue to be demolished above ground and replaced with out-of-size, mass and architectural incompatibility. The currently proposed SLC “Affordable Housing Incentive” (AHI) City (2022) aims to increase multifamily housing within ¼ mile of high frequency (every 15 minutes) transportation corridors. UTA has recently changed the frequency of bus route #220 on 1300 E to a 15-minute frequency. All 1300-1500 Blocks of Yalecrest are impacted by this zoning overlay. The AHI zoning overlay allows demolition of single -family housing to create this new multifamily hou sing construction thus making historic single-family houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD endangered to demolition. The listing of Yalecrest on the National Register of Historic Places does not protect against this local zoning. This application seeking a Local Historic District designation is the only current legal option to minimize demolition of historic single -family houses in this established, mature and historic neighborhood. The proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights Local Historic District (LHD) is located on Block 30 and encompasses the following properties; 6 properties on the west side of 1500 East (1174, 1180, 1184, 1188, 1194, and 1200 S 1500 East) between the proposed Princeton Heights LHD and the current proposed Laird Heights LHD as the East boundary, Four properties on the East side of 1300 East (1185-1227 S 1300 East) represent the West Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 6 of 34 boundary and all Laird Ave properties on the north and south sides of Laird Ave street face from 1305-1480 E Laird as the North and South boundaries, respectively. Both the Laird Circle and Uintah Circles are located within the North side of Laird Ave. (see APPENDIX A). Thus, 61 single- family houses and 4 duplex houses are contained within the 65 property parcels proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD. The name “Laird Ave first appears in 1908 in the Polk directory and is associated with development of Laird Ave near 900 and 1000 East by Edward Laird (1852 -1925), who migrated at the age of 4 into Utah as part of the infamous Willie Handcart Company of 1856. As an adult he homesteaded in Mountain Dell of Parley’s Canyon. After selling water rights to Salt Lake City in 1900, he relocated to Salt Lake City bought a lot of land and developed a number of lumber and real estate and development companies in Salt Lake City (see Significant persons in the area section below). Physical Integrity of Houses in the Area There is a very high degree of retained historic integrity in the proposed Yalecrest -Laird An Architectural and Historic Reconnaissance Level Survey (RLS) of Yalecrest was conducted in 20051, by Beatrice Lufkin of the Utah State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO) for Salt Lake City in preparation for the National Register of Historic Places application for the Yalecrest neighborhood. Much of the information in this document comes from that reconnaissance level survey (RLS). The proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD area contains houses constructed over the time period from 1923 (1480 E Laird Ave) and extending through 1950 (1185 S 1300 East) in the historic era. All of the houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD were contributing in 2005 (100%), either /significant and eligible contributing (100.0%): 60.0% (39/65) were considered eligible and significant (A) and 40.0% (26/65) were considered eligible and contributing (B). Only one house, since 2005, has been demolished with new construction replacement, (1451 E Uintah Circle). The contributory status of other properties in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD may have changed since the last assessment in 2005. Houses that may no longer have contributory status are listed in APPENDIX C. Commercial Properties There are no commercial properties in the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD. Developers, Builders and Architects The original name for Laird Ave was actually Edith Ave . “Laird Ave first appears in the 1908 Polk directory and is associated with development of that street later in Normandie Heights subdivision (see Significant persons in the area section below). Normandie Heights subdivision was platted for 140 properties in 1926 by the Bowers Investment Co. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 7 of 34 Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD contains 65 property parcels of the 140 platted parcels in the greater Normandie Height subdivision. A number of notable Salt Lake builders were responsible for building exceptional houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD. Notable Builders in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Builder Laird Ave Laird Circle Uintah Circle 1300 East 1500 East TOTAL JA Shaffer 11 11 LJ Bowers Invest. Co 2 2 4 Carl Buehner 2 1 1 4 Gaddis Invest. Co 6 6 N Myrtle Bratt 6 6 Layton Construction Co 1 1 George L Biesinger 1 1 Herrick Building Co 2 2 Gaskell Romney 1 1 AE Jorgenson 1 1 Sugarhouse Lumber Co 1 1 An advertisement for the Spanish Colonial Revival at 1360 E Laird Ave built by JA Shaffer (left) and Lower Laird Ave (right) Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 8 of 34 Gaskell Romney was extensively involved in developing Normandie Heights subdivision. He built 9 homes in the Princeton Heights LHD (1404, 1410, 1426, 1442, 1445,1449, 1450, 1458 and 465 E Princeton Ave. He built 1 house in the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD at 1332 E Laird Ave. The proposed boundaries of the Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD are outlined in red (APPENDIX A-1). It will join 6 other LHDs created in Yalecrest: Harvard Park, Laird Park, Yale Plat A/Upper Harvard, Harvard Heights, Normandie Circle and Douglas Park- I, outlined in blue. It will join another proposed Princeton Heights LHD previously submitted for local historic designation which is located immediately North of the currently proposed Laird Heights LHD. Properties Recommended for National Register Level Research 1308 E Laird Ave (built 1939) a brick 2 story Art Modern style. 1227 S 1300 East (built 1940) is a Spanish Colonial Revival type duplex. 1362 S Laird Ave (built 1927) Spanish Colon ial Revival 1374 S Laird Ave (built 1927) French Norman style with two turrets 1465 E Laird Ave (Built 1929) the long-term residence of builder/Investor Thomas E Gaddis. This property is listed as 1465 E Uintah Circle in the 2005 RLS, but as 1465 E Laired Ave by the Salt Lake County Assessor. 1451 E Uintah Circle (built 1939) representative of several Colonial Revival architecture style houses In Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD. Significant Persons in the Area The Naming of Laird Ave The name “Laird Ave first appears in 1908 in the Polk directory and is associated with development of Laird Ave near 900 and 1000 East by Edward Laird (1852 -1925), who migrated at the age of 4 into Utah as part of the infamous Willie Handcart Company of 1856. As an adult he homesteaded in Mountain Dell of Parley’s Canyon. After selling water rights to Salt Lake City in 1900, he relocated to Salt Lake City bought a lot of land and developed a number of lumber and real estate and development companies in Salt Lake City. Originally, Laird Ave was listed as Edith Ave. Land records and personal history accounts lend credence to Edward Laird (1852 -1925) as the source of the current street name, Laird Avenue. According to the local paper, he was involved in a numb er of real estate transfers in 1907 and 1908 in a subdivision named, “Laird”. Those lots were located at what is Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 9 of 34 now Laird Avenue between 9th and 10th East. All these land transfers occurred immediately before the street named "Laird Avenue" first appeared in the city directory in 1908. Therefore, there is credence that the street was named after Edward Laird. A relative, William Naylor, was likely also invested in that land, as the name of one of the dead-end courts that runs north off of 13th South just east of 9th East is named "Naylor Court." Edward Laird was born in Scotland in 1852 and died in Salt Lake in 1925. Edward was a child of four when his family immigrated as handcart pioneers in the infamous Willie Handcart Company of 1856 where more than a hundred of the pioneers perished in frigid Wyoming. Edward Laird's family however arrived unscathed. Living first in Spanish Fork, then Heber City, Edward grew up accustomed to hard work on his father's farm but never attended school. While camping in Park City, Edward found some silver ore. Edward and his brother had their camp ground assayed and sold their claim (which is now Silver King) for $1500. With this money, Edward purchased land in Parley’s Canyon (now Mountain Dell), began raising sheep and hauling silver ore from Park City to Salt Lake. A little farther down the canyon was the Hardy Station, a halfway house run by the Hardy family. It was in the Hardy home that Edward met Valeria Ann Flint. When grown, Laird homesteaded land in Parley's Canyon at Mountain Dell and became a successful sheep farmer. He owned water rights of Parley's Canyon Creek and sold some of them to Salt Lake City in 1900 during a severe water drought. Thereafter, he relocated to Salt Lake City and started buying real estate in Salt Lake City. He bought a property near 1st South and 5th West and eventually started Rio Grande Lumber Company there. He also had ownership in Sugarhouse Lumber Company, which was located on 21st South near 12th East. Later, he joined with Misters Ashton and Jenkins of the Ashton-Jenkins Company, who developed much of Yalecrest. He later became a vice-president of the Ashton- Jenkins Company. The family moved to 840 East Twelfth South (later becoming 840 East 2100 South), after selling their property in Mountain Dell in Parley’s Canyon. He and his wife, Valeria Ann Flint Laird had eight children, five daughters and three sons. The sons continued with the sheep farming part of the family business and moved to Dubois, Idaho. Edward also owned much of the block around his house and that's why there are other family members showing in the Polk directories living at the other addresses, 817 and 820 East Twelfth South. (compiled by Kim Childs, KEEPYalecrest) Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 10 of 34 Edward Laird (1852-1925) 1922 50th Wedding Anniversary of Edward Laird and Valeria Laird with their children. Back row left is Fidella Laird Snelgrove, wife of Charles Rich Snelgrove Laird and Snelgrove Families Edward's youngest daughter, Fidella married Charles Rich Snelgrove, who in 1929 created Snelgrove's Ice Cream Company. After the deaths of Edward and Valeria in 1925 and 1930 respectively, Charles and Fidella lived in his parents’ house at 840 E. 1200 South (changed later to 840 E 2100 South) in Sugarhouse. The year before Valeria died, she allowed Charles and Fidella to open their ice cream business up the street at one of their properties at 1055 E. 2100 South. Eventually, sometime after 1940, the houses at 820 and 840 E. 2100 South were razed to make room for the Snelgrove factory and main store with the iconic giant spinning ice-cream cone sign at 850 E. 2100 South. The oldest son of Charles Rich Snelgrove (husband to Fidella Laird, the youngest daughter of Edward Laird) was Charles Laird Snelgrove. He worked with his father and later ultimately took over ownership and expanded the business throughout Salt Lake City (compiled by Kim Childs, KEEPYalecrest) Distinctive Characteristics of the Type/Period/Method Of Construction Houses within the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD are primarily English Cottages (50.8%) and English Tudors (14.4%) constructed mainly in brick; either striated (50.8%) or regular (30.8%) over the time period 1920-30. These houses contain unique exterior and interior architectural attributes built by notable City builders and serve as outstanding historical examples of great domiciles for future generations. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 11 of 34 Importance to Salt Lake City History Yalecrest and specifically the proposed Laird Heights LHD contains many fine example s of English Cottages and English Tudors (Historically, Yalecrest has been home to many professional residents who have shaped the city’s development and economic base. There has been a diversity of professional occupations amongst past and current property owners in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD; business persons, lawyers, physicians, and builders. A number of notable professional people lived in Yalecrest-Laird Heights, who advanced the economic base of Salt Lake City. Those individuals are listed as a function of the street address at which they reside in the Notable Persons section below. 2. Physical Integrity The proposed Laird Height LHD is located on the southwest side of the greater Yalecrest neighborhood on a mature tree-line rolling hill. It contains notable examples of English Cottages English Tudors, Spanish Colonial Revival and Colonial Revival archite cture by many famous builders in 1920-30’s of Salt Lake City. Contributing Status of houses in Yalecrest-Laird Heights The proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD retains a very high degree of historic and physical integrity. The vast majority of houses (%) are eligible/significant (39/65= 60%) and eligible contributing (26/65= 40%)1. There were no “C” nor D”’ structures in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD boundaries listed in the 2005 Reconnaissance Level Survey. To our knowledge, 1 house in the Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD was demolished with new construction replacement, 1451 E Uintah Circle. Two other houses may have been altered sufficiently becoming noncontributing (1453 and 1455 E Uintah Circle). The number of contributing and noncontributing houses and their eligibility status on each street in the Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is tabulated below. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 12 of 34 Contributing Structure Status of Single-Family Residential Properties in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHDa,c Street Ab Bb Cb Db Xb Total Laird Ave 29 13 0 0 0 42 Laird Circle 4 3 0 0 0 7 Uintah Circle 0 5 0 1 0 6 1300 East 4 0 0 0 0 4 1500 East 2 4 0 0 0 6 TOTAL % Total 39 (60.0%) 25 (38.5%) 0 (0.0%) 1 (1.5%) 0 (0.0%) 65a (100%) aaccording to the 2005 RLS, there are 65 single family residential structures included in this analysis. The contributing status listed reflects assessment in 2005, except 1 house in Uintah Circle that was demolished in 2009 and replaced with new construction (D) bA= eligible significant, B= eligible/contributing, C= ineligible/noncontributing, D=out of period, X=demolished c1926 plat of Normandie Heights lists 104 properties. Yalecrest -Laird Heights LHD contains 65 of those 104 parcels. The number of currently (2023) eligible significant (A) plus eligible contributing structures (B) may have changed due to remodeling projects that alter the street face including; windows, porches, dormers, stories, roofing materials and/or exterior materials. The number of contributing structures in 2023 remain to be verified by the City Planning Department / Preservation Office and Historic Landmarks Commission. It is interesting to note that Yalecrest in general, and Normandie Heights subdivision in particular, attracts home buyers that stay in residence for extended periods of time. Many property owners have lived in the same residence for more than 20 years. This continuity lends consistency, character and stewardship to the area. The mature (75 yr old) and Ash, Elm, Sycamore, Norwegian Maple and other newer specie tree-lined streets with streetlights provide shade, shelter and safety in the neighborhood. Driving access to major interstates I-15 and I-80, and walkability to integrated infrastructure necessary for successful residential living: commercial neighborhood zoning districts (grocery, pharmacy, restaurants, library and public parks and schools) and contributes to making Yalecrest in general, and Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD specifically, one of the safest neighborhoods and most sought real estate property in Salt Lake City. Houses are well-maintained, and appropriately updated for modern living, while maintaining their original architectural charm. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 13 of 34 Building dates Houses in the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD were built from 1919 through 1953 in the current historic era. The majority of single-family residences in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD according to the Salt Lake County Assessor website were built in the late 1920’s (67.4%) and 1930’s (25.6%). The distribution of houses built in different decades from 1910 to 1950’s as a function of street with the proposed LHD are shown in the table below. Construction Yearsa of Original Single-Family Residences in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHDa Street 1920’s 1930’s 1940’s 1950’s >2005 Total Laird Ave 22 20 0 0 0 42 Laird Circle 3 4 0 0 0 7 Uintah Circle 0 4 0 0 2 6 1300 East 0 3 0 1 0 4 1500 East 6 0 0 0 0 6 TOTAL 31 31 0 1 2 65 % Total 47.7% 47.7% 0.% 1.5% 3.1% 100% aaccording to Salt Lake County Assessor website (www.slco.org/assessor) Architectural Types Houses of the Laird Heights LHD contain a variety of architectural style types including English Cottage (50.8%), English Tudor (15.4%), Colonial Revival (9.2%), French Bungalow (7.7%), French Norman (6.2%), Spanish Colonial Revival (4.6%), Minimal Traditional/Ranch (4.6%), Art Moderne (1.5%) Tabulation of the house styles as a function of street within the Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is shown below. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 14 of 34 Architectural Types in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Residential Structuresa Type Laird Ave Laird Circle Uintah Circle 1300 East 1500 East TOTAL %TOTAL English Cottage / Period Revival 28 2 0 0 3 33 50.8% English Tudor 4 2 2 2 0 10 15.4% Colonial Revival 0 2 4 0 0 6 9.2% Bungalow 2 0 0 0 3 5 7.7% French Norman 4 0 0 0 0 4 6.2% Spanish Colonial Revival 2 0 0 1 0 3 4.6% Minimal Tradition/ Early Ranch 1 1 0 1 0 3 4.6% Art Moderne 1 0 0 0 0 1 1.5% TOTAL 42 7 6 4 6 65 100% aaccording to RLS 2005. Exterior House Materials Exterior construction materials of houses in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD are primarily striated brick (50.8%), regular brick (30.8%), stucco/paster (10.8%) and stone (4.6%), Terra Cotta (1.5%), aluminum/vinyl siding (1.5%) with various accompanying materials including half timbering, clapboard, stucco/paster, wood and aluminum/vinyl siding. The distribution of the various exterior construction materials is tabulated below. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 15 of 34 Exterior Construction Materials of Residential Structures in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHDa a2005 RLS assessment 3. Eligibility Listing on the National Register of Historic Places As previously stated, the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is located within the boundary of the existing Yalecrest National Register Historic District established in 2007 (#07001168) and thus is eligible for Local Historic District designation. 4. Notable Examples of Elements in Salt Lake City’s History The proposed area described by the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD contains a diverse collection of historically contributing architecture styles; English Cottage, English Tudor, Colonial Revival, Spanish Colonial Revival, Minimal Tradition and Early Ranch, Type Laird Ave Laird Circle Uintah Circle 1300 East 1500 East Total %Total Striated Brick 8 2 2 0 0 12 +Half Timbering 5 2 1 1 0 9 + Stucco/plaster 3 0 0 0 3 6 +Alum/vinyl/wood 2 0 0 0 0 2 +stone 1 0 0 0 0 1 +shiplap/stone 1 0 0 0 0 1 +shingles 1 0 1 0 0 2 subtotal 21 4 4 1 3 33 50.8% Regular Brick 8 0 0 1 0 9 +Half timber 2 1 1 2 0 6 +stone or plaster 3 0 0 0 1 4 +wood 0 1 0 0 0 1 subtotal 13 2 1 3 1 20 30.8% Stucco/Plaster 3 0 0 0 1 4 +Half timbering 2 0 0 0 1 3 subtotal 5 0 0 0 2 7 10.8% Stone 0 1 0 0 0 1 +Plaster 1 0 0 0 0 1 +alum siding 1 0 0 0 0 1 subtotal 2 1 0 0 0 3 4.6% Terra Cotta 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.5% Aluminum/vinyl 0 0 1 0 0 1 1.5% TOTAL 42 7 6 4 6 65 100% Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 16 of 34 French Norman and Bungalow. In addition, these homes were developed, designed, built and owned by renowned individuals who contributed to the cultural, defense, business, medical, education and legal aspects of the city, state and country. An Intensive Level Survey was completed of Yalecrest by Beatrice Lufkin, of the Utah State Historic Office (SHPO) in 2005. Exterior and interior photographs, a title search, genealogical and other information are on file at the Utah State Preservation Of fice. Notable Houses and Their Owners in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD (from The State Historic Preservation Office files) 1227-1229 S 1300 East (16-09-483-003) This masonry/stucco Spanish Colonial Revival house built in 1930 is considered architecturally significant example of Spanish Colonial Revival style in the form of a duplex. It was originally owned by William O Carbis. William O Carbis was president of K & A Heating. After his death in 1938, his son Wayne inherited the property. I t is a 1 ½ story stucco house with a T-shaped form with a gable roof with a single ridge parallel to the street. It also other unique attributes including a red ceramic tile roof with narrow eaves, a low relief ornamentation, a wall chimney, a front wall dormer with shed roof, an entry at intersection of stem and cross wings, wrought iron balconet on gable end of the stem wing. Is believed to have been a duplex rental property throughout the Historic period. 1308 E Laird Ave (16-08-453-001) Built in 1937, this Art Moderne striated brick house is thought to have been built and owned by Dal A Siegel, co-owner of the Salt Lake Loan Office in 1939. He resided here until 1941 then sold it to Henry and Helen Pullman, who resided here through the end of the historic period. 1319 E Laird Avenue (16-08-182-008) The 1929 English Cottage was built and owned by Edward F Richards, who was an attorney with the firm Richards & Richards. He resided here through the end of the historic period. It’s a 1 ½ story stucco Tudor cottage with a steep gable wing protruding from the gable roof. Important features include half-timbering in the apex of the gable, framing 3 square “flower petal windows. Half-timbering is repeated in the gable dormer directly above a shed dormer entry. 1328 E Laird Ave (16-09-354-001) This masonry English Cottage was built in 1926 for the first owned by Milton and Florence Beckman. Milton Beckman practiced with the law firm GH Backman & sons. The Backman’s resided here through 1936. After renting the house out in 1937, the Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 17 of 34 Beckmans sold it later to Leslie Kidman, a county supervisor, who lived here through the end of the historic period. This “T-shaped” 1 ½ story house has a pent gable end to the street. The right side of the pent gable roof extends down and out to include the off- center door framed by a round brick area. A Palladian window pierces the upper wall surface of the pent gable. 1361 E Laird Ave (16-09-353-033) This French Norman house was designed and built on speculation by architect/builder J A Shaffer in 1927-8. JA Shaffer built a number of houses on Laird Ave. The first owner was Ray H and Frances Petersen, Officer Manager for Pacific National Life Insuranc e Co. The Petersens resided here from 1930 through the end of the historic period. 1362 E Laird Ave (16-09-354-007) This masonry 1 story stucco Spanish Colonial Revival house was built by JA Shaffer and the original owner in 1927. It has a parapet-roofed central projection with joins the asymmetrical façade. Important features include a rounded opening, unusual massing and curvilinear gable. The house was a rental property through 1939 when the Builders Finance Corporation sold it to Ray Done and his wife. Soon after the Dones sold it to Cecil and Donna Cooly, an engineer with Safeway Stores. The Cooly’s resided here though the end of the historic period. 1373 E Laird Ave (16-09-353-005) The house is a significant example of English Tudor Revival Style built in 1927 by JA Shaffer. It was purchased in 1929 by Charles W Child a contractor and his wife, Alvarette. In 1934, they sold the house to Antoine and Vilate Ivins. Mr Ivins was the Director of Layton Sugar Company and the Hotel Utah. Ivins and his wife operated a livestock ranch near Enterprise for several year. From 1921-31 Mr Ivins managed an LDS-owned sugar plantation in Hawaii. IN 1931, he was named to the LDS First Council of 70, then headed the Mexican Mission until 1934. In 1940, the Ivins sold the house to Homer S Tucker, a Division Manager for Safeway Stores. Tucker and his wife, Ruby resided in the house resided there from 1940 through the end of the historic period. The English Tudor has a 1 ½ story brick English Tudor having a half -timbered gable facing the street and an overlapping gabled entry porch of half-timbering with brick basket weave patterned infill. The porch roof is supported by square and turned posts on brick piers. The major gable is preceded by a patio wit wrought iron railing. Alterations to the historic house include metal awnings and possible window replacement with plate gl ass windows Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 18 of 34 1374 E Laird Ave (16-09-354-009) This 1927 built masonry French Norman styled house was built and owned by builder JA Shaffer. It is considered to be an architecturally significant example of a small house in the French Norman style. In 1928 Shaffer deeded the property to Sugar House Lumbar and Hardwood Company, which then sold 1 week later to Walter Hamilton (a salesman) and his wife Kathryn. The Hamilton’s resided here until 1944 when they sold to Samuel Bernstein, lawyer and partner in the law firm Metos, Bernstein and Cramer. The Bernstein’s resided here from 1944 through the end of the historic period. 1413 E Laird Circle (16-09-353-xxx) Originally owned by Construction Securities Company, this brick English Tudor was a rental property from 1931-38 and vacant until 1934 before being sold to dentist Dr William S Paine and his wife Minnie. The Paines resided here until the Death of Dr. Paines after which widow Minnie Paines rented out the house 1942 -43 then sold the property to Arnold E Burgeners and wife. Burgener was co -owner of the Transportation Insurance Agency. They rented out the property through the end of the historic period. This 2-story brick and stucco Tudor house with wide overlapping half-timbered gables set against a pent abled roof. On the right side, there is a steeply-pitched entry gable with a painter brick, arched opening, resembling a lancet window whi ch proceeds the front door. The shed dormer windows with leaded and stained glass that project from the first-floor façade may be alteration of the original. Other a lterations include a brick addition to the left of the front façade supporting a 2nd story balcony and a 2nd story window of façade. 1417 E Laird Circle (16-09-353-023) Built in 1931, Siegfried P Harter was the first owner of this Colonial Revival with a gambrel roof and a full width second story dormer has a symmetrical façade is highlighted by a shallow central Pavillion with a front door framed by two classical columns. The exterior is masonry with a terracotta appearance. The house is considered architecturally significant. It was built by Carl Buehner on speculation. The first owner was Siegfried and Helen Harter in 1932. Harter was president of Clover Leaf- Harris Dairy and the Colville Ice Cream Company. They sold the house in 1936 to Helen A Taylor for 3 mos. Thereafter, it was sold to Leon D and Lois Cuddeback, Leon D was a division superintendent with United Airlines. The Cuddebacks resided there until 1938 . Henry C and Mary Boonstra were occupants until 1942. Boonstra was Vice President of WG Goodart, bond brokers. From 1943 till the end of the historic period, Otto and Ruth Buehner, resided here. Buehner was president of Otto Buehner and Company, building products and influential in Salt Lake City building activity. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 19 of 34 1428 E Laird Ave (16-09-354-07) This 1 ½ story English Tudor was built in 1937 by the by the Gaddis Investment Company. The brick and half-timber construction with stone or concrete surround at front entry is especially lovely. Edwin Jacob ‘Jake’ Garn grew up at 1626 E Yale Ave in Yalecrest, attending Uintah Elementary, Clayton Middles School and East High School. He graduated from the University of Utah in 1955 with a BS in Business and Finance , and served as a Navy pilot stationed at Whitby Island, WA. He married Hazel Rhae in 1957. The Garns lived at 1428 E Laird Ave from 1963-1974. He was employed in the insurance industry until becoming a Salt Lake Commissioner in 1970, Salt Lake Mayor in 1972, and Utah Senator in Congress 1976-1993. He flew a mission with NASA as an astronaut in 1985. 1436 E Laird Ave (16-09-354-018) The one-story brick English Tudor with a gable roof parallel to the street and a gable half-timbered cross wind and overlapping gabled bay with stone chimney on the left façade is considered to be architecturally significant of the English Tudor style with an exposed rock chimney. It is believed to have been built by Gaddis Investment Company in 1935-7. Pannell and Myrtle Black purchase the house in 1939. MR Black was an attorney and partner with the Firm Rawlings, Wallace and Black. Black was active in Democratic party politics. The Blacks resided at 1436 E Liard Ave throughout the end of the historic period. 1458 E Laird Ave (16-09-354-022) Built in 1934, this brick 1½ story English Cottage with a main gable roof parallel to the street with two steeply pitched cross gables. The left gable contains a round arch entry and the right gable contains two arch windows with accentuated keystones. The Brick masonry of each gable is ornamented with rubble masonry near the apex. The house was built for Stanley and Myrtle Gamette. Gamette was a salesman for General Foods. They resided here through the end of the historic period. The house is considered an architecturally significant example of the English Cottage style Period Revival house combining brick masonry with stone highlights. 1465 E Laird Ave (16-09-353-046) The 1 ½ story brick architecturally significant example of the French Norman style house originally owned by Thomas Eugene Gaddis, a prominent real estate and investment executive. He and his wife Lucille were residents through the end of the historic period Mr Gaddis was born in Texas 1886 and moved to Salt Lake City in 1909 and was involved in real estate. He married Lucile Laughler in 1921 and died in Salt Lake City in 1967. He was president of Gaddis Investment Company, a real estate, investment and insurance firm he founded with NC Herrick in 1922. Mr. Gaddis was also emeritus Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 20 of 34 member of the Board of Directors of American Savings and Loan Association. H e was a member of the First Congregational Church on 1300 E and active in various civic and fraternal organizations. The house is constructed with a steeply pitched, wood shingle gable roof, with a ridge parallel to the street and has a hip roofed front bay window and an overlapping gable bay on the left façade was built in 1925 Additional features include a round arched doorway, floor to ceiling French leaded glass windows, gabled half- timbered dormer, french doors recessed into round arched openings on the front gable with a bracketed iron balconet. 1474-78 E Laird Ave (16-09-354-024) This 1 story symmetrical brick English Cottage is a duplex. Created by joining two identical L-shaped English Cottage designs. Notable features include the round arched windows in the façade of each cross wind and the arched opening leading to a small porch. It was probably built for John E Davis, assistant superintendent of the Oregon Short Line Railroad and his wife Sarah. The Davis’s were residents from 1930-37. In late 1937, Westminster College president Rev Herbert W Reherd and wife, Louise bought the house and were owner occupants through the end of the historic period. Both the Davis’ and Reherds’ rented out 1 side of the duplex. 1413 E Laird Circle (16-09-352-021) This 1 ½ story brick and stucco English Tudor was built in 1930 by Construction Securities Company and is considered architecturally significant with its wide, overlapping half covered gables set against a pint gabled roof. On the right is a steeply- pitched entry gable with a pointed brick, arched opening resembling a lancet window, which precedes the front door. Shed dormer windows with leaded and stained-glass windows project from the first-floor façade. Alterations include: brick addition to the left of front façade supporting a 2nd story balcony, 2nd story window of façade. The house built by Construction Securities Company seems to have been a rental from 1931-1933 and vacant in 1934 before being purchased later that year by Dr William S and Minnie Paine. They resided here until 1940 upon the death of Dr. Paines. They rented house from 1942-43, then sold to Arnold E and Margaret Burgener in 1943. Mr Burgener was co-owner of the Transportation Insurance Agency. The Burgeners rented out the property through the end of the historic period. 1417 E Laird Circle (16-09-353-023) The 2-story terra-cotta/stone exterior Colonial Revival house a gambrel roof and a full- width second story dormer built by Carl Buchner in 1931 on speculation is considered architecturally significant by SHPO. The symmetrical facade is highlighted by a shallow central pavilion framed by two classical columns and containing the front door. The door Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 21 of 34 is surrounded by sidelights and a fan light. The house was purchased by Siegfried P and Helen Harter House in 1932. Harter was president of the Clover Leaf - Harris Dairy and of the Colville Ice Cream Company . They resided here until June, 1936. Helen A. Taylor owned the house for three months in the summer of 1936 before selling in September to Leon D. Cuddeback, a division superintendent with United Air Lines and wife, Lois. The Cubbebacks' were occupants through 1938. They sold the house in 1938 to Henry G. and Mary Boonstra. Vice President of W. G. Goodart, bond brokers. The Boonstra’s through 1942. From 1943 through the end of the historic period, the house was owned by Otto and Ruth Buehner. Otto Buehner, was president of Otto Buehner Company and Building Products and was influential in Salt Lake City building activity. 1449 E Uintah Circle (16-09-353-025) A 2-story brick Georgian Colonial Revival built 1936 for John S and Orpha S Boyden. It has a steeply pitched hip roof with a two -story front supported by classical columns. The entry is framed by wooden pilasters supporting a segmental pediment. On the left of the façade is an attached one-story room covered by a flat roof. The concrete tile roof is an alteration. John Boyden served as Assistant District Attorney 1933-46. Later he continued as a private attorney, rancher and Chairman of the Ideal National Life Insurance Company. The Boydens were residents until the end of the historic period, 1936 -2005, 69 years. 1453 E Uintah Circle (16-09-353-066) This 2-story clapboard exterior, Colonial Revival-styled house was built in 1936 was originally owned by John O Simonsen. It has a notable Central portico of classical columns and pediment framing a fan top window with sidelights at the front door entry. John O Simonsen was vice president of Intermountain Lumbee. He and wife Velma were residents through the historic period of research (1936 -2005). 1457 E Uintah Circle (16-09-353-029) This 2-story colonial revival house built under a gable with a center ridge parallel to the street was built in 1931/32 by Carl Buhner for George and Myrna Bisbee. It is considered an architecturally significant colonial revival style with an unusual exterior material of terra cotta tile block. The exterior is claimed to be made by Cast-Stone & Concrete Products Manufacturing Company in a 1936 Shipler photo (Univeristy of Utah digital Collections). The house has a balconet overhang projecting above the central entry which is surrounded by lovely transom and side lights. Alterations to the original house include a concrete tile roof. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 22 of 34 Carl Bisbee was an agent for the Union Pacific Railroad, and wife were residents sold to D. W. Nielson and wife Vena. Little can be found about the Nielson's, other than that they were residents in 1934 and 1935. In August, 1935, they sold the house to David Abbot ‘Ab” & Evelyn Jenkins. ‘Ab’ Jenkins (1883-1956) was an auto designer and racer and house building contractor (for more information, also see SHPO case file1540 Westmoreland). Ab Jenkins, as well as the 24th Mayor of Salt Lake City (1940-1944) a home building contractor, and notable race car driver is the “father of Bonneville Salt Flats’. He is often referred to as “the world’s safest speedster’ and noted for setting of a 24-hour average land speed record of 135 mile per hour in 1935 driving the Duesenberg SJ ‘Mormon Meteor’ on the Bonneville Salt Flats (Wikipedia). Later, in 1940 he set a new 24-hour average land speed record of 161.18 miles per hour that lasted 50 years. In 1960, the mountain north of Bonneville Speedway was named ‘Jenkins Peak’ in his honor. The Mormon Meteor III can be seen at the Price Museum of Speed, 165 E 600 South in Salt Lake City, UT. The Dusendorf SJ ‘Mormon Meteor’ 1957 Pontiac Bonneville sedan (Wikipedia) named in earned honor of Ab Jenkins achievements (Wikipedia) The Jenkins were resident in 1936 after which they sold the house to Prudential Insurance Company, which treated it as a rental property through the end of the historic period. 5. Consistent Designation Of The Proposed LHD Designation With Adopted Planning City Policies and Master Plans Historic Preservation Overlay 21A.34.020.A (click here for a link to the Historic Preservation Overay zoning provisions) A. Purpose Statement: In order to contribute to the welfare, prosperity and education of the people of Salt Lake City, the purpose of the H historic preservation overlay district is to: Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 23 of 34 1. Provide the means to protect and preserve areas of the city and individual structures and sites having historic, architectural or cultural significance; 2. Encourage new development, redevelopment and the subdivision of lots in historic districts that is compatible with the character of existing development of historic districts or individual landmarks; 3. Abate the destruction and demolition of historic structures; 4. Implement adopted plans of the city related to historic preservation; 5. Foster civic pride in the history of Salt Lake City; 6. Protect and enhance the attraction of the city's historic landmarks and districts for tourists and visitors; 7. Foster economic development consistent with historic preservation; and 8. Encourage social, economic and environmental sustainability. Adopted Master Plans and City Policies Community Preservation Plan: The City Council adopted the Community Preservation Plan in October 2012. The Plan is the key strategic document that will guide Salt Lake City’s preservation efforts into the future. The purpose of the plan is to address the important goals of historic preservation and community character preservation to ensure the continued preservation of the City’s neighborhoods. The Plan provides vision and established policies that will help preserve those areas of the City that are uniquely historic and tell the story of the City’s historic past. (Click this link to view the Community Preservation Plan) Relevant Community Preservation Plan Policies Policy 3.1a: Identify historic resources in the City through the use of surveys that are consistent with the adopted State Historic Preservation Office survey criteria. Policy 3.2a: Local designation of historic resources should occur where the primary purpose is to protect the historic resources for the public interest and not where the primary purpose is something other than that such as to stabilize a neighborhood or preserve neighborhood character. Policy 3.2b: The pursuance of new locally designated historic resources should focus on protecting the best examples of an element of the City’s history, development patterns and architecture. Local historic districts should have logical boundaries based on subdivision plats, physical and / or cultural features and significant character defining features where possible. Policy 3.2c: Protect exemplary groupings of historic properties as local historic districts. Policy 3.2d: Local designation should only occur after the City has an understanding of the degree of property owner and public support for the proposed designation. Policy 3.2e: Local designation of historic properties should only occur, after the City expends resources to inform property owners of the reasons for the proposed designation and what regulations will be included and the incentives offered for local designation. Policy 3.2h: Prior to local designation, national designation should be pursued to ensure financial incentives are in place for those historic resources that are regulated locally. Policy 3.2i: Professional reconnaissance level survey work should be completed prior to designating a local historic district because it identifies the number and type of Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 24 of 34 historic resources in an area and provides the information needed when determining the appropriateness for change to a specific historic resource. Other Adopted City Policy documents addressing the role of Historic Preservation East Bench Community Master Plan (2017): (click this link to view the East Bench Master Plan) The proposed Yalecrest –Laird Height Local Historic District is located within the area covered by the East Bench Community Master Plan. A stated goal of the Urban Design section of the plan is to “enhance the visual and aesthetic qualities and create a sense of visual unity within the community.” The Plan identifies the following elements which detract from the residential character: - Building remodeling or additions that are not compatible with the design of the original structure or neighboring homes, and - New structures that are not compatible with the design of surrounding homes. In the1987 East Bench Master Plan, Yalecrest is specifically identified for preservation. “The older Harvard-Yale area contains many buildings of architectural and historic significance. Conditions may warrant creating a conservation or historic district in this area where the city would review all new buildings, additions, or alterations for compatibility with established neighborhood character. The city is in the process of conducting a survey of the community to document sites of architectural and histo ric significance and to evaluate the potential for establishing a historic district.” IN the 2017 version of the East Bench Master Plan, Yalecrest is noted for being the oldest historically contributing neighborhood on the East Bench and encourages residents to find a common voice to preserve it using either Local Historic Districts or Con servation Districts. Urban Design Element (1990): The Urban Design Element includes statements that emphasize preserving the City’s image, neighborhood character and mai ntaining livability while being sensitive to social and economic realities. The Plan includes the following concepts: -Allow individual districts to develop in response to their unique characteristics within the overall urban design scheme for the City. - Ensure that land uses make a positive contribution to neighborhood improvements and stability. - Ensure that building restoration and new construction enhance district character. - Require private development efforts to be compatible with urban design pol icies of the city, regardless of whether city financial assistance is provided. - Treat building height, scale and character as significant features of a district’s image. - Ensure that features of building design such as color, detail, materials and scal e are responsive to district character, neighboring buildings and the pedestrian. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 25 of 34 Salt Lake City Community Housing Plan (2000): Provide historic preservation education to developers and property owners, including information on technical and financial assistance and incentives. City Vision and Strategic Plan (1993) - Restore and adaptively reuse historic resources. - Develop programs to enhance and preserve the City’s cultural history and character as expressed in the built environment. - Offer strong economic incentives to stop housing unit deterioration. Together: Final Report of the Salt Lake City Futures Commission (1998) - Enforce preservation strategies for buildings and neighborhoods. - Rehabilitate historic buildings for cultural uses where ver possible. The proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is currently zoned under the Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay (YCIO) zoning ordinance adopted by the City in 20073. The purpose of the ordinance is to “encourage compatibility between new construction, additions or alterations and the existing character and scale of the surrounding neighborhood”. The YCIO regulates building height, minimum front yard size, and several aspects of garages or accessory structures, but does not protect against demolitions or out-of-mass, scale and architecture character of additions or new structures. The City's Preservation Policy was adopted in 2011 4. The Salt Lake City Community Preservation Plan was adopted Oct. 23, 2012. Yalecrest was suggested for protection in both plans. The proposed boundaries of Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD (Appendix A) represents the South East corner in Normandie Heights subdivision and the greater Yalecrest neighborhood that is nationally recognized for its historic value (National Register of Historic Places 2007). Recognizing this resource and protecting it via a Local Historic District designation i s consistent with the City's preservation goals. 6. Public Interest in the Proposed LHD Designation The Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is part of the large Normandie subdivision. It is located in the South East corner of Yalecrest neighborhood. It contains 43 single-family property parcels generally zoned R1-7000. The attractive neighborhood of Yalecrest have mature street trees, single-family owner-occupied well-maintained houses with landscaped yards and continue to be a desirable residential area. No major roads have been built through the general Yalecrest neighborhood, although traffic has increased on the border streets of 1300 South, 1300 East and Sunnyside Ave (840 S). Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 26 of 34 To date, 44/65 or 67.7% of the single-family and duplex home owners within the proposed area of Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD have signed an application petition in support of opening the process to create a Local History District. The overall support on the application is 67.7%, which greatly exceeds the minimum support of 33% required by the LHD designation ordinance guidelines. Property Owner Petition Signature to Open the Local Historic District Designation in Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Street # Property Parcels # Petition Signaturesa % Support Laird Ave 42a 29 69.0% Laird Circle 7 5 71.4% Uintah Circle 6 4 66.7% 1300 East 4 4 100.0% 1500 East 6 4 66.7% TOTAL 65 44 67.7% aone signature was collected on the application signature form for property parcels that have Joint tenants (JT) and the appropriate trustee signature was obtained for Trusts on associated property parcels. Designating the Yalecrest-Laird Heights as Local Historic District (LHD) zoning overlay would minimize the frequent teardowns and demolitions (56 permit filings over the past 27 years) that have plagued Yalecrest in recent years. In addition, the recent Affordable Housing Overlay/Incentive (AHO) which allows demolition of historic houses for new multi-family housing installation within ¼ mile of high frequency bus transportation on 1300 East) has concerned this quiet street. Designation of Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD would maintain the historic character, mass and scale of the street face architecture by while providing homeowners and district residents the only legal method to minimize demolition and dismantling of intact historic structures that result in loss of neighborhood character. These services are not offered from Salt Lake City to the National Register of Historic Place designation, nor the local City Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay (YCIO) zoning ordinance. A Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD designation will also provide the citizens of Salt Lake City and the state of Utah with an additional protected heritage resource for future generations from which to learn and appreciate the cultural and City History of notable residents and fine, well-maintained, diverse architectural examples of English Cottage, English Tudor, and French Norman, Spanish Colonial architectural styles. In addition, Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 27 of 34 the area will teach future urban developers/builders the value and sustainability of smaller well-built homes with quality materials that have stood the test of time (100 yrs), the successful layout design of new neighborhoods that include different housing options for singles, empty-nesters, couples and families that include both small and medium sized single family and multi-family duplexes at various prices. It will aid in the education of designing new successful neighborhoods that include such elements as sidewalks, green space, streetlights, mature shade trees and proximity to infrastructure necessities such as libraries, grocery stores, restaurants, schools, child care that encourage walkability and enhance safety from crime. These are the elements that have made Yalecrest a successful and highly desirable neighborhood. B. Photographs Original and current photographs of the individual homes in the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD are listed with addresses and listed separately in APPENDIX C. The original photographs were downloaded from the Salt Lake County Tax Assessor site. Current photographs were collected by the street property owners, residing on Laird Ave and Uintah Circle, using an iPhone camera. C. Research Material The Reconnaissance Level Survey was completed by Salt Lake City in 2005 in preparation for the Yalecrest National Register of Historic Places designation, which was awarded in 2007. Much of the information in this document about the area’s architecture, history, builders and building dates comes from that survey and the Salt Lake County Assessor website. Additional information is on file at the Utah State Historic Preservation Office, Family Search website, Polk Directories, Wikipedia, and newspaper archives (Salt Lake Tribune and Deseret News) and the KEEPYalecrest website blog (keepyalecrest.org). Research material used to prepare this application are listed in APPENDIX C. See (http://utahhistory.sdlhost.com/#/item/000000011019963/view/1 46 D. Landmark Sites Not applicable E. Boundary Adjustment: Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is located to the immediate south of Yalecrest-Harvard Heights LHD. The new Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD is parallel to Yalecrest-Harvard Heights LHD and both traverse the 1300-1500 blocks of their respective streets, while also including 4 properties along 1300 E (1185, 1193, 122123, 1227-29 E) and 6 properties on 1500 East (1174, 1180, 1184, 1188, 1194 and 1200 E) that lie between the 1300-1500 Princeton Ave and Laird Ave streets. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 28 of 34 The boundaries of the Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD containing 65 property parcels are listed below: West boundary is 1300 East East boundary is 1480 E Laird Ave and 1174 S, 1180 S, 1184 S, 1188 S, 1194 S, 1200 S 1500 East. North boundary contains the north side of Laird Ave containing the odd numbered houses (1305 E to 1465 E Laird Ave) and Laird and Uintah Circles. South Boundary contains the south side of Laird Ave with the even numbered houses from 1308-1480 E Laird Ave. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 29 of 34 APPENDIX A-1 Original plat of Normandie Heights Subdivision July 1, 1926, Pr. Lots 2-3, Block 28 Bowers Investment Company The Normandie Subdivision lies in the southwestern most corner of. The Normandie subdivision is outlined in purple. Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 30 of 34 APPENDIX A-2 All LHDs in Yalecrest Existing Yalecrest LHDs Douglas Park-I Normandie Circle Harvard Heights Upper Harvard Yale Park Plat A Harvard Park Princeton Park Princeton Heights (pending) outlined in red Laird Heights (proposed) outlined in blue Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 31 of 34 APPENDIX A-3 Expanded street map view of the proposed Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD boundary adjustment (red outline) within the East Bench Yalecrest Neighborhood Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD (65 parcels) includes the following property addresses Laird Ave (42 parcels): 1305-1480 E Laird Circle (7 parcels): 1407-1425 E Uintah Circle (6 parcels): 1447-1457 E 1300 East (4 parcels): 1185-1227/29 S 1500 East (6 parcels): 1174-1200 S Yalecrest L D S Ward LAIRD PARK Uintah E l eme nt ar y Sc h ool Bonneville L D S Ward and Stake Gilmer L DS Ward MILLER PARKSUNNYSIDE 1300 S O U T H 1300 E A ST 1900 E A ST 1500 E A ST 1700 E A ST 1800 E A ST 900 S O U T HMICHIGAN MICHIGANHUBBARDYALECREST HARVARD HARVARD PRINCETON YALE HERBERT YALE PRINCETON HARVARD LAIRD LAIRDLAIRD PRINCETON HARVARD GILMER THORNTON MICHIGAN B O N N E V I E W HUBBARD MILITARY LE GRAND GREENWOOD1400 E AST900 S OUTH A M A N D A FAIRVIEW GREENWOOD PARK ROW YALE N O R M A N D I E LAIRD UINTAH MAYFAIR WASATCH CORNELL M I L I T A R YDIESTEL LAIRD PRINCETON Yalecrest R econnaissance Le v el Sur v ey 2005Salt L ake Ci ty, Sal t Lake Cou nty , Utah Contributing - A & B site sNon-c ontributing / Alte red - C sitesNon-c ontributing / Out of period - D sites1422142814341440144614521458151215181524153215401546155215581566158016161624163016381644165216561664167016761684174017561762177217781842185618621870 18961836146814211427143314391445145314611465147388214951511151715231527153715431549155515631575157916051609161716211627163316391647165116551661166716711675168717071731174117571763177117771781179117971801181118158751829183518411847185718631869 1875 18851836xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx17621768177617861790180017101702165816361632157813041310132613301336134413541370138213981400140414081412142014341440144614481458146614701474148214981512152915331537151617591765177317831789179518011807181517401750175617641770177417781788179618021810173218261825183218421848185418601864187218881833184118491857186318711881152015261530153415381544155015041510151615221528153215401548155215581562150315091513151915271531153715431551155515611571157416001608987171417201726173217401746175217581762176817741780178418041810181618221830183618421846184818621868187418801886170917191725173117371743174917551761176717731779178517911797180318091823182918351841184718551861186918771881130913171327133713411347135313591365138913951403141114171423142914351441144514531461147114751483148914861476146814641458145214441438143214281418141214061398139613841380137613621356135013401334132813241320 1575 1583 1589 1601 1607 1615 1619 1627 1635 1604 1612 1620 1624 1630 1600 1669 1677 1658 1703 1711 1717 1725 1735 1745 1751 1759 1761 1775 1781 1785 1027 1712 1720 1726 1732 1740 1746 1754?1760 1766 1772 1776 1784 1788 1803 1838 1846 1852 1860 1866 1872 1878 1028 1809 1815 1821 1827 1835 1841 1845 1857 1863 1871 1877 1008 1832 1831 1835 1845 1851 1861 1865 1875 1883 1806 1812 1820 18321826 1840 1848 1856 1862 1870 1876 1884170417101718172217281734174017461752176017641768177417801784 1703 1709 1715 1721 1727 1733 1739 1745 1751 1757 1763 1769 1775 1779 1785 1352 1356 1360 1364 1368 1372 1374 1378 1384 1390 13551335 1357 1359 1361 1363 1367 1373 1383 1387 1393 13461344 1332 13281320 1336 1338 1334 1340 1344 1350 1354 1358 1364 1370 1374 1380131713271335133713431347135313591369137113751379 1385 1391 1431 1437 1445 1455 1459 1463 1467 147113861420142614321438144614481452146214661470 1303 1311 1321 1327 1337 1343 1349 1357 1361 1367 1371 1381 1385 1302 1405 1411 1419 1429 1433 1435 1441 1451 1459 1467 1475 1454 1444 1436143014201412 1408 14001390 1462 1466 1480 1484 1384137213601358135213441340133013141308 1505 1521 1529 1537 1547 1553 1561 1510 1520 1530 1534 1544 1550 1558 1564 1576 1582 1588 1600 1606 1610 1618 1626 1630 1636 1640 1646 1652 1660 1668 1674 1682 1615 1623 1629 1635 1086 1663 1673 1677 1703 1713 1719 1725 1731 1737 1743 1749 1755 1761 1767 1773 1779 1785 1702 1714 1720 1726 1732 1738 1744 1750 1756 1762 1768 1774 1780 1784 1803 1813 1821 1827 1833 1841 1847 1855 1863 1869 1875 1885 1802 1814 1820 1828 1836 1842 1850 1854 1866 1872 1880 1884 1804 1814 1820 1826 1834 1842 1848 1856 1862 1870 1878 1821 1829 1837 1843 1849 1857 1865 1871 1877 188511351710171617221730173417421748175417601766177217781784 1747 1753 1759 1765 1771 1777 1783174117331729172317151709170315031511151715211527153515391547155315591565157115791585159116031611161516211627163116351643164916551659166516711677 1506 1510 1516 1522 1528 1536 1542 1548 1554 1560 1566 1572 1578 1584 1590 1604 1612 1616 1622 1628 1632 1638 1644 1650 1656 1660 1666 1672 1678 1309 1321 1327 1339 1341 1343 1345 1347 1349 1351 1355 1359 1365 1373 1389 1407 1419 1425 1433 1437 1445 1449 1455 1465 1469 1477 1485 1487 1306 1316 1326 1332 1340 1346 1356 1362 1370 1380 1133 1412 1426 1436 1444 1450 1454 1468 1474 1484 1488 1495 882874868 1403875871861851 1406 1031 1015 1009 1150 1340 1347 1320 1328 1332 1338 1342 1346 1348 1362 1368 1374 1348 1360 1362 1370 1376 1380 1388 1400 1404 1410 1418 1422 1426 1442 1450 1458 1466 1319 1323 1 3 33 1343 1345 1349 1353 1361 1369 1377 1387 1401 1405 1411 1419 1429 1439 1445 1449 1457 1465 1469 1475 1380 1386 1392 1402 1408 1412 1418 1428 1436 1440 1450 1456 1458 1470 1474 1411 1413 1415 1417 1419 1449 1451 1453 1455 1457 146514471355136113691373138313931397140114071425142914391443 915910 917934918 1308 1480 1305 1515 1521 1527 1531 1537 1543 1547 1553 1557 1563 1567 1573 1579 1583 1589 1593 1599 1605 1611 1617 1621 1629 1637 1643 1651 1655 1661 1665 1669 1675 1516 1522 1528 1532 1538 1544 1548 1554 1558 1564 1568 1574 1580 1584 1592 1594 1600 1606 1612 1618 1624 1632 1636 1644 1650 1660 1666 1670 1678 1703 1709 1715 1723 1729 1735 1741 1747 1755 1761 1769 1777 1785 1191 1712 1718 1726 1732 1740 1746 1754 1764 1770 1774 1786 1820 1828 1836 1844 1854 1862 1872 1880 1892 1835 1847 1855 1861 1869 1877 1887 1601 1603 1605 1607 1609 1611 1613 1615 1617 1637 1639 1641 1643 1645 1647 1649 1651 878 869 865 855 851856866868 1305 1319 1325 1329 1335 1339 1345 1349 1355 1361 1365 13711375 1381 1387 1391 1397 140914131417 1421 1429 1433 1435 1437 1447 1457 1463 1465 1467 1475 1595 1623 1633 1305 1661 1675 1719 1725 1728 1743 1747 1766 1767 1773 1819 1825 1833 1837 1843 1849 1865 1871 18771857 1729 1733 1737 1741 1745 1749 1753 1757 1761 1765 17541738 1571 860852906916924950 1106 1114 1152 1234 1222 1142 1180 1516 1522 1528 1532 1538 1542 1548 1554 1558 1564 1568 1574 1578 1584 1588 1604 1606 1608 1612 1618 1620 1632 1636 1644 1652 1658 1662 1666 1672 1704 1712 1716 1724 1730 1736 1740 1748 1754 1760 1766 1774 1780 1786 178517791775176517551747174317371729172317151709170311481516151615161516151615161516151615161516151615161516151615161516151615161516151615161516151615161516151615161516 1819 1827 1837 1845 1853 1859 1867 1875 1891 1832 1848 1856 1864 1872 1882 1222 1234 1212 1204 1213 1161 1121 1035 959960925905910861853852 1219 1223 1231 1235 1157 1149 1117 1109 1105 1545 986990996 977967 1068 1064 1058 1052 1042 1036 1032 1024 1108 1102 1144 1140 1134 1262 1256 1208 1202 1170 1709 1215 1209 1205 940 962903907919925929935 939 945 949 955 961 965 980 966 948 939 940 936 904 911913915923927935939951953957963965971973931907 866 864 862 852867861 855 851 96384587792192593394194596797597998310011013 1021 1027 1039 1047 1081 1087 1111 1121 1131 1137 1185 1193 1221 1227 1147 847849904903910915 921 9239299339189229269309349389429099159199239109289329369389469489479579659769829969981004999 1010 1016 1020 1024 1062 1066 1080 1100 1097 1136 1145 1149 1490 1174 1180 1184 1188 1194 1200 1218 1224 1232 1238 1207 1201 1187 1183 1179 1175 1165 1035 1023 1017 10131005 90390591191792590491091692292893293894495496494795396596696896997598999710011009 1021 10301020 10161000 994 986 980 976 972 1041 1049 1055 1059 1065 1073 1086 1074 1085 Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 32 of 34 APPENDIX B Contrary documentation between RLS 2005 text and existing house photographs 1. Missing photographs: Original house photographs were not available from the State Historic Preservation Office, nor the SLCounty Assessor website (www.slco.org/assessor) 1. 1332 E Laird Ave 2. 1368 E Laird Ave 3. 1373 E Laird Ave 4. 1374 E Laird Ave 5. 1386 E Laird Ave 6. 1393 E Laird Ave 7. 1412 E Laird Ave 8. 1418 E Laird Ave 9. 1411 E Laird Circle 10. 1413 E Larid Circle 11. 1451 E Uintah Circle 12. 1453 E Uintah Circle 13. 1188 S 1500 East 14. 1200 S 1500 East 2. Possible changes in house contributing status 1418 E Laird Ave 1451 E Uintah Circle 1453 E Uintah Circle 1455 E Uintah Circle Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 33 of 34 APPENDIX C Photographs of Laird Heights LHD See separate attached document 1305-1480 E Laird Ave 1185-1227/28 S 1300 East 1407-1425 E Laird Circle 1447-1457 E Uintah Circle 1174-1200 S 1500 East Yalecrest-Laird Heights LHD Page 34 of 34 APPENDIX D Research Materials (References) 1. Lufkin, Beatrice. Yalecrest Reconnaissance Level Survey 2005. Utah State Historic Preservation Office. 2. Yalecrest Compatible Infill Overlay. Sterling Codifier 21A.34.120. December 2005. http://www.sterlingcodifiers.com/codebook/getBookData.php?id=&chapter_id=49078&k eywords=#s928586 3. Salt Lake City Community Preservation Plan. October 2012 4. Polk directories 1925-1976, State Historic Preservation Office, www.ushpo.utah.gov 5. Family Search app online 6. Salt Lake County Assessor: House information: parcel number, build date, exterior materials , original house photos, www.slco.org/assessor. Item B2 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 tinyurl.com/SLCFY23 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke and Sylvia Richards Budget Analysts DATE:May 2, 2023 RE: Budget Amendment Number Six FY2023 MOTION 1 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council close the public hearing and refer the item to a future date for action. MOTION 2 – CONTINUE PUBLIC HEARING I move that the Council continue the public hearing to a future date. MOTION 3 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND ADOPT ITEMS I move that the Council close the public hearing and adopt an ordinance amending the Fiscal Year 2023 final budget of Salt Lake City including the employment staffing document only for items as shown on the motion sheet. Staff note: Council Members do not need to read the individual items being approved below; they are listed for reference. A-1: Additional Funding for the Cultural Core ($291,000 from Salt Lake City’s Cultural Core Surplus Fund) A-2: Additional One-time Funding for Advantage Services’ Mobile Clean Team ($300,000 from Rescope of CAN Personnel Vacancy Savings) A-3: Repurpose Operation Rio Grande Funds for New Homeless Services ($73,418 from Recaptured Operations Rio Grande Funds) A-4: Liberty Park Seven Canyons Fountain Rescope Change ($823,548 from CIP) A-5: Open Space Property Acquisition (City Parks) AND A-6: Open Space Property Acquisition (Trails) A-6: Open Space Property Acquisition (Trails) ($300,000 from Impact Fees) A-7: Recapture One-time Emergency Solutions Grant CARES Act Funds ($209,552 Rescope from $200,000 of City Administration and $9,552 from VOA’s Homeless Outreach Program) A-8: Steiner Aquatics Center Roof Replacement ($1.38 million from General Fund Balance) A-9: Natural Gas Cost Increase ($635,000 from General Fund Balance of which $135,000 to the Fleet Fund) A-10: Ranked Choice Voting Awareness Materials ($35,000 from General Fund Balance) A-11: Environmental Assessment Additional Funding ($50,000 from General Fund Balance) A-12: Impact Fee Plan Consultant Contract Amendment ($27,000 Total; $9,000 Each from Fire, Parks, and Police Impact Fees) A-13: Flood Mitigation ($1 Million Total; $736,275 from General Fund Balance and Recapturing $263,725 of Unused NBA Allstar Game Activation Funding) A-14: Additional ARPA Revenue Replacement ($18,603,080 from ARPA) A-15: ARPA Funding to Perpetual Housing Fund D-1: State Mitigation Grant to Advantage Services for Mobile Clean Team ($160,000 from Three Prior Awards) D-2: Fire Department — Other Reimbursements ($17,118 from General Fund) D-3: Transfer Parks Impact Fees to Surplus Land Fund – Land Purchase near RAC ($395,442 from Parks Impact Fees) D-4: Fire Impact Fee – Fee payment for Excess Capacity ($2.2 million of Fire Impact Fees of which $1.7 million to the CIP Fund and $500,000 to the General Fund) D-5: Fire Training Center ($499,533 from General Fund to CIP Fund) D-6: Fisher Mansion Carriage House Impact Fee Reimbursement ($100,000 from Parks Impact Fees to CIP Cost Overrun Account) D-7: Recapture of Police Precinct Funds to Surplus ($129,688 from CIP Fund to Surplus Land Fund) D-8: Police Impact Fee – Unclaimed Refunds ($237,606 from Impact Fees to Police Impact Fees) D-9: Rapid Intervention Team Trailer RV/XP ($25,000 from General Fund to Fleet Fund) D-10: Difference Between $4.3 Million Grant Adopted in Budget Amendment No. 5 and the Actual $4.22 Million) ($78,560 from Misc. Grants) E-1: School-Age Quality 22 Grant (FY22-25) ($780,000 from Misc. Grants (Funding and Award Title Correction) E-2: School-Age Quality Summer Expansion FY22-23 ($373,338 from Misc. Grants) (Correction) E-3: State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY2023 Revision ($160,000 Rescope for Advantages Services from A Prior Award) G-1: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA – Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program ($115,472 from Misc. Grants) MOTION 4 – CLOSE PUBLIC HEARING AND NOT ADOPT I move that the Council close the public hearing and proceed to the next agenda item. COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY tinyurl.com/SLCFY23 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke, Sylvia Richards Budget and Policy Analysts DATE: May 2, 2023 RE: Budget Amendment Number Six FY2023 Budget Amendment Number Six includes twenty-nine proposed amendments, $50,160,062 of expenditures of which $11.7 million is from General Fund Balance, requesting changes to seven funds. If all the items are adopted as proposed, then Fund Balance would be 23.7% which is $45,722,779 above the 13% minimum target. The Administration is requesting a straw poll for items A-2 Advantage Services’ mobile clean team and A-11 additional funding for environmental assessments and remediation which is mostly to facilitate the tiny home village at the former Redwood Road landfill site. This is expected to be the last General Fund budget amendment of the current fiscal year. CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 Project Timeline: Set Date: April 18, 2023 1st Briefing: May 2, 2023 Public Hearing: May 2, 2023 2nd Briefing: If needed, TBD, 2023 Potential Action: May 19 or June 6, 2023 Council Request: Tracking New Ongoing General Fund Costs Approved in Midyear Budget Amendments Council staff has provided the following list of new ongoing costs to the General Fund. Many of these are new FTE’s approved during this fiscal year’s budget amendments, noting that each new FTE increases the City’s annual budget if positions are added to the staffing document. Budget Amendment Item Estimated Cost Increase to Next Annual Budget New City FTEs Notes #1 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant Award $2.2 Million 13 new FTEs which includes: 12 police officers and one business and community liaison Admin expects to apply for grant funding annually to cover these costs. General Fund would not need to cover costs if the State grant is awarded to the City to fully cover the costs. #3 Utah League of Cities and Town Membership Cost Increase $38,000 N/A Total annual membership cost is $221,563 Two Contract Development Specialists in Finance $207,800 Two new FTEs Senior Project Manager in Public Services $168,000 One new FTE The $85 Million Parks Bond could pay for this FTE in future fiscal years. The General Fund fronted the cost in FY2023. The position sunsets with the bond funding. Two Planners in Public Lands $241,440 Two new FTEs The $85 Million Parks Bond could pay for these FTEs in future fiscal years. The General Fund fronted the cost in FY2023. The positions sunset with the bond funding. Volunteers of America (VOA) Salt Lake City Specific Outreach Team $274,000 N/A Separate from VOA’s countywide outreach team. Four existing VOA workers: Two case managers and two coordinators #4 Police Substation on North Temple and Downtown Central Precinct Leases and Utilities $130,000 N/A One-time Retention Bonuses and Ongoing Hiring Bonuses for Police Officers $1,201,976 N/A #5 Know Your Neighbor Grant $61,000 One new Part-time Employee Budget Amendment Item Estimated Cost Increase to Next Annual Budget New City FTEs Notes TOTALS $4,522,216 19 3 of the new FTEs sunset with the GO Bond funding, and some are covered with potential future state grant awards Disclaimer: For the chart above, staff didn’t include a couple of Youth & Family and Police Department multi-year grants since they would not create cost increases for the next annual budget. Page | 3 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2022-23 Budget Adjustments The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2023. According to the Administration, the current projections for fiscal year 2023 projections continue to be positive. Sales tax is currently projected to exceed budget by $5.7 million while the sales tax associated with Funding Our Future is projected to exceed budget by $6.8 million. Building permits have slowed and are currently showing a decrease, those losses are slightly offset by small gains in airport parking tax and innkeepers tax, but still show a lost compared to the budget of $1.7 million. Due to the rise interest rates, interest income shows a large positive variance to budget of $5.4 million. Charges and services and miscellaneous revenue are both trending above budget. In total current revenue projections are above amended budget by $17.1 million. Fund Balance The Administration’s chart below shows the current General Fund Balance figures. Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for BA#6. FY2022 Projection FY2023 Budget FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 12,114,190 104,171,780 116,285,970 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 (2,100,608)(20,736,262)Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,879,483)(15,335,334)(18,214,817)(22,836,870) Prior Year Encumbrances (1,879,654)(10,259,789)(12,139,443)(3,162,300)(17,260,909)(20,423,209) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 7,355,053 78,576,657 85,931,710 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 Beginning Fund Balance Percent 14.28%22.33%21.30%29.60%27.04%27.30% Year End CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes ------ Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.)-(7,535,897)(7,535,897)(8,556,220)(8,556,220) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 7,355,053 71,040,760 78,395,813 13,132,752 95,174,631 108,307,383 Final Fund Balance Percent 14.28%20.19%19.43%29.60%24.81%25.30% Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance BA#1 Revenue Adjustment ------ BA#1 Expense Adjustment -5,138,235 5,138,235 -(475,000)(475,000) BA#2 Revenue Adjustment -490,847 490,847 --- BA#2 Expense Adjustment -(986,298)(986,298)--- BA#3 Revenue Adjustment ----6,000,000 6,000,000 BA#3 Expense Adjustment (1,000,000)(1,000,000)(2,000,000)-(6,538,000)(6,538,000) BA#4 Revenue Adjustment -1,508,044 1,508,044 -194,600 194,600 BA#4 Expense Adjustment -(4,242,779)(4,242,779)-(7,584,328)(7,584,328) BA#5 Revenue Adjustment -400,000 400,000 --- BA#5 Expense Adjustment -(400,000)(400,000)-(5,940,349)(5,940,349) BA#6 Revenue Adjustment ----19,120,198 19,120,198 BA#6 Expense Adjustment -(1,553,938)(1,553,938)-(11,719,731)(11,719,731) BA#7 Revenue Adjustment -(794,641)(794,641)--- BA#7 Expense Adjustment (1,200,000)(10,843,298)(12,043,298)--- Change in Revenue 11,139,999 23,083,587 34,223,586 --- Change in Expense 2,100,608 12,134,899 14,235,507 -- Fund Balance Budgeted Increase -------- Adjusted Fund Balance 18,395,660 93,975,418 112,371,078 13,132,752 88,232,021 101,364,773 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 35.72%26.70%27.86%29.60%23.00%23.68% Proposed/Adopted Revenue 51,499,136 351,910,770 403,409,906 44,364,490 383,650,846 428,015,336 Based on those projections adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 23.68%. The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $28,058,542.11 of revenue and expense of $50,160,062. The amendment proposes changes in seven funds, with no increases in FTEs. The amendment also includes the use of $11.7 million from the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes twenty-nine initiatives for Council review. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing Impact Fees Update The Administration’s transmittal does not provide an updated summary of impact fee tracking. The information is current as of 3/24/23. As a result, the City is on-track with impact fee budgeting to have no refunds during all of FY2024 and FY2025. Note that item A-12 in this budget amendment is requesting $27,000 to update the fire, parks, and police sections of the City’s impact fee plan. The transportation section was updated in October 2020. Type Unallocated Cash “Available to Spend”Next Refund Trigger Date Amount of Expiring Impact Fees Fire $1,725,882 More than a year away - Parks $15,534,954 More than a year away - Police $1,061,156 More than a year away - Transportation $5,248,024 More than a year away - Note: Encumbrances are an administrative function when impact fees are held under a contract Section A: New Items (Note: to expedite the processing of this staff report, staff has included the Administration’s descriptions from the transmittal for some of these items) A-1: Additional Funding for the Cultural Core ($291,000 from Salt Lake City’s Cultural Core Surplus Fund) The Administration is proposing to use all the Cultural Core Surplus Fund spread over six years in addition to the $250,000 the City currently contributes annually. The current balance of the Surplus Fund is $291,000. An additional $50,000 annually would be provided for five years. If approved, then the total annual contribution from the City would be $300,000 for five years. In the sixth year $41,000 would be provided. In the seventh year the City’s total annual contribution would revert to $250,000. Salt Lake County also contributes $250,000 annually to the Cultural Core. The County Council has approved an additional $50,000 annual contribution for six years from their Cultural Core Surplus Fund. The current balance of the County’s Surplus Fund is $309,000. In the seventh year no additional funding would be provided; the County’s total annual contribution would revert to $250,000. Appropriations not spent in prior years lapsed to the Cultural Core Surplus Funds. The City and County each have separate Cultural Core Surplus Funds. The additional annual funding from the City and County are being requested to address cost increases for continuing to provide existing levels of service. The $500,000 combined annual contribution from the City and County has not increased since the Cultural Core program began six years ago. If this item is approved, then as shown in the table below the total combined annual funding for the Cultural Core would be $600,000 for five years, then $591,000 in the sixth year, and revert to $500,000 in the seventh year. The Cultural Core Action Plan Implementation Contract would be amended to reflect these additional funds. Policy Question: ➢Retain Some Funding for Unexpected Costs – The Council may wish to ask the Administration whether the Cultural Core Surplus Fund should retain a positive balance to address unexpected expenses like a rainy day fund. A-2: Additional One-time Funding for Advantage Services’ Mobile Clean Team ($300,000 from Rescope of CAN Personnel Vacancy Savings) Note that items A-2, A-3, D-1, and E-3 are all related to increasing funding for the contract between Advantage Services and the City through the end of FY2023. The write-up below addresses all three items. The Administration is requesting a total one-time increase of $533,418 to continue existing mobile clean team functions provided by Advantage Services through a contract with the City. Without additional funding, the services would be paused until funding becomes available next fiscal year. The funding request is split into three parts in this budget amendment as shown below. The three funding requests are all from one-time funds. The FY2024 annual budget would need new ongoing funding as an increase to the program’s base budget to continue providing existing levels of service. - $300,000 from rescoping projected personnel vacancy savings in CAN (item A-2) o Note that vacancy savings are one-time funds because the positions may be filled next fiscal year - $160,000 from rescoping part of the State Mitigation Grant (item E-3) o Note that this proposed $160,000 rescoping comes from three subawards for staffing listed below. All of the unspent funds must be returned to the State if not used by the end of the fiscal year. The $160,000 was unused earlier in the fiscal year due to vacancies. ▪$60,000 from Housing Stability Division ▪$50,000 from Salt Lake City Police Department ▪$50,000 from Volunteers of America - $73,418 from rescoping unspent funds from Operation Rio Grande (item A-3) o Note that the Council approved a rescope of these Operation Rio Grande funds in December as part of Budget Amendment #4. The Road Home used $104,429 for the St. Vincent de Paul overflow program. This left the $73,418 unable to be used as the program ended with warmer temperatures. The base budget for Advantage Services is $802,000 in the Community & Neighborhoods Department (CAN) which all comes from the General Fund. The base budget has remained unchanged for the past two fiscal years. Over the same time, the mobile clean team has expanded from a focus in the Rio Grande neighborhood to new areas in the City. Services include cleanup of abandoned camp materials, voluntary trash removal from active encampments, and biowaste removal. The mobile clean team works with the City’s Rapid Intervention Team. Services are provided on public property except for biowaste removal which is available on private property. In limited circumstances trash removal is also provided on private property. A one-time award of $760,110 in FY2021 was used to pay for service level expansion over the past two fiscal years. Those funds have been expended. The mobile clean team continued to provide an expanded level of service after the existing base budget and one-time funding were spent. This resulted in costs being incurred which exceeded the available budget. The Council has approved $278,943 of CDBG Public Services funding to Advantage Services from FY2018 to FY2023 for the supportive employment program. They did not apply for CDBG funding in FY2024. The Administration has requested a straw poll on these items. Policy Questions: ➢Preventing Expenses Being Incurred Beyond Budget in the Future – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what has or could change to prevent a similar situation from happening when costs are incurred that exceed the approved budget. ➢Metrics – Would the Council like additional information about metrics for the mobile clean team? The Administration reports 1,195 requests have been completed by the mobile clean team this fiscal year and average case closure times were four days in March. A-3: Repurpose Operation Rio Grande Funds for New Homeless Services ($73,418 from Recaptured Operations Rio Grande Funds) Note that items A-2, A-3, D-1, and E-3 are all related to increasing funding for the contract between Advantage Services and the City through the end of FY2023. See the A-2 write-up for more. This request is to reappropriate $73,418 of unspent Operation Rio Grande funds. The funds were unused during the original operation. Then the Council approved a $177,874 rescope request for St. Vincent de Paul winter overflow program. $104,429 was used. This second rescope of the remaining $73,418 is for mobile clean team services. A-4: Liberty Park Seven Canyons Fountain Rescope Change ($823,548 from CIP) In FY2020, the Council approved $857,968 in CIP to redevelop the Seven Canyons Fountain located in Liberty Park. The fountain was built in 1993 and closed in 2017 in response to health and safety code issues identified by the Salt Lake County Health Department. The CIP project was meant to address the code issues and reopen the fountain. The Administration is requesting to rescope the remaining funding to modify the fountain into a permanent dry artwork. The City Arts Council would be involved in the conceptual design selection. The dry artwork is expected to include specialty concrete and finishes for the seven symbolic creeks flowing into the Jordan River, landscaping and lighting improvements, new signage, and handrails. The Public Lands Department consulted with some of the original artists about the conversion to a dry artwork. After an initial feasibility study, the Public Lands Department determined that re-opening the fountain as an interactive water feature would require significantly greater capital costs and projected water use. Two alternate options were explored: adapting the fountain into a dry artwork or decommissioning it. Public feedback including a community survey in 2021 showed support for creating a dry artwork instead of the decommissioning option. The responses indicated that conserving water, preserving art, and staying within the existing budget were key factors to consider between the two presented options. A second feasibility study was conducted by the Public Lands Department and Engineering to evaluate options to add some water back to the fountain at lower volumes. The options had a total cost estimate of $2.1 million to $4 million plus ongoing water and maintenance costs. A-5: Open Space Property Acquisition (City Parks) AND A-6: Open Space Property Acquisition (Trails) Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment in the amount of $450,000 utilizing Parks Impact Fees to acquire an available parcel of property. This funding request includes all fees associated with acquisition. Any remaining funding from the acquisition would be utilized for immediate remediation needs and addressing potential safety concerns. A-6: Open Space Property Acquisition (Trails) ($300,000 from Impact Fees) Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment for $300,000 utilizing Parks Impact Fees to provide a 24% matching contribution to $1,250,000 committed from the State of Utah Department of Outdoor Recreation and in partnership with Utah Open Lands. The combined funding would be used to acquire several acres of open space property located in Salt Lake City to facilitate construction of a trailhead. This funding request includes all fees associated with acquisition as well concept design for the proposed trailhead. Utah Open Land will also be conducting a fundraising campaign to cover a portion of the acquisition. Any remaining funding would be utilized for immediate trailhead design and construction needs and addressing potential safety concerns. A-7: Recapture One-time Emergency Solutions Grant CARES Act Funds ($209,552 Rescope from $200,000 of City Administration and $9,552 from VOA’s Homeless Outreach Program) The Administration is requesting to recapture unused funds previously allocated for costs to the City for administering the program and $9,552 from VOA’s Homeless Outreach Program. The deadline to spend the funds was extended by one year to September 30, 2023. The funds are proposed to be allocated to Utah Community Action’s Homeless Prevention Program. It provides emergency rental assistance, funding for case managers, and support to individuals and households. The Council originally awarded the program $1,212,940. Utah Community Action indicates a need for emergency rental assistance still exists for some City residents and they expect to be able to fully spend the funds by the deadline. Other community service providers that received some of the Emergency Solutions Grant CARES Act funding are on track to use their remaining awards (e.g., The Road Home rapid rehousing), would not be able to use the funds by the deadline (e.g., Utah Community Action rapid rehousing, or the eligible pandemic-related program has ended (e.g., winter overflow shelter). One organization, Soap to Hope, providing street outreach has fully spent their award and has not indicated whether additional funding could be used by the deadline. Recapturing funding and awarding it to another organization that received funding does not require the City to go through the substantial amendment process to change the annual action plan. As part of the CARES Act, Salt Lake City was awarded $7,138,203 in U.S. Housing and Urban Development or HUD Department grants for projects and programs directly related to responding to the COVID-19 pandemic. The CARES Act HUD grants are subject to separate regulations than the regular annual awards. On February 16, 2021, the Council approved the funding awards. Policy Question: ➢Soap to Hope Street Outreach Possibly Use Additional Funding – The Council may wish to ask the Administration to check whether Soap to Hope’s street outreach program could use some of the recaptured funding by the spending deadline. The program was originally awarded $214,654 which has all been spent. A-8: Steiner Aquatics Center Roof Replacement ($1.38 million from General Fund Balance) The Steiner Aquatics Center roof was installed in 2000. A recent inspection determined that the roof needs to be replaced. This request is for half of the total project cost because the City and Salt Lake County have an agreement to split the cost of capital repairs and replacements of the building’s systems. The project is expected to begin this summer and be completed by the fall. The Public Services Department maintains a Facilities Condition Index for city buildings that accounts for maintenance, repairs, and replacement. In addition to the roof, the index identified approximately $3 million of assets beyond useful life at the Steiner Aquatics Center. Some of the assets include the locker rooms, pool resurfacing, and the parking lot. Policy Question: ➢Planning for Capital Replacement Needs at Steiner Aquatics Center – The Council may wish to ask the Administration what planning is being done for the $3 million of capital replacement needs at the Steiner Aquatics Center and how those projects would be prioritized. A-9: Natural Gas Cost Increase ($635,000 from General Fund Balance of which $135,000 to the Fleet Fund) The City experienced significant cost increases for natural gas over the winter. The base budget for wholesale natural gas serving the City’s larger facilities is $565,635. The increase would bring the total funding for FY2023 to $1,200,635 or a 112% increase. This request is for one-time funding to address the current fiscal year natural gas price spikes. Ongoing funding would be needed in the FY2024 annual budget assuming natural gas prices remain high. The largest price spike was a six-fold increase in the cost of natural gas for January from an average of $7 per decatherm (a measure of heat energy) to $49. Prices have since decreased but remain higher than historical averages. The City uses Dominion Energy to supply natural gas to most facilities. The City uses a wholesale natural gas contract through the State for the largest facilities which historically has saved taxpayers funding by accessing lower prices. Over the recent winter the wholesale vendor passed along price spikes to customers resulting in large cost increases. The Public Services Department is evaluating options to lock in prices to avoid similar unexpectedly large cost increases at short notice. The City has made several capital improvements in recent years to reduce the use of natural gas such as replacing the steam boilers in the Central Plant which serves the Main Library, City Hall, and The Leonardo, HVAC upgrades at the Public Lands Building, and replacing the Steiner Aquatics Center pool boilers. A-10: Ranked Choice Voting Awareness Materials ($35,000 from General Fund Balance) It has been confirmed there will be no state funding available for awareness of Ranked Choice Voting this election. Any awareness materials must be funded by the City. For fiscal year 22-23, the Recorder’s office is requesting $35,000 to cover awareness materials and an additional $40,000 in the FY 23-24 proposal provided the expenses will be incurred. between July and October. Awareness for this fiscal year shall include brochures, large QR posters, stickers, vinyl banners for tabling, candy for tabling, translation services, scripts for PSA, graphic design subscription for the creation of awareness materials, radio ads, billboards, and more. The Council selected ranked choice voting without a primary for the municipal election this year. The General Election will be held on Tuesday, November 7. This year elections are being held for City Council districts two, four, six, and the mayoral race. A-11: Environmental Assessment Additional Funding ($50,000 from General Fund Balance) The Sustainability Department is requesting $50,000 to continue environmental assessments at the former Redwood Road landfill site where a tiny home village is planned. The funds would be used to cover consulting work to finalize a Remedial Action Plan which must be approved by the State Department of Environmental Quality or DEQ. Remediation work could then begin during construction through oversight, sampling, design, and reporting. Some of the funds may also be used for environmental issues at the Fleet Block. The FY2023 annual budget included a new line item in Non-departmental of $100,000 for consultant services to assess environmental issues on City property. The Administration reports $95,600 was spent for work related to the DEQ’s voluntary cleanup program at the future site of The Other Side Village, and $1,434 was spent on developing community garden environmental standards and procedures. The remaining available balance is $2,966. The ground lease agreement between the City and The Other Side Academy requires reimbursement for the environmental assessments, planning, and remediation work. The City is fronting these costs and may be reimbursed later. The Administration has requested a straw poll on this item. A-12: Impact Fee Plan Consultant Contract Amendment ($27,000 Total; $9,000 Each from Fire, Parks, and Police Impact Fees) The Finance Department is requesting $9,000 from Parks & Public Land Impact Fees, $9,000 from Fire Impact Fees, and $9,000 from Police Impact Fees to fund an amendment to the Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) consultant contract. The department will work with the consultants to complete updates to the IFFPs and Impact Fee Analysis. The Administration anticipated transmitting recommended updates to the Council for the fire and police sections of the City’s Impact Fees Plan in FY2024. An update to the parks section is expected to be transmitted later depending on work developing a five-year strategic plan. In October 2020, the Council approved an update to the transportation section. A-13: Flood Mitigation ($1 Million Total; $736,275 from General Fund Balance and Recapturing $263,725 of Unused NBA Allstar Game Activation Funding) Salt Lake City Administration and Emergency Management requests funds to be used for sandbagging, diversion walls, and Joint Hazard Analysis Teams will also be used in the event there is wide scale flooding. The $263,725 is funding remaining from the NBA Allstar Game activation funding that is being proposed to be redirected toward flood mitigation purposes. After the transmittal was received the Administration requested this item be increased from $500,000 to $1 million based on costs incurred related to Emigration Creek flooding. A-14: Additional ARPA Revenue Replacement ($18,603,080 from ARPA) The Administration is requesting the Council approve using additional ARPA funding for revenue replacement. This would almost maximize the allowable revenue replacement in the General Fund based on U.S. Treasury guidance. This approach also helps reduce the administrative workload to monitor, document, and report compliance to the federal government. Some items previously identified as being funded from ARPA would instead receive General Fund dollars and some of the revenue replacement would be available to use in FY2024. These items include: - $10 million would lapse to General Fund Balance at the end of FY2023 to be used in FY2024 - $4 million would be transferred to the RDA for the Westside Communities Initiative - $2 million would be transferred to Public Utilities’ Storm Water Fund for local matching funds to a state grant for the new water reclamation facility - $2 million would be used for the local nonprofit assistance grants to be administered through the Housing Stability Division - $500,000 would be transferred to CIP for annex building renovations which is leased by Odyssey House for a substance abuse treatment program serving single fathers - $103,080 would be used for Rapid Intervention Team equipment If this item is approved, then nearly all the City’s fiscal recovery funding from ARPA would be budgeted. The deadline to obligate funds is the end of calendar year 2024 under current U.S. Treasury guidance. A-15: ARPA Funding to Perpetual Housing Fund Utah Investment proposal Staff Note: see separate staff report for additional information on this proposal which is also scheduled to have a separate briefing. Mayor Mendenhall is requesting that the City Council approve a $10 million budget amendment to be distributed to a non-profit development organization named the Perpetual Housing Fund of Utah, LLC (PHF) for affordable housing development and wealth building opportunities for PHF project residents. Additionally, the Administration is seeking feedback on the pre-funding conditions the Administration is proposing to PHF for this allocation. For additional information on this proposal see Attachment #1. Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section (None) Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section (None) Section D: Housekeeping D-1: State Mitigation Grant to Advantage Services for Mobile Clean Team ($160,000 from Three Prior Awards) Note that items A-2, A-3, D-1, and E-3 are all related to increasing funding for the contract between Advantage Services and the City through the end of FY2023. See the A-2 write-up for more. This request is to rescope $160,000 for the mobile clean team provided by Advantage Services. The funding is from three subawards for staffing: $60,000 from Housing Stability Division, $50,000 from Salt Lake City Police Department, and $50,000 from Volunteers of America. All the unspent funds must be returned to the State if not used by the end of the fiscal year. The $160,000 was unused earlier in the fiscal year due to vacancies. Note the budget amendment would keep $110,000 within the existing cost center but for a new use and $50,000 would be moved from a Police Department cost center to CAN’s existing professional services cost center which is item E-3 below. D-2: Fire Department — Other Reimbursements ($17,118 from General Fund) The Fire Department has provided several services in which it expects to receive a reimbursement including: training backfill costs incurred on behalf of Utah Search and Rescue (USAR), and Fire Investigation overtime incurred on behalf of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Utah Search and Rescue (USAR) Training/Backfill $8,820.33 Camp Williams Exercises, K9 Training, Tech Search Specialist Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) $8,297.39 Sugarhouse Fire Investigation/Overtime Total Reimbursement $17,117.72 D-3: Transfer Parks Impact Fees to Surplus Land Fund – Land Purchase near RAC ($395,442 from Parks Impact Fees) Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to reimburse the Surplus Land Fund using Parks Impact Fees for a previous year property acquisition. In 2019, the Council approved $500,000 of Surplus Land Funds to be used to fund the purchase of two parcels near the Regional Athletic Complex or RAC (Rose Park Lane) references BA3 FY19 A-1. The actual cost of the acquisition came in at $395,441.70. Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to transfer $395,442 from Parks Impact Fees to a new impact fee cost center to reimburse the actual cost of the land and to recapture the original $500,000 appropriation back to the Surplus Land account. Note that item D-7 would also increase the Surplus Land Fund balance. At the time of publishing this staff report, the current balance of the Surplus Land Fund was being confirmed. D-4: Fire Impact Fee – Fee payment for Excess Capacity ($2.2 million of Fire Impact Fees of which $1.7 million to the CIP Fund and $500,000 to the General Fund) The Administration is requesting a budget of $2.2 million from fire impact fees as reimbursement to the General Fund for past investments in facilities eligible for but not funding from fire impact fees. The City’s Impact Fee Plan calls these an “existing facilities buy-in” which has an estimated total value of $4,746,899. The General Fund has not received funding for the prior investments. The $1.7 million going to the CIP Fund is anticipated to be used for paying annual debt service on bonds that built Fire Stations #3 and #14. The $500,000 in the General Fund would be used in the following item D-5. Note that the available to spend balance of fire impact fees as of March 24 is $1,725,882. An additional $474,118 is anticipated revenue through the end of FY2023. If this item is approved, then all the available to spend fire impact fees would be used. The potential existing facilities buy-in option would have $2,546,899 available for future potential reimbursement to the General Fund. D-5: Fire Training Center ($499,533 from General Fund to CIP Fund) The Fire Training Center (FTC) is comprised of two CIP projects, the Logistics Center/Large Equipment Garage and the Renovation of the old Fire Station #14. Both projects were referred to as the Fire Training Center. $499,533.39 was appropriated for the renovation of the old Fire Station #14 (100% Impact Fee Eligible) and placed in Cost Center 84- 17015 with the title Fire Training Center. These funds were inadvertently expended on the construction of the Fire Training Center Logistics Center (Ineligible for Impact Fees) instead. The Capital Asset Planning team is requesting to move $499,533.39 from non-departmental to a new CIP cost center to reimburse Fire Impact Fees for the FTC Logistics Center. Note that this funding from the General Fund is related to the prior item D-4. D-6: Fisher Mansion Carriage House Impact Fee Reimbursement ($100,000 from Parks Impact Fees to CIP Cost Overrun Account) An Administrative Budget Adjustment was approved in March 2023 for $100,000 of cost overrun for the Fisher Mansion Carriage House Improvement Project. The Fisher Mansion Carriage House Improvement Project is 100% impact fee eligible and the Capital Asset Planning team is requesting $100,000 from Parks Impact Fees to reimburse the cost overrun cost center. If this item is approved, then the CIP Cost Overrun Account would have an available balance of $923,081. D-7: Recapture of Police Precinct Funds to Surplus ($129,688 from CIP Fund to Surplus Land Fund) After four years of inactivity due to the inability to procure a suitable piece of land at the right price, the Finance Department is requesting the recapture of these funds to the Surplus Land cost center. Note that item D-7 would also increase the Surplus Land Fund balance. At the time of publishing this staff report, the current balance of the Surplus Land Fund was being confirmed. D-8: Police Impact Fee – Unclaimed Refunds ($237,606 from Impact Fees to Police Impact Fees) The Capital Asset Planning Team is requesting to move $237,606.45 in unclaimed impact fee refunds back to the Police Impact Fees. This request is being made to comply with Section 603 - Refunds, of Utah Code 11-36a - Impact Fees Act. As outlined in the code, the City shall expend any unclaimed refund on capital facilities identified in the current capital facilities plan for the type of public facility for which the impact fee was collected. The unclaimed refunds would no longer be subject to the six-year spending clock all impact fees are typically required to satisfy, and they would still be limited to the eligible uses identified in the City’s Impact Fees Plan. D-9: Rapid Intervention Team Trailer RV/XP ($25,000 from General Fund to Fleet Fund) As part of the adoption of FY23 Budget Amendment 5 - Initiative A-1 - Rapid Intervention Team Trailer, funds were budgeted to Facilities in the General Fund. However, the transfer from General Fund to Fleet Fund was not included in the budget adoption. This amendment is to correct that. By purchasing the trailer through the Fleet Fund, it will become part of their inventory allowing Fleet better track maintenance needs. Request is $25,000 from General Fund to Fleet Fund for the purchase of the trailer for the Rapid Intervention Team. D-10: Difference Between $4.3 Million Grant Adopted in Budget Amendment No. 5 and the Actual $4.22 Million) ($78,560 from Misc. Grants) In Budget Amendment #5, $4,300,000 in Miscellaneous Grants funding was adopted to be used toward bonuses for Police POST training, recruitment and retention. Although the $4,300,000 million amount was adopted, the actual available amount is $4,221,440. In order to be accurate in ARPA reporting it is necessary to reduce the budgeted expenditure amount by $78,560. Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: School-Age Quality 22 Grant (FY22-25) ($780,000 from Misc. Grants (Funding and Award Title Correction) The Administration indicates this grant was approved on the June 14, 2022, Consent Agenda #1 for one year of funding at $390,000 with an incorrect title, timeframe, and award amount. This item will correct the title as well as the timeframe of the grant from one year to three years of funding for YouthCity afterschool Programming at Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Central City, Ottinger Hall, Sorenson Unity Center and Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center. An additional $780,00 will be added to the budget for an additional two years of funding. A match is not required; however, the Division of Youth and Family Services will be providing a voluntary cash match from staff time. The public hearing was held May 17, 2022. E-2: School-Age Quality Summer Expansion FY22-23 ($373,338 from Misc. Grants) (Correction) The Council approved this item on June 14, 2022, under Consent Agenda #1 for one year of funding, $62,223 per YouthCity site, for the summer of 2022. The funding should have reflected funding for the summer of 2023 as well. This item will add additional funding, meaning that each YouthCity site will receive $124,446 for a total grant award of $746,767. The public hearing was held May 17, 2022. E-3: State Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY2023 Revision ($160,000 Rescope for Advantages Services from A Prior Award) Note that items A-2, A-3, D-1, and E-3 are all related to increasing funding for the contract between Advantage Services and the City through the end of FY2023. See the A-2 write-up for more. This request is to rescope $50,000 for the mobile clean team provided by Advantage Services. The funding is from rescoping $50,000 previously awarded to the Salt Lake City Police Department. All the unspent funds must be returned to the State if not used by the end of the fiscal year. $50,000 would be moved from a Police Department cost center to CAN’s existing professional services cost center. Section F: Donations (None) Section G: Donations G-1: U.S. Department of Homeland Security, FEMA – Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program ($115,472 from Misc. Grants) Section I: Council Added Items (none) ATTACHMENTS (none) ACRONYMS ARPA – American Rescue Plan Act BA – Budget Amendment CIP – Capital Improvement Program Fund| CV – Corona Virus ESG – Emergency Solutions Grant FY – Fiscal Year FOF – Funding Our Future GASB – Governmental Accounting Standards Board GF – General Fund HUD – Housing and Urban Development IMS – Information Management Services RAC – Regional Athletic Complex RDA – Redevelopment Agency VOA – Volunteers of America DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: _______________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: __________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 7, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #6 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY2022-23 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND $ 19,120,198.00 $ 11,719,731.39 CIP FUND 5,459,533.39 3,859,533.39 CIP: IMPACT FEE FUND 0.00 2,577,466.61 FLEET FUND 160,000.00 160.000.00 MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND 1,268,810.72 15,268,810.72 STORM WATER FUND 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUND 50,000.00 50,000.00 TOTAL $ 28,058,542.11 $ 50,160,062.11 Lisa Shaffer (Apr 7, 2023 13:47 MDT)04/07/2023 04/07/2023 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2022-23 Budget Adjustments The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2023. The current projections for fiscal year 2023 projections continue to be positive. Sales tax is currently projected to exceed budget by $5.7 million while the sales tax associated with Funding Our Future is projected to exceed budget by $6.8 million. Building permits have slowed and are currently showing a decrease, those losses are slightly offset by small gains in airport parking tax and innkeepers tax, but still show a loss compared to the budget of $1.7 million. Due to the rise in interest rates, interest income shows a large positive variance to budget of $5.4 million. Charges and services and miscellaneous revenue are both trending above budget. In total, current revenue projections are above amended budget by $17.1 million. Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Favorable (Unfavorable) Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual BudgetFY22-FY23 Amended BudgetRevised Forecast Amended Variance Property Taxes 125,012,927 125,012,927 125,012,927 - Sale and Use Taxes 105,050,018 105,050,018 110,811,754 5,761,736 Franchise Taxes 11,657,128 11,657,128 12,020,987 363,859 Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,638,222 1,638,222 1,638,222 - Total Taxes 243,358,295 243,358,295 249,483,890 6,125,595 Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual BudgetFY22-FY23 Amended BudgetRevised Forecast Amended Variance Licenses and Permits 40,736,114 40,736,114 39,033,583 (1,702,531) Intergovernmental Revenue 4,644,622 4,644,622 4,892,377 247,755 Interest Income 2,071,154 2,071,154 7,500,000 5,428,846 Fines 3,765,174 3,765,174 3,459,141 (306,033) Parking Meter Collections 2,635,475 2,635,475 2,635,475 - Charges, Fees, and Rentals 4,432,794 4,432,794 4,879,854 447,060 Miscellaneous Revenue 3,438,710 3,438,710 3,959,921 521,211 Interfund Reimbursement 24,431,717 24,431,717 24,234,739 (196,978) Transfers 28,821,993 34,910,408 34,848,950 (61,458) Total W/O Special Tax 358,336,048 364,424,463 374,927,930 10,503,467 ObjectCodeDescription FY22-23 Annual Budget FY22-23 Amended BudgetRevised Forecast Amended Variance Additional Sales Tax (1/2%)44,364,490 44,364,490 51,035,000 6,670,510 Total General Fund 402,700,538 408,788,953 425,962,930 17,173,977 Alejandro Sanchez (Apr 7, 2023 13:40 MDT) Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for BA#6. Based on those projections adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 23.00%. FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 12,114,190 104,171,780 116,285,970 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,879,483) (15,335,334) (18,214,817) (2,100,608) (20,736,262) (22,836,870) Prior Year Encumbrances (1,879,654) (10,259,789) (12,139,443) (3,162,300) (17,260,909) (20,423,209) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 7,355,053 78,576,657 85,931,710 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 Beginning Fund Balance Percent 14.28%22.33%21.30%29.60%27.04%27.30% Year End CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes - - - - - - Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) - (7,535,897) (7,535,897) (8,556,220) (8,556,220) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 7,355,053 71,040,760 78,395,813 13,132,752 95,174,631 108,307,383 Final Fund Balance Percent 14.28%20.19%19.43%29.60%24.81%25.30% Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#1 Expense Adjustment - 5,138,235 5,138,235 - (475,000) (475,000) BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - 490,847 490,847 - - - BA#2 Expense Adjustment - (986,298) (986,298) - - - BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - - - 6,000,000 6,000,000 BA#3 Expense Adjustment (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000) - (6,538,000) (6,538,000) BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - 1,508,044 1,508,044 - 194,600 194,600 BA#4 Expense Adjustment - (4,242,779) (4,242,779) - (7,584,328) (7,584,328) BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - 400,000 400,000 - - - BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (400,000) (400,000) - (5,940,349) (5,940,349) BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - - - 19,120,198 19,120,198 BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (1,553,938) (1,553,938) - (11,719,731) (11,719,731) BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - (794,641) (794,641) - - - BA#7 Expense Adjustment (1,200,000) (10,843,298) (12,043,298) - - - Change in Revenue 11,139,999 23,083,587 34,223,586 - - - Change in Expense 2,100,608 12,134,899 14,235,507 - - Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance 18,395,660 93,975,418 112,371,078 13,132,752 88,232,021 101,364,773 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 35.72%26.70%27.86%29.60%23.00%23.68% Proposed/Adopted Revenue 51,499,136 351,910,770 403,409,906 44,364,490 383,650,846 428,015,336 FY2023 BudgetFY2022 Projection The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $28,058,542.11 of revenue and expense of $50,160,062.11. The amendment proposes changes in seven funds, with no increases in FTEs. The amendment also includes the use of $7,400,466.61 from the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes twenty-nine initiatives for Council review. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2023 (Sixth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-2023) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2022, and Ending June 30, 2023. In June of 2022, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes 2 specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2023. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2023. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form ___ _______ Jaysen Oldroyd Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs 1 Cultural Core Contract Amendments GF - (291,000.00)One-time - 1 Cultural Core Contract Amendments GF - 291,000.00 One-time - 2 Homelessness Advantage Services GF - (300,000.00)Ongoing - 2 Homelessness Advantage Services GF - 300,000.00 One-time - 3 Repurpose Operation Rio Grande Funds for New Homeless Services (Advantage Services) GF - - One-time - 4 Liberty Park Seven Canyons Fountain Scope Change CIP - (695,580.00)One-time - 4 Liberty Park Seven Canyons Fountain Scope Change CIP (127,968.00)One-time - 4 Liberty Park Seven Canyons Fountain Scope Change CIP 823,548.00 One-time - 5 Open Space Property Acquisition (City Parks)Impact Fees - 450,000.00 One-time - 6 Open Space Property Acquisition (Trails)Impact Fees - 300,000.00 One-time - 7 Recaptured HUD ESG-CV Funds Misc Grants - (200,000.00)One-time - 7 Recaptured HUD ESG-CV Funds Misc Grants - (9,552.00)One-time - 7 Recaptured HUD ESG-CV Funds Misc Grants - 209,552.00 One-time - 8 Steiner Roof - County Contractual Obligation and City Portion GF - 1,380,000.00 One-time - 8 Steiner Roof - County Contractual Obligation and City Portion CIP 1,380,000.00 1,380,000.00 One-time - 8 Steiner Roof - County Contractual Obligation and City Portion CIP 1,380,000.00 1,380,000.00 One-time - 9 Natural Gas Cost Increase GF - 500,000.00 One-time - 9 Natural Gas Cost Increase GF - 135,000.00 One-time - 9 Natural Gas Cost Increase Fleet 135,000.00 135,000.00 One-time - 10 Ranked Choice Voting Awareness Materials GF - 35,000.00 Ongoing - 11 Environmental Assessment Fund GF - 50,000.00 One-time - 11 Environmental Assessment Fund Other Special Rev 50,000.00 50,000.00 One-time - 12 IFFP Consultant Contract Amendment Impact Fees - 27,000.00 One-time - 13 Flood Mitigation GF - 236,275.00 One-time - 13 Flood Mitigation (Recaptured All Star Game Funding)GF - 263,725.00 One-time 14 Additional ARPA Revenue Replacement Misc Grants - 18,603,080.00 One-time - 14 Additional ARPA Revenue Replacement GF 18,603,080.00 8,603,080.00 One-time - 14 Additional ARPA Revenue Replacement Storm Water 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 One-time - 14 Additional ARPA Revenue Replacement CIP 500,000.00 500,000.00 One-time - 15 ARPA Funding to Perpetual Housing Fund Misc Grants - 10,000,000.00 One-time - FY 2023 Budget Amendment #6 Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed Section A: New Items Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources 1 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #6 1 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal 2 Fire - Other Reimbursements GF 17,118.00 17,118.00 One-time - 3 Transfer Parks Impact Fees to Surplus Land - Land Purchase Near RAC Impact Fees - (395,442.00)One-time - 3 Transfer Parks Impact Fees to Surplus Land - Land Purchase Near RAC Impact Fees - 395,442.00 One-time - 3 Transfer Parks Impact Fees to Surplus Land - Land Purchase Near RAC CIP (500,000.00) - One-time - 3 Transfer Parks Impact Fees to Surplus Land - Land Purchase Near RAC CIP 500,000.00 - One-time - 4 Fire Impact Fee - Payment for Excess Capacity GF 500,000.00 - One-time - 4 Fire Impact Fee - Payment for Excess Capacity Impact Fees (2,200,000.00) - One-time - 4 Fire Impact Fee - Payment for Excess Capacity Impact Fees 2,200,000.00 2,200,000.00 One-time - 4 Fire Impact Fee - Payment for Excess Capacity CIP 1,700,000.00 - One-time - 5 Fire Training Center GF - 499,533.39 One-time - 5 Fire Training Center CIP 499,533.39 499,533.39 One-time - 5 Fire Training Center Impact Fees (499,533.39) (499,533.39)One-time - 5 Fire Training Center Impact Fees 499,533.39 - One-time - 6 Fisher Mansion - Impact Fee Reimbursement of Cost Overrun Impact Fees (100,000.00) - One-time - 6 Fisher Mansion - Impact Fee Reimbursement of Cost Overrun Impact Fees 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time - 6 Fisher Mansion - Impact Fee Reimbursement of Cost Overrun CIP - 100,000.00 One-time - 7 Recapture of Police Precinct Funds to Surplus Land CIP (1,299,688.00) - One-time - 7 Recapture of Police Precinct Funds to Surplus Land CIP 1,299,688.00 - One-time - 8 Police Impact Fee - Unclaimed Refunds Impact Fees (237,606.45) - One-time - 8 Police Impact Fee - Unclaimed Refunds Impact Fees 237,606.45 - One-time - 9 Rapid Intervention Team Trailer RV/XP - GF to Fleet GF - (25,000.00)One-time - 9 Rapid Intervention Team Trailer RV/XP - GF to Fleet GF - 25,000.00 One-time - 9 Rapid Intervention Team Trailer RV/XP - GF to Fleet Fleet 25,000.00 25,000.00 One-time - 10 Diff between $4.3 grant adopted in BA 5 Misc Grants (78,560.00)One-time - Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources 1 School-age Quality 22 Grant (FY 22-25)Misc Grants 780,000.00 780,000.00 One-time - 2 School-Age Quality Summer Expansion 22- 23 Misc Grants 373,338.00 373,338.00 One-time - 3 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY23 -Budget Revision Misc Grants (50,000.00) (50,000.00) One-time - 3 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY23 -Budget Revision Misc Grants 50,000.00 50,000.00 One-time - - Section D: Housekeeping Section F: Donations 2 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #6 Consent Agenda #7 1 U S Department of Homeland Security, FEMA - Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program Misc Grants 115,472.72 115,472.72 One-time - Total of Budget Amendment Items 28,058,542.11 50,160,062.11 - - - Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #6: General Fund GF 19,120,198.00 11,719,731.39 - - - CIP Fund CIP 5,459,533.39 3,859,533.39 - - - CIP: Impact Fee Funds Impact Fees - 2,577,466.61 - - - Fleet Fund Fleet 160,000.00 160,000.00 - - - Miscellaneous Grant Fund Misc Grants 1,268,810.72 29,793,330.72 - - - Storm Water Fund Storm Water 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 - - - Other Special Revenue Other Special Rev 50,000.00 50,000.00 - - - - Total of Budget Amendment Items 28,058,542.11 50,160,062.11 - - - Administration Proposed Council Approved Section I: Council Added Items Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards 3 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #6 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2022-23 Budget, Including Budget Amendments FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue General Fund (FC 10)425,537,408 100,000 6,000,000 194,600 - 431,832,008 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,762,560 1,762,560 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)4,302,222 4,302,222 Water Fund (FC 51)108,196,368 36,680,000 260,687 145,137,055 Sewer Fund (FC 52)196,630,907 196,630,907 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)13,476,733 13,476,733 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)302,268,600 - 302,268,600 Refuse Fund (FC 57)21,458,105 21,458,105 Golf Fund (FC 59)11,560,676 25,700 11,586,376 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,925,000 3,925,000 Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,826,992 120,000 1,119,900 30,066,892 IMS Fund (FC 65)30,523,167 2,627,420 3,099,185 36,249,772 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,600,000 9,600,000 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)4,670,517 4,670,517 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)34,158,918 2,749,584 2,517,995 8,103,151 2,131,170 49,660,818 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)300,000 300,000 Donation Fund (FC 77)2,920,250 20,000 44,668 1,000,000 3,984,918 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,217,000 16,217,000 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)32,037,989 (2,951,727) 334,958 29,421,220 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)35,460,387 6,603,019 5,267,217 91,967,958 15,149,607 154,448,188 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,964,523 2,000,000 500,000 6,464,523 Risk Fund (FC 87)54,679,000 54,679,000 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,344,180,322 11,592,603 - 51,009,880 101,347,689 21,714,920 1,529,845,414 4 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #6 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2022-23 Budget, Including Budget Amendments FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget through BA#5 BA #6 Total BA #7 Total BA #8 Total BA #9 Total BA #10 Total Total Revenue General Fund (FC 10)431,832,008 19,120,198 450,952,206 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,762,560 1,762,560 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)4,302,222 4,302,222 Water Fund (FC 51)145,137,055 145,137,055 Sewer Fund (FC 52)196,630,907 196,630,907 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)13,476,733 2,000,000 15,476,733 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)302,268,600 302,268,600 Refuse Fund (FC 57)21,458,105 21,458,105 Golf Fund (FC 59)11,586,376 11,586,376 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,925,000 3,925,000 Fleet Fund (FC 61)30,066,892 160,000 30,226,892 IMS Fund (FC 65)36,249,772 36,249,772 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,600,000 9,600,000 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)4,670,517 4,670,517 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)49,660,818 1,268,811 50,929,629 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)300,000 50,000 350,000 Donation Fund (FC 77)3,984,918 3,984,918 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,217,000 16,217,000 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)29,421,220 29,421,220 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)154,448,188 5,459,533 159,907,721 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)6,464,523 6,464,523 Risk Fund (FC 87)54,679,000 54,679,000 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,529,845,414 28,058,542 - - - - 1,557,903,956 5 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #6 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2022-23 Budget, Including Budget Amendments Total Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense General Fund (FC 10)425,537,408 847,540 6,538,000 7,584,328 5,940,349 446,447,625 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,762,560 1,762,560 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,757,825 5,757,825 Water Fund (FC 51)132,752,815 36,680,000 260,687 169,693,502 Sewer Fund (FC 52)255,914,580 255,914,580 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)18,699,722 18,699,722 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)384,681,671 688,818,000 1,073,499,671 Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,952,672 3,035,700 27,988,372 Golf Fund (FC 59)14,726,016 46,800 14,772,816 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385 Fleet Fund (FC 61)30,426,032 4,011,360 10,678,500 45,115,892 IMS Fund (FC 65)30,523,167 2,782,449 3,099,185 36,404,801 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,458,748 9,458,748 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)4,958,433 4,958,433 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)26,614,153 2,749,584 2,517,995 8,481,711 2,131,170 42,494,613 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)300,000 300,000 Donation Fund (FC 77)287,250 20,000 44,668 1,000,000 1,351,918 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)25,779,253 100,000 25,879,253 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)33,658,558 (2,951,727) 334,958 31,041,789 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)35,460,387 11,713,917 12,267,217 96,317,958 15,149,607 170,909,086 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,169,767 2,000,000 500,000 5,669,767 Risk Fund (FC 87)54,679,000 54,679,000 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,525,603,402 21,442,401 688,818,000 61,583,580 123,200,706 27,655,269 2,448,303,358 6 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #6 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2022-23 Budget, Including Budget Amendments Total Expense through BA#5 BA #6 Total BA #7 Total BA #8 Total BA #9 Total BA #10 Total Total Expense General Fund (FC 10)446,447,625 11,719,731 458,167,356 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,762,560 1,762,560 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,757,825 5,757,825 Water Fund (FC 51)169,693,502 169,693,502 Sewer Fund (FC 52)255,914,580 255,914,580 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)18,699,722 2,000,000 20,699,722 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)1,073,499,671 1,073,499,671 Refuse Fund (FC 57)27,988,372 27,988,372 Golf Fund (FC 59)14,772,816 14,772,816 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385 Fleet Fund (FC 61)45,115,892 160,000 45,275,892 IMS Fund (FC 65)36,404,801 36,404,801 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,458,748 9,458,748 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)4,958,433 4,958,433 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)42,494,613 29,793,331 72,287,944 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)300,000 50,000 350,000 Donation Fund (FC 77)1,351,918 1,351,918 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)25,879,253 25,879,253 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)31,041,789 31,041,789 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)170,909,086 6,437,000 177,346,086 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)5,669,767 5,669,767 Risk Fund (FC 87)54,679,000 54,679,000 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 2,448,303,358 50,160,062 - - - - 2,498,463,420 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation 7 Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Cultural Core Contract Amendments GF ($291,000.00) GF $291,000.00 Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Felicia Baca For questions please include Felicia Baca, Lorena Riffo-Jensen, Mary Beth Thompson The Salt Lake City Arts Council (City) and Salt Lake County Arts & Culture (County) are each seek ing $50,000 in additional appropriations annually from respective Councils beginning in the contract year in FY24 (July 2023) for additional funding for the Cultural Core Action Plan Implementation contract. Funding would be moved from a Cultural Core surplus fund and would be used to maintain existing service levels due to inflation in the six years since the Action Plan Implementation contract was first awarded with no increases since that time. $250K from each entity is contributed annually to total $50K appropriation annually with the contract holder until the fund balance is expended. This funding increase has been approved by the Salt Lake County Councils 2023 Adopted Budget. See attachments. A-2: Homelessness Advantage Services GF ($300,000.00) GF $300,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner For questions please include Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Blake Thomas Over three fiscal years, the services provided to the City by Advantage Services expanded from a sole focus on the Rio Grande neighborhood to support cleaning needs across the entire city. This expans ion of services escalated in FY21, with a one-time award of $760,000 to implement a mobile clean team. That team still functions today, providing on - demand clean up of abandoned camp material, voluntary trash removal services from active encampments, and biowaste removal. Services were increased once more with the implementation of the Rapid Intervention framework, with Advantage Services' mobile clean team offering cleaning support for Encampment Impact Mitigations (EIM) and Rapid Intervention site rehabilitations. With the implementation of the mobile clean team, the City has been able to respond to SLC Mobile concerns regarding homelessness that have nearly doubled or tripled each year. Responses are significantly more efficient than in years past, shaving 151 days off the average time it takes to close a case. With the implementation of the Rapid Intervention framework, the City has reduced the average number of days to case closure from 50 days, in July 2022, to four days in March 2023. Advantage Services base budget has remained the same, despite this increase in services provided. The services were expanded with one-time funding over a three-year period. To maintain the level of service provided in the last two fiscal years, this year’s budget will fall short. An additional $300,000 is needed for the remainder of the fiscal year, in addition to a rescope of the State Mitigation Grant $160,000 and Operation Rio Grande $73,418. The request is to use $300,000 of CAN department vacancy savings. A-3: Repurpose Operation Rio Grande Funds for New Homeless Services (Advantage Services) GF $0.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner For questions please include Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Blake Thomas This budget amendment is to include a provider previously not listed in the scope of work and budget through a contract amendment with the County. See attached County contract and unsigned contract am endment. Current Contract: $177,847: The Road Home, FY23 Winter Overflow Operations. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 Contract Amendment: $104,429: The Road Home, FY23 Winter Overflow Operations, and $73,418: Advantage Services, Overflow Cleaning Costs (a total of $$177,847). The Road Home communicated to the city that they would not be able to fully expend their awarded. Advantage Services would be able to expend the funds, if awarded. A-4: Liberty Park Seven Canyons Fountain Scope Change CIP ($695,580.00) CIP ($127,968.00) CIP $823,548.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans For question please include Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to change the scope of work (but not request additional funding) for the Seven Canyons Fountain project at Liberty Park. The remaining funds available in the existing CIP General Funds are $823,548. These are CIP funds designated for use within Liberty Park, and were meant to be used to restore and reopen the Seven Canyons fountain with the existing water feature. Public Lands intends to permanently adapt the fountain into a dry art piece. The funding was originally allocated to make improvements to the fountain required by the Salt Lake County Health Department in order to re-open the fountain as an interactive water feature. After an initial feasibility study, the City determined that re -opening the fountain as a water feature was infeasible due to significant capital costs and projected water use. Therefore, two alternate options were explored: adapting the art into a dry feature, or decommissioning the work altogether and replacing it with something else. A community survey completed in 2021 found that 71% of the 1,643 respondents support the permanent conversion of the fountain into a dry feature, when given the choice between a dry feature and decommissioning the piece entirely. The responses indicated that conserving water, preserving art, and staying within the existing budget were key factors to consider in determining the future of the Seven Canyons Fountain. The Public Lands Department and the Engineering Division also conducted a feasibility study a ssessing various options for adding water back to the fountain at a lower rate in order to meet the City's and the community's goals of conserving water and taxpayer dollars. It was determined that none of the options that included water were feasible and that (based on community priorities and information from the feasibility study) converting the fountain into a dry feature is the only viable option. Conversion of this community treasure into a dry feature will increase engagement on the site, pay tribut e to the original artists' intentions, and create an opportunity to educate community members and youth as to the unique ecology, hydrology, and geology of the Salt Lake Valley's eastern seven canyons. Remaining project tasks may include, but are not limited to: - Conceptual design with artistic input, in cooperation with the Salt Lake City Arts Council - Design of detailed and construction documents - Permitting and soft costs, including contingency - Construction Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 A-5: Open Space Property Acquisition (City Parks) Impact Fees $450,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans For question please include Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment in the amount of $450,000 utilizing Parks Impact Fees to acquire an available parcel of property. This funding request includes all fees associated with acquisition. Any remaining funding from the acquisition would be utilized for immediate remediation needs and addressing potential safety concerns. This property was identified by administration and organizational partners as a key property during the development of an existing property. City acquisition, conversion, and activation of this property for public use is anticipated to largely resolve these issues and enhance the utility, openness, and beauty of the area. Securing this property and beginning remediation on this property would offer an immediate improvement to water and soil quality in this area. Future use of the site would be dependent on planning and community engagement, which would be accomplished and funded in a future phase. Uses may include amenities, programming, and educat ion opportunities that support and serve nearby community institutions, schools, and neighborhoods. By improving neighborhood aesthetics, the project can facilitate surrounding improvements and neighborhood investments that improve quality of life. A-6: Open Space Property Acquisition (Trails) Impact Fees $300,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Tyler Murdock, Gregg Evans For question please include Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans, Tyler Murdock Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment for $300,000 utilizing Parks Impact Fees to provide a 24% matching contribution to $1,250,000 committed from the State of Utah Department of Outdoor R ecreation and in partnership with Utah Open Lands. The combined funding would be used to acquire several acres of open space property located in Salt Lake City. Following acquisition of the property, SLC Public Lands will seek to develop concept designs f or construction of a trailhead. This funding request includes all fees associated with acquisition as well concept design for the proposed trailhead. Utah Open Land will also be conducting a fundraising campaign to cover a portion of the acquisition. Any remaining funding would be utilized for immediate trailhead design and construction needs and addressing potential safety concerns. Future use of a Trailhead at this location, would be dependent on planning and community engagement to identify existing concerns and develop a plan that would mitigate and improve trail access for all users. Future uses for a portion of this property would include trailhead amenities including, parking, fencing, possibly restroom and other trailhead amenities. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 A-7: Recaptured HUD ESG-CV Funds Misc Grants ($200,000.00) Misc Grants ($9,552.00) Misc Grants $209,552.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner For questions please include Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Blake Thomas This budget amendment is seeking to reallocate unspent HUD ESG-CV funds to a provider and activity, previously approved by Council, for eligible ESG-CV services (see attached Council Motion Sheet and Exhibit A). This budget amendment would shift funds: FROM: ESG-CV City Admin (Exhibit A, page 7, item 8) $200,000, and ESG-CV Volunteers of America's Homeless Outreach Program (Exhibit A, page 6, item 4) $9,552.37, TO: ESG-CV Utah Community Action's Homeless Prevention program (Exhibit A, page 5, item 1), $209,552.37. Volunteers of America communicated to the City that they are unable to spend the remainder of their award. Conversely, Utah Community Action requested a need for additional funds. This request has been reviewed by staff and the attached Adjustment Justification outlines the agency's need and capacity to receive and utilize additional funding. Housing Stability has forecasted the set-aside Admin funds will not be spent down before the HUD deadline, and these are available to be reallocated. Shifting this amount of funding would not require a Substantial Amendment, as outlined in the City's HUD 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and Citizen Participation Plan. Additionally, these ESG-CV funds cannot be reallocated to traditional ESG funding or activities, and Utah Community Action has demonstrated their ability to spend ESG-CV funds while adhering to HUD ESG-CV governing regulations. A-8: Steiner Roof - County Contractual Obligation and City Portion GF $1,380,000.00 CIP $1,380,000.00 CIP $1,380,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente For questions please include Dawn Valente, JP Goates, George Chamoro The Steiner Aquatics Center was installed in 2000 and is failing to the point that replacement is now necessary based on a study completed by The Garland Co. and Logan DeWitt. PROJECT TOTAL $2,760,000 County portion 50% $1,380,000 City portion 50% $1,380,000 The current agreement with Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation states that both parties will share the cost of capital repairs and replacements of the building systems at 50% for each party. This request will also allow for acceptance of the County's portion of this cost. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 5 A-9: Natural Gas Cost Increase GF $500,000.00 GF $135,000.00 Fleet $135,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente For questions please include Dawn Valente, JP Goates, George Chamoro The wholesale natural gas costs for City Facilities are on state contract with BP. In January we received the invoice for December services and saw an increase of double our average costs. Then in February we received our invoice for January services which saw a dramatic increase from an average of $7 per decatherm at the beginning of the fiscal year to $49. These increases are due to several factors in supply and the wholesale gas rates, which ty pically have saved the City a great deal of money. The extremely large increases appear to have subsided, however rates have not fallen back down to the lower historical rates that were seen previously, and are still double our average costs. This reques t is for one-time funding for the current fiscal year for this unforeseen rate increase in supply chain. The funding for next fiscal year has been included in our FY24 budget insights. A-10: Ranked Choice Voting Awareness Materials GF $35,000.00 Department: Attorney’s Office Prepared By: Olivia Hoge For questions please include Cindy Lou Trishman, Olivia Hoge It has been confirmed there will be no state funding available for awareness of Ranked Choice Voting this election. Any awareness materials must be funded by the City. For fiscal year 22-23, the Recorder’s office is requesting $35,000 to cover awareness materials and an additional $40,000 in the FY 23-24 proposal provided the expenses will the incurred between July and October. Awareness for this fiscal year shall include brochures, large QR posters, stickers, vinyl banners for tabling, candy for tabling, translation services, scripts for PSA, graphic design subscription for the creation of awareness materials, radio ads, billboards, and more. A-11: Environmental Assessment Fund GF $50,000.00 Other Special Rev $50,000.00 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Angie Brohamer For questions please include Debbie Lyons, Angie Brohamer $100,000 was allocated in FY23 to pay for environmental assessments and remediation planning in order to facilitate smooth property transactions and address immediate and unexpected environmental contamination concerns. To date, most of the funding has been used to facilitate development of the old Redwood Road dump site, working under the State DEQ Voluntary Cleanup Program. $50,000 is requested to ensure environmental assessment and planning of this site can continue without delay, in addition to having funds available to address other needs related to unexpected environmental issues and other city sites, such as the Fleet block and city right-of-way dedications. This funding amount is expected to meet the funding needs through FY23. With this budget change, a straw poll is requested from the Council. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 6 A-12: IFFP Consultant Contract Amendment Impact Fees $27,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith For question please include Mary Beth Thompson, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith The Finance Department is requesting $9,000 from Parks & Public Land Impact Fees, $9,000 from Fire Impact Fees, and $9,000 from Police Impact Fees to fund an amendment to the Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) consultant contract. The department will work with the consultants to complete updates to the IFFPs and Impact Fee Analysis. A-13: Flood Mitigation GF $236,275.00 GF $263,725.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen For questions please include Mary Beth Thompson, Clint Rasmussen, Chief Boden Salt Lake City Administration and Emergency Management requests funds to be used for sandbagging, diversion walls, Joint Hazard Analysis Teams, and will also be used in the event there is wide scale flooding and a response is needed. The $263,725 is funding remaining from the NBA Allstar Game activation funding that is being proposed to be redirected toward flood mitigation purposes. A-14: Additional ARPA Revenue Replacement Misc Grants $18,603,080.00 GF $8,603,080.00 Storm Water $2,000,000.00 CIP $500,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk For questions please include Mary Beth Thompson, Danny Walz, John Vuyk The Administration is proposing to accept an additional $18,603,080 million in ARPA funding for revenue replacement for fiscal year 2023. These funds will then be transferred to the RDA for the purchase of property ($4,000,000), drop to Fund Balance to be used in Fiscal Year 2024 ($10,000,000), be used for Rapid Intervention equipment($103,080), the community grants distributed through CAN($2,000,000), move funding to CIP for Odyssey h ouse($500,000), and transfer $2,000,000 to Public Utilities to be used as a match with state funding. A-15: ARPA Funding to Perpetual Misc Grants $10,000,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Rachel Otto For questions please include Mary Beth Thompson, Rachel Otto Mayor Mendenhall is requesting that the City Council approve a $10 million budget amendment to be distributed to a non-profit development organization named the Perpetual Housing Fund of Utah, LLC (PHF) for affordable housing development and wealth building opportunities for PHF project residents. Additionally, the Administration is seeking feedback on the pre-funding conditions the Administration is proposing to PHF for this allocation. For additional information on this proposal see Attachment #1 Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 Section D: Housekeeping D-1: State Mitigation Grant to Advantage Services Misc Grants ($160,000.00) Misc Grants $160,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner For questions please include Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Blake Thomas Housing Stability has identified $160,000.00 that is projected to go unspent in this fiscal year’s Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation award from the State. Rather than return the funds, Housing Stability has asked the State to amend this award to include Advantage Services as a subcontractor, in order to fill any remaining gaps in funding for needed cleaning services throughout the City. The State is working on a budget change request to SLC’s Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation award for $160,000.00 to be directed to Advantage Services. SLCPD has identified $50,000, VOA has identified $50,000, and Housing Stability has identified $60,000 from each of their awards that would otherwise be r eturned to the State. D-2: Fire - Other Reimbursements GF $17,118.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen For questions please include Clint Rasmussen, Chief Karl Lieb The Fire Department has provided several services in which it expects to receive a reimbursement including: training backfill costs incurred on behalf of Utah Search and Rescue (USAR), and Fire Investigation overtime incurred on behalf of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Utah Search and Rescue (USAR) Training/Backfill $8,820.33 Camp Williams Exercises, K9 Training, Tech Search Specialist Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) $8,297.39 Sugarhouse Fire Investigation/Overtime Total Reimbursement $17,117.72 D-3: Transfer Parks Impact Fees to Surplus Land - Land Purchase Near RAC Impact Fees ($395,442.00) Impact Fees $395,442.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans For questions please include Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans, Mike Atkinson Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to reimburse the Surplus Land Fund using Parks Impact Fees for a previous year property acquisition. In 2019, the Council approved $500,000 of Surplus Land Funds to be used to fund the purchase of two parcels near the Regional Athletic Complex (Rose Park Lane) references BA3 FY19 A -1. The actual cost of the acquisition came in at $395,441.70. Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to transfer $395,442 from Parks Impact Fees to a new impact fee cost center to reimburse the actual cost of the land and to recapture the original $500,000 appropriation back to the Surplus Land account. D-4: Fire Impact Fee - Payment for Excess Capacity Impact Fees $2,200,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith For question please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Mary Beth Thompson The FY2017 IFFP includes $4,746,899 for existing facilities buy -in (Excess Capacity). The General Fund has not received any funds for excess capacity. Fire Impact Fees has a current unallocated balance of approximately $2,200,000. Finance is requesting to distribute $500,000 to the General Fund and $1,700,000 to CIP from Fire Impact Fees for excess capacity. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 8 D-5: Fire Training Center GF $499,533.39 CIP $499,533.39 Impact Fees ($499,533.39) Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith For question please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Mary Beth Thompson The Fire Training Center (FTC) is comprised of two CIP projects, the Logistics Center/Large Equipment Garage and the Renovation of the old Fire Station #14. Both of these projects were referred to as the Fire Training Center. $499,533.39 was appropriated for the renovation of the old Fire Station #14 (100% Impact Fee Eligible) and placed in Cost Center 84-17015 with the title Fire Training Center. These funds were inadvertently expended on the construction of the Fire Training Center Logistics Center (Ineligible for Impact Fees) instead. The Capital Asset Planning team is requesting to move $499,533.39 from non-departmental to a new CIP cost center to reimburse Fire Impact Fees for the FTC Logistics Center. D-6: Fisher Mansion - Impact Fee Reimbursement of Cost Overrun Impact Fees $100,000.00 CIP $100,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith For question please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Mary Beth Thompson An Administrative Budget Adjustment was approved in March 2023 for $100,000 of cost overrun for the Fisher Mansion Carriage House Improvement Project. The Fisher Mansion Carriage House Impro vement Project is 100% impact fee eligible and the Capital Asset Planning team is requesting $100,000 from Parks Impact Fees to reimburse the cost overrun cost center. D-7: Recapture of Police Precinct Funds to Surplus Land CIP ($1,299,688.00) CIP $1,299,688.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith For question please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Mary Beth Thompson After four years of inactivity due to the inability to procure a suitable piece of land at the right price, the Finance Department is requesting the recapture of these funds to the Surplus Land cost center. D-8: Police Impact Fee - Unclaimed Refunds Impact Fees ($237,606.45) Impact Fees $237,606.45 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith For question please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Mary Beth Thompson The Capital Asset Planning Team is requesting to move $237,606.45 in unclaimed impact fee refunds back to the Police Impact Fees. This request is being made to comply with Section 603 - Refunds, of Utah Code 11-36a - Impact Fees Act. As outlined in the code, the City shall expend any unclaimed refund on capi tal facilities identified in the current capital facilities plan for the type of public facility for which the impact fee was collected. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 9 D-9: Rapid Intervention Team Trailer RV/XP – GF to Fleet GF ($25,000.00) GF $25,000.00 Fleet $25,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente For questions please include Dawn Valente, Jorge Chamorro As part of the adoption of FY23 Budget Amendment 5 - Initiative A1 - Rapid Intervention Team Trailer, funds were budgeted to Facilities in the General Fund. However, the transfer from General Fund to Fleet Fund was not included in the budget adoption. This amendment is to correct that. By purchasing the trailer through the Fleet fund it will become part of their inventory allowing Fleet better track maintenance needs. Request is $25,000 from General Fund to Fleet Fund for the purchase of the trailer for t he Rapid Intervention Team. D-10: Difference Between $4.3 Million Grant Adopted in BA #5 and the Actual $4.22 Million Amount Misc Grants ($78,560.00) Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson For question please include Mary Beth Thompson In Budget Amendment #5, $4,300,000 in Miscellaneous Grants funding was adopted to be used toward bonuses for Police POST training, recruitment and retention. Although the $4,300,000 million amount was adopted, the actual available amount is $4,221,440. In order to be accurate in ARPA reporting it is necessary to reduce the budgeted expenditure amount by $78,560. Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: School-age Quality 22 Grant (FY 22-25) Misc Grants $780,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Ann Garcia For questions please contact Ann Garcia, Mary Beth Thompson ***FUNDING and AWARD TITLE CORRECTION*** City Council approved this item on Consent Agenda #1, June 14, 2022 for one year of funding at $390,000. It was approved with an incorrect award title. It was listed as School Age Program Summer Expansion Grant 2022 -2023. This correction will correct the title of the award and add the additional awarded 2 years for a 3 -year award grant period. The award was actually $390,000 a year for 3 years of funding totaling $1,170,000. This Agenda item is to budget for the addition of $780,000 for additional 2 years of funding that was not included in the first Consent Agenda No new FTEs. The Division of Youth and Family Services received $390,000 each year for three years to provide YouthCity afterschool programming at Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Central City, Ottinger Hall, Sorenson Unity Center, and Sorenson Multi - Cultural Center. No match is required by the funding agency. The Division is providing a voluntary cash match of the Division's General Fund 2022-2025 budget for salaries and fringe benefits for 100% full time equivalent (FTE) of seven site staff and one Associate Director for program delivery, 50% FTE of the Division Director for administrative oversight, and 50% FTE of one Office Facilitator for general support. A public hearing will be held for the grant application on May 17, 2022. BA # 6 Housekeeping Item Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 10 Funding Grant Award Approved by Council 6/14/22 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 $1,170,000.00 $390,000.00 $390,000.00 $390,000.00 $780,000.00 E- School-Age Quality Summer Expansion 22-23 Misc Grants $373,338 Department: Finance Prepared By: Ann Garcia For questions please contact Ann Garcia, Mary Beth Thompson *** FUNDING CORRECTION *** City Council approved this item on Consent Agenda #1, June 14, 2022 for one year of funding for each of the six sites at $62,223/each site for 1 summer period only. The sites are: Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Central City, Ottinger Hall, Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center, and Unity Center. The award was actually for a total of $746,767 Each site was approved a budget of $62,223 totaling $373,338 for summer 2022. We failed to include the funding for the summer of 2023. This budget agenda item is to add the addtitional summer year amount. We originally budgeted for $62,223 for each of the 6 sites. This is to correct the budget and increase the budget for each of the 6 sites by $62,223 for each of the 6 sites . (see chart below) After this correction, each of the 6 sites will have a budget of $124,446, totaling the grant awa rd of $746,767. A public hearing for this application was on 05/17/2022. BA # 6 Housekeeping Item Cost Center Funding Grant Award (divided by 6 sites) Approved by Council 6/14/22 Year 1 - Summer 2022 Year 2 - Summer 2023 $746,767.00 $373,338.00 $373,338.00 Divided by 6 sites: Divided by 6 sites: 72-12215 Fairmont Park $62,223.00 $62,223.00 72-12216 Liberty Park $62,223.00 $62,223.00 72-12217 Central City $62,223.00 $62,223.00 72-12218 Ottinger Hall $62,223.00 $62,223.00 72-12219 Sorenson Unity Center $62,223.00 $62,223.00 72-12220 Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center $62,223.00 $62,223.00 $373,338.00 Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 11 E-3: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY23 - Budget Revision Misc Grants ($50,000.00) Misc Grants $50,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner, Ann Garcia For questions please include Tony Milner, Ann Garcia, Brent Beck Housing Stability has identified $160,000.00 that is projected to go unspent in this fiscal year’s Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation award from the State. Rather than return the funds, Housing Stability has asked the State to amend this award to include Advantage Services as a subcontractor, in order to fill any remaining gaps in funding for needed cleaning services throughout the City. The State is working on a budget change request to SLC’s Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation award for $160,000.00 to be redirected to Advantage Services under the CAN cost center within the Professional Services category. SLCPD has identified $50,000 which will be moved from Police to CAN to be used toward the Advantage Services contract. VOA has identified $50,000, and Housing Stability has identified $60,000 from each of their awards that would otherwise be returned to the State. These amounts will be repurposed toward the Advantage Services contract but will not need to be moved to a different cost center, staying with the CAN cost center. The Budget revision will reflect the following adjustments to each of the cost centers: CC# 72-12304: CAN/Housing Stability: (+ $50,000) (repurpose $60,000 from Salaries to Prof. Svcs.) (repurpose $50,000 from VOA SubAward to Prof. Svcs.) (Advantaged Services will be added under the Professional Services category with a $160,000 budget) This would include the $60,000 from Salaries; $50,000 from the VOA SubAward and $50,000 from SLC PD CC. CC#72-22302: SLC Police Dept.: (-$50,000 - redirect to CAN CC#72-12304 under the Professional Services category for Advantaged Services.) Section F: Donations Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda #7 G-1: US Department of Homeland Security, FEMA - Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program Misc. Grants $115,472.7200 Department: Fire Department Prepared By: Brittany Blair/Ann Garcia The Fire Department applied for and received a US Department of Homeland Security, FEMA grant in the amount of $115,472.72. This grant will be used to purchase equipment and personal protective equipment which is used by firefighters to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire -related hazards. Equipment includes: 116 ea. (NFPA 1977) Compliant - Wildland Goggles, Helmets, Pants, Web Gear/Backpacks/Canteens, and Shelters. The grant requires a match of $11,547.28 which is budgeted for within the Fire Departments general fund budget. A Public Hearing was held on 4-5-22 for the grant application on this award. Section I: Council Added Items Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 12 Attachments Attachment #1 ARPA Funding to Perpetual Housing Fund When the City first received notice of the significant Rescue Plan Funds that it would receive, the Administration set out to identify the principles by which it would propose this money be allocated. In addition to taking care of the City’s most urgent needs (revenue replacement, public safety, and emergency shelter), the Administration’s goal is to allocate a large portion of Rescue Plan Funds in a way that leverages private investment and creates lasting, generational changes for families in Salt Lake City. This proposal provides funding for an affordable housing development with a unique tenant wealth building program. The City’s funds are anticipated to be used as transformational seed funds for development costs, including the cost for PHF to acquire existing structures to construct affordable units. With the help of other partners and the leveraging of City funds, PHF’s ultimate organizational goal is to provide approximately 1500 safe, stable, and affordable homes in Salt Lake City that benefit individuals and families by helping them build income. Over the next 20 years, PHF anticipates that this investment will translate into $50 million in the hands of lower- and middle-income City residents. About the Perpetual Housing Fund of Utah PHF is a Utah non-profit affordable housing developer whose mission is to reimagine existing housing programs to share profits with PHF project residents. PHF exists to help remove financial barriers that keep a rapidly expanding portion of population from building wealth where they live. Unlike other non-profit affordable housing development entities that use profits to build more affordable units, PHF will share their profits with residents in a variety of ways, as detailed in the next section. PHF plans to develop projects in Salt Lake City that provide rent and income restricted affordable units. PHF anticipates breaking ground on two affordable housing projects in Salt Lake City in 2024 that will serve those at 25-120% AMI. From there, they plan to develop over 2,000 affordable units over the next decade. PHF’s first two projects will be located in Salt Lake City, with a priority to aquire additional land in the City for subsequent projects. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 13 Through this investment from the City, PHF will be able to develop wealth-building affordable housing units at the 515 east 100 south location, and ensure that future PHF projects are not driven by maximizing return to financial investors but rather remain committed to sharing wealth with PHF project residents. How the profit-sharing model works PHF projects are anticipated to be financed with traditional affordable housing resources, and may include Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs). Under PHF’s model, PHF will share with PHF project residents the majority of profits generated from annual cash flow, long-term equity generation, and future refinance and sale proceeds. The amount of cash flow and profit (which will translate into payouts to the tenants) will largely depend on annual rent increases and the paydown of the project’s mortgage. Over the past several years, area median incomes (AMIs) have been increasing much faster than is projected when development projects are underwritten and financed. With LIHTC-funded projects, rental rates are tied to AMIs and, as such, rents have been increasing faster than projected. Traditional developers and their investors have been receiving the financial benefits of these rapidly escalating rents that increase annual cash flow of the project. Instead of reaping these benefits for the developer and investors, PHF would share these financial benefits with PHF project residents. PHF will establish a nonprofit tenant entity that, while not having a fee ownership interest in the development, will have a permament interest in the development and the contractural obligation to ensure PHF project residents will receive profits from the project. The ownership and profits-interest structure will vary slightly, depending on if the project utilizes LIHTCs and has a tax credit investor in the ownership structure during the first years after a PHF project is placed into service. The ownership structure and profits-interest will generally be as follows: LIHTC PROJECTS: YEAR 1 – 15 OWNERSHIP % PROFIT % LIHTC INVESTOR 99.99% 10% PHF & FUND INVESTORS 0.01% 15% RESIDENTS/TENANT NPO 0.00% 75% NON LIHTC PROJECTS & LIHTC PROJECTS: YEAR 16 + Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 14 OWNERSHIP % PROFIT % PHF & FUND INVESTORS 99.99% 25.00% RESIDENTS/TENANT NPO 0.00% 75.00% The profits-interest not otherwise allocated to the PHF project residents will offset costs associated with developing and managing the units. PHF project residents will not have ownership or shares in the real estate itself. Rather, there will be an agreement between the tenant nonprofit entity and the PHF project residents to distribute proceeds in the following ways. • Annual rent rebate – A portion of the project’s annual cash flow (profit after collecting all rent and other income, paying all operating expenses, paying debt service, and setting aside cash reserves for future repairs) that would typically be received by the developer will be allocated to current PHF project residents as a rent rebate via cash payment to be distributed on an annual basis. • Profit payout – When there is an event that generates profit, or further cashflow (refinance, exit of the limited partner, etc.), all the cumulative residents over time will receive a payment that represents a proportionate share of the available profit. The proportion of the profit a household receives will depend on the length of time they lived in a PHF unit. With projects that involve LIHTCs, the profit generating event will often happen 15 years after the project is placed into service because that's when the tax credits end and the LIHTC investor exits the ownership structure. • Profit advance – PHF will set aside a portion of its initial developer fee for the project to fund a 0%, zero payment revolving fund to help PHF project residents access a portion of their anticipated profits early in the event of an emergency or major life event (medical, educational, entrepreneurial, etc.). These funds are replenished from the PHF project resident’s share of profit whenever a profit payout would naturally happen. • Profit tradeup – PHF will be co-developing hundreds of units with the Rocky Mountain Homes Fund (RMHF), an entity that provides a missing-middle home ownership option for households making 60- 120% AMI (and occasionally less). Subject to availability, PHF tenants will be able to transfer their accruals from a PHF project for a 1:1 reduction in purchase price on a RMHF home. INITIAL PROJECT 515 East 100 South • Adaptive reuse of an existing office building and new construction of an additional building, to occur in phases. • This property will have multiple social-equity based future uses and is slated to be acquired in May 2023. The floors on which affordable units will be constructed will be condominiumized and separated and then sold to PHF prior to ARPA City funds being utilized on the project. o Phase 1: Adaptive reuse. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 15 ▪ Estimated to begin construction in Q4 2023 or Q1 2024 and be completed by the end of 2024. ▪ ~38 units with a mix of studios, 1 Bedrooms, 3-Bedrooms, and 4-Bedrooms on floors 9- 11 of the existing office tower. ▪ All 38 residential units will be affordable to incomes at 25%-50% of AMI. ▪ Curently slated to also include profit-sharing coworking/office model similar to PHF in other floors. o Phase 2: New building. ▪ Estimated to begin construction Q2 2024 and be completed in 2026. ▪ ~40 new units (depending on final construction estimates/cost constraints) with a mix of 5% Studios, 25% 3-Bedroom, and 70% 2-Bedroom ▪ ~48 units will be PHF (25-50% AMI) ▪ Affordable daycare on bottom floor, available to building users of all incomes. CONDITIONS FOR FUNDING If the Council approves the proposed funding allocation, the Administration (acting through the RDA) and PHF will execute a funding agreement with the following conditions to ensure that Rescue Plan Funds are deployed in accordance with federal regulations and in a manner that brings the greatest public benefit for City residents and prospective residents. The Administration requests the Council’s feedback on the following conditions and any other conditions the Council would like to see in this agreement: 1. PHF will deploy 100% of the City’s Rescue Plan Funds on eligible projects in Salt Lake City and in compliance with ARPA requirements before June 30, 2024. More specifically, the funds will be spent by PHF on the purchase of the condominiumized affordable units and construction costs for the project at 515 east 100 south. 2. The Rescue Plan Funds will be distributed concurrently with PHF closing on the acquisition of the affordable units. 3. At the same time that the Rescue Plan Funds are distributed, PHF will record a restrictive covenant requiring PHF to maintain affordable housing at the 515 east 100 south project at 25-50% AMI, construct and maintain a mix of unit sizes, and wealth building (as detailed above) for a period of not less than 30 years. The restrictive covenant will also require PHF to provide a quarterly report to the RDA. 4. The funding agreement will require PHF to commit to developing future projects in Salt Lake City and ensure those projects contain units affordable to those at 65% AMI and below. 5. PHF will implement an equitable process for tenant selection and, as permitted by law, potentially prioritize certain applicants if the City desires. 6. As permitted by ARPA, the RDA, as a transformational seed funder, will be treated like an equity investor and receive between a 2% and 6% return on its capital contribution, paid annually every year. 7. RDA to approve all legal agreements as recommended by the City Attorney. 8. Prior to distributing the funds, PHF will have received all required City approvals for the project to move forward. 9. Prior to distributing the funds, PHF will demonstrate sufficient construction financing for the project to move forward. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 16 10. Prior to distributing the funds, PHF will demonstrate compliance with the RDA’s sustainability policy, which requires the project demonstrate that the units be designed to achieve an energy star score of 90 or higher and participate in the City’s Elivate Buildings Program. The units must also be designed to operate without on-site fossil fuel combustion. 11. Adequate security and remedies should PHF default on their obligations under the funding or restrictive use agreement. Impact Fees - Summary Confidential Data pulled 03/24/2023 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,061,156$ A Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,725,882$ B Impact fee - Parks 8484003 15,534,954$ C Impact fee - Streets 8484005 5,248,024$ D 23,570,017$ Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month 202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month 202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202307 (Jul2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202308 (Aug2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202309 (Sep2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202310 (Oct2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202311 (Nov2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202312 (Dec2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202401 (Jan2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202402 (Feb2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202403 (Mar2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202404 (Apr2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202405 (May2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202406 (Jun2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202407 (Jul2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202408 (Aug2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202409 (Sep2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202410 (Oct2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202411 (Nov2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202412 (Dec2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202501 (Jan2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202502 (Feb2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202503 (Mar2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202504 (Apr2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202505 (May2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202506 (Jun2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total, Currently Expiring through June 2024 0$ -$ -$ -$ 0$ Fiscal Quarter E = A + B + C + D Police Fire Parks Streets Total FY 2 0 2 3 Calendar Month FY 2 0 2 4 FY 2 0 2 5 Impact Fees Confidential Data pulled 03/24/2023 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC Police Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Police Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Police Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Police Allocation Remaining Appropriation Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$ Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ -$ -$ 21,639$ Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 237,606$ -$ -$ 237,606.45$ Grand Total 273,314$ 14,068$ -$ 259,246$ A Fire Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Fire Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Fire Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Fire Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Fire Allocation Remaining Appropriation Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 3,079$ 3,021$ -$ 58.00 Grand Total 3,079$ 3,021$ -$ 58.00 B Parks Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Parks Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Parks Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Parks Allocation Remaining Appropriation Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 16,959$ 1,705$ 15,254$ -$ JR Boat Ram 8420144 3,337$ -$ 3,337$ -$ Fisher Carriage House 8420130 261,187$ -$ 261,187$ -$ Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 2,638$ 2,596$ -$ 42$ Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,262$ 23,000$ -$ 262$ Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,056$ -$ -$ 1,056$ Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$ Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$ 9line park 8416005 16,495$ 855$ 11,007$ 4,633$ ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 6,398$ -$ -$ 6,398$ Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,431$ 4,328$ -$ 8,103$ Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$ FY Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ 253,170$ 21,830$ Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 455,030$ 232,995$ 199,029$ 23,006$ IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 56,109$ -$ 1,302$ 54,808$ Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,042,694$ 583,842$ 381,893$ 76,959$ Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 254,159$ 133,125$ 8,351$ 112,683$ FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 156,565$ 12,273$ 26,565$ 117,728$ UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 122,281$ -$ 775$ 121,507$ C 9Line Orchard 8420136 156,827$ 7,983$ 6,232$ 142,612$ Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$ Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ 216,397$ 43,979$ 159,624$ Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 160,819$ -$ -$ 160,819$ RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 179,323$ -$ 117$ 179,206$ Bridge to Backman 8418005 266,306$ 10,285$ 4,262$ 251,758$ 900 S River Park Soccer Field 8423406 287,848$ -$ -$ 287,848$ Lighting NE Baseball Field 8423409 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$ SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 319,139$ -$ -$ 319,139$ Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$ Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 428,074$ 9,343$ 19,114$ 399,617$ Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 446,825$ 21,823$ 11,177$ 413,824$ Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ 15,813$ 28,549$ 465,638$ Gateway Triangle Property Park 8423408 499,563$ -$ -$ 499,563$ RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$ -$ -$ 521,564$ Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 608,490$ 68,606$ 7,508$ 532,375$ Mem. Tree Grove Design & Infra 8423407 867,962$ -$ 1,016$ 866,946$ SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ 71,182$ 17,200$ 1,216,300$ GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,177,849$ 1,007,176$ 392,984$ 1,777,688$ Pioneer Park 8419150 3,149,123$ 60,589$ 64,710$ 3,023,825$ Glendale Regional Park Phase 1 8423450 4,350,000$ -$ -$ 4,350,000$ Grand Total 21,852,274$ 2,483,916$ 2,458,717$ 16,909,641$ Streets Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Street Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Street Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Street Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Street Allocation Remaining Appropriation 900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ 70,000$ -$ 500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 15,026$ 11,703$ 3,323$ -$ 9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 63,955$ -$ 63,955$ -$ Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 13,473$ 13,473$ -$ -$ Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ 25,398$ -$ -$ Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$ Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 12,925$ 940$ 2,244$ Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$ Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ 37,016$ 7,384$ Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$ Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ 16,693$ 18,699$ 500 to 700 S 8418016 22,744$ -$ -$ 22,744$ D 900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$ Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 17,300$ 8,324$ 33,156$ 1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$ 200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$ 300 N Complete Street Recons I 8423606 40,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$ 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$ 400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$ Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$ Transit Cap-Freq Trans Routes 8423608 110,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$ TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 281,586$ 125,893$ 34,989$ 120,704$ Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$ Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 181,846$ -$ -$ 181,846$ 200 S Recon Trans Corridor IF 8423602 252,000$ -$ -$ 252,000$ Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 780,182$ 11,688$ 385,185$ 383,309$ IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 450$ -$ -$ 450$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 836,736$ 55,846$ 43,283$ 737,607$ 700 South Phase 7 IF 8423305 1,120,000$ -$ -$ 1,120,000$ 1300 East Reconstruction 8423625 3,111,335$ 995,636$ 144,072$ 1,971,627$ Grand Total 8,267,668$ 1,301,595$ 857,780$ 6,108,293$ Total 30,396,335$ 3,802,601$ 3,316,497$ 23,277,237$ E = A + B + C + D TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE $1,725,882 UnAllocated Budget Amount 8484001 1,061,156$ 8484002 23,570,017$ 8484003 8484005 15,534,954$ 5,248,024$ COUNCIL STAFF REPORT CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM: Jennifer Bruno, Deputy Director DATE: May 2, 2023 RE: Perpetual Housing Fund (PHF) Investment Proposal using City ARPA funds PROJECT TIMELINE: Briefing: May 2, 2023 Set Date: April 18, 2023 Public Hearing: May 2, 2023 Potential Action: TBD Staff note: Council staff is working with the Administration to clarify exact figures referenced in this report, as new information was received immediately prior to publishing. ISSUE AT-A-GLANCE The Administration has transmitted a proposal in Budget Amendment #6 that would invest $10 million of the City’s American Rescue Plan Act (ARPA) dollars to create “lasting, generational changes for families in Salt Lake City”. These dollars would be provided to the Perpetual Housing Fund of Utah, LLC, (PHF) an external non-profit housing developer. This non-profit would then leverage tax credits and other private dollars to acquire properties and/or existing structures for the construction of affordable units. The City’s investment would essentially be seed money for a portion of an initial development (515 East 100 South), and profits in the form of both equity and cash flow, would shared with residents on a 75% basis. 2-6% of cash flow would be paid to the City/RDA for administrative expenses, and the remaining project profits would be used to construct additional projects in the City. The Perpetual Housing Fund is a non-profit affordable housing developer with a mission to share profits and equity with PHF project residents, unlike a typical non-profit housing development model that uses profits to build more units. See www.perpetualhousing.org for more information. The transmittal indicates that over a period of 15-20 years, the City’s partnership with PHF could create as many as 1500 affordable units, whose profits and equity would be shared with the residents (see Policy Question #1). The transmittal indicates that PHF’s first Salt Lake City project would create just over 100 wealth/equity sharing units over multiple phases and break ground by 2024, with a priority to acquire additional land in the City for subsequent projects. Staff note: Council Staff is working with the Administration to clarify exactly how many units will be built with the City’s $10 million investment, and in which phases. See key elements section for more details on the first project. The PHF would share profits from the City’s component part of any project in the following ways (note: these are not mutually exclusive, but amounts would be dependent on actual cash flow and actual equity created. Accessing cash flow is a different tool than accessing equity in the sense that Page | 2 Equity is based on the total value of the project in current and future years, whereas cash flow is actual cash generated from the project after bills and operating expenses are paid): •Annual Rent Rebate (funded from Cash flow) – a portion of the annual cash flow (after paying all building operating expenses and debt service) would be allocated via cash payment distributed on an annual basis. This would be paid to the tenant each year automatically. •Profit Payout (funded from Equity) – If the developer refinances, or if there is another “event” that generates profit, all the cumulative residents over time will receive a payment that represents a proportional share (proportionate based on the length of time they lived in a PHF unit). This would be paid to the tenant automatically. Note: if the property is financed with LITHC this would not occur until at least 15 years into the life of the project b/c of LIHTC investor exits. •Profit advance (funded from Equity) – PHF will set aside a portion of its initial developer fee to establish an account that a resident could access for a zero interest loan in the event of an emergency or major life event (medical, educational, entrepreneurial, etc). This is an optional benefit and each resident could access only their proportionate amount of equity accrued. •Profit Tradeup (funded from Equity) – PHF will be partnering with the Rocky Mountain Homes Fund to build missing-middle home ownership options for households at 60-120% AMI. The first 100 units planned are in the 515 East 100 South project, although more are contemplated in SLC. The transmittal indicates that PHF tenants could transfer accruals from a PHF project for a reduction in purchase price on an RMHF home. This is an optional benefit and each resident could access only their proportionate amount of equity accrued. Goal of the briefing: Review the proposed Perpetual Housing Fund and consider appropriating funds in conjunction with Budget Amendment #6. KEY ELEMENTS A.The Model – the following graphics from the PHF website illustrate the model in concept: As compared to the typical funding model for projects: Page | 3 B. Initial Projects - The Administration has provided information on the first two projects using this model, so that ARPA funds can be expended by the middle of 2024. 1. The first project, which includes two to three phases, is an adaptive reuse of a 14 story commercial office building and a new build residential tower into approximately 250 mixed-income units, and is located at 515 East 100 South. Construction estimated to begin in late 2023/early 2024. i. The City’s investment would initially build 38 equity-sharing units as the first phase of the project, that would operate under the above-mentioned equity/wealth sharing model. ii. These units would be a mix of 1, 3 and 4 bedrooms, targeted to 25-50% Area Median Income (AMI). iii. The project is unique in its financing mechanism, as it is split into several component parts and phases to ensure project profits from one area are tracked separately from other areas. The City’s $10 million investment would be directed solely towards those 38 equity/wealth sharing units. See attached cash flow which illustrates one phase of the project. Staff is working with the Administration to get information about how the City’s initial investment relates to the overall project cash flow. iv. The Administration and PHF notes that absent the City’s investment “…the overall number of SLC households served…would be significantly reduced and [units would] take far longer to come online…”. v. Other components of the project – information from the Administration indicates that the second phase would be constructed in partnership with the Rocky Mountain Homes Fund, and would build 100 for-sale condominium units targeting 60-120% AMI, and two additional equity-sharing phases one in the office conversion tower which would be around 40 units, one in a new-build tower which would be around 48 units. 2. The Administration indicates that they have selected the June 2024 deadline for all the City investment to be spent with the PHF, so that if there is a delay in construction for some reason, the City can deploy those ARPA resources in other ways before the December 2024 federal deadline. C.Conditions for funding – The Administration’s transmittal proposes a number of conditions, with an invitation for Council feedback, that the Administration (via the RDA) would include in a contract with the PHF: 1. PHF will deploy 100% of the City’s Rescue Plan Funds on eligible projects in Salt Lake City and in compliance with ARPA requirements before June 30, 2024. More specifically, the funds will be spent by PHF on the purchase of the condominium-ized affordable units and construction costs for the project at 515 east 100 south. 2. The Rescue Plan Funds will be distributed concurrently with PHF closing on the acquisition of the affordable units. 3. At the same time that the Rescue Plan Funds are distributed, PHF will record a restrictive covenant requiring PHF to maintain affordable housing at the 515 east 100 south project at 25-50% AMI, construct and maintain a mix of unit sizes, and wealth building (as detailed above) for a period of not less than 30 years. The restrictive covenant will also require PHF to provide a quarterly report to the RDA. 4. The funding agreement will require PHF to commit to developing future projects in Salt Lake City and ensure those projects contain units affordable to those at 65% AMI and below. 5. PHF will implement an equitable process for tenant selection and, as permitted by law, potentially prioritize certain applicants if the City desires. Page | 4 6. As permitted by ARPA, the RDA, as a transformational seed funder, will be treated like an equity investor and receive between a 2% and 6% return on its capital contribution, paid annually every year. 7. RDA to approve all legal agreements as recommended by the City Attorney. 8. Prior to distributing the funds, PHF will have received all required City approvals for the project to move forward. 9. Prior to distributing the funds, PHF will demonstrate sufficient construction financing for the project to move forward. 10. Prior to distributing the funds, PHF will demonstrate compliance with the RDA’s sustainability policy, which requires the project demonstrate that the units be designed to achieve an energy star score of 90 or higher and participate in the City’s Elevate Buildings Program. The units must also be designed to operate without on-site fossil fuel combustion. 11. Adequate security and remedies should PHF default on their obligations under the funding or restrictive use agreement. D.Logistical Arrangements with tenants – 1. While the RDA would have a contract with the PHF containing the conditions above to receive the $10 million, each project would create a tenant non-profit organization, who would administer contracts with each tenant in order to receive their project benefits. The RDA would receive quarterly reports. 2. The tenant non-profit would contract with a third party property management company to handle day-to-day logistical issues and track/manage payments to tenants. The Administration notes that it expects these tenant NPOs to have annual meetings to establish rules of the fund and management of the payments. 3. Tenants would not be kicked out of the project if their income situation changed, and the Administration notes that LIHTC rules allow incomes to increase by 40% before changing rent categories. 4. The following graphic is provided on the perpetual housing fund’s website and illustrates how the longer a resident stays in a unit, the greater their potential benefit is: Page | 5 POLICY QUESTIONS 1.Timeline for projects/potential investment needed in the future – the Administration’s information from the PHF indicates an aggressive financing and construction schedule, with 2-4 projects annually in the near terms, and 6-8 projects annually in the 5-10 year term. The Council may wish to ask the PHF or Administration how inflation and increasing interest rates may impact these projections, and whether the PHF will return to the City for additional funding. 2.Coordination with the City’s Community Land Trust or RDA’s Westside Community Initiative – The Administration indicates that this model is well suited to both of those City programs, although no official relationship has been proposed. The Council may wish to discuss this further with the Administration, particularly as conversations about how to creatively grow/maximize those City programs continue. 3. Questions relating to the 515 East 100 South project a. The Council may wish to clarify if the 38 units will be spread around the building or if they will be on floors 2-4. The pro forma indicates floors 2-4 while the transmittal indicates they are on floors 9-11. Staff received information from the Administration immediately prior to publishing that the attached pro forma relates to a future phase of the project. Staff is working with the Administration to get information relating to the City’s initial investment. b. Separating project components. The Council may wish to discuss with the Administration and PHF the legal logistics and reasoning for separating project components from within the project (100 for sale units, 38 rental equity-sharing units, separately tracked mixed- income units), and advantages and potential disadvantages this approach. ATTACHMENTS Attachment 1 – Cash flow for a future phase in 515 East 100 South conversion project – 38 Units within the project located at 515 East 100 South 515 New Tower - Floors 2-4 20-Year PHF Projections Year 1 2 3 4 5 Potential Gross Income 433,169 441,832 450,669 459,682 468,876 Additional Income 17,059 17,400 17,748 18,103 18,465 Commercial Lease Income - - - - - Total Potential Income 450,227 459,232 468,417 477,785 487,341 Less Vacancy (22,511) (22,962) (23,421) (23,889) (24,367) Effective Gross Income 427,716 436,270 444,996 453,896 462,974 Operating Expenses (183,247) (188,745) (194,407) (200,239) (206,247) Capital Reserve (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (13,650) (13,650) Net Operating Income 232,769 235,825 238,889 240,006 243,077 Debt Service 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 Net Cash Flow 33,160 36,217 39,280 40,397 43,468 DSCR (all loans)1.17 1.18 1.20 1.20 1.22 Asset Value 5,172,635 5,240,566 5,308,634 5,333,472 5,401,711 Debt Reduction 25,928 32,149 33,337 34,589 35,910 Equity in Project (Value less debt)1,830,781 1,904,934 1,974,189 2,000,279 2,069,839 Cash Flow to Residents (75% of net)24,870 27,163 29,460 30,298 32,601 Annual Cash Flow Per Resident 638 696 755 777 836 Residents' Share of Equity (75%)1,373,086 1,428,700 1,480,642 1,500,209 1,552,379 New Equity Generated Per Resident 35,207 1,426 1,332 502 1,338 Accumulated Equity Per Resident 35,207 36,633 37,965 38,467 39,805 2.00%Annual Increases in Rent & Additional Income 5.00%Vacancy Rate 3.00%Annual Increases in Operating Expenses 4,699 Operating Expenses/Unit Yr 1 300 Per Unit Capital Reserve Yr 1-3, $350/Unit Remaining Years 6.10%Construction Loan Rate 6.50%Perm Loan Rate/40 Yr Am 4.50%Cap Rate Pro Forma Assumptions: 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 478,253 487,818 497,575 507,526 517,677 528,030 538,591 549,363 18,834 19,211 19,595 19,987 20,387 20,794 21,210 21,634 - - - - - - - - 497,087 507,029 517,170 527,513 538,063 548,825 559,801 570,997 (24,854) (25,351) (25,858) (26,376) (26,903) (27,441) (27,990) (28,550) 472,233 481,678 491,311 501,137 511,160 521,383 531,811 542,447 (212,434) (218,807) (225,371) (232,132) (239,096) (246,269) (253,657) (261,267) (13,650) (13,650) (13,650) (13,650) (13,650) (13,650) (13,650) (13,650) 246,149 249,221 252,290 255,355 258,414 261,464 264,504 267,530 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 46,540 49,612 52,681 55,746 58,805 61,855 64,895 67,922 1.23 1.25 1.26 1.28 1.29 1.31 1.33 1.34 5,469,979 5,538,238 5,606,445 5,674,558 5,742,531 5,810,316 5,877,862 5,945,118 37,305 38,778 40,335 41,979 43,718 45,557 47,503 49,563 2,139,502 2,209,234 2,278,998 2,348,756 2,418,467 2,488,091 2,557,584 2,626,899 34,905 37,209 39,511 41,810 44,104 46,392 48,671 50,941 895 954 1,013 1,072 1,131 1,190 1,248 1,306 1,604,627 1,656,925 1,709,248 1,761,567 1,813,850 1,866,068 1,918,188 1,970,174 1,340 1,341 1,342 1,341 1,341 1,339 1,336 1,333 41,144 42,485 43,827 45,168 46,509 47,848 49,184 50,517 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 560,350 571,557 582,988 594,648 606,541 618,672 631,045 22,067 22,508 22,959 23,418 23,886 24,364 24,851 - - - - - - - 582,417 594,065 605,947 618,066 630,427 643,036 655,896 (29,121) (29,703) (30,297) (30,903) (31,521) (32,152) (32,795) 553,296 564,362 575,649 587,162 598,906 610,884 623,101 (269,105) (277,178) (285,494) (294,058) (302,880) (311,967) (321,325) (13,650) (13,650) (13,650) (13,650) (13,650) (13,650) (13,650) 270,541 273,534 276,506 279,454 282,376 285,267 288,126 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 70,932 73,925 76,897 79,845 82,767 85,659 88,517 1.36 1.37 1.39 1.40 1.41 1.43 1.44 6,012,028 6,078,534 6,144,576 6,210,091 6,275,013 6,339,274 6,402,800 51,743 54,053 56,499 59,092 61,840 64,754 67,845 2,695,989 2,764,804 2,833,293 2,901,401 2,969,071 3,036,246 3,102,863 53,199 55,444 57,673 59,884 62,075 64,244 66,388 1,364 1,422 1,479 1,535 1,592 1,647 1,702 2,021,992 2,073,603 2,124,970 2,176,051 2,226,804 2,277,184 2,327,147 1,329 1,323 1,317 1,310 1,301 1,292 1,281 51,846 53,169 54,486 55,796 57,098 58,389 59,670 Solutions for Uta h’s Most Intractable Housing Problems May 2, 2023 The Problem Source: 2019 Federal Reserve Board’s Survey of Consumer Finance $255,000 Net Worth 40x $6,300 Net Worth Net Worth 2019 Average Homeowner 2019 Average Renter Homeownership is vital to the American Dream. The opportunity for homeownership is disappearing for the average Utahn. The Problem 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 2015 77% 82% 77% Percentage of Utah Home Sales Aordable to Households Earning Area Median Income* 67% 48%45% 32% 11% 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 Sources: Federal Reserve Economic Data; US Census Data; Utah Multiple Listing Service; Freddie Mac HFA Advantage *Include single family and multifamily. Five percent down payment, prevailing interest rate. Mortgage is 80 percent of payment remaining 20 percent taxes, insurance, and PMI. Ratio of mortgage to income 28%. Current State of Utah Housing Market Estimated $42B Home ownership subsidized RENTAL SUBSIDY Rental costs stabilized, but no pathways to wealth generation Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction Housing Choice Vouchers & Public Housing LIHTC Estimated $30B High/Middle Income Homeowners Middle/Moderate Income Renters Moderate/Low Income Renters Wealth Generation Wealth Stagnation Can’t aord a home, but makes too much to qualify for assitance Estimated $8B Traditional ownership opportunities are leaving most Utahns behind. OWNERSHIP SUBSIDY Wealth Stagnation Density - A Potential Solution Land $150K/Unit Construction Construction $350K/Unit Traditional Single Family Traditional Multifamily $315K/Unit Density has the potential to create aordability by lowering land costs per unit. Land $35K/Unit Potential Build Cost $500,000 Potential Build Cost $350,000 Density - A Missed Opportunity Apartments vs. Condos • Condos are dicult to develop. - Apartments are easier to conceptualize, finance, build, and exit than condo projects. • Architects, engineers, contractors, investors, and banks will charge substantially more to be involved in condo projects. - Insurance costs are much higher in condo projects for all parties involved. - Current tax law favors apartments over condos for investor exit strategies. • Condos are a risky product type. - Selling individual condos is harder, takes longer, and is generally more risky than leasing or selling a traditional apartment building. Only high-end condos make enough money to justify this additional risk. Developers are building more multi-family than ever, but almost none of it creates ownership for residents. Traditional Condo Building residents own and finance legally separate units Benefits of Shared Ownership: 1. Shared ownership avoids the additional liability, cost, complexity, and risk of traditional condos. 2. Residents enjoy the flexibility and ease of apartment living. 3. Residents gain benefits of ownership without the often prohibitive requirements of traditional mortgages. Shared Ownership Building residents each own shares of an entity that owns their entire building Density - Shared Ownership Shared ownership oers residents the benets of both apartments and condos. Estimated $42B RENTAL SUBSIDY Housing Choice Vouchers & Public Housing LIHTC Moderate/Low Income Renters Wealth Stagnation Potential Utah Housing Market OWNERSHIP SUBSIDY Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction Estimated $30B High/Middle Income Homeowners Middle/Moderate Income Renters Wealth Generation Wealth Generation DENSE OWNERSHIP Real Missing Middle Shared ownership creates opportunities for more families, but still leaves some behind. Estimated $8B Home ownership subsidized Rental costs stabilized, but no pathways to wealth generation Can’t aord a home, but makes too much to qualify for assitance OWNERSHIP SUBSIDY Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction Estimated $30B High/Middle Income Homeowners Wealth Generation Home ownership subsidized Aordable Housing - Potential Solution Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC), a federal subsidy, can signicantly decrease rents for residents. Debt Market Return Market Project Capital Stack LIHTC Project Capital Stack Debt Market Return Amount of Private Capital Requires Market Rents Equity Market Return LIHTC Gov. Subsidy Reduced Debt Service Allows Affordable Rents Aordable Housing - A Missed Opportunity Aordable Rent Existing Tax Credits Investors Residents LIHTC Apartment Project Project Equity & Annual Return Upfront Construction Subsidies With LIHTC, residents benet from aordable rents, but annual returns and wealth generation goes to investors. Our Solution - The Perpetual Housing Fund Aordable Rent Existing Tax Credits PHF Project Project Equity & Annual Return Upfront Construction Subsidies PHF pairs existing LIHTC subsidies with shared ownership to benet building residents. Special Purpose Entity PHF Residents 25% 75% Wealth Generation Estimated $42B RENTAL SUBSIDY Housing Choice Vouchers & Public Housing LIHTC + PHF Moderate/Low Income Renters Wealth Generation Wealth Generation Potential Utah Housing Market OWNERSHIP SUBSIDY Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction Estimated $30B High/Middle Income Homeowners Middle/Moderate Income Renters DENSE OWNERSHIP Real Missing Middle The PHF will use this model to provide ownership opportunities to low income households. Estimated $8B Home ownership subsidized Rental costs stabilized, but no pathways to wealth generation Can’t aord a home, but makes too much to qualify for assitance Wealth Generation OWNERSHIP SUBSIDY Mortgage Interest Tax Deduction Estimated $30B High/Middle Income Homeowners Home ownership subsidized SLC's Investment Projected Outcomes Salt Lake City's $10MM ARPA Investment in PHF will provide: •2-6% Return on Investment for 20+ Year Term •1,000 Equity-Sharing PHF Units for individuals and families making 65% of AMI and below •500 Condo Units in Salt Lake City affordable to individuals and families making 60%-120% of AMI 100 Units 515 New Tower 200 Units Condo Project 200 Units Condo Project 20 2 3 20 2 4 20 2 5 20 2 6 20 2 7 20 2 8 20 2 9 20 3 0 20 3 1 20 3 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 SLC Unit Delivery Schedule 9% Projects 25% to 50% AMI 4% Projects OR Combined 4% + 9% 25% to 60% AMI Condo Projects 80% to 120% AMI 38 Unit 515 Conversion 38 Units 515 Conversion 39 Units 515 New Tower 50 Unit Project 200 Unit Project200 Unit Project200 Unit Project200 Unit Project 50 Unit Project 215 Units 800 Units 500 Units Typical Future 200 Unit Project 10-Year PHF Projections Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Potential Gross Income 2,943,351 3,002,218 3,062,262 3,123,508 3,185,978 3,249,697 3,314,691 3,380,985 3,448,605 3,517,577 Additional Income 87,480 89,230 91,014 92,834 94,691 96,585 98,517 100,487 102,497 104,547 Cell Tower/Commercial Lease Income - - - - - - - - - - Total Potential Income 3,030,831 3,091,448 3,153,276 3,216,342 3,280,669 3,346,282 3,413,208 3,481,472 3,551,101 3,622,123 Less Vacancy (151,542) (154,572) (157,664) (160,817) (164,033) (167,314) (170,660) (174,074) (177,555) (181,106) Effective Gross Income 2,879,289 2,936,875 2,995,613 3,055,525 3,116,635 3,178,968 3,242,547 3,307,398 3,373,546 3,441,017 Operating Expenses (842,310) (867,580) (893,607) (920,415) (948,028) (976,469) (1,005,763) (1,035,936) (1,067,014) (1,099,024) Capital Reserve (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) Net Operating Income 1,976,979 2,009,295 2,042,006 2,075,110 2,108,608 2,142,500 2,176,785 2,211,463 2,246,533 2,281,993 Debt Service 1,676,543 1,676,543 1,676,543 1,676,543 1,676,543 1,676,543 1,676,543 1,676,543 1,676,543 1,676,543 Net Cash Flow 300,436 332,752 365,462 398,566 432,065 465,956 500,242 534,920 569,990 605,450 DSCR (all loans)1.18 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.26 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.34 1.36 Asset Value 35,945,072 36,532,645 37,127,374 37,729,265 38,338,321 38,954,537 39,577,906 40,208,416 40,846,051 41,490,788 Debt Reduction 123,794 156,185 165,030 174,460 195,239 206,677 218,879 231,898 245,790 260,615 Equity in Project 13,708,069 14,295,642 14,890,371 15,492,262 16,101,318 16,717,534 17,340,903 17,971,413 18,609,048 19,253,785 Cash Flow to Residents (75% of net)225,327 249,564 274,097 298,925 324,048 349,467 375,181 401,190 427,492 454,088 Annual Cash Flow per Resident 1,127 1,248 1,370 1,495 1,620 1,747 1,876 2,006 2,137 2,270 Residents' Share of Equity (75%)10,281,052 10,721,731 11,167,778 11,619,197 12,075,988 12,538,150 13,005,677 13,478,560 13,956,786 14,440,338 Avg New Equity Generated Per Resident 51,405 2,938 2,974 3,009 3,045 3,081 3,117 3,153 3,188 3,224 Accumulated Equity Per Resident 51,405 53,609 55,839 58,096 60,380 62,691 65,028 67,393 69,784 72,202 Pro Forma Assumptions: 2.00%Annual Increases in Rent & Additional Income 5.00%Vacancy Rate 3.00%Annual Increases in Operating Expenses 4,212 Operating Expenses/Unit Yr 1 300 Per Unit Capital Reserve Yr 1 6.75%Construction Loan Rate 6.75%Perm Loan Rate/40 Yr Am Resident Typical 200 Unit Project - Resident Perspective $1,127 1/200 Share YEAR 1 CASHFLOW SHARE** per person EQUITY SHARE AT STABILIZATION $51,405* 1/200 Share per person *Asset appreciation will be distributed upon events such as a renance event or sale of building. Tenants will also have the ability to "draw" on their equity for "allowed events" in a vehicle similar to a HELOC (funded and run by the PHF). **Cashow Share will be distributed as rent rebates to the extent that LIHTC rules allow. $1,500,000 $1,000,000 Dev. Fee Deferred to Project Funding Resident HELOC Vehicle $225,327 75% to Residents Annual Rent Per Resident $10,281,052 75% to Residents $2,500,000 To Project/ Resident Benet Special Purpose Entity PHF Residents 25% 75% SPE Pro Forma Year 1 SPE Value + Equity Upon Stabilization Rents + Additional Income Less Op Expenses + Capital Reserve Net Operating Income Less Debt Service Net Cash Flow Asset Value Owner’s Equity Developer Fee Contribution ($902,310) $14,396 $1,976,979 ($1,676,543) $300,436 $35,945,072 $13,708,069 $2,879,289 Typical 200 Unit Project - Developer Perspective SPE Pro Forma Year 1 SPE Value + Equity Upon Stabilization Rents + Additional Income Less Op Expenses + Capital Reserve Net Operating Income Less Debt Service Net Cash Flow Asset Value Owner’s Equity Developer Fee Contribution $1,500,000Dev. Fee Upon Groundbreaking $1,500,000Dev. Fee Upon Stabilization Forms SPE + Retains 25% Ownership and Control Special Purpose Entity PHF Residents 25% 75% PHF Develops and Manages Project YEAR 1 CASHFLOW SHARE $75,109 (25% Share) EQUITY SHARE AT STABILIZATION $3,427,017 (25% Share) DEVELOPER FEE $3,000,000 (100% to PHF) $2,879,289 ($902,310) $1,976,979 ($1,676,543) $300,436 $35,945,072 $13,708,069 Asset Appreciation + Debt Reduction Conceptual Graph Shared Ownership - How It Works (200 Unit Project) 25% PHF Resident Share Annual Cashflow UNIT 1 UNIT 2 $19.3MM $4.9MM $14.4MM $13.7MM $3.4MM $10.3MM Ye a r 1 Ye a r 2 Ye a r 3 Ye a r 4 Ye a r 5 Ye a r 6 Ye a r 7 Ye a r 8 Ye a r 9 Ye a r 1 0 Re n a n c e E v e n t Resident A - 10 Years Resident B - 3 Years Equity Share - $72,202 Cashflow Share - $16,559 Equity Share - $21,660 Cashflow Share - $3,745 Equity Share - $50,541 Cashflow Share- $13,152 Resident C - 7 Years $225,327 $249,564 $274,097 $298,925 $324,048 $349,467 $375,181 $401,190 $427,492 $454,088 Example Resident Dividend Typical PHF 9% Project 10-Year PHF Projections Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Potential Gross Income 433,169 441,832 450,669 459,682 468,876 478,253 487,818 497,575 507,526 517,677 Additional Income 17,059 17,400 17,748 18,103 18,465 18,834 19,211 19,595 19,987 20,387 Commercial Lease Income - - - - - - - - - - Total Potential Income 450,227 459,232 468,417 477,785 487,341 497,087 507,029 517,170 527,513 538,063 Less Vacancy (22,511) (22,962) (23,421) (23,889) (24,367) (24,854) (25,351) (25,858) (26,376) (26,903) Effective Gross Income 427,716 436,270 444,996 453,896 462,974 472,233 481,678 491,311 501,137 511,160 Operating Expenses (183,247) (188,745) (194,407) (200,239) (206,247) (212,434) (218,807) (225,371) (232,132) (239,096) Capital Reserve (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) Net Operating Income 232,769 235,825 238,889 241,956 245,027 248,099 251,171 254,240 257,305 260,364 Debt Service 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 Net Cash Flow 33,160 36,217 39,280 42,347 45,418 48,490 51,562 54,631 57,696 60,755 DSCR (all loans)1.17 1.18 1.20 1.21 1.23 1.24 1.26 1.27 1.29 1.30 Asset Value 5,172,635 5,240,566 5,308,634 5,376,805 5,445,044 5,513,312 5,581,571 5,649,779 5,717,892 5,785,864 Debt Reduction 25,928 32,149 33,337 34,589 35,910 37,305 38,778 40,335 41,979 43,718 Equity in Project (Value less debt)1,830,781 1,904,934 1,974,189 2,043,612 2,113,172 2,182,835 2,252,567 2,322,331 2,392,089 2,461,801 Cash Flow to Residents (75% of net)24,870 27,163 29,460 31,761 34,064 36,368 38,671 40,973 43,272 45,566 Annual Cash Flow Per Resident 638 696 755 814 873 933 992 1,051 1,110 1,168 Residents' Share of Equity (75%)1,373,086 1,428,700 1,480,642 1,532,709 1,584,879 1,637,127 1,689,425 1,741,748 1,794,067 1,846,350 New Equity Generated Per Resident 35,207 1,426 1,332 1,335 1,338 1,340 1,341 1,342 1,341 1,341 Accumulated Equity Per Resident 35,207 36,633 37,965 39,300 40,638 41,978 43,319 44,660 46,002 47,342 2.00%Annual Increases in Rent & Additional Income 5.00%Vacancy Rate 3.00%Annual Increases in Operating Expenses 4,699 Operating Expenses/Unit Yr 1 300 Per Unit Capital Reserve/Yr 6.10%Construction Loan Rate 6.50%Perm Loan Rate/40 Yr Am 4.50%Cap Rate Pro Forma Assumptions: Solutions for Utah’s Most Intractable Housing Problems May 2, 2023 Investor Initial Capitalization Utilization $10MM $2MM Project Capital Pre-Development Reimbursement Land Acquisition & Pre-Development Capital Additional Capital for Land Acquisition & Pre-Development Annual Cashflow & Developer Fee at Groundbreaking 2-6% Return on Investment Initial Capitalization Guarantor Reserve Interest-Bearing Impact Investments (6% Return) PHF PHF Model Project PHF OF UTAH 0-2% Return for Operating Expenses (501-c-3) Tax credit equity & construction lenders require $12MM (2MM liquid) to fund a meaningfully-sized LIHTC vehicle. 75% Cashow 90% Cashow 100% Developer Fee to PHF of Utah 10% Cashow 25% Cashow 2-7% Return on Initial Investment Remaining Cashow Initial $12MM Investment How It Works - The Perpetual Housing Fund 200 Unit PHF Building $2MM$10MM Operating Account PHF of Utah Interest Bearing Account* Special Purpose Entity 25% Owner (M.M.) PHF 0.01% Owner, M.M. (PHFU) 501(c)(3) Investor 99.9% Owner (PHFU) Impact Investor Resident Entity 75% Owner (200 Shareholders) Managing Member 0.01% Owner (SPE) Tax Credit Investor 99.9% Owner (SPE) Projected First Project: 515 E. 100 S. PHF Portion of New Building 39 Units AMI 25%-65%38 25%-65%38 PHF Phase 1 PHF Phase 2 76Total Existing Tower Residential Units AMI 80%-120%100+ 25%-65%39 Condo Portion PHF Portion 139+Total Addition Tower Residential Units 100+ Condo Unitsin partnership with RMHF Mixed-Income Childcareand Playground Impact Oce &Building Amenities PHF Phase 2 of Conversion ~38 Units Impact Food &Retail Break Ground in 2024 Units Completed in 2026 PHF Conversion Phase 1 38 Units (Break Ground Q4 2023, Units Completed Q4 2024) (Phase & timing dependent on U of U leasing plans) 515 Tower - Conversion of Floors 9-11 10-Year PHF Projections - Projected Groundbreak Q4 2023/Q1 2024 Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Potential Gross Income 372,358 379,805 387,401 395,149 403,052 411,113 419,335 427,722 436,276 445,002 Additional Income 16,621 16,954 17,293 17,639 17,991 18,351 18,718 19,093 19,474 19,864 Commercial Lease Income - - - - - - - - - - Total Potential Income 388,979 396,758 404,694 412,787 421,043 429,464 438,053 446,814 455,751 464,866 Less Vacancy (19,449) (19,838) (20,235) (20,639) (21,052) (21,473) (21,903) (22,341) (22,788) (23,243) Effective Gross Income 369,530 376,920 384,459 392,148 399,991 407,991 416,151 424,474 432,963 441,622 Operating Expenses (162,770) (167,653) (172,683) (177,863) (183,199) (188,695) (194,356) (200,187) (206,192) (212,378) Capital Reserve (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) Net Operating Income 195,360 197,867 200,376 202,885 205,392 207,896 210,395 212,887 215,371 217,844 Debt Service 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 Net Cash Flow 26,683 29,191 31,699 34,208 36,715 39,219 41,718 44,210 46,694 49,168 DSCR (all loans)1.16 1.17 1.19 1.20 1.22 1.23 1.25 1.26 1.28 1.29 Asset Value 4,341,330 4,397,053 4,452,804 4,508,553 4,564,265 4,619,906 4,675,439 4,730,824 4,786,022 4,840,988 Debt Reduction 26,928 33,321 34,471 35,675 36,939 38,264 39,654 41,114 42,646 44,256 Equity in Project (Value less debt)1,250,612 1,312,728 1,369,629 1,426,582 1,483,558 1,540,524 1,597,447 1,654,292 1,711,022 1,767,598 Cash Flow to Residents (75% of net)20,012 21,893 23,775 25,656 27,536 29,414 31,288 33,158 35,021 36,876 Annual Cash Flow Per Resident 527 576 626 675 725 774 823 873 922 970 Residents' Share of Equity (75%)937,959 984,546 1,027,221 1,069,937 1,112,669 1,155,393 1,198,086 1,240,719 1,283,266 1,325,698 New Equity Generated Per Resident 24,683 1,226 1,123 1,124 1,125 1,124 1,123 1,122 1,120 1,117 Accumulated Equity Per Resident 24,683 25,909 27,032 28,156 29,281 30,405 31,529 32,651 33,770 34,887 2.00%Annual Increases in Rent & Additional Income 5.00%Vacancy Rate 3.00%Annual Increases in Operating Expenses 4,274 Operating Expenses/Unit Yr 1 300 Per Unit Capital Reserve Yr 6.10%Construction Loan Rate u 5.75%Perm Loan Rate/40 Yr Am 4.50%Cap Rate Pro Forma Assumptions: 515 New Tower - Floors 2-4 10-Year PHF Projections - Projected Groundbreak 2024 Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Potential Gross Income 433,169 441,832 450,669 459,682 468,876 478,253 487,818 497,575 507,526 517,677 Additional Income 17,059 17,400 17,748 18,103 18,465 18,834 19,211 19,595 19,987 20,387 Commercial Lease Income - - - - - - - - - - Total Potential Income 450,227 459,232 468,417 477,785 487,341 497,087 507,029 517,170 527,513 538,063 Less Vacancy (22,511) (22,962) (23,421) (23,889) (24,367) (24,854) (25,351) (25,858) (26,376) (26,903) Effective Gross Income 427,716 436,270 444,996 453,896 462,974 472,233 481,678 491,311 501,137 511,160 Operating Expenses (183,247) (188,745) (194,407) (200,239) (206,247) (212,434) (218,807) (225,371) (232,132) (239,096) Capital Reserve (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) Net Operating Income 232,769 235,825 238,889 241,956 245,027 248,099 251,171 254,240 257,305 260,364 Debt Service 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 Net Cash Flow 33,160 36,217 39,280 42,347 45,418 48,490 51,562 54,631 57,696 60,755 DSCR (all loans)1.17 1.18 1.20 1.21 1.23 1.24 1.26 1.27 1.29 1.30 Asset Value 5,172,635 5,240,566 5,308,634 5,376,805 5,445,044 5,513,312 5,581,571 5,649,779 5,717,892 5,785,864 Debt Reduction 25,928 32,149 33,337 34,589 35,910 37,305 38,778 40,335 41,979 43,718 Equity in Project (Value less debt)1,830,781 1,904,934 1,974,189 2,043,612 2,113,172 2,182,835 2,252,567 2,322,331 2,392,089 2,461,801 Cash Flow to Residents (75% of net)24,870 27,163 29,460 31,761 34,064 36,368 38,671 40,973 43,272 45,566 Annual Cash Flow Per Resident 638 696 755 814 873 933 992 1,051 1,110 1,168 Residents' Share of Equity (75%)1,373,086 1,428,700 1,480,642 1,532,709 1,584,879 1,637,127 1,689,425 1,741,748 1,794,067 1,846,350 New Equity Generated Per Resident 35,207 1,426 1,332 1,335 1,338 1,340 1,341 1,342 1,341 1,341 Accumulated Equity Per Resident 35,207 36,633 37,965 39,300 40,638 41,978 43,319 44,660 46,002 47,342 2.00%Annual Increases in Rent & Additional Income 5.00%Vacancy Rate 3.00%Annual Increases in Operating Expenses 4,699 Operating Expenses/Unit Yr 1 300 Per Unit Capital Reserve/Yr 6.10%Construction Loan Rate 6.50%Perm Loan Rate/40 Yr Am 4.50%Cap Rate Pro Forma Assumptions: 515 Tower - Conversion of Floors 6-8 10-Year PHF Projections - Projected Groundbreak 2027 Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Potential Gross Income 372,358 379,805 387,401 395,149 403,052 411,113 419,335 427,722 436,276 445,002 Additional Income 16,621 16,954 17,293 17,639 17,991 18,351 18,718 19,093 19,474 19,864 Commercial Lease Income - - - - - - - - - - Total Potential Income 388,979 396,758 404,694 412,787 421,043 429,464 438,053 446,814 455,751 464,866 Less Vacancy (19,449) (19,838) (20,235) (20,639) (21,052) (21,473) (21,903) (22,341) (22,788) (23,243) Effective Gross Income 369,530 376,920 384,459 392,148 399,991 407,991 416,151 424,474 432,963 441,622 Operating Expenses (162,770) (167,653) (172,683) (177,863) (183,199) (188,695) (194,356) (200,187) (206,192) (212,378) Capital Reserve (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) Net Operating Income 195,360 197,867 200,376 202,885 205,392 207,896 210,395 212,887 215,371 217,844 Debt Service 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 Net Cash Flow 26,683 29,191 31,699 34,208 36,715 39,219 41,718 44,210 46,694 49,168 DSCR (all loans)1.16 1.17 1.19 1.20 1.22 1.23 1.25 1.26 1.28 1.29 Asset Value 4,341,330 4,397,053 4,452,804 4,508,553 4,564,265 4,619,906 4,675,439 4,730,824 4,786,022 4,840,988 Debt Reduction 26,928 33,321 34,471 35,675 36,939 38,264 39,654 41,114 42,646 44,256 Equity in Project (Value less debt)1,250,612 1,312,728 1,369,629 1,426,582 1,483,558 1,540,524 1,597,447 1,654,292 1,711,022 1,767,598 Cash Flow to Residents (75% of net)20,012 21,893 23,775 25,656 27,536 29,414 31,288 33,158 35,021 36,876 Annual Cash Flow Per Resident 527 576 626 675 725 774 823 873 922 970 Residents' Share of Equity (75%)937,959 984,546 1,027,221 1,069,937 1,112,669 1,155,393 1,198,086 1,240,719 1,283,266 1,325,698 New Equity Generated Per Resident 24,683 1,226 1,123 1,124 1,125 1,124 1,123 1,122 1,120 1,117 Accumulated Equity Per Resident 24,683 25,909 27,032 28,156 29,281 30,405 31,529 32,651 33,770 34,887 2.00%Annual Increases in Rent & Additional Income 5.00%Vacancy Rate 3.00%Annual Increases in Operating Expenses 4,274 Operating Expenses/Unit Yr 1 300 Per Unit Capital Reserve Yr 6.10%Construction Loan Rate u 5.75%Perm Loan Rate/40 Yr Am 4.50%Cap Rate Pro Forma Assumptions: Salt Lake City ARPA Investment Summary May 1, 2023 Projected Outcomes Salt Lake City's $10MM ARPA Investment in PHF will provide: •2-6% Return on Investment for 20+ Year Term •1,000 Equity-Sharing PHF Units for individuals and families making 65% of AMI and below •500 Condo Units in Salt Lake City affordable to individuals and families making 60%-120% of AMI 100 Units 515 New Tower 200 Units Condo Project 200 Units Condo Project 20 2 3 20 2 4 20 2 5 20 2 6 20 2 7 20 2 8 20 2 9 20 3 0 20 3 1 20 3 2 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Year 7 Year 8 Year 9 Year 10 SLC Unit Delivery Schedule 9% Projects 25% to 50% AMI 4% Projects OR Combined 4% + 9% 25% to 60% AMI Condo Projects 80% to 120% AMI 38 Unit 515 Conversion 38 Units 515 Conversion 39 Units 515 New Tower 50 Unit Project 200 Unit Project200 Unit Project200 Unit Project200 Unit Project 50 Unit Project 215 Units 800 Units 500 Units Typical Future 200 Unit Project 10-Year PHF Projections Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Potential Gross Income 2,943,351 3,002,218 3,062,262 3,123,508 3,185,978 3,249,697 3,314,691 3,380,985 3,448,605 3,517,577 Additional Income 87,480 89,230 91,014 92,834 94,691 96,585 98,517 100,487 102,497 104,547 Cell Tower/Commercial Lease Income - - - - - - - - - - Total Potential Income 3,030,831 3,091,448 3,153,276 3,216,342 3,280,669 3,346,282 3,413,208 3,481,472 3,551,101 3,622,123 Less Vacancy (151,542) (154,572) (157,664) (160,817) (164,033) (167,314) (170,660) (174,074) (177,555) (181,106) Effective Gross Income 2,879,289 2,936,875 2,995,613 3,055,525 3,116,635 3,178,968 3,242,547 3,307,398 3,373,546 3,441,017 Operating Expenses (842,310) (867,580) (893,607) (920,415) (948,028) (976,469) (1,005,763) (1,035,936) (1,067,014) (1,099,024) Capital Reserve (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) (60,000) Net Operating Income 1,976,979 2,009,295 2,042,006 2,075,110 2,108,608 2,142,500 2,176,785 2,211,463 2,246,533 2,281,993 Debt Service 1,676,543 1,676,543 1,676,543 1,676,543 1,676,543 1,676,543 1,676,543 1,676,543 1,676,543 1,676,543 Net Cash Flow 300,436 332,752 365,462 398,566 432,065 465,956 500,242 534,920 569,990 605,450 DSCR (all loans)1.18 1.20 1.22 1.24 1.26 1.28 1.30 1.32 1.34 1.36 Asset Value 35,945,072 36,532,645 37,127,374 37,729,265 38,338,321 38,954,537 39,577,906 40,208,416 40,846,051 41,490,788 Debt Reduction 123,794 156,185 165,030 174,460 195,239 206,677 218,879 231,898 245,790 260,615 Equity in Project 13,708,069 14,295,642 14,890,371 15,492,262 16,101,318 16,717,534 17,340,903 17,971,413 18,609,048 19,253,785 Cash Flow to Residents (75% of net)225,327 249,564 274,097 298,925 324,048 349,467 375,181 401,190 427,492 454,088 Annual Cash Flow per Resident 1,127 1,248 1,370 1,495 1,620 1,747 1,876 2,006 2,137 2,270 Residents' Share of Equity (75%)10,281,052 10,721,731 11,167,778 11,619,197 12,075,988 12,538,150 13,005,677 13,478,560 13,956,786 14,440,338 Avg New Equity Generated Per Resident 51,405 2,938 2,974 3,009 3,045 3,081 3,117 3,153 3,188 3,224 Accumulated Equity Per Resident 51,405 53,609 55,839 58,096 60,380 62,691 65,028 67,393 69,784 72,202 Pro Forma Assumptions: 2.00%Annual Increases in Rent & Additional Income 5.00%Vacancy Rate 3.00%Annual Increases in Operating Expenses 4,212 Operating Expenses/Unit Yr 1 300 Per Unit Capital Reserve Yr 1 6.75%Construction Loan Rate 6.75%Perm Loan Rate/40 Yr Am Typical PHF 9% Project 10-Year PHF Projections Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Potential Gross Income 433,169 441,832 450,669 459,682 468,876 478,253 487,818 497,575 507,526 517,677 Additional Income 17,059 17,400 17,748 18,103 18,465 18,834 19,211 19,595 19,987 20,387 Commercial Lease Income - - - - - - - - - - Total Potential Income 450,227 459,232 468,417 477,785 487,341 497,087 507,029 517,170 527,513 538,063 Less Vacancy (22,511) (22,962) (23,421) (23,889) (24,367) (24,854) (25,351) (25,858) (26,376) (26,903) Effective Gross Income 427,716 436,270 444,996 453,896 462,974 472,233 481,678 491,311 501,137 511,160 Operating Expenses (183,247) (188,745) (194,407) (200,239) (206,247) (212,434) (218,807) (225,371) (232,132) (239,096) Capital Reserve (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) Net Operating Income 232,769 235,825 238,889 241,956 245,027 248,099 251,171 254,240 257,305 260,364 Debt Service 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 Net Cash Flow 33,160 36,217 39,280 42,347 45,418 48,490 51,562 54,631 57,696 60,755 DSCR (all loans)1.17 1.18 1.20 1.21 1.23 1.24 1.26 1.27 1.29 1.30 Asset Value 5,172,635 5,240,566 5,308,634 5,376,805 5,445,044 5,513,312 5,581,571 5,649,779 5,717,892 5,785,864 Debt Reduction 25,928 32,149 33,337 34,589 35,910 37,305 38,778 40,335 41,979 43,718 Equity in Project (Value less debt)1,830,781 1,904,934 1,974,189 2,043,612 2,113,172 2,182,835 2,252,567 2,322,331 2,392,089 2,461,801 Cash Flow to Residents (75% of net)24,870 27,163 29,460 31,761 34,064 36,368 38,671 40,973 43,272 45,566 Annual Cash Flow Per Resident 638 696 755 814 873 933 992 1,051 1,110 1,168 Residents' Share of Equity (75%)1,373,086 1,428,700 1,480,642 1,532,709 1,584,879 1,637,127 1,689,425 1,741,748 1,794,067 1,846,350 New Equity Generated Per Resident 35,207 1,426 1,332 1,335 1,338 1,340 1,341 1,342 1,341 1,341 Accumulated Equity Per Resident 35,207 36,633 37,965 39,300 40,638 41,978 43,319 44,660 46,002 47,342 2.00%Annual Increases in Rent & Additional Income 5.00%Vacancy Rate 3.00%Annual Increases in Operating Expenses 4,699 Operating Expenses/Unit Yr 1 300 Per Unit Capital Reserve/Yr 6.10%Construction Loan Rate 6.50%Perm Loan Rate/40 Yr Am 4.50%Cap Rate Pro Forma Assumptions: Projected First Project: 515 E. 100 S. PHF Portion of New Building 39 Units AMI 25%-65%38 25%-65%38 PHF Phase 1 PHF Phase 2 76Total Existing Tower Residential Units AMI 80%-120%100+ 25%-65%39 Condo Portion PHF Portion 139+Total Addition Tower Residential Units 100+ Condo Unitsin partnership with RMHF Mixed-Income Childcareand Playground Impact Oce &Building Amenities PHF Phase 2 of Conversion ~38 Units Impact Food &Retail Break Ground in 2024 Units Completed in 2026 PHF Conversion Phase 1 38 Units (Break Ground Q4 2023, Units Completed Q4 2024) (Phase & timing dependent on U of U leasing plans) 515 Tower - Conversion of Floors 9-11 10-Year PHF Projections - Projected Groundbreak Q4 2023/Q1 2024 Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Potential Gross Income 372,358 379,805 387,401 395,149 403,052 411,113 419,335 427,722 436,276 445,002 Additional Income 16,621 16,954 17,293 17,639 17,991 18,351 18,718 19,093 19,474 19,864 Commercial Lease Income - - - - - - - - - - Total Potential Income 388,979 396,758 404,694 412,787 421,043 429,464 438,053 446,814 455,751 464,866 Less Vacancy (19,449) (19,838) (20,235) (20,639) (21,052) (21,473) (21,903) (22,341) (22,788) (23,243) Effective Gross Income 369,530 376,920 384,459 392,148 399,991 407,991 416,151 424,474 432,963 441,622 Operating Expenses (162,770) (167,653) (172,683) (177,863) (183,199) (188,695) (194,356) (200,187) (206,192) (212,378) Capital Reserve (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) Net Operating Income 195,360 197,867 200,376 202,885 205,392 207,896 210,395 212,887 215,371 217,844 Debt Service 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 Net Cash Flow 26,683 29,191 31,699 34,208 36,715 39,219 41,718 44,210 46,694 49,168 DSCR (all loans)1.16 1.17 1.19 1.20 1.22 1.23 1.25 1.26 1.28 1.29 Asset Value 4,341,330 4,397,053 4,452,804 4,508,553 4,564,265 4,619,906 4,675,439 4,730,824 4,786,022 4,840,988 Debt Reduction 26,928 33,321 34,471 35,675 36,939 38,264 39,654 41,114 42,646 44,256 Equity in Project (Value less debt)1,250,612 1,312,728 1,369,629 1,426,582 1,483,558 1,540,524 1,597,447 1,654,292 1,711,022 1,767,598 Cash Flow to Residents (75% of net)20,012 21,893 23,775 25,656 27,536 29,414 31,288 33,158 35,021 36,876 Annual Cash Flow Per Resident 527 576 626 675 725 774 823 873 922 970 Residents' Share of Equity (75%)937,959 984,546 1,027,221 1,069,937 1,112,669 1,155,393 1,198,086 1,240,719 1,283,266 1,325,698 New Equity Generated Per Resident 24,683 1,226 1,123 1,124 1,125 1,124 1,123 1,122 1,120 1,117 Accumulated Equity Per Resident 24,683 25,909 27,032 28,156 29,281 30,405 31,529 32,651 33,770 34,887 2.00%Annual Increases in Rent & Additional Income 5.00%Vacancy Rate 3.00%Annual Increases in Operating Expenses 4,274 Operating Expenses/Unit Yr 1 300 Per Unit Capital Reserve Yr 6.10%Construction Loan Rate u 5.75%Perm Loan Rate/40 Yr Am 4.50%Cap Rate Pro Forma Assumptions: 515 New Tower - Floors 2-4 10-Year PHF Projections - Projected Groundbreak 2024 Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Potential Gross Income 433,169 441,832 450,669 459,682 468,876 478,253 487,818 497,575 507,526 517,677 Additional Income 17,059 17,400 17,748 18,103 18,465 18,834 19,211 19,595 19,987 20,387 Commercial Lease Income - - - - - - - - - - Total Potential Income 450,227 459,232 468,417 477,785 487,341 497,087 507,029 517,170 527,513 538,063 Less Vacancy (22,511) (22,962) (23,421) (23,889) (24,367) (24,854) (25,351) (25,858) (26,376) (26,903) Effective Gross Income 427,716 436,270 444,996 453,896 462,974 472,233 481,678 491,311 501,137 511,160 Operating Expenses (183,247) (188,745) (194,407) (200,239) (206,247) (212,434) (218,807) (225,371) (232,132) (239,096) Capital Reserve (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) (11,700) Net Operating Income 232,769 235,825 238,889 241,956 245,027 248,099 251,171 254,240 257,305 260,364 Debt Service 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 199,609 Net Cash Flow 33,160 36,217 39,280 42,347 45,418 48,490 51,562 54,631 57,696 60,755 DSCR (all loans)1.17 1.18 1.20 1.21 1.23 1.24 1.26 1.27 1.29 1.30 Asset Value 5,172,635 5,240,566 5,308,634 5,376,805 5,445,044 5,513,312 5,581,571 5,649,779 5,717,892 5,785,864 Debt Reduction 25,928 32,149 33,337 34,589 35,910 37,305 38,778 40,335 41,979 43,718 Equity in Project (Value less debt)1,830,781 1,904,934 1,974,189 2,043,612 2,113,172 2,182,835 2,252,567 2,322,331 2,392,089 2,461,801 Cash Flow to Residents (75% of net)24,870 27,163 29,460 31,761 34,064 36,368 38,671 40,973 43,272 45,566 Annual Cash Flow Per Resident 638 696 755 814 873 933 992 1,051 1,110 1,168 Residents' Share of Equity (75%)1,373,086 1,428,700 1,480,642 1,532,709 1,584,879 1,637,127 1,689,425 1,741,748 1,794,067 1,846,350 New Equity Generated Per Resident 35,207 1,426 1,332 1,335 1,338 1,340 1,341 1,342 1,341 1,341 Accumulated Equity Per Resident 35,207 36,633 37,965 39,300 40,638 41,978 43,319 44,660 46,002 47,342 2.00%Annual Increases in Rent & Additional Income 5.00%Vacancy Rate 3.00%Annual Increases in Operating Expenses 4,699 Operating Expenses/Unit Yr 1 300 Per Unit Capital Reserve/Yr 6.10%Construction Loan Rate 6.50%Perm Loan Rate/40 Yr Am 4.50%Cap Rate Pro Forma Assumptions: 515 Tower - Conversion of Floors 6-8 10-Year PHF Projections - Projected Groundbreak 2027 Year 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Potential Gross Income 372,358 379,805 387,401 395,149 403,052 411,113 419,335 427,722 436,276 445,002 Additional Income 16,621 16,954 17,293 17,639 17,991 18,351 18,718 19,093 19,474 19,864 Commercial Lease Income - - - - - - - - - - Total Potential Income 388,979 396,758 404,694 412,787 421,043 429,464 438,053 446,814 455,751 464,866 Less Vacancy (19,449) (19,838) (20,235) (20,639) (21,052) (21,473) (21,903) (22,341) (22,788) (23,243) Effective Gross Income 369,530 376,920 384,459 392,148 399,991 407,991 416,151 424,474 432,963 441,622 Operating Expenses (162,770) (167,653) (172,683) (177,863) (183,199) (188,695) (194,356) (200,187) (206,192) (212,378) Capital Reserve (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) (11,400) Net Operating Income 195,360 197,867 200,376 202,885 205,392 207,896 210,395 212,887 215,371 217,844 Debt Service 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 168,677 Net Cash Flow 26,683 29,191 31,699 34,208 36,715 39,219 41,718 44,210 46,694 49,168 DSCR (all loans)1.16 1.17 1.19 1.20 1.22 1.23 1.25 1.26 1.28 1.29 Asset Value 4,341,330 4,397,053 4,452,804 4,508,553 4,564,265 4,619,906 4,675,439 4,730,824 4,786,022 4,840,988 Debt Reduction 26,928 33,321 34,471 35,675 36,939 38,264 39,654 41,114 42,646 44,256 Equity in Project (Value less debt)1,250,612 1,312,728 1,369,629 1,426,582 1,483,558 1,540,524 1,597,447 1,654,292 1,711,022 1,767,598 Cash Flow to Residents (75% of net)20,012 21,893 23,775 25,656 27,536 29,414 31,288 33,158 35,021 36,876 Annual Cash Flow Per Resident 527 576 626 675 725 774 823 873 922 970 Residents' Share of Equity (75%)937,959 984,546 1,027,221 1,069,937 1,112,669 1,155,393 1,198,086 1,240,719 1,283,266 1,325,698 New Equity Generated Per Resident 24,683 1,226 1,123 1,124 1,125 1,124 1,123 1,122 1,120 1,117 Accumulated Equity Per Resident 24,683 25,909 27,032 28,156 29,281 30,405 31,529 32,651 33,770 34,887 2.00%Annual Increases in Rent & Additional Income 5.00%Vacancy Rate 3.00%Annual Increases in Operating Expenses 4,274 Operating Expenses/Unit Yr 1 300 Per Unit Capital Reserve Yr 6.10%Construction Loan Rate u 5.75%Perm Loan Rate/40 Yr Am 4.50%Cap Rate Pro Forma Assumptions: Salt Lake City ARPA Investment Summary May 1, 2023 DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE POLICY AND BUDGET DIVISION 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 238 PO BOX 145467, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5455 TEL 801-535-6394 ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor MARY BETH THOMPSON Chief Financial Officer CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ___________________________________ Date Received: _______________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer Date sent to Council: __________ ______________________________________________________________________________ TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: April 7, 2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Mary Beth Thompson, Chief Financial Officer SUBJECT: Budget Amendment #6 SPONSOR: NA STAFF CONTACT: John Vuyk, Budget Director (801) 535-6394 or Mary Beth Thompson (801) 535-6403 DOCUMENT TYPE: Budget Amendment Ordinance RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends that, subsequent to a public hearing, the City Council adopt the following amendments to the FY2022-23 adopted budget. BUDGET IMPACT: REVENUE EXPENSE GENERAL FUND $ 19,120,198.00 $ 11,719,731.39 CIP FUND 5,459,533.39 3,859,533.39 CIP: IMPACT FEE FUND 0.00 2,577,466.61 FLEET FUND 160,000.00 160.000.00 MISCELLANEOUS GRANTS FUND 1,268,810.72 15,268,810.72 STORM WATER FUND 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 OTHER SPECIAL REVENUE FUND 50,000.00 50,000.00 TOTAL $ 28,058,542.11 $ 50,160,062.11 Lisa Shaffer (Apr 7, 2023 13:47 MDT)04/07/2023 04/07/2023 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: Revenue for FY 2022-23 Budget Adjustments The following chart shows a current projection of General Fund Revenue for fiscal year 2023. The current projections for fiscal year 2023 projections continue to be positive. Sales tax is currently projected to exceed budget by $5.7 million while the sales tax associated with Funding Our Future is projected to exceed budget by $6.8 million. Building permits have slowed and are currently showing a decrease, those losses are slightly offset by small gains in airport parking tax and innkeepers tax, but still show a loss compared to the budget of $1.7 million. Due to the rise in interest rates, interest income shows a large positive variance to budget of $5.4 million. Charges and services and miscellaneous revenue are both trending above budget. In total, current revenue projections are above amended budget by $17.1 million. Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual Budget FY22-23 Amended Budget Revised Forecast Amended Variance Favorable (Unfavorable) Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual BudgetFY22-FY23 Amended BudgetRevised Forecast Amended Variance Property Taxes 125,012,927 125,012,927 125,012,927 - Sale and Use Taxes 105,050,018 105,050,018 110,811,754 5,761,736 Franchise Taxes 11,657,128 11,657,128 12,020,987 363,859 Payment in Lieu of Taxes 1,638,222 1,638,222 1,638,222 - Total Taxes 243,358,295 243,358,295 249,483,890 6,125,595 Revenue FY22-FY23 Annual BudgetFY22-FY23 Amended BudgetRevised Forecast Amended Variance Licenses and Permits 40,736,114 40,736,114 39,033,583 (1,702,531) Intergovernmental Revenue 4,644,622 4,644,622 4,892,377 247,755 Interest Income 2,071,154 2,071,154 7,500,000 5,428,846 Fines 3,765,174 3,765,174 3,459,141 (306,033) Parking Meter Collections 2,635,475 2,635,475 2,635,475 - Charges, Fees, and Rentals 4,432,794 4,432,794 4,879,854 447,060 Miscellaneous Revenue 3,438,710 3,438,710 3,959,921 521,211 Interfund Reimbursement 24,431,717 24,431,717 24,234,739 (196,978) Transfers 28,821,993 34,910,408 34,848,950 (61,458) Total W/O Special Tax 358,336,048 364,424,463 374,927,930 10,503,467 ObjectCodeDescription FY22-23 Annual Budget FY22-23 Amended BudgetRevised Forecast Amended Variance Additional Sales Tax (1/2%)44,364,490 44,364,490 51,035,000 6,670,510 Total General Fund 402,700,538 408,788,953 425,962,930 17,173,977 Alejandro Sanchez (Apr 7, 2023 13:40 MDT) Fund balance has been updated to include proposed changes for BA#6. Based on those projections adjusted fund balance is projected to be at 23.00%. FOF GF Only TOTAL FOF GF Only TOTAL Beginning Fund Balance 12,114,190 104,171,780 116,285,970 18,395,660 141,728,022 160,123,682 Budgeted Change in Fund Balance (2,879,483) (15,335,334) (18,214,817) (2,100,608) (20,736,262) (22,836,870) Prior Year Encumbrances (1,879,654) (10,259,789) (12,139,443) (3,162,300) (17,260,909) (20,423,209) Estimated Beginning Fund Balance 7,355,053 78,576,657 85,931,710 13,132,752 103,730,851 116,863,603 Beginning Fund Balance Percent 14.28%22.33%21.30%29.60%27.04%27.30% Year End CAFR Adjustments Revenue Changes - - - - - - Expense Changes (Prepaids, Receivable, Etc.) - (7,535,897) (7,535,897) (8,556,220) (8,556,220) Fund Balance w/ CAFR Changes 7,355,053 71,040,760 78,395,813 13,132,752 95,174,631 108,307,383 Final Fund Balance Percent 14.28%20.19%19.43%29.60%24.81%25.30% Budget Amendment Use of Fund Balance BA#1 Revenue Adjustment - - - - - - BA#1 Expense Adjustment - 5,138,235 5,138,235 - (475,000) (475,000) BA#2 Revenue Adjustment - 490,847 490,847 - - - BA#2 Expense Adjustment - (986,298) (986,298) - - - BA#3 Revenue Adjustment - - - - 6,000,000 6,000,000 BA#3 Expense Adjustment (1,000,000) (1,000,000) (2,000,000) - (6,538,000) (6,538,000) BA#4 Revenue Adjustment - 1,508,044 1,508,044 - 194,600 194,600 BA#4 Expense Adjustment - (4,242,779) (4,242,779) - (7,584,328) (7,584,328) BA#5 Revenue Adjustment - 400,000 400,000 - - - BA#5 Expense Adjustment - (400,000) (400,000) - (5,940,349) (5,940,349) BA#6 Revenue Adjustment - - - - 19,120,198 19,120,198 BA#6 Expense Adjustment - (1,553,938) (1,553,938) - (11,719,731) (11,719,731) BA#7 Revenue Adjustment - (794,641) (794,641) - - - BA#7 Expense Adjustment (1,200,000) (10,843,298) (12,043,298) - - - Change in Revenue 11,139,999 23,083,587 34,223,586 - - - Change in Expense 2,100,608 12,134,899 14,235,507 - - Fund Balance Budgeted Increase - - - - - - - - Adjusted Fund Balance 18,395,660 93,975,418 112,371,078 13,132,752 88,232,021 101,364,773 Adjusted Fund Balance Percent 35.72%26.70%27.86%29.60%23.00%23.68% Proposed/Adopted Revenue 51,499,136 351,910,770 403,409,906 44,364,490 383,650,846 428,015,336 FY2023 BudgetFY2022 Projection The Administration is requesting a budget amendment totaling $28,058,542.11 of revenue and expense of $50,160,062.11. The amendment proposes changes in seven funds, with no increases in FTEs. The amendment also includes the use of $7,400,466.61 from the General Fund fund balance. The proposal includes twenty-nine initiatives for Council review. A summary spreadsheet outlining proposed budget changes is attached. The Administration requests this document be modified based on the decisions of the Council. The budget opening is separated in eight different categories: A. New Budget Items B. Grants for Existing Staff Resources C. Grants for New Staff Resources D. Housekeeping Items E. Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources F. Donations G. Council Consent Agenda Grant Awards I. Council Added Items PUBLIC PROCESS: Public Hearing SALT LAKE CITY ORDINANCE No. ______ of 2023 (Sixth amendment to the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, for Fiscal Year 2022-2023) An Ordinance Amending Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022 which adopted the Final Budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, for the Fiscal Year Beginning July 1, 2022, and Ending June 30, 2023. In June of 2022, the Salt Lake City Council adopted the final budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including the employment staffing document, effective for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022, and ending June 30, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-118 of the Utah Code. The City’s Budget Director, acting as the City’s Budget Officer, prepared and filed with the City Recorder proposed amendments to said duly adopted budget, including the amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate any staffing changes specifically stated herein, copies of which are attached hereto, for consideration by the City Council and inspection by the public. All conditions precedent to amend said budget, including the employment staffing document as provided above, have been accomplished. Be it ordained by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: SECTION 1. Purpose. The purpose of this Ordinance is to amend the final budget of Salt Lake City, including the employment staffing document, as approved, ratified and finalized by Salt Lake City Ordinance No. 32 of 2022. SECTION 2. Adoption of Amendments. The budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document necessary to effectuate the staffing changes 2 specifically stated herein, attached hereto and made a part of this Ordinance shall be, and the same hereby are adopted and incorporated into the budget of Salt Lake City, Utah, including any amendments to the employment staffing document described above, for the fiscal year beginning July 1, 2022 and ending June 30, 2023, in accordance with the requirements of Section 10-6-128 of the Utah Code. SECTION 3. Filing of copies of the Budget Amendments. The said Budget Officer is authorized and directed to certify and file a copy of said budget amendments, including any amendments to the employment staffing document, in the office of said Budget Officer and in the office of the City Recorder which amendments shall be available for public inspection. SECTION 4. Effective Date. This Ordinance shall take effect upon adoption. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of __________, 2023. ________________________ CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to the Mayor on __________________ Mayor’s Action: ____ Approved ____ Vetoed _________________________ MAYOR ATTEST: _______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. _________ of 2023. Published: ___________________. Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved As To Form ___ _______ Jaysen Oldroyd Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs 1 Cultural Core Contract Amendments GF - (291,000.00)One-time - 1 Cultural Core Contract Amendments GF - 291,000.00 One-time - 2 Homelessness Advantage Services GF - (300,000.00)Ongoing - 2 Homelessness Advantage Services GF - 300,000.00 One-time - 3 Repurpose Operation Rio Grande Funds for New Homeless Services (Advantage Services) GF - - One-time - 4 Liberty Park Seven Canyons Fountain Scope Change CIP - (695,580.00)One-time - 4 Liberty Park Seven Canyons Fountain Scope Change CIP (127,968.00)One-time - 4 Liberty Park Seven Canyons Fountain Scope Change CIP 823,548.00 One-time - 5 Open Space Property Acquisition (City Parks)Impact Fees - 450,000.00 One-time - 6 Open Space Property Acquisition (Trails)Impact Fees - 300,000.00 One-time - 7 Recaptured HUD ESG-CV Funds Misc Grants - (200,000.00)One-time - 7 Recaptured HUD ESG-CV Funds Misc Grants - (9,552.00)One-time - 7 Recaptured HUD ESG-CV Funds Misc Grants - 209,552.00 One-time - 8 Steiner Roof - County Contractual Obligation and City Portion GF - 1,380,000.00 One-time - 8 Steiner Roof - County Contractual Obligation and City Portion CIP 1,380,000.00 1,380,000.00 One-time - 8 Steiner Roof - County Contractual Obligation and City Portion CIP 1,380,000.00 1,380,000.00 One-time - 9 Natural Gas Cost Increase GF - 500,000.00 One-time - 9 Natural Gas Cost Increase GF - 135,000.00 One-time - 9 Natural Gas Cost Increase Fleet 135,000.00 135,000.00 One-time - 10 Ranked Choice Voting Awareness Materials GF - 35,000.00 Ongoing - 11 Environmental Assessment Fund GF - 50,000.00 One-time - 11 Environmental Assessment Fund Other Special Rev 50,000.00 50,000.00 One-time - 12 IFFP Consultant Contract Amendment Impact Fees - 27,000.00 One-time - 13 Flood Mitigation GF - 236,275.00 One-time - 13 Flood Mitigation (Recaptured All Star Game Funding)GF - 263,725.00 One-time 14 Additional ARPA Revenue Replacement Misc Grants - 18,603,080.00 One-time - 14 Additional ARPA Revenue Replacement GF 18,603,080.00 8,603,080.00 One-time - 14 Additional ARPA Revenue Replacement Storm Water 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 One-time - 14 Additional ARPA Revenue Replacement CIP 500,000.00 500,000.00 One-time - 15 ARPA Funding to Perpetual Housing Fund Misc Grants - 10,000,000.00 One-time - FY 2023 Budget Amendment #6 Council ApprovedAdministration Proposed Section A: New Items Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources 1 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #6 1 Withdrawn Prior to Transmittal 2 Fire - Other Reimbursements GF 17,118.00 17,118.00 One-time - 3 Transfer Parks Impact Fees to Surplus Land - Land Purchase Near RAC Impact Fees - (395,442.00)One-time - 3 Transfer Parks Impact Fees to Surplus Land - Land Purchase Near RAC Impact Fees - 395,442.00 One-time - 3 Transfer Parks Impact Fees to Surplus Land - Land Purchase Near RAC CIP (500,000.00) - One-time - 3 Transfer Parks Impact Fees to Surplus Land - Land Purchase Near RAC CIP 500,000.00 - One-time - 4 Fire Impact Fee - Payment for Excess Capacity GF 500,000.00 - One-time - 4 Fire Impact Fee - Payment for Excess Capacity Impact Fees (2,200,000.00) - One-time - 4 Fire Impact Fee - Payment for Excess Capacity Impact Fees 2,200,000.00 2,200,000.00 One-time - 4 Fire Impact Fee - Payment for Excess Capacity CIP 1,700,000.00 - One-time - 5 Fire Training Center GF - 499,533.39 One-time - 5 Fire Training Center CIP 499,533.39 499,533.39 One-time - 5 Fire Training Center Impact Fees (499,533.39) (499,533.39)One-time - 5 Fire Training Center Impact Fees 499,533.39 - One-time - 6 Fisher Mansion - Impact Fee Reimbursement of Cost Overrun Impact Fees (100,000.00) - One-time - 6 Fisher Mansion - Impact Fee Reimbursement of Cost Overrun Impact Fees 100,000.00 100,000.00 One-time - 6 Fisher Mansion - Impact Fee Reimbursement of Cost Overrun CIP - 100,000.00 One-time - 7 Recapture of Police Precinct Funds to Surplus Land CIP (1,299,688.00) - One-time - 7 Recapture of Police Precinct Funds to Surplus Land CIP 1,299,688.00 - One-time - 8 Police Impact Fee - Unclaimed Refunds Impact Fees (237,606.45) - One-time - 8 Police Impact Fee - Unclaimed Refunds Impact Fees 237,606.45 - One-time - 9 Rapid Intervention Team Trailer RV/XP - GF to Fleet GF - (25,000.00)One-time - 9 Rapid Intervention Team Trailer RV/XP - GF to Fleet GF - 25,000.00 One-time - 9 Rapid Intervention Team Trailer RV/XP - GF to Fleet Fleet 25,000.00 25,000.00 One-time - 10 Diff between $4.3 grant adopted in BA 5 Misc Grants (78,560.00)One-time - Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources 1 School-age Quality 22 Grant (FY 22-25)Misc Grants 780,000.00 780,000.00 One-time - 2 School-Age Quality Summer Expansion 22- 23 Misc Grants 373,338.00 373,338.00 One-time - 3 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY23 -Budget Revision Misc Grants (50,000.00) (50,000.00) One-time - 3 Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY23 -Budget Revision Misc Grants 50,000.00 50,000.00 One-time - - Section D: Housekeeping Section F: Donations 2 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #6 Consent Agenda #7 1 U S Department of Homeland Security, FEMA - Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program Misc Grants 115,472.72 115,472.72 One-time - Total of Budget Amendment Items 28,058,542.11 50,160,062.11 - - - Initiative Number/Name Fund Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Revenue Amount Expenditure Amount Ongoing or One- time FTEs Total by Fund Class, Budget Amendment #6: General Fund GF 19,120,198.00 11,719,731.39 - - - CIP Fund CIP 5,459,533.39 3,859,533.39 - - - CIP: Impact Fee Funds Impact Fees - 2,577,466.61 - - - Fleet Fund Fleet 160,000.00 160,000.00 - - - Miscellaneous Grant Fund Misc Grants 1,268,810.72 29,793,330.72 - - - Storm Water Fund Storm Water 2,000,000.00 2,000,000.00 - - - Other Special Revenue Other Special Rev 50,000.00 50,000.00 - - - - Total of Budget Amendment Items 28,058,542.11 50,160,062.11 - - - Administration Proposed Council Approved Section I: Council Added Items Section G: Council Consent Agenda -- Grant Awards 3 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #6 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2022-23 Budget, Including Budget Amendments FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Revenue General Fund (FC 10)425,537,408 100,000 6,000,000 194,600 - 431,832,008 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,762,560 1,762,560 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)4,302,222 4,302,222 Water Fund (FC 51)108,196,368 36,680,000 260,687 145,137,055 Sewer Fund (FC 52)196,630,907 196,630,907 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)13,476,733 13,476,733 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)302,268,600 - 302,268,600 Refuse Fund (FC 57)21,458,105 21,458,105 Golf Fund (FC 59)11,560,676 25,700 11,586,376 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,925,000 3,925,000 Fleet Fund (FC 61)28,826,992 120,000 1,119,900 30,066,892 IMS Fund (FC 65)30,523,167 2,627,420 3,099,185 36,249,772 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,600,000 9,600,000 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)4,670,517 4,670,517 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)34,158,918 2,749,584 2,517,995 8,103,151 2,131,170 49,660,818 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)300,000 300,000 Donation Fund (FC 77)2,920,250 20,000 44,668 1,000,000 3,984,918 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,217,000 16,217,000 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)32,037,989 (2,951,727) 334,958 29,421,220 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)35,460,387 6,603,019 5,267,217 91,967,958 15,149,607 154,448,188 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,964,523 2,000,000 500,000 6,464,523 Risk Fund (FC 87)54,679,000 54,679,000 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,344,180,322 11,592,603 - 51,009,880 101,347,689 21,714,920 1,529,845,414 4 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #6 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2022-23 Budget, Including Budget Amendments FY 2022-23 Adopted Budget through BA#5 BA #6 Total BA #7 Total BA #8 Total BA #9 Total BA #10 Total Total Revenue General Fund (FC 10)431,832,008 19,120,198 450,952,206 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,762,560 1,762,560 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)4,302,222 4,302,222 Water Fund (FC 51)145,137,055 145,137,055 Sewer Fund (FC 52)196,630,907 196,630,907 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)13,476,733 2,000,000 15,476,733 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)302,268,600 302,268,600 Refuse Fund (FC 57)21,458,105 21,458,105 Golf Fund (FC 59)11,586,376 11,586,376 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,925,000 3,925,000 Fleet Fund (FC 61)30,066,892 160,000 30,226,892 IMS Fund (FC 65)36,249,772 36,249,772 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,600,000 9,600,000 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)4,670,517 4,670,517 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)49,660,818 1,268,811 50,929,629 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)300,000 50,000 350,000 Donation Fund (FC 77)3,984,918 3,984,918 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)16,217,000 16,217,000 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)29,421,220 29,421,220 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)154,448,188 5,459,533 159,907,721 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)6,464,523 6,464,523 Risk Fund (FC 87)54,679,000 54,679,000 Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,529,845,414 28,058,542 - - - - 1,557,903,956 5 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #6 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2022-23 Budget, Including Budget Amendments Total Expense BA #1 Total BA #2 Total BA #3 Total BA #4 Total BA #5 Total Total Expense General Fund (FC 10)425,537,408 847,540 6,538,000 7,584,328 5,940,349 446,447,625 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,762,560 1,762,560 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,757,825 5,757,825 Water Fund (FC 51)132,752,815 36,680,000 260,687 169,693,502 Sewer Fund (FC 52)255,914,580 255,914,580 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)18,699,722 18,699,722 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)384,681,671 688,818,000 1,073,499,671 Refuse Fund (FC 57)24,952,672 3,035,700 27,988,372 Golf Fund (FC 59)14,726,016 46,800 14,772,816 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385 Fleet Fund (FC 61)30,426,032 4,011,360 10,678,500 45,115,892 IMS Fund (FC 65)30,523,167 2,782,449 3,099,185 36,404,801 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,458,748 9,458,748 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)4,958,433 4,958,433 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)26,614,153 2,749,584 2,517,995 8,481,711 2,131,170 42,494,613 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)300,000 300,000 Donation Fund (FC 77)287,250 20,000 44,668 1,000,000 1,351,918 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)25,779,253 100,000 25,879,253 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)33,658,558 (2,951,727) 334,958 31,041,789 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)35,460,387 11,713,917 12,267,217 96,317,958 15,149,607 170,909,086 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)3,169,767 2,000,000 500,000 5,669,767 Risk Fund (FC 87)54,679,000 54,679,000 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 1,525,603,402 21,442,401 688,818,000 61,583,580 123,200,706 27,655,269 2,448,303,358 6 FY 2023 Budget Amendment #6 Current Year Budget Summary, provided for information only FY 2022-23 Budget, Including Budget Amendments Total Expense through BA#5 BA #6 Total BA #7 Total BA #8 Total BA #9 Total BA #10 Total Total Expense General Fund (FC 10)446,447,625 11,719,731 458,167,356 Curb and Gutter (FC 20)3,000 3,000 DEA Task Force Fund (FC 41)1,762,560 1,762,560 Misc Special Service Districts (FC 46)1,700,000 1,700,000 Street Lighting Enterprise (FC 48)5,757,825 5,757,825 Water Fund (FC 51)169,693,502 169,693,502 Sewer Fund (FC 52)255,914,580 255,914,580 Storm Water Fund (FC 53)18,699,722 2,000,000 20,699,722 Airport Fund (FC 54,55,56)1,073,499,671 1,073,499,671 Refuse Fund (FC 57)27,988,372 27,988,372 Golf Fund (FC 59)14,772,816 14,772,816 E-911 Fund (FC 60)3,800,385 3,800,385 Fleet Fund (FC 61)45,115,892 160,000 45,275,892 IMS Fund (FC 65)36,404,801 36,404,801 County Quarter Cent Sales Tax for Transportation (FC 69)9,458,748 9,458,748 CDBG Operating Fund (FC 71)4,958,433 4,958,433 Miscellaneous Grants (FC 72)42,494,613 29,793,331 72,287,944 Other Special Revenue (FC 73)300,000 50,000 350,000 Donation Fund (FC 77)1,351,918 1,351,918 Housing Loans & Trust (FC 78)25,879,253 25,879,253 Debt Service Fund (FC 81)31,041,789 31,041,789 CIP Fund (FC 83, 84 & 86)170,909,086 6,437,000 177,346,086 Governmental Immunity (FC 85)5,669,767 5,669,767 Risk Fund (FC 87)54,679,000 54,679,000 - Total of Budget Amendment Items 2,448,303,358 50,160,062 - - - - 2,498,463,420 Budget Manager Analyst, City Council Contingent Appropriation 7 Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 1 Section A: New Items A-1: Cultural Core Contract Amendments GF ($291,000.00) GF $291,000.00 Department: Economic Development Prepared By: Felicia Baca For questions please include Felicia Baca, Lorena Riffo-Jensen, Mary Beth Thompson The Salt Lake City Arts Council (City) and Salt Lake County Arts & Culture (County) are each seek ing $50,000 in additional appropriations annually from respective Councils beginning in the contract year in FY24 (July 2023) for additional funding for the Cultural Core Action Plan Implementation contract. Funding would be moved from a Cultural Core surplus fund and would be used to maintain existing service levels due to inflation in the six years since the Action Plan Implementation contract was first awarded with no increases since that time. $250K from each entity is contributed annually to total $50K appropriation annually with the contract holder until the fund balance is expended. This funding increase has been approved by the Salt Lake County Councils 2023 Adopted Budget. See attachments. A-2: Homelessness Advantage Services GF ($300,000.00) GF $300,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner For questions please include Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Blake Thomas Over three fiscal years, the services provided to the City by Advantage Services expanded from a sole focus on the Rio Grande neighborhood to support cleaning needs across the entire city. This expans ion of services escalated in FY21, with a one-time award of $760,000 to implement a mobile clean team. That team still functions today, providing on - demand clean up of abandoned camp material, voluntary trash removal services from active encampments, and biowaste removal. Services were increased once more with the implementation of the Rapid Intervention framework, with Advantage Services' mobile clean team offering cleaning support for Encampment Impact Mitigations (EIM) and Rapid Intervention site rehabilitations. With the implementation of the mobile clean team, the City has been able to respond to SLC Mobile concerns regarding homelessness that have nearly doubled or tripled each year. Responses are significantly more efficient than in years past, shaving 151 days off the average time it takes to close a case. With the implementation of the Rapid Intervention framework, the City has reduced the average number of days to case closure from 50 days, in July 2022, to four days in March 2023. Advantage Services base budget has remained the same, despite this increase in services provided. The services were expanded with one-time funding over a three-year period. To maintain the level of service provided in the last two fiscal years, this year’s budget will fall short. An additional $300,000 is needed for the remainder of the fiscal year, in addition to a rescope of the State Mitigation Grant $160,000 and Operation Rio Grande $73,418. The request is to use $300,000 of CAN department vacancy savings. A-3: Repurpose Operation Rio Grande Funds for New Homeless Services (Advantage Services) GF $0.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner For questions please include Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Blake Thomas This budget amendment is to include a provider previously not listed in the scope of work and budget through a contract amendment with the County. See attached County contract and unsigned contract am endment. Current Contract: $177,847: The Road Home, FY23 Winter Overflow Operations. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 2 Contract Amendment: $104,429: The Road Home, FY23 Winter Overflow Operations, and $73,418: Advantage Services, Overflow Cleaning Costs (a total of $$177,847). The Road Home communicated to the city that they would not be able to fully expend their awarded. Advantage Services would be able to expend the funds, if awarded. A-4: Liberty Park Seven Canyons Fountain Scope Change CIP ($695,580.00) CIP ($127,968.00) CIP $823,548.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans For question please include Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to change the scope of work (but not request additional funding) for the Seven Canyons Fountain project at Liberty Park. The remaining funds available in the existing CIP General Funds are $823,548. These are CIP funds designated for use within Liberty Park, and were meant to be used to restore and reopen the Seven Canyons fountain with the existing water feature. Public Lands intends to permanently adapt the fountain into a dry art piece. The funding was originally allocated to make improvements to the fountain required by the Salt Lake County Health Department in order to re-open the fountain as an interactive water feature. After an initial feasibility study, the City determined that re -opening the fountain as a water feature was infeasible due to significant capital costs and projected water use. Therefore, two alternate options were explored: adapting the art into a dry feature, or decommissioning the work altogether and replacing it with something else. A community survey completed in 2021 found that 71% of the 1,643 respondents support the permanent conversion of the fountain into a dry feature, when given the choice between a dry feature and decommissioning the piece entirely. The responses indicated that conserving water, preserving art, and staying within the existing budget were key factors to consider in determining the future of the Seven Canyons Fountain. The Public Lands Department and the Engineering Division also conducted a feasibility study a ssessing various options for adding water back to the fountain at a lower rate in order to meet the City's and the community's goals of conserving water and taxpayer dollars. It was determined that none of the options that included water were feasible and that (based on community priorities and information from the feasibility study) converting the fountain into a dry feature is the only viable option. Conversion of this community treasure into a dry feature will increase engagement on the site, pay tribut e to the original artists' intentions, and create an opportunity to educate community members and youth as to the unique ecology, hydrology, and geology of the Salt Lake Valley's eastern seven canyons. Remaining project tasks may include, but are not limited to: - Conceptual design with artistic input, in cooperation with the Salt Lake City Arts Council - Design of detailed and construction documents - Permitting and soft costs, including contingency - Construction Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 3 A-5: Open Space Property Acquisition (City Parks) Impact Fees $450,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans For question please include Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment in the amount of $450,000 utilizing Parks Impact Fees to acquire an available parcel of property. This funding request includes all fees associated with acquisition. Any remaining funding from the acquisition would be utilized for immediate remediation needs and addressing potential safety concerns. This property was identified by administration and organizational partners as a key property during the development of an existing property. City acquisition, conversion, and activation of this property for public use is anticipated to largely resolve these issues and enhance the utility, openness, and beauty of the area. Securing this property and beginning remediation on this property would offer an immediate improvement to water and soil quality in this area. Future use of the site would be dependent on planning and community engagement, which would be accomplished and funded in a future phase. Uses may include amenities, programming, and educat ion opportunities that support and serve nearby community institutions, schools, and neighborhoods. By improving neighborhood aesthetics, the project can facilitate surrounding improvements and neighborhood investments that improve quality of life. A-6: Open Space Property Acquisition (Trails) Impact Fees $300,000.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Tyler Murdock, Gregg Evans For question please include Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans, Tyler Murdock Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment for $300,000 utilizing Parks Impact Fees to provide a 24% matching contribution to $1,250,000 committed from the State of Utah Department of Outdoor R ecreation and in partnership with Utah Open Lands. The combined funding would be used to acquire several acres of open space property located in Salt Lake City. Following acquisition of the property, SLC Public Lands will seek to develop concept designs f or construction of a trailhead. This funding request includes all fees associated with acquisition as well concept design for the proposed trailhead. Utah Open Land will also be conducting a fundraising campaign to cover a portion of the acquisition. Any remaining funding would be utilized for immediate trailhead design and construction needs and addressing potential safety concerns. Future use of a Trailhead at this location, would be dependent on planning and community engagement to identify existing concerns and develop a plan that would mitigate and improve trail access for all users. Future uses for a portion of this property would include trailhead amenities including, parking, fencing, possibly restroom and other trailhead amenities. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 4 A-7: Recaptured HUD ESG-CV Funds Misc Grants ($200,000.00) Misc Grants ($9,552.00) Misc Grants $209,552.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner For questions please include Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Blake Thomas This budget amendment is seeking to reallocate unspent HUD ESG-CV funds to a provider and activity, previously approved by Council, for eligible ESG-CV services (see attached Council Motion Sheet and Exhibit A). This budget amendment would shift funds: FROM: ESG-CV City Admin (Exhibit A, page 7, item 8) $200,000, and ESG-CV Volunteers of America's Homeless Outreach Program (Exhibit A, page 6, item 4) $9,552.37, TO: ESG-CV Utah Community Action's Homeless Prevention program (Exhibit A, page 5, item 1), $209,552.37. Volunteers of America communicated to the City that they are unable to spend the remainder of their award. Conversely, Utah Community Action requested a need for additional funds. This request has been reviewed by staff and the attached Adjustment Justification outlines the agency's need and capacity to receive and utilize additional funding. Housing Stability has forecasted the set-aside Admin funds will not be spent down before the HUD deadline, and these are available to be reallocated. Shifting this amount of funding would not require a Substantial Amendment, as outlined in the City's HUD 2020-2024 Consolidated Plan and Citizen Participation Plan. Additionally, these ESG-CV funds cannot be reallocated to traditional ESG funding or activities, and Utah Community Action has demonstrated their ability to spend ESG-CV funds while adhering to HUD ESG-CV governing regulations. A-8: Steiner Roof - County Contractual Obligation and City Portion GF $1,380,000.00 CIP $1,380,000.00 CIP $1,380,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente For questions please include Dawn Valente, JP Goates, George Chamoro The Steiner Aquatics Center was installed in 2000 and is failing to the point that replacement is now necessary based on a study completed by The Garland Co. and Logan DeWitt. PROJECT TOTAL $2,760,000 County portion 50% $1,380,000 City portion 50% $1,380,000 The current agreement with Salt Lake County Parks and Recreation states that both parties will share the cost of capital repairs and replacements of the building systems at 50% for each party. This request will also allow for acceptance of the County's portion of this cost. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 5 A-9: Natural Gas Cost Increase GF $500,000.00 GF $135,000.00 Fleet $135,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente For questions please include Dawn Valente, JP Goates, George Chamoro The wholesale natural gas costs for City Facilities are on state contract with BP. In January we received the invoice for December services and saw an increase of double our average costs. Then in February we received our invoice for January services which saw a dramatic increase from an average of $7 per decatherm at the beginning of the fiscal year to $49. These increases are due to several factors in supply and the wholesale gas rates, which ty pically have saved the City a great deal of money. The extremely large increases appear to have subsided, however rates have not fallen back down to the lower historical rates that were seen previously, and are still double our average costs. This reques t is for one-time funding for the current fiscal year for this unforeseen rate increase in supply chain. The funding for next fiscal year has been included in our FY24 budget insights. A-10: Ranked Choice Voting Awareness Materials GF $35,000.00 Department: Attorney’s Office Prepared By: Olivia Hoge For questions please include Cindy Lou Trishman, Olivia Hoge It has been confirmed there will be no state funding available for awareness of Ranked Choice Voting this election. Any awareness materials must be funded by the City. For fiscal year 22-23, the Recorder’s office is requesting $35,000 to cover awareness materials and an additional $40,000 in the FY 23-24 proposal provided the expenses will the incurred between July and October. Awareness for this fiscal year shall include brochures, large QR posters, stickers, vinyl banners for tabling, candy for tabling, translation services, scripts for PSA, graphic design subscription for the creation of awareness materials, radio ads, billboards, and more. A-11: Environmental Assessment Fund GF $50,000.00 Other Special Rev $50,000.00 Department: Sustainability Prepared By: Angie Brohamer For questions please include Debbie Lyons, Angie Brohamer $100,000 was allocated in FY23 to pay for environmental assessments and remediation planning in order to facilitate smooth property transactions and address immediate and unexpected environmental contamination concerns. To date, most of the funding has been used to facilitate development of the old Redwood Road dump site, working under the State DEQ Voluntary Cleanup Program. $50,000 is requested to ensure environmental assessment and planning of this site can continue without delay, in addition to having funds available to address other needs related to unexpected environmental issues and other city sites, such as the Fleet block and city right-of-way dedications. This funding amount is expected to meet the funding needs through FY23. With this budget change, a straw poll is requested from the Council. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 6 A-12: IFFP Consultant Contract Amendment Impact Fees $27,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith For question please include Mary Beth Thompson, Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith The Finance Department is requesting $9,000 from Parks & Public Land Impact Fees, $9,000 from Fire Impact Fees, and $9,000 from Police Impact Fees to fund an amendment to the Impact Fee Facilities Plan (IFFP) consultant contract. The department will work with the consultants to complete updates to the IFFPs and Impact Fee Analysis. A-13: Flood Mitigation GF $236,275.00 GF $263,725.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen For questions please include Mary Beth Thompson, Clint Rasmussen, Chief Boden Salt Lake City Administration and Emergency Management requests funds to be used for sandbagging, diversion walls, Joint Hazard Analysis Teams, and will also be used in the event there is wide scale flooding and a response is needed. The $263,725 is funding remaining from the NBA Allstar Game activation funding that is being proposed to be redirected toward flood mitigation purposes. A-14: Additional ARPA Revenue Replacement Misc Grants $18,603,080.00 GF $8,603,080.00 Storm Water $2,000,000.00 CIP $500,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: John Vuyk For questions please include Mary Beth Thompson, Danny Walz, John Vuyk The Administration is proposing to accept an additional $18,603,080 million in ARPA funding for revenue replacement for fiscal year 2023. These funds will then be transferred to the RDA for the purchase of property ($4,000,000), drop to Fund Balance to be used in Fiscal Year 2024 ($10,000,000), be used for Rapid Intervention equipment($103,080), the community grants distributed through CAN($2,000,000), move funding to CIP for Odyssey h ouse($500,000), and transfer $2,000,000 to Public Utilities to be used as a match with state funding. A-15: ARPA Funding to Perpetual Misc Grants $10,000,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Rachel Otto For questions please include Mary Beth Thompson, Rachel Otto Mayor Mendenhall is requesting that the City Council approve a $10 million budget amendment to be distributed to a non-profit development organization named the Perpetual Housing Fund of Utah, LLC (PHF) for affordable housing development and wealth building opportunities for PHF project residents. Additionally, the Administration is seeking feedback on the pre-funding conditions the Administration is proposing to PHF for this allocation. For additional information on this proposal see Attachment #1 Section B: Grants for Existing Staff Resources Section C: Grants for New Staff Resources Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 7 Section D: Housekeeping D-1: State Mitigation Grant to Advantage Services Misc Grants ($160,000.00) Misc Grants $160,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner For questions please include Tony Milner, Brent Beck, Blake Thomas Housing Stability has identified $160,000.00 that is projected to go unspent in this fiscal year’s Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation award from the State. Rather than return the funds, Housing Stability has asked the State to amend this award to include Advantage Services as a subcontractor, in order to fill any remaining gaps in funding for needed cleaning services throughout the City. The State is working on a budget change request to SLC’s Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation award for $160,000.00 to be directed to Advantage Services. SLCPD has identified $50,000, VOA has identified $50,000, and Housing Stability has identified $60,000 from each of their awards that would otherwise be r eturned to the State. D-2: Fire - Other Reimbursements GF $17,118.00 Department: Fire Prepared By: Clint Rasmussen For questions please include Clint Rasmussen, Chief Karl Lieb The Fire Department has provided several services in which it expects to receive a reimbursement including: training backfill costs incurred on behalf of Utah Search and Rescue (USAR), and Fire Investigation overtime incurred on behalf of the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF). Utah Search and Rescue (USAR) Training/Backfill $8,820.33 Camp Williams Exercises, K9 Training, Tech Search Specialist Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives (ATF) $8,297.39 Sugarhouse Fire Investigation/Overtime Total Reimbursement $17,117.72 D-3: Transfer Parks Impact Fees to Surplus Land - Land Purchase Near RAC Impact Fees ($395,442.00) Impact Fees $395,442.00 Department: Public Lands Prepared By: Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans For questions please include Kristin Riker, Gregg Evans, Mike Atkinson Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to reimburse the Surplus Land Fund using Parks Impact Fees for a previous year property acquisition. In 2019, the Council approved $500,000 of Surplus Land Funds to be used to fund the purchase of two parcels near the Regional Athletic Complex (Rose Park Lane) references BA3 FY19 A -1. The actual cost of the acquisition came in at $395,441.70. Public Lands is requesting a budget amendment to transfer $395,442 from Parks Impact Fees to a new impact fee cost center to reimburse the actual cost of the land and to recapture the original $500,000 appropriation back to the Surplus Land account. D-4: Fire Impact Fee - Payment for Excess Capacity Impact Fees $2,200,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith For question please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Mary Beth Thompson The FY2017 IFFP includes $4,746,899 for existing facilities buy -in (Excess Capacity). The General Fund has not received any funds for excess capacity. Fire Impact Fees has a current unallocated balance of approximately $2,200,000. Finance is requesting to distribute $500,000 to the General Fund and $1,700,000 to CIP from Fire Impact Fees for excess capacity. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 8 D-5: Fire Training Center GF $499,533.39 CIP $499,533.39 Impact Fees ($499,533.39) Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith For question please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Mary Beth Thompson The Fire Training Center (FTC) is comprised of two CIP projects, the Logistics Center/Large Equipment Garage and the Renovation of the old Fire Station #14. Both of these projects were referred to as the Fire Training Center. $499,533.39 was appropriated for the renovation of the old Fire Station #14 (100% Impact Fee Eligible) and placed in Cost Center 84-17015 with the title Fire Training Center. These funds were inadvertently expended on the construction of the Fire Training Center Logistics Center (Ineligible for Impact Fees) instead. The Capital Asset Planning team is requesting to move $499,533.39 from non-departmental to a new CIP cost center to reimburse Fire Impact Fees for the FTC Logistics Center. D-6: Fisher Mansion - Impact Fee Reimbursement of Cost Overrun Impact Fees $100,000.00 CIP $100,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith For question please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Mary Beth Thompson An Administrative Budget Adjustment was approved in March 2023 for $100,000 of cost overrun for the Fisher Mansion Carriage House Improvement Project. The Fisher Mansion Carriage House Impro vement Project is 100% impact fee eligible and the Capital Asset Planning team is requesting $100,000 from Parks Impact Fees to reimburse the cost overrun cost center. D-7: Recapture of Police Precinct Funds to Surplus Land CIP ($1,299,688.00) CIP $1,299,688.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith For question please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Mary Beth Thompson After four years of inactivity due to the inability to procure a suitable piece of land at the right price, the Finance Department is requesting the recapture of these funds to the Surplus Land cost center. D-8: Police Impact Fee - Unclaimed Refunds Impact Fees ($237,606.45) Impact Fees $237,606.45 Department: Finance Prepared By: Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith For question please include Mike Atkinson, Jordan Smith, Mary Beth Thompson The Capital Asset Planning Team is requesting to move $237,606.45 in unclaimed impact fee refunds back to the Police Impact Fees. This request is being made to comply with Section 603 - Refunds, of Utah Code 11-36a - Impact Fees Act. As outlined in the code, the City shall expend any unclaimed refund on capi tal facilities identified in the current capital facilities plan for the type of public facility for which the impact fee was collected. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 9 D-9: Rapid Intervention Team Trailer RV/XP – GF to Fleet GF ($25,000.00) GF $25,000.00 Fleet $25,000.00 Department: Public Services Prepared By: Dawn Valente For questions please include Dawn Valente, Jorge Chamorro As part of the adoption of FY23 Budget Amendment 5 - Initiative A1 - Rapid Intervention Team Trailer, funds were budgeted to Facilities in the General Fund. However, the transfer from General Fund to Fleet Fund was not included in the budget adoption. This amendment is to correct that. By purchasing the trailer through the Fleet fund it will become part of their inventory allowing Fleet better track maintenance needs. Request is $25,000 from General Fund to Fleet Fund for the purchase of the trailer for t he Rapid Intervention Team. D-10: Difference Between $4.3 Million Grant Adopted in BA #5 and the Actual $4.22 Million Amount Misc Grants ($78,560.00) Department: Finance Prepared By: Mary Beth Thompson For question please include Mary Beth Thompson In Budget Amendment #5, $4,300,000 in Miscellaneous Grants funding was adopted to be used toward bonuses for Police POST training, recruitment and retention. Although the $4,300,000 million amount was adopted, the actual available amount is $4,221,440. In order to be accurate in ARPA reporting it is necessary to reduce the budgeted expenditure amount by $78,560. Section E: Grants Requiring No New Staff Resources E-1: School-age Quality 22 Grant (FY 22-25) Misc Grants $780,000.00 Department: Finance Prepared By: Ann Garcia For questions please contact Ann Garcia, Mary Beth Thompson ***FUNDING and AWARD TITLE CORRECTION*** City Council approved this item on Consent Agenda #1, June 14, 2022 for one year of funding at $390,000. It was approved with an incorrect award title. It was listed as School Age Program Summer Expansion Grant 2022 -2023. This correction will correct the title of the award and add the additional awarded 2 years for a 3 -year award grant period. The award was actually $390,000 a year for 3 years of funding totaling $1,170,000. This Agenda item is to budget for the addition of $780,000 for additional 2 years of funding that was not included in the first Consent Agenda No new FTEs. The Division of Youth and Family Services received $390,000 each year for three years to provide YouthCity afterschool programming at Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Central City, Ottinger Hall, Sorenson Unity Center, and Sorenson Multi - Cultural Center. No match is required by the funding agency. The Division is providing a voluntary cash match of the Division's General Fund 2022-2025 budget for salaries and fringe benefits for 100% full time equivalent (FTE) of seven site staff and one Associate Director for program delivery, 50% FTE of the Division Director for administrative oversight, and 50% FTE of one Office Facilitator for general support. A public hearing will be held for the grant application on May 17, 2022. BA # 6 Housekeeping Item Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 10 Funding Grant Award Approved by Council 6/14/22 Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 $1,170,000.00 $390,000.00 $390,000.00 $390,000.00 $780,000.00 E- School-Age Quality Summer Expansion 22-23 Misc Grants $373,338 Department: Finance Prepared By: Ann Garcia For questions please contact Ann Garcia, Mary Beth Thompson *** FUNDING CORRECTION *** City Council approved this item on Consent Agenda #1, June 14, 2022 for one year of funding for each of the six sites at $62,223/each site for 1 summer period only. The sites are: Fairmont Park, Liberty Park, Central City, Ottinger Hall, Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center, and Unity Center. The award was actually for a total of $746,767 Each site was approved a budget of $62,223 totaling $373,338 for summer 2022. We failed to include the funding for the summer of 2023. This budget agenda item is to add the addtitional summer year amount. We originally budgeted for $62,223 for each of the 6 sites. This is to correct the budget and increase the budget for each of the 6 sites by $62,223 for each of the 6 sites . (see chart below) After this correction, each of the 6 sites will have a budget of $124,446, totaling the grant awa rd of $746,767. A public hearing for this application was on 05/17/2022. BA # 6 Housekeeping Item Cost Center Funding Grant Award (divided by 6 sites) Approved by Council 6/14/22 Year 1 - Summer 2022 Year 2 - Summer 2023 $746,767.00 $373,338.00 $373,338.00 Divided by 6 sites: Divided by 6 sites: 72-12215 Fairmont Park $62,223.00 $62,223.00 72-12216 Liberty Park $62,223.00 $62,223.00 72-12217 Central City $62,223.00 $62,223.00 72-12218 Ottinger Hall $62,223.00 $62,223.00 72-12219 Sorenson Unity Center $62,223.00 $62,223.00 72-12220 Sorenson Multi-Cultural Center $62,223.00 $62,223.00 $373,338.00 Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 11 E-3: Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation Grant FY23 - Budget Revision Misc Grants ($50,000.00) Misc Grants $50,000.00 Department: CAN Prepared By: Tony Milner, Ann Garcia For questions please include Tony Milner, Ann Garcia, Brent Beck Housing Stability has identified $160,000.00 that is projected to go unspent in this fiscal year’s Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation award from the State. Rather than return the funds, Housing Stability has asked the State to amend this award to include Advantage Services as a subcontractor, in order to fill any remaining gaps in funding for needed cleaning services throughout the City. The State is working on a budget change request to SLC’s Homeless Shelter Cities Mitigation award for $160,000.00 to be redirected to Advantage Services under the CAN cost center within the Professional Services category. SLCPD has identified $50,000 which will be moved from Police to CAN to be used toward the Advantage Services contract. VOA has identified $50,000, and Housing Stability has identified $60,000 from each of their awards that would otherwise be returned to the State. These amounts will be repurposed toward the Advantage Services contract but will not need to be moved to a different cost center, staying with the CAN cost center. The Budget revision will reflect the following adjustments to each of the cost centers: CC# 72-12304: CAN/Housing Stability: (+ $50,000) (repurpose $60,000 from Salaries to Prof. Svcs.) (repurpose $50,000 from VOA SubAward to Prof. Svcs.) (Advantaged Services will be added under the Professional Services category with a $160,000 budget) This would include the $60,000 from Salaries; $50,000 from the VOA SubAward and $50,000 from SLC PD CC. CC#72-22302: SLC Police Dept.: (-$50,000 - redirect to CAN CC#72-12304 under the Professional Services category for Advantaged Services.) Section F: Donations Section G: Consent Agenda Consent Agenda #7 G-1: US Department of Homeland Security, FEMA - Assistance to Firefighters Grant Program Misc. Grants $115,472.7200 Department: Fire Department Prepared By: Brittany Blair/Ann Garcia The Fire Department applied for and received a US Department of Homeland Security, FEMA grant in the amount of $115,472.72. This grant will be used to purchase equipment and personal protective equipment which is used by firefighters to protect the health and safety of the public and firefighting personnel against fire and fire -related hazards. Equipment includes: 116 ea. (NFPA 1977) Compliant - Wildland Goggles, Helmets, Pants, Web Gear/Backpacks/Canteens, and Shelters. The grant requires a match of $11,547.28 which is budgeted for within the Fire Departments general fund budget. A Public Hearing was held on 4-5-22 for the grant application on this award. Section I: Council Added Items Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 12 Attachments Attachment #1 ARPA Funding to Perpetual Housing Fund When the City first received notice of the significant Rescue Plan Funds that it would receive, the Administration set out to identify the principles by which it would propose this money be allocated. In addition to taking care of the City’s most urgent needs (revenue replacement, public safety, and emergency shelter), the Administration’s goal is to allocate a large portion of Rescue Plan Funds in a way that leverages private investment and creates lasting, generational changes for families in Salt Lake City. This proposal provides funding for an affordable housing development with a unique tenant wealth building program. The City’s funds are anticipated to be used as transformational seed funds for development costs, including the cost for PHF to acquire existing structures to construct affordable units. With the help of other partners and the leveraging of City funds, PHF’s ultimate organizational goal is to provide approximately 1500 safe, stable, and affordable homes in Salt Lake City that benefit individuals and families by helping them build income. Over the next 20 years, PHF anticipates that this investment will translate into $50 million in the hands of lower- and middle-income City residents. About the Perpetual Housing Fund of Utah PHF is a Utah non-profit affordable housing developer whose mission is to reimagine existing housing programs to share profits with PHF project residents. PHF exists to help remove financial barriers that keep a rapidly expanding portion of population from building wealth where they live. Unlike other non-profit affordable housing development entities that use profits to build more affordable units, PHF will share their profits with residents in a variety of ways, as detailed in the next section. PHF plans to develop projects in Salt Lake City that provide rent and income restricted affordable units. PHF anticipates breaking ground on two affordable housing projects in Salt Lake City in 2024 that will serve those at 25-120% AMI. From there, they plan to develop over 2,000 affordable units over the next decade. PHF’s first two projects will be located in Salt Lake City, with a priority to aquire additional land in the City for subsequent projects. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 13 Through this investment from the City, PHF will be able to develop wealth-building affordable housing units at the 515 east 100 south location, and ensure that future PHF projects are not driven by maximizing return to financial investors but rather remain committed to sharing wealth with PHF project residents. How the profit-sharing model works PHF projects are anticipated to be financed with traditional affordable housing resources, and may include Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTCs). Under PHF’s model, PHF will share with PHF project residents the majority of profits generated from annual cash flow, long-term equity generation, and future refinance and sale proceeds. The amount of cash flow and profit (which will translate into payouts to the tenants) will largely depend on annual rent increases and the paydown of the project’s mortgage. Over the past several years, area median incomes (AMIs) have been increasing much faster than is projected when development projects are underwritten and financed. With LIHTC-funded projects, rental rates are tied to AMIs and, as such, rents have been increasing faster than projected. Traditional developers and their investors have been receiving the financial benefits of these rapidly escalating rents that increase annual cash flow of the project. Instead of reaping these benefits for the developer and investors, PHF would share these financial benefits with PHF project residents. PHF will establish a nonprofit tenant entity that, while not having a fee ownership interest in the development, will have a permament interest in the development and the contractural obligation to ensure PHF project residents will receive profits from the project. The ownership and profits-interest structure will vary slightly, depending on if the project utilizes LIHTCs and has a tax credit investor in the ownership structure during the first years after a PHF project is placed into service. The ownership structure and profits-interest will generally be as follows: LIHTC PROJECTS: YEAR 1 – 15 OWNERSHIP % PROFIT % LIHTC INVESTOR 99.99% 10% PHF & FUND INVESTORS 0.01% 15% RESIDENTS/TENANT NPO 0.00% 75% NON LIHTC PROJECTS & LIHTC PROJECTS: YEAR 16 + Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 14 OWNERSHIP % PROFIT % PHF & FUND INVESTORS 99.99% 25.00% RESIDENTS/TENANT NPO 0.00% 75.00% The profits-interest not otherwise allocated to the PHF project residents will offset costs associated with developing and managing the units. PHF project residents will not have ownership or shares in the real estate itself. Rather, there will be an agreement between the tenant nonprofit entity and the PHF project residents to distribute proceeds in the following ways. • Annual rent rebate – A portion of the project’s annual cash flow (profit after collecting all rent and other income, paying all operating expenses, paying debt service, and setting aside cash reserves for future repairs) that would typically be received by the developer will be allocated to current PHF project residents as a rent rebate via cash payment to be distributed on an annual basis. • Profit payout – When there is an event that generates profit, or further cashflow (refinance, exit of the limited partner, etc.), all the cumulative residents over time will receive a payment that represents a proportionate share of the available profit. The proportion of the profit a household receives will depend on the length of time they lived in a PHF unit. With projects that involve LIHTCs, the profit generating event will often happen 15 years after the project is placed into service because that's when the tax credits end and the LIHTC investor exits the ownership structure. • Profit advance – PHF will set aside a portion of its initial developer fee for the project to fund a 0%, zero payment revolving fund to help PHF project residents access a portion of their anticipated profits early in the event of an emergency or major life event (medical, educational, entrepreneurial, etc.). These funds are replenished from the PHF project resident’s share of profit whenever a profit payout would naturally happen. • Profit tradeup – PHF will be co-developing hundreds of units with the Rocky Mountain Homes Fund (RMHF), an entity that provides a missing-middle home ownership option for households making 60- 120% AMI (and occasionally less). Subject to availability, PHF tenants will be able to transfer their accruals from a PHF project for a 1:1 reduction in purchase price on a RMHF home. INITIAL PROJECT 515 East 100 South • Adaptive reuse of an existing office building and new construction of an additional building, to occur in phases. • This property will have multiple social-equity based future uses and is slated to be acquired in May 2023. The floors on which affordable units will be constructed will be condominiumized and separated and then sold to PHF prior to ARPA City funds being utilized on the project. o Phase 1: Adaptive reuse. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 15 ▪ Estimated to begin construction in Q4 2023 or Q1 2024 and be completed by the end of 2024. ▪ ~38 units with a mix of studios, 1 Bedrooms, 3-Bedrooms, and 4-Bedrooms on floors 9- 11 of the existing office tower. ▪ All 38 residential units will be affordable to incomes at 25%-50% of AMI. ▪ Curently slated to also include profit-sharing coworking/office model similar to PHF in other floors. o Phase 2: New building. ▪ Estimated to begin construction Q2 2024 and be completed in 2026. ▪ ~40 new units (depending on final construction estimates/cost constraints) with a mix of 5% Studios, 25% 3-Bedroom, and 70% 2-Bedroom ▪ ~48 units will be PHF (25-50% AMI) ▪ Affordable daycare on bottom floor, available to building users of all incomes. CONDITIONS FOR FUNDING If the Council approves the proposed funding allocation, the Administration (acting through the RDA) and PHF will execute a funding agreement with the following conditions to ensure that Rescue Plan Funds are deployed in accordance with federal regulations and in a manner that brings the greatest public benefit for City residents and prospective residents. The Administration requests the Council’s feedback on the following conditions and any other conditions the Council would like to see in this agreement: 1. PHF will deploy 100% of the City’s Rescue Plan Funds on eligible projects in Salt Lake City and in compliance with ARPA requirements before June 30, 2024. More specifically, the funds will be spent by PHF on the purchase of the condominiumized affordable units and construction costs for the project at 515 east 100 south. 2. The Rescue Plan Funds will be distributed concurrently with PHF closing on the acquisition of the affordable units. 3. At the same time that the Rescue Plan Funds are distributed, PHF will record a restrictive covenant requiring PHF to maintain affordable housing at the 515 east 100 south project at 25-50% AMI, construct and maintain a mix of unit sizes, and wealth building (as detailed above) for a period of not less than 30 years. The restrictive covenant will also require PHF to provide a quarterly report to the RDA. 4. The funding agreement will require PHF to commit to developing future projects in Salt Lake City and ensure those projects contain units affordable to those at 65% AMI and below. 5. PHF will implement an equitable process for tenant selection and, as permitted by law, potentially prioritize certain applicants if the City desires. 6. As permitted by ARPA, the RDA, as a transformational seed funder, will be treated like an equity investor and receive between a 2% and 6% return on its capital contribution, paid annually every year. 7. RDA to approve all legal agreements as recommended by the City Attorney. 8. Prior to distributing the funds, PHF will have received all required City approvals for the project to move forward. 9. Prior to distributing the funds, PHF will demonstrate sufficient construction financing for the project to move forward. Salt Lake City FY 2022-23 Budget Amendment #6 Initiative Number/Name Fund Amount 16 10. Prior to distributing the funds, PHF will demonstrate compliance with the RDA’s sustainability policy, which requires the project demonstrate that the units be designed to achieve an energy star score of 90 or higher and participate in the City’s Elivate Buildings Program. The units must also be designed to operate without on-site fossil fuel combustion. 11. Adequate security and remedies should PHF default on their obligations under the funding or restrictive use agreement. Impact Fees - Summary Confidential Data pulled 03/24/2023 Unallocated Budget Amounts: by Major Area Area Cost Center UnAllocated Cash Notes: Impact fee - Police 8484001 1,061,156$ A Impact fee - Fire 8484002 1,725,882$ B Impact fee - Parks 8484003 15,534,954$ C Impact fee - Streets 8484005 5,248,024$ D 23,570,017$ Expiring Amounts: by Major Area, by Month 202207 (Jul2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202208 (Aug2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202209 (Sep2022)2023Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202210 (Oct2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202211 (Nov2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202212 (Dec2022)2023Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202301 (Jan2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202302 (Feb2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Current Month 202303 (Mar2023)2023Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202304 (Apr2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202305 (May2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202306 (Jun2023)2023Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202307 (Jul2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202308 (Aug2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202309 (Sep2023)2024Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202310 (Oct2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202311 (Nov2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202312 (Dec2023)2024Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202401 (Jan2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202402 (Feb2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202403 (Mar2024)2024Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202404 (Apr2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202405 (May2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202406 (Jun2024)2024Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202407 (Jul2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202408 (Aug2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202409 (Sep2024)2025Q1 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202410 (Oct2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202411 (Nov2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202412 (Dec2024)2025Q2 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202501 (Jan2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202502 (Feb2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202503 (Mar2025)2025Q3 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202504 (Apr2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202505 (May2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ 202506 (Jun2025)2025Q4 -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ Total, Currently Expiring through June 2024 0$ -$ -$ -$ 0$ Fiscal Quarter E = A + B + C + D Police Fire Parks Streets Total FY 2 0 2 3 Calendar Month FY 2 0 2 4 FY 2 0 2 5 Impact Fees Confidential Data pulled 03/24/2023 AAA BBB CCC DDD = AAA - BBB - CCC Police Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Police Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Police Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Police Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Police Allocation Remaining Appropriation Public Safety Building Replcmn 8405005 14,068$ 14,068$ -$ 0$ Eastside Precint 8419201 21,639$ -$ -$ 21,639$ Police Impact Fee Refunds 8421102 237,606$ -$ -$ 237,606.45$ Grand Total 273,314$ 14,068$ -$ 259,246$ A Fire Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Fire Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Fire Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Fire Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Fire Allocation Remaining Appropriation Fire'sConsultant'sContract 8419202 3,079$ 3,021$ -$ 58.00 Grand Total 3,079$ 3,021$ -$ 58.00 B Parks Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Parks Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Parks Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Parks Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Parks Allocation Remaining Appropriation Waterpark Redevelopment Plan 8421402 16,959$ 1,705$ 15,254$ -$ JR Boat Ram 8420144 3,337$ -$ 3,337$ -$ Fisher Carriage House 8420130 261,187$ -$ 261,187$ -$ Park'sConsultant'sContract 8419204 2,638$ 2,596$ -$ 42$ Cwide Dog Lease Imp 8418002 23,262$ 23,000$ -$ 262$ Rosewood Dog Park 8417013 1,056$ -$ -$ 1,056$ Jordan R 3 Creeks Confluence 8417018 1,570$ -$ -$ 1,570$ Jordan R Trail Land Acquisitn 8417017 2,946$ -$ -$ 2,946$ 9line park 8416005 16,495$ 855$ 11,007$ 4,633$ ImperialParkShadeAcct'g 8419103 6,398$ -$ -$ 6,398$ Rich Prk Comm Garden 8420138 12,431$ 4,328$ -$ 8,103$ Redwood Meadows Park Dev 8417014 9,350$ -$ -$ 9,350$ FY Trailhead Prop Acquisition 8421403 275,000$ -$ 253,170$ 21,830$ Fisher House Exploration Ctr 8421401 455,030$ 232,995$ 199,029$ 23,006$ IF Prop Acquisition 3 Creeks 8420406 56,109$ -$ 1,302$ 54,808$ Marmalade Park Block Phase II 8417011 1,042,694$ 583,842$ 381,893$ 76,959$ Cnty #1 Match 3 Creek Confluen 8420424 254,159$ 133,125$ 8,351$ 112,683$ FY20 Bridge to Backman 8420430 156,565$ 12,273$ 26,565$ 117,728$ UTGov Ph2 Foothill Trails 8420420 122,281$ -$ 775$ 121,507$ C 9Line Orchard 8420136 156,827$ 7,983$ 6,232$ 142,612$ Three Creeks West Bank NewPark 8422403 150,736$ -$ -$ 150,736$ Historic Renovation AllenParK 8422410 420,000$ 216,397$ 43,979$ 159,624$ Rose Park Neighborhood Center 8423403 160,819$ -$ -$ 160,819$ RAC Playground with ShadeSails 8422415 179,323$ -$ 117$ 179,206$ Bridge to Backman 8418005 266,306$ 10,285$ 4,262$ 251,758$ 900 S River Park Soccer Field 8423406 287,848$ -$ -$ 287,848$ Lighting NE Baseball Field 8423409 300,000$ -$ -$ 300,000$ SLC Foothills Land Acquisition 8422413 319,139$ -$ -$ 319,139$ Parley's Trail Design & Constr 8417012 327,678$ -$ -$ 327,678$ Jordan Prk Event Grounds 8420134 428,074$ 9,343$ 19,114$ 399,617$ Wasatch Hollow Improvements 8420142 446,825$ 21,823$ 11,177$ 413,824$ Jordan Park Pedestrian Pathway 8422414 510,000$ 15,813$ 28,549$ 465,638$ Gateway Triangle Property Park 8423408 499,563$ -$ -$ 499,563$ RAC Playground Phase II 8423405 521,564$ -$ -$ 521,564$ Green loop 200 E Design 8422408 608,490$ 68,606$ 7,508$ 532,375$ Mem. Tree Grove Design & Infra 8423407 867,962$ -$ 1,016$ 866,946$ SLCFoothillsTrailheadDevelpmnt 8422412 1,304,682$ 71,182$ 17,200$ 1,216,300$ GlendaleWtrprk MstrPln&Rehab 8422406 3,177,849$ 1,007,176$ 392,984$ 1,777,688$ Pioneer Park 8419150 3,149,123$ 60,589$ 64,710$ 3,023,825$ Glendale Regional Park Phase 1 8423450 4,350,000$ -$ -$ 4,350,000$ Grand Total 21,852,274$ 2,483,916$ 2,458,717$ 16,909,641$ Streets Allocation Budget Amended Allocation Encumbrances YTD Expenditures Allocation Remaining Appropriation Values Description Cost Center Sum of Street Allocation Budget Amended Sum of Street Allocation Encumbrances Sum of Street Allocation YTD Expenditures Sum of Street Allocation Remaining Appropriation 900 S Signal Improvements IF 8422615 70,000$ -$ 70,000$ -$ 500/700 S Street Reconstructio 8412001 15,026$ 11,703$ 3,323$ -$ 9 Line Central Ninth 8418011 63,955$ -$ 63,955$ -$ Local Link Construction IF 8422606 50,000$ -$ 50,000$ -$ Trans Safety Improvements 8419007 13,473$ 13,473$ -$ -$ Corridor Transformations IF 8422608 25,398$ 25,398$ -$ -$ Trans Master Plan 8419006 13,000$ 13,000$ -$ -$ Gladiola Street 8406001 16,109$ 12,925$ 940$ 2,244$ Urban Trails FY22 IF 8422619 6,500$ -$ -$ 6,500$ Transportatn Safety Imprvmt IF 8422620 44,400$ -$ 37,016$ 7,384$ Street'sConsultant'sContract 8419203 29,817$ 17,442$ -$ 12,374$ Complete Street Enhancements 8420120 35,392$ -$ 16,693$ 18,699$ 500 to 700 S 8418016 22,744$ -$ -$ 22,744$ D 900 South 9Line RR Cross IF 8422604 28,000$ -$ -$ 28,000$ Transp Safety Improvements 8420110 58,780$ 17,300$ 8,324$ 33,156$ 1700S Corridor Transfrmtn IF 8422622 35,300$ -$ -$ 35,300$ 200S TransitCmpltStrtSuppl IF 8422602 37,422$ -$ -$ 37,422$ 300 N Complete Street Recons I 8423606 40,000$ -$ -$ 40,000$ 1300 S Bicycle Bypass (pedestr 8416004 42,833$ -$ -$ 42,833$ 400 South Viaduct Trail IF 8422611 90,000$ -$ -$ 90,000$ Neighborhood Byways IF 8422614 104,500$ -$ -$ 104,500$ Transit Cap-Freq Trans Routes 8423608 110,000$ -$ -$ 110,000$ TransportationSafetyImprov IF 8421500 281,586$ 125,893$ 34,989$ 120,704$ Indiana Ave/900 S Rehab Design 8412002 124,593$ -$ -$ 124,593$ Bikeway Urban Trails 8418003 181,846$ -$ -$ 181,846$ 200 S Recon Trans Corridor IF 8423602 252,000$ -$ -$ 252,000$ Street Improve Reconstruc 20 8420125 780,182$ 11,688$ 385,185$ 383,309$ IF Complete Street Enhancement 8421502 625,000$ -$ -$ 625,000$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8419008 450$ -$ -$ 450$ Traffic Signal Upgrades 8421501 836,736$ 55,846$ 43,283$ 737,607$ 700 South Phase 7 IF 8423305 1,120,000$ -$ -$ 1,120,000$ 1300 East Reconstruction 8423625 3,111,335$ 995,636$ 144,072$ 1,971,627$ Grand Total 8,267,668$ 1,301,595$ 857,780$ 6,108,293$ Total 30,396,335$ 3,802,601$ 3,316,497$ 23,277,237$ E = A + B + C + D TRUE TRUE TRUE TRUE $1,725,882 UnAllocated Budget Amount 8484001 1,061,156$ 8484002 23,570,017$ 8484003 8484005 15,534,954$ 5,248,024$ Public Lands Legislative Intent Presented by Kristin Riker It is the intent of the Council that the Administration provide an estimate of the funding that would be needed to adequately maintain all of the City's public lands. This estimate should include the number of FTEs, as well as supplies, equipment, and appropriate signage 1.Evolving our Workforce 2.Match the growth of the City with the growth of our Public Lands System 3.Address the City’s Public Lands’ aging infrastructure 4.Improve stewardship capacity 5.Resolve structural imbalance 6.Urban Forest resilience 7.Reduce or eliminate crime and antisocial behaviors in parks, golf courses, trails, and natural lands. Evolving our Workforce •Curfew Violations & Safety Concerns •Seasonal Staffing Changes (ACA) •Increasing Demands on Supervisors & Managers •TNL –1 Supervisor 2 FTE’s 2000 acres of land to maintain. Challenges •Health Insurance (& pension) for PT Employees. Not fiscally feasible •Increase Seasonal Salaries $13.15 -$17Hr. –Completed in FY23, THANK YOU Mayor and Council •Afternoon Park Crews •Parks Squad –Enforce Park Curfew •Parks Construction Inspectors, Natural Resource Technicians & Restoration Ecologist •Full Time Conversion •Add FT Natural Resource Techs to expand TNL capacity and improve ecological health & resiliency Solutions Growth Gap: Matching Population Growth with Growth of Parks System •Growing Population •Slow System Expansion •Insufficient Planning and Project Delivery Capacity Challenges •Acquisition Plan •Strategic Capital Plan –Funded in FY23 •Planned Growth –Updating & Using Plans •Parks Bond –Reimagining Our Parks •3 Additional Planners Solutions Address the City’s Aging Infrastructure •Previous years without investment; irrigation, playgrounds, lighting etc. •Backlog of Asset Replacement Challenges •Asset Conditions Assessment and Management Plan •Upgrading Irrigation Systems •Large Equipment Replacement Solutions Improve Stewardship through Partnership Development & Community Engagement •Lack of property management /“General” Plans •Limited staff capacity •Data Collection Challenges •Community Park Activation Grants •Enhance/Develop Partnerships •Expand budget dedicated to stewardship activities •Expand data collection software and staffing capacity Solutions Resolve Structural Imbalances •Increasing number of properties to maintain Challenges •New Properties and Amenities •Public Way Beautification •1,000 Tree Initiative –Resolved FY23 Budget Solutions Urban Forest Resilience •Most public trees exist next to residential and commercial properties •More trees and customer requests Challenges •Tree Preservation Coordinator –Resolved in FY23 Budget •Additional Arborist Crew •Golf course tree maintenance •Storm damage response and recovery •Urban Wood Reutilization –Partially Resolved with 2022 Sales Tax Bond Solutions Reduce or Eliminate Crime & Antisocial Behaviors in Public Spaces •Involve the Community in the Design Process Started through GO Bond Reimagine Neighborhood Parks •Visibility •Activity & Life •Park Rangers –Resolved in FY 22 Amendment •Animal Services Current Strategies Summary One-Time On-Going New FTEs Notes/Other Goal 1.Evolving our Workforce Add afternoon Parks Crew $120,000 $598,000 7 Convert Part-time to full-time employees $696,000 $1,367,925 21 7 new FTE for each year (total of 3 years) Add Park Inspector $72,500 $116,000 1 Trails and Natural Lands Operations Expansion $585,000 $1,116,195 12 Off-Duty Police Officers Overtime Pay $400,000 0 Goal 2.Grown Gap:Matching Growth with Growth Public Lands Acquisition Plan &Strategic Capital Plan $300,000 N/A Costs do not include Strategic Plan, already funded. Additional Planning Team Members $7,500 $392,458 3 Goal 3.Address the City’s Aging Infrastructure Begin regular cycle of asset replacement $5,000,000*May increase 5-10%annually Irrigation System Replacement (14 properties)$13,061,148**$2,000,000*** Large Equipment Replacement Cycle $3,322,576 Golf Division Irrigation System Replacement at Three Courses $11,850,000 Goal 4.Improve Stewardship through Partnerships Development Community Park Activation Grants $55,000 $125,000 1 1 vehicle,equipment &office supplies Increase budget for general communications,engagement,and volunteerism activities $25,000 One-time equipment purchases for enhanced outreach capacity (vehicle, trailers, etc.)$125,000 Enhanced Park Usage Data Gathering $70,000 Goal 5.Resolve Structural Imbalances Weed Abatement $290,000 $326,695 Goal 6.Urban Forest Resilience Additional Arborist Crews $457,500 $202,800 2 Temporary $100,000 for three years Golf Course Arborists $457,500 $202,800 2 $100,000 for three years Storm Damage &Recovery $160,000 Revolving Account Urban Wood Reutilization $3,777,500 $171,500 1 Goal 7.Reduce or Eliminate Crime and Antisocial Behavior Two Animal Service Officers (SLCO)$150,000 $275,000 2 TOTALS:$35,435,224 $10,602,075 54 $2,360,000+ Thank you! 0 Response to Legislative Intent Request Prepared by Public Lands Administration January 6, 2023 1 Table of Contents Introduction Legislative Intent ................................................................................................................... 2 Importance of Parks ...................................................................................................................................... 2 A Commitment to Stewardship..................................................................................................................... 3 Goal 1. Evolving our Workforce .................................................................................................................... 4 Goal 2. Growth Gap: Matching Growth with Growth ................................................................................. 10 .......................................................................................... 15 Goal 4. Improve Stewardship through Partnership Development and Community Engagement ............. 21 Goal 5. Resolve Structural Imbalances........................................................................................................ 23 Goal 6. Urban Forest Resilience .................................................................................................................. 24 Goal 7: Reduce or Eliminate Crime and Antisocial Behavior in our Public Spaces ..................................... 27 Summary Table ...........................................................................................................................................0 2 During the FY21-22 budget session, Salt estimate of the funding needed to maintain all the City's public lands. This estimate should include the allenges that have led to existing conditions, projects, processes, and funding needed to maintain Sal Public Lands. Public Lands Department Mission and Vision Statements Mission: We enhance the livability of the urban environment through a diverse network of natural open spaces, recreational opportunities, park facilities, city golf landscapes, the city cemetery, and urban forest to ensure the resources under our management are stewarded carefully for future generations. Vision: To create a lively system of connected public landscapes and living infrastructure that enhances lity of life. 3 Acres of Natural Lands and 6,423 Acres of Foothills Natural Area, 86,500 Urban Forest Trees throughout our city, 6 City Golf Courses, over 70 miles of trails 609 Acres of parks and outdoor civic areas including the city cemetery and sports complex. Parks make cities and towns pleasant places to live and work and are essential for the physical, social, environmental, and economic well-being of the community and people. They improve health by creating spaces for physical activity, play, enjoyment of nature, and mental respite. In the National Park and Recreation Ass the author explains that the closer people live to a park or green space, they are likely to experience less stress and are more likely to walk or bike to that space to use it for physical activity and outdoor enjoyment. Parks have so many benefits, some include: Collecting and treating stormwater, cleaning the air, absorbing up carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses to reduce the urban heat island effect, and mitigating storm surge and flooding. Increasing home values, attracting economic investment, and attracting and retaining residents, visitors, and businesses. Supporting habitats for plants and animals. Providing venues for social interaction, community expression and civic engagement. Creating areas where individuals and communities are healthier, happier, and more economically and environmentally sustainable and resilient. The health, environmental, and economic benefits of our public green spaces and the rise in park use after COVID-19 shed light on the importance of our green spaces. We thank the Council for inquiring about what is needed to maintain this precious resource. e of public lands now and managing resources to protect public lands for future communities of people, involving funding deficiencies, aging infrastructure, growth of the City, staffing restraints, extreme weather events, and increasing crime and antisocial behavior. We are constantly balancing the needs of daily lawful park users and those using the park for disorderly behaviors and to commit crimes. Additional factors that contribute to the quality of th the physical condition and age of our assets, accessibility, perceptions of safety, relevance to the community served, and the adaptability of the asset to changing circumstances. Innovative and environmentally based approaches to improving our public lands are essential to make long-term changes for the maintenance and security concerns of today. A well-designed and well-used public space promotes community support and directly relates to increased use. Research by The 4 of park use and the perception of security: the larger the number of visitors involved in positive activities, the more likely anti-social behavior is deterred. and park appearance. In some instances, this led to a decrease in constructive, legal park use and the decay of safety perception. With these influences, the natural progression is increased crime and anti- social behaviors occurring in our public spaces. The public's perception of safety and their desire to use the space are linked closely to several factors: does the public space meet the needs of users; is the park, trail, or golf course diverse and interesting; does it connect people with their community; does the public green space look well-kept and cared for; and can it provide visitors with a positive image and experience. With these factors in mind, we created the following goals to adequately maintain all lands: 1. Evolving our Workforce 2. Match the growth of the City with the growth of our Public Lands System 3. Add aging infrastructure 4. Improve stewardship capacity 5. Resolve structural imbalance 6. Urban Forest resilience 7. Reduce or eliminate crime and antisocial behaviors in parks, golf courses, trails, and natural lands. Reimagine Nature Master Plan Addresses Financial and Human Capital local environmental stewardship actions. Salt Lake City demographic trends share that more households are falling below the affordability threshold for living and working in Salt Lake City. North American cities with similar demographic trends struggle to balance the delivery of equal quality of life amenities (e.g., well-maintained public lands) with a greater percentage of the population needing additional support to access those amenities equitably. Additionally, historical areas experiencing inequity are magnified and struggle even more to catch up with quality and community stewardship of public spaces in affluent neighborhoods. From an individual to an agency perspective, the Public Lands Department also faces steep challenges balancing resources and keeping up with needs. As the City perpetually grows, the Public Lands service gap could continuously widen. With over 30,000 new residents expected to move to Salt Lake City by 2040, additional staff will be needed to maintain current staffing levels per capita. 5 How We Got Here Reduction in Seasonal Staffing It has become increasingly more difficult to hire seasonal employees as SLC residents look for work with higher pay, full-time employment, health care, and retirement savings plans. Historically, the organization has relied on seasonal employees, working 9 to 10 months per year, to fill the increase in seasonal demands for maintenance during warmer months. When the Affordable Care Act (ACA) was signed into law in March of 2010, it significantly impacted how the Public Lands Divisions could hire and retain seasonal employees. Under ACA, employees that work 40 hours a week must be provided health insurance or terminated after six months of employment. Public Lands operations begin in March and end in November (approximately nine months), this leaves a 3-month gap in the seasonal labor hours needed to maintain our parks and natural areas. Rising Wages and Challenging Work Conditions Public Lands employees are on the front lines of dealing with the daily realities of homelessness, increasing drug activity, and crime. Park staff are confronted with law violations every day: stolen property (copper wire removed from light poles, catalytic converters from equipment, theft from personal cars), abandonment of property, damaging property (young and mature tree branches, and wooden benches broken to build fires; irrigation heads broken to stop watering at night; fires in restrooms), drug use and dealing, illegal fires, human defecation, littering, and threats to personal safety. Despite the pay, these pressures have led some of our part-time and seasonal employees to quit after only a few days of working. Several of our full-time employees have also left due to the safety of their work conditions. Within the past five years, full-time park senior groundskeepers and the groundskeeper positions have gone from coveted positions with multiple in-house applications to a difficult-to-fill position with an average of 5 to 10 vacancies over the last year. Because of these issues, it has been increasingly difficult to keep and retain part-time and full-time Park Groundskeepers who are the backbone of labor for ongoing maintenance and landscaping. Groundskeepers begin their workday at 6:00 am during the week and on weekends. They are responsible for: cleaning public restrooms, clearing trash cans, weeding beds, mowing lawns, and spraying fertilizer and herbicide. In 2020 when this report was initially conceived, these positions started at $13.15/hr. for Groundskeepers and $14.89/hr. for Senior Groundskeepers. Since then, Public Lands and HR performed a market analysis and compared it to the current condition's contemporary designation to a Parks Landscape Maintenance Technician. The result of this analysis was a rename of titles for both positions. The market analysis and reclassification have added an additional tier of career development (Park Maintenance Technician I, II, and II). The third tier incentivizes increased training to better staff skills, while supporting employee development. In working with HR, Public Lands adjusted the pay scale to better align with the higher pay of similar positions in Utah. The adjustments made are a starting wage of $16.73/hr. for Park Maintenance I and $18.30/hr. for Park Maintenance Technician II. With the approval of the FY23 budget, Council adopted the increase of part- starting wage to $17.00 per hour. Although the new pay ranges are appreciated, they do not fully address the discrepancy in working conditions in Salt Lake City as compared to other Utah cities. A more 6 accurate analysis should compare the Salt Lake City job market to other intermountain west cities indicating that our Park Maintenance Technician salary is still under compared to the market. Unsheltered homelessness has forced thousands of people to sleep, eat, and live in public green spaces. The parks, trails, and natural areas have become temporary homes for many individuals facing poverty, substance addiction, mental illness, servitude, and other social concerns. Residing in these public green spaces, however, creates a significant increase in maintenance challenges and a sense of frustration for The added time people spend in parks and along our greenways produces significantly more trash and human waste and significan bility to clean restrooms, pavilions, and where camping occurs. The pronounced impacts are an increase in trash, vandalism, fire, and environmental impacts. The less obvious are the concerns for employees. In terms of personal health and safety, this has significantly impacted staff retention and recruitment. This is the top priority and a challenge to adequately maintain our public green spaces. Increasing Demand on Parks Supervisors & Operations Managers Parks Division Supervisors are responsible for managing, delegating, and monitoring the work of their team members out in the field. During the peak season, park supervisors hire additional seasonal employees to cover the entire park. Parks employees are managing more special events, loading, tracking, and signing off on electronic work orders (Cartegraph), spending and monitoring district budgets, and communicating more often with the public. Parks Operations Managers are needed to provide input on project development, construction, management, and reviews previously managed by Engineering. Parks staff found that, despite written standards and policies for construction, delivered projects did not meet specifications without the oversight of a knowledgeable parks maintenance supervisor. The addition of a Parks Project Inspector to the Parks team would concentrate on construction project reviews and inspections similar to how Public Utilities manages their construction inspections and allow Operations Managers to better oversee supervisors and daily operations. Finding Solutions Public Lands hires employees from every skill and education range. Unskilled positions are the most country, the number of open jobs each month is higher than the number of people looking for work. The question is how to make Salt Lake City jobs For several years, our work crews have been continuously short-handed; and our full-time staff members are facing increased performance demands. Public Lands has opted to hire more seasonal and part-time employees to address staffing demands. However, this solution also has its shortfalls. Finding employees who only want six months of employment or a 20-hour work week is challenging. In addition to the short duration of employment, some seasonal employees do not take the job seriously. We often have seasonal staff that quit unexpectedly, switching to a different job which creates high turnover in the middle of the season. Lastly, a short period of employment leaves little training time for new employees and means that our supervisors spend much of their time training new people on the same skills every year. 7 Solution Options and Costs Increase seasonal salaries from the current $13.15 lowest wage to $17.00 lowest wage. (Complete with FY23 Budget) The benefit of this option is continued seasonal flexibility and cost savings for the city in healthcare and retirement benefits. This approach may not resolve the problem of finding employees who want seasonal positions. Turnover, increased supervisor time to complete hiring paperwork, and training are all challenges with this system. In the FY23 budget, Public Lands requested an additional $554,700 to add $4.00 per hour to all part-time and seasonal employees. Next Step Use market analysis that measures the Salt Lake City job market salaries to comparable other intermountain west cities with similar challenges Hire twice as many part-time employees (20 or less hours per week) and keep them year-round. This option has been effective in some instances. Staff who work year-round are more reliable, are a consistent workforce, and training is only required once. However, it still presents the challenges of finding employees who only want a 20-hour work week. Other strategies Public Lands uses are Retention Bonuses, Signing Bonuses, and Training for Career Enhancement. Attrition savings covers these strategies. Provide seasonal or part-time employees health insurance or Health Reimbursement Account for a 9- month period. This strategy grants employees access to healthcare provides better health outcomes and improves productivity for SLC Employees. It could increase loyalty and our rate of return/retention. It also satisfies ACA rules so seasonal employees could be hired for 9-month periods, provisionally. Unfortunately, the cost of this approach can be close to the same as hiring all full-time employees. Provision of healthcare to SLC Employees triggers a costs of Tier 1, 20.46%, and Tier 2, 16.69%, family. This solution is not ideal as the costs are high while not resolving other issues around recruitment, training, and excess paperwork. Afternoon Parks Crews General Park operations, mowing, irrigation repairs, trash removal, and restroom cleaning happen between 6:00 am and 3:00 pm when the park is not active, and these activities do not disrupt visitor use. However, because visitor use happens primarily between 2:00 pm and 8:00 pm, a second crew to manage visitor use, such as garbage removal and restroom cleaning, could result in a cleaner, safer park and deter criminal activity. We propose adding 7 FTEs to operate an Events Crew to focus on cleaning, events management, and minor landscaping during the active times of Liberty Park and other major parks in the City. Afternoon and Weekend Events Crew (FY24 Costs) Ongoing costs: $598,000 One-time cost: $120,000 Pros: Recruitment and retention Cons: Cost. 8 Park Inspector The addition of a Parks Inspector to the Parks Division would provide targeted oversight of construction design and implementation within Parks to ensure safety and other municipal specifications are met. This position would be important given the numerous upcoming planned projects both within Public Lands and other City Departments that require Public Lands maintenance services, including Transportation and Public Utility projects. Ongoing costs: $116,000; One-time cost: $72,500 Invest in full-time employees To partially address the loss of seasonal help, the organization has moved some funding from seasonal employees to full-time. We have managed these increases in costs internally, reducing the number of seasonal FTE hours in the field to cover retirement and health care benefits. Working conditions in our parks have changed dramatically with warmer temperatures and less snow in winter months. Park staff work throughout the year as visitors use parks during the winter. When the snow does fall, full-time staff are busy clearing snow from sidewalks and trails and removing fallen tree branches when heavy wet snows come in the spring. Full-time staff offers a reliable and consistent workforce where orientation training is only required once. We propose a multi-year conversion of some seasonal groundskeeper positions to full-time employees. As part of a three-year phased approach, we propose to add 7 full-time Parks Maintenance Technicians in the first year, 7 FTEs in the second year, and 7 FTEs in the third year. Phase Full-Time FTE (New) Full-Time FTE's Cost (New) Seasonal Dollar Decrease (offset) Ongoing operational costs Total Ongoing Cost (New) Additional One-Time Equip Funding Required Year 1 7 $595,000 ($158,025) $19,000 $455,975 $407,000 Year 2 7 $595,000 ($158,025) $23,000 $455,975 $289,000 Year 3 7 $595,000 ($158,025) $7,000 $455,975 0 Totals 21 $1,785,000 ($474,074) $49,000 $1,367,925 $696,000 What We Have Tried Already Parks Squad and contracted security to lock restrooms at park closing. In previous years, the Salt Lake City Police Department provided a Park Squad of dedicated officers that routinely patrolled our City parks. This strategy exponentially made the work of Parks Grounds Tech safer. Clearing restrooms at closing hours eliminates morning conflicts between staff trying to clean and 9 stock restrooms and unsheltered persons who may be sleeping. Unfortunately, the Parks Squad officers were reassigned in 2021 to higher-priority duties. Since they have ceased patrolling the parks, we have experienced more vandalism of our facilities more overnight camping, and more litter throughout the parks. In an effort to fill this void, Parks hired contracted security to close restrooms in the summer of 2022. This was partially successful; however, the contractor has had a difficult time retaining staff to perform this work and has since declined this work in our parks. Next Steps - Public Lands is in conversation with SLC Police Department to reinstate police presence, closing restrooms after park curfew and altering park users to closing ours. Funds to pay police officers overtime is currently being calculated and the source of those funds is still to be determined. Trails and Natural Lands Operations: The Salt Lake City Natural Lands team provides ecological restoration and enhancement to properties, noxious and invasive weed control, data collection, litter cleanup, environmental education to visitors, and maintenance of native vegetation, landscape areas, natural surface trails, amenities, signage, and irrigation. In 2004 Salt Lake City voters passed a bond to help fund the acquisition of open space properties, and in 2008, we hired the first employee to manage those areas. Open space properties provide access to a growing population of constituents who seek respite in natural areas and protect valuable water resources and wildlife habitats. The Trails and Natural Lands team has one supervisor, two FTEs, and a small seasonal budget that manages over 2000 acres of natural lands. The limited full-time positions for Trails and Natural Lands have been mitigated in recent years through the hiring of additional part time and seasonal employees. This approach is no longer sustainable given the current staffing shortages, increased maintenance needs, and the growing portfolio of natural land properties throughout the city. The Trails and Natural Lands Program suggests a 3-5-year plan for Trails and Natural Lands to increase full-time maintenance positions to maintain the natural lands and trails throughout the city. These full- time Natural Resource Technicians would help expand the capacity and increase the program's ability to improve the ecological health and the resiliency of public green spaces. The following table represents the FTE cost, ongoing employee and equipment cost, and additional one-time equipment funding required. The following is a 3 5-year plan for Trails and Natural Lands Operational growth. Phase Full- Time FTE (New) Full-Time FTE/Seasonal Cost (New) Ongoing Employee Cost (New FTE's) Ongoing Equip Fuel Cost (New FTE's) Total Ongoing Cost (New) Additional One- Time Equip Funding Required Year 1 6 $536,195 $50,000 $24,000 $610,195 $385,000 Year 2 4 $314,000 $20,000 $24,000 $338,000 $100,000 Year 3 2 $144,000 $20,000 $24,000 $168,000 $100,000 Totals 12 $994,195 $90,000 $72,000 $1,116,195 $585,000 10 The expansion of the Trails and Natural Lands Program focuses on two key areas: Ecological health and maintenance of natural lands and foothill trails. Year 1: (1) FTE Restoration Ecologist (23) (3) FTE Senior Natural Resources Technician (19) (2) FTE Natural Resource Technicians (16) (4800 Hrs) Seasonal Crews (Foothill Trail Maintenance Seasonals) Year 2: (1) FTE Division Director (31) (3) Natural Resource Technicians (16) Year 3: (2) Natural Resource Technicians (16) No state saw its population grow by a higher percentage in the past decade than Utah. As the population grows, so will the demand for quality parks. In addition to Salt Lake City's notable downtown and residential growth, alongside our growth in neighboring districts, additional demands continue to be placed on Salt Lake City to expand and further invest in our urban parks. Growing Population Without System Expansion Leads to More People in Parks Salt Lake City is quickly growing with a growth trajectory of 7% from 2010 to 2020, adding approximately 13,000 new residents. As th its existing parks, natural lands, trails, and the maintenance required to maintain these spaces. More people in the same parks means more trash and impacts to grass and shrubs from events and heavy use. Since 2015, Salt Lake City has added three public green spaces: Imperial Park (2015; 1 acre), Allen Park (2021; 7 acres), and 3 Creeks (2021; .5 acre). While this is substantial, the 2019 Public Lands Needs Assessment indicates that Salt Lake City needs to add 94 acres of new parks by 2040 (nearly five acres of land each year) to maintain existing service levels for all residents. With the passage of the 2022 Parks, Trails and Natural Lands GO Bond, Glendale Regional Park will add 17 acres and Fleet Block will add ast over three acres, reducing the 94 needed acres to approximately 66 additional acres of new parks needed by 2040. Utah is growing faster than projections made during the Needs Assessment, and the City will need to be innovative and do even more than previously reported to meet increasing demand. The 2019 Needs Assessment also found that the downtown core lacks in green space compared to the rest of the City and identified the: Depot District, Central Business District, East Downtown, and 400 South as population growth areas of the city that will require additional open space to meet the needs of future residents. 11 Solutions Public Lands Acquisition Plan: Develop a new Public Lands Strategic Acquisition Plan to direct capital investment in new properties. Make the plan, along with a list of associated planned, ongoing, and completed projects, available to the public by publishing it on the Public Lan website. (Reimagine Nature MP Action 1.1B) ($150,000) Strategic Capital Plan: Create a Capital Facilities Plan based on cyclical asset renewal projections and asset condition inventory data from Cartegraph and other sources. Ensure the plan is adaptable to accommodate new data as well as growth in parklands and assets. Use this plan and associated data to guide funding applications for asset renewal and replacement and impact fee funding allocation. (Reimagine Nature MP Action 1.1C) ($150,000) Planned Growth: Use the Public Lands Master Plan, Needs Assessment, Impact Fee Facilities Plan, Community Master Plans, Strategic Acquisition Plan, and other city plans to guide new development, including prioritization of funding applications. Establish clear, transparent policies for ranking and prioritizing funding Capital Improvement and Impact Fee funding applications, including incorporating feedback from the Public Lands citizen advisory board. (Reimagine Nature MP Action 1.1B) Parks Bond: Pass a Parks Improvement Bond to fund the restoration, improvement, and redevelopment of the Fisher Mansion, Warm Springs Plunge, Raging Waters, Fleet Block, Fairmont Park defunct tennis courts, George Allen Home, the City Cemetery, and other iconic spaces and structures to enrich our parks. (Reimagine Nature MP Strategy 1.1 A). (Partially Complete with the passage of Sales Tax Bond and General Revenue Bond of 2022.) Insufficient Planning and Project Delivery Capacity The Salt Lake City Public Lan ces have historically been focused primarily on field operations, with staff positions organized around landscape maintenance. One of the most notable areas of growth in Public Lands in recent years has been in public lands planning and capital projects management. This has allowed the Department to better create new public lands for all to enjoy. The Department currently has three FTEs dedicated to planning and project management. This includes two Public Lands Planners and one Planning Manager. The Depart the development, engagement, design, and delivery of capital projects, including new assets, asset replacement, and property acquisition. They are also responsible for non-capital planning (master plans, strategic plans, property management plans, and improvement plans), development of departmental policies and best practices, asset inventory and asset management, resolution of encroachments, and other challenges related to zoning, easements, and property rights, grant writing, community engagement, and coordination with other departments and agencies. While the growth of our public lands system is not matching our population growth, a renewed focus on additions to the green space system and improvement of infrastructure has still created a significant backlog of critical Public Lands projects. A welcome surge of funding through Capital Improvement Projects, quickly accruing Impact Fees, the pursuit of bond funding (in 2022), and ARPA funding have allowed the City to begin many exciting capital projects for new and improved amenities in the park system. Revenues and grants benefiting the Public Utilities Department and the Transportation Division, 12 combined with support from the Mendenhall Administration and City Council, have also led to similar stormwater infrastructure, which also expands the assets under the maintenance jurisdiction of Public Lands. ressure on the planning side of Public Lands. Public Lands planners coordinate with Engineering on over 100 open or immediately upcoming projects in various stages of development. The minimum staff time required to advance currently funded capital projects is approximately three times the staff time available*. In other words, there is a capacity gap of at least five planning FTE staff. This shortfall in capacity results in significant project implementation backlogs, which impact project timelines and costs. It also negatively impacts the quality of public engagement in the planning and design processes and the quality of implemented projects. Park Impact Fees continue to accrue at pace with new development in SLC, and funding of significant new Public Lands projects is expected with the bond passage as well as annually with CIP. In conjunction with the growing capital replacement ne property, assets, and facilities, Public Lands anticipates an increase in backlogged projects if capacity challenges are not adjusted. The Salt Lake City Transportation Division structure for project delivery and planning is a model that could be used to provide context to this planning capacity challenge within Public Lands. The Transportation Project Delivery and Strategic Planning & Programming teams have 11 FTE positions, including the two team/section managers. This will increase to 15 FTE positions with the addition of four new transportation planners tasked with implementing the Livable Streets Program (or 17 FTEs, including the Data/Safety Section Manager and the existing data analyst positions). *Backup Calculations: Current structure of Public Lands Planning & Projects Team: (1) Planning Manager (Tom Millar) + (2) Planners (Kat Maus, and Makaylah Respicio-Evans). Remaining staff capacity needed: Concept development and fundraising for new plans and projects Recurring Internal (non-CIP) Planning and Policy Development Capital Facilities and Asset Replacement Plan & Management and Asset Condition Inventory Park Audits Park Usage Data Collection & Public Survey Data Annual CIP Process Management Community & Stakeholder Engagement Public Communications and Information Requests Internal Communications and Coordination External (City & Non-City) Project and Interagency Coordination Process Improvement, SOP/Best Practices Development Encroachment Resolution & Property Defense Strategic Acquisition Plan & acquisition negotiation, Lot Consolidations, Rezoning & ROW Vacation 13 Climate Resilience and Adaptive Strategies Plan, Irrigation Renovation Plan, Drought Management Plan, Invasive Pest Management Plan Master plans for all Regional and Special Event parks, Improvement Plans for community, neighborhood/mini-parks, and nature parks and natural open spaces Contract Development, RFP Development & Review Partnership Development Meetings, Administration, Trainings Minimum weekly hours per project are based on the anticipated extent of community engagement, uniqueness of the project (availability of local or regional precedents), project scale, and technical complexity. Current Planning Workload: The Public Lands Department Planning Team (two planners and one planning manager) are tasked with funding applications, project engagement and development, cross-departmental coordination, and project implementation tasks required to deliver approximately 100 active or upcoming projects. These projects vary in funding size, complexity, and time required for planning and engagement. In addition, greater demands on our public lands system, higher standards for public involvement, more opportunities to collaborate with external partners, and dramatic increases in capital funding mean that planning and pr ity. Solutions: Additional Planning Team Capacity: o Five additional full-time planners are required to better manage the existing project backlog as well as expected and necessary future projects. This is particularly important with the approval of the Sales Tax Bond (Aug 2022) and the passage of the GO Bond (Nov 2022). o Salt Lake City Council has approved two of the five planners needed through an FY23 budget amendment to immediately begin bond-related projects before the beginning of FY23-24. The remaining three planners will be requested through the annual budget process. o This will bring the Public Lands Planning Team to eight total FTEs: seven planners and one planning manager. 14 Phase Full- Time FTE (New) Full-Time FTE's Cost (New) Ongoing Employee Cost for (New FTE's) Ongoing Equip Fuel Cost (New FTE's) Total Ongoing Cost (New) Additional One-Time Equip Funding Required Year 1 Budget Amendment 2 $225,435 $2,000 $4,000 $231,400 $54,000 Year 1 Budget Insight 3 $347,760 $22,000 $4,000 $373,760 $61,500 Totals 5 $573,195 $24,000 $8,000 $605,160 $115,500 Re-Imagine Neighborhood Parks (Design and Crime): The original design decisions developed decades ago only provided aesthetically pleasing green spaces where visitors could gather, recreate, and relax in a natural environment. However, design risk factors that contribute to crime, societal deviations that lead to changing uses, and user conflicts weren't considered. Until recently, planners and landscape architects didn't consider crime prevention as part of the design process. (With the passage of the GO Bond, $11,500,000 is now dedicated to neighborhood parks. The park designs will focus on improving community connectivity, reflecting neighborhood culture, increasing maintenance, and water efficiencies, and reducing criminal activity that leads to diminished park use.) Capital Strategic Plan. This plan will outline a roadmap to implement the Reimagine Nature Master Plan, developing a comprehensive guide for use of impact fees, funding requests to the Council, and the direction of existing resources. The strategies identified in this plan will prioritize projects based on public engagement, demographic analysis, and identify underserved areas. (Plan Funded in 2022, anticipated start: Spring 2023) Park Master Plans to include activity generators and amenities that draw in the community and activate the park are essential. Park master plans need to be updated to generate activity ar other activity generators such as concession stands. Develop written management plans for all significant public land properties, including Community, Regional & Special Event Parks, and Natural Areas, which incorporate data collection and adaptive management goals. (Reimagine Nature MP Action 1.1B) Regional Parks: Liberty Park (Funded and will begin in Spring 2023) Regional Athletic Complex Glendale Regional Park (Master Plan Complete 2022) Jordan River Corridor (Funded, will begin in 2023) 15 Community Parks: Jordan Park & International Peace Gardens (Application planned for FY24) Memory Grove (Application planned for FY24) Riverside Park Rosewood Park Fairmont Park (Completed 2016) Jordan River Par 3 Warm Springs (Completed in 2017) Allen Park (Funded, will begin in 2022) Westpointe Park Donner Park 1700 South River Park Sherwood Park Poplar Grove Park Lindsay Gardens Miller Park Hidden Hollow (Completed 1998) Washington Square Herman Franks Popperton Park 900 South River Park Upper Washington Park Wasatch Hollow Park (Master Plan for Preserve Complete 2014) With the recent completion of the Reimagine Nature Public Lands Master Plan, planning and project implementation needs within the Public Lands system will continue to grow. The master plan recommends developing master plans for all Regional and Special Event parks and improvement plans for the community, neighborhood parks, mini-parks, nature parks, and natural open spaces. As part of managing our urban park systems, choices are made for resource allocation and a further understanding of how that allocation can vary across parks within the city. With each park being unique in size, visitor use, amenities, and needs for resources, including maintenance, there is no single prescriptive solution to manage all of Salt Lake City's public lands. Additional data collection and research; and an inventory assessment of Public Land's investments and conditions are needed to determine an appropriate method to address the backlog of maintenance costs and planning efforts. Growth without Investment & Aging Infrastructure Previous years of disinvestment have resulted in the decline of SLC parks. Fortunately, this has not been the case in the past four years since the Department has seen a resurgence in investment to increase staffing levels and needed resources. Previous decades, however, of reductions in staffing, operations 16 ility to maintain public spaces and have slowly worn down. The resulting decline, primarily in capital renewal, conveys the wrong message from city administration to residents suggesting that the areas are g, and alcohol use) tolerated. Negative park experiences lead to reduced legitimate uses, which increase opportunities for crime and disorder within parks. The community perceives these types of parks as unsafe, and this perception is now the reality in some urban public spaces within Salt Lake City. The 2022 Public Lands Master has identified 63% of Public Lands assets are in poor or fair condition (PLMP 14). Much of our infrastructure is at or past life expectancy, increasing the risk of failure. The aging of irrigation systems, playgrounds, and lighting systems forces staff to spend more time fixing and "band- aiding" old systems to keep facilities functional. These repairs cause a slowing of maintenance staff to respond to problems of vandalism, littering, and broken infrastructure. If the aging systems are not replaced, the backlog will become too much for the regular system to replace. Asset Replacement Historically the Department has not had sufficient resources to address asset replacement needs as citywide park amenities and assets reach the end of their useful lives, resulting in a backlog of assets that need replacement. Public Lands utilizes a software application called Cartegraph to track all Public Lands assets within our parks and public lands. Cartegraph houses data on our assets, including their install date, estimated condition, useful lifespan, and the location of amenities throughout the City. The implementation of this software is relatively new, and it is important to acknowledge the current gaps in data due to the relatively recent installation of this application. However, we are continuing to refine and add information to the program to create a comprehensive picture of the current asset conditions of Public Lands. Based on the data that Public Lands has to date within this application, we are actively tracking nearly 6,000 assets and amenities. This number will continue to grow as new capital improvement projects get completed, new amenities and assets are added to the parks, and we capture all assets within Cartegraph. We look at several data points housed in Cartegraph to assess asset replacement needs: type of asset, number of assets per type in the Public Lands inventory, current cost to replace each asset or amenity, and the estimated useful lifespan of the asset. We have used the current data of these over 6,000 assets these categories of data, Public Lands will require upwards of $5 million annually to begin a regular cycle of asset replacement, not including asset repairs or maintenance. Please note that this number does not include the backlog of replacement needs the department currently has but estimates the amount required to establish a regular replacement schedule based on asset lifespan. Additionally, while it is nearly impossible to predict inflation and escalation of materials, in general, we can expect this number to increase by upwards of 5-10% annually. This number also does not include incidental replacements caused by unexpected events but only considers asset replacement as they exceed their useful life with no significant additional damage. 17 Solutions Asset Conditions Assessment and Management Plan The Department submitted and was awarded an FY23 CIP application to hire a consultant to deliver an -driven detailed report that will determine asset condition, replacement, renewal, and deferred maintenance needs in the system citywide. The evaluation will also help us understand five essential elements: physical condition, accessibility, positive experiences for visitors, relevance to the communities served, and adaptability to changing circumstances. The plan will give visibility of the costs and benefits associated with improvements and propose maintenance and replacement or disposal of each asset in the system. (Plan funded in 2022, anticipated start in 2023) Upgrade Irrigation Systems Irrigation systems are a growing asset category that will continue to present significant challenges to Public Lands in the face of continual drought. Many of our Public Lands irrigation systems were designed decades ago and provide overhead irrigation water to ing drought conditions, Public Lands are required to reduce watering, and this presents a significant threat to our existing urban forest. Without regular water during the summer months trees within the park system are at risk of suffering and eventual death. The establishment of root watering systems that waters tree directly while being able to reduce overhead watering is standard practice for all new project implementation, but old irrigation systems must eventually be modified or replaced. A future asset management plan will provide accurate cost estimates for replacing old irrigation systems within the public lands inventory and is anticipated to cost $2 million annually for 10 years to upgrade these systems. The following are the irrigation systems that need to be replaced immediately alongside 2022 estimated costs: 1300 East Greenbelt east & west side ($498,000) 1200 East Islands ($565,000) 8th W Islands ($392,000) 600 East Islands ($296,733) 700 East Greenbelt 1300 South-2100 South (UDOT Property) ($800,000) North Gateway needs a new meter ($75,000) Memory Grove Back of Restroom Northeast ($110,000) Fife Wetlands (TBD) Jordan River Parkway ($3,805,401) Poplar Grove ($1,268,467) Herman Franks ($1,866,458) Miller Bird Refuge ($1,118,969) Ensign (TBD) Washington Square ($2,265,120) Funding will be needed to establish a Park Strip, Median and Park Irrigation Water Reduction Strategy. 18 Use of Impact Fees, Funding our Future Dollars, and Capital Improvement Funds Capital Asset Replacement - CIP Funding streams for the replacement of capital assets and amenities currently include CIP dollars and bond funds only. Examples include the replacement of a playground, pavilion, or tennis court surface. Maintenance Funding FOF & General Fund In FY22-23, Public Lands received $2 million in Funding our Future FOF dollars. This funding is only for maintenance, repairs, and replacement of existing amenities. Large capital projects should be routed through the CIP process. Basic operations funding is the Departmen resources. Examples of use include repairing a roof, broken concrete, fence repairs, and electrical line repairs. New Service Amenities Impact Fee Impact Fees are for amenities and acquisitions that add green space and recreational services to the public lands system. Examples include adding a new restroom, park, or playfield where there previously was no restroom, park, or playfield. Large Equipment Replacement Salt Lake City has made significant strides toward increasing funding for equipment replacement by utilizing funding our future dollars. The Fleet replacement funds are not adequate to replace Public sed on the 15-point replacement schedule. Large area mowers can cost more than $180,000; utility vehicles $30,000; trucks, loaders, lifts, haulers, and tractors range from $30K-$80K. Currently, the Division of Parks has 36 essential vehicles and equipment that are at or over the ideal replacement schedule, suffering from repetitive breakdowns and incurring high maintenance costs. We recommend a significant preliminary investment for two years to provide the Division of Parks with adequate and fully functional heavy equipment and vehicles over a two-year timeframe to keep our sta Afterward, large equipment would need to follow a regular replacement schedule to keep up with needs. This funding should be placed in the Fleet Division budget designated to meet Public Lands equipment needs. First Year - $1,654,524 Second Year - $1,668,052 19 Benefits of Golf Courses as Green Space Golf courses provide many benefits to City residents and visitors, including, but not limited to, the following: A healthy recreational outlet for residents of all ages and enhancement to the overall quality of life. Golf is a game that promotes healthy life skills, such as courtesy, judgment, honesty, integrity, sportsmanship, respect, confidence, responsibility, and perseverance. A venue to attract visitors and prospective residents. Creates a good reflection on the image/brand of the city and community. Enhances local property values. Golf-related jobs and income to the community through purchases, wages, and taxes. An exceptional venue for scholastic use in practice rounds and tournaments. A venue for hosting public meetings, charity tournaments, and other fundraising activities Winter access to spaces when not in use by golfers include walking, snowshoeing, dog walking, and cross-country skiing. In addition to providing quality recreation amenities and economic benefits to the community, the golf course ecosystem: Captures and cleanses runoff in urban areas. Provides wildlife habitat. Protects topsoil from water and wind erosion. Improves community aesthetics. Absorbs and filters rain. Improves air quality via trees, turf, and other plants. Discourages pests and reduces weed incursions and negative pollen releases. Makes substantial contributions to the community's economy. The Golf Division manages 1,012 acres of open space operating six locations and 108 holes of golf, five investments to improve and maintain these green spaces. rimary responsibility is to make revenue to support fund significant capital reinvestment into its operations beyond basic maintenance and emergency repairs. As a result, many critical infrastructure assets are beyond useful life status and are on life support via countless workarounds. For example, a typical golf course irrigation system is designed to be replaced after 30 years. Listed by age below are the current ages of each City course: Rose Park: 64 years old (some lateral lines and heads updated in 1982, controllers updated in 2020) Nibley Park: Over 60 years old for most of course - best estimate (still manually irrigated with quick couplers) 20 Mountain Dell: Some sections of course are 55 years old, other areas are 33 - best estimate (new controllers updated in 2020) Forest Dale: Over 36 years old - best estimate (in process of upgrading controllers) Glendale: 25 years old (controllers updated 6 years ago) Bonneville: 6 years old (entire system replacement) The Golf Division has at least three courses with irrigation systems that could potentially have catastrophic failure without immediate investment. Rose Park - Projected replacement cost: $3,100,000 (2022 estimate) Nibley Park - Projected replacement cost: $1,750,000 (2022 estimate) Mountain Dell - Projected replacement cost: $7,000,000 (2022 estimate) Given the importance of turf health, quality, and desired playing conditions of customers, irrigation system investment is a vital need and important consideration for potential future sustainability. Additionally, the ongoing drought and continued growth of the area will put even more pressure on using water sensibly and efficiently. Solution: New Irrigation System Technologies Tremendous strides have been taken in recent years in the golf industry to improve irrigation system efficiency using technology, including: Using sophisticated on-site weather stations, weather reporting services, and other resources to determine accurate daily irrigation replacement needs, thus reducing over-irrigation. Improving irrigation uniformity through careful evaluation of sprinkler head design, nozzle selection, head spacing, pipe size, and pressure selection. Using state-of-the-art computerized control systems, portable hand-held controllers, and variable frequency drive pumping systems to apply water in the most efficient means to reduce water and energy consumption. A new system with a corresponding turf reduction plan equates to considerable savings in water and energy resources. For example, the proposed plan for the new irrigation system at Rose Park reduces irrigation headcount by at least 25% over the current system. Several currently irrigated areas will be re- seeded with drought-tolerant grass species, tested to perform best in the climate and soil conditions of the Rose Park golf course. The courses are projected to save 44% in overall water use with the new efficient system and reduction in irrigated turf. For the aging infrastructure of Golf assets, please see Legislative Intent for Golf Division. 21 Strategic Community Partnerships One way to significantly impr burden on the field staff is to encourage the local community to take ownership of a park through partnerships, stewardship, and programming. Increased community and partnership involvement will provide natural guardians and activation to reduce conflicts and involve formal controls when appropriate. Community Engagement The more Public Lands can engage with the community and ensure their voices and cultures are reflected in our parks and other properties, the more the community will value their public lands. This will help ensure that the community is willing to serve as stewards over our properties and partner with the department when appropriate. Through proper community engagement, we can also ensure that partnership agreements reflect the ideas of the entire community rather than specific interest groups. Current Efforts Communications & Engagement Team:rdship, partnership development, Communications & Engagement Team. This team consists of four full-time employees and 3-8 part-time or seasonal positions. This team is also responsible for event planning, communications, press and community relations, advisory board management, content development, graphic design, signage development, and other responsibilities. Volunteer, Outreach, and Engagement Team (VOE): In 2022, the VOE team left the Trails and Natural Lands Division and merged with the Communications and Engagement team to provide services across all Public Lands Divisions. The VOE team facilitates the following types of events: o Introductory Events:These experiences run from a couple of hours to a full day. They are designed to introduce stewardship concepts to individuals new to Public Lands with the aspiration to increase curiosity in outdoor stewardship and inspire a desire for continued engagement. Examples include: Riverfest, Purge the Spurge, National Days of Recognition o Community and Empowerment Events:These experiences are designed to incorporate regular tasks or site- progressive learning. Volunteers will move beyond an introductory experience into deep learning, progression, and regularity with a site/task. Examples include 9-Line Dig Days, Weed Warriors (invasive weeds removal), and Jordan River Canoe Cleanups. o Leadership/Ambassador Opportunities: These opportunities select, train, and empower volunteer leaders to share knowledge of conservation, stewardship, outdoor education, and the history of our natural areas to make an immediate social impact through offerings to the public. Examples include: 22 Trail Ambassadors Land Stewards Existing Friends of Parks Groups: parks groups in Salt Lake City. These groups vary in structure, history, nonprofit status, and missions. Public Lands continues to refine our process to recognize and form relationships with these groups. Existing Partnerships: Public Lands currently has partnership agreements with a small handful of local groups. Examples include Wasatch Community Gardens and the Tracy Aviary. Public Lands is working with a consultant to explore options for how a nonprofit could be structured initially to focus on Pioneer Park but one that could grow into an organization serving as a citywide nonprofit partner for the entire SLC public lands system. Current Partnership and Stewardship Limitations Lack of property management plans: Historically, volunteer efforts have been well-intentioned but with low impact, primarily because volunteer work has not been part of a larger strategy for managing individual properties. Staff partnering and supervising volunteer groups are only beneficial if the volunteer work ultimately reduces the maintenance burden on staff, which could be done reliably under the guidance of a property management team. Currently, very few properties have property management plans. (Reimagine Nature MP Action 1.1B) Limited staff capacity: The Communications & Engagement team manages a variety of important and time-consuming responsibilities. Because of this, the capacity to focus on stewardship and partnership development is limited. For example, the City of Austin, TX, has a team of at least five staff members focused solely on partnership development. Limited equipment and budget dedicated specifically to stewardship activities: The Communications and Engagement team uses approximately $20,000/year towards stewardship activities, advertising, and other team activities. These funds may also be used for printing inadequate to meet all dedicated volunteer activity needs. One of these vehicles is generally full of event materials (tents, tables, etc.) an Data Collection: Research and evaluation can provide critical data on our community to make informed decisions and provide greater context. Comprehensive, data-driven park quality evaluations can be powerful tools to inform City decisions on park development, design, renovation, maintenance, and programming. This information helps us know where direct dollars and staff capacity are needed most. More detailed information ab t using the park is critical to inform when and how park design is needed. Currently, Public Lands has no system in place to accurately track park use data. 23 Solutions Community Park Activation Grants The best people to program our parks are our community members. This proposed solution is a city sponsored grant program that is currently being implemented in Cincinnati parks. The program groups, community councils, or other RCOs, made up of everyday volunteer citizens in neighborhoods around the city, awarding up to 50 grants per year, totaling around $50,000. Grants would support programming and events in parks that the community dreams up, from movie nights to sharing culture through food trucks and performances. This program would require the work of one full-time employee to implement funds and oversee activities. Developing partnerships with trusted entities can activate and help maintain our properties. For example, the City has recently (September 2022) explored the creation of a partnership agreement with Home Depot to have them regularly donate materials and volunteer capacity to perform park improvement projects. Thanks to Home Depot, we have had a very successful project with the repainting and reconstruction of the pergola at Jackson Park. Projects like this save the department thousands of dollars. Growing this partnership and establishing others similar could provide thousands of dollars in benefits for the department every year. Allocating additional annual funds and supplies to the Communications and Engagement Team would empower Public Lands to facilitate enhanced stewardship program delivery and partnership development. o Additional Budget for general team expenses: $25,000 annually. o Funds for equipment purchases, including vehicles: $125,000 Some solutions to enhance capacity for data collection include purchasing cell phone data from data providers to track general trends using GPS, installing trail counters and similar technology in more properties, and bringing on more staff (seasonal/part-time, if necessary) to conduct statistically valid user counts of properties. o Cost: $40,000 annually to maintain regular access to cell phone data, or between $20,000 - $70,000 annually to gather data using other methods. In previous years, Public Lands took on new projects and tasks assigned to the department without funding. There remains a handful of continued directives that create structural imbalances due to a lack of funding. The outcome of these additional responsibilities is an increase in lag time between mowing and fertilizing, garbage removal, cleaning of restrooms, repairing lighting outages, and snow removal. The projects that follow represent these responsibilities and corresponding tasks. New Properties and Amenities Ea Parks Division has obtained sites from UDOT, the Transportation Division, and the Department of Public Utilities that were underfunded, where staffing and materials/supplies are needed to steward the new amenities. Funding requests will continue through the annual budget process to correct this imbalance. 24 Public Way Beautification Parks manages and performs citywide weed abatement on city-owned properties, such as alleyways, public right-of-way, un-landscaped park areas, and other publicly owned parcels, on a complaint basis. This function of the Parks Division utilizes materials and staffing resources earmarked for Parks ntain other sites. The Parks Division does not have a budget in Parks to perform this service. Background: In 2017, CAN and Public Services established an agreement to utilize the CAN Weeds Abatement Fund 73-03035, generated by Civil Enforcement fines. This agreement intended to be a short-term use of these funds until Parks received approved funds for their budget. In early 2020, CAN informed Public Lands that funding from this account would no longer be available for weed abatement. Parks continue to respond to citizen weed-abatement complaints utilizing staffing from park groundkeepers. FY23 Budget Initiative: $290,000 in onetime funding, and $326,695 ongoing to resolve this issue 1,000 Tree Initiative (Resolved in FY23 Budget) Over the last two fi e (where fewer trees and less shade currently exists) will be a primary focus of this robust tree planting effort. The UF Division does not have funding for the purchase of additional trees nor the staffing capacity to plan for site location and public outreach and engagement for this tree planting effort. While these efforts are important and worthy, they shift resources away from ongoing pruning, tree removals, and resident requests for service. To accommodate this additional tree planting, the Urban Forestry Division has drawn on alternative funding sources, volunteers, increased efficiency, and years of future planning efforts to accomplish our new tree planting goals. However, the tree mitigation funds - drawn from to purchase 1,000 more trees each year - are depleted. If the City is to continue planting twice as many trees, more funding is necessary. Additional staffing and budget resources are necessary to sustain an expanded annual tree planting effort from 1,100 trees per year to 2,500+ trees per year. In our FY23 budget request, Public Lands requested a 2-year investment of $150,000 to plant 1,000 trees annually. Urban Forest management is unique among the responsibilities of the Public Lands Department in that most public trees exist, not in parks and trailways but rather in residential neighborhoods. The trees of our urban forest form a vastly living infrastructure, providing an array of benefits that touch every Salt Lake City resident and visitor, not just those lucky enough to use historic urban forest is health, and quality of life. Quality maintenance and preservation of our Urban Forest will be vital as Salt Lake City faces the challenges of sustainable growth in a changing climate. 25 Tree Protection Though tree planting often gets the most publicity, tree maintenance and protection will always be the benchmarks of responsible and effective urban forest management. Trees that provide the most benefits are the larger established trees, and large urban trees result from effectual commitments to tree care and preservation. As Salt Lake City grows and develops, it is vital to prioritize the protection of mature trees during construction. While the City does require developers to account for tree protection measures on construction plans, the Urban Forestry Division has insufficient capacity to conduct timely inspections verifying tree protection requirements are implemented and sustained. Furthermore, when tree protection violations ineffective. Solution: Tree Preservation Coordinator (Resolved in FY23 Budget) This position would bolster the Urba an review, permitting, site inspections, and code enforcement associated with tree protection associated with construction and development. Tree Maintenance In the last few years, City Council funded the additional permanent tree pruning crews, which provided Urban Forestry with the resources to prune approximately 5,000 trees each year. While this increase in e pruning capacity still falls significantly short of a responsible 10-year pruning cycle (which would prune 9,000) trees annually). In addition, a series of damaging storm events over the last five years has consistently hamstrung the Urban Forestry Divis productivity. Currently, the Division is planting twice as many trees as we did three years ago, receiving more than 5,000 customer requests for service annually, and completing more than 8,000 individual work orders each year. It's an expanded level of service that is not sustainable at current staffing and resource levels. Since 2020, UF Division has seen work backlogs grow to be months long, forcing the operations team to prioritize servicing neighborhood street trees over the trees on city parks and other public lands. Solution: Additional Arborist Crews Two additional FTE arborists, and the associated crew equipment, would be sufficient to deliver timely . Ongoing $202,800, one-time funding $457,500, and a temporary 3-year investment/$100,000 year. The 3-year investment is a temporary injection of increased funding to work down backlogs of deferred tree maintenance on public lands properties and mature (large) street trees that have delayed maintenance as a result of resources being directed toward public service requests and storm damage response. The temporary funding would fund contracted tree work targeted at pruning to reduce the likelihood of future storm damage and improve the overall health of public property trees. 26 Golf Course tree maintenance does not currently fall under the responsibility of the Urban Forestry Division. However, city golf course properties present an outstanding opportunity to maximize the benefits of trees. A commitment to fund golf course tree maintenance will vastly increase the health of trees in these valuable greenspaces. With the addition of two FTE Arborists (and associated equipment), combined with the existing capability of the Urban Forestry Division, this would provide a basic level of Storm Damage Response & Recovery Damaging wind and snowstorms have become commonplace over the last decade. Currently, the Urban Forestry Division has no option but to delay other scheduled work to mobilize for storm response clean efforts, which has resulted in insurmountable work backlogs. Setting aside funding (specifically for storm response tree work) would allow the UF Division to bring in contracted crews for emergency storm work so that existing scheduled work would not be affected. Public Lands requests $160,000 for emergency funding that will sit in a special revenue fund that would be used solely for storm damage response. The Finance Department is also looking into an emergency fund for the General Fund that may include this amount for Urban Forestry. Urban Wood Reutilization Trees are large living organisms, and their cultivation (for our benefit) results in specific byproducts. With more than 87,000 maintaine removal) generate more than 2.8 million pounds of wood waste annually. As much as 90% of this waste wood could be sorted, processed, and reused to produce a wide variety of wood products. However, an overwhelming majority of this waste wood currently gets buried in landfill. The Urban Forestry Division has worked hard to make urban waste wood available for artists and other woodworkers. As a result, there have been some feel-good stories of urban wood repurposed effectively. But this is only a minute amount of the waste wood generated annually. The UF Division also continues to seek out private companies that will take our wood waste, but the sheer volume of lumber that comes out of the Ci city purchases large amounts of wood products each year that could be repurposed from urban waste wood. Solution: Develop Urban Forestry Operations Yard To divert usable wood waste from the landfill, identify and procure a location to off-load, sort, and store UF Operations Yard is looking to utilize 7-10 acres of land at River View, 1815 North Catherine Street. This parcel is undeveloped and flanked by the Jordan River to the West and Rose Park Golf Course to the South. 27 Construct UF Division equipment and materials storage facilities on a suitable site. These facilities (a large storage barn and equipment awning) would provide much-needed storage for expensive equipment used in urban forestry maintenance and wood reutilization operations. One-time: Facility, Awning, Yard Construction - $2,000,000 (This portion of the project was funded through the Sales Tax Bond and will begin design and construction in the upcoming year.) Purchase wood processing equipment. A horizontal grinder, portable sawmill, and biochar retort would be the primary equipment to transform urban waste wood into products that the city can use. Additional sorting equipment, Excavator and Frontend Loader, is needed for the transporting and loading of unprocessed waste wood and processed wood products. One-time: Wood Processing Machinery - $1,700,000 (Cannot be paid for with bond funds) -sts for this initiative will cover the operational and maintenance costs of the new facility/equipment and will allow the Urban Forestry Division to hire one (1) additional FTE. This additional employee will provide the added staff capacity to coordinate wood processing and manage product sorting, distribution, and other forestry operations duties. One-Time Equipment: Vehicle Super Duty Truck, $75,000 IMS Computer, $2,500 On-Going: (1) FTE- Crew/Yard Arborist III (Grade 21) fully loaded, $100,000 Operational Supplies, $2,500 Equipment Operation and Maintenance, $60,000 Fleet Fuel & Maintenance, $9,000 New research finds that well-designed and maintained urban parks can reduce gun violence, improve safety, and keep residents healthier. While poorly designed and maintained public spaces lead to more crime. Specific strategies are now employed to help the city guide our urban park design to make our parks safer and more pleasant. Below are the strategies we seek to implement to improve park safety through updated design work, maintenance, and services. Current Strategies Involve the Community in the Design Process When building a new park such as Glendale Water Park or re-imagining existing parks, community involvement will bring more user-friendly, culturally significant amenities and a feeling of greater ownership. Community stakeholders, individuals and the Public Lands advisory board all contribute to the design process of existing and new public lands amenities. Public Lands has added one park planner 28 and a community outreach coordinator to assist with this effort and has additional needs for five more community. Visibility Public Lands have cleared many areas in parks that have created hiding spots for crime and antisocial behavior. We have installed additional lighting at Jefferson, Madsen and Tauffer Parks with in-house labor and equipment funding. More extensive projects are still necessary and can be accomplished through park and amenity re-design in our existing parks with additional capital funding. Activity and Life New amenities and well-groomed public spaces tell potential threats that this area is meaningful to people and will push off people who are not using the space legally. Amenities that draw in the community and activate the park are essential. As previously stated, the park master plans need to be updated to generate activity throughout the park sys other activity generators such as concession stands. An active edge encourages use and creates a park surveillance perimeter. Flexible seating can give people choices in group size and direction of focus. New plans and designs encourage diversity of users and a broad range of activities (e.g., space for street vendors, entertainers, picnics, farmers markets, etc.) Current master planning projects initiated include the: Jordan River Master Plan, Liberty Park Master Plan, and Allen Park Adaptive Re-use and Management Plan. Future Master Planning projects to be submitted include Jordan Park Master Plan and Memory Grove Master Plan. Public Lands is not organized as a recreation implementation organization. The Public Lands team has one city-wide recreation events planner. Public Lands works with outside partners to encourage active programming that brings people to their parks for art, events programs, recreation, and community by permitting events and assisting public event coordinators where possible. We encourage diverse and adapted programming to represent the community culture, and we encourage the creation of social connections. Re-Imagine Neighborhood Parks outlined in the GO Bond could improve several neighborhood park amenities immensely. Public Lands continues to seek partnerships and capital funding to activate our parks. The FY23 CIP requests that can assist in activating SLC Parks include: Tennis & Pickleball Court resurfacing Playground replacements Jordan Park and Peace Gardens Master Plan Cottonwood Park Trailhead and Parking area Jordan River Roots Disc Golf & Driving Range; Planning, Design & Acquisition Library Plaza Repair and Planning/Design for event activation 11th Avenue Park Pavilion 337 Park Development 29 Park Rangers (Completed Park Rangers began working in Parks, August 24, 2022.) Park Rangers can help residents and visitors discover and explore the natural world through environmental education, outdoor recreation, wildlife management, and active conservation. They provide a presence that tells visitors that this park is safe and welcoming. A formal park surveillance can deter criminal activities and vandalism. The SLC Public Lands Ranger program is scheduled to start in the summer of 2022. Good Maintenance Good maintenance is crucial to facilitate public perception that areas are low risk. Vandalism, litter, graffiti, and broken amenities suggest a place is uncared for and possibly unsafe. The Parks, Urban Forestry, Natural Lands and Trails, and Golf Divisions work diligently to provide the best maintenance possible given the external difficulties outlined in this document. Parks Animal Services Salt Lake City manages the most dog parks in Salt Lake County, and animals-at-large (dogs off-leash) is our parks. Many visitors are not comfortable around dogs off-leash or are inconvenienced by dog owners neglecting to retrieve dog waste on paths, sports fields, and in grassy open spaces. Two additional animal control field officers would provide greater compliance for owners of dogs to follow leash laws in SLC Parks. The cost for two additional Animal Services Officers contracted through Salt Lake County is $275,000 annually, with one-time costs of $150,000 for two animal-specialized, air-conditioned trucks. 0 One-Time On-Going New FTEs Notes/Other Goal 1. Evolving our Workforce Afternoon Parks Crew $120,000 $598,000 7 Invest in full-time employees $696,000 $1,367,925 21 7 new FTE for each year (total of 3 years) Park Inspector $72,500 $116,000 1 Trails and Natural Lands Operations $585,000 $1,116,195 12 Goal 2. Grown Gap: Matching Growth with Growth Public Lands Acquisition Plan & Strategic Capital Plan $300,000 N/A Additional Planning Team $115,500 $605,160 5 Budget Amendment 2 new FTE Budget Insight FY24 3 new FTE Goal 3. Address Begin regular cycle of asset replacement $5,000,000* May increase 5-10% annually Irrigation System Replacement (14 properties) $13,061,148** $2,000,000*** Large Equipment Replacement $3,322,576 Golf Division Irrigation System Replacement at Three Courses $11,850,000 Goal 4. Improve Stewardship through Partnerships Development Community Park Activation Grants $55,000 $125,000 1 1 vehicle, equipment & office supplies Increase budget for general communications, engagement, and volunteerism activities $25,000 One-time equipment purchases for enhanced outreach capacity (vehicle, trailers, etc.) $125,000 Enhanced Park Usage Data Gathering $70,000 Goal 5. Resolve Structural Imbalances Weed Abatement $290,000 $326,695 Goal 6. Urban Forest Resilience Additional Arborist Crews $457,500 $202,800 2 Temporary $100,000 for three years Golf Course Arborists $457,500 $202,800 2 $100,000 for three years Storm Damage & Recovery $160,000 Revolving Account Urban Wood Reutilization $3,777,500 $171,500 1 Goal 7. Reduce or Eliminate Crime and Antisocial Behavior Two Animal Service Officers (SLCO) $150,000 $275,000 2 TOTALS:$35,435,224 $10,202,075 54 $2,360,000+ *We are funded for an asset replacement plan that will determine this number **Estimates for only high-priority projects ***Estimated annually 10 years for aged systems that need replacement 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN THREE YEAR UPDATE 2022 CRIME CONTROL PLAN THREE YEAR UPDATE VISION STRENGTHENING COMMUNITIES, PROMOTING SAFETY, EXPANDING OPPORTUNITIES 3 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N CHIEF’S MESSAGE Addressing the safety of Salt Lake City starts with an acknowledgement of the women and men of the Salt Lake City Police Department. No matter their assignment or rank, they come to work committed to strengthening our neighborhoods, promoting safety and expanding opportunities for the community. From the department’s newest officers to our most seasoned, our police department is comprised of people who embody our mission of serving as guardians of our community to preserve life, maintain human rights, protect property, and promote individual responsibility and community commitment. Everything the Salt Lake City Police Department does is geared toward strengthening our community and building and maintaining relationships. For Fiscal Year (FY) 2023, the Salt Lake City Police Department is authorized 750 total full-time employees. Of those, 594 are sworn members of law enforcement. The department continues its recruitment and hiring efforts for sworn members as well as its professional staff, including social workers and records clinicians. The department’s budget for FY23 increased 24.7% from FY22 to $103,944,583 million. In 2020, the Salt Lake City Police Department launched its first Crime Control Plan (CCP) to address violent crime. The department’s CCP continues to evolve and build upon the years prior. We account for our successes and study our areas of opportunities. Since 2020, substantial time and effort has gone into reducing violent crime in the city, yet more work is needed. The 2021 CCP had four overall goals: lowering crime, improving response times, filling funded and unfunded sworn positions and continuing to build community relationships. The department approached its 2021 goals through short-, medium- and long-term strategies. I am proud of the work we have accomplished in the last two years. Cities across the United States are continuing to grapple with a surge in violent crime, including gun violence and murders. In Salt Lake City, we are pushing forward with new strategies to help ensure the city’s future safety for all, including those experiencing homelessness. The SLCPD is engaged in a comprehensive and collaborative approach with many stakeholders to address criminal activity and livability issues. Officers enforce the city’s no camping ordinance, but they first prioritize education and work compassionately to provide people resources and advocacy to encourage and support lasting behavioral changes. However, public safety is unique. The criminal justice system today remains much more complex than it did even five years ago. The achievements and failures of the criminal justice system often get placed on law enforcement. To truly embark on a crime reduction plan that will be successful, SLCPD needs support from local government and our community. That is why we continue to rely heavily on our partnership with the United States Attorney’s Office in Utah to support Project Safe Neighborhoods. This program is key to coordinating resources and identifying and arresting the most violence-prone individuals within our community. As a police department, we are committed to relying on data more than ever to focus our attention and resources on crime. The backbone of this year’s CCP is the partnership between the Salt Lake City Police Department and the University of Texas at San Antonio and the department’s continued and expanded use of Stratified Policing in collaboration with Dr. Roberto Santos and Dr. Rachel Santos. The geographic concentration of violent crime in Salt Lake City is consistent with a large body of literature describing urban crime, particularly violent crime, as a phenomenon primarily occurring in a few small geographic areas. That is why our approach to reducing violence will focus heavily on hot-spot policing; problem-oriented, place-based policing; and focused deterrence. Simultaneously, we continue incorporating the well-researched principles of stratified policing to improve policing services, reducing crime and the harm caused by offenders and maintaining our positive relationship with our community. MIKE BROWN 4 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N CONTINUED FOCUS AND IMPACT AREAS STAFFING CRIME REDUCTION CALLS FOR SERVICE COMMUNITY LIVABILITY COMMUNITY-BASED POLICING HOMELESSNESS 5 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N TIMELINE AND STATUS JANUARY 2021 Iteration #1 of the Salt Lake City Police Department’s Crime Control Plan (CCP) is published. GOAL To drive overall crime below the five-year average benchmark and to impact violent and property crime in targeted areas that have been identified as spiking. STATUS:ü Ongoing Achieved Not Completed OBJECTIVES PROGRESS: • Implement a data-driven, comprehensive approach to address people, places, and behaviors impacting violent crime. Achieved and ongoing. • Increase clearance rates and solvability of violent and property crime.Ongoing. • Improve coordination and communications within the department and with external partners. Achieved and ongoing. • Optimize departmental resources using technology.Achieved and ongoing. 6 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N NOVEMBER 2021 Iteration #2 of the Salt Lake City Police Department’s Crime Control Plan is published. GOALS FOR CRIME CONTROL PLAN #2 Lower crime. STATUS:ü Ongoing ü Achieved in part Not Completed Improve response times. STATUS:ü Ongoing ü Achieved in part Not Completed YEAR TO DATE CITY-WIDE CRIME January 1 – October 2, 2022 Violent Crime: Down 4.5% Property Crime: Down 10% Total Crime: Down 9% PRIORITY 1-3 RESPONSE TIME AVERAGES 7 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N Fill funded and unfunded sworn positions. STATUS:ü Ongoing Achieved Not Completed Continue building community relationships. STATUS:ü Ongoing ü Achieved Not Completed SEPARATIONS 77 MONTH TRENDLINE - JULY 2016 THROUGH OCTOBER 01, 2022 Se p a r a t i o n s COFFEE WITH A COP PAY-IT-FORWARD PIZZA WITH THE POLICE KAVA EVENT HISPANIC HERITAGE FESTIVAL BIKE REGISTRATION 8 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N STRATEGIES PROGRESS: • Develop the SLCPD Violent Criminal Apprehension Team (V-CAT).Achieved and ongoing. • Expand recruitment efforts.Ongoing with future budget consideration. • Continuous lateral hiring.Ongoing. • Implement Civilian Response Team (CRT)Ongoing. • Introduce hiring incentives to include signing bonuses and retention bonuses. Ongoing with future budget consideration. • Submit budget amendments (FY22) for additional funding.Achieved. • Work with SLC911 Director to expand the current SLCPD Call Diversion Program.Ongoing. • Work with the Salt Lake County Sheriff’s Office and other criminal justice stakeholders on jail release issues.Ongoing. • Work with the Salt Lake County District Attorney on the “High Utilizer Program.”Ongoing. • Fill funded and unfunded sworn positions.Ongoing. • Assess through strategic planning to increase the authorized staffing of the department.Ongoing. • Continue Project Safe Neighborhoods commitment with federal partners. Achieved and ongoing. OCTOBER 2022 Iteration #3 of the Salt Lake City Police Department’s Crime Control Plan is published. GOALS Reduce violent crime in Salt Lake City’s most violence-prone areas and among the most violence-prone offenders. Reduce aggregate levels of reported violence city-wide. STRATEGIES • Continue the strategies outlined in the second edition of the Salt Lake City Police Department’s Crime Control Plan. • Implement the Salt Lake City Police Department’s strategic plan to address violent crime in collaboration with the University of Texas at San Antonio. • Continue and expand upon the department’s use of Stratified Policing in collaboration with Dr. Roberto Santos and Dr. Rachel Santos. 9 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N VIOLENT CRIMINAL APPREHENSION TEAM (V-CAT) CONCEPT PLANNING EXECUTION IMPLEMENTATION MONITOR COMPLETE In FY23, the department will implement a Violent Criminal Apprehension Team (V-CAT). The team will be comprised of one sergeant and nine officers. Members have been selected and the department anticipates moving the selected officers into their positions in November 2022 as the funded positions graduate from the academy and become available for field work. Funding of the V-CAT is possible through a COPS Hiring grant and city matching funds. The objective of the V-CAT squad will be to specifically address violent crime patterns and repeat violent crime offenders in Salt Lake City. V-CAT will create targeted responses to identify, apprehend and prosecute individuals within our community who engage in violent conduct. The V-CAT will have a citywide span of management and will work with division commanders to address violent crime issues. IMPACT AREA 10 NEW OFFICERS ADDED TO SLCPD AUTHORIZED STAFFING LEVEL 10 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N RECRUITMENT, HIRING AND RETENTION CONCEPT PLANNING EXECUTION IMPLEMENTATION MONITOR COMPLETE Like police agencies throughout the United States, the Salt Lake City Police Department has struggled with a staffing shortage. As of October 3, 2022, the department is down 41 sworn police officers. In 2022, the SLCPD announced it would provide a $5,000 hiring bonus for lateral officers. Competition for lateral officers in Utah and throughout the United States is enormous. Police agencies in California, Washington, Oregon and New Orleans, among others, have implemented $30-40,000 hiring bonuses paid over time. The SLCPD will continue to work with city administration to seek authorization and funding for increasing the department’s hiring bonus for all new sworn employees, recruitment, as well as retention bonuses. In October 2022, the city hired a dedicated recruiter for the police department. The intention is to broaden the scope of recruiting for SLCPD police officer and professional staff positions. IMPACT AREA 11 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N COMMUNITY REESTABLISHMENT AREAS CONCEPT PLANNING EXECUTION IMPLEMENTATION MONITOR COMPLETE In mid-2020, the SLCPD – as part of our commitment to providing high-quality and community supported police services, launched a formalized and extensive downtown community reestablishment and crime mitigation effort to clean-up the illegal camps, get people inside and into needed services, enforce city and state laws, and to deter criminal activity and illegal camps from re-establishing. Initially, the department’s focus areas included: • Rio Grande Street – 200 South to 400 South • 500 West – 200 South to 400 South • 300 South – 500 West to 600 West • 600 West South Temple • 600 West – 1000 West to North Temple In 2021, the department expanded reestablishment areas to include • 300 South Main Street • 200 East 200 South • 800 West North Temple • Liberty Park Department overtime makes it possible to staff these additional patrol shifts. The department anticipates continuing these shifts into 2023, pending budget approval. These overtime shifts have allowed officers to increase their presence in the community and have a great impact on public safety. For example: while working an overtime shift, a SLCPD officer stopped a female near Taufer Park. The officer confirmed the woman had felony warrants. During a search incident to arrest, the officer located a loaded handgun and a distributable amount of drugs in the woman’s possession. SLCPD continues to assist the city’s Rapid Intervention Team and TIME SPENT BY MITIGATION OT OFFICERS THIS YEAR: 12,333 Hours FELONY ARRESTS: 216 MISDEMEANOR ARRESTS: 192 12 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N the Salt Lake County Health Department on camp abatements. It is the responsibility of the SLCPD to serve as an assisting agency during an abatement. Another recent success can be found around 300 South and Main Street. Earlier this year, many of the businesses were concerned with the aggressive panhandling occurring in the area. Business owners reported people congregate in front of their storefronts and some of the people experiencing homelessness would engage in illegal drug dealing and use. After holding several meetings with these businesses, working in conjunction with the department’s District Community Liaison Officer (DCLO) for Central Division, the department’s BCEO, and other city resources, the Office of Mayor Erin Mendenhall devoted additional city resources in the area so people experiencing homeleness could obtain an identification, help getting a job, clothes, and food. The collaborative work done by the SLCPD and Mayor’s Office has helped improve the cleanliness of that area, and the department continues to receive positive feedback from business owners. IMPACT AREA 13 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N BUSINESS COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT OFFICER CONCEPT PLANNING EXECUTION IMPLEMENTATION MONITOR COMPLETE In April 2021, the SLCPD successfully launched its Business Community Engagement Officer (BCEO) position. This sworn member of law enforcement is assigned to the SLCPD’s Central Division and reports to the Division Commander. The officer serves as a direct point of contact for business operators and owners. All the BCEO’s working hours are dedicated to building and maintaining relationships with downtown businesses and coordinating with the business community’s law enforcement needs. When the BCEO is not contacting a business or in a community meeting, they will be doing property checks at local businesses that have expressed concerns. This position puts the detective out into the community on a regular basis. A recent example of the success of this program can be seen with the reduction of crime in the entertainment district along Pierpont Avenue in downtown. In early 2022, the area was inflicted with numerous incidents of violent crime including a stabbing, shooting and multiple aggravated assaults. After sitting down with the business owners in the area, SLCPD put together a collaborative and holistic plan to help mitigate the violent crime. The plan included hiring off-duty officers to block the road around midnight to keep cars from cruising up and down in front of the entertainment venues. Officers worked between the hours of 11 p.m. and 2 a.m. on Pierpont to increase the police presence. The business owners also took steps to mitigate crime and the potential for crime to occur. The work of the department and business owners has significantly reduced the number of issues the businesses on Pierpont Avenue have had to deal with. Pending budget authorization, it is the intent of the department to expand the BCEO program to the Pioneer and Liberty patrol divisions as staffing and resources allow. This type of direct, business-to-police liaison has strengthened the department’s relationship with its business community in the downtown core. IMPACT AREA 14 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N CIVILIAN RESPONSE TEAM CONCEPT PLANNING EXECUTION IMPLEMENTATION MONITOR COMPLETE As previewed in 2021, the SLCPD has made significant progress implementing a Civilian Response Team (CRT) to handle low-level calls for service. These low-level calls can be addressed either via telephone or by sending a police specialist instead of a sworn officer to handle the case. This system allows sworn officers to remain available for high priority calls for service. The intent of this program is to augment and enhance the current police response service within the city through diversity in response teams, like the current co-response model with social workers. Similar models across the country have shown great results to help divert those non-hazard, low-level calls for service from going out into the field. In the FY23 budget, the City Council funded the creation of the Civilian Response Team consisting of 12 non-sworn responders and one Lieutenant to establish and oversee the program. It is anticipated this program will be operational in spring 2023. The CRT is intended to be a public safety response to low-hazard, non-emergency police related calls-for-service. This is a recommendation from the Matrix Operational Audit and has been funded by the city administration and legislative body. The CRT will provide support by responding to telephonic case reports and select in-person requests during high call-volume times and days of the week. The CRT employees will typically not work with an officer – instead they will be developed as an independent response service that supports the police response. For example, the team may be used to block traffic and take reports on certain calls for service. The CRT will be an added program to the SLCPD repertoire of services offered to SLC residents, businesses, and visitors. 15 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N Adding the formal leadership to the development team will be a critical component to a successful outcome. The steering committee determined that the oversight must be a sworn position due to the complexity of the overlap of traditional police work with a new civilian response model. A sworn Lieutenant position will provide continuity, consistency, experience, and proven leadership with response operations within the city. The department has had success with this type of leadership model in the past. The CRT is expected to be operational in spring 2023. IMPACT AREA 16 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N TELEPHONIC CALLS FOR SERVICE CONCEPT PLANNING EXECUTION IMPLEMENTATION MONITOR COMPLETE In October 2021, to divert additional low-level, non-hazard calls for response from the field, the department launched a program expanding our ability to take and process telephonic calls for service. This was necessary due to low staffing levels. The SLCPD is using overtime funding for this program and will explore requesting the appropriate budget to continue funding it. To sustain this responsiveness, additional and ongoing funding will need to be considered. Typically, the most common calls for service handled by phone include unwanted persons, citizen assist, and suspicious persons. Without this program, most, if not all, of those calls for service would have been dispatched to patrol officers out in the field and thereby keeping them held down on a call and unable to be out proactively patrolling or available for a high priority, in-progress emergency. Notably, the SLCPD has seen great improvement in the “Hold Times” for telephonic call for service, as outlined below. Month Calls Handled by Phone Average Hold Time October-21 428 0:57:22 November-21 693 0:43:32 December-21 928 0:14:12 January-22 665 0:19:49 February-22 942 0:31:09 March-22 1404 0:39:10 April-22 1708 0:41:14 May-22 1828 1:04:07 June-22 1480 1:29:19 July-22 1872 1:01:49 August-22 2303 0:56:30 September-22 1412 0:27:22 IMPACT AREA CALLS HANDLED AND AVERAGE HOLD TIME FOR TELEPHONIC POLICE RESPONSE 17 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N CALL DIVERSION AND EXPANDING ONLINE REPORTING CONCEPT PLANNING EXECUTION IMPLEMENTATION MONITOR COMPLETE The SLCPD recognizes how critical it is to provide an immediate response to all levels of calls of service. The department is in the process of exploring an automated process that will send text messages to the person calling 9-1-1, keeping them updated on the status of their call. This technology will be integrated into the department’s computer assisted dispatch protocol and will give the department the ability to communicate any potential response delays. For example, if an officer responding to a lower priority call for service is diverted to a higher priority call, this new technology would inform the person of the situation and allow them the ability to file an online report, if applicable. This technology can allow the department to solicit feedback from the initial 9-1-1 caller. The department continues to work with the executive leadership at SLC911, a separate city department, to implement policies and procedures related to expanding both call diversion and online reporting. It is the department’s goal to explore technology and funding resources that will allow online reporting kiosks to be placed throughout the city. Recently, the SLCPD paired up with a local resource center and PRIORITY 1-3 RESPONSE TIME AVERAGES OCTOBER 2021 - SEPTEMBER 2022 18 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N established a crime reporting room within the center to allow users to file online reports, such as theft reports, because the department continuously saw an increase in calls for service at that location that did not need an in-person response. Because of the collaboration, which included outreach and training, calls for service at that location decreased by half. The department will increase its presence at resources centers with its Homeless Resource Center squad. IMPACT AREA 19 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N SALT LAKE CITY POLICE DEPARTMENT A STRATEGIC PLAN TO ADDRESS VIOLENT CRIME INTRODUCTION The attached addendum sets forth the department’s strategic plan for reducing violent crime in the City’s most violence-prone areas and among its most violence-prone offenders. To accomplish this, the department will implement and analyze evidence-based and problem-solving procedures that reduce crime and change the department’s culture from being reactive to proactive. The plan acknowledges that violent crime – as seen in other cities – is geographically concentrated to a relatively small number of places. For example, from June 2021 – June 2022, 12 addresses accounted for approximately 11% of the City’s reported violent crime. Further, it is well known that a small proportion of offenders account for a large portion of criminal activity1. To address the criminal activity occurring within Salt Lake City, the SLCPD will utilize a well- established and researched model of hot-spots policing. Through this process, the Salt Lake City Police Department will increase police visibility at and around addresses where violent crime is concentrated. The hot-spots model utilizes the “problem analysis triangle.” The triangle explains that crime occurs when a motivated offender and a victim (person) or target (place) come together at a particular time and place. For police, by removing one element of the triangle “systematically can prevent multiple crimes in the long term2.” The department will also focus on Problem-Oriented, Place-Based Policing. Where hot-spots policing is done in the short term, Problem-Oriented, Place-Based Policing is a mid-term solution that will have the department leading and coordinating with other city agencies to identify and improve the conditions that contribute to violent crime at crime-prone locations. As an example, the department’s Pioneer Patrol Division identified an area prone to violent crime. A solution required better lighting to be installed. While the department has no ability to install or improve lighting conditions on its own, the division commander worked with the city to address this issue with the appropriate city department. As the department’s violent crime reduction strategy continues to expand, the department, in conjunction with the mayor, will develop a working group of key stakeholders from local government to address crime and its causes at violence-prone places. Finally, part of the department’s longer-term strategy to reduce violence will involve a focused- deterrence model. This approach aims to change the behavior of high-risk offenders through a combination of deterrence, arrest, community involvement and the provision of alternatives to violence. This is a holistic, resource-intensive process involving multiple law enforcement and community partners, including federal law enforcement agencies and the United States Attorney’s Office. Under this model, the department will continue its involvement in Project Safe Neighborhoods. 1 Clark, R. V., and Eck J. (2005) 2 Santos and Santos (2022) 20 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N RECENT EXAMPLES OF THE SLCPD’S STRATEGIC PLAN TO ADDRESS VIOLENT CRIME All three Salt Lake City Police patrol divisions have an identified focus area. In the three identified focus areas referenced below, SLCPD worked with the department’s crime analysts to identify crime patterns and to increase police visibility at or near those locations to deter violent crimes. • The Pioneer Patrol Division focus area border is from 200 North to South Temple and 700 West to 1000 West. • The Central Patrol Division focus area border is from 200 South to 400 South and 200 West to South State Street. • The Liberty Patrol Division focus area border is from 1300 South to 1500 South and 200 West to South State Street. AUGUST 2021 TO AUGUST 2022 COMPARISON • The Pioneer Patrol Division focus area saw 33% fewer violent crimes in August 2022 when compared to August 2021. • The Central Patrol Division focus area saw 28% fewer violent crimes in August 2022 when compared to August 2021. • The Liberty Patrol Division focus area saw 71% fewer violent crimes in August 2022 when compared to August 2021. SEPTEMBER 2021 TO SEPTEMBER 2022 COMPARISON • The Pioneer Patrol Division focus area saw 11% fewer property crimes in September 2022 when compared to September 2021. • The Central Patrol Division focus area saw 18% fewer property crimes in September 2022 when compared to September 2021. • The Liberty Patrol Division focus area saw 11% fewer property crimes in September 2022 when compared to September 2021. CITY-WIDE VIOLENT CRIME SEPTEMBER 2021 COMPARED TO SEPTEMBER 2022: • Down 12.8% CITY-WIDE PROPERTY CRIME SEPTEMBER 2021 COMPARED TO SEPTEMBER 2022: • Down 14.9% RESPONSE TIMES: September 2022: 10m:24s September 2021: 14m:14s August 2022 - Priority 1 - 11m:27s September 2022 - Priority 1 - 10m:24s Improvement: 01m:03s Priority 1-3 Overall Average August 2022: 40m:33s Priority 1-3 Overall Average September 2022: 29m:08s Improvement: 11m:25s 21 20 2 2 CR I M E C O N T R O L P L A N THIS PAGE LEFT BLANK. SEE NEXT PAGE FOR UNIVERSITY OF TEXAS AT SAN ANTONIO VIOLENT CRIME REDUCTION PLAN Salt Lake City Police Department Violent Crime Reduction Plan Michael R. Smith, J.D., Ph.D. Rob Tillyer, Ph.D. Brandon Tregle, J.D., Ph.D. & Mike Brown Chief of Police i EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This document sets forth Salt Lake City’s strategic plan for reducing violent crime in the City’s most violence-prone areas and among its most violence- prone offenders with the goal of reducing aggregate levels of reported violence City-wide. As of August 2022, violent crime in Salt Lake City has decreased by 3.6% year-to-date compared to the same period in 2021. However, when viewing crime statistics over a more extended period, violent street crime1 increased approximately 20 percent over the past two years, driven primarily by an upsurge in aggravated assaults. In Salt Lake City, as in most cities, violent crime is geographically concentrated to a relatively small number of places. The geographic concentration of violent crime in Salt Lake is consistent with a large body of literature describing urban crime, particularly violent crime, as a phenomenon primarily occurring in a few small geographic areas. For example, from June 2021-June 2022, 12 addresses accounted for roughly 11% of the City’s reported violent crime. Together, those addresses recorded eight or more crimes of violence apiece during this time period. In any city, violent crime is caused by a combination of social, structural, and environmental conditions, many of which are outside the direct control of the police. As the social and economic fallout of the Covid 19 pandemic continues to put pressure on public services and the criminal justice system, policy-makers at the state and local levels must be cognizant of the role that well-intended policies can have on crime and violence. Long-term solutions to violent crime in Salt Lake City will require strategic policing and a commitment from policy-makers and the community to address the underlying conditions that contribute to violent victimization, including homelessness, urban blight, and decay. Thus, the successful execution of this plan will require active participation, cooperation, and investment by a wide-range of stakeholders in Salt Lake City, including City leadership, multiple city agencies and departments, federal and state government and law enforcement partners, community and faith-based organizations, non- profits, research partners, and community members themselves. 1 As used here, violent street crime refers to the Part I violent offenses of murder/non- negligent manslaughter, aggravated assault, and robbery and does not include family violence-related offenses or sexual assaults. ii A strategic plan to address rising violent crime is a necessary first step to reducing violence and victimization. Evidence from other cities that have successfully reduced violent crime shows the following factors as integral to success: • Clear communication and reinforcement of this plan by the chief and SLCPD leadership team • Buy-in and commitment from line officers to implement the strategies • Engagement and support from City leaders • A willingness to evaluate and modify current legal and social practices as needed to address the underlying challenges that facilitate and contribute to violent crime • Alignment between all components of the criminal justice system • Community support • Consistent, honest, and ongoing evaluation of the implementation and impact of the plan • Broad recognition that violent crime is a community problem and not only a police responsibility. Hot Spots Policing Drawing from a substantial body of research on the positive impacts hot spots policing can have on reducing violence, this plan begins with a short-term focus on substantially increasing police visibility at and around addresses where violent crime is concentrated and prioritizing street-level deterrence of potential offenders in these areas. The strategy is evidence- based and relies on increased police visibility rather than generalized “stop and frisk,” zero tolerance policing, or other dragnet tactics. Based on crime analysis and mapping, iii the SLCPD will assign officers to be highly visible at hot spot locations identified by crime analysis as the most violence-prone and at times when violence is most often reported. Pre-post implementation data on crime, arrests, and calls for service will be tracked at and around the targeted hot spots, and violence-prone locations will be reviewed and adjusted every 60- 90 days. Problem-Oriented, Place-Based Policing In the mid-term, the SLCPD will lead and coordinate with other city agencies on a problem-oriented, place-based policing (POPBP) strategy designed to identify and ameliorate the underlying conditions that contribute to violent crime at crime-prone places. Place-based strategies addressing physical and social disorder are an effective, evidence-based approach to improve criminogenic conditions, reduce fear of crime, and encourage greater, pro- social use of public space. During the first six months of implementation, initial violent places will be identified using crime analysis and local police knowledge and intelligence. A POPBP Board and working group made up of stakeholder government agencies (e.g., Building Inspections, Civil Enforcement, Youth & Family Services) will be used to design tailored, place-based strategies to address crime and its causes at violent places. Traditional police enforcement efforts (investigations and arrests) will be coupled with civil enforcement, nuisance abatement, environmental design changes, and disorder-focused efforts (graffiti abatement, trash clean up, abandoned vehicle removal, weed/brush removal) and other efforts to alter the criminogenic nature of the targeted places. Again, pre- and post-implementation data will be tracked in and around the targeted locations and adjustments made, if needed, to the strategy based on data trends. As crime declines in the targeted areas, new places will be identified and brought into the strategy. Focused Deterrence The longer-term strategy to reduce violence will involve implementation of a focused deterrence model in Salt Lake City. First designed and implemented in Boston in the 1990s, focused deterrence strategies have proven successful in reducing violent crime in several cities where they have been applied and evaluated. The goal of focused deterrence is to change the behavior of high-risk offenders through a combination of deterrence, arrest, community involvement, and the provision of alternatives to violence. A key feature of most successful focused deterrence strategies is the clear communication to gang members and other violent offenders of the risks associated with iv continued criminal activity and the alternatives available to them under a robust suite of counseling/mental health, substance abuse, education, and job-related services made available to them within the strategy. Focused deterrence is a holistic, resource-intensive process involving multiple law enforcement and community partners, including federal law enforcement agencies and the U.S. Attorney’s Office. Initially, the SLCPD will work with research partners, city leadership, and other stakeholders to prioritize offenders for focused deterrence interventions. The nature of those interventions may vary according to the problems identified and at- risk populations implicated (gang violence vs. drug markets). The support and partnership of social service organizations, including city agencies, non-profits, and community-based leaders and groups, is necessary and will be sought. A careful evaluation of the implementation and impact of this strategy will be designed and carried out by academic partners at the University of Texas at San Antonio to facilitate modification and/or replication of the strategy to address additional at-risk populations as progress is made. 1 NATURE OF THE PROBLEM Salt Lake City is a mid-sized city and with a residential population of approximately 200,000, swelling to a nearly 400,000 daytime population. Moreover, visits to the urban core of Salt Lake City have surged to 155% of their level one year before the COVID-19 pandemic, and continued residential population growth is rapid (Semerad, 2022). Salt Lake City is served by a police department with a current strength of approximately 530 officers.2 The Salt Lake City Police Department (SLCPD) is tasked with controlling violent crime while responding to calls for service, investigating property crimes, and providing for the overall safety of the citizens of Salt Lake City. SLCPD is committed to working with other city agencies and the community to reverse an increasing trend in violent crime over the past two years. While violent crime has decreased in 2022 compared to 2021, overall street-level violent crime3 in Salt Lake City has risen approximately 20 percent in 24 months from May 2020 through May 2022. May 2022, for example, saw 109 violent street crimes reported compared to 93 the previous May (see Figure 1 below). FIGURE 1: OVERALL VIOLENT STREET CRIME TREND, JUL 2019-MAY 2022 NFV: Non-Family Violence This increase suggests the need for a police-led, but community-wide response to tamping down violence and arresting and aggressively prosecuting violent offenders in the short term and a comprehensive set of public safety solutions in the longer term. To be effective, 2 The SLCPD has an authorized strength of 593 officers and is short-staffed based on operational strength by about 24%. The department is actively trying to recruit and hire additional officers in a challenging police labor market. 3 Figure 1 below reflects Part 1 violent street crimes only - murder/non-negligent manslaughter, aggravated assault, robbery – and does not include family violence-related offenses or sexual assaults. 2 those solutions should address the social and physical disorder and fear of crime associated with an increasing homeless population living on the streets of Salt Lake City. Compelling research evidence suggests that reducing physical and social disorder will contribute to an overall reduction in crime in targeted places (Braga et al., 2019). In Salt Lake City, as in most cities, violent crime is geographically concentrated in a relatively small number of places. During the past 12 months, just 12 of the most violence-prone addresses within the city accounted for roughly 11% of all reported violent street crime. This geographic concentration of violent crime is consistent with a large body of literature describing urban crime, particularly violent crime, as a phenomenon primarily occurring in a few small geographic areas or locations. Similarly, research indicates that a relatively small number of offenders (5%) account for the majority of violent crime. These two facts suggest that carefully-tailored, place-based and offender-focused strategies will be the most efficient and effective at reducing violent street crime. However, to be effective, they must be coupled with swift and certain prosecution, adjudication, and a functional correctional system (jails and prisons) to remove persistently violent people from the community and to deter others from continued violence. Addressing the underlying conditions that give rise to violent people and places is a long-term goal that will require community-wide commitment and resources. In any city, violent crime is caused by a combination of social, structural, and environmental conditions, many of which are outside the direct control of the police. As the social and economic fallout of the Covid 19 pandemic continues to put pressure on public services and the criminal justice system, policy-makers at the state and local levels must be cognizant of the role that well- intended policies can have on crime and violence. The linkage between social and physical disorder and crime and fear of crime is well-established in the literature but may be moderated by collective efficacy4 in neighborhoods and is strongly influenced by concentrated poverty (O’Shea, 2006; Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Taylor et al., 1985; Wei et al., 2005; Yang, 2009). Violent crime, and especially robbery, as subset of violent crime, is directly correlated with levels of physical disorder (Sampson & Raudenbush, 1999; Wei et al., 2005). In Salt Lake City, evidence of homelessness and physical disorder is noticeable, and the homeless 4 Collective efficacy refers to cohesion among neighborhood residents coupled with shared expectations of informal social control of public space. 3 concentrate in a number of encampments and around shelters, which are also hot spots for violent crime. Research suggests that the disorder conditions produced by large numbers of people living on the streets will have a reciprocal relationship with crime, violence, and fear of crime (Yang, 2009). Moreover, it is well understood that the homeless are victimized at rates that far exceed those of the non-homeless and are especially vulnerable to predatory violence (Ellsworth, 2018; Fitzpatrick et. al, 1993). While the police are a necessary component of violent crime reduction and prevention, they do not make policy, influence the amount or concentration of physical or social disorder, or control the factors that produce concentrated poverty. Long-term solutions to violent crime in Salt Lake City will require strategic policing and a commitment from policy-makers and the community to address the underlying conditions that contribute to violence, including urban blight and decay. Finally, as criminal justice and bail reform efforts continue to gain traction throughout the nation, prosecutors and judges must be cognizant of how prosecution and bail decisions can impact violent crime by increasing the number of offenders who are not prosecuted or who are on pre-trial release, a portion of whom will commit additional crimes while on release pending trial.5 Thus, the successful execution of this plan will require active participation, cooperation, and investment by a wide-range of stakeholders in Salt Lake City, including City leadership, multiple City agencies and departments, federal and state law enforcement partners, community and faith-based organizations, non-profits, research partners, and community members themselves. Goals and Objectives The SLCPD is committed to renewing its efforts to reducing violent crime in the city by developing this multi-faceted, violence reduction strategy based on the best available science. Drawing from a substantial body of research on the positive impacts that hot spots policing can have on reducing violence, this plan begins with a short-term focus on substantially increasing police visibility at locations where violent crime is concentrated and prioritizing street-level deterrence in these areas. Building outward, the plan incorporates a mid-term strategy focused on violent places within the city using a Problem-Oriented, Place-Based Policing (POPPB) approach. Finally, over the longer-term, the 5 See Cassell & Fowles (2020) for a recent discussion of bail reform in Chicago and its impact on public safety. 4 SLCPD will lead a focused deterrence strategy to help break the cycle of violence among the small number of repeat and high-risk offenders who are responsible for committing most of the violent crime in Salt Lake City. All of these strategies are evidence-based, and all have shown success in other cities. By implementing these strategies, the Salt Lake City Police Department seeks to accomplish the following goals: • In partnership with other city agencies and the community, reverse the increasing trend in reported violent crime • Reduce the annual number of victims of violent crime • Increase community trust and engagement with the SLCPD to facilitate solving crimes of violence and successfully prosecuting violent offenders • Improve place-based conditions that contribute to violence in coordination with other City stakeholders Keys to Success Violent crime reduction is unlikely to be successful without a clear strategy for success. The details of this plan are outlined below to ensure that all stakeholders understand the goals and the specific strategies to be applied in addressing the violent crime problem in Salt Lake City. The creation and adoption of a strategic crime reduction plan is a necessary but insufficient element to achieving the goal of reducing violent crime over the long-term. Several additional factors need to be present to enhance the likelihood of success: • Clear communication and reinforcement of this plan by the chief and SLCPD leadership team • Buy-in and commitment from line officers to implement the strategies • Engagement and support from city leaders (i.e., Mayor and City Council) to include: o commitment of resources to support the plan o mobilization of city services to underpin aspects of the plan (i.e., the mid- term and long-term strategies) • A willingness to evaluate and modify current legal and social practices as needed to address the underlying challenges that facilitate and contribute to violent crime • Recognition that policy and practical alignment must exist between all components of the criminal justice system to ensure that the legal and corrections components of the system support the goals of the plan • Community support to include businesses, faith-based leaders, neighborhood associations, and other professional organizations/communities (i.e., health, education, etc.) • Consistent, honest evaluation of implementation and impact to facilitate modifications, as needed, to promote success 5 • Broad recognition that violent crime is a community problem that can be partially addressed by the SLCPD but cannot be fully addressed without action taken by the state, city, and community to tackle deep-rooted social problems (i.e., homelessness, employment opportunities, domestic violence, education, etc.) NEAR-TERM STRATEGY Hot Spots Policing Considerable evidence suggests that police can be effective at reducing violent crime in small areas with high rates of violence. Often referred to as “hot spots policing,” some of the strongest evidence of the impact that police can have on crime comes from more than 25 years of research showing that a relatively small number of areas generate the majority of violent crime in most American cities and that crime can be reduced in those areas through targeted police enforcement (Braga et al., 2019; National Research Council, 2004; Weisburd & Telep, 2014). Hot spots policing can be implemented fairly quickly and can reduce reported violent crime in targeted areas by 10-50 percent (Corsaro et al., 2019; Groff et al., 2015; Rosenfeld et al., 2014). Moreover, there is little evidence that violent crime is spatially displaced to surrounding areas when hot spots policing is implemented and considerable evidence that areas adjacent to hot spots also can expect lower crime rate benefits (albeit to a lesser degree) from the police treatment effects (Weisburd et al., 2006). Little is known, however, about the potential displacement of crime associated with hot spots policing to other areas of the city or to different crime types (Weisburd & Telep, 2014). While there is no universally accepted definition of a “hot spot,” hot spots often consist of street segments or similar small areas that are no more than a city block long and which extend no more than a half a block on either side of the segment, although many research studies have evaluated police interventions in larger hot spots (see Rosenfeld et al., 2014 – average hot spot contained 8 street segments and Groff et al., 2015 – average hot spot was the size of 22 football fields). The appropriate size of a hot spot should be driven by empirical considerations, such as the spatial distribution and density of crime, as well as considerations of geography and local police operational knowledge of street activity. In some cities, specific addresses may serve as appropriate hot spots for the concentration of police resources. What police actually do in hot spots policing and whether some tactics are more effective than others have also been the subject of research and evaluation. In their most recent meta-analysis of hot spots research studies, Braga et al. (2019) found that problem- oriented policing strategies generated moderately higher impacts on crime than merely increasing police presence with extra officers or patrols. Problem-oriented policing refers to police strategies targeted at specific problems with solutions tailored to those problems (Goldstein, 1990). Hot spots dominated by illegal drug sales may require different policing 6 tactics than areas with high levels of illegal prostitution, for example. While some research has evaluated hot spot strategies targeted at specific types of violent crime (e.g. robberies or gun crimes), most hot spot strategies focused on violent crime seek to reduce all types of serious violent crimes. A few studies have examined specific tactics and their effects on crime at hot spots. Recently, Corsaro et al. (2019) investigated whether foot patrols or stationary marked police vehicles with emergency lights illuminated had a greater impact on crime and calls for service within hot spots. They found that lighted patrol cars reduced violent crime in hot spots while foot patrols had the greatest impact on property crime. Groff et al. (2015) compared foot patrol, problem-oriented policing, and offender-focused tactics within experimental and control hot spots and found that only offender-focused tactics had an impact on violent crime. The experimental hot spots showed a 42% decrease in all violent crimes and a 50% decrease in violent felonies compared to their controls. Importantly, modern hot spot strategies rely on increased police visibility and intelligence-led offender targeting rather than generalized “stop and frisk,” oversaturation, or dragnet tactics that can lead to mistrust of the police and community resentment. Offender-focused police strategies are based in an intelligence-led policing framework and derive from the empirical premise that a small percentage of offenders are responsible for most crime (Clarke & Eck, 2005; Ratcliffe, 2008). By proactively targeting repeat offenders, police can theoretically have a greater impact on crime than by targeting places alone (National Research Council, 2004). This strategy has the added benefit of leaving a smaller police “footprint” within communities by focusing attention on known repeat offenders rather than all persons who happen to be out on the street. Offender- focused policing requires good intelligence on where repeat offenders live and/ or where they are likely to engage in future crime. In the Groff et al. (2015) study, the Philadelphia Police Department employed dedicated teams of officers who were exempt from answering calls for service and who proactively contacted, questioned, stopped, and arrested known offenders in the experimental hot spots. Hot spots policing has become a well-accepted strategy to address crime in urban areas, which is disproportionately found in micro-areas with high rates of crime. In a recent nationally representative survey of U.S. law enforcement agencies, the National Police 7 Research Platform found that 75% of agencies surveyed employed hot spots policing as a crime control strategy. Braga et al.’s (2019) most recent updated meta-analysis of hot spots policing studies reviewed 78 tests of hot spots policing across 65 eligible studies and found noteworthy crime control gains in 62 of the 78 tests reviewed. Problem-oriented strategies focused on changing the characteristics of crime-prone places were moderately more effective than increasing police presence or traditional enforcement activities (Braga et al., 2019), and recent evidence suggests that a hot spots approach focused on repeat offenders is potentially even more effective than other place-based problem-oriented approaches (Groff et al., 2015). That said, evidence is lacking that hot spots policing as it has been implemented and evaluated in most cities to date can effectively reduce crime in an entire city or within larger sections of cities (Sherman et al., 2014; Weisburd et al., 2017; Weisburd & Telep, 2014). For example, in an evaluation conducted in Dallas 10 years ago, Weisburd et al. (2015) found measurable reductions in crime within treatment hot spots that experienced increases in patrol time, but these reductions were not measurable within the larger geographic patrol beats where the treatment hot spots were located. Because the experiment resulted in only a 2% increase in unallocated patrol time to hot spots, Weisburd et al. (2015) theorized that the patrol dosage level was insufficient to produce large enough crime reductions gains that might have been observed at the beat level. Based on the observed levels of crime reduction in hot spots associated with the 2% increase in unallocated patrol time, Weisburd et al. (2015) estimated that if unallocated patrol time could have been increased to 25%, then crime could theoretically have been reduced by as much as 25% within the treatment beats. In a subsequent experimental simulation, Weisburd et al. (2017) demonstrated a hypothetical 13% reduction in street robberies within a large police borough when one third of patrol officers were assigned to spend 50 percent of their time at the top five hot spots within their beats and a 21% reduction in robberies when half of patrol officers spent all of their time at the top five hot spots. Taken together, the hot spots policing literature suggests several key factors that might produce optimal crime control within hot spots and possibly within larger areas surrounding those hot spots or even across an entire city (Weisburd et al., 2017): • Hot spots must receive enough “dosage” to produce measurable crime control gains beyond the boundaries of the hot spots themselves o Dosage reflects both the number of hot spots that receive intervention, and the amount of time police devote to each hot spot o Concentrating available patrol resources on hot spots may result in fewer officers assigned to lower crime areas and longer response times, especially for non-emergency calls • Police activities at hot spots matter o High-visibility presence (marked cars with lights on) and offender- focused tactics may be more effective than foot or drive-by patrols at reducing violent crime 8 • Police behavior matters o When police focus on procedural justice and are viewed as legitimate by the public, crime control gains are likely to be enhanced (Tyler et al., 2015) Hot Spots Policing in Salt Lake City Criminologists from the University of Texas at San Antonio (UTSA research partners) have evaluated the geographic concentration of crime in Salt Lake City and have found that violent crime is highly concentrated at a relatively small number of addresses in the city. Violence-prone locations in Salt Lake City include certain stores, hotels, homeless shelters, convenience stores, and apartment complexes. With this in mind, the SLCPD will employ a hot spots policing strategy that initially focuses on violence-prone addresses and which increases police visibility at or near those locations to deter violent offenders. First, working with UTSA researchers, SLCPD will update the locations of violent crime hot spots throughout the city by focusing on addresses where robberies, aggravated assaults, and homicides occurred over the past 12 months and within the most recent 60-90-day period to ensure that hot spots are appropriately identified. Initially, this empirically-driven analysis will seek to identify the small percentage of addresses where violent crime is most heavily concentrated (Weisburd et al., 2015). Once these addresses are identified, they will be rank ordered from highest to lowest city-wide and within police divisions. It is expected that some divisions may have few or even no high crime addresses while others may have multiple high crime hot spots. Depending upon available resources, SLCPD will seek to treat as many violence-prone addresses as possible with a goal of treating, at minimum, those addresses that together account for at least 10% of all violent crime in the City. Hot spot locations will be adjusted (if needed) every 60-90 days based on changing crime patterns, and police resources will be re-deployed accordingly. Second, once identified and rank-ordered within divisions, the high violent crime addresses will be evaluated by SLCPD commanders and their officers and hot spot boundaries adjusted, if appropriate, based on unique geographic features (e.g., a mall or shopping center) and local operational knowledge of crime patterns and trends. The list of current hot spots that emerges from this process will be mapped, revisited, and updated every 60- 90 days. 9 Finally, the hot spots will receive a high visibility “treatment” consisting of the systematic assignment of patrol officers to remain in the hot spots with their emergency lights activated for 15 minutes (the optimal dosage period) every hour during peak hours of crime as identified in each hot spot through crime analysis.6 Strong evidence exists that hot spots policing reduces crime in targeted micro-areas, and all available resources will be brought to bear in an effort to drive down violent crime in sectors and city-wide by concentrating sufficient dosage in the targeted violent crime hot spots identified through the process described above. Implementation of the strategy is expected to begin in September 2022, and impacts will be assessed every 90 days as described below. Adjustments to the hot spot boundaries and/or re-deployment of officers to new hot spots will be made every 90 days if needed based on changes in observed crime patterns. Measurement and Evaluation To assess the impact and effectiveness of the near-term hot spots policing strategy, reported violent crime counts, arrests, and calls for service data will be obtained for the treated hot spots, police divisions, and city-wide for 24-36 months leading up to the implementation of the strategy and monthly thereafter. Violent crime counts also will be obtained and evaluated for catchment areas surrounding the hot spots to check for crime displacement or diffusion of benefits resulting from the intervention. Violent crime counts will be reviewed descriptively at each of the four levels (hot spots, catchment areas, divisions, city-wide) on a monthly basis and patterns or changes assessed. At 60-90-day intervals, changes to crime and the other metrics will be evaluated and compared to the previous 60-90-day period. Quarterly reports will be prepared and disseminated internally within the SLCPD and externally to city council and other stakeholders as appropriate. Semi- annually, broader and more detailed analyses will be conducted by the UTSA research team to evaluate impacts of the strategy on violent crime, arrests, and calls for service within the hot spots, catchment areas, divisions, and city-wide. These analyses also will include an assessment of plan implementation and fidelity to ensure officers are present at the hot spots in accordance with the deployment plans (peak crime hours/days of the week). When emerging hot spots are identified, they will be added to the treatment protocols; likewise, hot spots that are no longer “hot” will be removed. Every six months, the Chief of Police will lead an intensive strategic review to assess the effectiveness of the strategy and to recommend any changes or adjustments. The possible addition of place-focused, problem-oriented strategies also will be evaluated during the strategic review sessions. To facilitate transparency and stakeholder input, biannual reports will be produced for public release outlining the hot spots strategy, detailing observed changes in violent crime, and noting any changes recommended to the strategy. 6 As in Las Vegas (see Corsaro et al., 2019) and Dallas, patrol officers will be assigned to these high visibility hot spot times each hour via dispatch. This will help ensure fidelity to the strategy. If resources or unforeseen events do not allow for the assignment of officers to hot spots during certain hours, these gaps will be documented and accounted for in the ongoing evaluation of the efficacy of the strategy. 10 MID-TERM STRATEGY Problem-Oriented, Place-Based Policing (POPBP) A robust body of literature has documented the effectiveness of hot spots policing at reducing crime in targeted areas. A recent meta-analysis of this research found that problem-oriented strategies carefully tailored to address the underlying conditions that contribute to recurring problems in crime-prone locations were more effective at reducing crime than merely increasing or intensifying traditional police activities (Braga et al., 2019). Moreover, a variety of problem-oriented, place-based strategies have been implemented and evaluated and have shown success at reducing a broad range of offenses from property crimes like burglary or theft to drug-related crimes and violent crime (Braga & Bond, 2008; Eck & Spelman, 1987; Hinkle & Weisburd, 2008; Hinkle et al., 2020; Taylor et al., 2011). While place-based crime reduction strategies often have a law enforcement component, they frequently require the involvement of other stakeholders who can help address the conditions that make a particular location attractive for crime. Routine activities theory suggests that three elements must come together in time and space for a crime to occur: A vulnerable victim, a motivated offender, and the lack of a capable guardian (Cohen & Felson, 1979). A recent Campbell Collaboration systematic review of 28 studies that examined the effects of reducing physical (vacant lots, trash, graffiti, etc.) and social (public drinking/ drug use, prostitution, loitering, etc.) disorder on crime found that 26 of the 30 effects tests reported statistically significant crime reduction impacts in the targeted areas associated with the problem-oriented, disorder abatement strategies utilized (Braga et al., 2019). Thus, problem-oriented, place- based crime prevention strategies seek to remove one or more of the necessary pre-conditions to crime to prevent victimization and reduce the likelihood that crime will reoccur at a targeted location. Reducing social and physical disorder can be a powerful deterrent to would-be offenders and stimulate guardianship through the increased, pro-social use of space. As noted, place-based crime prevention often requires a multidimensional response to a set of underlying conditions that make a particular place amenable to crime. City services are often needed to address social and physical disorder that contribute to fear of crime and that reduce the use of public space. Reducing homelessness, open-air drug use, litter, poor lighting, code violations, or aggressive panhandling requires resources and involvement 11 by city, county and state agencies, non-profits, or even volunteers. Likewise, a formal assessment and the application of principles of crime prevention through environmental design (CPTED) may be needed to improve natural surveillance and guardianship of businesses, streets, or public parks where violent crime occurs. Problem-driven solutions may involve improved lighting, the removal or installation (depending upon conditions) of barriers to vehicular or foot traffic, the enforcement or adoption of building or zoning regulations, nuisance/disorder abatement, or traditional law enforcement measures such as conducting investigations and arresting or issuing citations to law violators. Above all, creative thinking, multi-disciplinary approaches, and appropriate resources are necessary to design and implement situational crime prevention strategies to reduce the incidence of violence at places where it is concentrated. Urban Blight and Disorder Abatement Rooted in “broken windows” theory (Wilson & Kelling, 1982), a growing body of literature has documented the association between urban blight and crime, including violent crime (Kondo et al., 2015; Branas et al., 2016; Branas et al., 2018; Connealy, 2022; Wheeler et al., 2018). Efforts in Philadelphia and Buffalo to remediate vacant lots and/or abandoned or neglected buildings led to measurable reductions in firearms assaults and other crimes in and around the treated areas compared to comparable untreated areas (Branas et al., 2016; Wheeler et al., 2018). In a follow-up study using a randomized controlled trial design (the “gold standard” in research design to show cause and effect), Branas and his colleagues (2018) obtained funding to randomly assign vacant lots in Philadelphia for treatment through the application of a vacant land ordinance that allowed city-contracted workers to remove trash and debris, grade the land, plant a small number of trees, hydroseed the lot with grass, and install a low wooden fence with gaps to encourage use of the lots as micro parks within neighborhoods. Approximately 375 lots were randomly assigned and treated (some more extensively than others) at an average cost of $5 per square meter and maintained afterwards at an average cost of $.50 per square meter. The researchers measured crime and neighborhood perceptions of crime in and around the treated sites and found significantly reduced perceptions of crime through surveys of residents and a statistically significant reduction in all reported crime (-4.2%), gun assaults (-2.7%), and burglaries (-6.3%) in the treated areas compared to the untreated areas; the effects were even more pronounced in neighborhoods below the poverty line. Kondo et al. (2015) found similar effects associated with the installation of working doors and windows to improve the facades of abandoned buildings, and recently, Connealy (2022) also demonstrated the salience of urban decay (deteriorated streets and sidewalks, dilapidated buildings, vacant/ unkempt land) on the formation and persistence of crime hot spots in Indianapolis. Taken as a whole, this body of evidence suggests that place-based strategies to control crime should include efforts to remediate urban decay, particularly in and around hot spots for violent crime. 12 POPBP in Salt Lake City Violent crime in Salt Lake City is highly concentrated at a relatively small number of addresses, and many of the places where violent crime repeatedly occurs are businesses or homeless shelters. Some motels, convenience stores, gas stations, and small number of apartment complexes also disproportionately contribute to violent crime in Salt Lake City. Thus, the existing pattern of violent crime in Salt Lake City suggests the need for a place- based strategy that would involve partnerships between businesses (including apartment/ motel management), the SLCPD, and other city agencies to address the conditions in and around these locations that make them attractive targets for violent crime. A holistic, problem-oriented response to such conditions will require detailed problem definitions, tailored, evidence-based solutions, and the careful assessment of results (Goldstein, 1990). As a promising mid-term strategy to address violence, the SLCPD, in coordination with other city agencies and stakeholders, intends to implement a POPBP process in Salt Lake City to complement the hot spots strategies it will implement in the shorter term. Realistically, a POPBP strategy will take 6-12 months to put into place and will require training and buy-in from multiple stakeholders. The following table was adapted from Herold et al. (2020) and serves to illustrate how the POPBP process will unfold in Salt Lake City. TABLE 1: The POPBP Process IMPLEMENTATION STEPS Select violent locations Select and train SLCPD POPBP unit Establish, train, and obtain buy-in from POPBP Board members Establish and train POPBP working group POPBP working group assesses the nature and extent of the problem(s) • Collect community intelligence • Gather and analyze agency-specific data Develop solutions to problem(s) identified; present to POPBP Board • Enforcement solutions • Environmental solutions • Community solutions Implement solutions Assess implementation and effectiveness Make adjustments as needed • Continual assessment To maximize its chances for success, the POPBP process requires buy-in from multiple stakeholders and a careful, data-driven process that starts with identifying violence-prone hot spots and investigating them exhaustively to understand the nature of the problems 13 that contribute to the violence occurring at these locations. Police and other POPBP stakeholders will require training on the POPBP process and/or investigative techniques, and the police must have (or put in place) a functional process for collecting and analyzing data and intelligence related to potential POPBP sites. Once likely sites have been identified, Chief Brown, working with the Mayor, will lead the development of a POPBP Board (stakeholder agency leaders) and working group (mid-level managers) to oversee the implementation of place-based operations plans. The working group will be responsible for gathering information about the violence-prone places, carefully defining the problems there, and developing creative solutions. The POPBP Board will review the information gathered and proposed solutions, approve the place-based plans, and commit the resources necessary to carry them out. The careful tracking and analysis of pre- and post-intervention metrics (agreed upon by the Board) is vital and will be carried out by the UTSA research partners. The effects of the interventions must be carefully assessed and documented and adjustments made to the plans if necessary to optimize success. Critically, the plans must include a strong maintenance component purposely designed to ensure that crime reduction gains are maintained and not squandered as attention is shifted to other sites (Herold et al., 2020). During the first six months of implementation, initial violent places will be identified by the SLCPD POPBP unit using traditional crime analysis methods and local police knowledge and intelligence. The process of putting together the POPBP board will begin concurrently, and the initial training of police POPBP personnel will take place during the initial six-month period. The Chief of Police will lead the POPBP Board and will be principally responsible for constituting the Board with support from the Mayor. Once the Board is in place, its members and working group designees will be trained on the POPBP process and goals within six months. Likely membership of the Board will include the following: TABLE 2: Initial POPBP Board Membership CITY DEPARTMENT ROLES AND RESPONSIBILITIES Police • Lead POPBP board • Gather intelligence • Conduct criminal investigations • Make arrests • Deter criminal activity • Analyze crime and public-safety related data City Attorney • Legal review of recommended intervention strategies as needed • Drafts municipal code changes as needed Building Services • Building inspections • Code compliance • Civil enforcement 14 Civil Enforcement • Enforcement (zoning, weeds, etc.) • Vacant/boarded housing Community & Neighborhoods • Housing solutions • Community problem-solving Compliance • Impoundment of abandoned vehicles • Parking issues Economic Development • Business investment/development Fire Department • Identify/address fire hazards and fire code violations Housing Stability • Housing programs • Provision of services/shelter • Impact and needs assessments Planning • Zoning-related issues Public Lands • Parks and recreation • Use and maintenance Redevelopment Agency • Livability • Neighborhood improvement Streets • Street improvements • Street design Transportation • Public transportation • Traffic problems/concerns Waste & Recycling • Illegal dumping • Trash removal Youth & Family • Youth programs • Summer jobs • Family support Once the POPBP board and working group are in place and trained, the SLCPD POPBP unit and POPBP working group will begin an intensive information-gathering process on the sites to identify the precise nature and scope of the underlying problems driving violent crime in and around them. This information-gathering and analysis phase will culminate in the development of potential solutions to the problems identified. Problems identified and solutions proposed will be incorporated into site-specific operations plans that will include timelines for implementation, responsible parties, and metrics for measuring implementation and effectiveness of each proposed solution. These strategies likely will involve traditional police enforcement and crime prevention activities but also should include a multipronged and multi-disciplinary strategy to address the underlying problems that facilitate violence at the crime-prone place. Changes to the physical environment, code enforcement, and even traffic flows may need to be addressed as part of a comprehensive place-based violence reduction strategy. Once operations plans have been developed, they will be presented to the POPBP board for its input, eventual approval, and commitment of resources. 15 Measurement and Evaluation To assess the implementation and effectiveness of the POPBP strategy on violent crime in Salt Lake City, the UTSA research team will conduct a process and impact evaluation of the strategy. Process evaluations are designed to document the implementation of programs and policies, assess whether they were implemented as intended, and identify any obstacles to implementation. An outcome (or impact) evaluation focuses on whether the program or strategy as implemented had its intended effect. In this case, the overarching goal of the strategy is to reduce violent crime (robberies, aggravated assaults, homicides) and its associated metrics such as shootings or violence-related calls for service in and around crime-prone places. The process evaluation will make use of problem-specific metrics to assess expected outcomes such as arrests made, code violations written, nuisances abated, or environmental changes made to document implementation. The POPBP working group will be asked for input on implementation metrics that should be tracked, and these will be systematically gathered and analyzed by the UTSA research team and reported semi- annually following POPBP implementation. On the outcome side, the POPBP working group will again work with the UTSA researchers to identify appropriate effectiveness metrics such as violent crimes, shootings, or violence- related calls for service received pre- and post-intervention. A 6-month pre and 6-month post intervention period will be utilized initially to gauge the impact of the strategy on the agreed-upon impact metrics collected in and around the crime-place locations and surrounding areas. Once maintenance plans are put in place to maintain crime reduction gains at targeted sites, the SLCPD and UTSA researchers will continue to follow key outcome metrics over time (e.g., 24-36 months) to track long-term effects. LONG-TERM STRATEGY Longer-term crime reduction strategies require additional time and resources to implement compared to short-term or mid-term strategies. In most cases, they also require collaboration with outside stakeholders, which may include other city departments, federal law enforcement agencies, schools, businesses, community groups, and non-profit organizations. The long-term violence reduction strategy proposed below is evidence- based and has proven successful in other cities after rigorous evaluation. Focused Deterrence First designed and implemented in Boston in the 1990s, focused deterrence strategies (sometimes referred to as “pulling levers”) have proven successful in reducing violent crime in a number of cities where they have been applied and evaluated (Braga et al., 2018; Corsaro, 2018; Engel, 2018). A leading expert in the design and evaluation of these approaches to reducing street-level violence has stated unequivocally that “focused deterrence strategies save lives” (Engel, 2018). The goal of focused deterrence is to change the behavior of high- 16 risk offenders through a combination of deterrence, incapacitation (arrest), community involvement, and the provision of alternatives to violence (Braga et al., 2018). A key feature of most focused deterrence strategies is the clear communication to gang members and other violent offenders of the risks associated with continued criminal activity and the alternatives available to them under a robust suite of social service, education, and job- related services made available to them under the strategy. Focused deterrence strategies have been successfully implemented in cities such as Indianapolis, Cincinnati, Chicago, New Orleans, Oakland, Detroit, and Seattle among others and have shown statistically significant, and in some cases, substantively large reductions (15-34%) in reported violent crime (McGarrell et al., 2006; Engel et al., 2010; Papachristos & Kirk, 2015; Corsaro & Engel, 2015; Saunders et al., 2016). Components of Focused Deterrence While focused deterrence strategies typically contain common elements, they should be viewed as problem-oriented policing strategies that work best when tailored to a specific crime problem or offending population (e.g., gang violence, youth homicide) in a city or area of a city. These strategies emphasize the development of an interagency law enforcement team often consisting of local, state, and federal partners (law enforcement, prosecutors, probation/parole, etc.), which relies on local intelligence to identify high risk offenders or groups of offenders within the targeted risk group. The law enforcement team then develops a strategy to target the offenders utilizing all available legal remedies – arrest and prosecution (often with federal partners taking the lead on drug and gun-related crimes), gang injunctions, place-based strategies to close down buildings or houses used to facilitate crime, etc. Key to the strategy is (1) a deterrence message communicated directly and repeatedly to the target population, and (2) offering violent lifestyle alternatives to the targeted offenders, which may involve the provision of social services, education, job training, substance abuse treatment, or direct employment with willing partners in the private or non-profit sectors (Braga, 2018). The deterrence message is often communicated through “call-ins” or offender notification meetings whereby offenders are invited or required (as a condition of probation or parole) to appear and hear deterrence messaging from law enforcement officials and respected community voices (e.g., clergy or family members of victims). At these meetings, social service representatives are also available to offer prosocial alternatives to the threat posed by law enforcement of arrest and long-term incarceration in a federal penitentiary. Cities that have used focused deterrence strategies successfully sometimes have made use of street workers (often former gang members) to communicate the deterrence message directly to gang members on the street and to serve as a resource to connect them with social services (CICF, 2021; Engel et al., 2010; McGarrell, et al., 2006). Each offender also should be assigned to a caseworker for follow-up and tracking from initial contact through final disposition. 17 Focused deterrence strategies come in several varieties. The original Boston Ceasefire model, later replicated and modified in Cincinnati and other cities, focused on gangs and violent criminal groups. Other cities have copied the High Point, NC drug market intervention (DMI) program that focused on identifying and arresting violent drug dealers while suspending criminal proceedings against non-violent drug offenders within targeted drug markets (Kennedy & Wong, 2009). These non-violent offenders were then provided moral support and encouragement from family members and/or community leaders and social service support from city or non-profit agencies. Based on the High Point experience, DMI has been rated as “effective” by the National Institute of Justice (NIJ, 2014). A final type of focused deterrence targets repeat offenders by leveraging available legal tools (arrest and prosecution), deterrence through the use of “moral” voices from the community, and the provision of social service alternatives (Braga, 2018; Papachristos et al., 2007). Focused Deterrence in Salt Lake City As part of its strategy to help provide long-term solutions to violent crime in Salt Lake City, the SLCPD will lead problem-based, focused deterrence strategies tailored to particular violent crime problems, neighborhoods, and offender groups. In partnership with the UTSA research team, the SLCPD will utilize problem-oriented policing methods to clearly identify underlying violent crime patterns in Salt Lake City and its neighborhoods,7 and then it will design tailored strategies to address those problems drawn from the success of focused deterrence models in other cities. Focused deterrence is a holistic, resource-intensive process involving multiple law enforcement and community partners. Initially, the SLCPD will work with its academic partners, city leadership, and other stakeholders to prioritize problems and people for focused deterrence interventions. The nature of those interventions may vary according to the problem identified (gang violence vs. neighborhood-based open-air drug markets), recognizing that some problems may overlap. As studies that have documented success have found, law enforcement partners at the local, state, and federal level will be engaged and brought onboard early in the process. These partners may include the FBI, U.S. Attorney’s Office, DEA, ATF, Salt Lake County District Attorney, Utah Adult Probation & Parole, and others. Given the resource-intensive nature of focused deterrence, initially one problem and/ or neighborhood will be selected for intervention. High risk offenders will be identified from a combination of arrest data and criminal intelligence maintained by SLCPD and/or federal law enforcement. The initial plan will be drawn-up as outlined above, and it will be continually assessed as part of the evaluation process once enacted. If resources allow, a second (or even third) focused deterrence effort may be undertaken simultaneously based on the emerging evidence and lessons learned from the first. 7 Neighborhoods may be defined in the traditional sense using historically understood neighborhood boundaries (e.g., Sugarhouse, University/Foothill, the Avenues) or it may focus on troublesome housing 18 Engaging in the SARA8 problem-oriented process and laying the groundwork for the partnerships needed to ensure programmatic success will take 6-12 months from the time implementation of the strategy begins. It is anticipated that the actual implementation of a focused deterrence strategy likely will begin in the latter half of 2023 or early 2024. By that time, the impact of the short and mid-term strategies that are part of SLCPD’s overall violence reduction strategic plan will have been measured and felt. The impact of these shorter- term strategies may affect the crime problems identified and chosen for intervention using a focused deterrence approach. In this way, the long-term focused deterrence strategy will build upon the expected success of the earlier components of the overall violent crime reduction plan, and the components will work synergistically to reduce violent crime in Salt Lake City and lay the groundwork for long-term change. The resources needed to successfully implement focused deterrence are considerable. Most cities that have utilized this approach have hired (or assigned) a full-time, senior-level director to oversee implementation of the strategy. Service providers must be identified, funding secured, and contracts or memoranda of understanding drawn up and signed. The cooperation of federal partners must be obtained and criteria established for federal prosecution when needed. The support of community and faith-based leaders, victim or survivor groups, family members, and other “moral voices” from the community will be necessary. Cooperation from other elements of the criminal justice system, especially the Salt Lake County prosecutor, is vital for success. In planning for the implementation of focused deterrence, the SLCPD chief and other city leaders may consider the development of a strategy to identify philanthropic partners who may be willing to help underwrite the initial and ongoing costs of the initiative and its evaluation. In sum, the time and effort needed to manage an effort of this magnitude requires a capable leader and appropriate staff (both police and non-police) to support and sustain the initiative for several years until processes are routinized and long-term impacts are felt. Measurement and Evaluation A scientifically valid process and impact evaluation of the Salt Lake City focused deterrence strategy is essential for measuring and documenting programmatic successes and failures. The UTSA research team will be engaged to conduct an independent evaluation of the strategy. An evaluation of this magnitude will be a considerable investment, but it is critical to know if the strategy was implemented as intended and had the impact it was intended to achieve. Before-and-after measures of crime, calls for service, quality of life, and community perceptions of safety will be key outcome indicators the UTSA team will consider. Carefully documenting the fidelity with which the strategy is implemented is also important and necessary to produce a “lessons learned” document that can serve as an implementation guide for subsequent iterations of the strategy. 8 Scanning, analysis, response, and assessment (Goldstein, 1990). 19 SUMMARY AND CONCLUSION This document serves as the Violent Crime Reduction Strategic Plan for Salt Lake City and the Salt Lake City Police Department. It contains evidence-based short, mid, and long-term strategies to address violence and its underlying conditions in Salt Lake City over the next three years. In the short-term, the SLCPD will execute a hot spots policing strategy to significantly increase police visibility in violent crime hot spots and deter violent offenders. As a mid- term strategy, the SLCPD will coordinate and lead a problem-oriented, place-based policing strategy to identify crime-prone places, arrest offenders when needed, and address the underlying environmental conditions conducive to crime. Long-term, the SLCPD will lead a focused deterrence strategy to arrest and prosecute violent offenders, deter others from committing violent crimes, and facilitate the provision of social services to crime-prone individuals willing to take advantage of them. From short-term to long-term, the SLCPD is also committed to facilitating the scientific evaluation of these strategies by credible and independent evaluators to document programmatic successes or failures and to provide a roadmap for future leaders in Salt Lake City and beyond to follow in their continuing efforts to reduce violence and the toll it takes on individuals and families in the community. These strategies are evidence-based and purposely designed to work synergistically to lower violent crime and improve the environmental conditions that facilitate it, recognizing that lowering poverty, improving education, reducing unemployment, eliminating homelessness and food insecurity, and supporting families are also critical to reducing violence in communities in the long term. 20 TP D C r i m e P l a n T i m e l i n e : Y e a r 1 ( S e p 2 0 2 2 - A u g 2 0 2 3 ) MO N T H Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g TA S K S Ho t S p o t s P o l i c i n g Al l o c a t e r e s o u r c e s b a s e d o n r e c e n t a n a l y s e s X X X X X X X X X X X X Ev a l u a t e t r e a t m e n t e f f e c t i v e n e s s X X X X Mo d i f y t r e a t m e n t a p p l i c a t i o n a s n e c e s s a r y X X X X Pr e p a r e i n t e r i m r e p o r t o n t r e a t m e n t e f f e c t i v e n e s s X X X X Pr e p a r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e r e p o r t o n l o n g e r t e r m t r e n d s an d p a t t e r n s X X Pr o b l e m - O r i e n t e d , P l a c e - B a s e d P o l i c i n g ( P O P B P ) Se l e c t a n d t r a i n T P D P O P B P u n i t X Es t a b l i s h a n d t r a i n P O P B P b o a r d a n d w o r k i n g g r o u p X X Ga t h e r p r e - i n t e l l i g e n c e t o s e l e c t v i o l e n t m i c r o - lo c a t i o n s X Co n d u c t i n t e r n a l a n d s t a k e h o l d e r i n f o r m a t i o n - ga t h e r i n g s e s s i o n s X X Pr e s e n t P O P B P p l a n t o B o a r d f o r a p p r o v a l X Ex e c u t e s t r a t e g y X X X Ev a l u a t e e f f e c t i v e n e s s ; a d j u s t ; a d d n e w s i t e s Pr e p a r e s u m m a r y r e p o r t Fo c u s e d D e t e r r e n c e Co n v e n e p r o g r a m s t a k e h o l d e r s Es t a b l i s h a n d t r a i n p r o g r a m b o a r d Pr o g r a m p l a n n i n g Id e n t i f y a t - r i s k o f f e n d e r s & l o c a t i o n s Co n d u c t o f f e n d e r c a l l - i n m e e t i n g s 21 In t e n s i v e e n f o r c e m e n t / p e o p l e & p l a c e s Mo n i t o r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n Pr e p a r e s u m m a r y r e p o r t o n o u t c o m e s TP D C r i m e P l a n T i m e l i n e : Y e a r 2 ( S e p 2 0 2 3 - A u g 2 0 2 4 ) MO N T H Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g TA S K S Ho t S p o t s P o l i c i n g Al l o c a t e r e s o u r c e s b a s e d o n r e c e n t a n a l y s e s X X X X X X X X X X X X Ev a l u a t e t r e a t m e n t e f f e c t i v e n e s s X X X X Mo d i f y t r e a t m e n t a p p l i c a t i o n a s n e c e s s a r y X X X X Pr e p a r e i n t e r i m r e p o r t o n t r e a t m e n t e f f e c t i v e n e s s X X X X Pr e p a r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e r e p o r t o n l o n g e r t e r m t r e n d s an d p a t t e r n s X X Pr o b l e m - O r i e n t e d , P l a c e - B a s e d P o l i c i n g ( P O P B P ) Se l e c t a n d t r a i n T P D P O P B P u n i t Es t a b l i s h a n d t r a i n P O P B P b o a r d a n d w o r k i n g g r o u p Ga t h e r p r e - i n t e l l i g e n c e t o s e l e c t v i o l e n t m i c r o - lo c a t i o n s X Co n d u c t i n t e r n a l a n d s t a k e h o l d e r i n f o r m a t i o n - ga t h e r i n g s e s s i o n s X X Pr e s e n t P O P B P p l a n t o B o a r d f o r a p p r o v a l X Ex e c u t e s t r a t e g y X X X X X X X X X X X X Ev a l u a t e e f f e c t i v e n e s s ; a d j u s t ; a d d n e w s i t e s X X Pr e p a r e s u m m a r y r e p o r t X X Fo c u s e d D e t e r r e n c e Co n v e n e p r o g r a m s t a k e h o l d e r s X Es t a b l i s h a n d t r a i n p r o g r a m s t a k e h o l d e r s X Pr o g r a m p l a n n i n g X X 22 Id e n t i f y a t - r i s k o f f e n d e r s & l o c a t i o n s X X Co n d u c t o f f e n d e r c a l l - i n m e e t i n g s X X In t e n s i v e e n f o r c e m e n t / p e o p l e & p l a c e s X X X X X X Mo n i t o r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n X X X X X X Pr e p a r e s u m m a r y r e p o r t o n o u t c o m e s Pr e p a r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e r e p o r t TP D C r i m e P l a n T i m e l i n e : Y e a r 3 ( S e p 2 0 2 4 - A u g 2 0 2 5 ) MO N T H Se p Oc t No v De c Ja n Fe b Ma r Ap r Ma y Ju n Ju l Au g TA S K S Ho t S p o t s P o l i c i n g Al l o c a t e r e s o u r c e s b a s e d o n r e c e n t a n a l y s e s X X X X X X X X X X X X Ev a l u a t e t r e a t m e n t e f f e c t i v e n e s s X X X X Mo d i f y t r e a t m e n t a p p l i c a t i o n a s n e c e s s a r y X X X X Pr e p a r e i n t e r i m r e p o r t o n t r e a t m e n t e f f e c t i v e n e s s X X X X Pr e p a r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e r e p o r t o n l o n g e r t e r m tr e n d s a n d p a t t e r n s X X Pr o b l e m - O r i e n t e d , P l a c e - B a s e d P o l i c i n g ( P O P B P ) Se l e c t a n d t r a i n T P D P O P B P u n i t Es t a b l i s h a n d t r a i n P O P B P b o a r d a n d w o r k i n g g r o u p Ga t h e r p r e - i n t e l l i g e n c e t o s e l e c t v i o l e n t m i c r o - lo c a t i o n s X Co n d u c t i n t e r n a l a n d s t a k e h o l d e r i n f o r m a t i o n - ga t h e r i n g s e s s i o n s X X Pr e s e n t P O P B P p l a n t o B o a r d f o r a p p r o v a l X Ex e c u t e s t r a t e g y X X X X X X X X X X X X Ev a l u a t e e f f e c t i v e n e s s ; a d j u s t ; a d d n e w s i t e s X X Pr e p a r e s u m m a r y r e p o r t X X 23 Fo c u s e d D e t e r r e n c e Co n v e n e p r o g r a m s t a k e h o l d e r s Es t a b l i s h a n d t r a i n p r o g r a m b o a r d Pr o g r a m p l a n n i n g Id e n t i f y a t - r i s k o f f e n d e r s & l o c a t i o n s Co n d u c t o f f e n d e r c a l l - i n m e e t i n g s X X X X In t e n s i v e e n f o r c e m e n t / p e o p l e & p l a c e s X X X X X X X X X X X X Mo n i t o r i m p l e m e n t a t i o n X X X X X X X X X X X X Pr e p a r e s u m m a r y r e p o r t o n o u t c o m e s X X X Pr e p a r e c o m p r e h e n s i v e r e p o r t X X 24 REFERENCES Berk, R. & MacDonald, J. (2010). Policing the homeless: An evaluation of efforts to reduce homeless-related crime. Criminology & Public Policy, 9, 813-840. Braga, A.A. & Bond, B.J. (2008). Policing crime and disorder hot spots: A randomized controlled trial. Criminology, 46, 577-607. Braga, A.A., Turchan, B.S., Papachristos, A.V., & Hureau, D.M. (2019). Hots spots policing and crime reduction: An update on an ongoing systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 15, 289-311. Braga, A.A., Welsh, B.C., & Schnell, C. (2019). Disorder policing to reduce crime: A systematic review. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 15. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1050. Braga, A.A., Weisburd, D., & Turchan, B. (2018). Focused deterrence strategies and crime control. Criminology & Public Policy, 17, 205-250. Branas, C.C., South, E.C., Kondo, M.C., Hohl, B., Bourgois, P., Wiebe, D.J., MacDonald, J.M. (2018). Citywide cluster randomized trial to restore blighted vacant land and its effects on violence, crime, and fear. PNAS, 115, 2946-2951. Branas, CC., Kondo, M.C., Murphy, S.M., South, E.C., Polsky, D., & MacDonald, J.M. (2016). Urban blight remediation as a cost-beneficial solution to firearm violence. American Journal of Public Health, 106, 2158-2164. Cassell, P.G. & Fowles, R. (2020). Does bail reform increase crime? An empirical assessment of the public safety implications of bail reform in Cook County, Illinois. Wake Forest Law Review, 55, 933-983. Central Indiana Community Foundation. (2021). Community-based violence prevention partnership toolkit. Indianapolis, IN: Author. Available at https://www.cicf.org/wp-content/ uploads/2019/06/OPHS-2019-VIOLENCE-PREVENTION-TOOLKIT.pdf. Clarke R., & Eck J. (2005). Crime analysis for problem solvers in 60 small steps. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Justice. Available at https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops- w0047-pub.pdf. Cohen, L.E. & Felson, M. (1979). Social change and crime rate trends: A routine activity approach. American Sociological Review, 44, 588-608. 25 Connealy, N.T. (2022). The influence, saliency, and consistency of environmental crime predictors: A probability score matching approach to test what makes a hot spot. Justice Quarterly. https://doi.org/10.1080/07418825.2022.2106292. Corsaro, N. (2018). More than lightning in a bottle and far from ready-made. Criminology & Public Policy, 17, 251-259. Corsaro, N., & Engel, R.S. (2015). The most challenging of contexts: Assessing the impact of focused deterrence on serious violence in New Orleans. Criminology & Public Policy, 14: 471–505. Corsaro, N., Engel, R.S., Herold, T.D., & Yildirim, M. (2019). Implementing gang and gun violence reduction strategies in Las Vega, Nevada: Hot sports evaluation results. IACP/ UC Center for Police Research and Policy. Alexandria, VA: Authors. Available at https:// www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/Research%20Center/LVMPD_Hot%20Spots%20 Experiment_Final%20Report_FINAL.pdf. Culhane, D.P. (2010). Tackling homelessness on Los Angeles’ skid row. Criminology & Public Policy, 9, 851-857. Eck, J. & Spelman, W. (1987). Problem-solving: Problem-oriented policing in New Port News. Washington, D.C.: Police Executive Research Forum. Ellsworth, J.T. (2018). Street crime victimization among homeless adults: A review of the literature. Justice Quarterly, 14, 96-118. Engel, R.S. (2018). Focused deterrence strategies save lives: Introduction and discussion of an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Criminology & Public Policy, 17, 199-203. Engel, R.S., Corsaro, N., & Tillyer, M.S. (2010). Evaluation of the Cincinnati Initiative to Reduce Violence (CIRV). Cincinnati, OH: University of Cincinnati Policing Institute. Fitzpatrick, K.M., La Gory, M.E., & Ritchey, F.J. (1993). Criminal victimization and the homeless. Justice Quarterly, 10, 353-368. Goldstein, H. (1990). Problem-oriented policing. New York: McGraw-Hill. Groff, E. R., Ratcliffe, J. H., Haberman, C. P., Sorg, E. T., Joyce, N. M., & Taylor, R. B. (2015). Does what police do at hot spots matter? The Philadelphia Policing Tactics Experiment. Criminology, 53, 23–53. 26 Herold, T.D. (2019). P.N.I.: Place network investigations. Presentation to IACP Research Advisory Committee. Available at https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/files/5.%20 THerold%20IACP%202019.pdf. Herold, T.D., Engel, R.S., Corsaro, N., & Clouse, S.L. (2020). Place network investigations in Las Vegas, Nevada: Program review and process evaluation. IACP/UC Center for Police Research and Policy. Alexandria, VA: Authors. Available at https://www.theiacp.org/sites/default/ files/Research%20Center/LVMPD_PIVOT%20Program%20Review_Final.pdf. Hinkle, J.C. & Weisburd, D. (2008). The irony of broken windows policing: A micro-place study of the relationship between disorder, focused police crackdowns and fear of crime. Journal of Criminal Justice, 36, 503-512. Hinkle, J.C., Weisburd, D., Telep, C.W., & Petersen, K. (2020). Problem-oriented policing for reducing crime and disorder: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 16. https://doi.org/10.1002/cl2.1089. Kennedy, D.M. & Wong, S. (2009). The High Point Drug Intervention Strategy. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Community Oriented Policing Services. Available at https://cops.usdoj.gov/RIC/Publications/cops-p166-pub.pdf. Kondo, M.C., Keene, D., Hohl, B.C., MacDonald, J.M., Branas, C.C. (2015). A difference-in- differences study of the effects of a new abandoned building remediation strategy on safety. PLOS One, 10, e0129582. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0129582. McGarrell, E.F., Chermak, S., Wilson, J.M., & Corsaro, N. (2006). Reducing homicide through a “lever-pulling” strategy.” Justice Quarterly, 23: 214–229. National Research Council. (2004). Fairness and effectiveness in policing: The evidence. In W. Skogan & K. Frydl (Eds.), Committee on law and justice, division of behavioral and social sciences and education (Committee to Review Research on Police Policy and Practices). Washington, DC: National Academies Press. Available at https://www.nap.edu/ download/10419. NIJ. (2014). Program profile: High point drug market intervention. CrimeSolutions, National Institute of Justice. Retrieved May 30, 2022, from https://crimesolutions.ojp.gov/ ratedprograms/361 27 O’Shea, T.C. (2006). Physical deterioration, disorder, and crime. Criminal Justice Policy Review, 17, 173-187. Papachristos, A.V. & Kirk, D.S. (2015). Changing the street dynamic: Evaluating Chicago’s group violence reduction strategy. Criminology & Public Policy, 14: 525–558. Papachristos, A.V., Meares, T.L., & Fagan, J. (2007). Attention felons: Evaluating Project Safe Neighborhoods in Chicago. Journal of Empirical Legal Studies, 4, 223–272. Ratcliffe, J.H. (2008). Intelligence-Led Policing. Collumpton, UK: Willan Publishing. Rosenfeld, R., Deckard, M. J., & Blackburn, E. (2014). The effects of directed patrol and self- initiated enforcement on firearm violence: A randomized controlled study of hot spot policing. Criminology, 52, 428–449. Sampson, R.J. & Raudenbush, S.W. (1999). Systematic social observation of public spaces: A new look at disorder in urban neighborhoods. American Journal of Sociology, 105, 603- 651. Saunders, J., Ober, A.J., Kilmer, B., & Greathouse, S.M. (2016). A Community-Based, Focused- Deterrence Approach to Closing Overt Drug Markets. Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Semerad, T. (2022, August 21). Why downtown SLC has blown past the pandemic and is topping the competition. The Salt Lake Tribune. https://www.sltrib.com/ news/2022/08/21/why-downtown-slc-has-blown-past/ Sherman, L. W., Williams, S., Ariel, B., Strang, L. R., Wain, N., Slothower, M., & Norton, A. (2014). An integrated theory of hot spots patrol strategy: implementing prevention by scaling up and feeding back. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 30, 95–122. Taylor, B., Koper, C.S., & Woods, D.J. (2011). A randomized controlled trial of different policing strategies at hot spots of violent crime. Journal of Experimental Criminology, 7, 149-181. Taylor, R.B., Shumaker, S.A., Gottfredson, S.D. (1985). Neighborhood-level links between physical features and local sentiments: Deterioration, fear of crime, and confidence. Journal of Architectural and Planning Research, 2, 261-275. 28 Tyler, T.R., Goff, P.A., & MacCoun, R.J. (2015). The impact of psychological science on policing in the united states: Procedural justice, legitimacy, and effective law enforcement. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 16, 75-109. Wei, E., Hipwell, A., Pardini, D., Beyers, J.M., & Loeber, R. (2005). Block observations of neighborhoud physical disorder are associated with neighbourhood crime, firearm injuries, and deaths, and teen births. Journal of Epidemiological Community Health, 59, 904-908. Weisburd, D., Braga, A.A., Groff, E., & Wooditch, A. (2017). Can hot spots policing reduce crime in urban areas? An agent-based simulation. Criminology, 55, 137–173. Weisburd, D., Groff, E.R., Jones, G., Cave, B., Amendola, K.L., Yang, S., Emison, R.F. (2015). The Dallas patrol management experiment: Can AVL technologies be used to harness unallocated patrol time for crime prevention? Journal of Experimental Criminology, 11, 367-391. Weisburd, D., Wyckoff, L. A., Ready, J., Eck, J. E., Hinkle, J. C., & Gajewski, F. (2006). Does crime just move around the corner? A controlled study of spatial displacement and diffusion of crime control benefits. Criminology, 44, 549-592. Weisburd, D. & Telep, C.W. (2014). Hot spots policing: What we know and what we need to know. Journal of Contemporary Criminal Justice, 30, 200-220. Wheeler, A., Kim, D., & Phillips, S. (2018). The effect of housing demolitions on crime in Buffalo, New York. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 55, 390-424. https://doi. org/10.1177/0022427818757283. Wilson JQ, & Kelling GL. (March 1982). Broken windows: police and neighborhood safety. Atlantic Monthly, 249. https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/1982/03/broken- windows/304465/. Yang, S. M. (2009). Assessing the spatial–temporal relationship between disorder and violence. Journal of Quantitative Criminology, 26(1), 139-163. A publication of the Salt Lake City Police Department ©2022 475 South 300 East Mailing Address: PO Box 145497 SLC, Utah 84114-5497 www.slcpd.com Salt Lake City Violent Crime Reduction Plan Mid-Year Results Dr. Michael R. Smith Dr. Rob Tillyer Dr. Brandon Tregle Department of Criminology & Criminal Justice May 2, 2023 Project Background Drawing from a substantial body of research on the positive impact that hot spots policing can have on reducing violence, this plan includes three components: 1.A near term strategy meant to substantially increase police visibility at addresses where violent crime is concentrated and prioritizing street-level deterrence in these areas. 2.A mid term strategy focused on violent places within the city using a Problem- Oriented, Place-Based Policing approach. 3.A longer-term strategy that will utilize a Focused Deterrence strategy to help break the cycle of violence among the small number of repeat and high-risk offenders who are responsible for committing most of the violent crime in Salt Lake City. Center for Applied Community and Policy Research 2 Hot Spots Policing Strategy Beginning in September 2022, SLCPD began executing its near- term, hot spots policing strategy: •Focus is on violence-prone addresses by increasing police visibility at or near those locations (associated hundred blocks) to deter violent offenders. •Officers are dispatched to recommended hot spots during peak crime hours •Officers are instructed to be within sight of the hot spot address for least 15 minutes with all vehicle lights illuminated •Goal:Drive down violent crime in and around these areas thereby impacting crime levels within larger geographical areas (e.g., patrol sectors) Center for Applied Community and Policy Research 3 Mid-Year Analysis Plan September 2022 through March 2023 1.Treatment fidelity: Alignment between expected and actual treatment at hot spots 2.Monthly violent crime comparison to same period last year and to previous 12-months •City-wide •Treated hot spots •Catchment areas •Crime type •Patrol Division Center for Applied Community and Policy Research 4 Fidelity Results Center for Applied Community and Policy Research 5 % Fidelity Total Dispatches Expected Treatment Correct Dispatches % Incorrect Dispatches Average Time on Scene P1 Fidelity 97.9%3,207 3,118 3,058 4.6%0:24:54 P2 Fidelity 92.9%2,420 2,473 2,298 5.0%0:21:10 P3 Fidelity 94.3%2,242 2,244 2,116 3.3%0:23:27 Violent Crime Impact: Periods 1 –3 Center for Applied Community and Policy Research 6 132 110 75 80 57 86 84 76 116 116 100 116 114 104 81 65 54 64 78 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 180 200 Vi o l e n t C r i m e i n c i d e n t s CITY-WIDE Violent Crime Incidents Per Month (September 2021 -March 2023) Treatment Period City-Wide Linear (City-Wide) This trend represents a 16.4% reduction in the treatment period Crime: Treatment Period v. Last Year Center for Applied Community and Policy Research 7 -10.7%-11.8% -2.3% 0.0%0.0% -33.3% -19.4% -71.4%-80% -70% -60% -50% -40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% Pe r c e n t C h a n g e i n A v e r a g e M o n t h l y C r i m e Percent Change in Average Monthly Violent Crime Treatment Period (Sep 11, 2022-Mar 2023) vs. Last Year Crime by Division: Treatment v. Last Year Center for Applied Community and Policy Research 8 0.0% -25.0%-22.7% 16.1% -5.3% -43.8% -55% -45% -35% -25% -15% -5% 5% 15% 25% Pe r c e n t C h a n g e i n A v e r a g e M o n t h l y C r i m e Percent Change in Average Monthly Violent Crime: Divisions Treatment Period (Sep 11, 2022-Mar 2023) vs. Last Year Arrests: City-Wide & Hot Spots v. Last Year Center for Applied Community and Policy Research 9 21.2% 5.2%1.4% -8.0% 3.4% 38.6% 66.4%61.1% 36.6% 250.0% 78.5% 150.0% -30% 0% 30% 60% 90% 120% 150% 180% 210% 240% 270% All Arrests Violent Arrests Disorder Arrests Warrant Arrests Drug Arrests Weapons Arrests Pe r c e n t C h a n g e A v e r a g e M o n t h l y A r r e s t s Comparison of Average Monthly Arrests -(City-Wide and Treatment Locations) Comparison of Average Monthly Arrests Note: These percentages are based on very low arrest counts and should be interpreted with caution City-Wide (Treatment Period vs. Same Time Last Year)Treatment Locations (Treatment Period vs. Same Time Last Year) Calls for Service: City-Wide & Hot Spots v. Last Year Center for Applied Community and Policy Research 10 -0.2% -13.6% 11.3% -35.4%-40% -30% -20% -10% 0% 10% 20% All Calls for Service Violence Related Calls for Service Pe r c e n t C h a n g e A v e r a g e M o n t h l y C F S Treatment Locations Comparison of Average Monthly Calls For Service (CFS) Treatment Period vs. Same Period Last Year & Treatment Period vs. Previous 12 Months City-Wide (Treatment Period vs. Same Time Last Year)Treatment Locations (Treatment Period vs. Same Time Last Year) Mid-Year Summary •A 16.4% reduction in violent crime incidents city-wide during the treatment period compared to the previous 12 months. •Reductions in average monthly crime rates city-wide, treatment locations, and catchment areas compared to the same time last year. •A decrease in violence related calls for service in treatment locations and city-wide compared to the same time last year. •Decreases in robberies of businesses, aggravated assaults, and gun involved crime compared to the same time last year. •Fidelity remained above 90% in all three treatment periods. Center for Applied Community and Policy Research 15 Next Steps –Mid-Term Strategy •Problem-Oriented, Place-Based Policing (POPBP) •POPBP strategies are carefully tailored to address underlying conditions that contribute to recurring problems in crime-prone locations and can be more effective at reducing crime than merely increasing or intensifying traditional police activities. •Initial Location Identified •Based on 3-year analysis of violent crime, arrests, and calls for service •Salt Lake City department heads trained on POPBP April 20, 2023 •POPBP Working Group trained May 1, 2023 •Working group will meet to define problems in and around targeted hot spot Center for Applied Community and Policy Research 15 Mid-Term Strategy Timeline •May –June 2023 •Problems identified •Solutions generated •June –July 2023 •Site-specific operations plan developed •Plan presented to Advisory Board •Feedback; adjustments; approval •Initial plan implementation begins •November 2023 & March 2024 •Evaluation results for review Center for Applied Community and Policy Research 15 UTSA Evaluation •Hot spot policing evaluation and reporting continues •POPBP •Advise on the development of a site-specific operations plan; process and impact metrics for each problem/solution •Conduct process & impact evaluation of the POPBP •Follow key outcome metrics over time (e.g., 24-36 months) to track long-term impacts •Provide semi-annual reports after POPBP implementation and suggest adjustments as needed Center for Applied Community and Policy Research 15 Questions? Contact Info: Dr. Michael R. Smith m.r.smith@utsa.edu 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:May 2, 2023 RE: ORDINANCE: ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT LOAN FUND LOAN TO TRACKLAND, LLC, AT 2117 WILSON 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 Trackland, LLC, a “software as a service” company at 2117 Wilson Avenue. Software as a service (SaaS) companies use software to provide a service to customers—in this case, a spreadsheet add-on to Salesforce. The City’s Economic Development Loan Committee recommends the Council approve a $350,000 loan at 11.0% interest over seven years to this business for working capital and hiring. This loan will assist in the creation of 20 new jobs in the next year and the retention of 8 current jobs. For context, the median small business commercial and industrial loan rates for the fourth quarter of 2022, were 6.44% for fixed-rate loans, and 7.44% 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. The application from Trackland, 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. The EDLF is a program administered by the Department of Economic Development, which is charged with maintaining the corpus of the EDLF in a manner sufficient to perpetuate the goals of the program. Each loan Item Schedule: Briefing: May 2, 2023 Public Hearing: N/A Potential Action: May 16, 2023 Page | 2 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 $350,000 loan from the Economic Development Loan Fund to a business called Trackland, LLC, at Avenue. ADDITIONAL AND BACKGROUND INFORMATION A.EDLF available balance and amount of outstanding loans. The Finance Department reported the available fund balance at $8,706,947 as of April 17, 2023. Outstanding loans totaled $3,684,187 as of March 31, 2023. 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 have a policy discussion with the Administration about interest rates charged by the City from this and other loan funds, and whether it makes sense to re-evaluate how interest rates are determined for lenders, especially since the City typically offers loans as a lender-of-last-resort. 2. 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.? 3.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? 4. 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 7.c. Consulted on April 26, 2023, at https://www.kansascityfed.org/surveys/small-business-lending-survey/small-business-ci-lending- increases-from-previous-quarter-but-declines-year-over-year/. 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: April 18, 2023 Darin Mano , Chair FROM: Lorena Riffo-Jenson, Director, Department of Economic Development SUB JECT: Economic Development Revolving Loan Fund (EDLF) – Trackland, LLC STAFF CONTACTS: Roberta Reichgelt, Business Development Director, Roberta.reichgelt@slcgov.com Will Wright, Project Manager, William.wright@slcgov.ccom DOCUMENT TYPE: Loan Approval RECOMMENDATION : The EDLF Loan Committee recommends approval of a $350,000 loan to Trackland, LLC . BUD GET IMPACT: $350,000 from the Economic Development Loan Fund BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: On April 13, 2023, a loan request from Trackland, LLC was presented to the EDLF Loan Committee for review and discussion. Trackland, LLC is a Sugar House based software as a service (SaaS) company that is an add on to Salesforce that improves its function. Basic Loan request Business Name: Trackland, LLC Address: 2117 Wilson Avenue Loan Amount Requested: $350,000 Loan Term: 7 years Interest Rate: 11.0% Use of Funds: Working Capital, Hiring Loan Type: Expansion Reasoning behind staff recommendation Lisa Shaffer (Apr 19, 2023 14:52 MDT)04/19/2023 04/19/2023 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. Only after the loan applicant goes through these processes, the loan is recommended to be reviewed by the Loan Committee members. Upon the thorough review of the Loan Committee members then a recommendation is made before the loan is transmitted to the Mayor for Council to receive the recommendation for final approval. Because the Loan Committee review process must adhere to the Open Meetings Act, 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 following 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: • Increase employment opportunities, • Stimulate business development and expansion, • Encourage private investment, • Promote economic development, • Enhance neighborhood vitality, and • Boost commercial enterprise, • While maintaining the corpus of the EDLF in a sufficient manner to perpetuate the goals of the program. This loan will assist in the creation of 20 new jobs in the next year and retention of 8 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 April 17, 2023, the EDLF available fund balance is: $8,706,947. 2. The amount of outstanding loans total as of March 31, 2023, is: $3,761,588.80. EDLF Loan Committee There is 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: Terms Sheet and Resolution LOAN TERM SHEET Applicant : Trackland, LLC Address : 2117 E Wilson Ave Proposed Loan Terms Loan Amount: $350,000 Loan Terms: 7 Years Interest Rate Calculation Prime Interest Rate: 7.00% (at the time of application on December 6, 2022) EDLF Charge: 4% Less Discount: 0% Interest Rate: 11.00% Use of Funds : Working Capital, Hiring, Marketing Business Type: Expansion Collateral and Guarantees: Residential Real Estate, Personal Property Personal Guarantees: David Spencer Rose 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 2023 (Ordinance approving a $350,000 loan for Trackland, LLC., at 2117 East Wilson 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, th e 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 $3 50,000 loan to Trackland, LLC., a local business located at 2117 East Wilson 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 _____________________, 2023. Darin Mano, Council Chair ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ______________________________ CITY RECORDER Transmitted to Mayor on _______________________. Mayor's Action: _______Approved. _______Vetoed. ______________________________ MAYOR ______________________________ CITY RECORDER (SEAL) Bill No. ________ of 2023. Published: ______________. APPROVED AS TO FORM Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Date: Sara Montoya, City Attorney April 17, 2023 Item E3 CITY COUNCIL OF SALT LAKE CITY 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 304 P.O. BOX 145476, SALT LAKE CITY, UTAH 84114-5476 WWW.COUNCIL.SLCGOV.COM TEL 801-535-7600 FAX 801-535-7651 MOTION SHEET CITY COUNCIL of SALT LAKE CITY TO:City Council Members FROM:Jennifer Bruno, Policy Analyst DATE:May 2, 2023 RE: Resolution: Local Emergency Declaration Extension – Flooding from Spring Runoff Motion 1 – I move the Council approves the extension of Proclamation 1 of 2023 from the date of this Resolution until June 30, 2023, unless later extended or terminated by subsequent resolution of the Council or unless terminated pursuant to State law. Motion 2 – I move that the Council reject the resolution. RESOLUTION NO. ____ OF 2023 Extension of Declaration of Local Emergency: Flood WHEREAS, under Utah Code 53-2a-208, the chief executive of a municipality may declare a local emergency, which local emergency may remain in effect for up to 30 days. WHEREAS, under Utah Code 53-2a-208(6), any extension of the local emergency beyond the initial 30 days must be with the consent of the governing body of the municipality. WHEREAS, on April 12, 2023, Salt Lake City Mayor Erin Mendenhall issued a Declaration of Local Emergency and Exercise of Emergency Powers No. 1 of 2023 in response to flooding caused by rapid snowmelt and warm weather (“Proclamation 1 of 2023”). WHEREAS, based on the continued existence of a large snowpack in the mountains upstream from Salt Lake City and fluctuating weather temperatures, there is an elevated risk of flood-caused damage during the spring snowmelt season. As such, the City Council has determined that extending the duration of the local emergency is in the best interest of the health, safety, and welfare of Salt Lake City’s residents. NOW THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, the following: 1. The Council approves the extension of Proclamation 1 of 2023 from the date of this Resolution until ________, 2023, unless later extended or terminated by subsequent resolution of the Council or unless terminated pursuant to State law. 2. Prior to the issuance of any proclamation exercising emergency powers under Proclamation 1 of 2023, the Mayor shall provide written notification to the Council of: (a) the specific powers the Mayor intends to exercise; (b) the justification for exercising such powers in connection with the local emergency; and (c) the anticipated effect of the exercise of such powers, including the anticipated cost or lost revenue to the City. 3. At any Council meeting while the local emergency is still in effect, the Council may seek additional information from the Mayor, including the actual effect of the exercise of any emergency powers and the actual costs or lost revenue to the City due to such exercise of powers. 4. This Resolution shall be effective immediately upon passage. Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah this ___ day of May, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL ___________________________________ Darin Mano, Chair ATTEST AND COUNTERSIGN: ________________________ Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder Approved as to form: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office __________________________ Katherine Lewis, City Attorney Katherine Lewis (Apr 25, 2023 21:52 MDT) Item E1 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 tinyurl.com/SLCFY23 TO:City Council Members FROM: Ben Luedtke Budget & Policy Analyst DATE:May 2, 2023 RE: Interlocal Agreement for 2023 Municipal General Election Services MOTION 1 – ADOPT I move that the Council approve a resolution for an election services interlocal cooperation agreement between Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County for the 2023 municipal general election. Staff note: This year, the municipal elections are being held for Council Districts Two, Four, Six, and the mayoral race. There is no primary. The Council selected ranked choice voting as the election method. MOTION 2 – NOT ADOPT I move that the Council proceed to the next agenda item. ERIN MENDENHALL OFFICE OF THE MAYOR Mayor CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL Date Received: ______________ _____________________________ Date Sent to Council: _________ Lisa Shaffer, Chief Administrative Officer TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 4/12/2023 Darin Mano, Council Chair FROM: Cindy Lou Trishman, City Recorder SUBJECT: Elections STAFF CONTACTS: Olivia Hoge, Election Management Coordinator, olivia.hoge@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Resolution RECOMMENDATION: Resolution to approve the Interlocal Cooperation Agreement BUDGET IMPACT: $244,551 Estimated Rank Choice Voting Method, FY 22-23: $35,000, FY 23-24: $40,000 BACKGROUND/DISCUSSION: The greatest estimated cost for Salt Lake City to participate in Ranked Choice Voting will be $244,551, which can decrease depending on how many municipalities are participating in Ranked Choice Voting and how many races will require Rank Choice Voting (this is dependent upon how many candidates declare in August.) This cost is still lower than the estimated cost of using the Traditional Voting Method, estimated at $320,608. In 2021, the final cost for Salt Lake City’s Municipal Election using Ranked Choice voting was $121,948, which was $35,572 more than the initial estimate of $86,376. To stay true to their estimate, Salt Lake County only charged $86,376 for the total cost of the election. The 2023 proposed agreement defines that Salt Lake City will be responsible for any additional charges and that those will be invoiced to the City after the election if the election exceeds the estimated cost from the County. Refer to Attachment A for the Interlocal Agreement with Salt Lake County. The costs associated will be included in the Attorney’s Department budget proposal for Fiscal Year 2023-2024. Attachment B is the Resolution for the approval of the Interlocal Agreement. It has been confirmed there will be no state funding available for awareness of Ranked Choice Voting this election. Any awareness materials must be funded by the City. For fiscal year 22-23, the Recorder’s office is requesting $35,000 to cover awareness materials and an additional $40,000 in the FY 23-24 proposal provided the expenses will the incurred between July and October. The request for funding for FY 22-23 is forthcoming in a budget amendment. Lisa Shaffer (Apr 12, 2023 14:26 MDT) 04/12/2023 04/12/2023 ATTACHMENT A County Contract No. CK23116 City Contract No. D.A. No. 23CIV000146 INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT between SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION and SALT LAKE COUNTY on behalf of the COUNTY CLERK’S ELECTION’S DIVISION FOR MUNICIPAL ELECTION THIS AGREEMENT is made and entered into the day of , 2023, by and between SALT LAKE COUNTY (the “County”), a body corporate and politic of the State of Utah, on behalf of the Salt Lake County Clerk’s Office, Elections Division; and SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION (the “City”) a municipal corporation created under the laws of the State of Utah. RECI T A L S: WHEREAS, the County desires to provide the services of its clerk’s office, elections division, to the City for the purpose of assisting the City in conducting the City’s 2023 general municipal election; WHEREAS, the City desires to engage the County for such services; and WHEREAS, the parties are public agencies and are therefore authorized by the Utah Interlocal Cooperation Act, UTAH CODE §§ 11-13-101 to -608 (2022), to enter into agreements to cooperate with each other in a manner which will enable them to make the most efficient use of their resources and powers. A G REEM EN T: NOW THEREFORE, in exchange for valuable consideration, including the mutual covenants contained in this Agreement, the parties covenant and agree as follows: 1 2 1. Term. The County shall provide election services described below to the City commencing on the date this Agreement is approved by both parties and terminating on December 31, 2023. Either party may cancel this Agreement upon thirty (30) days written notice to the other party. Upon such cancellation, each party shall retain ownership of any property it owned prior to the date of this Agreement, and the City shall own any property it created or acquired pursuant to this Agreement. 2. Scope of Work. The services to be provided by the County shall be as set forth in the Scope of Work, attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit “A.” Generally, the County shall perform the listed election functions as set forth in Exhibit “A” and as needed to ensure implementation of the City’s 2023 general municipal election. 3. Legal Requirements. a. The County and the City understand and agree that the City’s 2023 general municipal election is the City’s election. The City shall be responsible for compliance with all legal requirements for that election. The City agrees to translate ballot issues, if any, into Spanish. The County will provide the remaining Spanish translations for the ballot and other election materials as required by law. The County agrees to work with the City in complying with all legal requirements for the conduct of that election and conduct that election pursuant to the direction of the City, including any recounts requested by the City under Utah Code Section 20A-4-603, except as provided in this Agreement and Exhibit “A.” The County agrees to disclose and maintain election results through its website merely as a courtesy and convenience to the City. The City, and not the County, is responsible to resolve any and all election questions, problems, and legal issues that are within the City’s statutory authority. 3 b. The County and the City understand and agree that if the County provides services or resources to conduct an instant runoff voting election as described in sections 20A-4-603 and -604, UTAH CODE (2022) (“Rank Choice Voting”), the estimated cost of administering such an election will be provided to the City at a later time. c. If the City decides to hold a Rank Choice Voting election, then, in accordance with Utah Code § 20A-4-602(3)(a), it shall provide the Lt. Governor and the County notice of its intent to use Rank Choice Voting as its selected method of voting, no later than May 1, 2023. d. The County has the full ability to conduct Rank Choice Voting for races involving no more than 10 candidates. The City therefore acknowledges that if the County conducts a Rank Choice Voting race involving more than 10 candidates, then the County will be able to count only the first ten valid preference rankings cast by each voter in that race. The City hereby assumes full risk and liability for, and agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the County, its agents, officers and employees from and against, any and all actions, claims, lawsuits, contests, controversies, challenges, proceedings, liability, damages, losses and expenses (including attorney’s fees and costs) arising out of or resulting from the City’s decision to use of Rank Choice Voting in a race involving more than 10 candidates. Moreover, the County reserves the right to refuse to conduct a City election, or any contest, that includes a Rank Choice Voting race involving more than 10 candidates. The County’s exercise of such a right shall be effective immediately upon written notice to the City and shall not be construed as a breach 4 of, or an event of default under, this Agreement, and said exercise shall be without any liability of, or penalty to, the County. 4. Cost. In consideration of the services performed under this Agreement, the City shall pay the County. The estimated cost of such services shall be provided in Exhibit “B,” and will be attached hereto and incorporated by reference. The County shall provide a written invoice to the City at the conclusion of the elections, and the City shall pay the County within thirty days of receiving the invoice. The invoice shall contain a summary of the costs of the election and shall provide the formula for allocating the costs among the issues and jurisdictions participating in the elections. In the case of a vote recount, election system audit, election contest, or similar event arising out of the City’s election, the City shall pay the County’s actual costs of responding to such events, based on a written invoice provided by the County. The invoice amount for these additional services may cause the total cost to the City to exceed the estimate given to the City by the County. For such consideration, the County shall furnish all materials, labor and equipment to complete the requirements and conditions of this Agreement. 5. Governmental Immunity. The City and the County are governmental entities and subject to the Governmental Immunity Act of Utah, UTAH CODE §§ 63G-7-101 to – 904 (2022) (the “Governmental Immunity Act”). Nothing in this Agreement shall be deemed a waiver of any rights, statutory limitations on liability, or defenses applicable to the City or the County under the Governmental Immunity Act or common law. Each party shall retain liability and responsibility for the acts and omissions of their representative officers. In no event shall this Agreement be construed to establish a partnership, joint venture or other similar relationship between the parties and nothing contained herein shall authorize either party to act as an agent for the other. Each of the parties hereto 5 assumes full responsibility for the negligent operations, acts and omissions of its own employees, agents and contractors. It is not the intent of the parties to incur by Agreement any liability for the negligent operations, acts, or omissions of the other party or its agents, employees, or contractors. 6. No Obligations to Third Parties. The parties agree that the County’s obligations under this Agreement are solely to the City. This Agreement shall not confer any rights to third parties. 7. Indemnification. Subject to the provisions of the Act, the City agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the County, its agents, officers and employees from and against any and all actions, claims, lawsuits, proceedings, liability, damages, losses and expenses (including attorney’s fees and costs), arising out of or resulting from the performance of this Agreement to the extent the same are caused by any negligent or wrongful act, error or omission of the City, its officers, agents and employees and including but not limited to claims that the County violated any state or federal law in the provision of election services under this Agreement. 8. Election Records. The City shall maintain and keep control of all of its records created pursuant to this Agreement and from the elections relevant to this Agreement. The City shall respond to all public record requests related to this Agreement and the underlying elections and shall retain its election records consistent with the Government Records Access and Management Act, UTAH CODE §§ 63G-2-101 to -901 (2022), and all other relevant local, state and federal laws. 9. Service Cancellation. If the Agreement is canceled or terminated as provided above, the City shall pay the County on the basis of the actual services performed according to the terms of this Agreement. Upon cancellation or termination of 6 this Agreement by either party, the County shall submit to the City an itemized statement for services rendered under this Agreement up to the time of said cancellation or termination and based upon the dollar amounts for materials, equipment and services set forth herein. 10. Legal Compliance. The County, as part of the consideration herein, shall comply with all applicable federal, state and county laws governing elections. The City agrees that the direction it gives the County under Utah Code § 20A-5-400.1(2)(a) and this Agreement shall likewise be in strict compliance with all such applicable laws. The County shall be under no obligation to comply with any direction from the City that is not demonstrably consistent with all applicable federal, state and county laws governing elections. 11. Agency. No agent, employee or servant of the City or the County is or shall be deemed to be an employee, agent or servant of the other party. None of the benefits provided by either party to its employees including, but not limited to, workers’ compensation insurance, health insurance and unemployment insurance, are available to the employees, agents, or servants of the other party. The City and the County shall each be solely and entirely responsible for its own acts and for the acts of its own agents, employees and servants during the performance of this Agreement. 12. Force Majeure. Neither party shall be liable for any excess costs if the failure to perform arises from causes beyond the control and without the fault or negligence of that party, e.g., acts of God, fires, floods, strikes or unusually severe weather. If such condition continues for a period in excess of 60 days, the City or the County shall have the right to terminate this Agreement without liability or penalty effective upon written notice to the other party. 7 13. Notices. Any notice or other communication required or permitted to be given under this Agreement shall be deemed sufficient if given by a written communication and shall be deemed to have been received upon personal delivery, actual receipt, or within three (3) days after such notice is deposited in the United States mail, postage prepaid, and certified and addressed to the parties as set forth below: Salt Lake County Salt Lake County Mayor 2001 South State Street, N2-100 Salt Lake City, Utah 84190 and Ann Stoddard Admin/Fiscal Manager Salt Lake County Clerk's Office 2001 South State, Suite S1-200 Salt Lake City, Utah 84190-1050 email: astoddard@slco.org City email: 14. Required Insurance Policies. Both parties to this Agreement shall maintain insurance or self-insurance coverage sufficient to meet their obligations hereunder and consistent with applicable law. 15. Independent Contractor. Because the County is consolidating election functions in order to conduct multiple, simultaneous elections on August 15, 2023, and on November 7, 2023, certain decisions by the County referenced in Exhibit “A” may not be subject to review by the City. It is therefore understood by the parties that the County will act as an independent contractor with regard to its decisions regarding resources, 8 procedures and policies based upon providing a consistent type, scope and level of service to all participating jurisdictions made for the benefit of the whole as set forth in Exhibit “A.” 16. No Officer or Employee Interest. It is understood and agreed that no officer or employee of the County has or shall have any pecuniary interest, direct or indirect, in this Agreement or the proceeds resulting from the performance of this Agreement. No officer or employee of the City or any member of their families shall serve on any County board or committee or hold any such County position which either by rule, practice or action nominates, recommends or supervises the City’s operations or authorizes funding or payments to the City. 17. Ethical Standards. The City represents that it has not: (a) provided an illegal gift to any County officer or employee, or former County officer or employee, or to any relative or business entity of a County officer or employee, or relative or business entity of a former County officer or employee; (b) retained any person to solicit or secure this contract upon an agreement or understanding for a commission, percentage, brokerage or contingent fee, other than bona fide employees of bona fide commercial agencies established for the purpose of securing business; (c) breached any of the ethical standards set forth in Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 3, Part 13 or section 2.07, Salt Lake County Code of Ordinances; or (d) knowingly influenced, and hereby promises that it will not knowingly influence, any County officer or employee or former County officer or employee to breach any of the ethical standards set forth in Utah Code Title 10, Chapter 3, Part 13 or Salt Lake County ordinance section 2.07. 9 18. Interlocal Agreement. In satisfaction of the requirements of the Utah Interlocal Cooperation Act, UTAH CODE §§ 11-13-101 to -608 (2022), (the “Interlocal Act”), in connection with this Agreement, the City and the County agree as follows: a. This Agreement shall be approved by each party, pursuant to section 11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Act; b. This Agreement shall be reviewed as to proper form and compliance with applicable law by a duly authorized attorney on behalf of each party, pursuant to Section 11-13-202.5 of the Interlocal Act; c. Any duly executed original counterpart of the Agreement shall be filed with the keeper of records of each party, pursuant to section 11-13-209 of the Interlocal Act; d. Except as otherwise specifically provided herein, each party shall be responsible for its own costs of any action performed pursuant to this Agreement, and for any financing of such costs; and e. No separate legal entity is created by the terms of this Agreement. No real or personal property shall be acquired jointly by the parties as a result of this Agreement. To the extent that a party acquires, holds or disposes of any real or personal property for use in the joint or cooperative undertaking contemplated by this Agreement, such party shall do so in the same manner that it deals with other property of such party. To the extent that this Agreement requires administration other than as set forth herein, it will be administered by a joint board of the County Clerk and the City Recorder, or their designees. The board members shall perform their respective duties described in this Agreement. The County Clerk shall be responsible for the basic operational functions involved in 10 conducting the City’s election and shall bring to the City Recorder’s attention any election questions, problems, or legal issues regarding the election and otherwise consult with the City Recorder about significant matters or decisions related to the election. In the event of a disagreement between the City Recorder and the County Clerk regarding those matters, the County Clerk will have authority to make the final decision. f. County and City Representatives. i. The County designates the County Clerk as the County’s representative to assist in the administrative management of this Agreement and to coordinate performance of the services under this Agreement. ii. The City has designated the City’s City Recorder as the City’s representative in its performance of this Agreement. The City’s Representative is responsible for working with the County to coordinate the performance of the City’s obligations under this Agreement. g. Either party may withdraw from the joint or cooperative undertaking described in this Agreement only upon the termination of this Agreement. h. Voting by the respective County Clerk and City Recorder will be based on one vote per party, subject to the County Clerk having final decision- making authority as described in section 18(e). i. The functions to be performed by the joint board or cooperative undertaking are those described in this Agreement. j. The powers of the joint board are those described in this Agreement. 11 19. Counterparts. This Agreement may be executed in counterparts by the City and the County. 20. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be governed by the laws of the State of Utah both as to interpretation and performance. All actions including but not limited to court proceedings, administrative proceedings, arbitration and mediation proceedings, shall be commenced, maintained, adjudicated and resolved within Salt Lake County. 21. Integration. This Agreement embodies the entire agreement between the parties relating to the subject matter of this Agreement and shall not be altered except in writing signed by both parties. [SIGNATURE PAGE TO FOLLOW] 12 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement on the day and year first above written. SALT LAKE COUNTY: Mayor or Designee Date: Recommended for Approval: Lannie Chapman Salt Lake County Clerk Reviewed as to Form: Deputy District Attorney Date: SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION: By: Name: Title: Date: Approved as to Proper Form and Compliance with Applicable Law: By: Boyd Ferguson, Senior City Attorney Date: April 11, 2023 Election Interlocal Agreement 2023_v5 Final Audit Report 2023-04-11 "Election Interlocal Agreement 2023_v5" History Document created by Olivia Hoge (olivia.hoge@slcgov.com) 2023-04-11 - 6:11:39 PM GMT Document emailed to Boyd Ferguson (boyd.ferguson@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-04-11 - 6:12:03 PM GMT Email viewed by Boyd Ferguson (boyd.ferguson@slcgov.com) 2023-04-11 - 7:06:25 PM GMT Document e-signed by Boyd Ferguson (boyd.ferguson@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-04-11 - 7:07:33 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2023-04-11 - 7:07:33 PM GMT Names and email addresses are entered into the Acrobat Sign service by Acrobat Sign users and are unverified unless otherwise noted. Created: 2023-04-11 By: Status: Transaction ID: Olivia Hoge (olivia.hoge@slcgov.com) Signed CBJCHBCAABAA0bZn1jLj0k38mSmgg8_hQXwlOmIb-RtA Exhibit “A” 2023 Local District Election Scope of Work The Local District agrees to the consolidation of all election administrative functions to ensure the successful conduct of multiple, simultaneous municipal and local district elections and the County agrees to conduct a vote by mail/consolidated polls election for the Local District in accordance with the municipal election. In a consolidated election, decisions made by the County regarding resources, procedures and policies are based upon providing the same scope and level of service to all the participating jurisdictions and the Local District recognizes that such decisions, made for the benefit of the whole, may not be subject to review by the Local District. Services the County will perform for the Local District include, but are not limited to: • Ballot layout and design • Ballot ordering and printing • Machine programming and testing • Delivery of supplies and equipment • Provision of all supplies • Election vote center/early vote locations • Vote by Mail administration • Updating state and county websites • Tabulating, reporting, auditing and preparing canvassing election results • Conducting recounts as needed • All notices and mailings required by law (except those required by Utah Code Ann. Ch. 11-14, Part 2 and § 20A-9-203) • Direct payment of all costs associated with the election to include vote center workers, training, polling places, and rovers. The Local District will provide the County Clerk with information, decisions, and resolutions and will take appropriate actions required for the conduct of the election in a timely manner. The County will provide a good faith estimate for budgeting purposes (Exhibit “B”). Election costs are variable and are based upon the offices scheduled for election, the number of voters, the number of jurisdictions participating as well as any direct costs incurred. The Local District will be invoiced for its pro-rata share of the actual costs of the election which will not exceed the estimate in Exhibit B. In the event of a state or county special election being held in conjunction with a municipal or local district election, the scope of services and associated costs, and the method of calculating those costs, will remain unchanged. Exhibit “B” 2023 Election Costs Salt Lake City Below is the good faith estimate for the upcoming 2023 Municipal Election for Salt Lake City. Assumptions for providing this estimate consist of the following: A. Active voters (as of 1/27/2023): 97,286 B. Election for the offices below: All billing will be based on actual costs. If your municipality pursues traditional voting, not ranked choice voting (RCV), and has a Primary Election and a General Election, the estimated cost would be $319,906. If your municipality chooses RCV for the General Election and cancels the Primary Election, the estimated cost would be $207,939 for the General Election plus RCV costs (see below). If your municipality chooses RCV for the Primary Election and holds a traditional voting General Election, the estimated cost would be $319,906 plus the RCV costs (see below). RCV Costs will be applied on a sliding scale, see below. If your municipality chooses to hold a RCV election for either the Primary or the General, the added costs will be dependent upon how many other municipalities opt into RCV. As an example, if Salt Lake City is the only municipality to hold a RCV election, the costs would be as quoted above plus $36,156. You can see if two municipalities choose RCV, your added costs would be $18,078. (See the chart below for the additional cost depending on how many municipalities participate.) 2023 Offices Mayor Council District 2 Council District 4 Council District 6 ATTACHMENT B RESOLUTION OF 2023 Authorizing approval of an Interlocal Cooperative Agreement between Salt Lake City Corporation and Salt Lake County regarding the County provided Election Assistance Services for the City. WHEREAS, Title 11, Chapter 13, Utah Code allows public entities to enter into cooperative agreement to provide joint undertakings and services; and WHEREAS, the attached agreement has been prepared to accomplish said purposes; THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED, by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah as follows: 1. It does hereby approve the execution and delivery of the following: AN INTERLOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT BETWEEN SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION AND SALT LAKE COUNTY, ON BEHALF OF THE COUNTY CLERK ELECTION DIVISION, EFFECTIVE ON THE DATE IT IS SIGNED BY ALL PARTIES, REGARDING THE COUNTY PROVIDING ELECTION ASSISTANCE SERVICES TO THE CITY. 2. Erin Mendenhall Mayor of Salt Lake City, Utah or her designee is hereby authorized to approve, execute, and deliver said agreement on behalf of Salt Lake City Corporation, in substantially the same form as now before the City Council and attached hereto, subject to such minor changes that do not materially affect the rights and obligations of the City there under and as shall be approved by the Mayor, her execution thereof to constitute conclusive evidence of such approval. PASSED by the City Council of Salt Lake City this day of , 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON ATTEST: CITY RECORDER APPROVED AS TO FORM: Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office 2023 Resolution Approving InterlocalAgmt Final Audit Report 2023-04-11 "2023 Resolution Approving InterlocalAgmt" History Document created by Olivia Hoge (olivia.hoge@slcgov.com) 2023-04-11 - 10:25:09 PM GMT Document emailed to Boyd Ferguson (boyd.ferguson@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-04-11 - 10:25:23 PM GMT Email viewed by Boyd Ferguson (boyd.ferguson@slcgov.com) 2023-04-11 - 10:26:29 PM GMT Document e-signed by Boyd Ferguson (boyd.ferguson@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-04-11 - 10:27:35 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2023-04-11 - 10:27:35 PM GMT Names and email addresses are entered into the Acrobat Sign service by Acrobat Sign users and are unverified unless otherwise noted. Created: 2023-04-11 By: Status: Transaction ID: Olivia Hoge (olivia.hoge@slcgov.com) Signed CBJCHBCAABAADOUJILskN_k1NDvwVjPdNRyhvtDLusvd RESOLUTION: Interlocal Memorandum - 2023 Election Services Final Audit Report 2023-04-11 "RESOLUTION: Interlocal Memorandum - 2023 Election Service s" History Document created by Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) 2023-04-11 - 10:35:33 PM GMT Document e-signed by Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-04-11 - 10:37:50 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2023-04-11 - 10:37:50 PM GMT Names and email addresses are entered into the Acrobat Sign service by Acrobat Sign users and are unverified unless otherwise noted. Created: By: Status: 2023-04-11 Cindy Trishman (cindy.trishman@slcgov.com) Signed Transaction ID: CBJCHBCAABAAlG28eaDdiPPg3kEFfks9zoBcPM8fmo7L 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 FROM: Brian Fullmer Policy Analyst DATE:May 2, 2023 RE: Naming the Salt Lake International Airport Greeting Room the Senator Garn Greeting Room MOTION 1 (adopt) I move that the Council adopt the resolution. MOTION 2 (reject) I move that the Council reject the resolution. ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 4/4/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 4/4/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE: 4/4/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Naming the Salt Lake International Airport Greeting Room the Senator Garn Greeting Room STAFF CONTACT: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Bill Wyatt, Department of Airports Director DOCUMENT TYPE: Informational item RECOMMENDATION: Notify Council of the proposed room naming per City Code Chapter 3.65 BUDGET IMPACT: New signage is estimated to be approximately $500.00. The Department of Airports proposes to cover this expense through current budget allocations. BACKGROUND: Mayor Mendenhall proposes naming the Salt Lake International Airport Greeting Room the “Senator Garn Greeting Room” after former Salt Lake City Mayor and Utah Senator Jake Garn. Naming city assets is addressed in City Code Chapter 3.65. Section 3.65.020 states that the naming of major assets requires City Council approval, while the naming of minor assets requires only the Mayor’s approval. A major asset includes a structure or facility, including a portion of structure or facility. Under City Code, the Salt Lake International Greeting Room is a major asset. The Council may choose to approve the name change through legislative process or defer the approval to th e Mayor’s Office. Chapter 3.65 allows the Council 15 business days after receipt of this notice to determine whether it wishes to use a legislative process for the naming of the Salt Lake City Airport Greeting Room. If, at the conclusion of those 15 business days, the Council has not responded to this notice, the SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 TEL 801-535-7704 naming decision and process reverts to the Mayor’s Office to use the minor asset approval process. Jake Garn was elected Salt Lake City Commissioner in 1967 and Mayor in 1971. He went on the serve three terms as a United States Senator from 1974 -1992. Some highlights of Sen. Garn’s accomplishments for Salt Lake City , the state of Utah, and the country include: •Serving as a pilot for U.S. Navy and the Utah Air National Guard, retiring as a Colonel in 1979; •Becoming Utah’s first astronaut and the first sitting member of Congress to travel to space when he flew in the space shuttle Discovery ; •Authoring Utah’s first Wilderness Area, Lone Peak Wilderness, in 1978, which protects 30,632 acres of National Forest Land and Salt Lake City watershed ; •Working with Salt Lake City Mayor Ted Wilson to complete the Trust for Public Lands Exchange. This land exchange prevented housing encroachment at the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon. The Exchange also facilitated the Snow Basin development of a downhill racing run in time for the 2002 Winter Olympics. •Working with the Bureau of Reclamation to site the Jordanelle Dam and Reservoir northeast of Heber City in Wasatch and Summit Counties and obtain ing all the appropriations over 10 years for the construction of the reservoir and relocation of the highways ; •Authoring the 1992 Central Utah Project Completion Act , which finished Utah’s acquisition of its 23 percent of the Upper Colorado River Basin allotment as granted under the1922 Colorado River Accords; and •Placing TRAX funding in the 1992 Transportation Appropriations bill to begin construction of the TRAX Wasatch Front High Speed Rail Project. RESOLUTION NO. __ OF 2023 (A Resolution in Support and Approval of Naming the “Senator Garn Greeting Room” at the Salt Lake City International Airport) WHEREAS, the Mayor notified the Salt Lake City Council of a proposal to name a major City asset, the greeting room at the Salt Lake City International Airport (“Airport”), after Senator Garn as the “Senator Garn Greeting Room”; and WHEREAS, Senator Garn has a long history of involvement in aeronautics as Utah’s first astronaut and sitting member of Congress to travel into space; and WHEREAS, Senator Garn formerly made significant contributions to Salt lake City and Utah by, among other things, authoring Utah’s first Wilderness are, which protects 30,632 acres of National Forest Land and Salt Lake City watershed; served as mayor of Salt Lake City; worked with Salt Lake City Mayor Ted Wilson to complete the Trust for Public Lands Exchange, preventing housing encroachment at the mouth of Little Cottonwood Canyon and facilitating the Snow Basin development of a downhill racing run in time for the 2002 Winter Olympics; and WHEREAS, Senator Garn worked with the Bureau of Reclamation to site the Jordanelle Dam and Reservoir and obtained appropriations for over a decade for the construction of the reservoir and relocation of highways; authored the 1992 Central Utah Project Completion Act, which finished Utah’s acquisition of its 23 percent of the Upper Colorado River Basin allotment as granted under the1922 Colorado River Accords; and facilitated the funding in the 1992 Transportation Appropriations bill to begin construction of the TRAX Wasatch Front High Speed Rail Project; and WHEREAS, Unless City Council declines to act after written notice of the proposed naming of a major City asset, Salt Lake City Code specifies that City Council must approve the naming of all “major City assets”; WHEREAS, a “major city asset” under Salt Lake City Code 3.65 includes portions of municipal buildings such as the greeting room at the Airport; and WHEREAS, the proposed name aligns with the naming standards set forth under City Code 3.65; and WHEREAS, City Council has reviewed the naming proposal and desires to express its support and approval of naming the greeting room at the Airport as the “Senator Garn Greeting Room.” THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah: 1. Having reviewed the naming proposal for the greeting room at the Salt Lake City International Airport, and for the reasons expressed herein, hereby expresses 2 support and approval for naming the greeting room as the “Senator Garn Greeting Room.” Passed by the City Council of Salt Lake City, Utah, this _____ day of _________, 2023. SALT LAKE CITY COUNCIL By: ______________________________ Darin Mano, Chair, Salt Lake City Council Attest: ___________________________ City Recorder Salt Lake City Attorney’s Office Approved as to Form: ___________________________ Senior City Attorney ERIN MENDENHALL Mayor OFFICE OF THE MAYOR P.O. BOX 145474 451 SOUTH STATE STREET, ROOM 306 SALT LAKE CITY, UT 84114-5474 WWW.SLCMAYOR.COM TEL 801-535-7704 CITY COUNCIL TRANSMITTAL ______________________________ Date Received: 3/23/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 3/23/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 3/23/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Sister Cities Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Sister Cities Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint John Wilson a member of the Sister Cities 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 March 23, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for Sister Cities Board. John Wilson to be appointed for a four year term, starting from date of City Council advice and consent and term ending on Monday, July 6, 2027. I respectfully ask for 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: 3/23/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 3/23/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 3/23/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Sister Cities Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Sister Cities Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Matilyn Mortensen a member of the Sister Cities 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 March 23, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for Sister Cities Board. Matilyn Mortensen to be appointed for a four year term, starting from date of City Council advice and consent and term ending on Monday, July 6, 2027. I respectfully ask for 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: 3/23/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 3/23/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 3/23/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Sister Cities Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Sister Cities Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Ross Chambless a member of the Sister Cities 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 March 23, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for Sister Cities Board. Ross Chambless to be appointed for a four year term, starting from date of City Council advice and consent and term ending on Monday, July 6, 2027. I respectfully ask for 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: 3/23/2023 Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Date Sent to Council: 3/23/2023 TO: Salt Lake City Council DATE 3/23/2023 Darin Mano, Chair FROM: Rachel Otto, Chief of Staff Office of the Mayor SUBJECT: Board Appointment Recommendation: Sister Cities Board STAFF CONTACT: April Patterson April.Patterson@slcgov.com DOCUMENT TYPE: Board Appointment Recommendation: Sister Cities Board RECOMMENDATION: The Administration recommends the Council consider the recommendation in the attached letter from the Mayor and appoint Annie Quan a member of the Sister Cities 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 March 23, 2023 Salt Lake City Council 451 S State Street Room 304 PO Box 145476 Salt Lake City, UT 84114 Dear Council Member Mano, Listed below is my recommendation for the membership appointment for Sister Cities Board. Annie Quan to be appointed for a four year term, starting from date of City Council advice and consent and term ending on Monday, July 6, 2027. I respectfully ask for your consideration and support for this appointment. Respectfully, Erin Mendenhall, Mayor cc: file 2 0 5 8 7 City Council Announcements May 2, 2023 For You Information A. Agenda Packet Days Shift to Fridays during Budget Season Friendly reminder, to help accommodate the volume of budget information and rapid pace of Council meetings during budget, agenda packets are published on Fridays instead of Thursdays after the Mayor presents the recommended budget. This shift would begin on May 5th for the May 9th Council meeting and end after the budget is adopted. Information Needed B. Inland Port Travel Council Member Petro has been included in an upcoming trip that the Inland Port Board will be taking to look at rail sites and other best practices in Germany. They are also invited to join part of a trade mission that Governor Cox is leading. The Inland Port is willing to cover the cost for all Board Members, but the City Attorney has advised that it is more appropriate for the City to cover the cost. City policy specifies that the city should cover the costs to preserve independence and objectivity. ➢Does the Council support funding travel for Council Member Petro to join an Inland Port Board fact-finding trip in late June? SALT LAKE CITY CORPORATION SWORN STATEMENT SUPPORTING CLOSURE OF MEETING I, Darin Mano, acted as the presiding member of the Salt Lake Council, which met on May, 2, 2023 in a meeting pursuant to Salt Lake City Proclamation. Appropriate notice was given of the Council's meeting as required by §52-4-202. §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 andPublic 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 electronic recording or detailed minutes is not required; and Pursuant to §52-4-206(1), a record by electronic 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: X: Electronic recording Detailed written minutes I hereby swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the above information is true and correct to the best of my knowledge. Presiding Member Date of Signature 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 anindividual; May 29, 2023 May 2, 2023 Work Session Closed Meeting Sworn Statement Final Audit Report 2023-05-29 Created:2023-05-26 By:DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com) Status:Signed Transaction ID:CBJCHBCAABAAsp4Ol4D-V48o7BAhqH7K_TxfinSf9Mns "May 2, 2023 Work Session Closed Meeting Sworn Statement" History Document created by DeeDee Robinson (deedee.robinson@slcgov.com) 2023-05-26 - 4:01:29 PM GMT Document emailed to Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) for signature 2023-05-26 - 4:02:20 PM GMT Email viewed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) 2023-05-26 - 10:38:40 PM GMT Document e-signed by Darin Mano (darin.mano@slcgov.com) Signature Date: 2023-05-29 - 5:49:42 PM GMT - Time Source: server Agreement completed. 2023-05-29 - 5:49:42 PM GMT